DVX Audio Shootout

Rapier_100a said:
You do a lot of recording too right? I pretty much use all prerecorded sounds. Would Cubase be a benifit in that regard? And I have a question for you, check your PM shortly.
Click to expand...

Which regard, recording or mixing? Well either way, yeah, Cubase is great for that, it's what it was designed to do. And it shares Nuendo's audio engine which I feel is the best going outside of a ProTools HD solution and even their its competitive depending on what hardware you use. If you have a quality audio interface, Cuabse will perform unbelievably well especially in 32-bit floating point.

But can't you multitrack in Sound Forge?? I'm sure you can and I know you can mix in it. Other than that I'm not familiar with its capabilities, but folks I have an awful lot of respect for use it (folks I have an awful lot of respect for use cubase/nuendo or Logic or Protools and Digital Performer......). Again, I'm not saying Cubase is necessarily better, but it was when Sound Forge was a new program and I've been using Cubase for years, so it's what I know. That doesn't mean that another program isn't just as good today. They all have their own little quirks and idiosyncrasies.

Matt
 
MattC said:
Which regard, recording or mixing? Well either way, yeah, Cubase is great for that, it's what it was designed to do. And it shares Nuendo's audio engine which I feel is the best going outside of a ProTools HD solution and even their its competitive depending on what hardware you use. If you have a quality audio interface, Cuabse will perform unbelievably well especially in 32-bit floating point.

But can't you multitrack in Sound Forge?? I'm sure you can and I know you can mix in it. Other than that I'm not familiar with its capabilities, but folks I have an awful lot of respect for use it (folks I have an awful lot of respect for use cubase/nuendo or Logic or Protools and Digital Performer......). Again, I'm not saying Cubase is necessarily better, but it was when Sound Forge was a new program and I've been using Cubase for years, so it's what I know. That doesn't mean that another program isn't just as good today. They all have their own little quirks and idiosyncrasies.

Matt
Click to expand...

No multitracking in sound forge. Like no multitracking in Steinberg wave lab. I like the way you can chain or stack effects in wave lab, but I prefer Sound Forge for editing. Like Photoshop for audio. You can mix sounds (like a jet flying by with a faded in explosion and a walrus) but you end up with one file.

Yes, they DEFINATELY have their quirks. it's not unusuall for me to utilize 3 sound programs for one base sound (like a starship or missle flyby) because each one has a filter I want.
 
Ah, well if that's the case then I would really recommend you take a look at Cubase SX3. Regarding that vs. Nuendo for surround, I doubt you'll need the added power of Nuendo. Again, Nuendo is really meant for feature films shot on celluliod for theatrical release. Now, if that's what you're doing, great. Spend $2k and get Nuendo and the hardware to go with it. But if you're not, then Cubase will MORE than satisfy all of your post-production needs for a quarter of the price. In all other respects, the programs are identical. Your other question I'll reply to your PM.
 
I liked A best, B least. B sounded harsh on my system. A was warmest! C was okay.

My playback chain: ProTools HD 192>Grace 904>Dynaudio BM15As.

Thanks for doing this comparison! Saved me money since I think I WON'T buy a Sound Devies Mix Pre for my DVX100b now.
 
I wanted to say that but I just smiled... nobody resisted the urge to upgrade the "mic > DVX" audio chain more then me. Now I feel stupid for the posts where I claimed there wasn't a big difference.

The audio in the first clip was done with thousands of dollars in gear... and a good pre was one of the reasons it sounds so good. Half of the MixPre is a great quality mixer and the other half is a great quality pre.

If mic > DVX sounds good to you then you can save your money, but you won't be making anything that sounds as clean as the first clip without other gear. This is the thread that pushed me over the edge... since Tigeba posted this I've spent $3K+ on additional sound gear.
 
MattinSTL said:
I wanted to say that but I just smiled... nobody resisted the urge to upgrade the "mic > DVX" audio chain more then me. Now I feel stupid for the posts where I claimed there wasn't a big difference.

The audio in the first clip was done with thousands of dollars in gear... and a good pre was one of the reasons it sounds so good. Half of the MixPre is a great quality mixer and the other half is a great quality pre.

