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 12th September 2018
  #511
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
How are these programs capturing audio
The programs do not capture audio. The converters capture the audio. And of course you can hang any converter you want in front of your computer. Even Pro Tools no longer forces you to use Avid hardware.

The programs only write down the 1's and 0's that the converters feed them. No program does a "better job" of this. Either a program writes down the 1's and 0's the converters send it perfectly, or it is broken.

Quote:
are they all using the same algorithm(if thats the right word)?
Where the difference-hearers like to claim the differences are "hiding" is in the summing. Combining the signals, adding the guitar audio to the drum audio, changing how much guitar and how much drum, and so on. But the "algorithm" for summing is not some complicated mysterious trade-secret "formula" that the developers have taken a blood-oath to protect. The "algorithm" for summing is addition.

When people tell you that DAWs are just "adding 1 + 1 = 2" they are not speaking metaphorically. DAWs are just "adding 1 + 1 = 2". Admittedly a lot of addition, and obviously subtraction too, and very very very fast. But that's what computers are good at. This might be a strain for you to add a lot of numbers. It is not a strain for your computer to do that. It's summing.

And of course the null tests show that there are no differences "hiding". Now, processors, like plug-ins , may use complex algorithms, but you can't complain about differences using Logic's compressor vs using Pro Tools' compressor, because once again, you are not forced. Users of both DAWs are free to get a Waves compressor and use that instead. You can complain the PT plug-in sounds different from the Logic plug-in, but that says nothing about the DAWs and their summing. Because you don't have to use those plugins. The actual DAW itself is where the difference-hearers claim the "different sound" is coming from. If that is real, it has to affect all the audio that passes through the DAW. But every time someone goes scientifically looking for it, they can't find it. Like Bigfoot.

Quote:
Are some recording the audio as wav while others capture it as something else, and do these capture methods differ even if inaudible?
The relevant differences would be sample rate and bit depth, but these are settable in any converter, and settable in the DAW.

There may be limits in the actual hardware converter itself - (for example some converters can handle 192kHz, and some only go up to 96k). My program can record the audio as .wav or .aif but the data is the same. These file types have compatibility factors - Windows vs Mac for example - but at the same sample rate and bits, the audio data is the same.

The 'audibility' question has several points working against it. A full null confirms that the two files are identical. Anybody who claims he can hear the "difference" between two identical files is full of s#!t. If two files do not null 100%, someone could claim audibility is theoretically "possible"; but in an earlier post I referenced a test where one pan knob (out of 24) was misplaced from >100 to >99 and significantly broke the null. Tell the forum you can hear that, and you will be challenged to prove it. So far, no one has.

Even when nulls are not 100%, residuals are so minuscule no one has publicly been able to distinguish them in a blind listening test. If people were succeeding at picking out the DAWs blindfolded maybe there would be something worth investigating! But it is only people who:
1. do not perform null tests themselves
2. who apparently do not grasp what a null test really is
3. are looking at a screen that tells them "which" software they are evaluating
that claim to hear these differences. That should tell you everything you need to know.
6
Share
Old 12th September 2018
  #512
Lives for gear
 

Post number 225 n page 8 of the Slate VRS8 thread leaves some questions open regarding Ableton. Looks like it would make sense to compare RTL figures at different buffers within Ableton and other DAWs.
Old 12th September 2018
  #513
Gear Maniac
 

HTTPS://www.google.co.uk/amp/a/www.s...ould-use%3famp

Sorry last post. Final paragraph is worth reading.

Sorry I did try to post it again, seems like I cannot share the SOS webpages. Basically it says that panning law is what many do perceive as a difference is DAW sound.
Old 12th September 2018
  #514
Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
Post number 225 n page 8 of the Slate VRS8 thread leaves some questions open regarding Ableton. Looks like it would make sense to compare RTL figures at different buffers within Ableton and other DAWs.
That thread is a monumental train wreck.
I don't know how much of it can be believed.
Old 12th September 2018
  #515
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
Final paragraph is worth reading.

Sorry I did try to post it again, seems like I cannot share the SOS webpages. Basically it says that panning law is what many do perceive as a difference is DAW sound.
Cool.
Although the writer is a respected journalist I'm not sure how you can perform an identical mix in two different DAWs, then declare one sounds different from the other.
As you mix you make hundreds of subjective tone and volume decisions. You just don't mix multiple channels in Logic the same way you do in Ableton Live, unless you took copious notes in one then replicated it numerically in the other DAW without paying any attention to how it sounded as a mix - which I don't think anyone would do.
1
Share
Old 12th September 2018
  #516
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
HTTPS://www.google.co.uk/amp/a/www.s...ould-use%3famp

Sorry last post. Final paragraph is worth reading.

Sorry I did try to post it again, seems like I cannot share the SOS webpages. Basically it says that panning law is what many do perceive as a difference is DAW sound.
No it absolutely does not say that. Not even close! It literally says what I said: "which is one common reason why mixes constructed on different DAWs but with apparently identical fader and pan control settings can sound subtly but noticeably different."

This is only an issue if you copy values from one DAW directly to another DAW. No one that understand how DAWs work would do that.

Alistair
Old 12th September 2018
  #517
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Where the difference-hearers like to claim the differences are "hiding" is in the summing.
Do faders count as summing 'processors' too? With all that stuff getting mooshed together on the master it seems there is room for difference. Im all for the idea of subtle differences being perceived on a unconscious level. My boss multitrack recorder sounds different then daw, when I moosh everything together. its as if the headroom is different.

maybe im just talking crazy.
Old 12th September 2018
  #518
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
My boss multitrack recorder sounds different then daw, when I moosh everything together. its as if the headroom is different.
Anything hardware is going to have a different sound. The design choices and components make a huge impact on the sound coming out.
There are no circuits and components in a DAW, it is neutral digital....until you change something with a fader or a plug-in.
2
Share
Old 12th September 2018
  #519
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
HTTPS://www.google.co.uk/amp/a/www.s...ould-use%3famp

Sorry last post. Final paragraph is worth reading.

Sorry I did try to post it again, seems like I cannot share the SOS webpages. Basically it says that panning law is what many do perceive as a difference is DAW sound.
Pan law should not make a difference since you can set Ableton´s 3dB in other DAWs too.

What could make a difference is that you don´t have mono tracks in Ableton. Which influences how you have to approach your mixes compared to other DAWs.
Old 12th September 2018
  #520
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by YourBestFriend View Post
My boss multitrack recorder sounds different then daw, when I moosh everything together. its as if the headroom is different.
Of course - because your Boss Multitrack recorder has its own built in converters. Probably cheap ass ones at that. You are not recording the same sound in the first place. Didn't I JUST talk about converters in a reply to your previous question? Haven't we had numerous discussions about eliminating variables? And then when do you mix, you are not using your Slate compressor, you are using the built-in Boss compressor because the hardware box cannot accept third-party plug-ins. The built in FX are probably compromised to work on the lower fixed CPU of the hardware box, but even if they were 'just as good' they are undeniably different.

There are so many things different already. Yet here you are so certain "it's the summing"

Quote:
Do faders count as summing 'processors' too?
Faders ARE the summing - or more precisely they are the things you grab to instruct the software to sum. People have nulled the DAWs with the faders all at "0" and with the faders all at -10. They have nulled the DAWs with some faders high and some faders low. As long as they write it down and carefully match the settings... null. Two decades people have been doing this. If there was some angle that everybody missed, do you think you are the one with the 'deep understanding' of how DAWs work to find what these experts overlooked? Honestly.

Quote:
Im all for the idea of subtle differences being perceived on a unconscious level.
YOU are the one creating the "subtle differences" because you are not capable of doing things 100% the same mix after mix. No human being is

Try this experiment. Import some raw audio tracks into your DAW. No auxes, no effects, no plugins, no panning, just raw audio. Save this as "Raw". Now do a Save As and save it as "Mix 1". Now mix your song as you normally would. Move the faders. Move the pans. Insert plugins. Compressors, EQs saturators. Adjust those plugins. Make auxes and sends for reverbs. A real true mix. When you are done bounce out that mix.

Now go back to your "Raw" session. Do another Save As and call it "Mix 2" and start mixing all over again from scratch. Without taking notes from the first session, just mix. set the faders and pans again, insert plug-ins again , compressors, EQs, saturators, sends and returns for reverb. Do it all over again.

A second mix in the SAME DAW. You can't blame the DAW for changing the sound this time! It's the SAME DAW. If your mix does not come out exactly the same, whose 'fault' is it now?

Bounce out that 2nd mix and compare them. Think they will sound the same? I bet your grandmother could pick them out. I bet your non-musician friend has a favorite! I am serious, try this if you think for even a second that you yourself are not making the mixes come out different.
Quote:
maybe im just talking crazy.
I think you are stubbornly resisting the obvious answer to DAW sound "differences" that people keep patiently explaining over and over and over.

But crazy? Why "crazy"? Why that word? Do you think that expectation bias is equivalent to "hallucination"? And that hallucination is equivalent to schizophrenia?

I am not sure why people think that they are incapable of being influenced by the tools they use. Immune to placebo! Capable of mentally "subtracting" the contribution of a variable! To me that smacks of supreme arrogance. Trying my simple experiment above will disabuse you of that idea. Ask yourself, why are you so desperate to find some way to blame the DAW for "changing your sound".
2
Share
Old 12th September 2018
  #521
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
Sorry I did try to post it again, seems like I cannot share the SOS webpages. Basically it says that panning law is what many do perceive as a difference is DAW sound.
That's not what it says...
it says:

Quote:
However, not all DAWs default to the same starting mode, which is one common reason why mixes constructed on different DAWs but with apparently identical fader and pan control settings can sound subtly but noticeably different.
In other words, if - when testing - you transfer the volume and pan settings by writing them down, that will only work if the pan laws are the same. If you don't take Pan Law into account, you cannot make a fair test. He is explaining how pan law can mess up your testing. Not how pan law can mess up your mixing because nobody actually mixes by looking a spreadsheet and putting the knobs to the numbers it says on the chart.

Pan Law certainly cannot make you think that Cubase sounds "woody".

Besides, the difference-hearers are not even getting so far as "transferring settings" They are not bothering with identical fader and pan settings. They wouldn't know a variable if it bit them in the ass. They are "just mixing" and then making ridiculous pronouncements about what they are "certain" is causing the difference.

You too, need to do the "2 mixes from scratch in the SAME DAW" experiment I described above.
1
Share
Old 12th September 2018
  #522
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
whose 'fault' is it now?

To me that smacks of supreme arrogance.



I like ableton and the warping is fine. yay
Old 14th September 2018
  #523
Lives for gear
 

Metering in mono in Ableton seems not to be as easy as I thought. Just realized that TDR´s Limiter 6GE plugin reads true peaks in mono signals which are not revealed in many other metering tools.
Old 21st September 2018
  #524
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
The programs do not capture audio. The converters capture the audio. And of course you can hang any converter you want in front of your computer. Even Pro Tools no longer forces you to use Avid hardware.

The programs only write down the 1's and 0's that the converters feed them. No program does a "better job" of this. Either a program writes down the 1's and 0's the converters send it perfectly, or it is broken.


Where the difference-hearers like to claim the differences are "hiding" is in the summing. Combining the signals, adding the guitar audio to the drum audio, changing how much guitar and how much drum, and so on. But the "algorithm" for summing is not some complicated mysterious trade-secret "formula" that the developers have taken a blood-oath to protect. The "algorithm" for summing is addition.

When people tell you that DAWs are just "adding 1 + 1 = 2" they are not speaking metaphorically. DAWs are just "adding 1 + 1 = 2". Admittedly a lot of addition, and obviously subtraction too, and very very very fast. But that's what computers are good at. This might be a strain for you to add a lot of numbers. It is not a strain for your computer to do that. It's summing.

And of course the null tests show that there are no differences "hiding". Now, processors, like plug-ins , may use complex algorithms, but you can't complain about differences using Logic's compressor vs using Pro Tools' compressor, because once again, you are not forced. Users of both DAWs are free to get a Waves compressor and use that instead. You can complain the PT plug-in sounds different from the Logic plug-in, but that says nothing about the DAWs and their summing. Because you don't have to use those plugins. The actual DAW itself is where the difference-hearers claim the "different sound" is coming from. If that is real, it has to affect all the audio that passes through the DAW. But every time someone goes scientifically looking for it, they can't find it. Like Bigfoot.


The relevant differences would be sample rate and bit depth, but these are settable in any converter, and settable in the DAW.

There may be limits in the actual hardware converter itself - (for example some converters can handle 192kHz, and some only go up to 96k). My program can record the audio as .wav or .aif but the data is the same. These file types have compatibility factors - Windows vs Mac for example - but at the same sample rate and bits, the audio data is the same.

The 'audibility' question has several points working against it. A full null confirms that the two files are identical. Anybody who claims he can hear the "difference" between two identical files is full of s#!t. If two files do not null 100%, someone could claim audibility is theoretically "possible"; but in an earlier post I referenced a test where one pan knob (out of 24) was misplaced from >100 to >99 and significantly broke the null. Tell the forum you can hear that, and you will be challenged to prove it. So far, no one has.

Even when nulls are not 100%, residuals are so minuscule no one has publicly been able to distinguish them in a blind listening test. If people were succeeding at picking out the DAWs blindfolded maybe there would be something worth investigating! But it is only people who:
1. do not perform null tests themselves
2. who apparently do not grasp what a null test really is
3. are looking at a screen that tells them "which" software they are evaluating
that claim to hear these differences. That should tell you everything you need to know.
accurate.

prepare to be bombarded :D

although i cant think of a situation where the DAW would be subtracting. adding a negative number, but not subtracting. am i forgetting something?
1
Share
Old 1st October 2018
  #525
kdf
Gear Nut
 

As LOGIN stated, all DAWS just number crunch, outside of any processing you might add to the audio chain. Just a thought: how are you monitoring the two audio files that sound different? If you pull them both into any workstation and then do the comparison, at least you eliminate the D to A converters and monitor chain as possibly changing the sound.
Old 1st October 2018
  #526
kdf
Gear Nut
 

I call it the PSYCO ACOUSTIC PHENOMENON. Its related to that old story of the artist / client who needs to be involved in the mix process, but has zero skills. So you give him / her a fader labelled as the voice / instrument that they are concerned about and they happily ride the fader while you mix, and of course its not connected to anything. We have all caught ourselves out hearing a change to an instrument while tweeking the wrong knob at some point on our career! Hi Fi sales persons have used this phenomenon to prove to you that, say CD player A sounds better than CD player B because they want you to buy A because it costs more, and many buyers fall for it. With years of experience in audio one can learn to eliminate the Psyco Acoustic Phenomenon almost completely, but it is part of the human condition.
3
Share
Old 22nd October 2018
  #527
Gear Head
 

Look what's coming up at Loop 2018:

Loop 2018: Debunking Audio Myths

Perhaps this thread has something to do with it
1
Share
Old 22nd October 2018
  #528
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgilroy View Post
Look what's coming up at Loop 2018:

Loop 2018: Debunking Audio Myths

Perhaps this thread has something to do with it
hopefully that will be available to watch after, probably will, should have some interesting topics, and hopefully they discuss the absurd concept of different DAWs adding basic numbers differently
Old 30th October 2018
  #529
Gear Maniac
 
Lourson's Avatar
 

I think that there's a huge misconception about what the sound of a DAW means to most people.

When RENDERING a mix from the same set of tracks with the same plugin/gain structure etc etc, the result is identical from one daw to the next, hence the pletora of successfull null tests.

However! The REAL difference from one daw to another one is the realtime sound engine, the realtime math, the realtime number crunching & audio coming out of the speakers while working/mixing especially when the sessions are getting heavy in processes. Protools is the most accurate period. Live... is not very accurate. And I work with both, profuselly.

A little experiment for you guys to try : load a multitrack with a few plugs both in Protools and in Live, and then RECORD the playback of both DAWs into another computer/daw.using separate converters.

enlightening
1
Share
Old 30th October 2018
  #530
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lourson View Post
I think that there's a huge misconception about what the sound of a DAW means to most people.

When RENDERING a mix from the same set of tracks with the same plugin/gain structure etc etc, the result is identical from one daw to the next, hence the pletora of successfull null tests.

However! The REAL difference from one daw to another one is the realtime sound engine, the realtime math, the realtime number crunching & audio coming out of the speakers while working/mixing especially when the sessions are getting heavy in processes. Protools is the most accurate period. Live... is not very accurate. And I work with both, profuselly.

A little experiment for you guys to try : load a multitrack with a few plugs both in Protools and in Live, and then RECORD the playback of both DAWs into another computer/daw.using separate converters.

enlightening
This is very interesting and not something I'd considered. It does throw out a very good explanation as to why we can hear a difference but our methods of measuring it are at the wrong point in time.
Old 30th October 2018
  #531
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lourson View Post

A little experiment for you guys to try : load a multitrack with a few plugs both in Protools and in Live, and then RECORD the playback of both DAWs into another computer/daw
Quote:
.using separate converters.
enlightening
Bouncing out with two different converters won't null even if you did both of them with the same DAW. Even if you ran the same physical converter twice, the analog stage of that converter would drift enough to break a null. Not to mention the analog stage of the converter you are going into.


the only thing you would be "enlightened" about is the difference between the two converters you used. Why is that considered a "test" of the DAWs? Why not use the same converters? Didn't anyone here ever take a science class in grade school? I don't think anybody is saying that changing converters won't change your sound! What's to prevent someone from hanging his "Ableton" converters onto his "Pro Tools" machine?



The only way to 'prove' your contention about the "live" sound would be extremely well designed blind listening tests, or to record the speaker output, which of course has so many of its own pitfalls that nobody uses that even to test preamps. Recording the speaker won't null even if you did it twice in the same DAW.
4
Share
Old 30th October 2018
  #532
Gear Maniac
 
Lourson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Bouncing out with two different converters won't null even if you did both of them with the same DAW. Even if you ran the same physical converter twice, the analog stage of that converter would drift enough to break a null. Not to mention the analog stage of the converter you are going into.


the only thing you would be "enlightened" about is the difference between the two converters you used. Why is that considered a "test" of the DAWs? Why not use the same converters? Didn't anyone here ever take a science class in grade school? I don't think anybody is saying that changing converters won't change your sound! What's to prevent someone from hanging his "Ableton" converters onto his "Pro Tools" machine?



The only way to 'prove' your contention about the "live" sound would be extremely well designed blind listening tests, or to record the speaker output, which of course has so many of its own pitfalls that nobody uses that even to test preamps. Recording the speaker won't null even if you did it twice in the same DAW.
on the playback end:
same project (let's say Slate CLA's sessions, or something with a reasonable load of plugin and math going on), same set of converters / same computer for playback of both daw's / same drivers.

on the recording end:
second computer with its own daw and its own set of converters.

you may not even need to null test to hear what's going in low level information like reverb trails and echoes, high mid and top end precision when a lot of math is happening in realtime

or maybe we're all deaf and crazy dot dot dot wink wink

Last edited by Lourson; 30th October 2018 at 06:13 PM.. Reason: clarity (lol)
Old 30th October 2018
  #533
You end up doing different things in different DAWs though. So even if you could prove you were right, absolutely no one works that way.
Say you are eq’ing a bass drum in PT and Ableton. You do it by ear until it sounds good. You don’t copy the numeric values in both DAWs then proclaim they sound different.
1
Share
Old 31st October 2018
  #534
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lourson View Post
on the playback end:
same project (let's say Slate CLA's sessions, or something with a reasonable load of plugin and math going on), same set of converters / same computer for playback of both daw's / same drivers.
people null this stuff all the time by capturing the digital output of the DAW. Which is after all what the rest of the planet will be listening to your product based on.

It can be PROVEN that the 1's and 0's coming out of the DAW in 'real time' are 100% identical to the ones captured in the bounce. And it has been over and over. Do you have new, reproducible, research to show us, or are you just making this up off the top of your head?

If the stream of bits is the same, and it is, how exactly do your converters "KNOW" that this string of identical 1's and and 0's is coming from a "stressed" DAW that can't handle it; and that string of identical 1's and 0's is coming from a more capable DAW? Are you proposing magic?

Either your DAW works, or it is broken. The idea that computer audio "subtly degrades" under stress is an example of Analog Thinking. Your tape deck gets a slightly duller sound when you forget to clean and demagnetize the heads. An Olympic pole vaulter may not jump quite as high the day after his girlfriend dumps him. Your car's engine will lose a little bit power if the spark plugs get a little fouled. Analog.

Doing math in 'real-time' is hard for you. Doing more math in 'real time' is harder for you. Dividing something by .9078 is harder for you than dividing it by two. It is not harder for a computer. This is just pure anthropomorphism applied to computers. Glorified adding machines.

The "playback" thing has to be some kind of a joke. You alone hear this in your room, there are no other witnesses! How convenient! You are only insisting that some mysterious process is magically inserting itself in-between the digital output of the DAW program and the analog back end of your converters because you think it is difficult to falsify. But if I designed a really foolproof blind test, you could not pass it.

Quote:
on the recording end:
second computer with its own daw and its own set of converters.


If you have different converters you have a different set of 1's and 0's. So what? What does recording with different converters have to do with the DAWs sounding different? If you split the digital output of the converter to both DAWs, they will null. Again. Done and done and done. It's old hat.

I don't understand why you are bringing converters into the discussion at all.

Even with the same DAW, if you had 2 converters of the same brand, and you split the mic signals going into them, you will still not get a full null, because of the tiniest variations at the split and the circuitry and the extreme sensitivity of a null test. But again, I guarantee you will fail a properly blinded listening test.

Quote:
you may not even need to null test to hear what's going in low level information like reverb trails and echoes, high mid and top end precision when a lot of math is happening in realtime
most reverb tails employ randomization. They will never null, even two passes in the same DAW. They are generally excluded from serious null testing. But one more time, you have a long way to go to prove to me you can hear the difference blindfolded reverb tails or no reverb tails. Much less identify which DAW a song was recorded on.

"Oh that must be Samplitude, because it has that woody, mellow tone"

Last edited by joeq; 31st October 2018 at 02:58 AM..
1
Share
Old 31st October 2018
  #535
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
You end up doing different things in different DAWs though. So even if you could prove you were right, absolutely no one works that way.
Say you are eq’ing a bass drum in PT and Ableton. You do it by ear until it sounds good. You don’t copy the numeric values in both DAWs then proclaim they sound different.
The problem here, IMO is the sorry state of scientific education in the world today. I don't mean "science" as a collection of facts that are true (though surely there is way more Bigfoot and Healing Crystal BS going on than is reasonable for citizens of a 21st century society built on technology.)

I mean "science" as a way of thinking about things, as a method for finding out what is true. Eliminating variables. Repeatable experiments. Doing two different mixes is not a 'test' of anything but how much you like the way that DAW is laid out.

and one more time, for those who have just started thinking about this in 2018, people have taken third-party EQs, saved the preset, opened it in another DAW, applied the preset to the same audio and gotten a null. IOW, plug-in "handling" is just another myth. Given a means of ensuring truly identical settings on a plug, X data in will give out Y data out - in any DAW.
Old 31st October 2018
  #536
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
and one more time, for those who have just started thinking about this in 2018, people have taken third-party EQs, saved the preset, opened it in another DAW, applied the preset to the same audio and gotten a null. IOW, plug-in "handling" is just another myth. Given a means of ensuring truly identical settings on a plug, X data in will give out Y data out - in any DAW.
First off: Enjoyed your last two posts, almost good enough for whatever "required reading" stickies when it comes to any such discussions.

But regarding this very quote, well, DAWs are indeed treating calculations differently. 32bit float vs. 48bit fixed vs. 64bit float - and what else might get in the way (I'm not a techhead by any means). So I'm sure there could be noticeable differences that would show up in null tests (I even think I stumbled over one of these ages ago when comparing Logic and Cubase).

I think that once "raw" summing (as used in most proper null test, read: All faders set to unity gain, panned center, no FX, no dithering, no nothing) is passed and we start doing "things", there's potential for DAWs to sound different. And no, not "typically" different, such as in "PT sounds warmer than Cubase", just different. And mostly just by numbers.

I would however doubt that there's much human ears/brains able to tell the diffferences (unless their blatantly obvious, such as whatever realtime stretching algorithms finding their way into the equation).
And in these days, even the scientific differences are getting smaller, now that pretty much every DAW has highest precision summing (Logic got 64bit summing added in 10.x), settings for different panning laws and so on.

Whatever, back in the days I did *not* manage to make Cubase and Logic null when using the very same plugin (don't remember which one it was, been like 15 years ago) with the very same settings (and obviously the same audio files, interface, etc.). They would null in a plain summing test (all faders untouched, no dithering) but not once certain plugins were used. But then, from all I remember that was due to Logic not calculating something properly, which apparently was fixed in an update shortly after I did that test.
Yet, what I'm saying is that there's room for errors (not showing as obvious bugs), so different DAWs might in fact sound different when performing the same job. Not in plain summing scenarions, though - these days are over. And also, most likely those errors can only be detected with tools, not with human ears (there's no "oh, that Waves EQ sounds harsh in Logic but smooth in Studio One").
Old 31st October 2018
  #537
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lourson View Post
A little experiment for you guys to try : load a multitrack with a few plugs both in Protools and in Live, and then RECORD the playback of both DAWs into another computer/daw.using separate converters.

enlightening

Converters aside, joeq has already responded to that aspect, I've done that test with Pro Tools and Cubase and, if you exclude any plugins with randomness or unsynced modulation and turn off any dithering, a mixdown is bit for bit identical to a digital capture pf realtime playback. I haven't tested with Ableton Live but knowing how plugins etc are handled (and Ableton has to follow the exact same VST standard or it simply wouldn't work), it is highly unlikely it is any different.

Alistair
Old 31st October 2018
  #538
Gear Maniac
 

Well this thread has tried to debunk a lot of feelings and is very opinionated both ways.

My experiment was to go back to Logic after using Ableton for a year. My mixes have improved for me. Don't know why, however my own test proves that at least for me Logic is the DAW that works. Maybe it's just the way stuff is presented. Maybe there is more than we think going on, maybe it's nothing. Would have been nice to conclude why this happens but it's obviously a bigger topic that I think would require a more scientific approach both from maths and psychology to debunk and explain what's happening.
Old 31st October 2018
  #539
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
Well this thread has tried to debunk a lot of feelings and is very opinionated both ways.

My experiment was to go back to Logic after using Ableton for a year. My mixes have improved for me. Don't know why, however my own test proves that at least for me Logic is the DAW that works. Maybe it's just the way stuff is presented. Maybe there is more than we think going on, maybe it's nothing. Would have been nice to conclude why this happens but it's obviously a bigger topic that I think would require a more scientific approach both from maths and psychology to debunk and explain what's happening.

It’s hard to remove the way you work, the approach you take, then conclude anything about a DAW’s sound.
The first thing you record or sound design within five minutes of launching your DAW and your taste has been imprinted on the blank DAW.
2
Share
Old 31st October 2018
  #540
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sascha Franck View Post
But regarding this very quote, well, DAWs are indeed treating calculations differently. 32bit float vs. 48bit fixed vs. 64bit float - and what else might get in the way (I'm not a techhead by any means).
In all modern DAWs, the processing bit depth of plugins is independent of the DAW settings. The plugin developers determine at which bit depth the calculations within the plugins are performed. So even here, there are no differences between DAWs. (I'm excluding TDM here as it uses a different architecture than other DAWs including newer versions of PT).


Alistair
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump