Login / Register
 
Pro Tools HD Native vs Pro Tools TDM.....which one sounds Better??
New Reply
Subscribe
#61
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #61
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: So Cal
Posts: 15,414

drBill is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno View Post
I still think the TDM mixer sounds better for MY purposes and in MY applications, based on MY observations set forth in my post above.

how's that?

JP
Hey John! That's good enough for me.

Actually, anyone who posts with their own name and has credits/experience like yours gets 1000% more cred in my book than someone with no link, no name and no verifiable experience.

And yet......

LOL

Back to work guys..
#62
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #62
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,549

MarkRB is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I wasn't talking about "EGO". You are biasing the conversation to meet your needs with the inflamatory use of that word.
Er really? You were basing a large portion of your argument on ego. I apologise if you found the word "ego" inflammatory and insulting?
No offence intended.

Just wondering what you think my needs are and how did I bias this conversation?

I'm just interested in facts that help me in my job as a sound engineer.
Notice that is a "Sound ENGINEER", not a "Sound FAITH HEALER".

Many times people that send me files go "can I just bounce it out, and it will be fine?" I will say "yes, of course".

Maybe I'm wrong, but I take an interest in figuring it out for myself rather than "learning off the internetz"

Last edited by MarkRB; 9th August 2011 at 03:20 AM.. Reason: nooo need. Bad Mark
#63
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #63
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 1,500

paterno is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
Fair enough JP, though something tells me that question was rhetorical

I'm sorry, I was trying to be thorough but polite. I guess it needs some work.
Hey Tim -- as I said earlier, no offense taken.

I appreciate your thoroughness and politeness as well...

best,
John
__________________
All Music Credits

Last edited by paterno; 9th August 2011 at 03:40 AM.. Reason: forgot an important word...
#64
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #64
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,283

-tc- is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Tim - ONLY if you are a member of the null police, or a scientist. If you're a record producer or engineer, all you need is your instinct. And you act on it. If it says "native sounds better", you mix native. If you hear TDM as being wider/deeper and that is more important for this project, you mix TDM.
My "instinct" is informed consciously and subconsciously by what I have learned through trial and error, instinct, intuition, instruction and scientific testing, not just the former four. I don't have to be a "scientist" or "the fuzz" to utilise the scientific method in my current and future audio engineering/production endeavours. As a way of thinking, it is very useful ... as is the ability to be abstract and artistic - these are not mutually exclusive character traits.

Quote:
Back in the day, we made choices about 456 vs. 250, whether to overbias 1.5 db or less, what compressor chain we liked better, etc. Those were not "scientific" matters, although they could be quantified by science. They were shoot from the hip, let's move on creative decisions. For me, the choice of TDM is the same. I hear it as superior, and the work flow is definitely superior for my needs.
That's great!

Quote:
I actually find the REASON that people feel the need to quantify that all DAW's are equal FAR more interesting than whether or not they in fact are.

I want to know WHY people feel the need to prove that all are a level playing field. Care you weigh in on THAT analysis?

bp
Yes I don't feel the need to quantify/prove that all DAWs are equal (by that I assume you mean in terms of sound quality) or that everyone is on a level playing field. Nor do I feel the need to prove the opposite.

I feel the need to point out potential accidents, miss-steps or errors in testing methodology as best I can when other people bring up anecdotal evidence that they either are or are not as above. I have been involved on both sides of such discussions. I don't care overly which DAWs sound "best" because at this point in my life I have chosen to use the one that offers me the workflow and features I want/need at a price I can currently afford, from a company I wish to support financially - and it sounds great ...

What I care about is for discussions to actually be meaningful instead of confused and circular. If it's a technical discussion, what I would like to see/read is that at the end, some valid and logical conclusions have been made that everyone involved can use to either reform their stance or not, as they wish. That won't happen in the absence of attention to detail. Hence, I discuss/argue/call it what you want. Is there any point? Maybe not.
#65
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #65
Lives for gear
 
barryjohns's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 3,390

barryjohns is offline
People around here lack Professional Maturity. Quick to make discussions/debates personal. Attacking, verses introducing thoughtful perspective. Mines bigger than yours, which is so childish. It makes it hard to take any of it seriously. There are times we are the teacher, times we are the student, times we are equally matched, and times we are clueless. More folks around here don't know what they don't know, and many others who only know what they read here, and then have the audacity to pass that off as experience.

