My Prism dream came true...but m`y go'i instead of rice for awhile

I was never a fan of Apogee or Digidesign converter. There are...boring! You just almost could never guess what's going to happen to your beloved analog sources once "inject" into them. The one I trust and many of the master engineers love to rely on are the Prism stuffs. Very expensive...but now check this out, the Orpheus is here. Firewire converter and multi out, can you beat that? Price is not announce yet but words on the street is that it will be accessible.
Well read for yourself drool.
rpheus is a FireWire interface for personal recording and sound production, for professional musicians, songwriters, engineers and producers. Orpheus is ideal for music and sound recording, production & monitoring, stem-based mastering and analogue summing.

Orpheus provides Prism Sound's renowned performance and sound quality in a dedicated FireWire unit compatible with Windows XP & Vista and MAC OS X 10.4x (Intel & PPC).

Orpheus has line, microphone and instrument inputs, good foldback and stereo or surround monitoring capabilities, ADAT and SPDIF digital I/O plus support for external MIDI devices. Microphone inputs include MS matrix processing and high-performance digital sampling-rate conversion (SRC) is available for digital inputs or outputs.

Orpheus signal path
Eight analogue input channels and up to 10 digital input channels are available (SPDIF on RCA/coax plus ADAT optical) as DAW inputs through the host's audio driver. Similarly, eight analogue output channels, up to 10 digital output channels and stereo headphone outputs can play 22 different channels. For low-latency foldback or monitoring to headphones or main outputs, each output pair (1-2, 3-4 etc) can be driven with an individual local mix of any selection of inputs through the controller applet. All inputs are electronically balanced with automatic unbalanced operation. Outputs are electronically balanced with 'bootstrapping', i.e. level is maintained if one leg is grounded.


No-compromise, full Prism Sound audio quality
Dedicated FireWire interface
ASIO and WDM drivers provided for Windows XP and VISTA
Directly compatible with CORE AUDIO on Mac OS X 10.4+ (Intel & PPC)
Eight "Prism Sound" AD and DA channels, plus SPDIF, ADAT & headphones
Four high-end integrated mic preamps (typ.-130dBu EIN), switchable phantom
MS Matrix processing on mic inputs
Two instrument inputs
Prism Sound "Overkillers" on every channel to control transient overloads
Fully-floating (isolated) balanced architecture for optimum noise rejection
Mono or stereo input configurations
Outputs arranged as stereo pairs, each with individual mixer
Low-latency "console-quality" 8-bus digital mixer for foldback monitoring
Fader, pan, cut, solo on every mixer channel
Dual headphone outputs each with its own front-panel volume control
Front-panel master volume control, assignable to selected channels
Configurable for stereo, 5.1 or 7.1 or surround monitoring
Built-in sample rate conversion (SRC) on DIO channels
Prism Sound 4-curve SNS noise shaping on digital outputs
State-of-the-art clock generation with proprietary hybrid 2-stage DPLL
MIDI in/out ports


Luke Ehret

---

Why Tool's music sound so so good and yours not...listen to what they have to say.

check the interview and listen to how Tool approach their music, arrangement, and rehearsal...and it has nothing to do with being a star.
Tool let their music does the talking, not the newspaper, and talk it does...very well!

I hate Limiter...but not this one!

Chandler Limited Zener Limiter...damm you!

The main reason for Zener Limiter reissue was to add features and flexibility to the powerful and vintage sounding TG limiter circuits. To that end, Wade has added many new controls including switch able input impedance for hard of soft driving of the unit, 11 position attack, 21 position release, side chain filtering, and Comp1, Comp2, and Limit settings.

chandler zener limiter features

The EMI TG12413 Zener Limiter is the ultimate TG Limiter issued in celebration of the 75th birthday of Abbey Road Studios. The Zener Limiter was conceived by Chandler Limited designer Wade Goeke and is based on the vintage EMI circuits used to record The Beatles and Pink Floyd.

This newest EMI Limiter continues the tradition of EMI Limiters started in 1956 with the RS114 tube limiter, and continued with the RS168 Zener Limiter in 1966, part of the TG12345 console channel in 1968 and TG12413 in 1974. The newest version borrows from the RS168 Zener Limiter and TG12345 console strip to make a new fully featured and flexible unit for modern use. It is interesting to note that the TG Limiter was originally designed to replace both the Fairchild 660 (Limit Mode) and the Altec 436/RS124 (Comp 1 Mode).

• 21 position input switch with audio taper
• 21 position output switch in 1dB steps, ±10dB of level control
• Input Impedance: 300/1200 switchable
• Side chain filter
• Hard wire bypass
• Stereo Link
• THD Function bypasses the limiter and drives the circuit to 2% THD and higher
• Attack Controls
  Limit: -5, 8, 12, 18, 25, 37, 50, 62, 75, 87, 100ms.
  Comp. 1: -5, 8, 12, 18, 25, 37, 50, 62, 75, 87, 100ms.
  Comp. 2: 28, 47, 68, 100, 125, 210, 285, 350, 425, 495, 570
• Release Controls
  Limit: 10, 25, 50, 65, 100, 125, 150, 200, 250, 300, 250, 400, 450, 500, 625, 750ms and 1, 1.25, 1.5 and 2 seconds
  Comp. 1: 10, 25, 50, 65, 100, 125, 150, 200, 250, 300, 250, 400, 450, 500, 625, 750ms and 1, 1.25, 1.5 and 2 seconds
  Comp. 2: 50, 125, 250, 375, 425, 545, 700, 850ms and 1, 1.2, 1.6, 2, 2.25, 2.5, 2.8, 3.5, 4.25, 5, 7.1, 8.5 and 10 seconds

COOKING CRYSTAL...no no not that one, digital clock crystal!

This is so freak'n crazy. I found this video from DAS on youtube.com and this dude is saying to keep the clock stable you need to...cook it!
Yeah, no kidding. This company claimed that their digital clock are much more stable than others by building an oven inside the unit, then "cook" the crystal to keep it at certain temperature so it is better as a clocking unit for your digital system.

You decide for yourself. By the way, if any of you bought a Apogee Big Ben to clock your Protool system, you are an idiot...email me, I tell you why.



Tran Duy

Small Room-Low Freq Control

Cool article on Modal mode in your small project studio.

It is no surprise that industry figures show that there might be over 100,000 "home / project" studios in existence today. This number will grow. In the last 10 years, an audio revolution has occurred, which allows "home studios" to rival the sounds of pro level studios. "Desk-top" audio, as I call it, is possible due to several factors:

1. reduced equipment prices;
2. integration with the ever more powerful home computer;
3. the digital revolution in general; and
4. an associated social change in the methodology of producing and distributing music.

While these technical changes have affected the way music is recorded, they have not affected the way music is played back (listened to). Songwriters, musicians and producers still listen to music in indoor environments and depend on some order of true acoustic response from a monitoring system in order to discern content and production values.

There are many acoustic and architectural issues that we will discuss in this column during the next year. Where do we begin? This is the challenge that TAXI has presented to me. The most common question I am asked is usually something like, "How big (or what size) should my room be?" During 34 years of designing studios, I have been asked this question thousands of times. It's a little bit like asking how big should a car be. (Of course the next question is how much will all this cost, which is a little bit like asking "How much does a car cost?" We'll get to that later!). This size question is the hardest. But a good answer will make the rest of the studio design and building process (or remodeling process) easier.

Most "home / project" studios are small. They often have less equipment than many larger commercial studios, plus the client accommodation factor is typically less or non-existent (you don't have to have a fancy lobby!). Small room design is not a black art, although certain acoustic issues are in fact more complicated in smaller rooms than larger ones.

Most studio acoustic issues can be reduced to two large areas of concern:

1. Sound isolation (prevention of sound transfer from one space to another)
2. Internal room acoustics (what happens to sound in a playback or recording environment)

It is the second issue we are concerned with today. (Regarding issue #1: A great number of "home / project" studios do not have serious isolation issues or elect to not deal with them for financial reasons).

Since music has a wide frequency range (as opposed to speech, for instance) and since the level of accuracy of affordable mid-size speakers has become amazing in the past few years, even our small room acoustically gets complicated very quickly. Rooms behave differently at different frequencies.

Simply presented, at mid and high frequencies (those for the most part above 300hz) individual reflection patterns will cause sound to be perceived cleanly or not at the listening position. At these frequencies, sound can be "viewed" a bit like rays of light. At lower frequencies, however, reflection control becomes less and less relevant (since wave lengths become larger) and what counts more is the ratio of raw room dimensions and the position of speakers and listener. Sound at these frequencies behaves more like waves. The overall dimensions of the room will effect the natural distribution of eigentones (fancy term for "standing waves").

A common misunderstanding is that standing waves are bad. This is ridiculous. That's like saying that wheels on a car are bad. Four different size wheels on a car are bad! Standing waves always exist in a closed environment. What we strive for is as even a spacing of these frequencies as possible. Think of these standing wave frequencies as the ability of the room to "ring out" or reinforce tones naturally. And so one can imagine that if the proportions of a room are chosen correctly, then there will be a more natural spacing of the tones and the room will tend to reinforce lower frequency tones more evenly. This is a good thing. The opposite, of course, would be harmful and tend to cause uneven response at the listening position. Not a good thing for audio playback.

So, the first step in room acoustic design (after making sure that all equipment, furniture, etc. fits) is to try to choose a room shape that has as good a chance of even low frequency eigentones spacing (organization) as possible. That is what we will discuss in the remainder of this article. (We'll look at high frequency reflection control in the next article).

By way of example, I recount this story. A former student called me up a couple of years ago and ask,

" . . . I have a 20 ft. by 20 -ft. basement room that I want to use as a control room for my home studio; what should I do to make it sound good?"

That's a big question. Half of me wanted to hang up, but half of me accepted the challenge of trying to give him a one-minute answer. After a minute of thinking, I answered,

"Build a closet."

He probably thought I was joking, but I still believe this answer was a good one. The square room (20 ft. by 20 ft.) is almost the worst shape you could have (only thing worse would be a 20 ft. cube). The width and length being the same dimensions would cause the lower frequency eigentones (standing wave frequencies) to be identical, thus causing harsh frequency anomalies -- pile up of energy -- as well as voids at other frequencies. These frequencies are not that hard to calculate, doing some very easy math. (My promise to TAXI was no math in this column, which is hard, since the language of acoustics is physics and one of the languages of physics is math!) By building a closet, the future TAXI driver would have possibly created a room that was 20 ft. wide and (more or less) 15.5 ft. deep -- much better room ratio. He also gets a closet for storage and possibly a good location for noisy equipment and other devices. Notice that I suggested in his new room that 20 ft. was the WIDTH of the room. By having the side walls further away from the listening position we help mid / high frequency reflection control (see article illustration 1). Again, we will discuss high frequency reflection control in next month's article. Choosing room ratios can also be easily analyzed by using a very well known industry "pictogram" of accepted room ratios (see article illustration 2).

Illustration 1
Before and after low frequency modal distributions for a 20' x 20' room and a revised design.

Note the improved room acoustics due to better modal distribution.

Ill. 1a - shows 20' x 20' room in plan

Ill.1b - shows newly created 16.5' x 20' room in plan

Illustration 2
Acceptable room ratio "pictogram" with basic user steps:
a. divide all room dimensions by the height (this will then set the height as 1)
b. plot width and length on horizontal and vertical scales
c. determine acceptability by noting whether plot is in or out of "the zone"

Ill. 2a - shows 12' x 24' x 36' room - poor low frequency room mode acceptability


Ill.2b - shows 21.5' x 15' x 9.5' room - good low frequency room mode acceptability

Reminder: the easiest way to begin to have good low frequency response in your room is start off with good room ratios. There are other acoustic "treatments" that can be added to the room if needed, particularly if circumstances do not allow good room ratios. We will look at them later.

Have fun!

PS. aaah...some of you will wonder what the hell is room modal and how to calculate your own space to what is the best room mode. That is what coming next....so come back!

SoundPure LLC is on the team!

After a long working relation, Bflatmultimedia inc. would like to welcome Soundpure LLC onto the team in VN as part of Bflatmultimedia pro audio and equipment consultant services which had been the strongest part of our company.
Duy is now officially working for Soundpure LLC and coordinate with Doug Wesling and Todd in the US for sound contract in VN.

here are some of our latest and hot items...


Toft new analog mixer which can be config in 16, 24, and 32 channels. Great EQ and line input, and fatten your cold DAW.


DWFEARN channel strip...must we say more!



For a more of our consultancy on Pro Audio gears, check the listing http://www.soundpure.com/showManufacturers.do

Tran Duy

Thinking building your own studio lately?

While in VN the most interest bunch of folks I met were the Vietnamese architects. Most of these guys came out of school all had knowledges about sound and the reaction of building materials associated with their design works. I often get asked by them of the applications and how it may applied in the real world situations.
It is an interesting topics to get into for me, I also do want to learn a thing or two regarding architect designs and how it may help me in studio design situations.

Ok, I will start to submit things I found to be associate with sound and architect designs for studio or home studio in the future.

so far here is the start....

With most architect text I found in VN, all mentioned STC as way to determine material transmission value of building material...it is cool but wait, it's 2007 now, so let's clear this issues up.

The STC - or Sound Transmission Class - is a recognized standard and is, by far, the common sound isolation standard in use in North America today. Virtually every commentary that one reads focuses on STC, yet STC is not without significant limitations, and for a great many applications it is not a good measure of sound isolation at all. Before we talk about the limitations of STC as a rating, let’s take a look at what STC is.

What is STC?

Is STC a measure of how many decibels of sound a wall can stop? - No, it is not.

Is STC a ranking of how good a wall is? - No, for most applications it is not.

So what the heck is it? - It is a very old (1961) method for ranking walls over the frequency range of 125 - 4000 Hz, assuming that the noise the wall is trying to stop is generally even across the frequency spectrum.

The problems with the STC system

The three basic limitations of STC are apparent from the description of the system above.

1. It only considers frequencies down to 125 Hz.
The first, and most severe, problem with the STC system is that it only considers frequencies down to 125 Hz. What noise exists below 125 Hz?

• Most of the sonic energy generated by the average home theater
• A large percentage of the sonic energy generated by traffic, your neighbors in VN, and music
• Much of machinery noise

If you have sound isolation problems, there is a very good chance that it is low frequency noise you are having trouble with, so one could say that the STC calculation completely ignores the frequencies that are most problematic. That’s not good.

2. It assumes even energy dispersion. It is accurate within its frequency range only for noise sources that have approximately even energy levels across the frequency band. Most noise sources do not meet this criterion and some (like the average home theater) are worlds away from this criterion.

3. Its calculation system is archaic. STC dates back to 1961; a time before computers made complex calculations easy, and the method of determining STC reflects this. In today’s world more complex, vastly superior calculations can easily be done. OK, that’s great, but do any real problems actually occur?

So why is the STC system used at all?

Well, there are some very good reasons why the STC system is in use.

• It’s been around for so long that essentially every law, regulation, and piece of legislation relating to sound control is based on it. Old habits are hard to break.
• As frequency falls, the ability of the different labs to get consistent results also falters. +/- 3 STC points from lab to lab is typical, but if the STC system were extended down to, say, 40 Hz, this might increase to +/- 10 STC points or more, making the results basically meaningless.
• Its easier for companies marketing commercial products to attain a huge STC increase than it is to attain a huge increase across the full frequency range. This leads to a lot of focus on STC, and less discussion of critical things like low frequency performance.

Are there better rating systems?

Yes, the best standardized rating system in North America is called OITC, and is typically used for exterior wall elements. OITC features a modern calculation system and considers frequencies down to 80 Hz.

In Europe at times full-range standards are applied. An assessment of existing standards is given in the appendices of this document.

until next time....

Tran Duy