Login / Register
 
DAW Mixdown Test
New Reply
Subscribe
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#1
11th May 2012
Old 11th May 2012
  #1
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
DAW Mixdown Test

Hi
this is my test procedure :

1) I created an empty stereo track to 192000 Hz with Soundforge
2) I created an empty mono track to 192000 Hz with Soundforge
3) I put a sample on the left-channel of stereo track with a sine wave
4) I put a sample on the right-channel of stereo track with a square wave
5) I put a sample on the mono track with a triangular wave
6) I run a mixdown of the two (1 stereo + 1 mono) audio tracks with four DAW softwares
7) I always run at 44100 Hz stereo file rendering (always in linear dither)

and these below are the results :

the initial configuration created with synt of Soundforge (original waveform)


Audacity Mixdown


Reaper Mixdown


Samplitude Mixdown


Sonar Mixdown


the comparisions with Soundforge :


I look forward your analysis.
#2
11th May 2012
Old 11th May 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,281

-tc- is offline
Upload the raw test files, and the resulting files after rendering through the 4 daws please
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#3
11th May 2012
Old 11th May 2012
  #3
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
Upload the raw test files, and the resulting files after rendering through the 4 daws please
the all wav files
nms
#4
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #4
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,143

nms is offline
How is this a mix down if none of the signals are being mixed?

Edit: nvm, I see you mixed the mono file with the stereo file.
#5
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Mark D.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,665

Mark D. is offline
OP. Please advise on your opinion of the results. Visuals especially, they matter to you, as you'd included them. I'm struck that out of the four you've shown close ups on near the end, within Sound Forge, Samplitude seems to have not only the best, but total stand out performance in what I see. Note that perfect triangle on top, note how neat the corners are on the square-ish wave below it.

Does it matter, sound-wise? I am unable to test listen now. But that is something to consider. The rest are pretty much the same when compared. It stands out, and then there are those who say it sounds better than other platforms. I'm not one of them (I've not used it) but you may have stoked their fire. I can't wait to see and hear how this thread progresses and look forward to your views.
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#6
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #6
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
How is this a mix down if none of the signals are being mixed?
I'm sorry but do not have well understood your question
are two audio tracks (one stereo and one mono) mixed to one single stereo track ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark D. View Post
OP. Please advise on your opinion of the results..
I will quote you at 110%.
I tried to use the linear dither everywhere for not to add randomness dithering
so they (other types of dither) can not alter the result in the visual comparison.
#7
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,278

Yummerz is offline
But DAWs just add ones and zeroes. They're all the same. If your eyes or ears tell you otherwise, you're just being unscientific.
nms
#8
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #8
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,143

nms is offline
Why would you dither at all? You should avoid dithering here. 3 of those look identical. I bet they'd null. I'm not sure what happened with the other.
#9
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,278

Yummerz is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
Why would you dither at all? You should avoid dithering here. 3 of those look identical. I bet they'd null. I'm not sure what happened with the other.
look at the right hand side of the audacity wave form. little zig zags on the elbow and the corner, that sonar and reaper don't have. every single wave form is different, even sonar and reaper, which are most similar to each other.

this is just two files summing. would the differences be cumulatively greater with more going on?
#10
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,281

-tc- is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yummerz View Post
this is just two files summing.
It's not actually. I haven't made time to check it out fully yet, but it's clear that there is SRC going on, and that it's not the same for each *_mixdown.wav

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonis ProAudio View Post
Hi
this is my test procedure :

1) I created an empty stereo track to 192000 Hz with Soundforge
2) I created an empty mono track to 192000 Hz with Soundforge
3) I put a sample on the left-channel of stereo track with a sine wave
4) I put a sample on the right-channel of stereo track with a square wave
5) I put a sample on the mono track with a triangular wave
6) I run a mixdown of the two (1 stereo + 1 mono) audio tracks with four DAW softwares
7) I always run at 44100 Hz stereo file rendering (always in linear dither)
Why have you done it like this? Why are you resampling, and why have you not specified what kind of resampling settings were available in each DAW and which one(s) you used? Why have you used RPDF (linear) dither instead of TPDF? Is RPDF even available in all of the above DAWs?

What exactly are you attempting to compare with this test? If it's just "mixdown" then you've failed. If it's SRC then you need to be significantly more specific, and either need to not dither at all, or make sure to use the same dither type and distribution for each, and then make it explicitly clear that you have done so.
nms
#11
12th May 2012
Old 12th May 2012
  #11
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,143

nms is offline
Exactly. This is just a SRC test and obviously all DAWs don't have the same SRC. Why add extra steps?
#12
13th May 2012
Old 13th May 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Muser's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 5,457

Muser is offline
you can't trust visual representations of waveform precission in different DAW apps. most are pretty lossy in visual terms and the more you zoom out the information is lost.

iZotope RX has a good post DAC visual of the waveforms where you can even alter each sample on full zoom in. most other apps don't offer that.

if you can get them all to null that proves that the graphics are different.
__________________
.
awaiting new idea
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#13
13th May 2012
Old 13th May 2012
  #13
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
Exactly. This is just a SRC test and obviously all DAWs don't have the same SRC. Why add extra steps?
NMS

the imperfection is very present and very visible, now multiply by the thousands of frequencies that are recorded and mixed in the monophonic soundtracks (11 minimum) when recording in studio, then multiply the imperfections for 11 times, and add the errors of various plugins that uses to do the mixdown, the plugins using daw engine to works, then add errors for each plugin,
now if you see the result in in a more extensive manner i think that those who do not feel this error do not use her ears to listen but for something else.
nms
#14
13th May 2012
Old 13th May 2012
  #14
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,143

nms is offline
How do we know that when we have no idea what we are looking at? You should't have realtime SRC happening or dither if you are trying to find the truth about summing in different DAWs. Take down the images you have and run the test at 88khz using 88khz audio files and do not dither. Then we'll know what we're looking at.

@Muser- These are all being viewed in sound forge for comparison. Nothing wrong there.
#15
13th May 2012
Old 13th May 2012
  #15
Lives for gear
 
stinkyfingers's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,970
My Recordings/Credits

stinkyfingers is offline
1>reaper
2>audacity
3>sonar
4>samplitude

edit: not only did i notice that samplitude has the most waveform distortion (and like a 10bit noise floor?) but it actually ends up being a few ms out of time with the other 3 DAWs, which seem to line up almost perfectly with each other...
sonar may be better than audacity but audacity got bonus points for ugliest GUI...:P
__________________
my dog can smell my farts before they happen...
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#16
13th May 2012
Old 13th May 2012
  #16
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
Take down the images you have and run the test at 88khz using 88khz audio files and do not dither. Then we'll know what we're looking at.
ok i will do.
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#17
15th May 2012
Old 15th May 2012
  #17
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
#18
15th May 2012
Old 15th May 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Oldone's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
Posts: 1,580

Oldone is offline
Well, they are all different. Not sure if this means anything more than that.
#19
15th May 2012
Old 15th May 2012
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,281

-tc- is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldone View Post
Well, they are all different. Not sure if this means anything more than that.
I doesn't mean anything more than that, because there are still no details about what was done in each piece of software ... why this was done, and what is the intent of the comparison ...

The screenshots don't show anything apart from that 4 files are mixed together prior to SRC. The reader is left to make the assumption that these 44.1kHz files are meant as a comparison of SRC algorithms. But this is meaningless, because there is no explanation of software specific settings. Besides, there is already a much more comprehensive comparison of SRC from various software here.

How about explaining what you're trying to achieve, and how you're going about it Bonis?
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#20
16th May 2012
Old 16th May 2012
  #20
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
How about explaining what you're trying to achieve, and how you're going about it Bonis?
With much pleasure, then first thing i wanted to see if my soundcard was behaving differently with different DAW software (house) , to do this i recorded a stereo track with music and one mono track with singer voice, just listening only the stereo track with music was okay, just listening only the mono track with voice was okay, everything ok, but when i listening all tracks (music + voice) result was not good for my ears, only Samplitude gave a clean sound like the originals. We all know that ears being very influenced by many factors and i decided to displays the results in visible waveform to be sure that my ears did not deceive me. But this test is only a small case, on a project with multiples audio tracks many artifacts are introduced but are confused with the musical performance and make therefore difficult to identify, but if listen in very carefully mode feel their presence strongly. (with a good headphone (Grado - Akg- Sony - Sennheiser) this is very more evident)
jyc
#21
16th May 2012
Old 16th May 2012
  #21
jyc
Gear addict
 
jyc's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 363

jyc is offline
You're still doing SRC at the end. Try one where you don't do convert the sample rate after summing. i.e. bounce to 24 bit 88k and look at the waveforms then.
__________________
One day I'll be there.
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#22
16th May 2012
Old 16th May 2012
  #22
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyc View Post
bounce to 24 bit 88k and look at the waveforms then.
ok
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#23
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #23
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
BOUNCE MIX TEST @ 88.200 Hz





Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#24
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #24
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Rendering the 88.200 Hz 24 bit (4tracks sine square saw triangle) to disk @ 44.100 Hz 16 bit (2 tracks no dither)

Reaper Samplitude
Mixcraft Sonar

#25
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Mark D.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,665

Mark D. is offline
Oh great. Higher rate, no SRC, Mixcraft now seems more pure. Samplitude is just like the rest. Well, it's proof that 'working in Samplitude' where those on GS who prefer it say it sounds better, isn't better. Because when what is in that goes out as is, it is just like all the rest, except Mixcraft. So SRC has a possible affect. Do we hear those slight wrinkles? Maybe not, but it is very interesting.
nms
#26
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #26
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,143

nms is offline
Think so? I'd be more inclined to think mix craft is the odd one out and missing detail that should be in there.
#27
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,281

-tc- is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonis ProAudio View Post
BOUNCE MIX TEST @ 88.200 Hz
- Why only Samplitude and Sonar at 88.2kHz - what about Reaper and Audacity (and Mixcraft)?
- Where are the audio files?
- Why do you keep posting pictures?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonis ProAudio View Post
Rendering the 88.200 Hz 24 bit (4tracks sine square saw triangle) to disk @ 44.100 Hz 16 bit (2 tracks no dither)
- So you're still using SRC?
- Given the above, what settings did you use in each DAW?
- Why have you replaced Audacity with Mixcraft?
- Where are the audio files?

What are you trying to compare - please explain. Please provide audio files. Looking at waveforms graphics, regardless of whether or not they're rendered with attempted accurate interpolation, is not good enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark D. View Post
Mixcraft now seems more pure. Samplitude is just like the rest.
How can we know if Mixcraft is more "pure" if we can't compare to original files? Samplitude isn't just like the rest - all of those latest images show slightly different waveforms. Whether they look different because the files are different, or just because of slight differences in GUI zoom level (of which there are differences), or both, it's impossible to ascertain from the pictures alone ...

Where are the audio files?
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#28
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #28
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
-

Where are the audio files?
there

http://www.xstreme.it/mixdtest.zip

These are the files, I renamed something but these are, can you create it again if you want, with Reaper and Audacity i can not do Bounce procedure, with Mixcraft repeated the test several times to avoid making mistakes.
I think NMS said the right things.
nms
#29
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #29
nms
Lives for gear
 
nms's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,143

nms is offline
Wait.. all the stuff you posted here was pure 88.2khz content right?

I think it would be wise to delete any content that has to do with SRC and only keep the pure 88.2khz info up. Otherwise it's bound to confuse a few people. An SRC comparison is a totally separate discussion and an issue that's already covered well.
Bonis ProAudio
Thread Starter
#30
19th May 2012
Old 19th May 2012
  #30
Gear interested
 
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 24

Thread Starter
Bonis ProAudio is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nms View Post
was pure 88.2khz content right?

.
right.....

the ZIP contains files named

sonar_disk_44_16.wav
and
samplitude_disk_44_16.wav

this two files are SRC.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
uncoolgray / Mastering forum
2
mrbowes / Geekslutz forum
6
Jay Kahrs / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
30
hollywood_steve / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
8
Jules / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
15

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.