“Humility I say”, well humility is seriously lacking in todays culture. It's almost non-existent in internet forums.

I guess it's human nature, so is jumping off a cliff, well, just because. History is full of examples of that. Why is it so many never learn from their mistakes?

No, I'm not on a high horse. I've been guilty of some of this as well. It does make a reasonable person stop and ponder, who it is we are, and what we contribute to this world.
__________________
PTHD10/11, HD3pcie, Digi 192 I/O 16 in/8 out, Lynx Auora 16, Digi Pre, BAE Lunchbox full, MacPro, MacBook Pro, Digidesign Pro Control, FaderPack, EditPack
#66
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #66
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: So Cal
Posts: 15,414

drBill is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRB View Post
Er really? You were basing a large portion of your argument on ego.
First off, I'm not in this argument to prove my side. My initial comments were tossed out to ask people to be a little more human, and let those they disagree with believe what they choose too. We can all choose to be wrong or right, but there's no need to "take the other side down" for WHICHEVER choice they make/made.

Second, any anecdotal experience I shared was exactly that - my experience. Not any ego involved. If you don't like my experience, you are free to disregard it. Many have.

As for the ego that's rampant in this thread.....again, I find it fascinating what goes on in these nulling police threads. I'm kind of drawn like a moth to the flame. I find it especially fascinating why one side feels the need to save the world from themselves. It's not limited to the audio world though, it seems rampant all over the internet. Brings to mind that cartoon about the guy whose wife is calling him to dinner all the while he is slamming on his keyboard screaming......"JUST A MINUTE, somebody on the internet is wrong, and I've got to save them from themselves......"

It's all good....
#67
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #67
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,987

FLYINGJAY is offline
Ok now I'm crying Timlloyd

that's was beautiful....

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz.com App
#68
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #68
Harmless Wacko
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: A prison cell with soffit mounts
Posts: 1,737

Slipperman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by barryjohns View Post
People around here lack Professional Maturity. Quick to make discussions/debates personal. Attacking, versus introducing thoughtful perspective. Mines bigger than yours, which is so childish. It makes it hard to take any of it seriously. There are times we are the teacher, times we are the student, times we are equally matched, and times we are clueless. More folks around here don't know what they don't know, and many others who only know what they read here, and then have the audacity to pass that off as experience.

“Humility I say”, well humility is seriously lacking in todays culture. It's almost non-existent in internet forums.

I guess it's human nature, so is jumping off a cliff, well, just because. History is full of examples of that. Why is it so many never learn from their mistakes?

No, I'm not on a high horse. I've been guilty of some of this as well. It does make a reasonable person stop and ponder, who it is we are, and what we contribute to this world.

A great post Barry, and duly noted as such.

I also think it's often a case of the double edged sword of "PASSION for the craft" superseding logic, and sometimes, unfortunately, civility, in the heat of discourse.

I'm as guilty of it as the next guy.

Sigh.

The quest for balance.

It's a battle best fought with humor and a thick skin, this in an undertaking with such intensely juxtaposed areas of objectivity and subjectivity as art and science.

Hence tom-foolery like my moderately "indecipherable" post to John Paterno.

HOHOHO.

Best regards,

Slippy
__________________
“No plan survives contact with the enemy”
:Erwin Rommel
#69
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #69
Gear maniac
 
Doc_'s Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 168

Doc_ is offline
Quote:
The quest for balance.

It's a battle best fought with humor and a thick skin, this in an undertaking with such intensely juxtaposed areas of objectivity and subjectivity as art and science.

Slippy,you may be able to relate to our "balance"...the guys at our shop spent the better part of the last decade with the "Foxboro Capo"...I will say this he heard things that I never heard,and vise versa...but he ALWAYS had a slant...call it art,science whatever...

again..it is what it is...

HOHOHO

peace
__________________
D
o
c


DSPdoctor.com

"Where High End is Still King"

#70
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #70
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 1,500

paterno is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipperman View Post
A great post Barry, and duly noted as such.

I also think it's often a case of the double edged sword of "PASSION for the craft" superseding logic, and sometimes, unfortunately, civility, in the heat of discourse.

I'm as guilty of it as the next guy.

Sigh.

The quest for balance.

It's a battle best fought with humor and a thick skin, this in an undertaking with such intensely juxtaposed areas of objectivity and subjectivity as art and science.

Hence tom-foolery like my moderately "indecipherable" post to John Paterno.

HOHOHO.

Best regards,

Slippy
Your posts are, by far, my favorite Slippy !!! Don't go changin'...

Cheers,
paterno
#71
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #71
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: So Cal
Posts: 15,414

drBill is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno View Post
Your posts are, by far, my favorite Slippy !!! Don't go changin'...

Cheers,
paterno


I just want to know if he wakes up in the AM and loads "HOHOHO" into the paste buffer of his computer every day....... Always makes me feel like santa is on these threads...
zak7
Thread Starter
#72
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #72
Lives for gear
 
zak7's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 951

Thread Starter
zak7 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno View Post
As an addendum: a week later I sat in a room with close to 40 guys at a Native vs TDM comparison. The premise was to check the performance of the same high-track-count session on each system for performance/latency, etc. As a by-product, the topic of the sound came up. After a few switches from A to B, everyone in the room noticed a difference when the monitoring was being switched from the Native session to the TDM session. Same session. Same converters for monitoring. No external clocking. I don't know how much more blind A/B it can get...

Cheers,
John
Hi John..

and which File was preferred on that A/B Test?? the Native or TDM?
#73
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #73
Lives for gear
 
AMIEL's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Fl
Posts: 3,845

Send a message via AIM to AMIEL Send a message via MSN to AMIEL Send a message via Yahoo to AMIEL
AMIEL is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno View Post
OK, back to the topic. I was curious about this a few months back, so after a conversation w Tony Shepperd and another friend i did an experiment. I've got a TDM system w PT 9, so I've got both the TDM and Native engines at my disposal. So:

I opened ProTools in Native mode, monitoring through the Mac audio out. I picked a song and did a mix using only RTAS plugins [which obviously were the only ones available!!]. I got it to where I was pretty happy, printed it via busses to an audio track, and exported the file to a folder.

Next, I got back into TDM mode, opened the mix, and printed the same mix, with no changes, the same way I did the Native mix.

I made a CD of both versions, and listened back to back. Then I imported both into a ProTools session so I could easily do an A/B.

I found there were definite differences between the two, even on the back to back CD. Not huge, but enough to consistently be able to identify one or the other. The Native mix had more low end. The TDM mix had better depth and imaging. I prefer the TDM for that reason. For me it comes down to this: Which aspects would I be able to [ --'naturally', in the course of a mix --] compensate for, and which ones can't I?

So that's my story...

Cheers,
John

I think John Paterno Test is good enough to be appropriate .
At least his test says to me that even if both systems sounds different , is not that Native HD sounds much better.....as say the interview with FF.

and actually to me under the JP statement, I will also prefer a TDM system because to have a system that naturally have a better imaging and Depth is something more complex and valuable than a system that brings a bit more low end that is easier to compensate.
__________________
------------------

Peace.

Reuven Amiel

"There are no rules, just knowledge, good taste and experimentation"

"Music was designed to escape from reality for a moment, not to magnify our fears and problems"
#74
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #74
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 1,500

paterno is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by zak7 View Post
Hi John..

and which File was preferred on that A/B Test?? the Native or TDM?
No one took a vote. I don't think it would have mattered anyway. I think you are going to get people who prefer one engine over the other for different reasons.

John
#75
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #75
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 2,678

nst7 is online now
There are still some inaccuracies here.

Paterno's test is not accurate because he wasn't comparing to HD Native system, only regular native, through his Mac.

In order for someone to do an accurate test, they need to do a bounce down using HD TDM, then HD Native with the same HD interface, because HD Native will do it's 64 bit floating point mixing when used with an HD compatible interface. And the interface needs to be the same as what was used with the TDM test because the clocking affects the sound.

By mixing just using the Mac's audio out, you are getting the crappy inferior clocking of the Mac's built in sound card.

I realized this recently when I did the same bounce with a 003 hooked up and then with it disconnected, then played back the results in my car. There was a noticeable difference in sound quality.

And you are only getting the 32 bit floating point resolution of regular Protools Native when you do it this way.

Until someone does the test as mentioned, then imports both bounced down files to a new session to do a null test, the results will be all over the place.
#76
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #76
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 23,299
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
There are still some inaccuracies here.

Paterno's test is not accurate because he wasn't comparing to HD Native system, only regular native, through his Mac.

In order for someone to do an accurate test, they need to do a bounce down using HD TDM, then HD Native with the same HD interface, because HD Native will do it's 64 bit floating point mixing when used with an HD compatible interface. And the interface needs to be the same as what was used with the TDM test because the clocking affects the sound.

By mixing just using the Mac's audio out, you are getting the crappy inferior clocking of the Mac's built in sound card.

I realized this recently when I did the same bounce with a 003 hooked up and then with it disconnected, then played back the results in my car. There was a noticeable difference in sound quality.

And you are only getting the 32 bit floating point resolution of regular Protools Native when you do it this way.

Until someone does the test as mentioned, then imports both bounced down files to a new session to do a null test, the results will be all over the place.
Clocking should not affect internal bounces. It will if you bounce externally of course, but 2 bounces, one clocked internally, one externally, should null...and both will sound different when played back whilst clocked internally and externally.
#77
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #77
Lives for gear
 
Funny Cat's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: California/Boulder
Posts: 1,276

Funny Cat is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Tim - ONLY if you are a member of the null police, or a scientist. If you're a record producer or engineer, all you need is your instinct. And you act on it. If it says "native sounds better", you mix native. If you hear TDM as being wider/deeper and that is more important for this project, you mix TDM.

Back in the day, we made choices about 456 vs. 250, whether to overbias 1.5 db or less, what compressor chain we liked better, etc. Those were not "scientific" matters, although they could be quantified by science. They were shoot from the hip, let's move on creative decisions. For me, the choice of TDM is the same. I hear it as superior, and the work flow is definitely superior for my needs.
Boy oh Boy....I'm starting to like you more and more with each successive post Db.


The more refined my ears become, the more I'm starting to see that the guys who are making these great sounding records tend to come from the "shoot from the hip" camp (as DB so beautifully put it) and not necessarily from the "zero's and one's/Null-Police" camp.

And you know what? If they tell me they are hearing differences, I'm sincerely curious because obviously they are doing something right. Like my sig says..."This IS a game of inches"...


Just MY experience...
__________________

Rock Steady Recording
#78
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #78
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 23,299
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
The more refined my ears become, the more I'm starting to see that the guys who are making these great sounding records tend to come from the "shoot from the hip" camp (as DB so beautifully put it) and not necessarily from the "zero's and one's/Null-Police" camp.
In MY experience, the best of the best are the guys who shoot from the hip but also understand how best to use their equipment. A bit of knowledge doesn't stop you being creative. The 2 categories you mention are in no way mutually exclusive. In real life, the vast majority of people fall into the first category. The clever ones also don't discount the 2nd category (in your above example, loosely labelled as an insult, but I'd put it more along the lines of "creatively cynical". Bill has already proved this himself (he knows enough to test his lines of thinking, he knows his ears CAN be fooled and therefore knows when to check things with provable evidence, yet in daily life as a working pro he just gets on with it). I'd hope I do the same (I certainly don't spend days in my studio null testing - I get on with recording and mixing!).

I think what correlates with this is that most people never actually stop to corroborate their beliefs - they use what works for them, they do well by it, and they carry on through life believing in things which may or may not be the case. I don't know many working engineers who sit down and do ABX tests, apart from the odd converter shootout....most of the time there's nothing that could be done anyway - you just get on and use the tools in front of you.

None of which matters of course. Use what gets the job done, and don't moan too much.

But equally, don't start spouting facts without being able to back them up. "I hear a difference" is not proof - it's theory. Anyone who comes on here and says "sorry, they sound different. I hear it" without being able to prove it, has added nothing to the conversation - we've heard it before.

Null testing IS proof, as is an ABX test. Neither is necessary to make good recordings - we know that - but the intelligent logical being cannot disprove the validity of such tests.
#79
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #79
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: So Cal
Posts: 15,414

drBill is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
Boy oh Boy....I'm starting to like you more and more with each successive post Db.
Let me see what I can do about that.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
In MY experience, the best of the best are the guys who shoot from the hip but also understand how best to use their equipment.
That's a given IMO. I wasn't talking about guys just out of recording school who are ready to take on the world with no experience. I'm talking about guys who have been educated from the school of hard knocks. Guys with experience who know what SOUNDS right to their ears and could give a flip about science if it begins to interfere with their creative juices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
A bit of knowledge doesn't stop you being creative The 2 categories you mention are in no way mutually exclusive.
No, but having a myopic focus on it (like MANY here on GS) is a sure fire way to make sure you keep doing the same thing over and over, avoiding "mistakes" that would nurture your creative spirit - essentially deflating your creativity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
But equally, don't start spouting facts without being able to back them up.
PM - why are you trying to capsize GS?? Jules needs the gig. If we put that into practice, GS goes down to 10 posts a day and looses marketshare.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Null testing IS proof, as is an ABX test.
Today, yes. In a world with only 3 dimensions, yes. In a world with limited monitoring options. Yes! But.......tomorrow, or next year.....who knows. Science advances and often proves older theories / FACTS wrong. I suspect that if we're all around in 20 years, we'll all have a few good laughs about what we took as gospel - what was right, what was wrong.

In the meantime, I will not doubt my ears if they KEEP telling me something that my logic or someone on the internet says is wrong. To do so is to betray the creative spirit that drives me. It matters not if the creative muse is right or wrong, what matters is keeping it nurtured, healthy and prolific. If you've "got it" time, clients, credits, money, the judgement of your peers and ultimately success will follow. No testing needed.

If not....well, doing nulling tests won't help.

I wholeheartedly suggest putting your (our) energies into something that will make the world a better place - MUSIC! Nulling tests, scientific data, and doing things "right" gains us precious little ground in an mp3 world.



So, for those convinced of their "better" DAW, MORE POWER TO YOU!!!!!!!





























PS - FYI, sometimes I CHOOSE to do things wrong. Just for the hell of it. And sometimes.............I like it.
#80
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #80
Lives for gear
 
Funny Cat's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: California/Boulder
Posts: 1,276

Funny Cat is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
In MY experience, the best of the best are the guys who shoot from the hip but also understand how best to use their equipment. A bit of knowledge doesn't stop you being creative. The 2 categories you mention are in no way mutually exclusive. In real life, the vast majority of people fall into the first category. The clever ones also don't discount the 2nd category (in your above example, loosely labelled as an insult, but I'd put it more along the lines of "creatively cynical". Bill has already proved this himself (he knows enough to test his lines of thinking, he knows his ears CAN be fooled and therefore knows when to check things with provable evidence, yet in daily life as a working pro he just gets on with it). I'd hope I do the same (I certainly don't spend days in my studio null testing - I get on with recording and mixing!).

.
I agree with you wholly on this. They are not mutually exclusive. I'm referring more to the "weight" that's accorded to either method.

Quote:
I think what correlates with this is that most people never actually stop to corroborate their beliefs - they use what works for them, they do well by it, and they carry on through life believing in things which may or may not be the case. I don't know many working engineers who sit down and do ABX tests, apart from the odd converter shootout....most of the time there's nothing that could be done anyway - you just get on and use the tools in front of you.
I'm in agreement with this too, to a large extant. Most of the really great AE's I've met DO do shootouts/tests though....every single session in fact. They are just not ABX shootouts/tests, as you mentioned. They compare pieces of kit because you just never know what will be the BEST kit for any given production. Doesn't make those tests any less valid for the purposes of that production.


Quote:
But equally, don't start spouting facts without being able to back them up. "I hear a difference" is not proof - it's theory. Anyone who comes on here and says "sorry, they sound different. I hear it" without being able to prove it, has added nothing to the conversation - we've heard it before.
This ^^^ is where we diverge. I am not saying that you shouldn't be able to prove a given statement but why should one HAVE to just to express/share it on a forum? Especially when they are getting sounds that many of us wish we were getting and have the credits to back it up? Besides...can you disprove it????

Also, I never heard anyone (at least in this particular thread) "spouting facts"....as you describe it. The guys who said they heard a difference actually DID compare the two systems and even went on to explain HOW they did their comparisons, if I recall correctly.

Forget about what they hear for a moment. Whatever happened to the way music makes one FEEL anyway? It's all perception...isn't it?

Look, I'm not in complete disagreement with you. I just think there is more to music than spectrum analyzers and 1's & 0's and that stuff should be discussed alongside "Null-tests"...
#81
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 1,500

paterno is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
There are still some inaccuracies here.

Paterno's test is not accurate because he wasn't comparing to HD Native system, only regular native, through his Mac.

In order for someone to do an accurate test, they need to do a bounce down using HD TDM, then HD Native with the same HD interface, because HD Native will do it's 64 bit floating point mixing when used with an HD compatible interface. And the interface needs to be the same as what was used with the TDM test because the clocking affects the sound.

By mixing just using the Mac's audio out, you are getting the crappy inferior clocking of the Mac's built in sound card.

I realized this recently when I did the same bounce with a 003 hooked up and then with it disconnected, then played back the results in my car. There was a noticeable difference in sound quality.

And you are only getting the 32 bit floating point resolution of regular Protools Native when you do it this way.

Until someone does the test as mentioned, then imports both bounced down files to a new session to do a null test, the results will be all over the place.
I'm going to re-check some facts before I respond to this, just so I am accurate in my response.

In the meantime, can you define how you 'bounce' tracks? The whole method that you use.

thanks,
john
#82
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #82
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland,USA
Posts: 3,998

drew is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post
There are still some inaccuracies here.

Paterno's test is not accurate because he wasn't comparing to HD Native system, only regular native, through his Mac.

In order for someone to do an accurate test, they need to do a bounce down using HD TDM, then HD Native with the same HD interface, because HD Native will do it's 64 bit floating point mixing when used with an HD compatible interface. And the interface needs to be the same as what was used with the TDM test because the clocking affects the sound.

By mixing just using the Mac's audio out, you are getting the crappy inferior clocking of the Mac's built in sound card.

I realized this recently when I did the same bounce with a 003 hooked up and then with it disconnected, then played back the results in my car. There was a noticeable difference in sound quality.

And you are only getting the 32 bit floating point resolution of regular Protools Native when you do it this way.

Until someone does the test as mentioned, then imports both bounced down files to a new session to do a null test, the results will be all over the place.
This is not right. HD Native and "regular" PT use the same mix buss. This is straight from Avid engineering.
__________________
.......................
Drew Mazurek
.......................
#83
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #83
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 1,500

paterno is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by drew View Post
This is not right. HD Native and "regular" PT use the same mix buss. This is straight from Avid engineering.
This was my understanding as well, and it is all 64 bit.

John
#84
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Location: Cincinnati OH
Posts: 2,678

nst7 is online now
Protools "regular" (formerly LE) has thus far been 32 bit floating. There has been no mention of that changing in all the info that's been put out by Avid. Yet with HD Native, the 64 bit is mentioned prominently as a selling point. If they changed it in regular Protools, I would think they would mention it as a selling point as well. So it could be the same, but I've never seen any mention of it.

As for the clocking, since it bounces down in real time, and you can listen to it, I have to assume that all the normal processes of D/A conversion are taking place, including clocking. And the fact that it's passing thru the interface, even if that interface is just your Mac's soundcard.

As for the bounce method, it shouldn't matter whether it's bounce to disk, or internal buzzing to a new track, as long as the same method is used for the purpose of the test consistently.
#85
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #85
Lives for gear
 
drew's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Maryland,USA
Posts: 3,998

drew is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by paterno View Post
This was my understanding as well, and it is all 64 bit.

John
My understanding was that it's the same 32bit float. Not sure what the 64bit stuff they mention in the marketing is about. Trying to find out now.
#86
9th August 2011
Old 9th August 2011
  #86
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 23,299
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by nst7 View Post

As for the clocking, since it bounces down in real time, and you can listen to it, I have to assume that all the normal processes of D/A conversion are taking place, including clocking. And the fact that it's passing thru the interface, even if that interface is just your Mac's soundcard.
I'm afraid here this is where your understanding is inaccurate. What SHOULD happen if you bounce one session with internal audio, and the other with a sooper dooper high end converter, if everything is ITB, there is no difference at all.

Think about it...you bounce one file, through a buss, into a new audio track. This, if you've done it correctly, should null with the original, and essentially be the same file. It does, I've tested it.

Thus it can't possibly have been affected by the clocking.

Likewise, the same happens if you bounce to disk. This is why when mixing ITB, DA is only for monitoring - it has no effect on the sonics (although of course if you can hear things better, you'll make a better mix).
#87
10th August 2011
Old 10th August 2011
  #87
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Location: Nashville
Posts: 298

mixboy bob is offline
PT LE and PT 9HD Native software have 32-bit floating mixers and processing.

PT HD is 48 bit fixed.

I personally prefer the sound of 48 bit fixed over 32 float. This is in line with what John P has been saying above. PT LE's buss has always sounded hazy and phasey to me compared to my HD mix buss.

BUT...

PT HD Native... as in the $3500 PCIe card... has a 64-bit float mixer with 32-bit processing. (Avid | Specifications)

Having worked on 64-bit digital consoles and knowing how solid the imaging is and extended the top and bottom are, I am very excited to test an HD Native card because the difference could likely be huge.

There is so much confusion about the difference between Native with the card and without the card... They are not at all the same engine.

Happy mixing, everyone!

Rob Burrell
aka mixboy
#88
10th August 2011
Old 10th August 2011
  #88
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 23,299
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is online now
Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
I'm in agreement with this too, to a large extant. Most of the really great AE's I've met DO do shootouts/tests though....every single session in fact. They are just not ABX shootouts/tests, as you mentioned. They compare pieces of kit because you just never know what will be the BEST kit for any given production. Doesn't make those tests any less valid for the purposes of that production.
Well yes, of course, we all do that (I hope)....that results in a subjective opinion, which no-one has doubted here wrt different DAWs - I'm sure they can influence one to mix in different ways. But the situation is different here - no-one expects an 1176 to sound exactly the same as anything else, and there's plenty of reasons why it shouldn't. This isn't the case with the summing in a DAW. It's a very different situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
Especially when they are getting sounds that many of us wish we were getting and have the credits to back it up?
Credits, sounds etc. unfortunately don't mean you know what's going on [remove crap car analogy here]. I've worked with enough guys who get great end products yet don't understand how to clock a rig correctly to know that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
This ^^^ is where we diverge. I am not saying that you shouldn't be able to prove a given statement but why should one HAVE to just to express/share it on a forum?

Besides...can you disprove it????
Because there's a difference between opinion and fact. I like product X, and you think product Y is better. Fine - that's opinion. I think product X contains a certain component, you think it doesn't. One of us is right, and one of us wrong. That's the situation we're talking about here - either DAWs sum in the same way, or they don't. There's no "opinion" to be had - it's a yes or no answer.

And I would argue that a null test and an ABX test does prove it yes. If someone claims 2 bounces sound "different", they can tell "every time", then consistently fails an ABX test and the 2 resultant files null, I think that does prove it. Maybe, as bill points out, in the future we'll capture audio differently and there'll be a factor that isn't covered here, but whilst we capture audio with a 24bit word length 44.1 thousand times a second or more, if each one of those words in 2 files is exactly the same, I think it's fair to say the 2 files are the same. FWIW, I've never ever heard of the case where someone manages to correctly identify one file out of 2 that are supposed to null, in a blind test. If this has ever happened, someone please point it out to me!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
Also, I never heard anyone (at least in this particular thread) "spouting facts"....as you describe it. The guys who said they heard a difference actually DID compare the two systems and even went on to explain HOW they did their comparisons, if I recall correctly.
No, you're probably right in this thread at least - but there have been lots previously, including one poster that I've paraphrased my quote from. No backup, no quantification, just the expectation that someone should believe them.

I've already said a couple of times that I certainly respect Bill's test earlier (and there's a good reason why he got that result), and I respect JP's test as well, although I'd need more details really to verify it for myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funny Cat View Post
Forget about what they hear for a moment. Whatever happened to the way music makes one FEEL anyway? It's all perception...isn't it?

Look, I'm not in complete disagreement with you. I just think there is more to music than spectrum analyzers and 1's & 0's and that stuff should be discussed alongside "Null-tests"...
Of course there is. I'm not disagreeing there. I'd be the first to say that all this is kind of irrelevant to actually making music. I don't think about any of this when I'm actually working on something - couldn't do anything about it anyway! but I am interested in what's going on under the hood, and if things aren't behaving as they should - as should anyone calling themselves an "engineer".
#89
10th August 2011
Old 10th August 2011
  #89
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 1,500

paterno is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixboy bob View Post
PT LE and PT 9HD Native software have 32-bit floating mixers and processing.

PT HD is 48 bit fixed.

I personally prefer the sound of 48 bit fixed over 32 float. This is in line with what John P has been saying above. PT LE's buss has always sounded hazy and phasey to me compared to my HD mix buss.

BUT...

PT HD Native... as in the $3500 PCIe card... has a 64-bit float mixer with 32-bit processing. (Avid | Specifications)
Hey Rob -- Just wondering where you found that PT9 is still 32 bit? I asked the Avid guys a while back and they told me PT9 is 64b-float [except TDM, obviously]. I see where it is listed on your Avid Spec sheet link, but it is listed under the 'General' heading, which could possibly mean it is that way for PT9 overall. I can't find anything to support or dis-spell it...

And as far as I can tell, the HD Native card's function is for I/O, monitoring, and latency considerations.

Cheers,
John
#90
10th August 2011
Old 10th August 2011
  #90
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: Out West
Posts: 2,013

KevWind is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixboy bob View Post
PT LE and PT 9HD Native software have 32-bit floating mixers and processing.

BUT...

PT HD Native... as in the $3500 PCIe card... has a 64-bit float mixer with 32-bit processing. (Avid | Specifications)

Having worked on 64-bit digital consoles and knowing how solid the imaging is and extended the top and bottom are, I am very excited to test an HD Native card because the difference could likely be huge.

There is so much confusion about the difference between Native with the card and without the card... They are not at all the same engine.

Happy mixing, everyone!

Rob Burrell
aka mixboy
I shouldn't think there would be that much confusion ? Because PT9 native is just that. Where as to be HD Native it has to be run through the card and has a 64 bit mixer - ergo there is no HD Native without the card to be confused about, or am I missing something ?
__________________
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein

Enjoy the Journey --- Kev

WindWeaver Music
https://soundcloud.com/kevwind
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
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.