Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RADAR vs. other stand-alone HD recorders

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:18:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Anyone had a chance to compare the sound of RADAR Classic converters with
the ones in its more proletarian competitors: Alesis HD24XR, Fostex D2424LV
and the like?

I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen all
the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for example, but
I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.

Predrag

To reply, remove NESPAMU from my email address:
predrag.trpkovNESPAMU@ri.htnet.hr

More about : radar stand recorders

Anonymous
March 25, 2005 11:18:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d21o62$6kh$1@ss405.t-com.hr> predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr writes:

> Anyone had a chance to compare the sound of RADAR Classic converters with
> the ones in its more proletarian competitors: Alesis HD24XR, Fostex D2424LV
> and the like?

I doubt it. People who decide to go with the RADAR don't need to
compare it with anything else.

> I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen all
> the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for example, but
> I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.

Nothing wrong with it. Thing is that when you buy a RADAR, you're
buying quality that anyone will accept without question (although we
all know that there's better, even better RADARs), and you're buying
strong factory support if you should ever need it. If you buy Fostex,
you're probably buying decent sound (I've never heard any complaints)
but when it comest to support, you'll probably get better and quicker
answers from a user group. Also, you won't have an upgrade path.

I've been completely happy with my Mackie for more than four years.
Analog I/O sounds good, some new digital I/O cards are still
available, lots (recorders, too) available from people selling on
eBay, and the HDR24/96 (the graphic version) is as good an editor as
you'll find on any DAW, just in case you need it.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 12:08:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> Anyone had a chance to compare the sound of RADAR Classic converters with
> the ones in its more proletarian competitors: Alesis HD24XR, Fostex D2424LV
> and the like?
>
> I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen all
> the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for example, but
> I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.
>
> Predrag
>
> To reply, remove NESPAMU from my email address:
> predrag.trpkovNESPAMU@ri.htnet.hr
>
>

I've never used the Alesis or Fostex so I can't compare,
but I still use 2" tape a lot and can compare it to
that. Radar sounds incredibly good. Pretty damn close to
tape IMHO. My understanding is that it's a combination
of having very good converters and good internal
clocking. We have the Nyquist 96 converters, and those
sound spectacular, but we originally had the Radar II
with "Classic" converters and those were superb as well.

It's reliable, easy to use and their tech support is as
good as you could possible hope for. The 800 phone
number is right on the screen, you call, a pleasant and
knowledgable pro talks you through your problem and you
get back to work.

Having the waveforms on the screen is very helpful, but
you don't really need to look at it if you don't want
to. It runs like a tape machine. There are several ways
to export Broadcast wave files so you can be compatible
with ProTools and any other DAWs if you need to.

iZ has a talkback forum on their website and there's all
kinds of info there. I think that you'll find nothing
but positive comments about Radar from anyone who has
used it.

--
--
John Noll
Retromedia Sound Studios
Red Bank, NJ

jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net

http://www.retromedia.net
Related resources
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 12:08:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Still have your studio picture on my control room wall, John. Just
something to shoot for! How about a new one? <g> Nevermind, I'll just pull
one off your website. I see you got rid of the white Yamaha piano or is
that the Clavinova?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/

"John Noll" <jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42447D68.4010709@verizon.net...
> Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> > Anyone had a chance to compare the sound of RADAR Classic converters
with
> > the ones in its more proletarian competitors: Alesis HD24XR, Fostex
D2424LV
> > and the like?
> >
> > I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen
all
> > the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for example,
but
> > I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.
> >
> > Predrag
> >
> > To reply, remove NESPAMU from my email address:
> > predrag.trpkovNESPAMU@ri.htnet.hr
> >
> >
>
> I've never used the Alesis or Fostex so I can't compare,
> but I still use 2" tape a lot and can compare it to
> that. Radar sounds incredibly good. Pretty damn close to
> tape IMHO. My understanding is that it's a combination
> of having very good converters and good internal
> clocking. We have the Nyquist 96 converters, and those
> sound spectacular, but we originally had the Radar II
> with "Classic" converters and those were superb as well.
>
> It's reliable, easy to use and their tech support is as
> good as you could possible hope for. The 800 phone
> number is right on the screen, you call, a pleasant and
> knowledgable pro talks you through your problem and you
> get back to work.
>
> Having the waveforms on the screen is very helpful, but
> you don't really need to look at it if you don't want
> to. It runs like a tape machine. There are several ways
> to export Broadcast wave files so you can be compatible
> with ProTools and any other DAWs if you need to.
>
> iZ has a talkback forum on their website and there's all
> kinds of info there. I think that you'll find nothing
> but positive comments about Radar from anyone who has
> used it.
>
> --
> --
> John Noll
> Retromedia Sound Studios
> Red Bank, NJ
>
> jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net
>
> http://www.retromedia.net
>
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 2:13:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Roger W. Norman wrote:
> Still have your studio picture on my control room wall, John. Just
> something to shoot for! How about a new one? <g> Nevermind, I'll just pull
> one off your website. I see you got rid of the white Yamaha piano or is
> that the Clavinova?
>

Hi Roger,
Thanks. I appreciate your loyalty.
The white piano in that photo is long gone. It sounded
terrible. I bought it at a garage sale for $25. The
white paint was a very amateurish enamel job with lots
of drips. The previous owner probably did that in the
early seventies after seeing a photo of John Lennon in a
white outfit playing his white piano.

We currently have a black Yamaha G3 grand. We have a
Clavinova digital piano also, but that's not in the photo.

There's some updated photos on our website (link below).
I can mail you a newer postcard if you want.

--
--
John Noll
Retromedia Sound Studios
Red Bank, NJ

jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net

http://www.retromedia.net
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 3:14:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John Noll" <jn145_deletethisfirst_@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:42447D68.4010709@verizon.net...
> Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> > Anyone had a chance to compare the sound of RADAR Classic converters
with
> > the ones in its more proletarian competitors: Alesis HD24XR, Fostex
D2424LV
> > and the like?
> >
> > I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen
all
> > the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for example,
but
> > I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.
> >
> > Predrag
> >
> > To reply, remove NESPAMU from my email address:
> > predrag.trpkovNESPAMU@ri.htnet.hr
> >
> >
>
> I've never used the Alesis or Fostex so I can't compare,
> but I still use 2" tape a lot and can compare it to
> that. Radar sounds incredibly good. Pretty damn close to
> tape IMHO. My understanding is that it's a combination
> of having very good converters and good internal
> clocking. We have the Nyquist 96 converters, and those
> sound spectacular, but we originally had the Radar II
> with "Classic" converters and those were superb as well.
>
> It's reliable, easy to use and their tech support is as
> good as you could possible hope for. The 800 phone
> number is right on the screen, you call, a pleasant and
> knowledgable pro talks you through your problem and you
> get back to work.
>
> Having the waveforms on the screen is very helpful, but
> you don't really need to look at it if you don't want
> to. It runs like a tape machine. There are several ways
> to export Broadcast wave files so you can be compatible
> with ProTools and any other DAWs if you need to.
>
> iZ has a talkback forum on their website and there's all
> kinds of info there. I think that you'll find nothing
> but positive comments about Radar from anyone who has
> used it.


Thanks John. You've just rubbed salt into that wound of mine, but I asked
for it.

Time and again RADAR gets compared, favorably, to 2" analog and that is
driving me nuts.

I'm still hoping that someone will tell me that the difference in sound is
not all that big. A new Fostex D2424 can be had for a fraction of what an
used RADAR system would cost and its feature set suits me much better.

My profession for the past 15-20 years is rapidly turning into a hobby,
against my will and I'm now at the point where I'm still too sensitive
towards sound quality to settle for good enough, but no longer dare invest
too much money into something that is uncertain to bring revenue.

Are there any Fostex users around?

Predrag
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 9:00:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Note Jim Williams' remarks about the Alesis HD24xr in a thread from
Nov. 2003: "Lucid 9624 AD vs RME ADI 8 DS??" I know it caught my
attention. What am I missing?

Here's a sample out of context...
"If you're looking for good quality converters in mass, I
like the Alesis HD24XR 96k. It uses the same A/D's as the $13k Radar
96, and I like the AKM 5393 D/A converters in there better than the
rough sounding Analog Devices AD1855 dac's in the Radar. $2500 for 48
channels of 96k converters, oh, and they throw in a hard drive
recorder in for free!"

Best...
Rich
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 10:50:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Thanks John. You've just rubbed salt into that wound of mine, but I asked
> for it.
>
> Time and again RADAR gets compared, favorably, to 2" analog and that is
> driving me nuts.
>
> I'm still hoping that someone will tell me that the difference in sound is
> not all that big. A new Fostex D2424 can be had for a fraction of what an
> used RADAR system would cost and its feature set suits me much better.
>
> My profession for the past 15-20 years is rapidly turning into a hobby,
> against my will and I'm now at the point where I'm still too sensitive
> towards sound quality to settle for good enough, but no longer dare invest
> too much money into something that is uncertain to bring revenue.
>
> Are there any Fostex users around?
>
> Predrag
>
>
Hi Predrag


Yes, Me!
I like mine. Sonically I'm afraid I can't directly compare to radar, but
I am guessing that the approx 6x price must have some reasoning behind
it! Having said that I am very happy with D2424lv. Running it from a
decent clock source might improve things, as I get the impression most
units in this price class are let down there, but it sounds fine to me.
Of course, external convertors are easy enough to add on if you need it
in the long run.
I love the remote and the price, but it's probably not going to impress
or attract clients. Radar would be my first choice as I also hear so
much good stuff about the sound, but I am in the same situation as you.
If I was beating clients away with a shitty stick, I'd have RADAR, but I
mainly record my music or the odd local band, and fostex fulfills that
task perfectly. I also recorded a live musical and no problems there at
all (that kind of thing makes me nervous, especially when hard drives
are concerned) ;) 
David
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 10:50:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"david morley" <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:3akf18F66qisaU1@individual.net...
>
>> Thanks John. You've just rubbed salt into that wound of mine, but I asked
>> for it.
>>
>> Time and again RADAR gets compared, favorably, to 2" analog and that is
>> driving me nuts.
>>
>> I'm still hoping that someone will tell me that the difference in sound
>> is
>> not all that big. A new Fostex D2424 can be had for a fraction of what an
>> used RADAR system would cost and its feature set suits me much better.
>>
>> My profession for the past 15-20 years is rapidly turning into a hobby,
>> against my will and I'm now at the point where I'm still too sensitive
>> towards sound quality to settle for good enough, but no longer dare
>> invest
>> too much money into something that is uncertain to bring revenue.
>>
>> Are there any Fostex users around?
>>
>> Predrag
>>
>>
> Hi Predrag
>
>
> Yes, Me!
> I like mine. Sonically I'm afraid I can't directly compare to radar, but I
> am guessing that the approx 6x price must have some reasoning behind it!
> Having said that I am very happy with D2424lv. Running it from a decent
> clock source might improve things, as I get the impression most units in
> this price class are let down there, but it sounds fine to me. Of course,
> external convertors are easy enough to add on if you need it in the long
> run.
> I love the remote and the price, but it's probably not going to impress or
> attract clients. Radar would be my first choice as I also hear so much
> good stuff about the sound, but I am in the same situation as you. If I
> was beating clients away with a shitty stick, I'd have RADAR, but I mainly
> record my music or the odd local band, and fostex fulfills that task
> perfectly. I also recorded a live musical and no problems there at all
> (that kind of thing makes me nervous, especially when hard drives are
> concerned) ;) 
> David

Hi,

I also have a D2424LV and I think it sounds really good. I don't think you
will be disappointed with the sound, especially if your are trying to spend
under $1200 for a stand alone recorder. I haven't compared to a RADAR but
I'd be surprised if the RADAR didn't sound better based on what people have
been saying. I thought that my MOTU HD192 sounded somewhat better than the
D2424LV but that was totally subjective and I could of been mistaken.

Best of luck!

