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 17th August 2018
  #241
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Developers who have participated in these discussions say that a plug in will perform the exact same operation when presented with the exact same audio. In any DAW. That's just a fact. Midi performance and pan law will not make your DAW sound "thin". Get a grip. And who moves the fader? Well YOU do. If you moved the fader then you are what made your mix "different".


No, people understand you perfectly, we just don't believe you. In the entire history of these threads - and there are dozens of them - not one person has ever even accepted the challenge to listen to a bunch of different files and tell us "which DAW" made each one. That's because they don't sound any different unless you set them different.


That's strange, because Nobody that I know personally thinks there is a difference in the sound. In the workflow sure. And I know lots of professional engineers. Of course they know how a blindfold works. Admit it, you and your friends are looking at the screen, at the colors, at the GUI and that's when you say: "gee this DAW sounds kind of thin compared to the other one"


If someone else gets a null, and you don't, you are doing something wrong! Do you have any idea what the odds are against getting a null "by accident"? It makes the Powerball look like a sure thing. Also, everyone is susceptible to expectation bias. Everyone, no exceptions. But if you think placebo is the same as "hallucinating" - then of course you are going to reject the very idea.

Some of these programmers are right here on this website and they have already weighed in, you choose to ignore them and concoct a Conspiracy Theory instead! And then you wonder why you aren't being taken seriously? DAWs did not fall out of the cargo door of a Flying Saucer. They were designed and built by human beings, and there are human beings who understand how they work and don't work.

You just aren't one of them.

That's really all the DAW does by itself, everything else the DAW does is really done by you, the user. You turn this knob, you turn that knob, you insert this plug in. You get a different sound by how you interact with the DAW. That is why every Difference-Hearer hears a different difference!

Or haven't you noticed, that for every guy who says Abelton is "thin" , another guy says "no, Pro Tools is the 'thin one ... Abelton is "thick". No, you're both wrong, Pro Tools is the Woody One. ("Woody". BTW, is an exact quote from one of your fellow Believers) Among the people who claim to hear a difference, there is a total lack of agreement about what that difference sounds like! This simple fact renders all your anecdotal 'evidence' moot.


the first such test that I was aware of, was conducted back in 2003 on 20 different DAWs. They have been going on ever since and people like you just keep on ignoring them and keep on believing what you want to believe. Flat-Earther indeed!

IMO, you really have some nerve going on a forum in 2018 and saying "somebody should do some tests"

These tests have been done to exhaustion. Null tests, blindfold A/B/X. Done and done and done. You may be unaware of the history of this discussion and how many tests have already been performed, but you have been given this opportunity to learn from people whose knowledge exceeds your own, and you have refused. This puts it back on you.

Here is the bottom line: The burden of proof is now on you. You Believers have to prove to rest of us that Pro Tools is the "thin one". Or whatever ridiculous thing you believe. I don't have to prove there is no Bigfoot. Can't prove a negative anyway. You have to bring us a Bigfoot - a live one, a dead one, a Bigfoot skeleton. Something anything. Not excuses, not hypotheses. Evidence. You can't, because you don't have the will or skills to do real testing, (where you would get nulls anyway) nor could you listen to a file blindfolded and ever tell us which DAW made that file. You've got nothing but your 'feelings'. Feelings are great - for everything except scientific proof.
Ok I think I need to clarify something here. I am quite happy to be proven wrong. This is not something I would argue for definite. Now I probably would have some of the skills to test - and I will, what I have lacked recently is time to play with this myself. However I doubt that my tests would be valid as I would be against a lot of strong belief.


On another note. I don't see how you can null midi tests. not trying to be a dick here but midi on its own is just information, the instruments themselves will generate audio which can only be nulled if bounced down first.

when I refer to "my friends" I am talking about other pretty big producers in the industry whomever I have had this conversation with. Now I am not going to say they are discrediting themselves, they don't really care for conversations like this as it doesn't interest them, they just use the tools.


Some of you firmly believe there is no difference - and that's great I mean if you feel you have seen enough evidence to be sure of that then that's great, I just haven't been completely convinced yet myself and maybe I will be. I am not trying to win anything that's for sure. I think possibly the attitude here is a little bit too on the "attack" side with a kind of "if you can't buy it then that is your problem". Unfortunately that sort of response feels a bit unscientific for my tastes.

I think the only way I can satisfy my desire to prove this is to start testing myself. I will setup a test to do at some point soon (please don't ridicule me if it takes a bit of time I am not trying to avoid the tests I am just mixing a few projects at the moment so haven't got the time).

I am quite prepared to accept the result even if I if there is nothing.

I will do the tests as is though. if I am required to start changing panning laws of what not, I will do these separately because most of us will use the system as is. If indeed it is things like panning law that are causing our perception to be altered, it's not about a win or lose its about an answer, a reason and at least something perhaps that can be referred to when this observation is brought up again in the future.

I think it would be good to prove/disprove the differences and find out what changes what and why.

So sorry if for some of you who may have been here before and think it's a waste of time. Rather than shout about it I think I must go this for myself which I am sure you would agree makes sense at this point. If anyone else wants to assist me please let me know know.
Old 17th August 2018
  #242
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
I think the only way I can satisfy my desire to prove this is to start testing myself. I will setup a test to do at some point soon (please don't ridicule me if it takes a bit of time I am not trying to avoid the tests I am just mixing a few projects at the moment so haven't got the time).
That's how you learn. Best is if you then share everything relevant as others then can learn as well. From the response you can learn and possibly adapt and evolve your testing methods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
If anyone else wants to assist me please let me know know.
My suggestion is to make this as easy as possible by starting a new thread about the tests and process and then make 2 openly shared projects at Splice for Live and Logic test development. Later one can add other DAWs. The audio stems, plug-in presets and other important data should be saved carefully and presented in a singular place so no alterations can occur.

I'm willing to take part in a specific discussion, but as you are unwilling to adjust pan law I'm likely to develop my own test anyway. I also don't have access to Logic at the moment so would have to include other DAWs instead. I can probably get hold of Logic soon, but have to ask if I can use an existing installation for testing.
1
Share
Old 18th August 2018
  #243
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
I will do the tests as is though. if I am required to start changing panning laws of what not, I will do these separately because most of us will use the system as is.
sorry no, that is baloney. You are admitting you won't be eliminating variables! When you mix, you place an instrument where you decide in the panning but you also have a FADER that lets you decide how loud to make it. But when you transfer those exact settings to the other DAW (which is the only fair test), the volume levels will jump in the other DAW if the pan laws are not set the same. Had you started your mix in the "other" DAW, you would have placed it at the same apparent volume (unless you were "mixing with your eyes!") and it would jump in the opposite direction when you transferred the settings back the other way.

To prove "DAWs sound different" you must prove that the DAW is doing something not under the control of the Operator. The so-called "audio engine". That means volume levels must be matched exactly. Uncompensated pan law creates a deliberate mismatch of volume levels for the same fader position - ruining it as a "test", certainly. But something like that can hardly be said to 'push' the operator into making a "harsh' mix. Or a "mellow" mix.

Pan law affects level. But just read the adjectives used by the difference-hearers! They are always tonal, never volume-based. Thin, thick, bright, harsh, dull, grainy, woody... Pro Tools is "harsh". No Cubase is the "Harsh One", Pro Tools is "woody". They are like a bunch of pretentious Wine Connoisseurs - except that pretentious Wine Connoisseurs at least sometimes agree with one another about what the wine tastes like!

If you do not have the technical understanding to perform a proper null test, it is ok to admit it, but you really can't expect anyone to take such half-measures seriously.