If mic > DVX sounds good to you then you can save your money, but you won't be making anything that sounds as clean as the first clip without other gear. This is the thread that pushed me over the edge... since Tigeba posted this I've spent $3K+ on additional sound gear.
Click to expand...


MUahahahahahahahahah!!! Buy that gear! :)

Seriously tho, the thing about a good preamp is that it never goes out of style, and you will never really need to replace it.
 
MattC said:
???

Ok, you do know that the first clip you heard was NOT recorded directly to the DVX right?
Click to expand...

Doh! I didn't read carefully. Thanks for clearing that up, Matt! Now it makes perfect sense. Better preamp and converters. Looks like I'll be buying the MixPre afterall.

Cheers, and thanks again.
 
Wait a minute. What good did the Digi192 do if it was going into the DVX100 through the analog line input? That means the conversion was still done by the DVX A/D converters.
 
The one with the Digi (to my understanding) did not have the DVX anywhere in the chain. Mic to preamp to DAW.

Best
 
Okay. So I guess there isn't a way to get that quality into the DVX itself (since there's no digital audio input). I guess an external recorder would be necessary if I want that level of quality. Thanks for your patience and understanding!
 
Well, I'm way late here, but I just cannot resist chiming in with a perspective from an average newb on some of the philosophical ideas that have been tossed about aggressively here.

I feel your pain. I like to do tests exactly like what's been done here. I like to find out what *is*, not what people think (because "common knowledge" rarely reflects reality!) And sometimes people really don't like the answers, but I can't help it -- the answer is what it is, whether that's in favor of, or opposed to, the current "popular" choice...
Click to expand...

Sorry Barry, but this is a very ironic and ridiculous statement. You, MattC, MattinSTL, etc. are NOT talking about what IS. At least not on this thread. You are talking about what YOU THINK about something. And your subject is, by definition, purely and completely SUBJECTIVE. If you want to turn this into a discussion of "facts," I can think of a few options:

You could put these sound clips on a spectro-whatever-o and report some numerical signal voltages in the dialogue free areas and what not, or map the waveforms and do a statistical analysis of variation between the graphical curves. Of course you would also want to test your equipment repeatedly on a number of samples and come up with a statistical characterization of its ability to accurately record what it professes to record.

Or you could do a subjective test with some actual rigor. For example, in this case you would want multiple independent observers who are fully blinded both to the test samples and to the assessments made by each other. Let them rigorously assess the sound quality of each recording using a prespecified and formally validated descriptive scale, then compare their assessments and run a statistical analysis to determine whether there is any statistically significant inter-observer agreement or variability. Have the same experts repeat their assesments multiple times on randomized samples to test for intra-observer variability – e.g. can MattC identify the same “best” and "total poo poo" recordings every time? This type of analysis still would not supply us with “fact.” But it would increase our confidence that the results are externally valid – i.e. that they are representative of the ever-elusive “reality” – and we would at least have some numerical probability of how likely they are to be inaccurate.

What was actually done here? Matt C listened to a clip and said “A sounds great, B and C sound like dog poo poo.” Barry S disagreed. Matt C got defensive. MattinSTL agreed with MattC. BarryS then eventually changed his mind and agreed with both of them.

Has there ever been an assessment of some phenomenon that was less in the realm of the objective?

My point: None of you are describing “reality.” What you are doing is speaking as self-appointed experts (unless I've missed the exam, or the accrediting body that established you) and you are rendering a purely subjective opinion regarding a personal sensory experience. I don’t think this justifies your becoming incredulous when others -- even others whose self-appointed expertise you formally recognize -- disagree with you.

Don't get me wrong -- we're all here on the forum listening to you because WE accept your self-appointed expertise as well, we value and admire your experience and knowledge very much, and we are very interested in what you think as a result. We are very thankful that you are willing to offer it up to us for nothing in return. But we, or at least I, don't confuse your opinions with incontovertible facts. I recognize them as your opinions and reserve my own judgment on whether I want to accept them.

