Is PT HD slowly giving way to native Nuendo?

[mac black]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

They're not wrong, they just like what they like, or hire operators to do the dirty work ITB because they're old school engineers who think computers have their own set of flaws vs tape.

Now I want to preface the rest of my letter by explaining my position...

I measured these DAWS for a company I worked for in order to write code on our own proprietary recording software that came out last year. MyStudio (this is the company in question, and we were the only company to ever recieve an endorsment from the Grammys...that should tell you that I'm not some amatuer status tech)

Cubase and Nuendo which both use the same damn algorithm to convert signal are noticeably more "correct" in freq spectrum analysis to the SOURCES I tracked and measured with a spectral analyser.

Reaper, Logic and Ableton Live were somewhere in between both ends of the spectrum. But the low end in Pro Tools takes a hit during tracking. And again when you bounce tracks down.

It's not wrong to use it...but it is wrong to assume that there aren't any professionals who use other DAWS. My bosses at my old job were Larry Ryckman (co-founder of Interscope Records w/ Jimmy Iovine) and Shelly Yakus (One of the greatest engineers to have ever lived) All three of us listening back to samples had to agree that we needed to move closer to what Stienberg does sonically because it was closer to matching exactly to the oringal sources we tracked in harmonic content.

Ok, I understand, I'm not going to argue with your test as I wasn't there.

I'll rephrase and state that the significant majority of professionals (I won't start dropping names as the list is endless) uses protools HD/accel (and PT Mix before that) and there is a reason for that, it's not one reason, there are many reasons.

I won't go into the technical specs but how many big records were done on PT compare to Nuendo ? how long have they both been out ? why is PT an industry standard ?

[Matti]

Avid & Digidesign - my english wasn´t good enough to understand you , sorry
I´m a Nuendo user and feel PT HD is a way of selling hardware -and I hate their way of changing specs to have compability issues with i.e. OMF and non Avid products.
Bad marketing

Matti

[Steffmo]

Taking shots at the front runner is an American tradition.

Its really simple...If you work primarily for yourself, or in a relatively closed pool of people then ANY of the established DAWs can turn our work that will be as good as your skills.

If however you are reliant on interacting with a general client base and market your services to the general and industry at large, you will constantly be asked for Pro Tools.

The only DAW I am ever asked for aside from PT is Logic, which has caught on with the compositional types. Certainly some PT folks went to Logic, but a lot of Nuendo folks did as well.

I don't think Digi is going anywhere. If the investment doesn't make sense to you, don't make it. No one put a gun to your head.

[midnightsun]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

As it seems to truncate and / or dither low end response below 50Hz in a noticeably artificial sounding way.
.

I don't get it... "dither low end response" is an interesting string of words. Does this have meaning in the digital recording world or a meaningless string of word applied to a platform that you don't happen to like. Please explain if there is an explanation.

[herecomesyourman]

Like a compressor leaves artifacts....or imparts a sound...it's truncating, or dithering (sloping off by crunching bits) by manipulating low end harmonic content. I think...I mean, I didn't write their code, I don't know what they intended for their systems to do, other than their ambiguous spec sheet with the digi manual.

it's doing something where the low end doesn't sound the same as the source / have matching content. The response below 50Hz is measurably different. And the slope in that regard is pretty abrupt.

Cubase sounds more true if I mic up a kick...the response is much closer to the source. it's not a clarity thing, it's a matter of how much harmonic content the signal processes down to waveform.

Pro Tools is most assuradly different sounding in this regard. And it doesn't feel like a hi-pass filter, or EQ doing it. It's just slightly less musical overall to my ears when you A/B the same source split.

Now I will still use it if the studio I'm in has it. But if given an option...I would much rather use everything else I've mentioned in previous posts. Topping out with the Nuendo Engine or Radar.

Even if this was not the case...for sheer economic reasons I find Cubase to be one of the best bangs for the buck for me...but in the end I just want things to be very even sounding during tracking...it makes mixing a lot easier for me.

[dbjp]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

Like a compressor leaves artifacts....or imparts a sound...it's truncating, or dithering (sloping off by crunching bits) by manipulating low end harmonic content. I think...I mean, I didn't write their code, I don't know what they intended for their systems to do, other than their ambiguous spec sheet with the digi manual.

it's doing something where the low end doesn't sound the same as the source / have matching content. The response below 50Hz is measurably different. And the slope in that regard is pretty abrupt.

Cubase sounds more true if I mic up a kick...the response is much closer to the source. it's not a clarity thing, it's a matter of how much harmonic content the signal processes down to waveform.

Pro Tools is most assuradly different sounding in this regard. And it doesn't feel like a hi-pass filter, or EQ doing it. It's just slightly less musical overall to my ears when you A/B the same source split.

Now I will still use it if the studio I'm in has it. But if given an option...I would much rather use everything else I've mentioned in previous posts. Topping out with the Nuendo Engine or Radar.

Even if this was not the case...for sheer economic reasons I find Cubase to be one of the best bangs for the buck for me...but in the end I just want things to be very even sounding during tracking...it makes mixing a lot easier for me.

What converter(s) did you use for Digidesign and Cubase?

[herecomesyourman]

Originally Posted by dbjp

What converter(s) did you use for Digidesign and Cubase?

We used the HD converters stock for pro tools. and an apogee rosetta.

For cubase the same rosetta was used as well as my RME fireface 800.

Now...the source was miced with a splitter in real time recording on two different macs.

Then afterwards, because the software I was writing was PC based in concept at the time, I had to try to BEAT our samples.

This was very early on, before MyStudio became a very time intensive project for me. We wanted to understand the DAWS that were out so we could develop our system to be much more intuitive.

(Those booths record, mix, master, and sync to video in REAL TIME as you peform...without auto-tune, it took over 10 months to perfect that process / signal chain)

This is all on top of sound treatment...and keeping the damn things vandal proof since they're being built in malls...

[dbjp]

What was the Rosseta clocked to in both instances?

[herecomesyourman]

I believe that each unit was using its it's own internal clock as "master".

The main reason was because we were comparing stock machines to design our own pieces.

As for bit rates, etc, we did a number of tests. I spent two weeks pretty much doing nothing but this...and it was one of the reasons I got the gig for the long haul during their RND stage designing the booth.

I can't really talk about what we wound up creating at length though, from a legal standpoint. I just wanted to relate my experiences as best I could to make the point that most DAWS have evolved much more rapidly than most have let on in terms of capturing raw harmonic content / converting it into data.

I don't feel that Digi has made the best project it could for many moons...but it's still a pro product, and if that's what you're used to working with. That's not something I would ever criticize.

But, in all of our tests, similar low end response was achieved across the board, matter what sample / bit rate, etc.

That's something in the actual coding of their software. And now when I hear things that were recorded on Pro Tools I can usually pick it out from listening to the sub lows closer.

[mac black]

Originally Posted by MATTI

Avid & Digidesign - my english wasn´t good enough to understand you , sorry
I´m a Nuendo user and feel PT HD is a way of selling hardware -and I hate their way of changing specs to have compability issues with i.e. OMF and non Avid products.
Bad marketing

Matti

I think that due to so many 3rd party products, digidesign have to be careful, staying pro means you need a stable system at all times and that's exactly what protools aims to deliver as far as i can tell, it comes at a price though, PT is always one step behind (the latest operating system).

[Akoppenheffer]

I don't think I'll ever change from Pro Tools. The new Logic looks nice though.

[Gibson]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

Like a compressor leaves artifacts....or imparts a sound...it's truncating, or dithering (sloping off by crunching bits) by manipulating low end harmonic content. I think...I mean, I didn't write their code, I don't know what they intended for their systems to do, other than their ambiguous spec sheet with the digi manual.

it's doing something where the low end doesn't sound the same as the source / have matching content. The response below 50Hz is measurably different. And the slope in that regard is pretty abrupt.

Cubase sounds more true if I mic up a kick...the response is much closer to the source. it's not a clarity thing, it's a matter of how much harmonic content the signal processes down to waves


Pro Tools is most assuradly different sounding in this regard. And it doesn't feel like a hi-pass filter, or EQ doing it. It's just slightly less musical overall to my ears when you A/B the same source split.

Now I will still use it if the studio I'm in has it. But if given an option...I would much rather use everything else I've mentioned in previous posts. Topping out with the Nuendo Engine or Radar.

Even if this was not the case...for sheer economic reasons I find Cubase to be one of the best bangs for the buck for me...but in the end I just want things to be very even sounding during tracking...it makes mixing a lot easier for me.

I totaly agree as i have samplitude and nuendo. I must say that Nuendo is the fattest fullest and most musical of the 2. Samp sounds thin and too sterile.
I track and mix with Nuendo and use Samp for mastering..

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Michael Zick

Sorry, I knew digi is owned by avid, I meant taken over by avid due to profit loss. In otherwords, the disolvment of digi due to lack of flagship product sales.

Digidesign is the profitable side of Avid

It's the video side that is hurting.

The aura of doom you pick up on these boards is really little more than the wishful thinking of the haters and sour-grapers. It is not enough for them that they "prefer" another DAW, they also need to see Digi fail.

So all-in-all, PTHD is still a good investment over native processing? What if the company goes under? Do they still sell enough HD rigs to support them well into the future?

Do not think of any computer crap - hardware or software - as an 'investment'. This stuff obsoletes so fast, it needs to be viewed as an 'expense', like the electric bill. Or toilet paper. The idea that the possible future demise of a company that is currently ON TOP of the industry and the possible loss of "support" (even further in the future) is going to affect your decision on what DAW to use now is laughable.

For that matter, what analysis are you using to gauge the future financial health of the companies that make the other DAWs you are considering?


There are tens of thousands of Pro Tools HD units out there. Relied upon in pro studios everywhere. If Digi were to go belly-up this afternoon, 100's of companies would pop up overnight to offer whatever 'support' these units require. You would have YEARS to get into another system. Years that your DAW would almost certainly still continue to function as well as the day it was new.



Just know your market. In some markets, having PTHD will bring in business, (it sure did for me) and in other markets it won't matter at all. If you want an investment, mics and preamps are a better choice.

and vintage guitars...

[Teletude]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

Like a compressor leaves artifacts....or imparts a sound...it's truncating, or dithering (sloping off by crunching bits) by manipulating low end harmonic content. I think...I mean, I didn't write their code, I don't know what they intended for their systems to do, other than their ambiguous spec sheet with the digi manual.

it's doing something where the low end doesn't sound the same as the source / have matching content. The response below 50Hz is measurably different. And the slope in that regard is pretty abrupt.

Cubase sounds more true if I mic up a kick...the response is much closer to the source. it's not a clarity thing, it's a matter of how much harmonic content the signal processes down to waveform.

Pro Tools is most assuradly different sounding in this regard. And it doesn't feel like a hi-pass filter, or EQ doing it. It's just slightly less musical overall to my ears when you A/B the same source split.

Now I will still use it if the studio I'm in has it. But if given an option...I would much rather use everything else I've mentioned in previous posts. Topping out with the Nuendo Engine or Radar.

Even if this was not the case...for sheer economic reasons I find Cubase to be one of the best bangs for the buck for me...but in the end I just want things to be very even sounding during tracking...it makes mixing a lot easier for me.

This is interesting. You use the terms dither and truncate but the effect is heard below 50Hz. I was under the impression that dithering was used to mask quantization noise resulting from bit depth reduction. Truncating would be another way of reducing bits. Regardless, I don't get the connection between word length reduction and frequency response. It sounds like you must know a lot about this stuff. I'm just curious how these things are related.

Also, you mentioned that you used different converters in your comparisons running on different clocks. I'm curious if you were able to determine if the differences were attributable to the converters and/or filters or the software being used?

These must have been some pretty extensive tests. I'd also be curious to know if you used any kind of test tones to see which systems were most true to the original signal. I mean no disrespect but from what I'm reading, it kind of sounds like your results were somewhat subjective. I mean, it would be fairly easy to feed an AES signal into each system and measure the output, right?

I'm really not trying to bust anyone's chops here. Just trying to understand this better and figure out if the differences you heard were in the converters or as it sounds like you're saying, the ProTools software itself.

[mbradzick]

Originally Posted by Teletude

This is interesting. You use the terms dither and truncate but the effect is heard below 50Hz. I was under the impression that dithering was used to mask quantization noise resulting from bit depth reduction. Truncating would be another way of reducing bits. Regardless, I don't get the connection between word length reduction and frequency response. It sounds like you must know a lot about this stuff. I'm just curious how these things are related.

Also, you mentioned that you used different converters in your comparisons running on different clocks. I'm curious if you were able to determine if the differences were attributable to the converters and/or filters or the software being used?

These must have been some pretty extensive tests. I'd also be curious to know if you used any kind of test tones to see which systems were most true to the original signal. I mean no disrespect but from what I'm reading, it kind of sounds like your results were somewhat subjective. I mean, it would be fairly easy to feed an AES signal into each system and measure the output, right?

I'm really not trying to bust anyone's chops here. Just trying to understand this better and figure out if the differences you heard were in the converters or as it sounds like you're saying, the ProTools software itself.

PT definitely has a distinct sound IMO. I can hear it in the hi's and how it "boxes" the lows a little bit. It's a little hard to describe but I can usually tell a PT project from other DAWs.

Again, this isn't about PT sucks, everything else is great. It's more about staying native or buying into PTHD, cause obviously most other DAWs trump PTLE on track count alone.

If only Digi removed the track limitation I'd be a PTLE user for sure. Investing the most in great conversion, mics, pres and a couple nice comps and EQs is the way to go.

[Mike Brown]

LMAO

[LQM]

I'm a Cubase user and am happy to diss ProTools any day of the week (especially LE/MP) but I disagree with it sounding 'fatter' and meaner.

The same audio, with everything configured the same (pan laws, no processing or plugs, etc) sounds the same. I use Logic and PTHD at work and with everything the same, you might notice a slight discrepancy or two on a spectragraph but if you can actually hear it you'll cry out in pain when I blow the silent dog whistle

There are many reasons to consider Logic or Nuendo/Cubase or Samplitude (this is usually described as the 'fattest' based upon the fact it had the first 32 bit floating point engine several years ago, and people hang on to that legacy notion, even though Logic and Sonar and Cubase have updated their audio engines at least twice each and match it in every way now). But 'better' audio quality is not a valid reason IMHO, as someone who has used all of these programs.

Why people like one of these over the other is usually down to different interfaces, different plugins and pan law settings, which has nothing to do with untouched raw audio.

[herecomesyourman]

Originally Posted by LQM

I'm a Cubase user and am happy to diss ProTools any day of the week (especially LE/MP) but I disagree with it sounding 'fatter' and meaner.

The same audio, with everything configured the same (pan laws, no processing or plugs, etc) sounds the same. I use Logic and PTHD at work and with everything the same, you might notice a slight discrepancy or two on a spectragraph but if you can actually hear it you'll cry out in pain when I blow the silent dog whistle

There are many reasons to consider Logic or Nuendo/Cubase or Samplitude (this is usually described as the 'fattest' based upon the fact it had the first 32 bit floating point engine several years ago, and people hang on to that legacy notion, even though Logic and Sonar and Cubase have updated their audio engines at least twice each and match it in every way now). But 'better' audio quality is not a valid reason IMHO, as someone who has used all of these programs.

Why people like one of these over the other is usually down to different interfaces, different plugins and pan law settings, which has nothing to do with untouched raw audio.

I respectfully disagree. It's not a matter of "Fatness" it's just a matter of how much information is crammed into that wave file.

You get MORE tracking to stienberg. You get more again using Radar...but it's got it's own converters...and it's extremely expensive.

It is audible. And it's certainly measurable. I spent weeks testing this stuff...and months making something new from scratch to try to beat everything consumer based for a private company. It's not a "dog whistle" kind of deal. It's plain as day.

[herecomesyourman]

Also Michael, I had a longer reply but my connection sucks and it was eaten in the process...when I feel a little less like hammering my fist through my laptop I will try to comment on your questions.

The main thing is that it's NOT subjective. There were only three converters used, and the Apogee was a go-between to ensure that using different converters in our A/B tests wouldn't cloud measuring the DAWS themselves for freq response.

Also the RME uses the same AKAI chip as a pro tools HD converter...so...they are similar in some respects. Which is why it was the last converter selected for the tests. (Bear in mind that I was working on a company dime, and had to justify expenditures with documentation, I wasn't just doing a shootout to satiate my own curiosity)

[mbradzick]

Originally Posted by Mayor999

LMAO

....at what?

[RKrizman]

This is silly. The converter spits out a stream of numbers. The DAWs store these numbers on a hard drive, and when asked, spit them back out. No brainer. If there was some inaccuracy in this process the result wouldn't be some sort of low end loss.

If you're hearing differences, it's in the analog realm or the converters themselves.

This is as old as the story about drying the poodle in the microwave.

-R

[mbradzick]

Originally Posted by herecomesyourman

Also Michael, I had a longer reply but my connection sucks and it was eaten in the process...when I feel a little less like hammering my fist through my laptop I will try to comment on your questions.

The main thing is that it's NOT subjective. There were only three converters used, and the Apogee was a go-between to ensure that using different converters in our A/B tests wouldn't cloud measuring the DAWS themselves for freq response.

Also the RME uses the same AKAI chip as a pro tools HD converter...so...they are similar in some respects. Which is why it was the last converter selected for the tests. (Bear in mind that I was working on a company dime, and had to justify expenditures with documentation, I wasn't just doing a shootout to satiate my own curiosity)

Oh I wasn't questioning your tests at all. PT just sounds different to me than Cubase and DP (the only other DAWs I have experience with), and it's definitely not psychological. I don't know Logic.

[Jim Roberts]

Originally Posted by Michael Zick

I'm wondering if PT is going the way of the dinosaur, especially HD.

No, it's not.

[Mike Brown]

Originally Posted by Michael Zick

....at what?

Don't mind me.

I am just distraught at the truncation and dither happening below 50 hertz.

[DP40oz]

Originally Posted by joeq

Every HD system can take advantage of the host processor in addition to its hardware cards. In what way can native be "better"?


You can argue 'cheaper' or you can argue 'diminishing returns' but it seems obvious to me that every advance of native processing means if you throw some HD cards into that new machine, you still have MORE.

Well I have HD but Native can be better. Ive never had to worry about voice count in Native machines, or 4095 samples of Delay compensation. These are limitations of HD only. Native systems can blow these limatations out of the water.

[mbradzick]

Originally Posted by DP40oz

Well I have HD but Native can be better. Ive never had to worry about voice count in Native machines, or 4095 samples of Delay compensation. These are limitations of HD only. Native systems can blow these limatations out of the water.

Wait, I thought PTHD was heralded for its delay compensation over native?

Try throwing AutoTune into PTLE and feel the swing!!1!

[Mike Brown]

Originally Posted by Michael Zick

Oh I wasn't questioning your tests at all. PT just sounds different to me than Cubase and DP (the only other DAWs I have experience with), and it's definitely not psychological. I don't know Logic.

So i just recorded 8 mics of drums (same performance) into both PTHD & into Cubase.

Multed right after preamps into converters.

192's for PT & Apogee Ensemble for Cubase. Both clocked internally.

Which one is Cubase? Which one sounds "better"?

Test-1
Test-1.wav
Test-2
Test-2.wav

[herecomesyourman]

Originally Posted by Mayor999

Don't mind me.

I am just distraught at the truncation and dither happening below 50 hertz.

It doesn't make me distraut at all...but I'm sorry if I happened to ruin your day. I don't mean to be rude, but since you were first...

Dude...in the end I got to make a device with some of the greats...that records, mixes, masters and syncs to HD video in real time.

Do you grasp what I'm saying?

I helped create a "virtual" engineer that sounds a lot more professional than the bulk of most home studios ever could. Mainly because it's modeled after the tastes of one of the best.

Part of this is because we siezed on as much harmonic content before EQ as possible.

Click on the link...listen to some samples. Use your damn ears.

MyStudio

And what we used for this we had to CREATE from scratch. I was never arguing for pro tools or against...I'm just saying along the way, it's weaknesses became apparent.

Expensive toys do not a man make.

[Podgorny]

[herecomesyourman]

Originally Posted by Podgorny

Thank you.

The horse is in fact dead. =) What I'd really love to see are maybe some good records being made for a change...