For an end user that is a difference without a distinction.Yup some early digital combining was flawed, but that was not intrinsic to the technology but IMO related to the execution
But to a design engineer it is extremely important.For an end user that is a difference without a distinction.
From a designer who interfaces with end users it's also important to solve the problem the end users are complaining about. When Chris designed the original unit it was to solve a real world problem at the time. Most Dangerous products are utility items as opposed to sound processing devices.But to a design engineer it is extremely important.
Back in the 80s I spent a lot of time arguing that digital audio was not irreparably flawed, while some early CDs were tragic, leading some to blame the technology not the knob twiddlers.
JR
Curious what you find awful about the dbox? I still have and use one for a monitor controller and find it does a good job at its price point.
a null test could reveal what the difference is, just not which one is causing the difference.Sorry for the delayed response.
Simple test. Pick 5 good reference tracks, WAVs in Pro Tools or whatever. Duplicate the track so you can set different output levels on two channels.
Set a comfortable listening level with your DBox monitor volume. Then physically bypass your dBox (carefully!) and use the fader on the duplicate Pro Tools track to match that level (check output with a good DMM or whatever) so you are just using digital attenuation..
This way you can fairly quickly go back and forth between dBox and no dBox. The difference is not small. And this is also true of the larger more expensive Dangerous monitor controller. I've done this test with clients and their reaction is always WTF?.
But maybe you don't hear it, or actually like dBox better. All valid.
I think it sounds cheap and nasty, like everything of theirs that I've used.
I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The issue with Pro Tools pre HD was mostly the quality of the conversion (888s!) and the fact that it was passing only 24 bits between plug ins, so longer plug in chains were causing significant sonic degradation. There were also several improvements over the years in internal dithering, but the exact timeline of all of that is fuzzy now for me (I got my first HD rig about 20 years ago).From a designer who interfaces with end users it's also important to solve the problem the end users are complaining about. When Chris designed the original unit it was to solve a real world problem at the time. Most Dangerous products are utility items as opposed to sound processing devices.
Sure, modern converters are good enough that the distortion profile of the Dangerous will be easily measurable using REW. I've measured a bunch in the field using my Prism Lyra interface. John is smart, but most people on the internet don't use null tests correctly, so I don't recommend them.a null test could reveal what the difference is, just not which one is causing the difference.
JR
I used to have trouble with people mismanaging simple listening tests while I was out of town...Sure, modern converters are good enough that the distortion profile of the Dangerous will be easily measurable using REW. I've measured a bunch in the field using my Prism Lyra interface. John is smart, but most people on the internet don't use null tests correctly, so I don't recommend them.
See the many many page thread on Gearslutz of people drawing inferences from null tests comparing converters as an example.
Good listening tests are hard to conduct. In 28 years of making records I've met just a few people who I would completely trust in that regardI used to have trouble with people mismanaging simple listening tests while I was out of town...
JR
My problem was working for a boss who believed the marketing BS coming competitors and would have my people set up uncontrolled a/b listening tests when I wasn't around. Invariably levels were not properly matched and chaos would ensue.... I'd have to undo the damage when I returned from the trade show or whatever....Good listening tests are hard to conduct. In 28 years of making records I've met just a few people who I would completely trust in that regard
I was never a Pro Tools user so I'm just going from what i remember people telling me. The external summing was designed because of user request. It wasn't an idea pulled out of thin air. They sold a bunch of them back then.I'm not sure I'd agree with this. The issue with Pro Tools pre HD was mostly the quality of the conversion (888s!) and the fact that it was passing only 24 bits between plug ins, so longer plug in chains were causing significant sonic degradation. There were also several improvements over the years in internal dithering, but the exact timeline of all of that is fuzzy now for me (I got my first HD rig about 20 years ago).
I'd agree that it didn't solve the root problem (how could it?) but I'd disagree that it just covered stuff up with distortion. It avoided the Pro Tools mixer which was the stated problem.But much like EveAnna's smash hit The Manley Vari-Mu, the Dangerous 2 bus did not solve any of the actual intrinsic issues with early mainstream digital, it just poured some distortion and "warmth" on top and sold a great story. It played beautifully into the memes of that moment. EveAnna is a dear friend, and props to her and Dangerous/Muth for seeing the opportunity but I don't agree that the answer to "bad" distortion is "good" distortion.
I was a user at that time and there was widespread mania about "the math being wrong" led by technically ignorant people like Mixerman (edit to add that despite his online style he mixed some records that love and clearly had ears).I was never a Pro Tools user so I'm just going from what i remember people telling me. The external summing was designed because of user request. It wasn't an idea pulled out of thin air. They sold a bunch of them back then.
I'd agree that it didn't solve the root problem (how could it?) but I'd disagree that it just covered stuff up with distortion. It avoided the Pro Tools mixer which was the stated problem.
I've never used Dangerous products so I can't comment on the sound. I can't get past the faceplates which are not pleasing to my eye. Unlike the Muth monitor console which has one of the nicest faceplates I've ever seen.
Simple test....
Well, no one. For everyone who likes something there is someone who doesn't. Passive isn't always transparent either. Working a passive monitor into a modern voltage transfer system is no easy task. The impedance of the attenuator has to be high enough to present a bridging load to the source and low enough to not be a problem for the power amplifier. There is no ideal value.The next question would be who actually makes a fully transparent monitor controller. Grace? Crane Song? Or just go passive and short cables?
Enter your email address to join: