Pro Tools Sound?

[Robobo1]

Originally Posted by Ruudman

I've done ITB PT mixes where the ME thought it was all analoge production.
It's all tools.

Yeah, and I've done board mixes where the ME thought it was ITB PT... I mean... uh....... doh!

Grin

[drundall]

Originally Posted by Blunder Man

How the hell can a piece of software 'sound' better than another. Just get on with that thing called 'music' and stop wasting time

Regardless of whether it does or not, these kinds of threads make me wonder if that's why music sucks so hard today. If all these hours were spent on discussing arrangement ideas or melodic approach, I wonder what would come of it.

Years ago the only choice of medium was which kind of tape you used. Everybody had favorites, but whichever you got you would get right down to work. Maybe a little cursing during the mix, but not really an issue.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

When people talk about Radar's "sound" they mean the on-board converters. Audio pro's have, almost to a man, preferred the sound of recording and playing back using Radar's converters when compared to HD converters. Apparently tracking and playing back on Radar (using it's verters) sounds more "analog" than most any other digital system.

So yes... Radar does have a "sound".

Lawrence

Yes, people seem to like Radar converters. But this thread isn't about comparing converters, it's about the "sound engines" in various software platforms. Radar doesn't have one.

Furthermore, any evaluation of the Radar converters is mitigated by whatever mix console they are run through.

-R

[kats]

Originally Posted by parissound

I say if you can't get something good out of any software then you suck.
It's not what you use, it's what you do with it.
I learned that the hard way, lets just get down to proper micing and great engineering. Good Luck.

So why is this forum here in the first place then? It's about gear - ya know "gearslutz" it's not called "techniqueslutz".

As far as your theory on "suckness" - your right! Now that we're past that (and that should be a damn given on any thread) can we get on wih the geekyness

[u b k]

Originally Posted by parissound

I say if you can't get something good out of any software then you suck.

i know cats who create sheer magic with tape and a console but are lost with a mouse and plug-ins. i don't think they suck, not in the least.

besides, i'm not after "something good", i'm after "full body erection". for better or worse, i cannot do that itb, i need an api desk or a nicerizer or some such circuitry blending the sounds.


gregoire
del ubik

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Yes, people seem to like Radar converters. But this thread isn't about comparing converters, it's about the "sound engines" in various software platforms. Radar doesn't have one.

Furthermore, any evaluation of the Radar converters is mitigated by whatever mix console they are run through.

-R

Of course. I went off track a little there. Let's get back on track...

IMHO Steinberg's "audio engine" is superior to PT. I have PTLE and have heard quite a few HD mixes and I'm not impressed considering the price of an HD system. Apparently the price is for the power not because it sounds better than other daws because it doesn't. It sounds good like all the rest.

Now as to my statement about "superior"? Steinys AE seems to do a lot of realtime things that PT's DAE cannot do like loading plugs, creating busses and groups and things like that during playback. And my (subjective) opinion is that SX/Nuendo (given the same converters and outboard) sounds as good as and often better than PTLE/HD.

I'm not sure why. Here's some things that could cause differences in sound.

1. Bus architechture? Digi touts it's 48-bit mix engine but (if I'm not mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong) the insert bus is 24-bits. If that's true (and again I don't know that it is) that could be part of it. SX uses 32-bit float throughout the mixer.

2. Implemetation of plugin delay compensation. Maybe they handle it differently? Does it cover everything including inserts on groups and groups into other groups with inserts on all of them? The implementation of that could make a difference if say PDC did not extend to subgroups within subgroups.

3. Dithering? I assume HD's mix bus dithers down from 48-bits to 24 for conversion to the playback monitors. Steinberg's truncates 32-bit float to 24. That could account for somethng sounding a little different when played through both systems.

There are some things involved in Daws that could explain why they "sound" a little different.

Lawrence

[signit]

http://akwww.digidesign.com/support/...in_the_Box.pdf

[JP11]

Originally Posted by drundall

Regardless of whether it does or not, these kinds of threads make me wonder if that's why music sucks so hard today. If all these hours were spent on discussing arrangement ideas or melodic approach, I wonder what would come of it.

Someone should do a test where one song was done based on hours of discussing mix busses and such, and another was done based on hours of discussing arrangements and melodies and such .

My guess is they both would suck the same.

I'm thinking it's the discussing that's killing us...damn computers

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

I'm not sure why. Here's some things that could cause differences in sound.

..............................

There are some things involved in Daws that could explain why they "sound" a little different.

Lawrence

Most of these points have been debated at length here--you can look it all up. After you do you'll probably see that no one has ever demonstrated any difference in the sound engine between DAW's, all other things being equal. OTOH there have been tests which indicate that mixing identical tracks in different DAW's, even 48 bit linear versus 32 floating, can yield bit for bit identical results. Furthermore, assuming there were differences, the reasons you are proposing here are based on wrong assumptions, some misunderstanding of how digital mixing works, and misinformation about the specifics of the different platforms.

The whole controversy is fairly interesting and you should look up all these discussions, as well as checking out Stan Coty's white paper at the DUC.

-R

[bunnerabb]

Let's face it:

Digital is the ultimate editing and storage medium.

For tracking, and mixing, it's a bit shit.

[Lawrence]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Most of these points have been debated at length here--you can look it all up. After you do you'll probably see that no one has ever demonstrated any difference in the sound engine between DAW's, all other things being equal. OTOH there have been tests which indicate that mixing identical tracks in different DAW's, even 48 bit linear versus 32 floating, can yield bit for bit identical results. Furthermore, assuming there were differences, the reasons you are proposing here are based on wrong assumptions, some misunderstanding of how digital mixing works, and misinformation about the specifics of the different platforms.

The whole controversy is fairly interesting and you should look up all these discussions, as well as checking out Stan Coty's white paper at the DUC.

-R

Many people think Nuendo "sounds" better than PT. Why? Like I said I don't know. No daw summing test is going to replicate real world mixing conditions. I'll ignore your comments about my wrong assumptions.

Look, without getting into a long debate...

Summing (levels and pan) doesn't tell me much. The audio engine really goes to work when you start actually mixing a real song. Inserting many plugins, sending groups to other groups, performing automation moves and other things that people do for real.

When you find a test that does that with HD and Nuendo using the same plugins and calibrated levels and it comes back "bit for bit" get back to me. Until then the summing test means nothing except that both companies got the math right for what is arguably the easiest task of any daw, summing multiple uneffected channels to a single bus. That's the true test of an audio engine huh?

When's the last time you mixed a song in a daw with levels and pan and nothing else? I'm sure it's been done but it's not the norm. How do we know what that code is doing with cpu at 90% and 72 tracks running with automation and multiple plugins and nested groups? Nobody is going to run those kinds of comparison tests. There's only one way to decide which sounds best. Listen to real mixes, not summing tests.

That's what we do. People can write white papers until there are no more trees. SX/Nuendo sounds better to me. YMMV.

I repeat... IMHO Steinbergs audio engine is superior to Digi's. Subjective yes, but we all got opinions.

Lawrence

[u b k]

Originally Posted by bunnerabb

For tracking, and mixing, it's a bit shit.

for tracking, yes, it is a bit shit.

for mixing, imo, it's the whole ass.


gregoire
del ubik

[bunnerabb]

Ah.

My take is close by your take.

For tracking it's ass on a stick.

For mixing, its a bit... shit. Either way it's just less than necessary. It's lazy, is what it is.

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

I repeat... IMHO Steinbergs audio engine is superior to Digi's. Subjective yes, but we all got opinions.

Hey, if it's only your subjective opinion then who am I to disagree?

My favorite color is green.

-R

[Marjan]

Back in 2000 I did my own tests and compared the sound engines of Pro Tools, Cubase and Digital Performer (can't remember the versions now).
To my ears, Cubase came first without a doubt, then Digital Performer, and Pro Tools came last.
I still use Pro Tools up until today though...

[andy_simpson]

Some of them handle headroom issues well and some less so.

Give them all plenty of headroom and they will all sound bigger, cleaner & more musical.

Also, the delay compensation schemes in earlier versions of PT can be one of the reasons for 'that sound', where too many plugins without adequate delay compensation (or without it even turned on!) can do damage to a many-mic'd mix.

Andy

[Stixxs]

Originally Posted by warhead

Stixx, I'm curious to know if what you're saying is you've taken an identical project and loaded it into PT and it sounded different? Or, are you saying you've tracked at the same studio switching back and forth between different rigs and noticed a difference? Or, are you saying you went to a studio that uses PT and they had a more dense sounding low end?

Not a flame, but provided the first two answers are no I wouldn't say it's a direct comparison of anything other than maybe the room, the mics, the proximity to the mics, the players, the talent, the monitors, the control room acoustics, the converters used...ok a few things to consider is all.

?

War

Warren PM'd you.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by bunnerabb

His question has merit because most native DAWS, all, actually, are "software solutions".

Not hardware and software with proprietary interfacing hardware solutions.

It's not a stupid question.

And I don't have an answer other than I don't have a four bedroom Cape Cod, a Ferarri, a Neve or a $30,000.00 HD Accel system, so I can't comment.

Interesting - I have two of them. And a car that competes well.

No Cape Cod though....

I'll go.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Steinys AE seems to do a lot of realtime things that PT's DAE cannot do like loading plugs, creating busses and groups and things like that during playback.

What version of PT are you comparing?

[Coyoteous]

- yet another 3 year time warp thread, funny...

[Don S]

Originally Posted by Faderjockey

I've taken a session and loaed it into our Pro Toos rig. Got levels no plugins on anything. Then consoldated the files. Then Opened Nuendo telling Nuendo to use the digi hardware...I heard a big difference.
.

I work regularly with 4 different DAWS and they all sound slightly different to me. PT always has a certain edgy sound compared to the rest.
When comparing, it's very important to set the pan laws the same.

[CDS]

I still proclaim the sound of the SDII format on Mac based PT systems sound the best to me.