Quote:
If indeed it is things like panning law that are causing our perception to be altered,
Pan law simply lowers the volume of instruments panned to the center. But you have a fader as well as a pan knob! Since it starts that way, you turn it up or down to where you like it. And when you bounce, it doesn't change again. If you can explain how that can force every engineer using that DAW (that has faders by the way!) to make a mix that is "thin" - or "harsh" sounding, then you deserve a Nobel Prize. And if it doesn't force every engineer, then it cannot be a "part of the DAWs sound!" For a DAW to have a 'sound', it has to be a character imprinted on every piece of audio just from passing through the DAW.

That's what we mean when we say a mic has a "sound"-
That's what we mean when we say a pickup has a "sound" -
That's what we mean when we say a room has a "sound".

For that matter, many (most) DAWs allow you to change the Pan Law settings. Both Logic and Pro Tools can be set to -3. Does that mean you can perfectly "impersonate" Logic using Pro Tools simply by changing the Panning defaults? And if you can perfectly impersonate one DAW with another, how can you possibly call its sound unique or "identifiable"? It's all such nonsense.

In any case, you want to do the 'test' without compensating! Pan law will affect the result of a test. For a fair test, all the decisions must be transferred exactly to the other DAW. Otherwise anything panned center could jump a full dB louder or softer! That's not a "test", that's bulls#!t.

In one of the more extensive DAW tests, involving over 20 different programs, most of the DAWs nulled 100%, a few broke nulls by tiny tiny amounts. But one DAW broke the null by a lot. When that test was re-checked, it turned out that the operator had accidentally moved one pan control (out of 24 tracks!) from >100 to >99. Yet, when the knob was put back to >100 it nulled perfectly with the others. That tiny change was more than sufficient to break the null big time. But if I was to secretly move one pan knob from >100 to >99 on you as a "prank", are you saying you could tell by listening? This is a clue as to the level of sensitivity of a null test. And how easy it is to screw one up. It should give you an inkling of how similar DAWs are, insofar as their "sonic imprint" goes.

Quote:
If anyone else wants to assist me please let me know know.
You have rejected in advance any 'assistance' by saying you want to test them "as is" - whatever that might include. Lord only knows [/I] what other 'exceptions' you are going to allow yourself. Are you going to use different music?

Here is my "assistance": learn how to do a test properly or don't even bother.
Old 18th August 2018
  #244
Gear Maniac
 

So I'm expected to take a DAW and adjust things to make it "fit" in with some testing procedure which won't be how most people use it out the box?

Lol ok I'm maybe being dramatic but hear me out. Even if panning laws shouldnt effect the overall tonality they may influence it's perception of it to our ears?

I totally get what people are saying and I understand you are trying to put both DAWs on a fair playing field but if they are not on that field from the word go then perhaps that answered my own question to start with.

If they are not exactly the same out the box then they sound different. Now if that's just due to panning law then don't you think that's a pretty good answer?


If you think that this is a setting needs to be adjusted I have a simpler test.

Maybe if I set the panning laws to the same to start with and see if I still think the DAWs sound different then I have answered my own question.


I've never played with panning laws but as I know panning does effect tonality this is why we might pan bass center and usually keep higher stuff to the sides for width.
Old 18th August 2018
  #245
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
So I'm expected to take a DAW and adjust things to make it "fit" in with some testing procedure which won't be how most people use it out the box?
Yes!
If you want to find differences within DAWs that you can't control, yes. If just want to test your own inabilities then why not just stick to one DAW and change things around? What did you think making claims of differences and presenting proof supporting your sentiments was all about? Willy-nilly assumptions? That's a good start, you got to start somewhere, but you need to challenge your beliefs and assumptions if you want to learn. This is certainly so also when testing by yourself.

What are you testing?
Think of such a true test, multiple tracks in a real and carefully set mix as a base test. Once you've established such a project null with another DAW you can get into things like experience of the results using different operations unique to the DAWs. For example making double blind A/X tests using different native compressors. But then you test ONE thing at a time trusting your previous tests have provided you with an invariable baseline. By the way, that's why TDD exists. You establish a base and continue to test one object at a time until you test how many interact.