The more extreme those opinons become, such as the claims that two of the above clips are utterly unuseable, or that they would require millions of man hours of processing to render them even remotely acceptible, and that anyone who disagrees with that assessment has something seriously wrong with them and ought not be wasting everyone else's time -- those sound like self-important bull-poo poo to me, and so I personally would choose to pass on accepting them.
 
dr_stupid said:
Sorry Barry, but this is a very ironic and ridiculous statement. You, MattC, MattinSTL, etc. are NOT talking about what IS. At least not on this thread. You are talking about what YOU THINK about something. And your subject is, by definition, purely and completely SUBJECTIVE. If you want to turn this into a discussion of "facts," You could put these sound clips on a spectro-whatever-o and report some numerical signal voltages in the dialogue free areas and what not, or map the waveforms and do a statistical analysis of variation between the graphical curves. Of course you would also want to test your equipment repeatedly on a number of samples and come up with a statistical characterization of its ability to accurately record what it professes to record....
Click to expand...

If it's raining out, do you need a barometric reading and a rain gauge to tell you that? No. If you want to know EXACTLY how much it's raining, then yes, you do - but you don't need it to know it's raining. I don't need to measure the signal to know which one is better, I can hear it the same way you can see rain. Of course if I wanted to quantify it precisely then yes, I would need to take a more technical approach. But all I said was that the audio produced in one clip was far superior to the audio produced in the other two - and it was. If you can't hear that, I'm sorry.

dr_stupid said:
can MattC identify the same “best” and "total poo poo" recordings every time?
Click to expand...

Bet your ass, cupcake. :thumbsup:

dr_stupid said:
What was actually done here? Matt C listened to a clip and said “A sounds great, B and C sound like dog poo poo.” Barry S disagreed. Matt C got defensive. MattinSTL agreed with MattC. BarryS then eventually changed his mind and agreed with both of them.
Click to expand...

The only reason Barry was in initial disagreement was do to the equipment he initially listened on. Once he listened in a more critical environment he came up with the same conclusion. Believe me Barry S (and I love him to death) is as stubborn as they come, he does not concede on a whim. And if you read what I wrote, I didn't get defensive, I was incredulous - there's a difference.

dr_stupid said:
What you are doing is speaking as self-appointed experts (unless I've missed the exam, or the accrediting body that established you)
Click to expand...

Berklee College of Music - 1989


dr_stupid said:
and you are rendering a purely subjective opinion regarding a personal sensory experience.
Click to expand...

Yep. Well, yes and no. Again, I could say the same thing if you came into my office (which has no windows) and told me it was raining out. This may seem like a ridiculous analogy to you, but to me it's the same thing. The difference between those clips is the difference between a downpour and a clear day.

dr_stupid said:
Don't get me wrong -- we're all here on the forum listening to you because WE accept your self-appointed expertise as well, we value and admire your experience and knowledge very much, and we are very interested in what you think as a result. We are very thankful that you are willing to offer it up to us for nothing in return. But we, or at least I, don't confuse your opinions with incontovertible facts. I recognize them as your opinions and reserve my own judgment on whether I want to accept them.

The more extreme those opinons become, such as the claims that two of the above clips are utterly unuseable, or that they would require millions of man hours of processing to render them even remotely acceptible, and that anyone who disagrees with that assessment has something seriously wrong with them and ought not be wasting everyone else's time -- those sound like self-important bull-poo poo to me, and so I personally would choose to pass on accepting them.
Click to expand...

Never said it would require millions of man hours, but it sure would require more than a few and quite a bit of expense. This was assuming you wanted a hollywood standard. If you're looking to make some dumb short in your off-hours (like I do) then it doesn't matter as much - but it still matters.

I don't think any of us really give a flying **** what you think, I know I don't. I say what I think is right in hopes that it will help someone. If it helps you, fantastic, if not, that's cool too. But if you can't hear the difference between those clips, there is either a problem with your gear or your hearing. And that IS a fact.

Matt
 
I can't speak for everybody... but I try to stress a humble position all the time. I constantly remind people to treat me like a regular guy and to pay the proper respect to the real pros on the board... and I always add that I'm expressing my opinions.

If you can listen to those 3 tests and not hear a BIG difference in at least the first bit and the other two then please do as I've said a thousand times on this board... do what makes you happy. If you love a mic that I hate then use it... it 'aint my money, my mic, or my choice.

All I do is report on what I hear... and when I need to be set straight I'm thankful for the professional that comes along and does that.

I started out with an ATR55 for under $60... and I was constantly frustrated with the quality of my audio... even when booming. After a long period of investigation including the shotgun shootout that everybody's read by now... which included the Azden, Me66, and AT835... I bought the Me66, a used FULL blimp system from Rycote, a softie, and a Beachtek DXA6 for my TRV900... a couple months later I sold the TRV900 and bought a DVX. I could never get a recording with the Me66 that I liked... even though I enjoyed that mic with my TRV900 very much. I sold that and bought a 4073a... which seemed like CRAZY money at the time. I really liked that mic and sold the Me66 because the difference in sound was stunning TO ME. Then I bought a Beyer m58 for eng, and I soon added an Oktava... and then another at the advice of a good friend in Canada. I then bought the hyper caps for them and noticed further improvement indoors. Since I frequently experienced odd buzzing that I couldn't identify I researched the problem... as it turns out it was usually either handling noise or wind noise... I bought two Windtech screens at $50 each and that didn't quite handle it, so I again did a bunch of research and bought the K-Tek KSSM with soft bands and the Rycote BBG with Jammer... No more buzzing/handling noise/wind noise. Naturally I had similar gear for the 4073a. By this time I was ready for wireless and bought a used Lectro 187 and a Tram TR50... I was so happy with it that 3 months later (when I'd saved enough cash) I bought another one and TWO more Tr50's... and later an MKE2. Then I got a plug-on for the Lectro. It didn't take long before I needed to replace the painter's pole I'd been using with a REAL pole and again I researched and bought the K-Tek graphite Avalon. By now my Canadian friend told me my Beyerdynamic m58 was junk compared to the AKG d230... I checked it out and sold my m58 and bought the d230. This same friend started sending me VO files that were very impressive. He did them with an NT1A... so I bought one... I liked it so much that I went back and exchanged it the next day for an NTK tube mic... after a month with that I couldn't stand the PS so I bought an NT3 thinking it would work as a portable VO mic... well I sold the NT3 to somebody on here... and the NTK went to ebay... and then I bought the NT2000... it took me 2 days to decide that I didn't like that because it didn't have the presence of the NTK... and I tried an NT1000... I liked that so much I bought another within a week. It was about this time that the bug had really bit me and so I sold my 4073a and got a 416. While I loved that mic I did some comparisons with the 4073a and I was surprised at how similar the sound was... and the rejection pattern even though the 416 had something special that's hard to describe, but it's there. Okay by now I was really hooked and I was scrubbing every snippet of audio information I could find anywhere... even for years of archives on RAMPS. So when my Canadian buddy says "hey you gotta' check out this AKG ULS system" I did... and I ended up buying the 480b/ck69/ck63/ck61/a61 plus two more softies.

Okay without really dragging this out I've also bought a Lectro 100 system and the Lectro m150 lav... a complete G2 system with Countryman B6 lav... and recently a Mixpre/Fp24 and Marantz 671... plus the Sabrasom shockmount and stereo bar... plus another boom pole, the g7680c... and the Petrol to keep the location rig in.

Seriously I guarantee that I'm forgetting about a lot of stuff that will pop into my head throughout the day now, because there are only two things you need to know about me... and that is that I do NOT want to be regarded as anything other then a friendly member (I would loath the term "expert" because then you are not forgiven for mistakes... and I make them)... and the other thing is that I try to be helpful in the ways I can. I don't post my opinions on stuff because I want to pontificate about audio... I put up things that I think will help other people make the same decisions I struggled with mainly because I couldn't find the answers on these boards.

I did the math on it one day and had I kept all the sound gear I've bought I'd have around $8K in my closet right now... I would have way rather read some posts about the best boom pole for the price or what happens with what gear then having to spend my own money figuring it out. I guess everybody doesn't see it that way.
 
Yikes MattC - I should have seen that coming! In retrospect, my post is probably a little offensive -- apologies if it was taken that way.

I like the rain analogy okay, except I would say that to me it is less like trying to see if it is raining or sunny out, and more like looking out two different windows at two different torrential downpours and trying to decide which of the storms has more raindrops. And there are two questions at play in that -- which storm has "more rain," and if there is a difference we can actually agree on, how important is that difference?

I'm a total novice, but I can actually appreciate the difference between the first clip and the other two if I use my headphones. I can't hear it at all on the speakers I have. What I disagree about primarily is the degree of the difference, and how important that difference is to me. SumFun and BarryS both commented that they thought the clips were subtly different, but that the difference was not very important to them. They were actually told, with some degree of frustration, that they were "wrong," and to me that's what's silly. And then Barry came in with the old familiar rant about how the newbs are always coming on and asking how to make "feature films" with their BestBuy equipment and everything, and totally dissing the sagelike wisdom of the in-crowd...

So anyway, my only real point is that we're usually NOT talking about facts here, but about subjective opinions. I can understand the experts' frustration with newbies who ask for their opinions and then don't seem to want to fully regard them. At the same time, I think newbies would appreciate if the experts always tried to deliver their opinions with a touch of humility and recognition that they are, in fact, opinions. You can't, and need not want to, control how everyone receives the opinions or what personal significance they attach to them. Just know that we appreciate your advice, but are all struggling to attach our own judgment to things, work within our budgets, etc. Try to realize that the old familiar rant about our stubborness and stupidity is just as annoying to us as our stubborness and stupidity must be to you...
 
Oops - I'm posting over MattinSTL! I shouldn't write so much...

MattinSTL -- holy freakin' equipment list! I appreciate your perspective, and do also appreciate the advice that comes from experience and past mistakes. I think everyone is trying to do the best they can with their money. The kicker, I think, is when advice is couched in extremes. E.g. it's always disheartening to hear that your choices are between acceptible quality (for a bazillion dollars), or total dog poo poo (for slightly less), and often those are the cases when people keep on arguing to try to hear what they want to hear...

Thanks for your thoughts, and again, sorry if I was offensive. Now I have to go duck out and try to do something productive with the rest of my afternoon! :)
 
You make good points herr doktor, but again it's all about what you're shooting for. I'm about to say something that might come out sounding pompous and I don't mean it to - truly - so if you can take it one of two ways, and one way isn't so nice, take it the other way.

If you are creating a film to be shown ONLY on your computer or your tv, then your opinion, based on "your speakers", has some merit.

BUT, if you were creating a film to be shown at festivals, then your opinion of the sound, based on "your speakers", is meaningless. The setup I used to audition those clips makes my opinion marginally less meaningless than yours. But to Dave Fisk working in a proper mix suite, my opinion based on "my speakers" is meaningless. See where I'm going?. Now you don't have to spend huge dollars to be able to monitor sound accurately, but you do need some of an investment and some experience. It would be like trying to color correct on an old tv from 1970 without any scopes. It might look fine to you, but it'll probably look like crap anywhere else.

My home setup may not be the best, but it's fairly accurate, I've tuned the room as best as I can, and I've taken steps to reduce unwanted noise. THAT is what my opinion is based on - not some magic set of ears or an overly subjective point of view. I guarantee you, if you were at my place (and if you're in the CT/NYC area you're welcome to come by) YOU would hear the same level of difference that I do. That's number one.

Number two is to extrapolate what you're hearing for venue. If something is being played at relatively low volume on a home television you might feel that the S/N ratio is fine. But if you pump that same signal through a theater sound system you may find that the S/N ratio is god awful. I think in at least one, but if I remember correctly two, of those clips, the amount of noise would be really quite bad AS IS, if played in a theater. Now again, it doesn't have to stay as is, but the cleaner your signal to start with, the better off you will be.

But do you need to worry about that level of sound? I still record audio to my XL2 and work on it in post... If you read past posts of mine, you will see that 9 times out of 10 I'm giving advice on how to do something for less. But, that doesn't mean you ignore the differences that better equipment will give you, it just means that you're willing to accept certain compromises.

All's good.

Matt
 
Hey MattC --

Thanks for your reply and for not taking too much offense to my earlier post!

Don't worry -- I don't think your points above sounded pompous. Your arguments make a lot of sense, and I definitely appreciate your honest and open dialogue. Also, FYI -- yours were some of the first posts I ever read here, and were actually what attracted me to sign up and get involved in the first place! Every once in a while I go off and spout a little criticism here in response to something that rubs me the wrong way, but I never mean it to be personal!

Don't ever call me cupcake, again, though. Just kidding. :)

-Pete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top