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
PT TDM vs Digital Performer (48-bit vs 32-bit) DAW Software
Old 25th August 2007
  #1
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

Cool PT TDM vs Digital Performer (48-bit vs 32-bit)

2 diferents points :

*TDM from ProTools chose to do 48-bit Integer representation.

*DP leaves your 24-bit value exactly as it is, as it becomes that mantissa of the 32-bit value.

What would you say about it (tell me more) ?
Old 25th August 2007
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
Firefox's Avatar
 

i dunno the math but my ears tell me that mixing in protools tdm sounds better than dp
Old 25th August 2007
  #3
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

Hi Firefox , Hmmm ...

Come on guys ..
Lets talk about it..let me know what do you think..
Old 25th August 2007
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Geert van den Berg's Avatar
 

Please do a search, this has been discussed a lot already... Not necessarily Digital Performer vs PT HD (though I am sure there threads about that as well), but all native DAW's use 32 bit float calculations. Both formats, either 32 bits or 48 bit fixed, have pro's and cons.

For example read about it here:

Can ProTools read 32-bit float files? (+ 32-bit float discussion)
Old 25th August 2007
  #5
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
I think the numbers probably don't have much to do with it. I for one, don't care for the sound of DP summing (though I use the program with an external summer).
Old 26th August 2007
  #6
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geert van den Berg View Post
Please do a search, this has been discussed a lot already... Not necessarily Digital Performer vs PT HD (though I am sure there threads about that as well), but all native DAW's use 32 bit float calculations. Both formats, either 32 bits or 48 bit fixed, have pro's and cons.

For example read about it here:

Can ProTools read 32-bit float files? (+ 32-bit float discussion)
wow , thanks!
Old 26th August 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
I think the numbers probably don't have much to do with it. I for one, don't care for the sound of DP summing (though I use the program with an external summer).
thermos , i've used PT for many years..and now i am in DP(5.12)
very good DAW , id like to know more about , do you use DP ?
thanks
Old 26th August 2007
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Stoneface's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thermos View Post
I think the numbers probably don't have much to do with it.
Really? Hmmmm....love it when people just guess when they don't know what they are talking about. Every bit you add doubles the resolution. 32bit over 48 bit...yeah...it's pretty major. 33 bit has twice the resolution of 32. 34 bit has twice the resolution of 33 bit and so on and so forth. By the time you get to 48 bit...I'd say the numbers matter.
Old 26th August 2007
  #9
Lives for gear
 
5down1up's Avatar
 

Imo its a good skill if your able to chose from any given daw program just by its resolution ! I am not able to do so, cause theres a big learning curve behind those programs and thats why i dont care at all. I tried a lot of those programs as well cause i thought it really makes a difference, well 10 years later i know it doesnt. The only difference is my workflow, so i stick to my beloved PT program and save my time to enhance my muscial skills before i try different daws and tools and plugs all day long. makes me happier at least
Old 26th August 2007
  #10
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneface View Post
Really? Hmmmm....love it when people just guess when they don't know what they are talking about. Every bit you add doubles the resolution. 32bit over 48 bit...yeah...it's pretty major. 33 bit has twice the resolution of 32. 34 bit has twice the resolution of 33 bit and so on and so forth. By the time you get to 48 bit...I'd say the numbers matter.
32 bit fixed vs 48 bit fixed - I believe they're talking 32 bit float.
Old 27th August 2007
  #11
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

Digital Performer 32 bit float
Pro Tools TDM 48 bit
Old 27th August 2007
  #12
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Most native processing is really 80 bit float under the hood. The numbers game is a bunch of B.S.

It's really all about implementation and there is both good and bad in each format.
Old 28th August 2007
  #13
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by andremattos View Post
2 diferents points :

*TDM from ProTools chose to do 48-bit Integer representation.

*DP leaves your 24-bit value exactly as it is, as it becomes that mantissa of the 32-bit value.

What would you say about it (tell me more) ?
The funny thing is . . . that no one considers 48 bit fixed a LIMITATION in PTHD. TDM probably isn't capable of float. How old and how slow are the chips?
Old 28th August 2007
  #14
Lives for gear
I've used Sonar, DP, Tracktion, Logic and Ableton Live. I've also done sessions in Pro Tools studios. Digital Performer has the worst sounding summing of all these. If you go to MOTU's website and read the testimonials from pro users closely you'll see that they almost never use DP to actually mix. They run individual outs to a board or some other DAW. These pros who are mixing in DP seem to be doing it in live performance situations not for recordings. DP has a great user interface. But the sound is on a par with some of the 40 dollar DAW software you can find if you do a KVR search.
Old 28th August 2007
  #15
Lives for gear
 
The MPCist's Avatar
 

I agree with Bob, it's a numbers game and it's full of BS. Don't buy into that. Instead, just decide using your ears and heart.... If you can afford it, get PT. If you need compatibility with other studios, stability, it's the one. If you want to write songs and have fun, DP is ok.

