Logics Mixing Algorythm....

[Axiomata]

Is it just me or compared to Cubase SX3 or PT LE Logics mixing algorythm sounds like someone put a blanket over the mix?

Just wondering if anyone has compared it to anything else?

.a

[gsilbers]

no, its u or your audio interface. they all sound the same they are just playing back the same audiofile.. 44.1, 24bit. its not tape.
but im sure someone will say it sounds different.

just import an audio file from a CD, imported the same into a stereo track into logic, PT LE and cubase and do a bounce without moving the faders.
label them A, B and C and post them here.

then we can all decide for ourselfs. cause these topic has been around for while now.
in theory it should sound the same. i thought Live's audio engine sucked compared to logics and then i just bounced a comercial CD track from both and both bounces sounded the same.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by Axiomata

Is it just me or compared to Cubase SX3 or PT LE Logics mixing algorythm sounds like someone put a blanket over the mix?

Just wondering if anyone has compared it to anything else?

.a

I've made mixes in Logic Pro that floored Protools HD mixes. Never had a blanket feeling.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by gsilbers

no, its u or your audio interface. they all sound the same they are just playing back the same audiofile.. 44.1, 24bit. its not tape.
but im sure someone will say it sounds different.

just import an audio file from a CD, imported the same into a stereo track into logic, PT LE and cubase and do a bounce without moving the faders.
label them A, B and C and post them here.

then we can all decide for ourselfs. cause these topic has been around for while now.
in theory it should sound the same. i thought Live's audio engine sucked compared to logics and then i just bounced a comercial CD track from both and both bounces sounded the same.

Well, that won't tell you much of anything about the mix engine, will it?

And that's what Axiomata's question was about.


My initial thinking on this topic was that various mix engine's approached their work so similarly that there would be no or almost no difference -- at a given bit depth of operation, anyhow.

But I've since come to think that there may well be differences that manifest in subtle ways.

Unfortunately, it is VERY difficult to do any proper blind testing comparisons because of the complexities and idiosyncracies involved in setting up a test bed in a number of mix engines.

And, as others have noted, things like panning law implementation (many DAWs have a choice of panning laws), choice of dithering algo, etc, can have far more obvious differentiation effects.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by DrDeltaM

I've made mixes in Logic Pro that floored Protools HD mixes. Never had a blanket feeling.

Playing devil's advocate here:

You might be "mixing to" your setups' idiosyncracies.

So you just naturally compensate for "the blanket effect"...


Mind you, I am NOT suggesting that that is really what's happening!

I'm just saying that, just as us oldtimers used to compensate for the limitations of tape and other aspects of our gear, a good engineer might naturally compensate for the (possible) limitations of his hard and sofware.

Just an idle thought.

[DrDeltaM]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Playing devil's advocate here:

You might be "mixing to" your setups' idiosyncracies.

So you just naturally compensate for "the blanket effect"...

Mm, good point actually

Let's not worry too much as long as the endresult works out fine

[sleepwalker]

This isn't a simple question. Simply tossing a file into the MT and exporting doesn't test much of the mix engine at all.

What about Automation? Plugins? Panning Laws. Fixed vs. Floating. Sample rate? Etc.

How often does the program update the automation? 1 sample? 16 samples? 256 samples? equal to the soundcard buffer?

[Tom H]

Originally Posted by Axiomata

Is it just me or compared to Cubase SX3 or PT LE Logics mixing algorythm sounds like someone put a blanket over the mix?

In my opinion it's completely the other way around!

To my ears the highs in Logic sounds more open and "crispy" compared to PT.

Part of it is in my head i know, part of it might be true...

[jazztone]

I have learned Good samples, Convertors and Signal recorded, almost levels the playing field between all these platforms sonically. I Started on Logic 4.7 and A digi 001 protools LE setup. Without exception Logic stuff always sounded a little darker more muted in the vibrant upper mids area of music. I know to this day as a logic user on playback during mixing I can hear things slipping out of time or just playing back different then the last take. This could be causing sonic problems with logic. Phasing can cause all sorts of problems. One thing that has always bothered me is that every other manufacture of a major DAW is vocally making it known that they have/are improving there product sonically. I almost never hear that about Logic. Analog got to where it was sonically becuase it kept improving. Logic does alot right and it is very efficient in it's computer usage. However to my ears Spacedesigner is one of the darkest convo verbs on the market and on Lynn Fuston CD Logic is one of the darkest. If I could change anything about logic that would be it. Sorry if you feel different but most of the guys I know on Logic would gladly use protools HD to mix for the sonics not editing.

Jazztone P.S. How many hit Albums have been mixed in Logic in the last 5 year?
How many were made in Logic and mixed in something else?

[jeronimo]

I don't know about logic, 'cause I never finished a mix on it (Logic Express), but I cang get better results with DP 4.5 and UAD-1 than PT LE 6.4.
Did I say I can get what I want faster??? Maybe DP plugs and engine sound better, who knows...

[RhOdEz]

Originally Posted by Axiomata

Is it just me or compared to Cubase SX3 or PT LE Logics mixing algorythm sounds like someone put a blanket over the mix?

Just wondering if anyone has compared it to anything else?

.a

You're not insane - trust your ears thumbsup
I work on all the platforms in various studios : Logic ,Nintendo,PT and sometimes i have to bounce/export/whatever individual tracks from one platform/studio to another (kill me )and i'm always checking the files .
When i import same MULTIPLE audio tracks into Nintendo and ilLogic ,set identical levels (not to overload master bus - depends on the project) ,i save "test" project in both apps and sometimes both apps are on same computer so it's easy to check/spot the difference .And yeap it's so obvious sometimes that anyone in the room can hear it .
I see people talking about bouncing output/dithering /phase invert results etc.
Yeap all good points ,however there's one link missing there.
Just for laughs do not offline export/bounce master fader - record it realtime via aes/ebu ,spdif ,analogue somewhere from both apps - just pretend you're printing final mix - what you hear is what you get .
Then put both mixes on cd/winamp/itunes whatever and compare .Do phase invert ,whatever .
That way you'll compare "realtime multitrack playback engine/summing " differences with all the possible flaws exposed .

[SnakeCained]

You are right Logic sounded the worse out of Pt HD, Analog sum, and SX3.

we blind tested it and everybody thought Logic sucked.

Good for composition though.

[kenn.michael]

Which sounded the best, SnakeCained?

[Tom H]

Originally Posted by SnakeCained

You are right Logic sounded the worse out of Pt HD, Analog sum, and SX3.

we blind tested it and everybody thought Logic sucked.

Interesting... at what sample rate was this?

I've been hearing different opinions from people in the past, especially the opinion that Logic's and Nuendo's 32 bit floating point engine sounds more natural than PT.

There are probably lots of threads on this subject...

Anyway i agree with an earlier post that in the end you're mixing with what you are hearing. So theoreticly you would adapt your mix to the aplication you're working with, right?

[Lagerfeldt]

Oh boy, there are some really preposterous claims in this thread. Not to mention scientifically wrong.

[jazztone]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Oh boy, there are some really preposterous claims in this thread. Not to mention scientifically wrong.

What is perposterous and why? Also what is your opinion of dfferences in DAW engines. Convetional thinking says stay away from the red(clip) in digital, however I have watched Paris being driven in too saturation like a console and it sounded better than almost all the current DAWS! Sometimes things occur that cannot be explained at first in a young field like Digital Audio! Just my opinion, as I think the right person can make a sonically pleasing project on almost anything. I heard a project a 15 year old did using his playstation and cool edit pro. It sounded completly Pro and ready to master a little and release! Just something to remember.

P.S. I find it interesting that the arguement for why DAWS sound good is becuase they are mathematically perfect, when imperfection is the balance of real music. Some of are favorites from the past wouldn't be if they were melodyned and Grid corrected to death. Manufacturers should spend a little more time looking at analogs imperfection and why they are pleasing.


Jazztone

[David Robinson]

won't get into the DAW summing debate at this time, but will say that EVERY session i do in logic requires me to check EVERY audio clip, no matter what source, and adjust the anchor against a click/bar reference. as a result of this, i've developed a number of routines and work arounds. to speed things up. next year i will publish a book based on these. it'll be called "Married - with sync problems".

[Threshold]

Axiomata,

I think you've got it the wrong way around. It's Logic Pro's mixes that sound better than other DAW software mixes. I've done mixing with Pro Tools HD hardware using that same hardwares digital clock, & the exact same mix done in Logic Pro software sounded better than the same interfaces, cards, & digital clock via Pro Tools software. I don't know what it is but if sounds good. Now is Logic Pro could only initiate ADC to include Pro Tools HD DAE, & every other means such as Powercore, & UAD + etc..



Threshold.

"There's nothing like being on the 'Threshold' with 'Special Forces' all around you, & they're your friends." -Thresholdstike

[RhOdEz]

Well just for fun i will post one more ridiculous theory :

I think that majority of people who expirience "dark" sounding Logic mixbuss compared to Nintendo are on Windows .
Majority of people who prefer logic to PT are on Mac .

To keep it simple :

Logic on Mac = good sound - less jitter in system overall ?
Logic on PC (RIP ) = clouded sound - everything else sounds better ?

Audio mythbusters have fun

*runs behind barricades *

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by jazztone

What is perposterous and why? Also what is your opinion of dfferences in DAW engines.

Some of the comments display a lack of insight into how a DAW actually works, how summing works and what you can actually tests for and how.

First of all you can't easily do summing tests in different DAWs without paying extreme attention to many factors such as differences in panning (panlaw), pan vs. balance, dithering, and other factors.

You can't compare or do null tests using playback of an audio cd or analog mixdowns, that simply isn't possible. Also some people (not anyone in this thread hopefully) claim that two identical files that null in a DAW can be different. That's just idiotic. They seem to get things mixed up about error correction.

Also the use of the word "jitter" is often completely misused and misunderstood.

The above said, you can still compare DAWs of course. But you need to compare recent versions of the app, such as Logic 7 and not Logic 4 or 5 (as in some of the DAW tests).

Personally I believe you simply can't look at a DAWs audio qualities isolated. It's more than a sum (pun intended) of it's audio properties. In the end a DAW is also about user interface, flexibility, workflow, etc. If people do want to make claims about the sound in any particular DAW (which is perfectly fine of course) they should provide clear and scientifically based facts or tests, and that just isn't happening in this thread. I'm getting slightly fed up with outrageous claims from people with zero knowledge of the inner workings of digital audio trying to voodoo their way through justifying their claims.

[Ashermusic]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

Some of the comments display a lack of insight into how a DAW actually works, how summing works and what you can actually tests for and how.

First of all you can't easily do summing tests in different DAWs without paying extreme attention to many factors such as differences in panning (panlaw), pan vs. balance, dithering, and other factors.

You can't compare or do null tests using playback of an audio cd or analog mixdowns, that simply isn't possible. Also some people (not anyone in this thread hopefully) claim that two identical files that null in a DAW can be different. That's just idiotic. They seem to get things mixed up about error correction.

Also the use of the word "jitter" is often completely misused and misunderstood.

The above said, you can still compare DAWs of course. But you need to compare recent versions of the app, such as Logic 7 and not Logic 4 or 5 (as in some of the DAW tests).

Personally I believe you simply can't look at a DAWs audio qualities isolated. It's more than a sum (pun intended) of it's audio properties. In the end a DAW is also about user interface, flexibility, workflow, etc. If people do want to make claims about the sound in any particular DAW (which is perfectly fine of course) they should provide clear and scientifically based facts or tests, and that just isn't happening in this thread. I'm getting slightly fed up with outrageous claims from people with zero knowledge of the inner workings of digital audio trying to voodoo their way through justifying their claims.

Well stated.

Logic Certified Trainer

www.jayasher.com

[RhOdEz]

Hehe this is response i expected to see
I'm bored with apples VS oranges "look mom i'm a scientist" so called "tests" too.
I guess we can all agree that any of abovementioned systems are good enough for the task when they are configured properly ,and when they are in good hands .

But thing that starts to bother me is rising "political corectness" phenomenon in digital audio recording world - i'll explain .

Just before you start thinking "WTF are you talkin' about ?This must be some newb doin' muzak in his bedroom without a clue of innerworkings of computer audio ,music ,yadda,yadda ",i must explain my partial view on all this .

I'm using computers for recording/seqencing "music" since commodore 64 days (i tried writing software for ZX spectrum too but eh it was far from possible to make it do anything usable ,blah,blah ...)
Yes it was possible to use C64 as very primitive sampler if you wonder what has C64 got to do with all this .
Digital audio evolved ,First usable samplers appeared (Mirage,Emulator,Akai S900.....),dats ,adats,dash and then hard drive based systems arrived .
I actually used samplers for copying lead vocal from first chorus off tape onto second and third chorus whan working with some bad singers .
My first audio recording/editing computer platform was Atari Falcon if anyone remember these .I said goodbye to tape then .And i hated ADATs .
8 channels of digital 16 bit audio with copy and paste inside cubase - pure heaven.
It had ADAT interface too !
Okay fast forward ,PC nightmare started ,i used (and hated ) first tripple dat cards,sound blasters and anything you can think of on 486 or first Pentium computers .Damn PC audio hardware/OS was always unreliable so i HAD to learn how to make it work .PCI bus thruoutput,IRQ sharing,PCI latency ,bad chipsets/drivers ,memory usage - PC was unhealthy enviroment for proaudio for hardware/OS variables unaware people .After awhile i became quite sucessfull and expirienced in solving various troubles with anything PC/Audio based and it turned into a nice (and stressfull ) side bussines - helping other people to make reliable and bang for the buck DAW.
After hundreds of various build/repaired/debugged computers from cheapest to most expensive ones which I and other dudes used in combat for recording/seqencing/mixing/mastering i can say i've seen it all .
Every man develops it's own relationship with system he uses .Some of them got nice results ,some not .After awhile you can sort them in some sort of groups depending of age/expirience/passion/talent/knowledge but every individual has something unique too.Not every system is for everyone - but there's one omnipresent thing - BAD SOUND /GOOD SOUND
And that dilemma is what motivates people to test/buy/sell .I've seen/expirienced/done some tests which you wouldn't beleive how ridiculous they are .Some of them were eyeopeners and they came from total technical amateurs .

Okay this is boring stuff now to the point :

Expirienced people are becoming lazy and tend to stick to universally accepted myths /answers .Few examples :

" repair preferences" is universal magic cure for all deseases on Mac - LOL - no further comment

"different pan law settings " - LOL ,cmon how hard is it to set it in preferences
well if i continue typing all easy answers it won't fit on this thread so i'll try finish.
I've done some extensive tests and now i think i'm gonna do them again and will try to do it as unbiased as possible cause that's one of things that makes you better .
One idea for testing - record master bus out via AES/EBU onto "neutral" digital recorder so i can import that into editor and match them by one SAMPLE and null/hear whatever - you say why you just don't dither/bounce them ?
Because my judgements about mix are made while listening realtime - what you hear now is what you get - if bouncing audio is making some changes after offline dithering then some of my high freq adjustments are invalid .
Also when i mix ,my decisions are influenced by my main master insert - DA convertor ! Yes i think of it as master bus effect so when i bounce ITB i'm not printing mix with effect my DA has on mix - think about it ....
Okay i'll continue later (if i don't get banned eh )

[RhOdEz]

I forgot - i actually like scientific approach but i'm keeping ears opened all the time so if anyone can add any idea about future testing methods i would like to hear them and add them to arsenal .
I can add one for start - use one exactly same reverb plugin for all daws - like waves trueverb or something thats available on all platforms .
I mean just for fun - send from snare track 0 db or smth ridiculous so you can actually hear that reverb .Repeat on all platforms.
One test can be mono tracks only .
Whatever crosses your mind
Reverb returns can reveal some things and personally i like to sum OTB for various personal reasons but all ideas are welcome .

have fun

[sodium glow]

Well.....I have done complete productions in Logic, Nuendo, and Pro Tools TDM (not LE) and I notice differences in the sonic character in all 3. I am not a scientist so I am not suggesting that it is the almighty "SUMMING" of the different apps. But to me I noticed a difference. Could it have been my way of working in the different apps? Maybe?

My adivice for anyone is to do what I did.

I mixed the same song 3 times. Same files, same clock source, same AD/DA, 3 different DAW's. I mixed with different plugins though...some the same...but I just did what I do in the 3 apps. I used Logic 7.1 (Core Audio), Nuendo 3, PT 6.4.1 (TDM). I did this just to satisfy my own curiosity on the matter and because I was about to make an investment in a new system.

Still...to my ears there is a "sound" to each DAW. There are differences that I notice (when doing blind listening tests of mixes - not just playing back files at unity) consistantly. But...that's just me.

[jeronimo]

So, what is the sound of each one of those DAWs?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by jazztone

Sometimes things occur that cannot be explained at first in a young field like Digital Audio!

Like what? Sampling technology is a theorem, not a theory. That means it is fully explained and mathematicaly proven. The fact that it goes over the heads of most sound engineers let alone consumers is a different thing altogether and doesn't mean any magic is happening ...

Of course, the implementation might not always be perfect. That has more to do with lack of knowledge, DSP/CPU constraints, budget constraints or plain old human error from the developers than gaping holes in digital audio theory.

P.S. I find it interesting that the arguement for why DAWS sound good is becuase they are mathematically perfect, when imperfection is the balance of real music.

Yes in the MUSIC. You want the tools to do exactly as you expect. Not randomly change stuff. That isn't musical or even usefull.

Manufacturers should spend a little more time looking at analogs imperfection and why they are pleasing.

And they are. All the analogue modeling, Component Modeling, Convolution algorythms, non-linear transfer functions etc etc etc. Sorry but you are talking out of your backside ...

Alistair

[sodium glow]

Originally Posted by jeronimo

So, what is the sound of each one of those DAWs?

Well......to me there is a difference in the low end when when doing full ITB mixes on the three. There is also something different in the 8k and up rannge.

Also the same reverb (waves Rennverb) sounds different to me between the three.

I'm not suggesting that any of the three are bad....just different. It doesn't even make sense to me...It's just math right? All I'm saying is that after having done multiple projects in all three programs I notice differences. Again...could it be just the way I am using the three? Possibly...

[jazztone]

Originally Posted by sodium glow

Well......to me there is a difference in the low end when when doing full ITB mixes on the three. There is also something different in the 8k and up rannge.

Also the same reverb (waves Rennverb) sounds different to me between the three.

I'm not suggesting that any of the three are bad....just different. It doesn't even make sense to me...It's just math right? All I'm saying is that after having done multiple projects in all three programs I notice differences. Again...could it be just the way I am using the three? Possibly...

That's the same way I feel but my ears hear clear differences. Somethng to keep in mind, all throughout history the scientific thinking of the day had to be changed by new discoveries. Even discoveries in things thought to be long proven and put to rest. I do not wish to insult anybody but I hear clear differences playing back files I made in Logic on a different DAW. I have heard this on Paris, Protools HD, DP and Nuendo. I have also witnessed sonic differences before any plug ins. I'll describe it like this Nuendo has a little more high end sparkle, DP is superior at reproducing the human voice, HD handles complex harmonics better and Paris will saturate like analog gear. That's what my ears have heard. In reality logic might be the most transparent program while the others have a signature! Hey at the end of the day it is more important what the DAW is playing back(the song) anyway!!!!


Jazztone

[SnakeCained]

Originally Posted by kenn.michael

Which sounded the best, SnakeCained?

Analog!

Followed by SX!