Bit-transparent audio editors & DAW

[JB Cutlerson]

I've seen some discussions around the net concerning bit-transparent or "bit-perfect" programs. Recently I read something about Reaper being transparent and since I'd been planning to check it out, I decided to do so. I've been using Adobe Audition now for quite some time and I've often suspected its audio performance was a bit lacking even with ASIO. My initial impression of recordings done in Reaper is that they seem a bit cleaner with better soundstage, depth and separation. I haven't done extensive blind testing but I did try some ABX and I was able to pick the Reaper recordings out about 70% of the time.

So this has me wondering about the whole notion of bit transparency. What other apps are known to pass the bits through without mangling them?

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by JB Cutlerson

So this has me wondering about the whole notion of bit transparency. What other apps are known to pass the bits through without mangling them?

All of them?


DC

[tribeofenki]

Does it sound good to yo'Ears?

That-is-enough ...

[JB Cutlerson]

Originally Posted by dcollins

All of them?


DC

Doubtful.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by JB Cutlerson

Doubtful.

Which ones are you doubting?
It's easy enough to load up a bit meter and perform some null tests.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[JB Cutlerson]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

Which ones are you doubting?
It's easy enough to load up a bit meter and perform some null tests.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

As I mentioned in my OP, Adobe Audition for starters. I'm curious about a bit meter would help (if you mean one of those meters that simply provide the bit depth. I'm not talking about 24-bits in/24-bits out. It's whether the app's I/O code modifies the bts in any way, so it'd have to be something that provdies an actual readout of the bit values.

I've tried null testing but it's difficult since I'm digitizing LPs and there are too many variables. Lining up waveforms looks like it's going to work but doesn't even come close to nulling out. Perhaps recording the output of a CD player might be a better bet.

[Franco]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

Which ones are you doubting?
It's easy enough to load up a bit meter and perform some null tests.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Bingo. This is exactly what I did when someone told me that Audition 3 was not a "mastering grade editor" because it wasn't "bit perfect". Loaded a file, saved it as something else, did a null and...it nulled.

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by JB Cutlerson

I've seen some discussions around the net concerning bit-transparent or "bit-perfect" programs. Recently I read something about Reaper being transparent and since I'd been planning to check it out, I decided to do so. I've been using Adobe Audition now for quite some time and I've often suspected its audio performance was a bit lacking even with ASIO. My initial impression of recordings done in Reaper is that they seem a bit cleaner with better soundstage, depth and separation. I haven't done extensive blind testing but I did try some ABX and I was able to pick the Reaper recordings out about 70% of the time.

So this has me wondering about the whole notion of bit transparency. What other apps are known to pass the bits through without mangling them?

Sonar 8.5 x64 with 64-Bit engine active.
Logic 8

but nothing is 100% bit transparent...
Sonar .wav import sounds like crap.
Sonar .mp3 lame import sounds amazing,
Sonar 64-bit mix bus engine sounds 100% transparent.
Nuendo 4 playback engine sounds like crap, but bouncing sounds amazing.
etc...

easy to test with a soundcard with DSP mixer, like RME

testing some ADAT source signal.
RME hdsp mixer, vs. Sonar Audio Monitoring.

[jdg]

last year when i was setting up my 2 DAW system, i ran a null test on the playback of all the DAWs i had at the time (on OSX).

cubase 5.
soundBlade 1.x
Logic 8
Peak 6
Wave Editor 3.x
DSPQuattro 3.x
iZotope RX


all of them nulled with the source file with the exception of Peak.

again, this was just playback of stereo files, not bouncing, or summing or etc.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by JB Cutlerson

As I mentioned in my OP, Adobe Audition for starters. I'm curious about a bit meter would help (if you mean one of those meters that simply provide the bit depth. I'm not talking about 24-bits in/24-bits out. It's whether the app's I/O code modifies the bts in any way, so it'd have to be something that provdies an actual readout of the bit values.

I've tried null testing but it's difficult since I'm digitizing LPs and there are too many variables. Lining up waveforms looks like it's going to work but doesn't even come close to nulling out. Perhaps recording the output of a CD player might be a better bet.

Two runs of the same source material going into an ADC regardless of the source will not null with each other due to sub sample timing differences between them.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Dubai

but nothing is 100% bit transparent...

Actually the vast majority of workstations are 100% bit-transparent.

And why would it be otherwise? Hardly splitting the atom to get 24 bits on and off the system.


DC

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by Dubai

Nuendo 4 playback engine sounds like crap, but bouncing sounds amazing.

Allow me to propose a bet to you. If what you claim is true, I will give you 999 Euro. If what you claim is not true, you will give me only 111 Euro. What do you say?

Originally Posted by Dubai

ßut nohing ls 100% byt transparnt...

[macc]

Make sure you do the test right *cough*

[Thor]

While I don't have a rational explination for it, and really need to sit down some day and figure out what's going on, Nuendo v4 and soundBlade sound different playing back identical material from the same computer through the exact same chain and DAC, same clock, etc.

While doing a session today, the producer even asked "what happened?" when I flew the tracks we had been working on in Nuendo over to sB.

I know, bits is bits is bits....but there *is* a difference for some reason or another.

Cheers,
Thor

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

Allow me to propose a bet to you. If what you claim is true, I will give you 999 Euro. If what you claim is not true, you will give me only 111 Euro. What do you say?

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by Thor

While I don't have a rational explination for it, and really need to sit down some day and figure out what's going on, Nuendo v4 and soundBlade sound different playing back identical material from the same computer through the exact same chain and DAC, same clock, etc.

While doing a session today, the producer even asked "what happened?" when I flew the tracks we had been working on in Nuendo over to sB.

I know, bits is bits is bits....but there *is* a difference for some reason or another.

Cheers,
Thor

I have no basis to comment on the comparison between soundblade and Nuendo. Though I would be surprised if one of the two mangled audio. What I know or sure is that there is no difference between playback and bounce in Nuendo 4, as was suggested.

[Thor]

Hi Robin,

I've actaully ever tried a bounce in Nundo, so I couldn't say. But it does sound weird, I agree.

I think people have said the same about PT (different results depending on how material is exported from the program).

Cheers,
Thor

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by Thor

Hi Robin,

I've actaully ever tried a bounce in Nundo, so I couldn't say. But it does sound weird, I agree.

Rest assured that I wouldn't propose a thousand Euro bet without doing a quick null first

[jdg]

i heard sB as sounding "better" too for playback, and did my null tests.

i captured the output streams from each DAW with metric halo's console.

poobase and slingBlade both nulled with the source.

so. maybe that big ugly blue GUI of sB is transmogrifying your optical to auricle gateway

[Mark D.]

Originally Posted by Dubai

Sonar 8.5 x64 with 64-Bit engine active. Sonar .wav import sounds like crap.

The non-64 bit Sonar version also allows the 64 bit mixdown, and work engines. There should be no difference in quality between 32 and 64 bit platforms as both allow the 64 bit floating point quality equally. The 64 bit version just allows access to more RAM, better Windows 7 compatibility, and more processing power, versus their 32 bit. Can you also elaborate on the .wav import sounding like crap to you? .wav files I import and export sound great.

It does well importing files that will get upsampled or downsampled and also at different bit depths. I don't hear degredation. Test import a 24 bit, 44.1 khz file. Bounce it out, in the same format, with no plug-ins, processing, bussing, volume or gain changes. It should sound identical, it would probably very nearly null. I am not doubting what you hear, I'd just like you to elaborate. Can you put up examples of this? This might not be Sonar at fault.

[Thor]

The thing is I get this regularly during attended sessions.

I'll be doing some stuff in Nuendo, whatever, then drop the exact same files into sB, and they don't see the screen or what's happening. Just playback, a short pause, playback again, and everyone hears it. I don't have to say a word.

It is weird.

But not blue, it's not a blue sound at all...




Thor

Originally Posted by jdg

i heard sB as sounding "better" too for playback, and did my null tests.

i captured the output streams from each DAW with metric halo's console.

poobase and slingBlade both nulled with the source.

so. maybe that big ugly blue GUI of sB is transmogrifying your optical to auricle gateway

[jdg]

had the same thing happen before with sB and clients.

"what is that?!, do more of that!"

sB does not use coreaudio normally. its the only app that does what it does (and ammarra, but its the same code)

i have a feeling it has something to do with that. no idea beyond that voodoo notion

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by Mark D.

The non-64 bit Sonar version also allows the 64 bit mixdown, and work engines. There should be no difference in quality between 32 and 64 bit platforms as both allow the 64 bit floating point quality equally. The 64 bit version just allows access to more RAM, better Windows 7 compatibility, and more processing power, versus their 32 bit. Can you also elaborate on the .wav import sounding like crap to you? .wav files I import and export sound great.

It does well importing files that will get upsampled or downsampled and also at different bit depths. I don't hear degredation. Test import a 24 bit, 44.1 khz file. Bounce it out, in the same format, with no plug-ins, processing, bussing, volume or gain changes. It should sound identical, it would probably very nearly null. I am not doubting what you hear, I'd just like you to elaborate. Can you put up examples of this? This might not be Sonar at fault.

Yes,
Sonar playback engine is 100% transparent, also record, mix and bounce engine IF 64-Bit engine is active.
the Sonar x32 and x64 with 64-Bit engine Active sound the same.
but... Sonar .wav import sounds like crap in both x32 and x64.

the Sends are not 100% Transparent. (havent tested x64 yet)

i like to record again thru AES/EBU loop.
Lynx AES16 has multi client drivers. (ASIO and DS/WDM/MME at sametime.)
sometimes i use the RME hdsp9632-->M-Clock-SRC-->Lynx AES16.

i like to use WMP11 with Cole2k Media Pack
(ffdshow x64 Audio with 24-bit audio active, and all formats supported.)
AC3Filter codec sounds a bit better than ffdshow but has bugs with drivers, and cannot decode all formats like ffdshow.)

OTS DJ Labs also sounds nice for some files.
didnt liked the XXHighend audio player.
***
the test is easy to do....

import a nice .wav in Sonar, and leave a copy in Desktop.
create another track, or in same track,
activate monitor input,
make an AES/EBU loop with Lynx AES16, (AES-Out.4-->AES-In.4)
set Windows Default Sound Driver to AES/EBU.4 = Play 07+08 Lynx AES16
(start/control panel/Sound "Hardware & Sound"/Play 07+08 Lynx AES16/Set Default)

Set Sonar Input to: Stereo Lynx Record 07 (Monitor Input Active, but ASIO Direct Monitor desactivated in the Drivers.)

Play the same .wav in Windows Media Player.
stop/pause, and play same .wav imported into Sonar.

if its a .wav WMP decoder sounds better.
if same test is done with lame .mp3 Sonar decoder/import sounds better.
***
if the file is 16-bit theres no problem.
if its 24-bit, you must activate 24-bit inside Windows Media Player.
More Options/Device/Speaker/Properties/24-Bit

also optionally use Cole2k Media pack Advanced and activate all formats supported in ffdshow x64 Audio/Codecs,
also activate only the 24-bit in Output. (disable the 16-bit, 32-bit float, 32-bit int)
inside ffdshow Audio x64 (if using Vista x64).

In Windows Control Panel Sound Hardware configuration, activate all sample rates needed, and each time you need a different sample rate, Test the sample rate.
in Start/ControlPanel/Sound/Lynx07+08/Set Default/Properties/Supported Formats.

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering

Rest assured I wouldn't propose a thousand Euro bet without doing a quick null

take any .wav

play the file with RME SteadyClock(TM)
then with Lynx SynchroLock(TM)
then with Big Ben
then with Grimm Audio cc1
or with your home DVD player s/pdif PCM output active.

if using Lynx AES16, SynchroLock(TM) must be dissabled,
if using RME hdsp, DDS must be dissabled.
if usign TC konnekt, clock recovery must be dissabled.

DA converter must have Fast PLL.

the same file will sound different.
the same 01010101 will sound different.

this is how it looks real jitter... with the same Saw wave arround 6KHz.

***
Nuendo Play back and bounce engine change the sound with Muti-Threading active or dissabled, in PC.

same happens when decoding lossless audio in realtime in WMP.
the decoded lossless file (flac0 vs. flac8 vs. WMAL) will null against the original .wav
will be bit by bit exactly with DOS utility filecomp.exe

but realtime decoding sounds different.

[24-96 Mastering]

Originally Posted by Dubai

take any .wav

play the file with RME SteadyClock(TM)
then with Lynx SynchroLock(TM)
then with Big Ben
then with Grimm Audio cc1

if using Lynx AES16, SynchroLock(TM) must be dissabled,
if using RME hdsp, DDS must be dissabled.
if usign TC konnekt, clock recovery must be dissabled.

DA converter must have Fast PLL.

the same file will sound different.
the same 01010101 will sound different.

this is how it looks real jitter... with a Saw wave arround 6KHz.

***
Nuendo Play back and bounce engine change the sound with Muti-Threading active or dissabled, in PC.

same happens when decoding lossless audio in realtime in WMP.
the decoded lossless file (flac0 vs. flac8 vs. WMAL) will null against the original .wav
will be bit by bit exactly with DOS utility filecomp.exe

but realtime decoding sounds different.

Pardon me, but as far as I can tell, this has absolutely nothing to do with the claim made that Nuendo 4 sounds different between playback and bounce. Neither a bounced file nor a steady PCM bit stream carry clock information. The clocking of your playback system has nothing to do with the audio stream provided by Nuendo.
I have confirmed that realtime audio output is identical whether I play a file in Nuendo or whether I bounce and then play in Wavelab. If there was a difference, I'd be very interested in it. So far, there has been no evidence or indication that there is.

[Mark D.]

Originally Posted by Dubai

Sonar .wav import sounds like crap in both x32 and x64. the Sends are not 100% Transparent.

I appreciate your analysis, based on your scenario. To simplify this, for a repeatable test we all can do, without a Lynx, or those kinds of loopbacks, and conversions. I would suggest this. This will fully test the import ability and the send quality, quickly, and only the Sonar software. Import a .wav in Sonar that is a certain format (24/44.1, 16/44.1 etc). Export it without any changes in Sonar, no effects, on anything. Bare audio track with nothing on it. No sends, the output bus should be the AD/DA you have, not even a main bus, as simple as possible.

Export audio - exactly the same format it was before, just rename it (version 2). Now compare the original and version 2. Now send the audio track through a send, again, no effects. 100% to the send. Export from that send, name that version 3. Compare all three versions. Do you hear a difference? What may be happening is the setup you have to do this loopback, in its complexities, is one that Sonar doesn't play nicely with. I'm just suggesting, you may have a valid point. But please try the test I describe first. It should prove your point if it's true.

[Jerry Tubb]

Agreed, soundBlade ~does~ sound great.

and NoiseNoise II is flat amazing!

I also had the same first impression when I tried Sonic PMCD a few years ago, even wrote a goofy thread about it.

trust the transparency

Yessiree, I like it.

JT

[Thor]

You know I agree 100%,

NoNoise II has saved more mixes than I care to count, producers get that weird look on their face when they hear some glitch no one had noticed before, or come in and nonchalantly mention a few "minor issues" and if it's not something we can deal with in mastering.

Of course it is, no problem at all. The lack of artifacts is really swell too

I just delivered a 78 shellac restoration that we used NoNoise on in multiple passes, even then it preserves the original sound like nothing else (tried Rx, but NN2 was better).

Thor

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

Agreed, soundBlade ~does~ sound great.

and NoiseNoise II is flat amazing!

I also had the same first impression when I tried Sonic PMCD a few years ago, even wrote a goofy thread about it.

trust the transparency

Yessiree, I like it.

JT

[Nordenstam]

Originally Posted by Dubai

this is how it looks real jitter... with the same Saw wave arround 6KHz.

Different converters?

[phild]

Originally Posted by Thor

While doing a session today, the producer even asked "what happened?" when I flew the tracks we had been working on in Nuendo over to sB.
Thor

Was that "what happened" a good thing or a bad thing?

Haven't done the nulls but same phenomena here - often get the same reaction from attending clients unaware of the switch b/w DAW's.
Using Nuendo, Wavelab, Sequoia regularly!

[Thor]

Good question Phil,

unanimously good when we fire up sB.

sB uses 64 bits for all processing. I believe it's floating, not fixed, but you'd have to ask Sonic Studio to be sure. I just like how it sounds.

Thor

Originally Posted by phild

Was that "what happened" a good thing or a bad thing?

Haven't done the nulls but same phenomena here - often get the same reaction from attending clients unaware of the switch b/w DAW's.
Using Nuendo, Wavelab, Sequoia regularly!