I challenge you to prove that HDX sounds better than TDM!
#301
17th February 2012
Old 17th February 2012
  #301
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep Dude View Post
Andy, I would suggest we not post any files until we have finished this test and confirmed that everything is done correctly.
Yep, point well taken. Creating any kind of confusion, or murkiness about the testing methods would definitely be counterproductive.
#302
17th February 2012
Old 17th February 2012
  #302
Lives for gear
 
Yetti's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep Dude View Post
" I'm going to prepare a number of different session (no plugins, everything hard panned, no sub busses etc etc) and we're going to discuss any settings in the playback engine that might be different."
That sounds like a good plan Zep Dude..
Thanks to you and the others for taking the time to assemble a true comparison test.
#303
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #303
Lives for gear
 
dubrichie's Avatar
No more news on this in a week?

Has this fabled proposed test evaporated?
#304
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #304
Gear maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubrichie View Post
No more news on this in a week?

Has this fabled proposed test evaporated?
We've been chipping away at it—removing and matching variables, for example, same playback settings, no plugins whatsoever, no clipping, even going so far as to exchange files without zip compression.

For the sake of clarity, I'll let Angelo post initial results when he's ready.
#305
28th February 2012
Old 28th February 2012
  #305
Gear addict
 
Fidelis's Avatar
 

Looking forward for it!
#306
5th March 2012
Old 5th March 2012
  #306
MonsterIsland.com
 

One thing to consider, if all you want to do is see if the mixes null, is that the mix you use doesn't need to sound good.

Make one mix that's just faders and panning and print it with both systems.

Then make another where you buss to subgroups with one compressor and one EQ. Limit it to 3-4 subgroups.

Then using the same initial session, but working in each system record the subgroups to stereo tracks and then apply the plug-in settings via audio suite. This will allow you to leave delay compensation off.


There is one major flaw with this test - it's attempting to look at things objectively and it needs to be looked at subjectively because there are so many more factors that affect the mix than the sound of the DAW you're using, but that are affected by changing the DAW.
#307
5th March 2012
Old 5th March 2012
  #307
Lives for gear
 
Firechild's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
There is one major flaw with this test - it's attempting to look at things objectively and it needs to be looked at subjectively because there are so many more factors that affect the mix than the sound of the DAW you're using, but that are affected by changing the DAW.
???
The point is that it is the same DAW with different hardware...
A perfect opportunity to AB test hardware.
#308
5th March 2012
Old 5th March 2012
  #308
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

I've already done my own tests and simply bouncing a stereo master file with 3 plugins on it in PTHD 8.1 and PT10 were not similar sounding. Very different. The PT10 version was cleaner sounding but not as big. Very different image. Choosing which PT version is better isn't really fair since I dialed the master in around my 8.1HD mix engine and there is no way to know what the mix would have sounded like if I had mixed it in PT10. If PT10 and HDX are the same, there is no way that TDM and HDX are going to sound the same. I don't know which one yields better results. If I knew someone with HDX this test would have been done a long time ago, along with a PT10 vs HDX test. I suspect PT10 and HDX are the same sonically, but TDM is certainly not the same as PT10. I'd post the files but the album hasn't been released yet.
#309
6th March 2012
Old 6th March 2012
  #309
MonsterIsland.com
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firechild View Post
???
The point is that it is the same DAW with different hardware...
A perfect opportunity to AB test hardware.
The point of the test being discussed is to A/B the DAW.


My point is that there are so many factors that affect mix results that isolating one is not necessarily going to give you an indication of whether or not you'd get better results with one or another of the DAWs.

Moving from two HD cards to a single HDX card, regardless of sound could lead to consistent improvement.
#310
9th March 2012
Old 9th March 2012
  #310
Quote:
Originally Posted by SureSound View Post
Avid is advertising that pro tools 10 "sounds better"

Avid | Pro Tools 10 Software — Professional Audio Recording and Music Creation Software

its obvious you get more power with HDx but as for resolution and clarity, its more likely that its a combination of the software, hardware and software designed to be used with more powerful computers
Where do AVID say it sounds better,except in that headline "Your Sound-better, faster, easier...."?

I'm looking at your link. They say:

You get "higher resolution mixing" with more headroom.

"Legendary sound" from their Avid Channel Strip.

"Top quality sound...with Avid Hardware"

"Get great sounding, phase-accurate mixes with Automatic Delay Compensation"

Attain the highest sound quality and performance

"Because Pro Tools HD is designed and optimized to be part of an integrated hardware/software solution, you can capture audio in pristine clarity with near-zero latency. Even when mixing large, complex projects, you’ll experience uncompromised performance—on a Pro Tools|HDX DSP-powered system or on the host with Pro Tools|HD Native." This is a claim about hardware, then.

AFAIK they have never, ever said their software sounds better at any stage of its evolution. They have quoted their endorsees saying they can hear the difference between PT9 and PT10, but AVID have never claimed this. Considering the debates on GS about minimal differences between, say, two different high end AD converters, you might expect even a little mention of the improved "sound" of the software.

I'd like to invite anyone who works for AVID to tell us that the software sounds better than before. It may help clarify the "sound of software" arguments that somehow never seem to go away.

I know this thread is "HDX vs.TDM" but these are processing chips which either can do the maths or not. I can't believe one chip can do the maths not quite as well as another (obviously some chips are more powerful and can do more tasks more quickly).
#311
9th March 2012
Old 9th March 2012
  #311
Lives for gear
 
barryjohns's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Famous Yard View Post
Where do AVID say it sounds better?

AFAIK they have never, ever said their software sounds better at any stage of its evolution.
I have no horse in this race. I can't tell you if HDX sounds better or not. But what I can tell you as a fact is that Avid has stated on many occasions that HDX sounds better. Mainly this has been attributed to greater headroom. But the statement is fact. Sorry to be the bearer of this news.

Now, my TDM HD systems sounds great to me, and I don't buy for one second any of it will make much difference by the time the mix ends up on an iPod. My 2 cents.
#312
9th March 2012
Old 9th March 2012
  #312
Gear maniac
 
adogg4629's Avatar
 

#313
9th March 2012
Old 9th March 2012
  #313
[QUOTE=barryjohns;7652040]I have no horse in this race. I can't tell you if HDX sounds better or not. But what I can tell you as a fact is that Avid has stated on many occasions that HDX sounds better. Mainly this has been attributed to greater headroom. But the statement is fact. Sorry to be the bearer of this news.

I have no problem with news if it is the truth! I just can't find it anywhere on their website which is weird if it really does sound better. You would think they would make a big deal out of that particular point. Btw I'm not a basher, I am a PT9 user and very happy, but I like to see things backed up, so I was interested in this thread and the testing which hopefully will emerge.
#314
10th March 2012
Old 10th March 2012
  #314
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 

"You will never get ahead if you keep looking backwards"
Steve Jobs
TDM is history, dust, gone, and no longer made.
#315
10th March 2012
Old 10th March 2012
  #315
Banned
 

...well it seems like the initial tests are indicating that it does indeed sound different...

Oh wait...the test is not right somehow...this shouldn't be that hard...use PT 10 for both...mix something andPrint it with the two separate cards...analize the differences...because there will be...

...and oh BTW..instruments poking out differently in a mix...is exactly what you will find happening...and different senses of space...not nulling

but hey seriously don;t believe me...carry on..you'll see
#316
13th March 2012
Old 13th March 2012
  #316
MonsterIsland.com
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
...well it seems like the initial tests are indicating that it does indeed sound different...

Oh wait...the test is not right somehow...this shouldn't be that hard...use PT 10 for both...mix something andPrint it with the two separate cards...analize the differences...because there will be...

...and oh BTW..instruments poking out differently in a mix...is exactly what you will find happening...and different senses of space...not nulling

but hey seriously don;t believe me...carry on..you'll see
Interesting. You're seeing it as a processor test, which I think is a unique perspective. Most people are looking at the software, meaning the application, or the hardware interfaces.

Again, I think the test needs to be done without concern for the musicality of the mix. Just choose plugins and routing that will be no problem to duplicate.

I think it would be interesting to hear two versions, one with "normal" plug-in settings and one with really extreme ones.
#317
13th March 2012
Old 13th March 2012
  #317
MonsterIsland.com
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep Dude View Post
The brass sticking out as loud as it does is my first clue that we are hearing a testing issue as opposed to a difference between TDM and HDX. Perhaps different panning laws? Either that or Avid should start advertising "the HDX mix engine is now optimized for Brass sections!"

Either way, Ryan can't even get my v8 TDM to null with his v10 TDM so we've got a little work to do before we have a viable test.
Does he have a v8 TDM system?

Have you been able to get it to null on another v8 TDM system?
#318
13th March 2012
Old 13th March 2012
  #318
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey View Post
Interesting. You're seeing it as a processor test, which I think is a unique perspective. Most people are looking at the software, meaning the application, or the hardware interfaces.

Again, I think the test needs to be done without concern for the musicality of the mix. Just choose plugins and routing that will be no problem to duplicate.

I think it would be interesting to hear two versions, one with "normal" plug-in settings and one with really extreme ones.

Yes...I'm convinced it's the way info is processed...what is prioritized...what errors are allowed...and of course how I could I be a proper conspiracy theorist without thinking there is "secret code" in each!...the info is not going to be different but each DAW has to process that info and it's fairly safe to say at this point, that each DAW will process the respective "nes and zeros" differently

...statically...DAWs are just space sitting in a drive somewhere
#319
14th March 2012
Old 14th March 2012
  #319
MonsterIsland.com
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
Yes...I'm convinced it's the way info is processed...what is prioritized...what errors are allowed...and of course how I could I be a proper conspiracy theorist without thinking there is "secret code" in each!...the info is not going to be different but each DAW has to process that info and it's fairly safe to say at this point, that each DAW will process the respective "nes and zeros" differently

...statically...DAWs are just space sitting in a drive somewhere
I have no idea if that's true, but if it is, I think that would mean a higher powered CPU is likely to sound better. Also, the processing errors during recording would create different files which would become even more different with more errors during mixing. And wouldn't it also be possible to have different errors on back to back playbacks or bounces?

I have a hard time believing any of this would be audible.
#320
14th March 2012
Old 14th March 2012
  #320
Lives for gear
 

Hey Mike the problem on that one was my mistake but we decided to try to take 8 out of the equation at that point. What we found out is that AAX plugins have either changed in the rewrite from TDM or the settings don't transfer 1:1.

Without plugins the files do audibly null. The reason for the hangup isn't under normal circumstances but what you find when you boost the null file by 96dB. And the problem is that what's going on down there in the test we did appears to indicate something wrong with the test method. IE you expect the file to either null or not, but you don't expect the chorus to null, and the bridge not to null and not to null especially on the right channel. Again this is all down around -120dBFS or lower (the music is about equal in volume with quantization noise).

We are still committed to figuring this out, but this is far more complex now because we have to determine what stage of the test may have caused this. I would ask that everyone respect that all 3 of us are doing this for free amid busy schedules and over multiple time zones.

If anyone is holding their breath, I will say that my personal interpretation of the data thus far is that if anyone can consistently pick HD native, TDM and HDX prints in a blind test, I will eat my shirt.
#321
15th March 2012
Old 15th March 2012
  #321
Banned
 

I see we are drawing conclusions before the test is conclusive...fine...I'll draw my own conclusion for everyone...If a relevant comparison test is conducted properly between TDM and HDX and you can't hear the difference...you are in the wrong business!

How's that...does the work for bringing us closer to a good working test and results that can be analized...no?


right...no it doesn;t ...so how about we just cast those two conclusions aside and concentrate on doing a proper test...

so dudes...get PT 10!!!!!...Holy cow...and run the same mix with the same stock plugs (yes this is easy actually)...all AAX all DSP or a combo of DSP and Native...what is so hard about getting the free demo and doing this...obviously doing it from 8 has issues...just forget about why there...make it an even more fair fight for yourselves...use 10 guys...did I mention you should use 10?????
#322
15th March 2012
Old 15th March 2012
  #322
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleBubba View Post
I see we are drawing conclusions before the test is conclusive...fine...I'll draw my own conclusion for everyone...If a relevant comparison test is conducted properly between TDM and HDX and you can't hear the difference...you are in the wrong business!

How's that...does the work for bringing us closer to a good working test and results that can be analized...no?


right...no it doesn;t ...so how about we just cast those two conclusions aside and concentrate on doing a proper test...

so dudes...get PT 10!!!!!...Holy cow...and run the same mix with the same stock plugs (yes this is easy actually)...all AAX all DSP or a combo of DSP and Native...what is so hard about getting the free demo and doing this...obviously doing it from 8 has issues...just forget about why there...make it an even more fair fight for yourselves...use 10 guys...did I mention you should use 10?????
OK bubba let's not get nasty. Re-read my post please. I used 10 TDM and have already stated that the first snag is that there is a difference between stock digi AAX and TDM plugins themselves (could be just settings, could be they were re-written and sound different, that is a different test).

All I did state is that without plugins they null to greater than 100dB, and offered my perspective on that to those potentially on the fence, which I admit was a mistake.

Also your example highlights why doing this test isn't all that simple. Nobody stopped to think that maybe stock digi plugs got re-written into AAX and are now enough different to produce a (potentially) false negative.
#323
15th March 2012
Old 15th March 2012
  #323
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

I just downloaded the PT10HD trial and I bounced a song out of 8.1 HD right before I upgraded and then bounced it again once I got 10HD up and running. There are convolution reverbs on the drums and vocals so these do not null BUT the beginning of the song is guitar only with a simple EQ on it and they DO NOT NULL. They line up perfectly visually but there is guitar sound to be heard down low. Also, my partner from across the hall picked the PT10HD bounce blind 3 times in my room. More open sounding and clear. Now I thought PT TDM was gonna sound the same due to the limitations of the process cards but it appears that something is going on. Also, I am loving the snappiness of PT10HD as well as clip gain, realtime fades (huge for beat detective), and RAM cache. I've got a few more weeks on my trial, but it looks like Avid is getting my money...
#324
15th March 2012
Old 15th March 2012
  #324
MonsterIsland.com
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Hey Mike the problem on that one was my mistake but we decided to try to take 8 out of the equation at that point. What we found out is that AAX plugins have either changed in the rewrite from TDM or the settings don't transfer 1:1.

Without plugins the files do audibly null. The reason for the hangup isn't under normal circumstances but what you find when you boost the null file by 96dB. And the problem is that what's going on down there in the test we did appears to indicate something wrong with the test method. IE you expect the file to either null or not, but you don't expect the chorus to null, and the bridge not to null and not to null especially on the right channel. Again this is all down around -120dBFS or lower (the music is about equal in volume with quantization noise).

We are still committed to figuring this out, but this is far more complex now because we have to determine what stage of the test may have caused this. I would ask that everyone respect that all 3 of us are doing this for free amid busy schedules and over multiple time zones.

If anyone is holding their breath, I will say that my personal interpretation of the data thus far is that if anyone can consistently pick HD native, TDM and HDX prints in a blind test, I will eat my shirt.
I know how hard it can be to figure out how to do a proper A/B. I once tried to A/B the Pendulum PL2 with the L2 and concluded that it's simply not possible.

It seems to me that there are two possible purposes to perform this comparison. One is to objectively evaluate Digi's claims that there is an actual difference and 10 sounds better. The other is to figure out if you will get better results with 10 and if they are enough better that it'sworththe upgrade.

I only cares about the latter, even if it's a placebo effect, as long as it's genuine it's worth it. If I get better mixes because I believe it sounds better and work longer until it does, or if I'm cheap and only use Digi plugins and the new ones are better, if the system is faster and I get 59 minute of mixing done in an hour instead of 50, if something about the way I think is better suited for clip gain than automation - I don't care what the explanation is, all I care is if the results are better.

My sense is that everyone involved I the test is more concerned about the objective approach. In the end, I don't think it's a problem to end up with a subjective or blurred conclusion as long as it's not presented as an objective one because the practical results simply matter more.
#325
15th March 2012
Old 15th March 2012
  #325
Lives for gear
 

Hey Shelterr- Well the original goal was to compare TDM to HDX not 8 to 10. What plugins are on there? My gut feeling is that 10 has really fixed some ADC issues and that's the biggie, but that is yet another test. All it takes is one plug on an aux that isn't set to %100 wet for this to be very important, and ADC on auxes was a mess in 8... How many dB does it go down? I'm going to double check what our 8 vs 10 was.

Mike- Yeah man I'm already sold on 10, but I know what you mean, instantiating a plugin without a dropout isn't just a cute feature at all, especially if you have a client in the room. I bought a HD|N and love it. Still there is nothing wrong with loving HD|N or HDX for the speed and how that improves your workflow instead of attributing it to a sound quality difference, if that is the case.
#326
15th March 2012
Old 15th March 2012
  #326
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

The guitars in this test were not routed to any busses. The beginning is just one guitar left, followed by one guitar right each with one waves puigtech eq plug on them, both sent to outs 1-2. Gettin the waveforms to line up was easy and I'm not sure exactly how far it went down but it didn't seem high enough to indicate a problem with the test. I can post the guitar intro files for people to compare for themselves but it seems pretty conclusive.
#327
15th March 2012
Old 15th March 2012
  #327
Lives for gear
 
T_R_S's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
What we found out is that AAX plugins have either changed in the rewrite from TDM or the settings don't transfer 1:1.
True since AAX DSP chips and TDM DSP are totally different processors.
There was an interview with Colin from McDSP and and another guy from Sonnox talking about the differences in AAX and TDM coding.
I've moved on from TDM all my systems are now gone and everything is HDX now.
TDM is dead end yesterday's technology, and at some point in the future HDX will be history too.
#328
16th March 2012
Old 16th March 2012
  #328
Lives for gear
 
shelterr's Avatar
 

Here ya go. Obviously once the music kicks in these will not null due to convolution reverbs but i included a bit of the intro so that people could just hear the difference. I'm not claiming to know why they sound different but these were done on the same computer, one in 8.1HD and the other in PT10HD right after i upgraded and the guitars in the intro have Waves Puigtech EQ's on them and are sent to outputs 1-2. No bussing or routing of any kind. I included a stereo bounce down as well as the dual mono files for loading into the DAW of your choice.
Attached Files
File Type: wav PT10 Stereo Bounce.wav (1.91 MB, 54 views) File Type: wav PT8 Stereo Bounce.wav (1.91 MB, 49 views) File Type: wav PT8 Bounce 1644_01.L.wav (1.03 MB, 6 views) File Type: wav PT8 Bounce 1644_01.R.wav (1.03 MB, 7 views) File Type: wav PT10 Bounce 1644_01.L.wav (1.03 MB, 7 views) File Type: wav PT10 Bounce 1644_01.R.wav (1.03 MB, 11 views)
#329
16th March 2012
Old 16th March 2012
  #329
Banned
 

So in the end...they SOUND different...even though everyone would LIKE them to sOUND the same...THEY DON'T...and the tree grew a little taller and the bush wider..

...oh and big surprise!...PT 8 SOUNDS different than PT 10...that is different versions of the SAME DAW folks...
#330
16th March 2012
Old 16th March 2012
  #330
PT8 doesn't have delay compensation and PT9 onwards does. That is probably the cause. It's not that simple (as this thread and the valiant testers are showing) to make sure the test is a proper one, i.e. only testing the DAW itself. There are many potential hiccups to take into consideration and other issues to eliminate. I really appreciate that some GS guys are endeavouring to do that test and eliminate those factors.

"If a relevant comparison test is conducted properly between TDM and HDX and you can't hear the difference...you are in the wrong business!"

@UncleBubba... If you say things like that before doing the test and getting your facts straight then I don't really know what to say to you. What good is a test if you don't pay attention to the results? To misquote you, if you can definitely hear a difference and there really isn't one, maybe you are in the wrong business.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
pedwin / So much gear, so little time!
3
lucasmusic / So much gear, so little time!
15
Blueflame / So much gear, so little time!
18
phelbin / So much gear, so little time!
13

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.