I'll frame the question this way.

I had gotten some other comments back as well and you all have eased my concern. I was unsure about the mastering moniker tagged to the Vari Mu.

Also, i am wondering - you don't by any chance use it in conjunction with a Masterlink? That is what I will be mixing and mastering to. But I wonder a few things. For instance - if you mix to the Masterlink's hard drive - can you then come out of the masterlink and into the Vari Mu - and then come back into the Masterlink for burning the master onto the Masterlink's CD burner?

If that routing is not possible then how do you do mastering with the Masterlink - using dedicated mastering compressor and EQ?

Thanks again,

Woods

Originally posted by Woods Palmer:
I'll frame the question this way.

I had gotten some other comments back as well and you all have eased my concern. I was unsure about the mastering moniker tagged to the Vari Mu.

Also, i am wondering - you don't by any chance use it in conjunction with a Masterlink? That is what I will be mixing and mastering to. But I wonder a few things. For instance - if you mix to the Masterlink's hard drive - can you then come out of the masterlink and into the Vari Mu - and then come back into the Masterlink for burning the master onto the Masterlink's CD burner?

If that routing is not possible then how do you do mastering with the Masterlink - using dedicated mastering compressor and EQ?

Thanks again,

Woods

The hard drive is the only device in Masterlink that you can record to. It is not configured to record to the CD-R drive.

What happens is that you can record on the hard drive (s), edit, apply DSP, copy, etc., then you transfer to the CD-R.

I own a Masterlink. I have talked to many people about the Masterlink, and they confirm my experiences. There are too many issues for it to be used as a serious mastering machine. It collapses the stereo image, there are pops and clicks in the audio path when buttons are pushed. The sound is not at all high-end to my ear.

I don't master to mine anymore. I use mine for forensic audio work, and maybe a live, low-end 2-track recording.

Really!

What do you master to now, if you do mastering now?

Have you ever determined at what stage in the Masterlink that the stereo image is collapsed?
The hard drive or the CDR? (I guess that would be difficult to determine considering that the only way to get anything out of the Masterlink is to burn a CD.) Maybe I should reconsider my purchase plans.

What would be a good machine to mix and master to? Or would you need two machines - One to mix to. Then playback from the one you mixed to and go through Vari Mu and EQ and then record to a second machine?

woods

Is there any other machine that allows the song shuffling and the fade functions that the Masterlink offers? (Besides a computer-based DAW system)

Originally posted by Woods Palmer:
Really!

What do you master to now, if you do mastering now?

Have you ever determined at what stage in the Masterlink that the stereo image is collapsed?
The hard drive or the CDR? (I guess that would be difficult to determine considering that the only way to get anything out of the Masterlink is to burn a CD.) Maybe I should reconsider my purchase plans.

What would be a good machine to mix and master to? Or would you need two machines - One to mix to. Then playback from the one you mixed to and go through Vari Mu and EQ and then record to a second machine?

woods

Is there any other machine that allows the song shuffling and the fade functions that the Masterlink offers? (Besides a computer-based DAW system)

Ampex 1/2" or 1/4" for analog. I bounce to disc from Pro Tools HD, and use various software to burn on my Mac's Superdrive (Pioneer)- mostly for low-ball stuff. I have a friend who has the big Sony toys and HDCD if I need them.

The collapse is on the digital input. I hate the converter's sound, so that did it for me. Alsesis knows about the problem.

Ohhh OK.....

So if a guy had the Cranesong HEDD on the way into the Masterlink he could maintain the stereo separation?

And also, as I will not be using a computer, DAW, or Protools, etc. -- would the following scenario cut it? And have you ever heard of this signal chain in any hi end pro mastering suites - or any other for that matter?

1. Mix down to Masterlink (do song shuffle and fades, etc.
2. Burn CD in Masterlink.
3. Play CD in Masterlink.
4. Come out of Masterlink
5. Into Vari Mu and Massive Passive
6. Record mastered material onto separate CD burner.

1. You can play off of the hard drive, so you do not need to burn a disc. Plus doing it this way eliminates another stage of error correction and conversion.

2. The DSP in Masterlink blows chud. Most of the people that I know, that are power users, do not do anything with the internal DSP.

3. Shuffling and stuff is ok. You better make safety copies on CD-R, incase you need to restore a playlist.

When you say "you can play off the Masterlink's hard drive what do you mean?

Does that mean you can mix to the Masterlink's hard drive and then record to an external CD recorder?

Also, what about your comments about the Masterlink's converters being the culprit of the collapsing of the stereo image?

YOu said that it was because of the digital converters on the way in to the Masterlink.

What if you went throught the HEDD on your way into the Masterlink -- would that eliminate the problem with the collapsing of the stereo image?

When you record to the masterlink, it must go to the hard drive. You can play "playlists" from the drive, like you would play "tracks" from the CD-R drive.

Yes, you could output digital and analog signal to another machine, or you could burn a CD24 format disc, and open it up in a Mac.

The collapse happens using the digital inputs. So, you would be screwed as well. I know that the converters inside are crap, that is why I never used the analog inputs. I bought the machine, not knowing that I could not use an outboard A/D converter, without it jacking with the signal. It should be the analog inputs that get jacked with, since they are using such low grade converters.

You just need to experience one. Evidently they are tanking. They are below $750 street price.

Could you expand a little on your comments about not able to use outboard A/D converter, without it jacking with the signal. (What do you mean by JACKING?)

So does that mean that using a Cranesong HEDD on the way in would not help the collapsing image?

Woods

The collapse happens using the digital inputs. So, you would be screwed as well. I know that the converters inside are crap, that is why I never used the analog inputs. I bought the machine, not knowing that I could not use an outboard A/D converter, without it jacking with the signal. It should be the analog inputs that get jacked with, since they are using such low grade converters.

I think that you are confused about "digital" and "analog" input terminology.

An analog input on a digital device means that you can plug an analog source into it, and it will be converted to digital. The Masterlink's converters are not master quality. So this for me was not an option.

A Digital input on a digital device means that you can only plug in a source that is digital already. In this case you can plug in an AES/EBU or S/PDIF cable. It is coming in digitally that should be the purest way to go, but, to my ear (and other's) the stereo field collapses. It sounds as if there is a phase problem. I can't nail down the specifics. All that I know is that I don't use it any more.

Any input source, digital or analog, will be tainted if you stick it in this thing.

If you have the money to own or rent the Crane Song and the Manley, then you have the money to rent a great master recorder. The Masterlink would be the weak link in your chain.

I can take a CD, like Dream Theater's Six Degrees of Inner Turbulence, play it on a Tascam CD-R, and then play it on the Masterlink. The Masterlink will show overs, the Tascam will not.

With both machines connected via AES/EBU to my Pro Tools 192 I/O's, the Masterlink will send overs/clips to Pro Tools, the Tascam will not. Quite odd. There is no calibration for the digital level in the Utilities menu, nor should there be one. This should not happen.

We go directly from the VS 2480 to Manley DVC and then to the Masterlink.....the VS allows us a complete "master system" on-board but much prefer the Manley. We actually compress each individual channel within the Roland. At the Manley we generally apply a little roll-off of 40 hz and add the limiter slightly into the process. We watch the meters on the Masterlink and correct the overall gain/limiter with the Manley. But I would not introduce another CDR. Master directly to the Alesis. After we surgically add the above process,,,we then use the normalizer in the DSp of the Masterlink to bring the levels to their quality max. After burning a CD and listening in several enviroments (car, boom box,etc ) We determine whether to subtract or add EQ to the mix, by simply entering the recorded tune on the harddrive and accessing the DSP------amazingly simple and great quality..... And very affordable (quick)for our clients
CJoGo

crystal]http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/crystalrecording.htm]crystal studios[/URL]

well I've had just the opposite experience with my Masterlink.
If I burn a digital mix to my HHB CD recorder and burn the same mix to the Masterlink and play them back digitally on my Sony console the Masterlink mix is much more open and wider than the mix I burned on my CD recorder. This is especially true if I burn a CD 24. I never use the DSP in Masterlink unless I'm just experimenting.
Have your thoughts been tested in anyway or is this just a perception? Lowbrent who are the many people you have confirmed this with? I'm not trying to start a confrotation just don't have the same experience here.
In fact when I just play a CD through my console (DMX R-100) my CD player of choice is the Masterlink. When I take a project to mastering I take it in CD 24 format then they can either go all dig or analog. I've never used the analog inputs so I don't know about that, but what could happen technically that would cause a stereo image to collaspe if it is all digital?
Maybe I'm missing somthing here.

Grammy award winning engineers and studio owners in LA, Mastering engineers in Nashville, and a couple of former Alesis people themselves.

Also Omega, just because it is "digital" coming in doesn't mean squat. So it is 24-bit/96kHz on the AES/EBU input. It still needs to be dithered. It still goes through their DSP. It is converted to a Redbook format. There is a ton of things that can go wrong.

So maybe I'm badly mistaken and I do prefer to master to analog.
Almost every major mastering room I know has one or more Masterlinks.
Now this doesn't mean they are any good it just means they use them.
Can I ask a question?
If I send a 24/96 dig signal to the Masterlink and record a 24/96 CD24 does it get dithered somewhere in the unit?
I'm being serious because I don't know how this thing really works.
I agree that listening back to a 16/44.1 Redbook burned on the Mastelink sounds nothing like listening to the 24/96 CD24.
I listened to a Dat mix and a CD24 mix at a major mastering facility in N'Ville and there was no comparision. The CD24 won hands down.
Of course DAT that's a whole different story.

By the way when I die would you like to have it?

Somebody said: "My personal experience was that there was a most definite collapse of the stereo field (though subtle) but not from the HD but after I rendered and burned a CD, as well as the reverb tails getting chopped off. Even when played back from the Masterlink itself."

After what you are saying about the difference in quality between the 24/96 and the redbook version and the detected collapse of the stereo field on - I wonder what is causing it?

If it is the 16 bit CD do you suppose that it may have something to do with the dithering down to 16 bit? If so How might this be avoided?

Is it possible that could a person come out of the MAsterlink before the CD burner via digital and go into the HEDD for better dithering and then burn to a higher quality external CD burner?

I really don't know!
I still haven't experienced the collapsing lowbrent mention even in the Redbook format.
But understand I'm 53 and been standing in front of loud amps all my life, I've also been sitting behind mixing console's since 1967.
I just fired off an email to several nationally recognized mastering labs to see if any of them can confirm this anomaly.

Omega,

You did say this: "I agree that listening back to a 16/44.1 Redbook burned on the Mastelink sounds nothing like listening to the 24/96 CD24."

Would you mind trying to describe the difference between the two listening experiences?

Ciao,
woos

Only my perception not fact.
The CD24 at 96k seems to have an extended top end that even I can hear and that's saying a lot.
Also there seems to be more room in the mix, which could be what lowbrent is talking about.
I guess this could be perceived as collapsing if the mix sounds less roomy. I’m not sure how I could prove it. CD’s sound terrible to begin with.

Here's a link that actually suggest mastering on the Masterlink.
Written by John Vestman
http://www.johnvestman.com/digital_myth.htm

Here's what Mike Frondelli, Creative Director at Capitol Studios had to say:

Frondelli relates, "We're finding MasterLink is the most user-friendly way to get projects done. In fact, they have pretty much replaced 80 percent of the DATs at Capitol. Sure we still do DAT to DAT backups, but that is about all we use them for now. It seems like we drop everything into MasterLink.

Many artists are now bringing MasterLink in to Capitol to master directly from the unit's hard drive ."

That sounds like you can come out of the Masterlink inbetween the Hard Drive and the burner. If so, if you went into something like the HEDD - wouldn't that be higher quality dithering down to a 16bit external CD burner??

Ciao,
Woods

Maybe, I really don't know cause I don't burn master CD's from it I let the mastering lab do the HDCD thing.
Tonight I had to complile some CD tracks for a performance at a church which will be videoed also.
I recorded the sound tracks in to Masterlink made adjustments to get all the CD tracks the right volume. Then EQ'ed them to sound like they came from the same recording (sorta) then laid them back to a DA88. Tomorrow night I'll play the DA88 thru thier system and record the vocals thru a STT Origin direct to the 88. Go back to the studio mix and fix then burn a CD. They will load it into Sound Forge and match the original sound track on the video. Presto! Off location recording in the studio. Maybe no one will notice the flaws in the unit.
Sure saved me A LOT OF TIME.

Here are a few comments on dithering by Bob Katz in response to an email I sent to him about the subject.

Thanks to all, so far.

Ciao,

Woods

Hello, Woods.

You are welcome to take this letter and post it to the board. Let me
know if there are any reactions.

At the end of the thread, you asked...

1. I wonder if anybody knows for sure if it's the dithering process
that compromises the quality of the Masterlink's redbook CD product?

2. Can dithering quality vary in different converter devices? For
instsnce, does anybody know where the HEDD's dithering performance
stands compared to the MAsterlink's?

3. If it's true that eventually dithering down to 16 bits has to
occur to create redbooks then what do the big mastering houses use?

4. If (if) a person were to use a HEDD between the Masterlink's hard
drive and an external stand alone CD burner --- which device would
take care of the dithering duties - the HEDD or the external CD
burner?

Ciao,

Woods

I think I can answer those questions:

1) The Masterlink does not dither, all it has is noiseshaping. Its
DSP in general is low resolution; it does not have enough DSP power
to do justice to sound quality. In other words, it takes short cuts
because it only has a certain number of cycles available to process.
Most professional mastering engineers use the Masterlink as a
"carrying medium" only, not for processing. On occasion, some
mastering engineers and especially mixing engineers may use the DSP
in the masterlink to make a quick rough for a client. It's very good
for that. In fact, that's the only occasion I would consider using
the Masterlink's processing.

What's the sonic difference between processing everything in a
Masterlink and a chain of high resolution gear if both are operated
by the same experienced master engineer using excellent monitoring?
I'd guess the difference will be between a B and an A+. So the best
grade you can get out of processing in a Masterlink is a B,
characterised largely by collapsed stereo image and a bit of grunge.
The less DSP you use, the better it sounds, so if all you did was a
tetch of EQ in the Masterlink, your sonic grade will be better; there
will be less degradation.

However, if the Masterlink is used strictly as a storage medium it
works just fine. Anyone who hears sonic differences when the
Masterlink's DSP is ***not*** used probably will discover they're
listening through a D/A converter which is susceptible to jitter---as
jitter-susceptible converters do distort the stereo image. In other
words, don't confuse the messenger (the clock) with the message (the
data). The data remains the same, and I have tested the Masterlink in
"neutral" mode and it is quite accurate that way. Its converters are
not bad, either; they pack an amazing amount into that product at the
price; I never use them, but I have tested them and listened to them.

2) Different manufacturers use different types of dither, not just
converter manufacturers, but good processors employ dithering, even
if it's hidden from the operator. This dithering may be at 24 bits,
48 bits, and not appear on a menu. The sonic differences are largely
noticed with the choices of 16-bit dither. I don't know many
mastering engineers who claim to hear differences between
noise-shaping techniques when dithering is done on the 24-bit level.

Unlike the Masterlink (which I repeat, does not dither at all, just
noise shapes) the HEDD's dither at 16 bit is accurate and it works,
but personally I am not a fan of the HEDD's dither. Brad likes it.
This is where gentlemen can agree to disagree. I may state many
specific reasons why I am not a fan of the HEDD's dither, I can even
give you supportive measurements; but ultimately it boils down to
taste. I like Brad's work, and I think he likes mine, so even though
we use different means---the end results are what counts! It also
depends on what kind of processing and sources you use; it's all part
of a large recipe. For example, if you use a lot of analog gear, you
may prefer a different type of dither than if you use a lot of
digital gear. When my 24-bit masters sound real good, I prefer to use
a powerful noise-shaped dither to get the ultimate depth and
resolution of the source. But when the sources are a bit grungy, I
may choose a different dither, or a different sort of processing,
both of which are means to the same end: a good-sounding product. I
cover the pros and cons of using noise shaped versus flat or slightly
shaped dither in my book.

3) The "big" mastering houses use all kinds of approaches (my "house"
is not a "big" house---we're more like a boutique that caters to
independents and some majors, and I think Brad may fall into that
category). Anyway, the pros seem to be divided between a "radical
approach", which is that POW-R type 3 is the best and most neutral
dither (about 35 to 40% of mastering engineers agree). Others feel
that simple flat dither works best for them. Personally I'm a fan of
POW-R type 3 and I use it for 95% of my projects; in chapter 16 of my
book I act as a devil's advocate describing the different
philosophical approaches we may use to process, including choice of
dither.

4) Dithering to 16 bits should be the last process prior to
truncation to 16 bits. The CD burner is a truncator... anything that
comes in will always come out at 16, so the last box in line
***prior*** to the burner should take any long wordlength sources and
reduce them to 16 bits. The HEDD has that option and will work fine
in that way. Any arguments as to the efficacy of that dither will be
matters of taste, and now I'm repeating what I said in #3 above.

Does this help? If so, you're welcome to quote me, including the top
of my letter, on the forum! Hope it does,

Bob
--
Bob Katz 407-831-0233 DIGITAL DOMAIN

Great post from Bob Katz.
I think the method of just taking your Masterlink
to the mastering lab is the real solution if you are going to mix to Masterlink.
Bob still didn't mention one point...if you mix down to 44.1,48,96 then burn a CD24 is there any difference in the sound or stereo field.
If you mix at 24/44.1 then burn a CD24 for the mastering lab does this in anyway change the sound?
Should be no DSP or noise shaping.
As I posted in an earlier post I never use any DSP unless I'm just screwing around. If a client wants a CD copy to take home I'll use the gain function to level out the different levels between songs.
Maybe Bob will comment on the CD24 function.

I don't know if this is an appropriate post in this thread or not, but I never did understand throwing down a grand or more for a Masterlink instead of buying Wavelab and just doing it on your computer. We are currently mixing out of Protools (24/48) via Lucid DA9624 to analog 1/4" halftrack or DAT. Back into PT via Lucid AD9624 into a 16/44.1 session for mastering (if done in house), Then into Wavelab to burn to CD. Do you see any problems with this method? We are never doing SRC or dithering down.

I don't know I've never tried it.
When I bought the Masterlink I had no DAW.
Now I use Nuendo and not for a very long time so I'm still exploring.

For those that do use the MAsterlink primarily as a storage device:

If I understand it correcly so far, apparently the consensus seems to be that the DSP in the unit is probably the aspect that compromises the sonics. It can't be dithering as apparently the Masterlink does not dither (I think that's what was said).

But, what about the the features that allow song shuffling and fades. Do these processes degrade the signal at all?

Do any of you that use the Masterlink as a storage device use those features at all?

Ciao,
woods

I spoke with another couple of Mastering houses and they are using Masterlink and doing a lot of work on them HOWERVER, they said please don't touch the DSP!
Looks like thats where the problem is.
They are Mastering from CD24's though. So that part seems to be ok.
I think an earlier post said it right.
Use it for storage and then take it to the lab with you and let them plug it into thier existing rig if they are using Masterlink.

Does anybody know if the Masterlink's song fade function and song shuffle function have the same negative impact as the DSP features? Or, are those functions considered to be part of the DSP of the MAsterlink?

Cool!!!!Mr. Bob Katz!!! Great Book!

I am also a big fan of Power Dither Level 3.
It is also good to know that are pro guys here that also use PT MIx and PT HD.
:p

Woods, fades, normalizing, compression, limiting are all DSP functions. Shuffling songs is not a DSP function, as it is a matter of addressing data. When you do any of the other functions, it is destructive to the audio. In other words you need to make a back up copy of your music, and should you decide not to keep the changes, you can insert the back up CD-R and "Restore Playlist" to ist's original state.

Ok, so fading requires DSP. But surely a fade at the end of a song would not affect the sound on the rest of the song?

Or does the DSP during the fade process require as much horsepower as, say, the DSP compression process.

Novice logic would seem to see it this way: The compression DSP is applied over the entire length of the song - so it's reasonable that that would be a total degradation over entire song. But, from this, shouldn't one think that the fade DSP only affects the faded portion of the song?

Or, is it a case where once DSP is applied, no matter where, what , when, or how -- it affects everything?

If this is the case - that's a shame.

Has anybody observed the negative impact of the fade process? Is it as noticebale as the DSP of compression or EQ on the sound?

I really wanted to use the MAsterlink as a storage, shuffle, and fade device. Then outboard dither and burn to external CD burner.

Any, outboard alternatives, for the fade process?

Ciao,
Woods

I'm sorry, but Bob Katz is wrong. The Masterlink does dither. How else can one get data from 24-bit/96kHz down to 16-bit/44.1kHz, unless it is dithered?

Nobody caught this?

Alesis has a FAQ and manual posted on their site. Go there and get your answers, from the people who built it.

Woods,
What is wrong with doing a fade the old fashioned way? You are using an analog mixer so that you can use the analog outboard ala’ “old school”, so just grab the fader and do a fade.. Forget all that auto fade crap! Geeze! It's just one move! How lazy can you get? Kurt

....

Read Alesis guide to the ML9600 on their website, or pop open the manual. They do use dithering in bit reduction. This is part of their rendering process. The only time that an image is not rendered is when there is no DSP or bit rate/sampling rate changes.

Quote from Alesis FAQ's:
"Does the ML9600 do sample rate and word length conversion?

Yes. If you burn a Red Book CD from a playlist containing tracks burned at sample rates other than 44.1 kHz or word lengths higher than 16-bit, it will automatically convert them using a proprietary high-quality dithered process that results in tracks that sound almost identical to the high-resolution originals."

I own a masterlink. I use a masterlink. I have read the manual for a masterlink, and Bob Katz is wrong.

Originally posted by Woods Palmer:
Does anybody know if the Masterlink's song fade function and song shuffle function have the same negative impact as the DSP features? Or, are those functions considered to be part of the DSP of the MAsterlink?

I've used the fade on my ML on several occassions and have not noticed any sonic degradation. The fade function is not located in the DSP menu so I'm not sure why it would be considered part of the unit's overall DSP function. It's simply a reduction of volume at a given point in the song. That time is a variable that can be set by the user. It's basically the electronic equivalent of a fader being manually dropped. Far as I can tell, there's no "traditional" signal processing happening at this point - compression, normalizing, EQ, etc.

I could certainly be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but including the ML's fade function under the rubric of DSP seems an overly broad definition of that term.

Originally posted by Skeetch:

I could certainly be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but including the ML's fade function under the rubric of DSP seems an overly broad definition of that term. [/QB]

I realize it's bad form to reply to oneself, but . . .

I've just now had a look at the Masterlink manual and, while fades are not in the ML's DSP menu, the track fade function is indeed listed in the overall DSP Block signal flow - it comes after the limiter and before the normalizer. Odd but, nevertheless, it's there.

Still, my ears have never detected any kind of sonic degradation during a fade. Although I can usually pull off a fairly convincing fade most of the time, I find the ML's fades are just a little smoother. I generally don't use the unit's other DSP offerings but often find the fades and track shuffling fairly useful.

IMO, it still seems an overly broad use of the term DSP to include something as simple as a fade, but that appears to be how the ML implements the function.

Thanks to all sofar. I am nothing if not persistant and thorough. Maybe somthing else to others I know. But so far all the responses
- regardless of what may be behind them - are a good thing. Much appreciated.

I guess you must have to program in all your fades ahead of time?

Ciao,
Woods