Real DAW testing
If I set up a true test I will first test track by track. If an exported track doesn't null, there's no use testing more than one. When all tracks null, one by one, you test the busses. When these null you make a mix export and are finally testing the summing. This way you know what you're testing.

You started out sounding as if you wanted to learn by testing, but your willingness to give up in the face of any complexity makes me question that will. Only you can decide what to do. I've already done tests, years ago, but for myself. I also questioned the exact same things years ago, like you. That's why I started testing. And I learned from these tests. Working daily with TDD certainly was a good ground for constructing my tests. Even if you're not totally into development —*sure doesn't sound like that —you should get into the mind set. Start with Unit tests, which in this context means testing one single thing. Then build on that.
Old 18th August 2018
  #246
If people successfully make movie scores and hit records using all the DAWs being discussed here, what is the point in testing?
Find a DAW workflow that inspires you, and learn how to make music using that DAW.
I think it can safely be claimed that testing is a great way of putting off proper music making. You can make music and be critiqued on the music. You can't be critiqued while you are testing and demoing.
Hence why most people rarely get beyond testing and demoing.
3
Share
Old 18th August 2018
  #247
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If people successfully make movie scores and hit records using all the DAWs being discussed here, what is the point in testing?
Find a DAW workflow that inspires you, and learn how to make music using that DAW.
I think it can safely be claimed that testing is a great way of putting off proper music making. You can make music and be critiqued on the music. You can't be critiqued while you are testing and demoing.
Hence why most people rarely get beyond testing and demoing.
???

You're really putting too much into this. All (paid) pros I know test their gear. That's one way to get to know it, by using it and challenging your beliefs about it. When you have tested something you can feel confident you can trust your ears in a session. You don't believe. You know. That's why I've made tests anyway. I don't really care about what anyone else think, but if I can get second opinions on methodology or learn from others why not?

I wasn't born with all audio knowledge right there in my mind, like you hint you was. I've fought hard to understand and deeply know every aspect of what I do. I do tests al the time and that keeps me productive. I don't get why you must dismiss how others work as if it's worthless. I'm not you. You're not me. So why do we have to work in the same way? Do we all have to be natural born producers like yourself?
Old 18th August 2018
  #248
I've been a 'paid pro' since 1981. I know a lot of pros and work with them every week.
Hardly any pros 'test' gear in the manner being suggested. Most pros just use any new gear, or gear they have on demo.
I don't know anyone who loads files one at a time in multiple DAWs to see if they null. People just use a new DAW and if it sounds good and they gel with it they stay using it.
Pros go on word of mouth, personal recommendation. Or they might use something new at a studio, or a friend's house, like it and switch.
Pros generally don't have time to spend days and weeks loading test files and testing null results.
2
Share
Old 18th August 2018
  #249
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I've been a 'paid pro' since 1981. I know a lot of pros and work with them every week.
Hardly any pros 'test' gear in the manner being suggested. Most pros just use any new gear, or gear they have on demo.
I don't know anyone who loads files one at a time in multiple DAWs to see if they null. People just use a new DAW and if it sounds good and they gel with it they stay using it.
Pros go on word of mouth, personal recommendation. Or they might use something new at a studio, or a friend's house, like it and switch.
Pros generally don't have time to spend days and weeks loading test files and testing null results.
I think the situation is similar on any music related forum.. on guitar forum everybody are comparing different guitars, whether 65 stratocaster with ash body sounds better than 66 pine body.. I think it's all just BS. Good player sounds good, good producer makes stuff good.. Tools are just tools.

People are looking improvements in all the wrong places imo.
2
Share
Old 18th August 2018
  #250
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Pros generally don't have time to spend days and weeks loading test files and testing null results.
So, some people want to compare some DAWs. You feel this is a big problem. What's so threatening about that for you?

You talk as if comparing Daws was the only type of testing one can do. That's so silly. When Andrew Scheps moved to mixing primarily in the box he made tests and has shared some of that process. I guess he's not a pro then. Only you and people that work like you are Pros. We get it. Now can we get on to something more interesting than your boring view on how everyone must work and learn?
Old 18th August 2018
  #251
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teofunk View Post
I think the situation is similar on any music related forum.. on guitar forum everybody are comparing different guitars, whether 65 stratocaster with ash body sounds better than 66 pine body.. I think it's all just BS. Good player sounds good, good producer makes stuff good.. Tools are just tools.

People are looking improvements in all the wrong places imo.
^^ That.

And everyone not 100% on board with that: Hop on board of the spaceship to Golgafrincham. No discussion. Fasten seat-belts and off you go! The planet of idiots is waiting for you!
Old 18th August 2018
  #252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
So, some people want to compare some DAWs. You feel this is a big problem. What's so threatening about that for you?
Threatening? Nooooo.
I just proposed it was a waste of time.
When no one listening to a record could tell which daw was used. When we all know for a fact great movie soundtracks, tv scores and chart hits have been entirely produced in Cubase, Logic, Live and Pro Tools.
What is the point? Better time would be spent making music and thus honing your musicianship and engineering skills.
But in the end.....do what you want.
1
Share
Old 18th August 2018
  #253
Gear Addict
 
YourBestFriend's Avatar
1
Share
Old 19th August 2018
  #254
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Threatening? Nooooo.
I just proposed it was a waste of time.
When no one listening to a record could tell which daw was used. When we all know for a fact great movie soundtracks, tv scores and chart hits have been entirely produced in Cubase, Logic, Live and Pro Tools. What is the point?
The point is to learn. It's not about people telling DAWs apart I think, but rather not giving on to claims about Live inferior sound quality. While this will never stop the process of discovery makes you more aware of where Live is in your production chain and the little things you might forget about otherwise. This is likely different for different folks. Personally I'm pretty bored by people assuming instead of proving as well, so a shared test suite could also be a good guide for further discussions. Which is what we do here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Better time would be spent making music and thus honing your musicianship and engineering skills.
But in the end.....do what you want.
Test activities are not excluding what you propose. Why do you assume people making tests aren't making music? That's assuming too much. People are different and work different. My tests —other things i e not comparing DAWs — have led to real breakthroughs in my production.
I always do what I want. Or what my collaborators say they want.
Old 19th August 2018
  #255
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
So I'm expected to take a DAW and adjust things to make it "fit" in with some testing procedure which won't be how most people use it out the box?
Yes, exactly. If you wish to prove that the different sound is coming from the DAW and not from the user you must make your best attempt to break your hypothesis. And you must eliminate all variables. The point of the test is to do everything in your power to get a null. Then, if after you have done absolutely everything, and did not screw anything up or leave in the tiniest variable and the DAWs don't null - then maybe you can say the DAWs are doing something "on their own". That they have a "sound" they are "putting" on your mixes.

I would say you actually have one more hurdle and that is to pick the DAWs out blindfolded! Their unique flavors! Just because it doesn't null does not mean you can hear it and guess the DAW! It may interest you to know that in the 15+ years that I have been reading this stuff, not one person has risen to that challenge. Not one. I don't mean nobody has succeeded in picking them out blindfolded. I mean nobody has had the courage to stick his neck out publicly and even try. 15 years is a long long long long time to go without even one person on that side of the argument putting his money where his mouth is!

Where is the different sound coming from? I say it is coming from you the operator, as you interact differently with different software, menus, GUIs, shortcuts, workflows and even colors. The difference-hearers say it is coming from the DAW's "audio engine".

So a test is proposed. Import a wav file into several DAWs, then export them, and then see if any DAW 'changes' that wav in any way. Big surprise- the exported files all nulled. That should be the end of it. But NO, the difference hearers said, maybe it's the summing.

So testers imported 24 channels of stereo stems into all the DAWs, set all the faders at "0", bounced them out and what do you know, they still nulled. But what about "fader damage"? So the faders were all set to -10 and again all the DAWs nulled. But what if the faders were all different and stuff? So people set the faders at different levels and were very very very careful to notate and match those settings exactly in each DAW. When they did it right, the DAWs nulled. Every time a DAW did not null, it turned out there was a slip-up in methodology, one fader or a pan knob got moved. Maybe it's "plug-in handling" they cried. So testers inserted third party plugins and guess what they found? Pretty much as far as people want to take the effort to carefully match the settings, and eliminate the human variables, the DAWs produce the same result, the same "sound".

Now you come along and you don't want to even take the effort to use stereo stems or match pan laws, you seem to just want to do two mixes in two programs, and if the mixes don't turn out the same, you will blame the DAWs! But this is BS, you are a human being, you couldn't make the exact same mix twice in a row in the same DAW - never mind two different DAWs.
Quote:
how most people use it out the box?
You know how else most people use a DAW right "out of the box"? With the included plugins! And the included instruments. Are you going to use Logic compressors and reverbs on your Logic mix and Pro Tools reverbs and compressors on your Pro Tools mix? Swap out the Logic piano for the Pro Tools piano? The thing is, anyone can buy the Waves bundle and skip all the included plugs! Then what does that DAW "sound like"??

Pan law is not a "quality" issue. It cannot possibly consistently push every single mix made with it in the direction of 'warmer' or 'harsher'. Or 'woodier'. It is only about how the travel of the knob is interpreted by each system. In use, you have a fader as well as a pan knob. The pan law only becomes an issue in testing - because it reinterprets the fader settings when you want to honestly transfer that mix to the other DAW.

It's pretty simple: Either use stereo stems, or match the pan laws. Or don't call what you do a "test". But think about this: if pan law was "it" and most DAWs have the ability to select different pan laws, (and you have the ability to adjust the volumes yourself!) then that means DAWs can be made to sound identical. So where is this "sound" difference "hiding"?
3
Share
Old 19th August 2018
  #256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post



Test activities are not excluding what you propose. Why do you assume people making tests aren't making music? That's assuming too much. People are different and work different. My tests —other things i e not comparing DAWs — have led to real breakthroughs in my production.
I always do what I want. Or what my collaborators say they want.
But my post was specifically about the testing method being proposed in this thread. No one mentioned everyone testing a bunch of DAWs by making music.
That’s why I posted.
Old 19th August 2018
  #257
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
If people successfully make movie scores and hit records using all the DAWs being discussed here, what is the point in testing?
Find a DAW workflow that inspires you, and learn how to make music using that DAW.
I think it can safely be claimed that testing is a great way of putting off proper music making. You can make music and be critiqued on the music. You can't be critiqued while you are testing and demoing.
Hence why most people rarely get beyond testing and demoing.
It always makes sense to test your DAWs after an update especially when you update your OS. If you import old or someone else's sessions you want to be sure plugins behave like they should.
1
Share
Old 19th August 2018
  #258
If you can't hear a problem, there's likely no problem.
1
Share
Old 20th August 2018
  #259
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I've been a 'paid pro' since 1981. I know a lot of pros and work with them every week.
Hardly any pros 'test' gear in the manner being suggested. Most pros just use any new gear, or gear they have on demo.
I don't know anyone who loads files one at a time in multiple DAWs to see if they null. People just use a new DAW and if it sounds good and they gel with it they stay using it.
Pros go on word of mouth, personal recommendation. Or they might use something new at a studio, or a friend's house, like it and switch.
Pros generally don't have time to spend days and weeks loading test files and testing null results.
Very true. I too am a 'paid pro' and my version 'testing gear' is plugging it in and using it. If it works, it get's used more. If it's a PITA to use or sounds bad it doesn't get used again.

