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 9th September 2018
  #481
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
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?
After I record a correct take I have to go in and correct the programs choice to warp the recording.
Old 9th September 2018
  #482
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
After I record a correct take I have to go in and correct the programs choice to warp the recording.
No. You just make sure Beats is default and ignore this pretty much. I ignore this all the time as I've decided on tempo before I make audio recordings. I may go up a few bpms once in a while. In these situations I might have to change to another warp mode for melodies and textures. As I have electronic sounds that are not that sensitive to artefacts this works out well.

What are you doing differently that gives you issues, you mean? And what are those issues specifically? What about these issues make you believe another DAW would handle this better? DAWs have different technical capabilities in some areas, so if it's very specific requirements and needs you have, another DAW could perhaps serve you better. But there also plug-ins that brings solutions for tricky problems with them that might be equally or more effective. That's the route I've chosen for all issues I've encountered in Live for the last 6-7 years.
Old 9th September 2018
  #483
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
No. You just make sure Beats is default and ignore this pretty much. I ignore this all the time as I've decided on tempo before I make audio recordings. I may go up a few bpms once in a while. In these situations I might have to change to another warp mode for melodies and textures. As I have electronic sounds that are not that sensitive to artefacts this works out well.

What are you doing differently that gives you issues, you mean? And what are those issues specifically? What about these issues make you believe another DAW would handle this better? DAWs have different technical capabilities in some areas, so if it's very specific requirements and needs you have, another DAW could perhaps serve you better. But there also plug-ins that brings solutions for tricky problems with them that might be more effective. That's the route I've chosen for all issues I've encountered in Live for the last 6-7 years.
I dont like the idea of having to unwarp my recordings. I dont like the idea of having warped recordings. I tried turning the setting off but ableton is still 'warping'.
Old 9th September 2018
  #484
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
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.
Yes, I get that. Though the sound will be different if the choices made are different. If you meant the "quality of sound" isn't different then I agree completely, even while it's possible that lack of knowledge of the technical details of a DAW may prevent optimal sound quality. But that's user error.

But OK, so we are talking more about perceptions (users convincing themselves it must be a certain way) and not realities (users react to the tool and make different choices)? That's what I missed, @joeq? If so, I apologize for that. Though the latter is always true, but you downplay that factor?

If this is the core of it, then is this simply a pedagogical flaw in the Live GUI and conceptual presentation?

And if this is true, what can be done in order for people using Ableton Live, or any other DAW, to overcome any kind of barrier that prevents them from producing high quality music? Isn't the answer learning Music Production? Isn't that the aim of everyone in these contexts?

Personally, as someone that extract most production techniques from people demonstrating in Pro Tools or on analog mixing desks, I'm somewhat baffled on what you and @joeq seem to suggest here. I can't say you're wrong, nor that you're right and I feel there is no absolute data you can rely on. I kinda feel lack of proper knowledge of music production must be the actual cause as the DAW is but a studio.

Thanks for sticking with me and explaining. I appreciate it.
Old 9th September 2018
  #485
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
ableton sounds 'warped'
Old 9th September 2018
  #486
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
You're clearly a believer in that a DAW has a sound, albeit not from a purely technical reason.
NO. You are missing my point. Again. Gee, what a shock.

The person who uses the "DAW has the sound". What part of the "individual reaction" do you not understand? For a DAW to "have a sound", by definition, that 'sound' has to be imprinted on the work of everybody who uses it. This is clearly not the case. There is no consistency even in the anecdotes that the difference-hearers put forth as their pathetic "evidence".

Quote:
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.
yes, any tool that you use changes the way in which your 100% totally mental ideas are translated into a reality that other people can see or hear. Yes. This is self-evident.

Quote:
You also imply that tools beats talent.
where did I say that? Or even imply that? You seem to be implying that mere "talent" can completely overcome tool and arrive at the exact same result no matter how tortuous the detours. What solipsistic nonsense!

If I gave you two ten-ton blocks of marble, and one hammer and chisel for one and a different hammer and chisel set with different handles for the other, are you telling me that you can produce two identical sculptures? The hell you can. And these are the simplest tools in the world.

You think you are such a Perfect Mixing Machine, that you will "overcome" any and all influence of the tools? You think you will produce the exact "same mix" even though this DAW has a different method for 1000 different tasks? I know the difference-hearer camp is based on deluded egotism, but really, this takes the cake.

Quote:
With your logic changing from a Neve desk to SSL will change everything.
No, I think it will change something. That's all you need to claim a "difference" - something.

You think your "talent" will enable you to get the EXACT "same" mix on a Neve and an SSL? The "same" = as in, people are fooled into thinking you just made two copies of your mix and renamed them? You have to be joking! Trolling?

Quote:
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.
What is wrong with your understanding?? It doesn't have to be "fundamentally" different. Just different enough to give the user the impression that his mixes in this DAW come out a "certain way". And for him, they DO!

I have no idea what a "clean studio level" is, but I am beginning to suspect that you don't either. Everything you do in the studio requires getting your hands dirty, otherwise you could just plug a wire into your brain and output music. It doesn't matter on what "level" it is taking place on anyway. The result is different. It's not a huge difference, but it's different enough that you might notice and blame it on the "audio engine" .

Hell, you will get a different result if you do a second mix in the same DAW!!!

Or are you claiming you are a Perfect Human Mixing Machine and you always will get your "intended" mix no matter what? Because talent beats tool?

Quote:
Most of what you present here are simply numerous, familiar but unknown variables on a machine man interaction level. How does that say anything?
I am sorry, but I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you. I say YOU are doing it. YOU are the source of the different sound. If you would like to prove me wrong, all you have to do is totally remove YOU from the equation and then test it. Set up two DAWs exactly the same without doing anything different. I fearlessly predict you will fail to find this difference. Every time someone does this exactly and does not skip a step or sleaze over the nitty gritty details, he gets a null. What's up with that?

Quote:
It seems you ask ask us to believe in yet more psychological aspects that we can't verify, without quite advanced social research,
you can believe what you want. It is clear that it is not the "audio engine" and the idea that it is the individual's reaction to the accumulated nuances of the tools fits all the observations. I am trying to provide a face-saving "out" for those people whose placebos have been trashed by the null tests.

Quote:
instead of focusing on what can be measured (null tests)
For decades now, null tests have been done, they say no difference. Null tests are a done deal. I did my null tests, and now I have moved on.

Quote:
or assessed (ABX tests).
Also a done deal. Many many ABXs performed. Nulling files cannot be picked out by ear. Funny how quickly 'obvious' differences disappear when you put on a blindfold and cannot peek at the screen anymore. But in the 18 or so years that I have been reading this bulls#!t, not one person has ever 'stepped up' and played "name that DAW" "lol: when challenge files were offered.


Quote:
But how is that relevant or even meaningful in the context of this discussion about the sound quality of Ableton Live?
The idea that Abelton Live even has a "sound quality" is a delusion. People who believe in this idea that the 'audio engine' is forcing them to make a 'bad mix' are looking in the wrong place.

If you are getting a bad mix, the place to look is in the mirror.
1
Share
Old 9th September 2018
  #487
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

I am sorry, but I don't know how I can make it any simpler for you. I say YOU are doing it. YOU are the source of the different sound.
2 days ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
As have been suggested many, many times (for decades) 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.

The usability of DAW native tools also play a role as all tools used affect the outcome. The better you know your tools the better results you will get. This goes for DAW and plug-ins alike.
I'll leave the rest of your projections uncommented.
Old 9th September 2018
  #488
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
ableton sounds 'warped'
Only if you change the tempo after recording and even so usually you can create an acceptable sound. At least if it's only a few bpms depending on material as well. If you don't change tempo it will sound as recorded. You might want to look into your recording process.
Old 9th September 2018
  #489
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
Unless I manually unwarp every single clip, ableton will turn my song into something it is not.
Prove it. I've already suggested how.
Old 9th September 2018
  #490
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
What is to prove, the warp feature is enabled everytime I record. If I record, without undoing the warped stuff, all my recordings, will be warped. simple
Yes, it will have warped status, but the sound will be identical to an unwarped version. If you're not going to care about what I suggest and remember it, what's the point talking to you?

It's perfectly simple to prove this to yourself:
  1. Do your recording as usual
  2. Duplicate the track. Now you have two identical tracks.
  3. Turn off Warp in only one of these tracks. Important!
  4. Solo both tracks. To add the second solo hold down Cmd (Mac) or Ctrl (Windows) and hit the solo button
  5. Don't do anything else! Now add the Utility with preset "Reverse Phase" on one, and only one, of these tracks.
  6. Play back these two tracks in solo.No other tracks!

If you don't get complete silence, you are doing something wrong. If you want we can likely help you find out what's going on. This —assisting you fix a problem — is another discussion, so you should post a new thread.
1
Share
Old 9th September 2018
  #491
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
It's perfectly simple to prove this to yourself:


I have complete silence when i do that. what is the point of it being warped then
Old 10th September 2018
  #492
I think that’s his (joeq) point isn’t it?
You are looking for variables where no one has ever proven there are any (sound). Meanwhile you are dismissing numerous variables that are proven and DO effect the way people work. The GUI, the missing features you liked in another DAW, the different workflows.
1
Share
Old 10th September 2018
  #493
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I think that’s his (joeq) point isn’t it?
You are looking for variables where no one has ever proven there are any (sound). Meanwhile you are dismissing numerous variables that are proven and DO effect the way people work. The GUI, the missing features you liked in another DAW, the different workflows.
If there aren't differences in sound, then how it can it hurt to learn this? Except for lost time, but as I think you've said before that's up to each person, right?

These variables in DAWs you and joeq refer to aren't really proven, at least not scientifically, to change the final product more than any other tool would do. I mean who wouldn't agree that tools change how we work on the detailed hand-on level and this likely resulting in minute or sometimes drastic changes in how we work? I agree with that naturally.

But just because Live is bad at comping, for example, that doesn't mean I will not need to do that. Some even track in other DAWs for this, I know, but others just work with the Live as it is and get the comping, or what it might be, done. The details in the workflow might be somewhat different in the details, but the basic components and sequence of this workflow will be more similar than different..

Maybe it's unintended, but you and joeq make it sound like the alleged differences must be like night and day. Maybe they are sometimes, but if this is like what you seem to suggest then I, and many others, couldn't reconstruct what we learn from the analog studios we've been in or from Pro Tools and Logic work that others producers do and share. The similarities in the work processes are stronger than the differences. That's where we started on this, as to me this is obvious.

I'm not denying there are likely some differences. That would be silly. I disagree one can say that what we happen to believe about how GUIs and DAW concepts affect producers are facts, unless someone have done studies on the subject.

I think I've read something about this some years ago and it's possibly an interesting topic and I know GUI interaction is a focal point in universities.

I think we have exhausted this line of thought now. Basically we agree, except on language (workflow) and scope of the DAW interaction effect.

I really appreciate your thoughts and points. I might have misunderstood some aspects in your mind, but even when I might disagree I enjoy the challenge of another perspective.

Back to sound quality.
Old 10th September 2018
  #494
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
I have complete silence when i do that. what is the point of it being warped then
While I agree it could be a good feature to keep loops and other clip features also when an audio clip is unwarped, the objective of the null test was to ensure for yourself that a beat warped clip has the exact same audio quality as when it's unwarped. It will be exactly the same.

Therefore, there is little point to worry about the sound quality of warping under the circumstances you shared. Just let it go until you hit some real issues.
Old 10th September 2018
  #495
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
While I agree it could be a good feature to keep loops and other clip features also when an audio clip is unwarped, the objective of the null test was to ensure for yourself that a beat warped clip has the exact same audio quality as when it's unwarped. It will be exactly the same.

Therefore, there is little point to worry about the sound quality of warping under the circumstances you shared. Just let it go until you hit some real issues.
Is timing the exact same? I was having major jitter problems with loopback tests months ago and it turned out I had a bad stick of ram. played hell with me.
Old 10th September 2018
  #496
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
ableton sounds 'warped'
Ableton has settings for short and long samples warping in the preferences.
I keep both settings off when I sync Ableton as a slave to an external sequencer or when I record songs in one take.

Warping turns on automatically after you flatten files. But nulls to infinity if you switch off warping within the file.
Old 10th September 2018
  #497
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post

These variables in DAWs you and joeq refer to aren't really proven, at least not scientifically, to change the final product more than any other tool would do.
*sigh* but it doesn't have to change the final product "more than any other tool" would do. It just has to change the final product somewhat - enough so that the user notices hey this came out different than it did in the other DAW. It's a different tool, different tools WILL change the result. You admit it.

Quote:
I mean who wouldn't agree that tools change how we work on the detailed hand-on level and this likely resulting in minute or sometimes drastic changes in how we work? I agree with that naturally.
Then why can't you admit that those changes might be mistakenly perceived as a 'sonic' difference in the "audio" of the DAW? What is your problem? If something changes "how we work", it ends up changing the result. Or are you on such an ego trip that you think you will get the same result even if you change how you work?

Quote:
But just because Live is bad at comping, for example, that doesn't mean I will not need to do that.
Again, for the 100th time, each user reacts differently to what they believe the program is "bad" at. You think Live is "bad" at comping but maybe someone else thinks the comping in Live is "excellent". Because everybody is different. Or maybe because it is a PITA, you have to focus more and you end up doing better job of comping. But it takes extra time which is taken off of some other task. Who the hell knows? Who cares? The takeaway is that everybody's reaction is unique.

I am not saying you can't "work around" the differences to get your mixes 'done'. I am saying you can't work around the differences to the point that you will produce two identical mixes. Do you understand what a null test is? Do you have any idea what the word "identical" actually means? Is English your native language?

Quote:
but the basic components and sequence of this workflow will be more similar than different..
But that means there will be differences! And that's all you need. And even the "small" differences will still be orders of magnitude greater than the worst non-null anyone ever obtained in a correctly performed null test.

Quote:
Maybe it's unintended, but you and joeq make it sound like the alleged differences must be like night and day.
NEVER did I say that. And it's not even necessary, because the difference-hearers usually do not claim "night and day". Rather, they say things like: this DAW sounds a bit "mellower" than that DAW. And then they back away from any blind listening challenge as "too subtle". They are chasing shadowy ghosts and right here we are showing you something that casts shadows!

Quote:
The similarities in the work processes are stronger than the differences.
Which is the reason why no difference-hearer complains that the DAW made his heavy metal mix sound like Adele! But he does complain that his mix comes out "different".

Quote:
I'm not denying there are likely some differences.
"likely"??? It's not a matter of guesswork. Grab the manuals of two different programs and compare them feature for feature.

Quote:
That would be silly. I disagree one can say that what we happen to believe about how GUIs and DAW concepts affect producers are facts, unless someone have done studies on the subject.
I don't give a rat's ass about "proving" how which aspect of which DAW affects which producer in which way. Everybody is different. Which is why all the 'complaints' are different too. Since everybody is different, any "study" you might do would just be a collection of anecdotes.

Quote:
Back to sound quality
The sound quality of DAWs is a myth. Disproved many many times. There is nothing there to go "back" to.
1
Share
Old 10th September 2018
  #498
Yes.
All of which I've been saying for a couple of pages.
It falls on deaf ears sadly. the same deaf ears that hear a difference between DAWs I suspect.
1
Share
Old 10th September 2018
  #499
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post

I don't give a rat's ass about "proving" how which aspect of which DAW affects which producer in which way. Everybody is different. Which is why all the 'complaints' are different too. Since everybody is different, any "study" you might do would just be a collection of anecdotes.


The sound quality of DAWs is a myth. Disproved many many times. There is nothing there to go "back" to.
We develop different habits within DAWs. Ableton with its Push similar to Softube and its Console 1 try to educate producing and mixing without looking at the computer screen as much as possible. Which is a move in the right direction although it needs some time getting used to not look at screens. Think people in threads like this react more to what they see than what they can actually hear.
2
Share
Old 10th September 2018
  #500
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
These variables in DAWs you and joeq refer to aren't really proven, at least not scientifically, to change the final product more than any other tool would do.
There is plenty of science on the topic. See below.

Quote:
I mean who wouldn't agree that tools change how we work on the detailed hand-on level and this likely resulting in minute or sometimes drastic changes in how we work? I agree with that naturally.
Then I don't understand why you are arguing.

Quote:
But just because Live is bad at comping, for example, that doesn't mean I will not need to do that.
But you are likely to get different results. Also, by your own description, you only use your DAW like a virtual studio from the 90's. There are many many new techniques since then that will most certainly yield, not only different results but also entirely new genres of music! The technology we use and the interfaces to that technology has a significant impact on how one composes, arranges, produces and mixes... at least if you use all the available tools and techniques.

Quote:
Maybe it's unintended, but you and joeq make it sound like the alleged differences must be like night and day. Maybe they are sometimes, but if this is like what you seem to suggest then I, and many others, couldn't reconstruct what we learn from the analog studios we've been in or from Pro Tools and Logic work that others producers do and share.
You can easily imitate an analogue studio because that is exactly how all these DAWs have been designed and influenced but you can not go in the other direction. You could not produce electronic music that would be recognised as modern by most listeners of modern electronic music without using techniques that were not available in an analogue studio (or even a digital studio from two decades ago).

Quote:
The similarities in the work processes are stronger than the differences. That's where we started on this, as to me this is obvious.
That is because you only use a limited subset of the available tools. A subset that is present in most DAWs and even then, I think you grossly underestimate the impact the UI has on every one of your decisions.

Quote:
I'm not denying there are likely some differences. That would be silly. I disagree one can say that what we happen to believe about how GUIs and DAW concepts affect producers are facts, unless someone have done studies on the subject.
Not only should it be completely self-evident, it is en entire field of research with mountains of papers and books on the subject: Human–computer interaction - Wikipedia

It is completely undeniable. I am utterly flabbergasted by your comments on the topic.

Quote:
I think we have exhausted this line of thought now. Basically we agree, except on language (workflow) and scope of the DAW interaction effect.
Do some research on the topic. There is plenty of information available!

Alistair
3
Share
Old 10th September 2018
  #501
Yeah, going back to my initial comment on maybe page 1, it was somewhat dismissed by all concerned.
When you start working on some music in your DAW (of choice) you immediately start making decisions and choices based on sound.
Everything you do, from the first bar of midi you record to the final tweak of your mix is based on how it sounds to your ear.
Therefore (my point again) it baffles me that people claim when they work in two different DAWs they end up with a different sounding outcome.
I mean to make it as simple as I can....
If I start a track with a kick pattern, I’m looking for the same kick sound whether I’m working in Live, Logic or Pro Tools. I use different tools to get there in each DAW, because no DAW has the same tool set.
Different methodology, same sound result.
I therefore can’t imagine how someone could claim their kicks sound different in Live and PT, or even their final mixes, because before you’ve finished the kick or that mix, you’ve made a hundred different sound choices using a lot of different tools.
1
Share
Old 10th September 2018
  #502
Gear Maniac
 

Ok - we are getting into a different discussion.

The point of this thread was asking why one DAW sounds different to another. Then we started to realise that there are many aspects to this that could cause the concern.

Now If in this case the driver of the car has a choice of swapping tyres (pan laws) and this is indeed a part of the problem, then I cannot see what the issue is with this being taken into account. Ableton also warps audio, so we tell those who have issues with it to turn that of,.

Rather than get everyone doing null tests that apparently have been performed before and are reasonably conclusive to point out that DAWs do not affect the audio (even though they do but we don't class pan law as part of DAW design in this case) why not just get everyone to change pan laws and report back?

If then there are those who are convinced that the pan law is not the cause of this audio alteration between DAWS, then that's another discussion either on other systems tweaks or if nothing else can be found then the null test just to pieces that nothing is different.

I read how pan laws give a different feel to the centre, which would make our perspective of the bass seem more powerful.

I never really was that aware of what the pan law does to the sound. So I missed something that is more DAW understanding than anything else. I've not really considered it before as I haven't ever experienced adjusting this on a big format console - if it is possible which maybe it would be?

This conversation is going around in circles I think because there are things affecting each DAWs sound and we all just need to admit it and then explain what that is so we can all realise that it's just a setting that can be changed.


When someone comes on here and says Logic sounds better than Ableton or Pro Tools why is the first question just not - have you checked the pan law?
Old 10th September 2018
  #503
Not ‘why’.....if.
Old 10th September 2018
  #504
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
Ok - we are getting into a different discussion.

The point of this thread was asking why one DAW sounds different to another. Then we started to realise that there are many aspects to this that could cause the concern.

Now If in this case the driver of the car has a choice of swapping tyres (pan laws) and this is indeed a part of the problem, then I cannot see what the issue is with this being taken into account. Ableton also warps audio, so we tell those who have issues with it to turn that of,.

Rather than get everyone doing null tests that apparently have been performed before and are reasonably conclusive to point out that DAWs do not affect the audio (even though they do but we don't class pan law as part of DAW design in this case) why not just get everyone to change pan laws and report back?
The following might seem to contradict what I wrote in my previous post but it doesn't really: My comments below on Pan laws are about the level to which this influences decision making and thus the results we get.

Pan laws have little effect on mix decisions because you just turn a knob or a virtual slider until the sound is positioned the way you want. The decision is (or always should be) made by ear.

The differences in pan laws only really have effect if you look at specific values. So for instance if you take the values of one DAW and copy them directly to another DAW or if you type in values manually. Then suddenly things are panned different or have a different level. So if you mix by numbers (always say pan the hi-hat to value 20 to the right) then this will have a noticeably different end result but if you set panning of elements by ear then the pan laws have little effect IMO.

Quote:
I read how pan laws give a different feel to the centre, which would make our perspective of the bass seem more powerful.
It doesn't as such give a different feel of the centre unless you copy values directly from one system to another or if you sweep the pan knobs. In every day work, you set the level and panning based on how loud you want a particular sound and where you want to place it in the stereo field.

Quote:
I never really was that aware of what the pan law does to the sound. So I missed something that is more DAW understanding than anything else. I've not really considered it before as I haven't ever experienced adjusting this on a big format console - if it is possible which maybe it would be?
Different consoles have different pan laws (and some might have a choice of settings) but it doesn't effectively change that much in practise hence why you didn't really notice or pay attention to pan laws before.

Quote:
This conversation is going around in circles I think because there are things affecting each DAWs sound and we all just need to admit it and then explain what that is so we can all realise that it's just a setting that can be changed.
The discussion isn't so much going around in circles as it is getting confused due to different people meaning different things with the same words or expressions.

One aspect of this discussion is the inherent sound of the algorithms of each DAW. There are differences there but not in the summing. The other aspect is the effect of UI on the decisions we make and how we perceive the sound of a DAW. THAT aspect is undeniable and supported by plenty of science both on human perception and on human-computer interaction.

Quote:
When someone comes on here and says Logic sounds better than Ableton or Pro Tools why is the first question just not - have you checked the pan law?
It often is the first question!

Alistair
Old 10th September 2018
  #505
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
Ableton has settings for short and long samples warping in the preferences.
I keep both settings off when I sync Ableton as a slave to an external sequencer or when I record songs in one take.

Warping turns on automatically after you flatten files. But nulls to infinity if you switch off warping within the file.
Based on the phase inversion test showing that a beats warped recording is the exact same as a not warped recording I dont even know if theres a reason to turn it off.
Old 10th September 2018
  #506
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
Based on the phase inversion test showing that a beats warped recording is the exact same as a not warped recording I dont even know if theres a reason to turn it off.
Same behaviour in former versions?
Old 10th September 2018
  #507
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
why not just get everyone to change pan laws and report back?
*sigh* I am sure it wasn't the first, but the first large-scale null test that I became aware of was in 2003. They compensated for pan laws in that test! Where were you, and what were you doing in 2003?

So for nearly two decades, everybody has already been "changing the pan laws and reporting back". In some cases where the DAWs did not have pan options, they would need to sum fully-panned stereo stems, which also takes the pan law out of the equation. Have you actually been reading this thread? Just because YOU learned about Pan Law a week ago doesn't mean it is a brand new "discovery" for everyone else. Do you really think you are that much more clever than everyone else, that you are the first person to think of compensating for pan laws in a null test? . Good gravy.

Quote:
If then there are those who are convinced that the pan law is not the cause of this audio alteration between DAWS....
pan law has been compensated for in every null test that I know of since 2003 except for those sloppy newbies who don't understand how to conduct a proper test. And they have many more errors than just pan law to worry about.

Quote:
I read how pan laws give a different feel to the centre, which would make our perspective of the bass seem more powerful.
OK, let's try this one more time. When you are mixing in a DAW, you can pan the bass to the center, but unless you are an idiot, you do not put the volume fader of the bass to some arbitrary predetermined number. You put the volume fader of the bass to the level at which the bass sounds right to you. Then you tweak the bass compressor's output knob and tweak the bass EQ... Several more opportunities to adjust the "power" of the bass to where you want it.


Therefore pan law cannot force you to have 'more powerful' bass.

Now it may influence you to have a more powerful bass if are highly visually oriented and really like to see that bass fader sitting right a '0'!

The "tool" influences. The "character" forces. Get it?


When you say something has a "sound" - that character has to apply to every user in every circumstance or it cannot count. Tape, for example has a "sound" because (among other things) it has hiss. That hiss will be there whether you like it or not. Tape did not "influence" you to have hiss. It forces you to have hiss. Can you at least try to understand this basic distinction? That's what having a "sound" means. (And if you use dolby, you will be forced to have the artifacts of dolby, so please.)

But if you can still put the bass volume wherever you want it, then you can call it a 'influence' but you cannot call it a "character" a forcing.

On the other hand, when you are testing, your goal is to sum the tracks the same way in both DAWs. When you are testing, you have to compensate for the way each DAW handles the panning in order to have a fair test. It's as if the knob was "skinnier" in the middle. That's all it is. A fader level of '0' on a center-panned track is interpreted as '+1' by a different DAW with a different pan law. If you just straight copy the settings, these tracks will jump by +1 dB. That's not a fair test anymore. Had you started a mix in the other DAW and were transferring the settings back the other way you would have the opposite error in your test.
Quote:
I never really was that aware of what the pan law does to the sound. So I missed something that is more DAW understanding than anything else.
So maybe that makes you the least qualified person to propose "new" testing procedures that have already been done to death, or to pontificate on what might be causing the DAW to "sound different"?
Quote:
This conversation is going around in circles I think because...
We all know why this conversation is "going around in circles". It's because some people refuse to get it. The reason they refuse to get it, IMO is that their egos will not allow them to face the fact that they have placebos like everyone else. Their egos will not allow them to face the fact that they can be "influenced" - which is different from saying "The DAW did it".

Quote:
When someone comes on here and says Logic sounds better than Ableton or Pro Tools why is the first question just not - have you checked the pan law?
No, the first question should be have you set EVERYTHING the same and done a null test? EVERYTHING the same, not just the goddam pan law! The second question is: have you listened double-blind ABX to the null test files?

People who believe in stupid things tend to be kind of stupid when it comes to testing their stupid beliefs as well. What a surprise! Believe me, there are difference-hearers whose idea of a 'test' is literally to just MIX a song in one DAW, then do a completely NEW MIX in another DAW - with not even the slightest effort to check and see if anything is 'the same', much less everything the same. Then they listen with their eyes open, reading the label on which they are listening to. Then they say "Cubase sounds warmer"

And they call that a "test". Pan Law is WAY down the list of things they forgot to do.
1
Share
Old 11th September 2018
  #508
Lives for gear
 

Warping seems to be improved with 10.0.3

Previously, erratic scrolling would occur when there was only one Warp Marker set after "0" beat time. Also, jittering would occur when dragging and holding a Warp Marker while the grid was disabled

Visuals seem to be improved now with the latest update within the UI and with some third-party plugins. Which doesn´t answer the question if Ableton did calculate some third-party plugins differently in real-time before?
Old 11th September 2018
  #509
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
*sigh* I am sure it wasn't the first, but the first large-scale null test that I became aware of was in 2003. They compensated for pan laws in that test! Where were you, and what were you doing in 2003?

So for nearly two decades, everybody has already been "changing the pan laws and reporting back". In some cases where the DAWs did not have pan options, they would need to sum fully-panned stereo stems, which also takes the pan law out of the equation. Have you actually been reading this thread? Just because YOU learned about Pan Law a week ago doesn't mean it is a brand new "discovery" for everyone else. Do you really think you are that much more clever than everyone else, that you are the first person to think of compensating for pan laws in a null test? . Good gravy.


pan law has been compensated for in every null test that I know of since 2003 except for those sloppy newbies who don't understand how to conduct a proper test. And they have many more errors than just pan law to worry about.


OK, let's try this one more time. When you are mixing in a DAW, you can pan the bass to the center, but unless you are an idiot, you do not put the volume fader of the bass to some arbitrary predetermined number. You put the volume fader of the bass to the level at which the bass sounds right to you. Then you tweak the bass compressor's output knob and tweak the bass EQ... Several more opportunities to adjust the "power" of the bass to where you want it.


Therefore pan law cannot force you to have 'more powerful' bass.

Now it may influence you to have a more powerful bass if are highly visually oriented and really like to see that bass fader sitting right a '0'!

The "tool" influences. The "character" forces. Get it?


When you say something has a "sound" - that character has to apply to every user in every circumstance or it cannot count. Tape, for example has a "sound" because (among other things) it has hiss. That hiss will be there whether you like it or not. Tape did not "influence" you to have hiss. It forces you to have hiss. Can you at least try to understand this basic distinction? That's what having a "sound" means. (And if you use dolby, you will be forced to have the artifacts of dolby, so please.)

But if you can still put the bass volume wherever you want it, then you can call it a 'influence' but you cannot call it a "character" a forcing.

On the other hand, when you are testing, your goal is to sum the tracks the same way in both DAWs. When you are testing, you have to compensate for the way each DAW handles the panning in order to have a fair test. It's as if the knob was "skinnier" in the middle. That's all it is. A fader level of '0' on a center-panned track is interpreted as '+1' by a different DAW with a different pan law. If you just straight copy the settings, these tracks will jump by +1 dB. That's not a fair test anymore. Had you started a mix in the other DAW and were transferring the settings back the other way you would have the opposite error in your test.

So maybe that makes you the least qualified person to propose "new" testing procedures that have already been done to death, or to pontificate on what might be causing the DAW to "sound different"?

We all know why this conversation is "going around in circles". It's because some people refuse to get it. The reason they refuse to get it, IMO is that their egos will not allow them to face the fact that they have placebos like everyone else. Their egos will not allow them to face the fact that they can be "influenced" - which is different from saying "The DAW did it".


No, the first question should be have you set EVERYTHING the same and done a null test? EVERYTHING the same, not just the goddam pan law! The second question is: have you listened double-blind ABX to the null test files?

People who believe in stupid things tend to be kind of stupid when it comes to testing their stupid beliefs as well. What a surprise! Believe me, there are difference-hearers whose idea of a 'test' is literally to just MIX a song in one DAW, then do a completely NEW MIX in another DAW - with not even the slightest effort to check and see if anything is 'the same', much less everything the same. Then they listen with their eyes open, reading the label on which they are listening to. Then they say "Cubase sounds warmer"

And they call that a "test". Pan Law is WAY down the list of things they forgot to do.
I think all you needed to say was - yes this test has included that for sometime.

In 2003 I was still learning the basics of production.


I think to bounce around stuff and acuse people of being stupid just because you know something is pretty unfair.

When someone asks a question its usually because they were not aware of something. it doesn't make them stupid. Once upon a time I didn't even know how a fader works or a pan knob, then one day someone shows me a mixing desk and then you learn.

There is no point discussing this topic as apparently everyone who doesn't get it is an idiot.

Possibly the attitude of some is why this topic will buzz round in circles. I think it's best to forget this thread. It's not that I have come to a complete conclusion, I just know that this isn't the way to do it.

I have said multiple times that I am sure that there are no fundamental differences between the DAWs in terms of the sound using just the basic DAW to test. Maybe it does need setting up right.

Anyway, as interesting as it is, I think my questions became answered when I realised how pan law probably plays a part. I researched and found Logic has a 0db pan law whilst Ableton boosts by 3db.

I believe Pro Tools boosts by 2.5db. So the 3 DAWs I have used will perform diffferently - however as I was using Logic and Ableton to compair I think that is a bit of a shift.

I'm bailing out as the topic is just getting to the point where it's a bit of a put down match and really where is that going to lead. I'm quite happy to drop it and focus on making some music :-)
Old 11th September 2018
  #510
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
How are these programs capturing audio, are they all using the same algorithm(if thats the right word)? Are some recording the audio as wav while others capture it as something else, and do these capture methods differ even if inaudible?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump