Premier Rock Forum

I don't think the RADAR folks are sharks. From what others have said, their stuff does a (arguably, obviously) good job of recording audio. The argument now seems to be about digital vs. analog archiving, rather than recording - and I'm not sure RADAR is making a big sales pitch (outside of this forum) for the superiority of (their) digital formats for archival purposes.

They did make a case though. In defending digital formats for audio archives, the RADAR folks said something to the effect of: "an ideal archival system uses a high-quality digital format. (If all goes well, it's true that a digital copy is an exact reproduction of the digital original; so if the original is high-quality, so is the backup, and the backup of the backup, etc. I'm assuming here that the original is very high quality, and whether or not that's possible w/digital is still under discussion I believe.) As time goes by and digital formats become obsolete, archives should be transferred to the latest format."

This same process is going on continually with analog archives, audio and otherwise: the original is preserved as well as is possible, while digital copies are made to preserve and allow redistribution of the often precious source material. This happened, I'm sure, with wax cylinders being re-recorded onto 78s, 78s to LPs, and obviously LPs to CDs, so there's some precedent to the change-formats-as-time-goes-by concept.

Tossing the original, as Steve has said, would be foolish, as there may come a time when it's all that's left. But if one could maintain a strict regimen of digitally re-archiving all one's stuff every five or ten years, then it's true that one would have a hell of an accurate archive, with an accuracy which could not be achieved using analog equipment, since digital copies are more accurate than analog; and since even properly stored analog recordings will decay over time.

The problem is, no one will be able to afford or otherwise maintain this sort of archival process. A twenty-year slump in archive regeneration could lead to tremendous loss, depending on the problems which may (and often do) arise with an always-brand-new storage format.

Careful storage and preservation of the original is, though perhaps less ideal quality-wise, far more reliable over, say, a 50- or 100-year period than the suggested update-your-formats-forever system.

Maybe in 33 years I'll still be listening to my 17-yr-old Kate Bush CD and I will eat my words.

LUNAR

Different analog stuff (recorders) have different sound. We never really know what people mean when they say that RADAR sounds like an analog recorder. We are pleased to hear this however, whether it is intended as positive or negative comments. The truth is that we are passionate about sound. Many of us at iZ have come from backgrounds of recording with Analog equipment for many years. RADAR was birthed out of a desire to create an even better recorder than the 2" Tape Machines we had been so fond of.

Recorded "sound" is always "analog" when played back regardless of whether it was stored as electrical impulses on magnetic tape or digital information on a disk. It is always somewhat different from the original soundwaves that were present at the time of recording. The "State Of The Art" is to attempt to both capture and reproduce the sound as accurately as possible.

Analog circuitry has inherant imperfections that will continue to make it impossible to ever achieve "perfection" in recorded audio. All analog circuits add color to the signal(sound). Transferring electrical impulses to Tape adds compression. The general perception is that these things enhance rather than detract in the case of properly designed Profession audio equipment. The RADAR, like any fine analog recorder is primarily focussed on processing incoming audio only as much as necessary in an attempt to simply record it as accurately as possible. In the same regard the playback circuitry is designed to try to regenerate a signal that is indistinguishable from the original. Of the 900+ components on each of RADAR's A/D D/A cards the vast majority are in fact analog circuitry. RADAR's "sound" is primarily a side effect of the Analog circuitry. The design is not intended to "sound" like anything.

You asked about a guarantee that RADAR will last ..

No one can guarantee the future. To believe you can is foolish. Who would have thought 30 years ago that some of the best audio equipment ever made would soon start to become obsolete and that CD's would gain popularity over vinyl? All I can tell you for sure is that the design of RADAR is mostly proprietary. Incoming audio is handled immediately by our own Classic, Nyquist or S-Nyquist Converters then passed directly to the Adrenalin Recording Engine then directly to the Hard Drive.
No audio signal ever passes through the Host. This is significant when compared to most other designs of audio recording equipment being made today. RADAR has little dependance on 3rd party Hardware and could be adapted to almost anything to supply power to our proprietary cards. As long as there are motherboards of some kind and hard drives being manufactured RADAR has a solid future because we only use the Host for some basic functions. The extreme performance of RADAR is a direct result of this hardware design strategy combined with our unique cluster-based recording technology. No other recorder has the ability to match Radar's seamless/gapless Punch in/out on all tracks, just to name one of the many performance features which is a real improvement over reel to reel recorders.

Come visit us in Nashville or Vancouver or at NAMM, AES or NAB if you would like to learn more. We'd love to learn from you if you have any ideas that you think we could benefit from. RADAR sales steadily increase as we continually respond to everyone who has a reason to Record Audio now and in the future.


Cheers,

David

The CBC technical staff are clearly not the sharpest pencils in the drawer

I had this class, I think it was called "Radio Features" and my teacher was this old fat guy who had worked for the CBC for 30 years. He was a hack. He told us that DAT was the answer. Mini-Disc was the answer. Fucking radio plays "full of emotion" were the answer.

He took us to the CBC for a tour of one of the studios. The "technical" guy, this slightly less old fat guy, was the tour guide. He was a hack. He told us that computers were the answer. Pro-Tools was the answer. Tape was cumbersome, hard to edit, blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, we were listening to something on the computer, all of us staring at the screen, and good old Teach says "Would you take the high out?" meaning the high part of the thing we were listening to. And buddy boy Tech, who had long gone deaf, says "Take a buy out? Would I ever!"

The point of the story is this: in the effort to make everything small and fast and easy and portable, you will become super fat.

Dave,

Please do not ever answer me in tone you use to explain something to a person with the brain damage severe as yours...
Yes, I will visit you at AES. But only to tell you how pathetic your story is.

"We never really know what people mean when they say that RADAR sounds like an analog recorder"
-Then I suggest you don’t speak about something you don’t know.

"RADAR was birthed out of a desire to create an even better recorder than the 2" Tape Machines we had been so fond of. "
-In my book of morons this is a very high entry indeed.


"Analog circuitry has inherant imperfections that will continue to make it impossible to ever achieve "perfection" in recorded audio. All analog circuits add color to the signal(sound). "
-I am always very sad when listening to the village idiot...I'm too soft, I know.
EVERY RECORDED SOUND IS IMPERFECT IF WE DRAW A LINE WHERE YOU DID; FURTHERMORE I AM SURE THAT YOUR PERFECTION IS FAR FROM MINE, AND IF YOU THINK DIGITAL IS FREE FROM COLORATIONS THEN CHECK ERROR RATE ON ANY DIGITALLY RECORDED AUDIO AND THEN TURN OFF ALL "GUESSING" PARTS OF DIGITAL CIRCUITRY AND CHECK AGAIN.HOW DOES IT SOUND NOW, GENIOUS?

Seriously Dave,
You can't expect we are all morons. You will eventually make perfect recorder for sure, and I really wish your company would be the one who make it! But in the meantime, get your act together.
I work for one very big digital corporation as pro audio representative.
I am not using this forum to promote it, I am suggesting you do the same, and have some manners, man!
Have some dignity.

If you can't follow all this, here's the clue: DO NOT USE THIS WORDS: TAPE, ANALOG and MAGNETIC.
Thank you!

Lunar,

OK, so you don't like digital. BIG DEAL.

You're biting the hand that feeds you. Mr. Radar is giving you excellent free advice. Your obsession with analogue has turned you into a bigot. You're missing out on a FREE LESSON in audio technology.

The next time I want t record analog, it won't be your studio I'll be going to, because I'm not interested in listening to some engineer belly aching about gear. I want to make MUSIC.

BTW I am in agreement with Steve. All the good audio libraries have gone back to 1/4' half track 7.5ips (this is for spoken word, cylinder and disc stuff).

lunar wrote:I work for one very big digital corporation as pro audio representative.
I am not using this forum to promote it, I am suggesting you do the same, and have some manners, man!
Have some dignity.

First of all, I should mention that I had passed word of this topic through to iZ last week, mentioning that some interesting discussion regarding RADAR was occurring. So if you think that the folks at iZ are using this forum to promote their product, then I'm the one to blame.

However.

I haven't read anything in Dave or Barry's posts that could be construed as trying to "promote" their product. The topic was already well underway before their involvement, and to my mind, their involvement took the discussion to a whole new level as they addressed all of the issues brought up first hand.

I don't necessarily agree with every single point that Dave or Barry make, but open your eyes, man! iZ is becoming a major player in the music industry, and here you have its president and one of its employees taking the time and making the effort to address a plethora of points on an internet forum. Can you imagine Digidesign doing the same thing? Have some respect for their expertise. You can agree with what they are saying or not, but at least give them the respect they deserve.

BTW, I have no involvement with iZ, other than the fact that I have used RADAR a few times, have taken a personal tour of their facilities, and have had some occasional continued contact with one of their employees. I'm simply a fan of their product and their operational procedures.

Hey Swordfish,

you got it all wrong...I don't give a fuck where you record, but I do digital recording too. Hell, I like endless undo and other features that enables just about ANY moron to have his song played "perfect" in a never ending loop of trying.

I own hard disk recording system in my studio and I am using it very often, well - almost every day...its just there because it brings money just like my analog stuff. And believe me I do not share ANY technical data with my clients, since they are musicians with some little interest in technology that obviously surrounds us, soundengineers.They like to concentrate on their music.When band that I play in records, we choose to go somewhere else or to bring someone in to do recording for us since we don't want to think about music and audio engineering in the same time...

I seriously thought this is a technical related forum, so my response was to point out guys that are just talking nonsense.
Nobody has to agree with me, right?!
I just can't say I like sound of digitally recorded music...but again, that's my thing.
As far as RADAR goes, I am seriously thinking of buying one in the near future if I find it good and reliable, but still it does not mean I have to read nonsense from iZ people...
They maybe did not start this post, but sure they used many superlatives about themselfs...and thats pathetic. Also they used so much twisted "facts"...
I know it looks like battle between good and evil; analog vs digital, but it's not.
It is just about plain good manners, as I already said.
And about "free class", thanx but no thanx.
Are you all dumb?

In a few years future I predict there will be a new recording technology called "PLASMA".
I already made 32 track recorder that uses A/P converters I made out of DNA structure which responds not just to zeros and ones but all the way to 18 different major indicators and all 18x18x18 combinations.So, at this stage I managed to avoid all mistakes of oversampling, and wordclock jitter effect that are connected to old "digital recorders" we where so fond of.
O.K., they had "that good cold sound", but if we look closely it's just imperfections of processes they used to capture signals in the first place...Now we know that we need full possible bandwidth to be recorded and produced so that frequencies in spectrum that we actually hear don't have anomalies and lack of "air".I am always surprised when our customers say that it sounds just like good old digital recorder...I have no clue how. Maybe it's because my own special design made it so super reliable, maybe it's because all super groovie parts that my family produces for centuries in our domestic non Arab house hold almost factory in the international waters...God will know...
One thing is for sure (everybody says so!) 32 channel PLASMA recorder called L.U.N.A.R. is best!
(Tina and bIke Turner, Sony,Panasonic and Cher,John Lemon,Pedofil Collins,they all use it every fuckin' day!)

Thing I want to say is: If it works, it works.
I will check RADAR and probably buy it if it works.(I am sure it does.)
For the rest of you, do not believe everything "honest poor manufacturer" say, they tend to fall in trans like above and just speak nonsense.Use your ears and other instincts.
And I feel no obligation to be thankful to iZ people for their effort on this forum...this was good move for them.I am not impressed but depressed by their statements here.I just hope these where executives and not the real brains behind their product for which I heard nothing but good.

i really think another factor is being left out here,forget the mediums stability over time.
more importantly the skills to use analog tape are already starting to be forgotten,
why? because they aren't being teached!

i've just finished my first year in college here in dublin i to be an engineer someday,over the course of the year we were thought the radar system and also a fostex 24 track hd system in great detail,but practically nothing on tape. we had to literally protest to the lecturers to show us how the otari 24 track worked.we were shown how to clean it and told roughly how line up works. in a year of recording all 90 of us never used a 24 track tape machine on a session.never even lined it up even though it was sitting there,gathering dust.

i'd stake my telecaster that 50% of most young engineers could not set up a test tape.

if no one will teach us how are we supposed to remember how to use it ??? i'm guessing that most courses are now pretty much the same as mine,it's pretty crap ain't it?

So, did they not also teach you the basic rules of English and grammar, or was that your Mum's fault?

I could understand Keef, no problem.

And for those of you who post about English grammar there is another forum at www.yourmumspeaksproperenglish.com

Schools are different from real life and they give you just a hint of how things are done in the real world.
You should just try to find your approach and ways to do recording sessions. If you want to learn how to use reel-to-reel, just grab owner’s manual and you will pick up 50% of what you need to know.
Then find some old fart that was using it for years, buy him a couple of drinks and make notes...then just a bit of experience you can collect by trying to record your friend with acoustic guitar and some bad drummer...

You will learn it...no sweat!
I wish you good luck!