Can it be? Protools 9 sounds better then logic/cubase?
Iv been using cubase and logic in the last 12 years almost every day .
I know my way around cubase very well (also teaching)
In the last 4 years I'm producing and mixing.
I decided to try and load all audio channels from mix I'm working on in logic 9 to PT9 and play around trying to understand it (work flow,shortcuts etc..) so when i come around PT in other studios i will know my way around it.
Its very hard to change/learn new DAW after many years of working with another .
after few days of doing that i have came to this conclusion:
PT is not as intuitive for me as cubase or logic ,i found myself frustrated but after few days (dont get me wrong PT is very hard fir me to learn)
I'v noticed that that same mix ,from logic sounds so much better on PT , its sounds so big and and defined ,channels have so much focus and clearly .
Could it be?
Its so easy to mix on PT (sound wise)
Then cubase.
Cubase sound "smaller" to me , as i load more channels.
A friend told me that its got to do with the way pro tools works (hi density vs floating point )
Am i dreaming ?
Trust me, there's no huge difference in the sound quality of the programs. It could be that PT suits your workflow better so you end up doing better work, but it sure ain't going to be float versus fixed (not "hi density") that makes the difference.... (and by the way, not all PT systems run fixed point)
If you don't believe me and want to waste a huge amount of time you can search the forum and read the hundreds of million-post threads on this super-tired topic.
Not trying to be an ass, it's just that sooooo many people have been through this sooooo many times...
Don't worry about this. Spend your time making music instead.
Steinberg Cubase 5/6 utilizes 32-bit float point accuracy on sample storage and 32-bit float point accuracy in mix engine audio summing. Avid Pro Tools 9/10 utilizes 32-bit float point accuracy on sample storage and 48-bit fixed point accuracy in audio summing. The difference is clearly there and you are absolutely right and can trust your ears, Cubase is going to have more smearing all in all as a result of its more limited arithmetic. This difference is even bigger when comparing it to the Pro Tools HDX system that utilizes 64-bit float point summing. Is it important? You bet, these differences are extremely important for the vibe because you don't have a sun powered converter made out of gold do you?!
More information about this can be found e.g., here:
The big guys, , are looking for three things: high signal processing accuracy, high signal conversion accuracy, high dithering accuracy. The sum of all of these is what counts.
Sounds better? Sounds different perhaps by the difference of the pan laws. But after that... nan your dreaming.
this
This again (seconded). Pan law differences will certainly make a HUGE difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmoothVibe
Steinberg Cubase 5/6 utilizes 32-bit float point accuracy on sample storage and 32-bit float point accuracy in mix engine audio summing. Avid Pro Tools 9/10 utilizes 32-bit float point accuracy on sample storage and 48-bit fixed point accuracy in audio summing. The difference is clearly there and you are absolutely right and can trust your ears, Cubase is going to have more smearing all in all as a result of its more limited arithmetic. This difference is even bigger when comparing it to the Pro Tools HDX system that utilizes 64-bit float point summing. Is it important? You bet, these differences are extremely important for the vibe because you don't have a sun powered converter made out of gold do you?!
More information about this can be found e.g., here:
The big guys, , are looking for three things: high signal processing accuracy, high signal conversion accuracy, high dithering accuracy. The sum of all of these is what counts.
You're late to the party on this count, PT has now dropped 48bit INT for 32bit FLT on the native side, and 32bit (plugins)/64bit FLT (mixbus) on the HDX side. What's even funnier is that Avid now has marketing literature that shows the SUPERIORITY of 32bit FLT against the 'old' 48bit INT that they used to tout as being..superior to 32bit FLT. So move along, nothing to see here.
Incidentally Reaper & Sonar both offer the option for 64bit FLT summing engines now, and feel free to claim that this is superior all you want but it's certainly not exclusive to PT HDX (nor is it really *necessary* for most users given the noisefloor of 32bit FLT if you're using proper gainstaging anyway).
While I'm among those who suggest that there's no reason a DAW couldn't sound different due to either compromises in design, outright flaws, or design features included in the hope of 'enhancing' the sound (much like media player companies have tried sneaking undocumented bass or loudness boosts into players to sucker the rubes into thinking player A 'sounds better' than player B), I have yet to see any real, convincing evidence that this is actually happening -- and there are plenty of reasons to think it unlikely, including, of course, necessarily limited comparison tests using null-testing, as well as knowledge gained from a rudimentary understanding of digital signal processing software.
Of course, we've heard many people suggest they can hear a difference, but, let's face it, many people are extremely naive about their certainty in their perceptions (unless they've had that self-certitude shaken by properly rigorous double-blind testing).
This again (seconded). Pan law differences will certainly make a HUGE difference.
I agree all potential gain setting differences must be ruled out first of all when evaluating...
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis
What's even funnier is that Avid now has marketing literature that shows the SUPERIORITY of 32bit FLT against the 'old' 48bit INT that they used to tout as being..superior to 32bit FLT. So move along, nothing to see here.
Hehe, didn't know that, sounds funny...
Quote:
Originally Posted by valis
Incidentally Reaper & Sonar both offer the option for 64bit FLT summing engines now, and feel free to claim that this is superior all you want but it's certainly not exclusive to PT HDX (nor is it really *necessary* for most users given the noisefloor of 32bit FLT if you're using proper gainstaging anyway).
Good that you bring that up because I am definitely so far not any massive Avid fan as a result of other things. You're right, I do find 64-bit float point mix engines to be the preferred choice. For some reason I happened to just find an interesting video on YouTube where a guy has validated the impact of not doing double precision mixing. It is found here:
While I'm among those who suggest that there's no reason a DAW couldn't sound different due to either compromises in design, outright flaws, or design features included in the hope of 'enhancing' the sound (much like media player companies have tried sneaking undocumented bass or loudness boosts into players to sucker the rubes into thinking player A 'sounds better' than player B), I have yet to see any real, convincing evidence that this is actually happening -- and there are plenty of reasons to think it unlikely, including, of course, necessarily limited comparison tests using null-testing, as well as knowledge gained from a rudimentary understanding of digital signal processing software.
Of course, we've heard many people suggest they can hear a difference, but, let's face it, many people are extremely naive about their certainty in their perceptions (unless they've had that self-certitude shaken by properly rigorous double-blind testing).
The test procedure of determining this doesn't have to be that complicated actually. One can set up a midi track, record two conflicting keys played at the same time (I like to use E3 and F3), record the track as audio and copy it to X nr of tracks. Then do some simple gain setting changes on each track and applying a limiter on the main output bus and use your headphones + ears to determine the modulation depth left on each mixer, through blind testing when all settings are identical in both mixers end-to-end. The smearing effect should cause less modulation loudness/depth/clearity/vibe on the mixer with less accuracy.
The test procedure of determining this doesn't have to be that complicated actually. One can set up a midi track, record two conflicting keys played at the same time (I like to use E3 and F3), record the track as audio and copy it to X nr of tracks. Then do some simple gain setting changes on each track and applying a limiter on the main output bus and use your headphones + ears to determine the modulation depth left on each mixer, through blind testing when all settings are identical in both mixers end-to-end. The smearing effect should cause less modulation loudness/depth/clearity/vibe on the mixer with less accuracy.
I think when most people talk about doing audio comparisons, they're talking about the basic summing functionality.
You have to have a neutral testbed in order to perform a meaningful comparison.
But there's no need to resort to listening tests, which are, of course, frought with all sorts of issues from practical to psychological.
To test the notion that DAW A and DAW B sum differently in a way that is likely to be significant, you set up your neutral test bed of x number of channels, you sum them to a two channel file using precisely the same protocol and settings on each and rendering them using the DAW's full quality mix-to-file settings.
You then put both two track renders into the same editor, time align them to the sample, and sum them. The difference file will give you a crude but effective idea of how much difference there really is, assuming you've been rigorous in your method.
A difference file under -100 dB is 'identical' for practical purposes. A difference file between -80 and -100 is negligible. Between -60 and -80 possibly noticeable. -40 to -60, starting to talk some real, noticeable difference. Above that, Dang, are you sure you did it right?
Now, once we start talking about anything past summing, like compression, you get into an area where it becomes all but impossible to make a head-to-head comparison, since compressors tend to vary considerably from design to design as well as under different settings.
At that point you're really comparing features, and, as we all know, those are far from evenly distributed or of equal value.
Me, since I've never seen consistent, credible evidence of significant difference in sound quality between DAWs and since there are very large differences in things like workflow, feature sets, production orientation, I've always based my decision on those considerations. (As well as inertia. I've been with the same DAW software since late 1996 or so. )
noamusic, would you be able to post some sound clips? I'd love to hear an example of different summing busses sounding different (not that I don't believe you), and maybe some of the more experienced guys here can tell right away if it's pan law or something else that's causing it.
Workflow is bad for me on PT .
As i said It was all cubase and logic past 12 years.
Im basically "flying" on them.
Workflow isn't the factor for my ears in this case nor does looks (i thing cubase 6 and logic looks better then PT IMHO).
In fact it was to hard for me to figure out PT workflow to become intuitive in one mix.
But i reached my goals sound wise faster the before ,was very easy.
Again , the same channels from an open session on logic .
Didn't know that this PT vs X is comment .
There is a difference .
Although I'm not familiar with specifics behind it.
I know what i hear.
I wonder whether we are destined to have this same discussion for eternity, it's a bit like ground hog day here sometimes
MC
+1. I'm out of these threads from now on, I'll leave the misinformation artists to their own...to the OP, good luck with it and do your own fair tests.
SmoothVibe obviously knows as much about DAWs as he does about running a business! PT native has NEVER been 48bit fixed! Jees....I wish people would stick to talking about what they actually know!
__________________
<Shameless Plug>
If I've ever helped you with a technical problem or provided you with advice you found useful, you can more than repay me by checking out, and maybe buying a couple of songs, by a singer I'm working closely with. It would be much appreciated!
to me pro tools sound more wide and less midbass congestion than logic, more radio sound
Since this thread has been resurrected by this only a few hours ago I don't feel bad adding to the "groundhog day" effect here lol.
Actually it makes me happy seeing fewer of these stupid, misinformed, offhand comments here on gearslutz. Almost like the community has actually reached some sort of agreement.
I sincerely hope the trend continues, until it's as normal to dismiss these things as to dismiss people who don't believe in the laws of mathematics.
And just to emphasise for anyone there, there is no difference, in 2013, between the summing engines of major DAWs. If you hear anything different, you're doing something wrong, or most likely, imagining it.
And radio sounds like shit by the way. I can't think of any sound that is more congested!
different sound? who cares. the only thing that would ever matter is whether whatever daw you use would actually qualify for the universal definition of bad sound. since no developer would ever be capable of doing such a thing, this argument is all BULLSHIT.
different sound? who cares. the only thing that would ever matter is whether whatever daw you use would actually qualify for the universal definition of bad sound. since no developer would ever be capable of doing such a thing, this argument is all BULLSHIT.
Yes It's a Bullshit, but You can't tell me that You can' hear small difference between DAW.
than the more important things is which one You know and How You feel when working on.
Yes It's a Bullshit, but You can't tell me that You can' hear small difference between DAW.
than the more important things is which one You know and How You feel when working on.
Peace.
I don't want to open a can of worms..
Too late...and to be quite honest, I don't think anyone is interested in "convincing you otherwise" if you yourself can't be bothered to do a few simple tests to ascertain if you're hearing a difference that's there, or if it's all in your head.
If you're using a YouTube vid as proof...that goes to show just how much you have to learn about what makes a good test, I'm afraid.
different sound? who cares. the only thing that would ever matter is whether whatever daw you use would actually qualify for the universal definition of bad sound. since no developer would ever be capable of doing such a thing, this argument is all BULLSHIT.
Actually not really. If one was to find it a lot easier to get the sound one is after in one DAW than another it would matter rather a lot. Especially if you are doing it on the clock for cash.
Whether this is down to a DAW having a sound or not, or whatever one likes to call it is secondary. Getting the required sound easier is not. It seems all developers are fully capable of putting things in their DAWs that feck with you getting to the goal, whether it be warp stuff that sounds shite, hardware inserts that don't compensate reliably, or whatever.
__________________
have confidence in your ability to rise above the foam - crufty
Closed 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
For some reason I happened to just find an interesting video on YouTube where a guy has validated the impact of not doing double precision mixing. It is found here:
)