Aint nobody got time for that.
Old 20th August 2018
  #260
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Where is the different sound coming from? I say it is coming from you the operator, as you interact differently with different software, menus, GUIs, shortcuts, workflows and even colors. The difference-hearers say it is coming from the DAW's "audio engine".
Although I’m generally not one to repeat myself that was exactly the point of my post in April.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zedsdeadbaby View Post



For those that wonder whether software developers are capable of finding the same answers to a straightforward math equation when was the last time you looked at a calculator and thought this:

“I don’t trust the integers I get form that calculator even though I‘ve checked that the numbers are right, and, several other calculators show me the same results. Something about that calculator just feels like it shouldn’t be right.

Yes, I know I keep getting the same answers from other calculators, but it just doesn’t feel like this calculator’s answers could be right even though the numbers I keep seeing on others are the same.”
2
Share
Old 20th August 2018
  #261
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMMST View Post
Very true. I too am a 'paid pro' and my version 'testing gear' is plugging it in and using it. If it works, it get's used more. If it's a PITA to use or sounds bad it doesn't get used again.

Aint nobody got time for that.
We're all so very impressed with your Pro'ness. I must immediately tell all my friends getting paid for working with music production that they are not pros because these dudes on gearslutz thinks that anyone testing gear at any point mustn't and couldn't be a pro. I'm sure they will all become clerks, stewards or whatever instead when your stellar info reaches their minds. What nerve did they have, making those tests? Didn't they know what you UltraPros know, that real pros never test anything. They just use those ears and natural born talent they never had to support with, euwww, science and applied physics.

Electronics? That's just about knowing things. There's no despicable science there. No, siree Bob!
Old 20th August 2018
  #262
Hmm, ok, in order to make your point you had to make up some ridiculous scenarios that NO ONE here has suggested.
No one is saying 'pros' don't test gear. People demo new gear all the time.
What is being said is that pros tend to test gear in real world situations. By using it to record some music, or by using it to perform live.
We're saying pros don't tend to do lab style tests, uploading identical files dozens of times and trying to 'null' them.
It's really a simple proposition, you don't have to get uber defensive about it.
Just use your gear and if it isn't working for you, switch.


In all your ranting you have never once explained how many thousands of hit music scores and popular records have been made using Cubase, or Ableton Live, or Logic, or Pro Tools. Don't you think professionals would have all walked away from one of those DAWs if it didn't sound as good as another one?
I think people choose a workflow more than anything else. And those same people can make any DAW sound good.
1
Share
Old 20th August 2018
  #263
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
We're saying pros don't tend to do lab style tests, uploading identical files dozens of times and trying to 'null' them.
And I'm saying your'e not the only paid people in music in the world. You're not the standard. You do your thing. Others do their thing and it might be unlike yours. You don't say "DAW comparisons", you say tests. That means any conceivable test within the realm of sound quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
In all your ranting you have never once explained how many thousands of hit music scores and popular records have been made using Cubase, or Ableton Live, or Logic, or Pro Tools. Don't you think professionals would have all walked away from one of those DAWs if it didn't sound as good as another one?
I have not made any of these claims. Stop projecting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I think people choose a workflow more than anything else. And those same people can make any DAW sound good.
I agree 100%. What straw man are you arguing with?
Old 20th August 2018
  #264
Dude......

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Performance is a different subject really, but what null tests do is focusing on what really matters, which is the sound. That's why they are both valid and relevant.
SNIP
Of course. And shared tests so others can repeat and improve them.
You are actually not making music, you are proposing sharing exactly identical 'null' tests using the same free plug-ins everyone can access.
It's NOT testing by working on your music and seeing how it turns out. It's making a couple of files everyone else involved can exactly replicate, then attempting to null them in multiple daws.
hence wasting time (IMO).
YOU suggested it, not me. Now you are claiming I read your proposal wrong.

And yes, I am not 'every pro'. What I actually said was I know many, many professionals. I work with many professionals week in, week out. I don't know any that do what you are proposing. there may be some on the planet...who knows.
What professionals DO do is make music. If they are demoing something new, they MAKE MUSIC with it. If it doesn't sound right or they don't like the workflow, they move on and find something else.
2
Share
Old 20th August 2018
  #265
Lives for gear
 
lestermagneto's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
I've been a 'paid pro' since 1981. I know a lot of pros and work with them every week.
Hardly any pros 'test' gear in the manner being suggested. Most pros just use any new gear, or gear they have on demo.
I don't know anyone who loads files one at a time in multiple DAWs to see if they null. People just use a new DAW and if it sounds good and they gel with it they stay using it.
Pros go on word of mouth, personal recommendation. Or they might use something new at a studio, or a friend's house, like it and switch.
Pros generally don't have time to spend days and weeks loading test files and testing null results.
THIS. thank you.
1
Share
Old 20th August 2018
  #266
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zedsdeadbaby View Post
For those that wonder whether software developers are capable of finding the same answers to a straightforward math equation when was the last time you looked at a calculator and thought this:

[I]“I don’t trust the integers I get form that calculator even though I‘ve checked that the numbers are right, and, several other calculators show me the same results. Something about that calculator just feels like it shouldn’t be right...
In fact, just a page or two upthread, someone was insinuating that the software developers were all in on some kind of Conspiracy! Hiding their 'secret formulas' to add numbers more correctly than the other guy?
1
Share
Old 21st August 2018
  #267
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teofunk View Post
I think the situation is similar on any music related forum.. on guitar forum everybody are comparing different guitars, whether 65 stratocaster with ash body sounds better than 66 pine body.. I think it's all just BS. Good player sounds good, good producer makes stuff good.. Tools are just tools.

People are looking improvements in all the wrong places imo.

Ableton has been developed to be used live on a stage. Which makes the difference to all other DAWs. Many here seem to forget what is written in letters after Ableton when they do their comparisons.
Old 21st August 2018
  #268
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lllubi View Post
Ableton has been developed to be used live on a stage. Which makes the difference to all other DAWs. Many here seem to forget what is written in letters after Ableton when they do their comparisons.
I think a lot of DAWs were originally developed with different a different start point in mind. Logic and Cubase started out as midi. Pro Tools - audio. They are all capable of the same things these days.

As for the other points made. I can see that certainly on paper there is no argument. The tests probably do all null. I also see that the complications start occuring when it comes to deciding between not necessarily the sound but the way the systems are used.

A really good test would probably involve - if all sound differences are rules out - on the way someone uses a DAW.

I will try to do a variety of tests - using the pan law etc.


One thing I noticed and wondered if it would make a difference is Logic has a 64 bit summing engine. What does Ableton use and would it make a difference if you were not pushing levels into the additional headroom?
Old 21st August 2018
  #269
Gear Maniac
 

I think I need to experiment with pan law and get a feel for the differences. it's not something I've looked at but - given how I mix shouldn't be that different I wonder if I adjust pan laws to the same and see if I hear what I hear in Ableton as being different. This might be a much simpler test to start with - as I know for sure that a null test will cancel out.
Old 21st August 2018
  #270
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardNolan View Post
I think a lot of DAWs were originally developed with different a different start point in mind. Logic and Cubase started out as midi. Pro Tools - audio. They are all capable of the same things these days.

As for the other points made. I can see that certainly on paper there is no argument. The tests probably do all null. I also see that the complications start occuring when it comes to deciding between not necessarily the sound but the way the systems are used.

A really good test would probably involve - if all sound differences are rules out - on the way someone uses a DAW.

I will try to do a variety of tests - using the pan law etc.


One thing I noticed and wondered if it would make a difference is Logic has a 64 bit summing engine. What does Ableton use and would it make a difference if you were not pushing levels into the additional headroom?
Ableton uses a 64bit summing engine which nulls with Reaper and Studio One down to -300 dBFs in summing tests. If Logic doesn´t something should be wrong down the path.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump