View Single Post
  #211  
Old April 18th, 2012, 06:51 PM
Mixerman's Avatar
Mixerman Mixerman is offline
Martini Drinker
Merv Griffen re-run collector
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,463
Rep Power: 2500000000
Mixerman has disabled reputation
Send a message via Skype™ to Mixerman
Default Re: Ethan Winer in TapeOp

For those of you who haven't been following this episode of The Winer Saga, this is a reply to Ethan that I moved from the Tape Op Blog, so as to not wear out my welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer on Tape Op blog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mixerman on Tape Op Blog
Explaining your monitoring chain isn't an insult.
I'm certain that's how you intended it.
Do you have scientific proof of how I intended it?

Heres my analog monitoring chain: 24 dig outs from comp to Radar, 22 analog outs from Radar to Dangerous 2-Buss, 2 out from D2B to SSL G384 to Dangerous Monitor, to HD1s.

Here's my digital 2-track chain: 2 dig out to Radar to Dangerous Monitor to HD1s.

Now, you may laugh at, facepalm, and dis my monitoring chain with impunity if you feel that I'm being unfair about yours. Honestly, it won't faze me in the least. My monitoring chain is bullet proof. You'd have a difficult time finding a professional who would criticize it, even if they preferred something else.

You seem quite pleased that Mr. Barefoot has praised your article. How about we invite him here to talk about the quality of your monitoring chain? I would very much like to see if he believes your chain is adequate for critical listening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan on Tape Op blog
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixerman on Tape Op blog
you can't critically listen to audio unless you have accurate monitoring. Your chain alone leaves much to be desired. You're using a Soundblaster converter
First, I do not use a SoundBlaster sound card for monitoring. I've told you this a dozen times, and yet you still repeat that. Allen is correct, you are bringing friction into this discussion in part by continuing to stuff words into my mouth. Until my last computer died six months ago I used an M-Audio Delta 66 as my main playback. My new PC doesn't have the old style PCI slots, so I bought a Focusrite Scarlett 8i6 USB sound card. I do have a SoundBlaster card, but I use it (rarely) only to edit SoundFonts.
Right. You've told me a dozen times. If your story didn't constantly change, it'd be a little easier to follow. So and M-audio Delta 66 card. It's still a card. It's not a professional grade stereo converter.

So, how about you write to your buddy Mr. Barefoot, and ask him to tell us all how great your monitoring chain is, and how it would provide you all the transparency necessary to make critical judgments in audio.

Here's your monitoring chain:

An MAudio Delta 66 into a Mackie 1202 mixer into a Rane "DJ" mixer, to JBL 4430s "bi-amped at 1,200 Hz using a Rane crossover, which feeds a pair of Crown PowerBase amps totaling just over 1 KW"

Although Mr. Barefoot is a fan of yours I'm sure he can give an unbiased critique of your monitoring chain. Don't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan on Tape Op blog
Your problem is you dismiss perfectly competent pro grade equipment as sub-par with no evidence. Yes, gear with high distortion can indeed mask detail. However, many people overlook that the distortion of even very good loudspeakers is ten times higher than that of most electronic gear. If you have evidence that my Mackie and Rane equipment masks detail more than, say, going through multiple stages in an SSL console, now's the time to show it.
Going through an SSL console? Or going through the monitoring section of an SSL console? Because those are entirely different signal paths. I mean, I'm just a dumbass who listens with his feelings. You're the one whose the audio expert. You don't know that?

If you're so talented at measuring distortion levels with your equipment, take a day and electronically compare them. Any SSL you like. Even an E series. Then get back to me. (I won't hold my breath).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer on Tape Op blog
But I know you have only beliefs, no evidence.
I have experience and a basis of comparison. My experience says a Mackie 1202 adds a horrific and audible distortion. I determined that without any measuring equipment other than my ears and my experience. You have all the electronic measuring equipment you need, and you have no idea what you're doing to your audio and how it's affecting critical listening. So, whose way of measuring is more accurate and/or useful?

Seriously, I want anyone willing to defend Ethan's monitoring chain to do so here. Get me ONE professional recording engineer to come here and defend that chain. Anyone. Start with Mr. Barefoot, and then when he kindly passes, you go find someone else.

Just get me one testimonial from someone with a discography as to how your monitoring chain is wholly acceptable for critical listening.

Enjoy,

Mixerman
Reply With Quote