Return to EQ index
All information in these pages is copyright (c) 1989-2003 by Roger Nichols. All rights reserved. Permission for personal reference only, and may not be reproduced by any method without written permission.
AES or BUST!
by Roger Nichols
The AES Convention was postponed because of the events of 9/11/2001. I am
still in a kind of slump since the destruction of the World Trade Center,
but maybe some new hi-tech gear will cheer me up a little bit. President George
Bush said, “Spend money!” Being the patriotic American that I am,
I can’t let him down. Let us all go to the AES show and bring our checkbooks.
Equi=Tech
I have written an article on balanced power, and mentioned it a few times
in my column over the last few years. I have been using two 15-amp units for
six years. One year ago I added a new model to feed my power hungry digital
gear. The new model (ET2RQFM) was to power all of the latest 96k/24bit gear
that was being added to my arsenal. I had heard that Equi=Tech had come up
with an improved balanced power system that reduced common mode noise by more
than 100dB. I had to see for myself.
After a year with the new balanced power unit, and tons of measurements, it
turns out that the latest Q series balanced power units do improve noise floors
on analog signals and jitter specs on digital signals. As a byproduct of good
power, gear actually ran cooler. Equipment rack temperatures ran from two
to five degrees cooler based on one measurement over a one-year period.
My first thoughts six years ago were that balanced power couldn’t improve
things very much, but I underestimated the value of good quality AC power.
I have had hundreds of different pieces of analog and digital gear pass through
my studio since then, and I have never had a ground loop, buzz, hum, jitter
or inter-connect problem of any kind. It is also nice to see good equipment
get even better.
Sony
I have been using the Sony DMX-R100 small format digital console for one year
now. I am still impressed every time I play material through it that I have
just spent a month listening to at some other studio. Everything sounds better.
Version 2 of the DMX-R100 software should be available by the time you read
this. There are a myriad of enhancements that will improve the operation of
the console and add new features. Among the new features are improved automation
functions, snapshot storage for EQ and dynamics settings, improved channel
link control, and 96k surround mixing.
On the hardware side, there is a MADI interface card. With the MADI card installed,
you can digitally input 72 channels, 48 through the MADI card and 24 through
the remaining three interface slots. The MADI board improves cascading two
boards together allowing for 96 channel digital mixes. There is a MADI interface
option for Sony’s PCM-3348 and PCM-3348-HR multi-track digital machines.
Digidesign
Now, if I could talk Digidesign into building a Mix Farm with a MADI interface,
the world would be good.
Digi has released version 5.2 ProTools software. Now you can share Pro Tools
files over the Internet. This is basically a subscription service based on
Rocket Network. Your audio files are stored on a server. Only someone you
authorize can download the files to their ProTools system. That person can
overdub material on his system and send it back to the server. You can then
download the file into your original Pro Tools system and edit it or mix it
or even erase it as you see fit.
ProTools is getting really stable. I have not had a Pro Tools crash in a long,
long time. Faster Macs make Pro Tools more enjoyable too. Screen re-draws
are instantaneous, AudioSuite plug-ins perform their task quickly, and loading
sessions is almost painless. Which brings me to a topic that has become more
and more a part of Pro Tools owner’s conversations recently.
Pro Tools Documentation
When a new format emerges, some of the data necessary for future deciphering
of a project is often left off of the box labels. Nowhere is this more obvious
than when you try to open a Pro Tools file from last year that was recorded
in someone’s project studio.
When 1/4” tape was first used, hardly anyone labeled the tape as MONO,
because there was no other format. When 3M digital 32-track machines appeared
they were the only digital multi-track, so the tapes were labeled “DIGITAL”
but not “3M 32-track digital.” After the introduction of Mitsubishi
digital machines it was unclear if a digital tape was Mitsubishi or 3M.
Now that Pro Tools has been around for 10 years, sessions are starting to
show up that just say “Pro Tools” without regard to the size of
the session, the version of Pro Tools used for the recording, the number of
DSP Farms used, or what plug-ins will be necessary to re-load the session.
The Producers and Engineers Wing of NARAS is trying to address this problem
by suggesting standard documentation for Pro Tools sessions so that they can
be more easily transferred from one studio to another, or opened on a new
Pro Tools system that comes out five years from now.
Digidesign or some third party should provide a utility that will look at any Pro Tools session and tell you everything there is to know about it, such as:
Pro Tools Version used to save session.
Date and time of creation and last update.
Sample Rate and Bit Depth
SMPTE frame rate, type and offset.
Whether USD was in use as SMPTE peripheral.
Number of tracks with active voices
Number of tracks with voices turned off or entirely muted.
Hard Disk allocation table (to see how many hard disks were used.)
Maximum channels used by tracks such as stereo or surround Auxes.
Number of I/Os assigned and interfaces used (888, ADAT Bridge, 1622, etc.)
List of track names and comment field.
Names and Versions of plug-ins used in session with number of instances.
Routing schematic map of session so you can see how tracks were routed to
busses -which fed Aux inputs- which fed reverbs, etc.
Calculate how many DSP Farms or Farm Cards would be necessary to open the
session.
This utility would be the best thing to happen to Pro Tools since Pro Tools.
The session document could be e-mailed to the studio days before the booking.
The studio could run the utility and ascertain how big the Pro Tools system
needed to be in order to work on that project. Would they need the big system
in the main room or could it be done with the secondary Pro Tools system in
Studio “B?”
Until this utility is available, you could start by listing these items in
a read-me document included with your session file.
My Solution
I would like to see two Pro Tools versions from Digidesign as follows:
First, a version of Pro Tools that would open any previous version of session
document. This program would not be able to record, and could only play back
two channels through any output device allowed by the computer so you could
tell what the track was, i.e. Female vocal, saxophone, kick drum, etc. The
program would not require any Degidesign hardware. It would be for actually
viewing a session as if it was open in a real Pro Tools environment. You could
see the plug-ins and their settings, but you would just get the GUI, not an
operating plug-in. You could see all of the I/O assignments labeled the way
they were in the source program, but nothing would go there because this is
a dummy program.
You should be able to shuffle the tracks around vertically so you could decide
what are the most important eight or 24 tracks, and then save as (save would
be disabled) a session that you could open in Pro Tools Free or LE. This Pro
Tools version could also include the utility features listed above.
Second, a version of Pro Tools that would save sessions with embedded plug-ins much like a PDF file is saved with embedded fonts. The embedded plug-ins would load and work just as they would if you had the plug-in on your Pro Tools system. You would not be able to use them in any other session, or even on any other track in the session you opened.
Why? Because quite often studios get Pro Tools sessions to work on that used
old plug-ins or plug-ins that the studio would not normally purchase. Maybe
the only time that plug-in would ever be used would be on this one session.
The plug-in may be necessary for a particular sound this one time, but would
not allow for the extra $700 to purchase it for one use.
As a an example, a client sends me a CD project in Pro Tools format that he
has been working on for a year. He has tried mixing it himself, but he gives
up and wants me to mix it. He does, however, like the vocal sound he got using
a combination of plug-ins that I do not own. He saves his session with plug-ins
embedded and sends it to me. I open the session and listen to his mix with
his plug-ins. I see what he is trying to do, so I get to work on my mix. I
use some of my plug-ins on other tracks and finally finish all of the mixes
and send him the session re-saved with my plug-ins embedded also.
The client gets the session document, opens it up and hears the final mix.
Everything is perfect, the client is happy. The client likes one of the plug-ins
I used and buys a copy for his studio to use on future projects. I actually
liked one of his plug-ins and bought my own copy. I never though about using
that plug-in for a voice, but it sounded cool and I thought it might come
in handy.
In the real case that spawned this example I had to buy three plug-ins, two
of which I have never used since. The client did buy one plug-in for his system,
but not until he came over to my studio and heard the soloed track with the
plug-in. He couldn’t hear it on the session that I sent back to him because
he didn’t have the plug-in.
Cool, huh?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger made an error in last month’s column. Sony does not own any part
of Tascam and Roger apologizes for any inconvenience it may have caused.