The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Ableton - sound quality DAW Software
Old 8th September 2018
  #451
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
I have to agree.

Mikael B, what kind of music do you work on? That might explain the differing views.
Electronic with a strong focus on the dance floor or the sofa. My workflow is very much based on the analog world with hardware instruments and mixing desks with Punk and New Wave as starting points, here meaning DIY and work with what you have. I work exclusively in the box for now, but to me I've recreated my analog world in it. Every day is Christmas day.

I have extremely little to do with what some uninformed producers (and others) refer to as "EDM" (which to me is sub-genre of "Dance Music" and a very bad one at that) and I do ignore many producing tips supposedly in this subgenre, even though I've been using "loops" originating from (drum) machines when DJ'ing tracks. I also have followed the evolution of sampling since the eighties, starting with hardware like the EMU III, S50, Akai's and so on and later with DAWs.

Some of my friends have been or are well-established producers and have used sampled audio loops for commercial tracks since at least 1990. To me there are few practically relevant, technical differences between re-triggering samples (layered, cut or whatever) in hardware or looping an audio clip or a MIDI clip.

The only thing making Live and Bitwig stand out is session view, that does lend itself to "get lost in the loop" (scenes looping). But at least some Live-users ignore Session and focus on Arrangement (view). These DAWs are very flexible like that. You're not forced to use Session view, which can be viewed as a mixer view if you prefer.

As I said, to me "workflow" indicates something bigger than the DAW. Likely I could implement my personal workflow in any DAW. Of course, the more you get into unique features of a specific DAW, these will become more ingrained into your personal workflow. I maintain that most DAWs support many workflows though. Session is very much a special case and I agree this will affect many user's workflow on many levels, but so will using a drum machine such as Maschine. All tools affect you to some extent. The question is how. I feel we are free to work as we wish in any DAW. If you lack certain features then that's a heavy influence you have to work around, but will it actually change how you compose, play, record and mix music? And more importantly will it affect the end result? I guess these questions are core to the process of selecting a DAW and also other tools.
Old 8th September 2018
  #452
Yes, saying this a third time now.
I originally said you could adapt most DAWs to the way you want to work.
My point is, most people, especially in the beginning, adapt to the DAW. And that impacts how they view other DAWs.
If you ask a studio engineer guy who has worked on Pro Tools for ten years to spend a day working in Ableton Live, they are usually going to get frustrated and annoyed pretty quickly.
It's not just my experience by the way, if you read any music forums they are full of people complaining some DAW or other doesn't do what they want it to do....or they can't figure out how to do something.

On a personal note....
I spent years using arrangement style DAWs like Logic and PT.
I decided to give Ableton Live a go. Most dance music people use Live in session view, building up multiple clips, improvising, then recording an arrangement into the arrange window before they switch to the arrange page.
I thought it had more value to try and adapt to that way of working, instead of just working in the arrange page from the start.
What's the point of switching from Logic to Live if you are just going to make Live act like Logic does?
1
Share
Old 8th September 2018
  #453
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Ableton is fundamentally broken. The warp function was written into the programming and cant be fixed. at least thats the conclusion I came to. auto warping all my hard work you silly program.
Old 8th September 2018
  #454
I barely use Warp and have it deselected in my clips.
Old 8th September 2018
  #455
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I barely use Warp and have it deselected in my clips.
It wont fully turn off though, and I am fairly certain it is altering timing of each peak on a millisecond level.
Old 8th September 2018
  #456
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Yes, saying this a third time now.
I originally said you could adapt most DAWs to the way you want to work.
My point is, most people, especially in the beginning, adapt to the DAW. And that impacts how they view other DAWs.
If you ask a studio engineer guy who has worked on Pro Tools for ten years to spend a day working in Ableton Live, they are usually going to get frustrated and annoyed pretty quickly.
It's not just my experience by the way, if you read any music forums they are full of people complaining some DAW or other doesn't do what they want it to do....or they can't figure out how to do something.
I'm fully aware of this and I agree it's kinda pointless to fight the DAW and ask that Ableton please make into more of "X". Still people move to Live from other DAWs. It's an attractive and flexible tool in many ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
What's the point of switching from Logic to Live if you are just going to make Live act like Logic does?
You can't really make Live into Logic. But ignoring Session has very little to do with making Live into another DAW.
Old 8th September 2018
  #457
You apparently haven't understood me.
What are the similar workflow and tool sets between Ableton Live and Pro Tools?
Old 8th September 2018
  #458
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
It wont fully turn off though, and I am fairly certain it is altering timing of each peak on a millisecond level.
It does turn off and doesn't alter timing unless you keep warp on and change tempos or quantize the audio. Why all these assumptions that can be readily null tested? For example a Beat warped audio clip (without fades naturally) will null a copy without warp in playback. With Beat Warp you can keep loop on if you want with no negative side-effects. Unless you change the tempo.
1
Share
Old 8th September 2018
  #459
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You apparently haven't understood me.
What are the similar workflow and tool sets between Ableton Live and Pro Tools?
Possibly. It seems to me to be you who don't understand.

What is a specific workflow? It's the sequence of doing actions, what these actions are and the flexibility of the order and variations of possible and usable actions and sub-sequences.

If workflow is something else for you, then of course we can't understand each other.

Generally I'd divide the musical process into the phases Composition/Jamming, Experimentation, Recording (MIDI or Audio), Arranging, Mixdown and Mastering. No tool prevents me doing anything within these phases or moving between phases back and forth. Lack of features could of course prevent a specific action. Usually that can be circumvented with a workaround, that could include moving the project to another environment.

Some DAWs will naturally encourage the user to commit to audio earlier, be better at certain types of recording and faster at certain handling. On the whole, very little of what you can do in Live is impossible to do in Pro Tools (not used that much though, so this impression comes from other fellow users). Some things are always impossible to just move over to another DAW and as we probably agree on that regards unique features in a specific DAW. The more tied you are to such features, the more locked in you are to the tool with these. This doesn't have to be a bad thing at all.

Maybe those unique things are very important in your workflows?

Last edited by Mikael B; 9th September 2018 at 09:41 PM..
Old 8th September 2018
  #460
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post

What is a specific workflow? It's the sequence of doing actions, what these actions are and the flexibility of the order and variations of possible and usable actions and sub-sequences.
<snip>
Maybe those unique things are very important in your workflows?
Or rather, do you mean the workflow for a specific type of task and how that differs between DAWs? If so, which tasks? Wouldn't this vary quite a bit depending on the compared task type?
Old 8th September 2018
  #461
The thing you don't understand is that....
1) I already agreed, you can tailor most DAWs to suit your needs, but...
2) People most often tailor their way of working to suit the DAW, especially if it's their first DAW, or it's one they've used for years.

For you to continue to point out you can choose how to work in any DAW is not addressing my point.
The reason I'm making this point is because 'joeq' specifically talked about the differences in GUI, workflow and tool sets, and proposed those differences were ACTUALLY the things that made people think the audio in DAWs was different.
You countered by saying DAWs support multiple workflows.

Here's the thing: whatever you have said, 99% of people who choose Live as their first DAW, work almost exclusively in the session window, making short clips and experimenting by playing different combinations of clips together.
If you watch the Future Music or Computer Music producer videos, that's the way most professional producers are using Live.
99% of people using Pro Tools as their primary DAW are using it as a tape machine. The midi isn't one of it's best features, and the bars and beats grid is harder to read than other DAWs like Logic and Live. It's a more free flowing DAW aimed towards recording and editing live audio.

When you take someone who has spent years working in Pro Tools and make them work in Ableton Live, it is usually an alien concept, and can make them feel negative about Ableton Live.
It's not the quality of the audio that is the problem, it's the quality of the user experience.

I'm having to make this a super extreme example because you didn't seem to get joeq's proposition, and haven't seemed to understand me.
I dunno
Old 8th September 2018
  #462
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The reason I'm making this point is because 'joeq' specifically talked about the differences in GUI, workflow and tool sets, and proposed those differences were ACTUALLY the things that made people think the audio in DAWs was different.
Which I agree with and is much like what I've said just recently. Except "workflow" does seem a bit too much for me. Why exactly can't you tell whether my definition of workflow is what you mean by workflow? That's extremely relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
99% of people who choose Live as their first DAW, work almost exclusively in the session window, making short clips and experimenting by playing different combinations of clips together.
Even though I'd agree this is likely, this is an assumption on your part. Few producers do mixdowns from Session mode anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If you watch the Future Music or Computer Music producer videos, that's the way most professional producers are using Live.
As far as you assume this to be representative. You also assume this is affecting the outcome to a big degree. It might do that. It doesn't have to, is my point.

Certainly not in how the sound in itself comes out. If I record a musician, or myself, playing an instrument, MIDI or audio, the playing will be the same, no matter if it's Pro Tools, Live's Session View or Arrangement View. I will think the same way for mixdowns, no matter the DAW, even though the mixer features may affect my thinking when I interact with it. But the sounds I'm attracted to is what I primarily react to. A great DAW blends into the background with the other gear —And I think Live is a great DAW — and doesn't get into the way of the musical ideas and the production flow.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I'm having to make this a super extreme example because you didn't seem to get joeq's proposition, and haven't seemed to understand me.
I dunno
You seem to confuse "get" with "agree". I understand all your points and I disagree with some of them. It's OK. We are talking and want to understand. This way we can both learn. But, that said my objections are only about the "workflow" part. It's not about the general observations you've put forward here. Maybe Live has been more revolutionary for you than for me? Because I've always worked in "session" with patterns (session "clips" that loops) and songs (Arrangement) as have millions of electronic musicians since thirty years or more.

It's odd you appear to have shifted from a non-believer in DAW differences and yet again venture into the almost magical. I get there are psychological aspects that are real here and that is likely what you mean. But I don't think you have the facts to show what you suggest is the truth. Assumptions are not facts. You need to do actual research to know how the different makeups and features in different DAWs affect producers and in the end the music itself. Possibly someone have done this already.

Of course, I don't have any research to point to either, but I'm not purporting to know the truth. What I've said is from my perspective and from my impressions from my peers, friends and work, since a couple of decades. I'm not claiming it's always valid for everyone, but to me judging from my contacts of maybe a hundred music producers and musicians it's not a unique perspective.

Last edited by Mikael B; 9th September 2018 at 09:44 PM..
Old 8th September 2018
  #463
Lives for gear
And quoting myself "It would be interesting to know how you mean these different DAWs in your experience affect the large aspects of your workflow". If you could address this it would be very interesting. Because I want to understand how you mean. I don't think you are wrong really. I think we might just think differently on workflow.
Old 8th September 2018
  #464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Even though I'd agree this is likely, this is an assumption on your part. Few producers do mixdowns from Session mode anyway.
That's not the point. This has nothing to do with sound, or whether one DAW is better than another.
It's a simple point. Different features effect the way people work and the way they feel about the DAW.
Your counter to that is to claim that you can make most DAWs like each other. I'm saying Ableton Live and Pro Tools are like chalk and cheese.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
A great DAW blends into the background with the other gear —And I think Live is a great DAW — and doesn't get into the way of the musical ideas and the production flow.
Again, you seem not to understand the point.
If someone has worked a certain way in Live, the FIRST time they use Pro Tools to compare it, the different things about PT MAY colour their view.
I think that's what 'joeq' was saying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
It's odd you appear to have shifted from a non-believer in DAW differences and yet again venture into the almost magical. I get there are psychological aspects that are real here and that is likely what you mean. But I don't think you have the facts to show what you suggest is the truth.

Ugh, there you go with that 'magical' word again.
I haven't 'shifted my view'. I've spent most of a day trying to explain 'joeq's' post to you (as far as I understood it) and expand on it. But we apparently can't get past first base.
Personally, I don't think DAWs sound different.
The way DAWs ARE different is their look, tools and feature sets.
Pro Tools has limited midi. It doesn't have tons of built in fx and virtual instruments like Ableton Live. It has nothing like 'session' view.

The proposition is that the different features and look of a DAW might be the reason some people prefer the 'sound' of one DAW over another. It isn't the sound that is actually different.
Old 8th September 2018
  #465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
And quoting myself "It would be interesting to know how you mean these different DAWs in your experience affect the large aspects of your workflow".
I grew up playing real instruments into a tape machine.
With the advent of computers and music software I started to use DAWs in similar way to a tape machine.
You play a 4, 8 or 16 bar phrase (in midi or audio). You slide them around in an arrangement, then you mix your track.


In Ableton Live, I'm much more directed to build shorter phrases, 1 to 2 bars long. I'm much more likely to drop loops and musical clips into my work, as Live plays them back perfectly in time for me.
One of the things that drives me nuts about Live is that it wants to start clips on the downbeat. If you have a part that starts on the 'and of 4', so a half beat before 1, you have to jump through a few hoops to make it happen.
If you listen to music made in Live, most of the parts come in on beat 1 of a bar or section. That is something about the DAW that has shaped the way people are writing.
If you watch anyone professional working in Live - they pile multiple fx on to each track in the DAW. That has ALSO shaped the sound of dance music.
In something like Pro Tools, it is much more common to get the sound right before recording it, then if FX are applied it is through a send or group track.

Like I said..... different workflows.
1
Share
Old 8th September 2018
  #466
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
As this "workflow" has been mentioned before I must say that I think it's the wrong word as most DAWs support many workflows. In these workflows I'd rather say that different DAWs are nudging users in a certain direction or that they are more readably allowing for some decisions —maybe even certain outcomes — compared to others. .
I have used- as in actually used - Pro Tools, Digital Performer, Logic and Abelton. I would say these programs are doing quite a bit more than "nudging" the user in a certain direction.

That is the very reason why some of these DAWs attract user bases that have deeper concentrations in this or that genre than other DAWs. It's a two way street, and as the years go by, requested features by the user base close the feedback loop.

Quote:
As making decisions is at the core of mixing these will certainly affect the sound.
I agree and as far as I am concerned, we need look no further for the source of a "different sound" than this. But since this is a two-way street, the ways in which the workflow affects the decision-making (which affects the sound) will vary from individual to individual. This is confirmed by the observation that the difference-hearers do not agree among themselves about what the "sonic" character of each DAW consists of, nor do they agree on which DAW "sounds good" or "sounds harsh" or is "mid-forward".

Quote:
So there can be some tendencies that might be more typical for one DAW even if these are commonly counterbalanced by the producer's own preferences and visions of the music.
Certainly the individual users ability to overcome whatever "push" the tool exerts on them gives lie to the myth of "different sound". But the difference-hearers insist that they are 100% immune to this push, which is absurd.

Quote:
So probably a weak tendency, if any
I will disagree. Anything the myth makers say about a given DAW is easily disproved by an endless series of good-sounding products made in whatever DAW. But remember most of the people who made those mixes are already working in the DAW of their choice.

Force them to use a tool they are not comfortable with and then you will see just how strong the tendency really is.

I think the influence is stronger that many people realize. Because they have already gravitated away from the influences they don't like. As above in the example of the two knives with identical blades and different handles, if I am forced to use the one with the handle that feels awkward to me, it's going to be more than a "weak" influence.

Using an awkward tool is less fun. And if you are not having fun while you make your music, it is going to show!
2
Share
Old 8th September 2018
  #467
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I grew up playing real instruments into a tape machine.
I did as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
With the advent of computers and music software I started to use DAWs in similar way to a tape machine.
When I got into computers and music in the eighties there were no DAWs, there was sequencers, like C-Lab Creator and many others, or hardware like sequencers and drum machines with sequencers. Most had the idea of some kind of track with "patterns", essentially the same as a MIDI clip, piano-roll editing (notation in a few) and different ways of arranging these patterns. This concept is like bread and butter for millions of producers, also in DAWs. Sequencers made this change, not "DAWs".

There were "portastudios" like the Tascams and AKAIs for recording the non machine-based sound sources and you recorded MTC or SMPTE on one channel (sometimes leaking into the second of your precious few channels) that drove the computer. Essentially fusing everything into a simpler but workable studio. You mixed down to tape or later DAT.

Already then people made instrumental music with just sequencers, building arrangements on the fly and instead of "portas" using samplers for recording shorter snippets of bass lines, drums, vocals or anything, typically using modulation to create variations. It's my perception almost everyone young then almost immediately worked like this from the get go. Already before DAWs working with loops in dance music, or just new electronic music in general, certainly industrial styles was quite common. Only later in the nighties did the larger producer collective catch on.

Then came DAWs. But the flexible way of working was already established among everyone I've known in the dance music scene (quite a few), even though personal style variations have been great and everyone evolves. Some used tape already before, some used DAWs like tape and some used DAWs as tape but not without composing and recording on their sequencers into patterns before that stage. Or both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
One of the things that drives me nuts about Live is that it wants to start clips on the downbeat. If you have a part that starts on the 'and of 4', so a half beat before 1, you have to jump through a few hoops to make it happen.
Yes, I know this problem. But Live is also quite flexible with note starts and ends vs the loop itself. It's only the beat counter that behave somewhat awkward in these situations. And some solutions are counter-intuitive and require hoops, as you suggest. They can be done, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If you listen to music made in Live, most of the parts come in on beat 1 of a bar or section. That is something about the DAW that has shaped the way people are writing.
While that is likely true (again, without research there is no knowledge), that already happened decades before with Sequencers. And I, as well as producers much more talented than I am, learned to get around such limitations. If you've already overcome limitations in the past, new ones are just new ones and the results are the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If you watch anyone professional working in Live - they pile multiple fx on to each track in the DAW. That has ALSO shaped the sound of dance music.
There's absolutely nothing new piling on effects. I've done this in the studio decades ago also with other types of music, only printing to tape. It's also not different in other DAWs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
In something like Pro Tools, it is much more common to get the sound right before recording it, then if FX are applied it is through a send or group track.
So now you think people don't use the 12 sends or use groups, busses and AUXes in Live? If you don't know Live or lack the imagination, that might be so. I don't know anyone like that. They are all ultra-creative, no matter which generation. Some I regard as ultra-successful as well. So if we're talking Pros I don't recognize your sentiment here. I must add that not all use Live though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Like I said..... different workflows.
As I've said even if research would show technology implementation is behind ways of producing (I'd think that it must be to some extent) it's more about nudges in that some actions may be put in center and that some tasks are easier to achieve and less about workflow. I really think you make way too much out of Session view and tape machine likeness. I do not understand how you can have missed sequencers and how that have affected ways of working in many music styles for a very long time.

Nothing of what I suggested here prevents newcomers to music production, with no ties to traditional production patterns, to embrace all the obvious things you can do in a specific DAW much like what you suggest. But no-one I know over thirty work like that. No-one releasing music anyway.

Last edited by Mikael B; 8th September 2018 at 11:08 PM..
Old 8th September 2018
  #468
You are still missing my basic point.
Joeq said it better than me.
Old 8th September 2018
  #469
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You are still missing my basic point.
I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Joeq said it better than me.
Yes, I know.

The oddest thing with this discussion is that I started out on the last page admitting there is possibly an effect, but that I believe it to be "probably a weak tendency, if any". So we are in agreement there is likely some effect from the construction of the GUI (which includes menus) and the general concepts presented there. We disagree only how strong that effect is. I say it's typically weaker. You say something else.

I suggested in my post prior to joeq's that
Quote:
"it's mostly the producer/mixer that is behind the different sound. The construction of the GUI — or other feedback characteristics — may influence decisions in a certain direction, availability of important tools or lack thereof will affect decision making, lack of proper knowledge how to do common mixing tasks with a specific DAW will certainly affect the outcome and lack of mixing abilities and mixing experience even more. "
Anything of that you disagree with?

I found workflow, in the context of joeq's post, to mean that you can't work a certain way in a DAW that you can in another. I find that notion silly, except on a task level as I've opened for and you ignored. I've defined what I meant with workflow. You tried to do that as well, which I'm thankful for. You didn't, however, comment on my definition "[how you] actually work with music and get things done". This is confusing as to me it can't in essence mean much else, even though it could be more detailed.

Last edited by Mikael B; 8th September 2018 at 11:30 PM..
Old 8th September 2018
  #470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
I'm not.
.
Because nothing you said above addresses my point about what people actually do. I’m not talking about what people could do.
People get used to a DAW’s strengths. That’s why they’ve stuck with it as their chosen DAW.

The simple proposition is that the different feature sets in each DAW can impact on one’s impression of that DAW.
And the suggestion is, a negative impression of the workflow can bleed into a negative feeling about the sound.
1
Share
Old 9th September 2018
  #471
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Because nothing you said above addresses my point about what people actually do. I’m not talking about what people could do.
People get used to a DAW’s strengths. That’s why they’ve stuck with it as their chosen DAW.

The simple proposition is that the different feature sets in each DAW can impact on one’s impression of that DAW.
And the suggestion is, a negative impression of the workflow can bleed into a negative feeling about the sound.
Yeah. I agree with that. I didn't understand joeq like that nor your following posts. That's maybe all there is to this.
Old 9th September 2018
  #472
In a nutshell:

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Using an awkward tool is less fun. And if you are not having fun while you make your music, it is going to show!
1
Share
Old 9th September 2018
  #473
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B
I found workflow, in the context of joeq's post, to mean that you can't work a certain way in a DAW that you can in another.
It's not about can't, it’s about a little easier here a little harder there, on a feature-by-feature basis - and then the accumulation of a thousand other points of potential differences. Each one may be small:

Engineer A: “oh look, combining those two aux functions into one item makes more sense”
Engineer B: “no it doesn’t, it’s stupid”

but they add up - there are so many of them

No one can predict what the effect of 1000 small but accumulating and synergistic discomforts (and comforts!) will be. But that it will have an effect is obvious. If nothing else, Engineer B is now in a bad mood.

Quote:
I find that notion silly, except on a task level
Using a DAW is all task. Since we can’t plug a wire into our brains and out comes the music, we use the DAW to perform those tasks which turn our ideas into reality. The accumulated nuances of the tools and the individual's reaction to them may make the task easier or harder in 1000 little ways. For some individuals, in some DAWs, the effects may even consistently trend in a particular direction. And I think we see that in some of the claims.

Certainly these resulting differences will be far greater than the largest residues ever obtained in a properly performed null test.
Old 9th September 2018
  #474
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Ableton is still forcing my recorded clips to be warped. I know I can unwarp them but that fact that it records warped makes me flutter wow. and then consolidating a recorded piece warps it too. makes me weary
Old 9th September 2018
  #475
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
It's not about can't, it’s about a little easier here a little harder there, on a feature-by-feature basis - and then the accumulation of a thousand other points of potential differences. Each one may be small:

but they add up - there are so many of them
You're clearly a believer in that a DAW has a sound, albeit not from a purely technical reason. You're saying a producer that knows what she wants will absolutely surely be lured by a DAW to mix music in some specific direction and not another. All of which is quite unpredictable, which you admit. This is not at all different from using any tool that has the potential to shape what you do, like a specific compressor or mixing desk. You also imply that tools beats talent. You see that, right? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Using a DAW is all task.
Mixing or making music is all task as well! With your logic changing from a Neve desk to SSL will change everything. Something will obviously change but how is this or changing the DAW going to change you will do a "sequence of …actions with some variations of possible and usable actions and sub-sequences of these"? How will it affect a music project will go trough phases like "Composition/Jamming, Experimentation, Recording (MIDI or Audio), Arranging, Mixdown and Mastering". All of that is Workflow you can do in a DAW. The experience will vary and specific instruments and native devices and native structure will color decisions made, but the basic components of the workflow will likely vary much less. I just don't see hordes of producers suddenly switching workflows in the meaning in black above just because they switched to another DAW.

That the sequence of doing one of these phases varies with the tools used is obvious and that a specific task within one of these may need to be done differently is obvious as well (think comping). You still do them if you need them. Please illustrate how using a DAW of your choice makes any of those workflow items fundamentally different, not on a native device level, but on a clean studio level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Certainly these resulting differences will be far greater than the largest residues ever obtained in a properly performed null test.
Finally something we agree on. But how is that relevant or even meaningful in the context of this discussion about the sound quality of Ableton Live? It's also inexact and based on make-believe. Most of what you present here are simply numerous, familiar but unknown variables on a machine man interaction level. How does that say anything?

It seems you ask ask us to believe in yet more psychological aspects that we can't verify, without quite advanced social research, instead of focusing on what can be measured (null tests) or assessed (ABX tests). Until this peer-reviewed research is in that's a fairy tale you're offering. Pretty but nevertheless.
Old 9th September 2018
  #476
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
Ableton is still forcing my recorded clips to be warped. I know I can unwarp them but that fact that it records warped makes me flutter wow. and then consolidating a recorded piece warps it too. makes me weary
As a warped clip (with the neutral modes) nulls with an unwarped duplicate —until you change the tempo anyway — that's quite irrelevant.
Old 9th September 2018
  #477
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
As a warped clip (with the neutral modes) nulls with an unwarped duplicate —until you change the tempo anyway — that's quite irrelevant.
what are neutral modes, can it not deal with sharp notes
Old 9th September 2018
  #478
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
what are neutral modes, can it not deal with sharp notes
Sharp? Beats is neutral, which may be why it's default. Some of the others too, but can't remember which now.
None of the complex are neutral not even without changing tempo.
Old 9th September 2018
  #479
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Sharp? Beats is neutral, which may be why it's default. Some of the others too, but can't remember which now.
None of the complex are neutral not even without changing tempo.
danggg, I cant pull myself away from ableton but that almost does it for me.
Old 9th September 2018
  #480
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
danggg, I cant pull myself away from ableton but that almost does it for me.
I just use Beats, unless I have a specific reason using any of the others. If I change the tempo I'll have to live with it. Artefacts form changing the tempos is a problem in any DAW, you know. Some other DAW might be better on this, but unless you change the tempo all the time how is this a big problem? I have no idea why you find this so depressing?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump