The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Audible differences of DAWs
Old 27th January 2007
  #61
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Spitting out a bit accurate file is the minimum requirement of any DAW. If it's not doing that, then it's not deficient, it's broken or being used incorrectly. The only interesting thing about discussing this, which has previously been discussed to death, is in trying to figure out what the testerrs are doing wrong.

-R
Old 28th January 2007
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
The only interesting thing about discussing this, which has previously been discussed to death, is in trying to figure out what the testerrs are doing wrong.

-R
Could ist also be, what manufacurers are doing wrong? Shouldn´t it be very easy to just play back a mono or stereo file bit transparent so that nobody could be able to detect audible differences when the same converter and clock ist used?


But you may be right that the only thing is to figure out what testers are doing wrong.
Old 29th January 2007
  #63
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by warmer View Post
I can always hear a difference between anything I have done in Sonar compared to Cubase/Nuendo The Sonar mix sounds crap, but that is down to my hate of how un user friendly Sonar is! (IMVHO, please no war)

Dang man, which part is user unfriendly and how is that directly related to the sound?
Old 29th January 2007
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Did you guys ever hear of the McGurk Effect? Watch this movie with your eyes open and then your eyes closed, you'll hear two different things.

This is one of probably many ways to prove that what you see affects what you think you hear. Without scientific (down to within .1 db level matching) all of the listening tests with different daws are pretty much irrelevant.

The daw you like better generally will sound better. In an unscientific blind test who knows why you like one over the other?
Old 29th January 2007
  #65
Lives for gear
 
erwinor's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Did you guys ever hear of the McGurk Effect? Watch this movie with your eyes open and then your eyes closed, you'll hear two different things.

This is one of probably many ways to prove that what you see affects what you think you hear. Without scientific (down to within .1 db level matching) all of the listening tests with different daws are pretty much irrelevant.

The daw you like better generally will sound better. In an unscientific blind test who knows why you like one over the other?
agree with this open/closed eyes effect,thats why I always mix with soft lights open in the CR.

On the other hand the differences that i hear between DP and Logic its not just a brain trick.
Its there but I dont know why.
Forget about pan laws,
I am talking about mono files,and premixed stereo material imported in the two DAWs.

BTW I use now both and I have stopped doing tests because I am getting crazy
Old 29th January 2007
  #66
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pianodano View Post
Dang man, which part is user unfriendly and how is that directly related to the sound?
Mate just a joke, it relates to the sound I get because I can't mix with it , no relation on the sound you can get with app, in the right hands any of these major DAWs will sound great I don't think it is down to the app though just to how provcient you are with it.

My issues with sonar was making edits etc + sonar 5 put too much load on the CPU when doing general GUi tasks but not as much as Pro tools LE! I worked for one of the DAW PC builders and setup MACs so had a chance to work with all the common ones (Pro tools HD and Logic included), never heard a difference between how they sounded. I just found cubase/nuendo the best to work with for me but not the best sounding!
Old 29th January 2007
  #67
Lives for gear
 
Harley-OIART's Avatar
 

To : RKrizman - Subject : HAHAHA!!!

To : RKrizman
Subject : Every post of yours in this thread.

Thats some funny $***. I salute you man. =)



Old 29th January 2007
  #68
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
out of the people here who dismiss 64bit mixing, how many have actually used it? i mean real experience, not theory...

i think once it becomes more common, there will be a lot less doubt about it...
Old 29th January 2007
  #69
Lives for gear
 
Harley-OIART's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by taturana View Post
out of the people here who dismiss 64bit mixing, how many have actually used it? i mean real experience, not theory...

i think once it becomes more common, there will be a lot less doubt about it...
There shouldn't be any doubt about it, because it is a very real and viable technology. I can definetly see it being a standard in due time.
Old 29th January 2007
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 

I checked Sonar 64bit and wasn´t really impressed... Maybe some mans 64bit coding is woth than some others 32bit... . For me the best sounding sequencer is Saw, followed by Samplitude, which is a more clean and analytical sounding2. I´m still on Cubase 2, but id like to check Version 4...but there no test version. Did someone check Version 2 against 4?
Old 5th June 2007
  #71
Gear Addict
 
emreyazgin's Avatar
cubase 3 vs nuendo 3 vs protools 6.7

I have created 12 different pink noise tracks 16/44.1 mono. No panning no plugins, no attenuation or gain.

I have summed them in cubase sx 3.2 then nuendo 3.2 and then protools 6.7

Results:

Nuendo and cubase: Perfect phase cancellation. No doubt its the same engine.
Nuendo vs Protools: Protools sum was 0.52dB hotter than nuendo and cubase sums, therefore there was a -40dB difference when phase reversed. BUT when I put the level of protools sum 0.52dB down the cancellation dropped down to nearly -90dB!...
Old 5th June 2007
  #72
jtg
Gear Head
 
jtg's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by emreyazgin View Post
I have created 12 different pink noise tracks 16/44.1 mono. No panning no plugins, no attenuation or gain.

I have summed them in cubase sx 3.2 then nuendo 3.2 and then protools 6.7

Results:

Nuendo and cubase: Perfect phase cancellation. No doubt its the same engine.
Nuendo vs Protools: Protools sum was 0.52dB hotter than nuendo and cubase sums, therefore there was a -40dB difference when phase reversed. BUT when I put the level of protools sum 0.52dB down the cancellation dropped down to nearly -90dB!...
Very interesting!

I can be the biggest skeptic around, but its important to keep an open mind. What should happen in theory, often doesn't happen in practice.
Old 5th June 2007
  #73
Lives for gear
 
MrVelvet's Avatar
 

If I sum externally with a summing mixer, will that neglect any difference to any other DAW so I wouldn't have to worry about that then? thumbsup
Old 5th June 2007
  #74
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrVelvet View Post
If I sum externally with a summing mixer, will that neglect any difference to any other DAW so I wouldn't have to worry about that then? thumbsup
Yes, mix OTB and forget it.
Side effect is that such mixes will be most likely more pleasant to ears of listeners and finally just better mixes when you master your OTB mixing routine.
Old 5th June 2007
  #75
TZk
Gear Addict
 

There is a difference between daws.
my guess is:

1. the downtruncating from 32bit floating point to masterbuss ouput
2. since there is no "crack and click" at 0dbFS, like in the golden days of studio vision pro for example... there is an algorythm to achieve this rounding off oversampled bits.
you can mix a daw in the reds, it doesn't sound good but this can be done these day.
3. the usage of a daw

if you mix at lower levels there shouldn't be much difference because you'll never reach the algorythms which deals with truncating and rounding off oversamples.

but once you reach plugins things could be different, how the software implements going to and return from the plugin etc...
Old 5th June 2007
  #76
Gear Addict
 
Koed's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsstar View Post
but once you reach plugins things could be different, how the software implements going to and return from the plugin etc...
That's been my conclusion too.
I've done pink noise summing checks on Cubase, Nuendo, Sonar and Reaper (not PT btw) and I've found no differences.
But there is a difference when you start to add plugins that have a 64bit engine.
Sonar and Reaper just sound subjectively better with the whole audio path, including plugins, running in 64bits.
Old 6th June 2007
  #77
Gear Addict
 
emreyazgin's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koed View Post
That's been my conclusion too.
I've done pink noise summing checks on Cubase, Nuendo, Sonar and Reaper (not PT btw) and I've found no differences.
But there is a difference when you start to add plugins that have a 64bit engine.
Sonar and Reaper just sound subjectively better with the whole audio path, including plugins, running in 64bits.

Of course thats the problem of the plugins not the summing engine? What do you think?

Actually I am gonna spend some more time and try the same pink noise test WITH plugins as well...The question is which plugins?

I have access to URS and waves and altiverb plugins only. I guess they are good enough for a meaningful test, what do you think? I will compress, eq each channel and add maybe add reverb,say 0dB to each channel, same presets etc.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump