VO-BB - 19 YEARS OLD!

Frank F · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:40 am Post subject:

Brian,

You are actually in the right place. Right here.

Starting with the POTS codec which will SOON be available: Yes it may take some time for it to be "accepted" by the entire spectrum of our industry, there are POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) codec's available today which are somewhat akin to the quality you hear via ISDN.

Next: VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) Codecs; although this is realtively new to our industry - I believe it will catch on quickly due to several factors. The first: Cost, you will need only a broadband internet connection to send/receive higher than ISDN quality audio; Second, equipment cost will be next to nothing - about $100.00 for a VOIP recording capable Analog Telephone Adapter (ATA) or even more in-expensive with a software based adapter; Third, any VOIP capable product will be able to work with the system - the only exception being that it is capable of using the .m4a alogrithm; Fourth, with VOIP you will also be able to make connections to POTS lines (local or long distance calls) for much less than the cost of current phone services - and in some cases - for FREE!!!

Then, there is ISDN - Well it's not going away too soon... it will be around for several more years although it's demise IS imminent.

Now, Source Connect: Limited accepatbility, not available to all folks in the industry - unless you are ONLY dealing with PT based studios, costly, problematic... need I go on??? One problem that currently exists with IP based audio codecs is that you still need to have the same system available on each end of the session to make it work... i.e.: Comrex to Comrex, AudioTX to AudioTX, Musicam to Musicam, Telos to Telos, etc.

Cavaet: Brian, et al; if you have a nearby studio which already HAS the SC/DigiDesign product and has already experimented with it, AND already has contacts with other studios which use the product - by all means - make them a deal where you can use their SC product, "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for cheap?

In many cases you will be sending the VO to another studio - so you will be able to bill the client for the studio time - thereby allowing you access to the product without having to cough-up the money to buy it immediately. When you have enough clients who wish to use SC, then by all means BUY IT... just wait until you have justification to make the purchase.

I have a rule of thumb - any equipment I buy needs to make me enough money in three months to pay for itself... or I do not buy it... it's that simple...

Based on the above rule, if was not making a profit of at least $600.00 USD each month by using SC, then I would not buy it - your choice may be different.

All-right, "Broadcast Quality" - oooh, that's a good one... there really is no such thing as "broadcast quality", it's an assumption that it sounds better than a telephone or better than AM radio and maybe better than FM radio. So what that means is that if you send an .mp3 at 128 bit created from a 16 bit, mono, 44100 kHz file - - it's considered "braodcast quality". It's not quite as good as a CD, but it's better than FM radio and television audio sounds.

With the .mp3 codec, audio is compressed to approximately 10% of it's original size and some artifacts - this is due to the type of compression - lossy. It's acceptable in todays non-audiophile environment.

As the .m4a - aac or other dirivitave - (MPEG IV Audio) codec is gaining in popularity there are some good reasons to begin to grasp this technology and hold it close... The file size is approximately 2.5% of the original, it will be able to hold .ac3 (Surround Sound - 5.1 audio) tracks, it is NOT a lossy format, and it sounds better than .mp3 - especially at 48 or 96 kHz.

I could go on for several more paragraphs, but I think the latter will suffice to answer your quesitons.

Good luck on your choices.

Frank F

Philip Banks · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:24 am Post subject:

On the Broadcast Quality point, in the UK it did exist up until a few years ago. The BBC engineers had standards set for them and in the commercial sector there was the Independent Broadcast Authority. In the interests of free enterprise and competition we now have "oh **** it, that'll do".

kgenus · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:13 am Post subject:

Technically, a telephone call is broadcast quality. You hear them every day on air and the general public accepts it without question. I'll also point out that the initial "remote broadcast" microphones were designed for use over telephone lines so their frequency charts look minimal at best .... but that was then, this is now.

Two weeks ago I had a session with a Sony/EMI product manager who called into my studio using Skype to listen in with the producer on the session. If you saw what was going on behind the scenes as Verizon and MCI you would really be surprised.

Kevin
_________________
Genus

brianforrester · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2005 7:49 am Post subject:

You gents Rock!!! Laugh

Thank you... I'll continue to chew on all of that, but I think I'm beginning to get it!

Cheers,
_________________
Brian Forrester Voice Overs
www.brianforrester.com
brian@brianforrester.com
778.668.5715

CWToo · Guest

Philip Banks · Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 7:54 am Post subject:

We just need Kevin to point out that telephone answering machines are industry standard ....No we don't I just have, phew that's saved some time Laugh

Frank F · Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 12:48 pm Post subject:

CWToo,

Gotta ask just a couple of questions, I hope you don't mind... I believe this will clarify the use of SC to many folks...

What do you do when you need to connect to a studio which has IP capability but no SC (sure you can now "stream" the audio and they can listen to it and maybe record it on their end... but the only "talkback" is by another "box" - the Phone Patch)?

What if they have AudioTX, or a Telos, or a Musicam, or a Tieline, or....? Is there a way to "bridge" the SC like you can with ISDN? Is there a way to send/receive digital audio without HAVING to put it direct to the PT timeline?

Dont' get me wrong, I believe SC is a capable product - it just has a lot of limitations which make it not usable by 85% of the VO Talent and recording studios in the world. Will it replace ISDN in the near future - not a chance. Would I have spent the money on SC had I known of it's limitations and not bought into the hype... not a chance. Do I regret spending the bucks on a toy I will seldom if ever use again... a little.

Why not give us a description of how the SC works for you and how it could be implemented into other VO Talents studios. It would be nice to hear how a real user of SC describes a session, how to connect, and work with the client and product. Please let us know how often and how many studios you are using the SC with, it would be interesting to find out it's availability.

Frank F

kgenus · Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:01 pm Post subject:

Philip Banks · Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2005 1:36 pm Post subject:

CWToo · Guest

cave · Guest

Hello I am new to the forum and wanted to update some information from a pervious post about Source-Connect.

First off, Source-Connect uses the highest quality codec available on the market today. It is the same AAC/mpeg4 codec Frank spoke about. It is a special low latency version very suited for real time usage. It offers bit rates up to 160 kbps mono and 320kbps stereo. It can directly transfer 24bit data directly to the ProTools system bypassing the extra latency, possible dithering and trouble of external sound cards and devices. It sounds better than any Layer 2 128 connection on ISDN and at its upper bit rates is nearly loss-less compared to the original PCM audio.

Second, Source-Elements has no ties with Digidesign other than being a Plug-in developer. For all anyone knows, they may infact be able to make a version for other DAW platforms just like other plug-in manufactures do. There are no conspiracies to corner any market. That being said you will find that 80-90 percent of the DAW workstations in use today for post production purposes are Digidesign ProTools systems. The designers of Source-Connect are very aware of the needs of a post engineer and designed their product to sit in the environment of choice. AuidioTX is a PC only product and stand alone application which is harder to interface with than an integrated plug-in that runs on a range of audio interfaces available from $400 to $10,000 for either Macs and PCs. With new features like RTS (Remote Trasport Sync) Source-Connect goes beyond what any ISDN box or AudioTX system can do by allowing for direct latency compensated recordings for ADR to picture and overdubbing purposes. Finally with automatic firewall negotioations Source-Connect is far more flexible and usable "on the road" or in a hotel where you the talent is not in control of the network it is being used on.

A bit of an aside, as far as the use of AAC/MPEG4 at 48kbps or less on a POTs lines goes (that is the most you can stuff down a standard phone line), although possible I know the quality will be unusable for any truly professional product. In other "new pots style codec" "accessed by any phoneline" will NEVER give truly usable "broadcast quality" signal over "legacy systems." I believe that a bitrate of atleast 64kbps or even 96kbps mono is the least that can truly be used in a professional situation. Unless the situation truly calls for it and there is no other choice, no one in their right mind will be recording final VO on a single telephone line even with the best current codec avaiable.

I guess my point is that Source-Connect offers a great value based on its merits. Compared feature to feature to other product available it is well within the price range of a professional product. Street price for AudioTX is in the $900 area and Source-connect is competetive especially given their current promotion price of $1095.

I appologize for the large amount of data but felt the need to set the record straight.

Here is some other info:
There is a wealth of high end facilities using Source-Connect. Icluding many of the major Voice Recording Hubs in LA, New York, Chicago (+ many other mid west cities), London, Australia, and Mexico to name a few. The product has been out for less than a year and has grown to over 100 purchased users.

Beyond the 15 day free fullfeatured trial, Source-Elements offers a rent to own program where users can rent the plug-in for $100 for 2 days use. All rental fees can acru to a final purchase.

For such a new company I would keep your eye on them for more new and more exciting developments.

Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind.

Frank F · Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:30 pm Post subject:

Cave, et al,

Thanks for focusing our attention on some of the merits of SC and Source-Elements. I did notice one thing that has me puzzled and I will quote

kgenus · Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:27 am Post subject:

My opinion - buy ISDN. It's switched. Its reliabled. It's a good 5 year investment.
_________________
Genus

cave · Guest

Well I can not comment on Frank's product as I know nothing about it. I am curious of its capabilities, platform, price, etc.

I also do not know the total number of renters, and demo users of SC. So it is hard to say that they do not also have thousands of users who have signed up for trial versions as well. I was only speaking of full purchases of a non vaporware product.

Further more, I do not believe that the number of users makes a complete indication of the quality of a product. Anyone who uses an APT product can attest to its superior sound quality and lower latency compared to any ohter ISDN offering. Although superior, its has a smaller user base though. So who are thoes users. Those users are the more high end and discriminating post houses and talent who frequent those post houses. Is it for everyone? I guess not. Is SC for everyone I don't know. Is what every Frank's product is for everyone he can tell us. (what is it btw?)

In the mean time while people are loosing jobs waiting for vapor ware there are some option avaiable for users who don't want to spring for or can not get ISDN in their area.

Frank, you may check the numbers for your self in reference to the number of post houses using ProTools. I am sure you will find it has a significant portion of the market in the order of 80%. I would also like to point out that EDNet and Digifon are currently offering bridges for SC to any other codec.

So lets compare oranges to oranges:
Three systems to consider. An ISDN system with a Telos type product. An AudioTX system and a SC system.

The Telos system:
ISDN box $2500
A small mixer $500
ISDN installation $400
ISDN monthly cost $50-100/per month
total=$3500
pros: stable switched connection with an established userbase.
cons: expensive. Zero mobility. Useless besides connecting. No editing or even recording. ISDN usage charges arevery expensive for the originator ofthe call. No extra features like multiple connections or sync. Inferior sound quality (128k layer 2)

The AudioTX system:
AudioTX $900
Laptop $1000
Soundcard $200
Highspeed internet $30-50/month
total:$2250
pros: Cheaper than ISDN. Spend more money and get an ISDN card as well (but then you get all the charges of installing and maintaining ISDN lines). No mixer to purchase.
Cons: PC only. No editor or recorder built in and if you use seperate software for recording or editing you can't use AudioTX at the same time because of a sound card conflict. Not very mobile unless you know what you are doing with your network router ( if you even have control over it). A single connection using only MPEG 2 or MP3.

Source-Connect:
SC $1095 currently
laptop $1000
Mbox $400
Highspeed internet $30-50/month
total $2550
pros: Cheaper than ISDN. Integrated into a very popular Recording and editing environment. No mixer to purchase. Mac and PC compatrable. Highly mobile with a very easy setup. Mutiple simultanious connection for use with conferencing in mutiple actors and time code if needed. Direct Trasport Syncronisation for latency compensated recordings. Built in instant messaging. Supereior sound quality using a 24bit AAC/mp4 codec with bit rates beyond what any ISDN box can offer. Affordable rent to own option.
cons: $300 more expensive? Protools only? But hey you get Protools with it. SC works inside the recorder/editor so it is far less of a hassel.

In my opinion SC is a very viable option. It will come of age and has a lot to offer compared to its competition (at least what is currently avaiable.)

This is a good discussion as it highlights a range differences in opinion about these systems. I also agree with Kevin. ISDN is proven tech and has a large userbase. I believe that 5 years is about the length of its current life. By then Telcos will no longer offer ISDN and IP solutions will take over.

cave

Frank F · Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:51 pm Post subject:

You are correct, there is now a potential for bridging to other codecs with SC, have you tried it??? I have and I was not impressed.

Check your figures for compatability. Check your figures for "other" DAW's. A recent poll on this BB and several others reveals that around 39% of us use PT... other software around 30% also. Polls in Mix Magazine recently found that only 36% of it's readers use PT and their base is rapidly diminishing due to cost and functionality. Radio and Television stations worldwide are opting for simplicity and quality, not name brands. Ease of use due to training costs and plug-ins that will work with other systems they might have are the watchword today... don't you think Waves or Antares would opt to sell only to PT users if they thought it was 80 to 90% of the DAW's worldwide? Why waste your time and efforts on the 10 to 20% of the market when the lions share is with PT?

I work with studios worldwide who use Nuendo, Vegas, and all other manner of DAW's. Some still use Dyaxis or Sadie or....

Some do not use DAW's per se, they use other HD based systems. Most bigger post houses will not use PT due to it's complexity when compared to HD based systems which interface directly with their million dollar mixers.

80 to 90% of all DAW's are NOT ProFools based. In my area alone and in Nashville where I do a lot of work, none are PT based today. Most major Video Post houses do not own any PT system. Others have a PT system in their facilities, but none are based solely on PT.

SC is a toy in today's world... it has potential to do good things. But in today's world it is an "also ran".

I appreciate your tenacity since you are obviously from SC or have good ties to them, just tell the truth... are you really banking on one small section of the market and leaving the rest of the market alone? If so, I wish SC luck - I will probably NOT buy the product, but SE may be able to convince others of switching to PT/DD products - I won't be one of them.

Frank F