So if you're interested in hearing the difference, the comparison is up. I will not say which is which so as not to bias the comparison until after we've had a chance to liten and perhaps post some comments.

Here's what I will say about the test:
Both recordings were done as they came off the Tyros, no effects or EQ added to either. They were then rendered into a single mp3 file to make sure the compression was equal for both at 128kbps.
http://imjazzed.homestead.com/currentwork.html

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts to see if they compare with my own.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Hey Terry,

Thanks for the demo...Something to do on a Sunday other than shovel snow (we're gettin' pounded with our first snow storm).

It's interesting because the more I listen, the more differences I hear. But to sum it up, sample A has a much wider soundstage and more bass, sample B has a closer, more focused soundstage, less bass, and more treble emphasis. Knowing that you left the EQ alone at the source shows the difference in electronic circuitry between the two recording devices. But I wasn't ready for the differences in soundstage. It's almost as if the phasing is being played with (not by you...the electronics).

Like I said, very interesting demo.

mike

Terry. Listening on high quality studio monitors. The instruments are panned differently.
A. Wide Stereo spread but leaves hole in the middle of the mix.
B. Good central image but still with L & R information.
Frequency response was equally the same for both A & B in my listening tests.

I prefer B.
Do I win the prize...Ha!!!!

Graham UK.

[This message has been edited by Graham UK (edited 11-23-2003).]

Hi Terry,

I share Graham's results. The first sound image seems to have the 'spatial-effect'that Technics once implemented in the KN3000 (?)
Expand stereo-effect.

The instruments switched panning and B sounds much better/more direct.

During the first 0.599 seconds I hear noise that could have been eliminated Terry....

Roel

Just for the record L out of Tyros was panned hard left R panned hard right for both recordings.

Roel about the noise.....you should have heard how much there was before I cut it down. 0.599....only you Roel.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Funny ...... . Dano

Hi Terry,
interesting test.

I prefer the second recording. The sound is more "open". It is difficult to define and maybe a personal taste.
Other than that I have not good monitors so for the global quality I don't hear a difference.

Thank you

STAM

Hi Terrry!

Thanks for recording & posting the comparison demo. I agree with the comments made by the above others in my preference for the 2nd version. I found it 'surprising' to discover that BOTH of the takes were recorded straight out of the Tyros with no post eq/efx added on later.

I'm really anxious now for you to reveal which recording take was made on your Yammy AW4416(?) and which one was made using Sonar. - Scott

Hi Terry,

I prefer also the second ...
Greetings,
JJ

To me, 'A' appears to be much more centered and balanced, compared to 'B', which sounds as though it's been panned more left.

Although B sounds brighter, I found A to have a more balanced, warmer, and in general pleasing sound.

(Mazal Tov! I'm a 'senior'(!) member!)

They're both nice, but I prefer the stereo spread in the first version. My guess is that the hard disk is Number 1.

Here's my take on it.

"A" had better stereo imaging, ie., better balance left and right.

"B" had a better - 'cleaner' - sound but the majority of the sound was coming out of the left speaker so the stereo image was not as accurate imo, ie., the balance was not as good (left and right).

Terry you say you recorded them the same with no EQ or Effects added yet there is a distinct difference in the two recordings.

Here's my hypothesis:

The "A" recording sounded to me like it had some 'hiccups' in it, ie., - it didn't sound as flowing and natural as the "B" recording (spatial, presense, and cleaner sound laid aside.) So I could be wrong but I think "A" was done on the Computer with Sonar and "B" was done on the Yamaha AW4416 or whichever one you have. I am thinking the 'hiccups' were caused by a Computer that is possibly not fast enough to keep up with Audio feed coming into it and being recorded in Sonar. Thus the 'hiccups'. That is just a theory of course. Or it could be just the opposite where the Hardware based recorder is possibly an older model that has some kinks in it (older technology/flawed design, bad model, etc.) thereby causing the hiccups in "A". But I still think "A" was done on the Computer with Sonar. Just a hunch.

Best regards,
Mike

Well just so you all can sleep tonight I'd better tell which is which.

First I would say I preferred A myself and was surprised at what I heard as a great deal of difference between the two. They were both acceptable to me but A to me had a crispness and clarity of sound that I thought B lacked. I picked that big band style because it had a wide range of instrumentation to follow and would give us a lot of different things to listen for.

What I find interesting about some of the comments here is that some are hearing different panning and volumes out of 1 channel or the other.

The Tyros was fed in at the same volume to both A & B the pan was hard left and hard right on both A & B so theoretically we really should hear about the same results as far as panning etc.

Anyway all that having been said....

A = AW 4416 Yamaha h/d recorder
B = Sonar through the Tascam US 122 interface.

Now you can all sleep tonight.
Terry

Scott, You're welcome

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html



[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 11-23-2003).]

Mike
Regarding some of your observations....the laptop is about as good as it gets right now specs wise. It is dedicated for music only and has been optimized as such. The AW 4416 too is still pretty current technology. BTW they were both recorded at 16/44100 as well.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

I'm sure B from the Sonar is more left - no quetion. Have a listen on a pair of earphones. You can't miss it. Sometimes you have to tweak the panning to get it to centre. Try it. Also the overall sound is different when you hear different stereo image, so u can't make a good judgement of the two as long as the panning is wrong. IMHO.

Thanks Terry !

Why was there noise Terry ? What causes it ? The Tyros, The AW-inputs or other devices ?
Are you sure it's not the Tascam input ?

About the panning :
The Tyros channels did switch channels .... absolutely, no doubts about it. e.g. the clarinets first come from the right ch. and in B from the left ch.

I cannot understand why this huge difference in sound image exists. With my AW16G and all other (HD)recorders I owned there was NO difference in sound. When I switch my keyboard or other source to the (record)subgroups of my mixer there should be no difference in sound. (volume, sound, panning)
(To be sure, I do this test always before recording)

In your case, they change.... at least sound and panning. The panning is caused by signal cables, but the sound.... I don't know why...... perhaps a counter-phase leak through monitoring connections ?

Goodnight to all

Roel

Roel
About L&R I'm sure you're right in that the cables in the Tascam interface may be reversed or in Sonar, Ch. 1 I could have swaped for what should be Ch. 2. by input choice. As far as the front end noise that is the gain and the lines from the Tyros to the AW also the AW inputs can get noisey as well.

I did not want to process either signal with anything for the comparison to be fair, so I just took them as them came.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 11-23-2003).]

Thanks Terry,

Before I read any of the posts, I listened to the MP3, and my vote went for the second recording. Essentially, the straw vote was a 7 to 2 margin for B. with Sonar getting the nod. Obviously, I would have liked to see a lot more total votes, but this small poll has lots of merrit. Guess I stick with my PC recordings after all.

Thanks again for providing the comparison,

Gary

.... or maybe the 2 of us that picked "A" are just smarter ?

(kidding, of course)

Gary,
You're welcome. A learning experience for me after using both for so long I never really made a direct head to head on the same cut.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Dave,
Obviously great minds (or ears anyway) think alike.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

And after all that I decided to trade my AW in on a new recorder.I ordered one of the new Tascam SX 1LE's.
http://www.tascam.com/product_info.php?pid=323&nav=integrated_workstations

Don't anyone ask me to do any more experiments for awhile please I can't afford it.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 11-24-2003).]

Hello all,

For anybody that feels like "gettin' techy wit it", I conducted an experiment on Terry's A-B comparison and have posted the results on a web page. The images are big so you might have to do some scrolling.

http://genny.lib.umn.edu/terry/default.htm

mike

Mike,
Very interesting....although the wavs look very similar, the analysis spectrum is totally different. Must be in the US 122 sound card. The prominent feq. was miles appart as was the db response.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 11-24-2003).]

Terry I didn't mean to stir the pot about your Yammie AW16G HD Recorder. In fact I wasn't even sure which one you had when you did the A/B comparison until you spilled the beans in a later post. Let me say that the AW16G is one of the highest rated HD Recorders on the market Terry. And it is hardly obsolete. It may have been that you didn't have the AW16G set up optimally when you recorded your demo. Sometimes just enabling this/disabling that or tweaking this/tweaking that could have made a world of difference. Also the AW16G is probably the best bang for the buck HD Recorder on the market right now. And you may find spending 3x as much for the Tascam may not produce even 1x as much improvement (if indeed any at all) in your final Mastering results.

That is just a word of caution. (Excuse me for sounding like a sibling ). If you have money to burn which apparently you don't from your previous post you may want to put that Tascam to the test under "serious" scrutiny under all kinds of conditions before you give it your final nod of okay.

PS: I hope you have a 30 day return guarantee too. You may need to use it in the end. If it works out and passes your meticulous standards of excellence then great. But just keep that receipt handy just in case.

Best regards,
Mike

I think the bottom line here sportsfans is in what we hear. Everyone had the opportunity to listen to both versions, and by an overwhelming margin, the direct PC recording won--hands down. Don't need to run a complete spectrum analysis of each segment, then pick it apart--it's what your ears heard that really counts in the end. As for me, I'm going to keep doing what I have been doing all along--recording directly into the PC using Music Creator 2003. It works well, no one was able to tell when I was using an expensive digital recorder, and with the money I sold the recorder for, it paid for one of my Barbetta Sona's.

Cheers from an old man,

Gary

Mike,
Terry owns a AW4416 and I can hardly believe his AW causes this strange sound-image.

My AW16G sounds absolutely perfect without noise and colouring the original source.

Roel

[This message has been edited by Roel (edited 11-24-2003).]

My mistake Roel. Thanks for correcting me. Since Terry owns the AW4416 my point is even more apparent. The AW4416 is an even higher end unit which should perform as good or even better than the AW16G.

Terry, the Hard Disk on the AW4416 may need to be defragmented is all. There have been reports that you need to defragment the Hard Disk frequently to keep the recordings and playback sounding optimal. That may have been the problem when recording "A" in the comparison, ie., a fragmented Hard Disk.

Best regards,
Mike



[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 11-24-2003).]

Mike, Mike, Mike,
You're making a way bigger deal out of this than my sarcastic bit of self humor (notice the smilie after my statement in the post) intended.

If you also read my words I preferred the AW over the laptop recording myself and frankly to my ears there was a noticeable difference in favor of the AW.

I went and bought a new recorder because for me it was time not because of anything to do with this test. If I went with the majority opinion here I would have just sold the AW and started recording to the laptop, but I was one who likes the h/d recording better.

There are several reasons I choose to go for the Tascam. It records uncompressed, (the AW's record in a compressed data format), it records midi, it has gigastudio software and support in the o/s. It has 32 tracks for recording, with 16 inputs. I can hook my flat panel monitor to it and work on the big screen. It has more effects possible per channel on and on.

So it was time for me to upgrade anyway, it really had nothing at all to do with this thread.

BTW I defrag the AW after every cd and I do not agree with sound coloring or whatever that some of you heard. Once again the noise that Roel heard upfront is due to a few things, cables and gain going from the Tyros to the AW. All of those pick up noise along the way. This was just a quick and dirty recording to get a sound comparison up for all to hear. Neither of these recordings to me would be acceptable to put on a cd.

In short if I were to dump anything in this scenario, it would be the laptop for recording for my ears and ease of use, which is what I have been doing all along anyway.

I'm upgrading because I felt it was time after recording to the AW4416 for the last few years, not because of what has been said in this thread. The AW is a great recorder, but for me it was time to move on and after looking at all of them the Tascam seemed to me to be the best value for the money.
Terry



------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Well,
I have deleted the test from my site now, so if you haven't heard it by now sorry.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html