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com

PS - check out the FDUG forum on www.yahoogroups.com and the Fostex bbs
forum at www.homerecording.org for more Fostex opinions.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:18:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
news:114a2ovsvjpd272@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "david morley" <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:3akf18F66qisaU1@individual.net...
> >
> >> Thanks John. You've just rubbed salt into that wound of mine, but I
asked
> >> for it.
> >>
> >> Time and again RADAR gets compared, favorably, to 2" analog and that is
> >> driving me nuts.
> >>
> >> I'm still hoping that someone will tell me that the difference in sound
> >> is
> >> not all that big. A new Fostex D2424 can be had for a fraction of what
an
> >> used RADAR system would cost and its feature set suits me much better.
> >>
> >> My profession for the past 15-20 years is rapidly turning into a hobby,
> >> against my will and I'm now at the point where I'm still too sensitive
> >> towards sound quality to settle for good enough, but no longer dare
> >> invest
> >> too much money into something that is uncertain to bring revenue.
> >>
> >> Are there any Fostex users around?
> >>
> >> Predrag
> >>
> >>
> > Hi Predrag
> >
> >
> > Yes, Me!
> > I like mine. Sonically I'm afraid I can't directly compare to radar, but
I
> > am guessing that the approx 6x price must have some reasoning behind it!
> > Having said that I am very happy with D2424lv. Running it from a decent
> > clock source might improve things, as I get the impression most units in
> > this price class are let down there, but it sounds fine to me. Of
course,
> > external convertors are easy enough to add on if you need it in the long
> > run.
> > I love the remote and the price, but it's probably not going to impress
or
> > attract clients. Radar would be my first choice as I also hear so much
> > good stuff about the sound, but I am in the same situation as you. If I
> > was beating clients away with a shitty stick, I'd have RADAR, but I
mainly
> > record my music or the odd local band, and fostex fulfills that task
> > perfectly. I also recorded a live musical and no problems there at all
> > (that kind of thing makes me nervous, especially when hard drives are
> > concerned) ;) 
> > David
>
> Hi,
>
> I also have a D2424LV and I think it sounds really good. I don't think
you
> will be disappointed with the sound, especially if your are trying to
spend
> under $1200 for a stand alone recorder. I haven't compared to a RADAR but
> I'd be surprised if the RADAR didn't sound better based on what people
have
> been saying. I thought that my MOTU HD192 sounded somewhat better than
the
> D2424LV but that was totally subjective and I could of been mistaken.
>
> Best of luck!
>
> --
> John L Rice
> Drummer@ImJohn.com
>
> PS - check out the FDUG forum on www.yahoogroups.com and the Fostex bbs
> forum at www.homerecording.org for more Fostex opinions.


Thanks guys. I'm sure that the Fostex D2424LV sounds good. It's just that
this buzz surrounding RADAR and it's superior sonics keeps bugging me. I'm
prepared to sacrifice the perfect fitting feature set of the Fostex for a
better sound, even though the feature set of a basic RADAR setup doesn't
really fit my needs. Unfortunately, I've never heard of a RADAR system or a
dealer in my or any of the neighbouring countries.

Then again, the price difference is almost absurd. I can get the Fostex unit
for even less than $1200.

This external clock idea is worth exploring.

Predrag
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:19:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers Wrote:
> I've been completely happy with my Mackie for more than four years.
> Analog I/O sounds good, some new digital I/O cards are still
> available, lots (recorders, too) available from people selling on eBay,
> and the HDR24/96 (the graphic version) is as good an editor as you'll
> find on any DAW, just in case you need it.

I'm having a hard time with the "analog I/O sounds good" part... I
guess it might in that "Hyundai rides good" kinda way which doesn't
quite live up to a "BMW rides good" orientation... with a digital I/O
and some good converters it could be a great thing, but that would
definitely make it a more expensive thing.

The editing for me on a RADAR goes much faster and smoother than it
does in any DAW I've ever used but that could be more about my skill
set.

One other very cool thing about the new RADAR V [just got mine in on
Thursday... just in time for me to go out of town for 2 weeks...
"d'oh!!"] is that it prints to disk in flattened "Broadcast Wave Files"
so you can pull out a drive, stick it into any DAW, and open the session
like it was originally recorded in the DAW... this seems to be a kind of
'best of all worlds' event if you're into working "in the box" but would
prefer to work with a stable and great sounding recording device.


--
Fletcher
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:23:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1111785782k@trad...
>
> In article <d21o62$6kh$1@ss405.t-com.hr> predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr
writes:
>
> > Anyone had a chance to compare the sound of RADAR Classic converters
with
> > the ones in its more proletarian competitors: Alesis HD24XR, Fostex
D2424LV
> > and the like?
>
> I doubt it. People who decide to go with the RADAR don't need to
> compare it with anything else.


I'm getting the same impression. Different worlds.


> > I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen
all
> > the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for example,
but
> > I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.
>
> Nothing wrong with it. Thing is that when you buy a RADAR, you're
> buying quality that anyone will accept without question (although we
> all know that there's better, even better RADARs), and you're buying
> strong factory support if you should ever need it. If you buy Fostex,
> you're probably buying decent sound (I've never heard any complaints)
> but when it comest to support, you'll probably get better and quicker
> answers from a user group. Also, you won't have an upgrade path.
>
> I've been completely happy with my Mackie for more than four years.
> Analog I/O sounds good, some new digital I/O cards are still
> available, lots (recorders, too) available from people selling on
> eBay, and the HDR24/96 (the graphic version) is as good an editor as
> you'll find on any DAW, just in case you need it.


All valid points. However, the advantages of RADAR in brand recognition and
factory support are not as big here in Europe as they are in the States.
Also, there's not much to upgrade on Fostex machines.

The feature set of the Fostex D2424LV is perfect for my needs. I love that
removable front panel/remote control and the I/O configuration leaves
nothing to be desired.

It all boils down to the difference in sound quality. And that seems to be
quite difficult to find out.

Predrag
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:23:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <d23np2$h41$1@ss405.t-com.hr> predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr writes:

> All valid points. However, the advantages of RADAR in brand recognition and
> factory support are not as big here in Europe as they are in the States.
> Also, there's not much to upgrade on Fostex machines.

Well, if you don't have paying clients that recognize the advantages
of RADAR, then you don't need it. About all you can do to upgrade the
Fostex is install a larger disk dirve (I guess) and use outboard
converters. iZ maintains a full upgrade program and any RADAR can be
upgraded to any current version (though mostly it won't be cheap) so
it'll take you longer to outgrow it. On the other hand, if the Fostex
is only going to cost ou about $1200, it should pay for itself in a
project or two and then you don't have to worry about upgrade costs.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:23:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> The feature set of the Fostex D2424LV is perfect for my needs. I love that
> removable front panel/remote control and the I/O configuration leaves
> nothing to be desired.
>
> It all boils down to the difference in sound quality. And that seems to be
> quite difficult to find out.
>
> Predrag


Here is something else to think about. What sample rate do you plan to
record at? I've done a lot with the machine at 24 bit / 48 kHz and it
sounds good to me BUT if you are planning on doing 88.2k or 96k you can only
do 8 channels max at a time and there is no digital way to output ( or
input ) files via the lightpipe connections at that rate. So if you want to
record at the higher sample rates the machine is capable of you'll either
need to play them back out of the analog outputs or save them as WAV files
to the optional DVD recorder or an external SCSI drive etc and then copy
them onto your computer. ( the Ethernet option should allow you to move high
sample rate files to your computer but I don't have that option and don't
know anyone who does. )

Best of luck!
--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 6:03:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <Fletcher.1mi9dm@audiobanter.com> Fletcher.1mi9dm@audiobanter.com writes:

> I'm having a hard time with the "analog I/O sounds good" part... I
> guess it might in that "Hyundai rides good" kinda way which doesn't
> quite live up to a "BMW rides good" orientation...

It means than I have no reason to complain other than that I know that
better exists. But I don't find that my final product suffers because
of my recorder. There are worse things in my signal path, I believe,
than the Mackie HDR analog I/O. I haven't compared it to a RADAR, but
then I don't have the talent coming by here that usually finds its way to a
RADAR studio, nor the great acoustics in which to record that talent. I could
be swayed if I spend more money, but that's not my game at the moment.
And if the mood strikes me, I have an AES/EBU I/O card that I could use
with an outboard converter, but the best A/D I have around here other than
in my Lynx L22 sound card is a Symetrix 620.

> The editing for me on a RADAR goes much faster and smoother than it
> does in any DAW I've ever used but that could be more about my skill
> set.

Could well be. It depends on what you're used to, and what your
editing tasks are. Being able to open up seven alternate takes of a
track immediately below it and pick and choose phrases, words, or even
notes to paste into what I consider the best of the lot is really
simple, but people argue the same about ProTools. When I tell a PT
user how I do it, they say "Oh, I can do that, but I have a better
way." It's their preference.

Moving a note, or a drum hit that might span several tracks is a quick
select-chop-drag operation and most of the time the default crossfades
work well enough not to require fooling with, but you can tweak them if
you hear something you don't like in the edit.

There are plenty of keyboard shortcuts on the Mackie so I can work
efficiently with one hand on the mouse and another on the keyboard, or
I can work entirely with my mouse hand. I have no clue about editing on
the Fostex or Alesis recorders, or even if this is important to the one
who asked for the comparison with RADAR. I just brought it up
because it's a nice bonus.

> One other very cool thing about the new RADAR V [just got mine in on
> Thursday... just in time for me to go out of town for 2 weeks...
> "d'oh!!"] is that it prints to disk in flattened "Broadcast Wave Files"
> so you can pull out a drive, stick it into any DAW, and open the session
> like it was originally recorded in the DAW... this seems to be a kind of
> 'best of all worlds' event if you're into working "in the box"

I know they talk about "instant" flattening, and at the AES show, I
saw Barry demonstrate it - it was very quick for the one track that
he showed, but I didn't see it in action for 24 tracks of a 5-minute
song. Is that zippy, too? Maybe it does this in the background with the
current version of the track. But it still needs to keep track of edits
and punches somehow, so it at least needs an edit list with pointers
to places in that file and the original files so you can un-do.

I just timed the Mackie and it took 2:50 (that's just under 3 minutes, not
3 hours) to "render" (same thing) a 5 minute 24 track song at 44.1 kHz,
24 bits. This is a feature that's been with the Mackie since its beginning.
I agree, it's an important feature, and I believe it's specified as part of the
preferred format in AES31 (the Transportability standard).

And, hey, I wrote a book about the Mackie hard disk recorders, so
I need to take every backhanded opportunity to keep people using
them. Sells more books that way. The Last Mackie Hard Disk Recorder Manual
http://www.cafepress.com/mikerivers


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 7:41:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I just saw this on Fostex's web site :

3-15-2005
**IMPORTANT** Effective April 1, 2005 Fostex America will no longer offer
technical support over the phone. All technical support questions and
inquiries should be sent to support@fostex.com for a prompt response. Please
also consult our Fostex Knowledgebase for additional support. Response time
will vary dependant on traffic.



Not a step in the right direction unfortunately. ( unless a competitor
hacked their site as an April fool joke . . . )

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com



begin 666 grey_line.gif
M1TE&.#EA`P`#`( !`,S,S/___R'Y! $```$`+ `````#``,```($C($6!0`[
`
end
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:44:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

One point I must make is that if you are looking for the nth degree of
sonic excellence etc, then Radar is for you. However, if you are working
with less than stellar mics, preamps, outboard and even artists, it
might be worth getting fostex D2424 or Mackie and investing in a serious
mic, preamp, dynamics unit.
By this I mean the not unsubstantial money saved from not buying radar
can be put to good use and this may actually lead to better quality than
just Radar (depending on what gear you already have)

Cheers and good luck with your choice
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 2:44:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
>One point I must make is that if you are looking for the nth degree of
>sonic excellence etc, then Radar is for you. However, if you are working
>with less than stellar mics, preamps, outboard and even artists, it
>might be worth getting fostex D2424 or Mackie and investing in a serious
>mic, preamp, dynamics unit.

I found the converters on the Radar to be good but not as good as some of
the other stuff out there. What I found so wonderful about the Radar was
the user interface and the overall feel of the thing.

You can make anything that is bit-accurate sound good with external
converters. Sounding good is easy these days, it just takes money.
And that's something I never expected to be able to say either.

But the whole point of the Radar is the way it feels and the very natural
workflow with it. If you don't like the way it works, don't buy it. If
you like the way it works, buy it.

>By this I mean the not unsubstantial money saved from not buying radar
>can be put to good use and this may actually lead to better quality than
>just Radar (depending on what gear you already have)

That's true. But if you're selling studio time, having Radar might help
you sell more time too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 6:07:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen
all
> the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for
example, but
> I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.

Predrag,

I can't rate the Radar. I have used and compared several other
combination mixer/recorders. Without any doubt, the Akai DPS24 is
outstanding for pure sound quality and similarity to the traditional
track/record/mix/master process.

I was in a similar position -- tired of computer screens, constant
compatibility bugs, and running "controls" with a mouse. And I wasn't
producing high volume, but more interested in recording my own music
and other small ensembles. The DPS24 is a real pleasure to use, to be
able to mix by ear again and enjoy making music. They're about $2700.
Check the user forum here if you want:
http://dpsworld.vibestudio.net/viewforum.php?f=1

Steve
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 11:45:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <3am3cbF6al9beU1@individual.net> david.morley@gmx.net writes:

> One point I must make is that if you are looking for the nth degree of
> sonic excellence etc, then Radar is for you.

Oh? What ever happened to analog tape? Or are you thinking that the
folks who say "RADAR sounds like analog" are right? Mind you, I
wouldn't toss one out if it appeared in the studio when I wasn't
looking (at my checkbook).

> However, if you are working
> with less than stellar mics, preamps, outboard and even artists, it
> might be worth getting fostex D2424 or Mackie

You rang?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 10:01:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I have Alesis HD24XR. Not sure I really needed the XR part of it for my
archiving but the recorder is a pleasure to use. So easy. Has both
lightpipe and analog I/O. I haven't used the lightpipe yet and
probably won't. Nice thing is the removable HD's....and their so cheap.
Bought some from buy.com cheap with free shipping.
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 10:02:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers wrote:
> In article <3am3cbF6al9beU1@individual.net> david.morley@gmx.net writes:
>
>
>>One point I must make is that if you are looking for the nth degree of
>>sonic excellence etc, then Radar is for you.
>
>
> Oh? What ever happened to analog tape? Or are you thinking that the
> folks who say "RADAR sounds like analog" are right? Mind you, I
> wouldn't toss one out if it appeared in the studio when I wasn't
> looking (at my checkbook).
>
>

I assumed people would understand I meant that in the context of the
thread (ie digital 24 track a la fostexmackiealesis )

I would certainly take analog over any form of digital if finances
allowed a new 24 track 2" and a tech to maintain it, plus tape costs.

I'll stick to fostex for now
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 11:27:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov wrote:

> I've just been informed of a death in the family, second case in the
last
> two days. There'll be expenses, so that settles this issue for a
while.
> However, I'll keep an eye on RADAR.
>
> Thanks to everybody who replied.
>
> Predrag

My condolences and best wishes for you
and your family.

rd
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 11:35:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I'm very sorry to hear of your losses Predrag. Unfortunately I just
went through the same thing last week. It puts our recording concerns
in perspective. Best wishes,

Steve
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:37:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:41:48 -0800, John L Rice wrote:

> I just saw this on Fostex's web site :
>
> 3-15-2005
> **IMPORTANT** Effective April 1, 2005 Fostex America will no longer offer
> technical support over the phone. All technical support questions and
> inquiries should be sent to support@fostex.com for a prompt response.
> Please also consult our Fostex Knowledgebase for additional support.
> Response time will vary dependant on traffic.

Don't know about you, but I've NEVER received a prompt response from
support@fostex.com
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:37:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Agent 86" <maxwellsmart@control.gov> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.03.27.20.37.10.372923@control.gov...
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:41:48 -0800, John L Rice wrote:
>
>> I just saw this on Fostex's web site :
>>
>> 3-15-2005
>> **IMPORTANT** Effective April 1, 2005 Fostex America will no longer offer
>> technical support over the phone. All technical support questions and
>> inquiries should be sent to support@fostex.com for a prompt response.
>> Please also consult our Fostex Knowledgebase for additional support.
>> Response time will vary dependant on traffic.
>
> Don't know about you, but I've NEVER received a prompt response from
> support@fostex.com


I just took a look at my old emails and Fostex seemed to respond within 12
to 48 hours with was fine for the non critical questions I was asking them
about. ( this was back in early 2001 so things may have changed since then.



--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:37:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.03.27.20.37.10.372923@control.gov> maxwellsmart@control.gov writes:

> > **IMPORTANT** Effective April 1, 2005 Fostex America will no longer offer
> > technical support over the phone.

> Don't know about you, but I've NEVER received a prompt response from
> support@fostex.com

Well, they were never very strong on verbal communication either, at
least at trade shows, except for the guy who heads up that group.
Perhaps a little restructuring is going on out there.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:55:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
news:114c06kd2r9te23@corp.supernews.com...
> I just saw this on Fostex's web site :
>
> 3-15-2005
> **IMPORTANT** Effective April 1, 2005 Fostex America will no longer offer
> technical support over the phone. All technical support questions and
> inquiries should be sent to support@fostex.com for a prompt response.
Please
> also consult our Fostex Knowledgebase for additional support. Response
time
> will vary dependant on traffic.
>
>
>
> Not a step in the right direction unfortunately. ( unless a competitor
> hacked their site as an April fool joke . . . )


Never mind, I can always rely on you.

Just kidding.

Thanks for the info about the digital transfer with high sample rates.
Something to consider, although I haven't tried high sample rates yet.

Predrag
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:55:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Predrag Trpkov" <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:D 26vjd$le4$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>
> "John L Rice" <Drummer@ImJohn.com> wrote in message
> news:114c06kd2r9te23@corp.supernews.com...
>> I just saw this on Fostex's web site :
>>
>> 3-15-2005
>> **IMPORTANT** Effective April 1, 2005 Fostex America will no longer offer
>> technical support over the phone. All technical support questions and
>> inquiries should be sent to support@fostex.com for a prompt response.
> Please
>> also consult our Fostex Knowledgebase for additional support. Response
> time
>> will vary dependant on traffic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Not a step in the right direction unfortunately. ( unless a competitor
>> hacked their site as an April fool joke . . . )
>
>
> Never mind, I can always rely on you.
>
> Just kidding.
>
> Thanks for the info about the digital transfer with high sample rates.
> Something to consider, although I haven't tried high sample rates yet.
>
> Predrag
>

"Just call on me . . . . .and I'll be there . . . . " ;-)



--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:13:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 24mvf$cq7$1@panix2.panix.com...
> david morley <david.morley@gmx.net> wrote:
> >One point I must make is that if you are looking for the nth degree of
> >sonic excellence etc, then Radar is for you. However, if you are working
> >with less than stellar mics, preamps, outboard and even artists, it
> >might be worth getting fostex D2424 or Mackie and investing in a serious
> >mic, preamp, dynamics unit.
>
> I found the converters on the Radar to be good but not as good as some of
> the other stuff out there. What I found so wonderful about the Radar was
> the user interface and the overall feel of the thing.
>
> You can make anything that is bit-accurate sound good with external
> converters. Sounding good is easy these days, it just takes money.
> And that's something I never expected to be able to say either.
>
> But the whole point of the Radar is the way it feels and the very natural
> workflow with it. If you don't like the way it works, don't buy it. If
> you like the way it works, buy it.
>
> >By this I mean the not unsubstantial money saved from not buying radar
> >can be put to good use and this may actually lead to better quality than
> >just Radar (depending on what gear you already have)
>
> That's true. But if you're selling studio time, having Radar might help
> you sell more time too.


I'm no longer able to sell any studio time. I'm already way too expensive
for the local market.

On the other hand, for the first time in 20 years I don't have to think
about what clients would want.

Since it'll be strictly for my own pleasure from now on, the only reason to
buy RADAR would be its sonic advantages. Basically anything that would help
me enjoy playing with my toys.

Predrag
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:13:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:
>
>Since it'll be strictly for my own pleasure from now on, the only reason to
>buy RADAR would be its sonic advantages. Basically anything that would help
>me enjoy playing with my toys.

No, no, you should definitely check Radar out. I think you will find it is
MUCH more fun to work with than a typical DAW or disk recorder, sound aside.
It does what you expect it to do, and it doesn't do weird things that you
didn't expect.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 1:31:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Scott" <squeegybug@netspace1.com> wrote in message
news:1111918027.552560.210000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> > I'm obviously trying to move away from staring at the computer screen
> all
> > the time. The Fostex package would be perfect for my needs, for
> example, but
> > I'd like to know what's so special about RADAR, soundwise.
>
> Predrag,
>
> I can't rate the Radar. I have used and compared several other
> combination mixer/recorders. Without any doubt, the Akai DPS24 is
> outstanding for pure sound quality and similarity to the traditional
> track/record/mix/master process.
>
> I was in a similar position -- tired of computer screens, constant
> compatibility bugs, and running "controls" with a mouse. And I wasn't
> producing high volume, but more interested in recording my own music
> and other small ensembles. The DPS24 is a real pleasure to use, to be
> able to mix by ear again and enjoy making music. They're about $2700.
> Check the user forum here if you want:
> http://dpsworld.vibestudio.net/viewforum.php?f=1
>
> Steve


Thanks for the info. I really don't like mixing digitally, but I guess it
could still be used as a 24-track recorder with a digital mixer thrown in.
There's one DPS24 on sale around here, I'll check anyway.

Predrag
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 4:01:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 27784$ta$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Predrag Trpkov <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:
> >
> >Since it'll be strictly for my own pleasure from now on, the only reason
to
> >buy RADAR would be its sonic advantages. Basically anything that would
help
> >me enjoy playing with my toys.
>
> No, no, you should definitely check Radar out. I think you will find it
is
> MUCH more fun to work with than a typical DAW or disk recorder, sound
aside.
> It does what you expect it to do, and it doesn't do weird things that you
> didn't expect.


I've just been informed of a death in the family, second case in the last
two days. There'll be expenses, so that settles this issue for a while.
However, I'll keep an eye on RADAR.

Thanks to everybody who replied.

Predrag
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 4:01:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Predrag Trpkov" <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:D 27ag1$7es$1@ss405.t-com.hr...
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:D 27784$ta$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> Predrag Trpkov <predrag.trpkovNeSpamu@ri.htnet.hr> wrote:
>> >
>> >Since it'll be strictly for my own pleasure from now on, the only reason
> to
>> >buy RADAR would be its sonic advantages. Basically anything that would
> help
>> >me enjoy playing with my toys.
>>
>> No, no, you should definitely check Radar out. I think you will find it
> is
>> MUCH more fun to work with than a typical DAW or disk recorder, sound
> aside.
>> It does what you expect it to do, and it doesn't do weird things that you
>> didn't expect.
>
>
> I've just been informed of a death in the family, second case in the last
> two days. There'll be expenses, so that settles this issue for a while.
> However, I'll keep an eye on RADAR.
>
> Thanks to everybody who replied.
>
> Predrag
>

I'm very sorry to hear of your losses Predrag! My prayers and good thought
go out to you, your family and friends in this difficult time.

--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
March 28, 2005 12:17:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Scott" <squeegybug@netspace1.com> wrote in message
news:1111980947.913824.296500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm very sorry to hear of your losses Predrag. Unfortunately I just
> went through the same thing last week. It puts our recording concerns
> in perspective. Best wishes,
>
> Steve
>

Condolences to you also Scott. I wish much peace and strength for you and
your family.
--
John L Rice
Drummer@ImJohn.com
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 1:18:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Steve Scott" <squeegybug@netspace1.com> wrote in message
news:1111980947.913824.296500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm very sorry to hear of your losses Predrag. Unfortunately I just
> went through the same thing last week. It puts our recording concerns
> in perspective. Best wishes,
>
> Steve


Thanks guys. My condolences to you Scott. You're right, suddenly the world
looks different. Life's priorities just went through a major reshuffling.

Best,

Predrag
Anonymous
March 29, 2005 2:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Predrag Trpkov wrote:
> "Steve Scott" <squeegybug@netspace1.com> wrote in message
> news:1111980947.913824.296500@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I'm very sorry to hear of your losses Predrag. Unfortunately I just
>>went through the same thing last week. It puts our recording concerns
>>in perspective. Best wishes,
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>
> Thanks guys. My condolences to you Scott. You're right, suddenly the world
> looks different. Life's priorities just went through a major reshuffling.
>
> Best,
>
> Predrag
>
>
likewise Predrag
it's all laughable what we discuss here when it comes down to the
important stuff in life.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 6:45:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers Wrote:
> I know they talk about "instant" flattening, and at the AES show, Isaw
> Barry demonstrate it - it was very quick for the one track that he
> showed, but I didn't see it in action for 24 tracks of a 5-minute
> song. Is that zippy, too? Maybe it does this in the background with the
> current version of the track. But it still needs to keep track of edits
> and punches somehow, so it at least needs an edit list with pointers to
> places in that file and the original files so you can un-do.

Yep... that's what's happening... it's doing it in the background. You
can pull a drive from the RADAR, then open the session in any DAW as 24
ready to rock files... without putting all the edits / punches / etc.
into the right places... it's damn conveninent.


Scott Dorsey Wrote:
> And there _are_ much better converters than the RADAR units out there.
> There's nothing to prevent you from buying a set of Prism or Lavry
> units and hanging them off your Fostex. Other than money, of course.

I beg to differ... having Lavry converters in my world as well as the
RADAR converters I have found the RADAR converters to have better
'depth and dimension' to the audio... the Lavry, Crane Song, (modern)
Apogee converters are all very [VERY!!] good... but I still prefer the
converters in my RADAR unit... as always, YMMV


--
Fletcher
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 12:01:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I should also add that I did a comparison with the modified HD24XR with
a Radar 96 tracking drums. The Radar does sound very good, real creamy
mids, BUT, the HD24 has better top end details and much better low end
depth, it really did make the Radar sound thin. I'm also enjoying the
$11k I saved. I also tried the Tascam unit, but it sounded worse than
the 48k version HD24. I don't do the "M" word here.

One reporter's opinion.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:09:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

And you have the Nyquist converters, right?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Fletcher" <Fletcher.1mpo1n@audiobanter.com> wrote in message
news:Fletcher.1mpo1n@audiobanter.com...
>
> Mike Rivers Wrote:
> > I know they talk about "instant" flattening, and at the AES show, Isaw
> > Barry demonstrate it - it was very quick for the one track that he
> > showed, but I didn't see it in action for 24 tracks of a 5-minute
> > song. Is that zippy, too? Maybe it does this in the background with the
> > current version of the track. But it still needs to keep track of edits
> > and punches somehow, so it at least needs an edit list with pointers to
> > places in that file and the original files so you can un-do.
>
> Yep... that's what's happening... it's doing it in the background. You
> can pull a drive from the RADAR, then open the session in any DAW as 24
> ready to rock files... without putting all the edits / punches / etc.
> into the right places... it's damn conveninent.
>
>
> Scott Dorsey Wrote:
> > And there _are_ much better converters than the RADAR units out there.
> > There's nothing to prevent you from buying a set of Prism or Lavry
> > units and hanging them off your Fostex. Other than money, of course.
>
> I beg to differ... having Lavry converters in my world as well as the
> RADAR converters I have found the RADAR converters to have better
> 'depth and dimension' to the audio... the Lavry, Crane Song, (modern)
> Apogee converters are all very [VERY!!] good... but I still prefer the
> converters in my RADAR unit... as always, YMMV
>
>
> --
> Fletcher
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 8:31:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com writes:

>I should also add that I did a comparison with the modified HD24XR with
>a Radar 96 tracking drums. The Radar does sound very good, real creamy

Jim -

What's your price to mod the HD24XR? (I could do with just the first 12
i/o channels done, as most of what we do is in 96/24 mode.) If you have a
link or prefer to contact me directly, that's fine too.

Frank Stearns
franks@fsatools.com
--
.
Anonymous
April 2, 2005 3:24:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mike Rivers Wrote:
> In article 1uadnXMISsEeyNDfRVn-tw@rcn.net rnorman@starpower.net writes:
> -
> And you have the Nyquist converters, right?-
>
> If you're talking to Fletcher here, I would think he'd have them,
> probalby the top shelf S-Nyquist version.
>
> At one time iZ was considering offering those converters in a box for
> people who didn't use a RADAR recorder but wanted theirs to sound like
> one. When I asked about it at the AES show, Barry said that he decided
> not to do it (for reasons that made sense business-wise).

I had the "S-Nyquist" [192] converters in my first RADAR but after
doing some comparisons I felt that the "Nyquist" [96k] converters
sounded a good measure sweeter, so my current unit is indeed running
the "Nyquist" converter system.

On the "stand alone" converter thing... it's not really possible. All
of the controls for the converter boards are in other places on the
RADAR... so you'd need not only the converter boards but the
"Adreneline Plus" board, and the mother board and an outboard
controller to select your parameter choices... at that point you might
as well throw all those boards in a box, add a couple of drives and
call it a RADAR [in order to do the converters you'd be 80-90% of the
way there].

We did have one client that was considering getting a second unit with
no storage and no remote to use as an extra set of converters for
patching analog signal processing devices into his audio path [he was
mixing on a digital console and wasn't enamored with it's A/D-D/A
conversion capability].

jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com Wrote:
> I should also add that I did a comparison with the modified HD24XR with
> a Radar 96 tracking drums. The Radar does sound very good, real creamy
> mids, BUT, the HD24 has better top end details and much better low end
> depth, it really did make the Radar sound thin. I'm also enjoying the
> $11k I saved. I also tried the Tascam unit, but it sounded worse than
> the 48k version HD24. I don't do the "M" word here.
>
> One reporter's opinion.
>
> Jim Williams
> Audio Upgrades

Good thing you're not biased or anything...

I'd love to take that Pepsi challenge... how does that get arranged?

I'm not saying that Jim's mods didn't do what he says they did... I'm
just saying that I'd need to hear it to believe it


--
Fletcher
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 1:53:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Ah, thank you. I've only had a couple of experiences with the RADAR using
the Nyquist and it sounded great. I'd read that the S-Nyquist didn't quite
measure up to the truer sound that many have referred to with the 96 kHz
Nyquist, which is why I asked. I'm continually being bumped up in my
location recording requirements and the RADAR with the Nyquist is looking
better everytime I ask about it.

Thanks again, Fletcher. How's the bike shop going?

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
"Fletcher" <Fletcher.1muapn@audiobanter.com> wrote in message
news:Fletcher.1muapn@audiobanter.com...
>
> Mike Rivers Wrote:
> > In article 1uadnXMISsEeyNDfRVn-tw@rcn.net rnorman@starpower.net writes:
> > -
> > And you have the Nyquist converters, right?-
> >
> > If you're talking to Fletcher here, I would think he'd have them,
> > probalby the top shelf S-Nyquist version.
> >
> > At one time iZ was considering offering those converters in a box for
> > people who didn't use a RADAR recorder but wanted theirs to sound like
> > one. When I asked about it at the AES show, Barry said that he decided
> > not to do it (for reasons that made sense business-wise).
>
> I had the "S-Nyquist" [192] converters in my first RADAR but after
> doing some comparisons I felt that the "Nyquist" [96k] converters
> sounded a good measure sweeter, so my current unit is indeed running
> the "Nyquist" converter system.
>
> On the "stand alone" converter thing... it's not really possible. All
> of the controls for the converter boards are in other places on the
> RADAR... so you'd need not only the converter boards but the
> "Adreneline Plus" board, and the mother board and an outboard
> controller to select your parameter choices... at that point you might
> as well throw all those boards in a box, add a couple of drives and
> call it a RADAR [in order to do the converters you'd be 80-90% of the
> way there].
>
> We did have one client that was considering getting a second unit with
> no storage and no remote to use as an extra set of converters for
> patching analog signal processing devices into his audio path [he was
> mixing on a digital console and wasn't enamored with it's A/D-D/A
> conversion capability].
>
> jwilliams3@audioupgrades.com Wrote:
> > I should also add that I did a comparison with the modified HD24XR with
> > a Radar 96 tracking drums. The Radar does sound very good, real creamy
> > mids, BUT, the HD24 has better top end details and much better low end
> > depth, it really did make the Radar sound thin. I'm also enjoying the
> > $11k I saved. I also tried the Tascam unit, but it sounded worse than
> > the 48k version HD24. I don't do the "M" word here.
> >
> > One reporter's opinion.
> >
> > Jim Williams
> > Audio Upgrades
>
> Good thing you're not biased or anything...
>
> I'd love to take that Pepsi challenge... how does that get arranged?
>
> I'm not saying that Jim's mods didn't do what he says they did... I'm
> just saying that I'd need to hear it to believe it
>
>
> --
> Fletcher
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 7:06:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Fletcher wrote:
> Mike Rivers Wrote:
> > In article 1uadnXMISsEeyNDfRVn-tw@rcn.net rnorman@starpower.net
writes:
> > -
> > And you have the Nyquist converters, right?-
> >
> > If you're talking to Fletcher here, I would think he'd have them,
> > probalby the top shelf S-Nyquist version.
> >
> > At one time iZ was considering offering those converters in a box
for
> > people who didn't use a RADAR recorder but wanted theirs to sound
like
> > one. When I asked about it at the AES show, Barry said that he
decided
> > not to do it (for reasons that made sense business-wise).
>
> I had the "S-Nyquist" [192] converters in my first RADAR but after
> doing some comparisons I felt that the "Nyquist" [96k] converters
> sounded a good measure sweeter, so my current unit is indeed running
> the "Nyquist" converter system.
>
> On the "stand alone" converter thing... it's not really possible.
All
> of the controls for the converter boards are in other places on the
> RADAR... so you'd need not only the converter boards but the
> "Adreneline Plus" board, and the mother board and an outboard
> controller to select your parameter choices... at that point you
might
> as well throw all those boards in a box, add a couple of drives and
> call it a RADAR [in order to do the converters you'd be 80-90% of the
> way there].
>
> We did have one client that was considering getting a second unit
with
> no storage and no remote to use as an extra set of converters for
> patching analog signal processing devices into his audio path [he was
> mixing on a digital console and wasn't enamored with it's A/D-D/A
> conversion capability].
>

That's basically what I'm doing. I found a "digial Radar" for the price
of a new ADAT and then added the Nyquist converters. I hit tape,
playback into Radar in light pipe it to Protools, which is where all of
my clients want to end up. I haven't ever recorded something Radar
since I've owned it.

As far as what the OP was asking, I upgraded from a similar price level
converter/manufacturer and can tell you without comparing to tape, the
Radar converters sound much better. I'm not sure what features this
other gear has, but if you wnat to make great sounded recordings you
only need two- great technique and great gear. Radar meets those needs.
March 1, 2010 4:07:04 PM

Hi,

Came across your thread here a little late in the game.
Here is a link to some samples of live recordings that were done on a RADAR V Nyquist and an Alesis HD24. Premaps used were from a Midas H3000 console and signal was direct to the recorders. The samples have been compressed to MP3 format for quicker loading but you can get a good idea of the difference in quality.
http://www.tnfremoterecording.com/samples.htm

Todd Farhood
TNF Remote Recording
April 14, 2010 2:43:32 AM

RADARV said:
Hi,

Came across your thread here a little late in the game.
Here is a link to some samples of live recordings that were done on a RADAR V Nyquist and an Alesis HD24. Premaps used were from a Midas H3000 console and signal was direct to the recorders. The samples have been compressed to MP3 format for quicker loading but you can get a good idea of the difference in quality.
http://www.tnfremoterecording.com/samples.htm

Todd Farhood
TNF Remote Recording




I too have stumbled across this thread late in the game. I have listened to the samples, great for comparison.
I use an Alesis HD24, fed by an Allen & Heath GL2400-24 or a Soundcraft Spirit Studio. I try to stay analogue as far into the chain as possible. If a client wants I will track on tape and then replay thru one of the consoles to the HD24. I try to use the HD24 as a safe, reliable, affordable, and "analogue brain" friendly place to store and play back my analogue crafted recordings. Always fantastic results, I've never had a complaint about audio quality. I mix direct to an Alesis ML-9600 or to an Ampex F-4460 1/4" 2-track ( all tube ), then to the ML-9600. This setup helps me connect to the digital world. The HD-24 is the core of my system.
Thanks for your time and effort
Alex
The Other Guy Recording & Sound
April 14, 2010 2:46:48 PM

I have experience of the Otari RADAR, I recorded some music on it recently, for the first time since the mid 90's, it was a shocking experience, I didn't like it at all, I've got so used to working with a DAW that it really did seem like going back to the steam age. I really can't see any advantage of it personally. A lot of people say it's more reliable than using a computer, well that may be the case in some situations, but to me, it was slow to use, editing was a pain compared to my computer, and working with mono tracks was also really weird, having two files for a stereo track ! Moving things around was awkward, all in all, a real pain. I understand that a lot of location companies use them, in mobile trucks, in preference to a DAW, but honestly, I really can't see the point anymore these days.

PP.
April 22, 2010 4:20:58 AM

RADAR may qualify as vintage gear now?
April 16, 2013 10:22:13 PM

I convert my analog 2" master tapes to digital on an IZ RADAR. I've tried several competing brands. Radar comes out way ahead, IMHO.
!