I used to be a diehard DP user. Got fed up with:

1. support (or lack of support, to be specific)
2. instability of the software
3. its inability to work with TDM hardware in a stable manner
4. waiting way too long for small bug fixes (and have to pay for them)
5. wasting my time.

I still own DP and it's a great arranging tool, no doubt about that. But I just couldn't wait around waiting for MOTU to get it working right and put stability at 100% or damn close to that.

I'm using PT TDM and it gets the job done. I don't like it but at least it doesn't have stability issues as DP does. I wish someone would buy MOTU and revamp it, give it a rewrite, and bring it up to par. I still love it but I know it will try to screw me over any chance it gets! heh heh

Hopefully when DP is working the way it should and be able to handle a hundred tracks with plugins without being unstable or acting up just because auditioned a audiobite in the audiobite window, I'll change over ASAP!

Until then, it's still PT for now......
Old 28th August 2007
  #16
Lives for gear
 
The MPCist's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucks View Post
The funny thing is . . . that no one considers 48 bit fixed a LIMITATION in PTHD. TDM probably isn't capable of float. How old and how slow are the chips?
My PT HD4 Accel is old and slow...? C'mon, that thing runs circles around native systems man. Believe me, if I could get the same performance/stability from a native system, I'd definitely NOT waste extra money on PT! I'd use it on the next BMW coming out or something.

No matter how people like to slam PT for its shortcomings (mostly pricing), it's still king of the hill and lots of us PTers have to use it --- mostly it keeps us sane and sleeping at night. DP on the other hand made me nervous every time I opened a session--- and I've been a MOTU user ever since Performer came out! Changing software has done wonders for my nerves although my wallet hates it!
Old 28th August 2007
  #17
Lives for gear
 
chrispick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by andremattos View Post
i've used PT for many years..and now i am in DP(5.12)
very good DAW , id like to know more about , do you use DP ?
thanks
I use DP for composition and mixing. Version 5.12 on a MacIntel.

I find it very stable and great-sounding. I have no negative things to say about its summing.

Anyway, here's a good DP user website: www.unicornation.com. Check it out.
Old 28th August 2007
  #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsBot View Post
I've used Sonar, DP, Tracktion, Logic and Ableton Live. I've also done sessions in Pro Tools studios. Digital Performer has the worst sounding summing of all these. If you go to MOTU's website and read the testimonials from pro users closely you'll see that they almost never use DP to actually mix. They run individual outs to a board or some other DAW. These pros who are mixing in DP seem to be doing it in live performance situations not for recordings. DP has a great user interface. But the sound is on a par with some of the 40 dollar DAW software you can find if you do a KVR search.
Marsbot brother, I see you're double posting the same thing on different topics... I'll start to doubt your credibility on what you're saying.

Yes, PT is more stable than DP since always... I've been using PT from 3.something and DP since 2.something.

Yes, PT is a standard, so, if you want to save time when moving files from studio to studio, better get a LE rig.

Yes, PT is the most expansive DAW out there (AFAIK), but is the most estable and compatible remember?

So, if you're really making money with your studio, you'll know how important stability and compatibility are.

Right now I track and edit on a LE rig (old 001 with an old G4 DP 533) and mix on a DP 5.12 rig, just because TO ME, it sounds better and I can get better results faster (even wasting time, consolidating and moving files from one computer to another).

Yes, I would love to have a MacPro with a HD 3 Accell rig, but I don't get that much money with my clients so, it's not worth the investment.

Just my 0.00000000000002
Old 28th August 2007
  #19
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

I dont know , but ,
my DP 5.12 is very very stable ...in my ibook or in my imac aluminum
I think DP is standart too (no problems with 32bit files , OMF , Wav , AIFF , etc,, etc..)
Expansive DAW ? hmmm , for me yes! I can use with Mytek (firewire) or Lynx or Prism..or another converter that have firewire card ..

I've used Sonar , Cubase , Nuendo , Adobe , PT (many years) , Vegas , Samplitube, Logic , and many others too , and i can say that DP 5 sounds pretty fine for my ears..

For me DP is great for Video ! much better than PT LE ...

BUT , we are not talking about this ,
we are talking about
32 bits float (DP) vs 48 bits fixed (TDM)



sorry for my poor english ...i need go back to my english school
Old 28th August 2007
  #20
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

im in the same boat as the MPCist, i really dont like protools software to be honest, i love cubase, but the TDM stuff is stable and i love monitoring through plugs, that and the fact that they have the best control surfaces are the ONLY reasons i switched
Old 28th August 2007
  #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by andremattos View Post
I dont know , but ,
my DP 5.12 is very very stable ...in my ibook or in my imac aluminum
I think DP is standart too (no problems with 32bit files , OMF , Wav , AIFF , etc,, etc..)
Expansive DAW ? hmmm , for me yes! I can use with Mytek (firewire) or Lynx or Prism..or another converter that have firewire card ..

I've used Sonar , Cubase , Nuendo , Adobe , PT (many years) , Vegas , Samplitube, Logic , and many others too , and i can say that DP 5 sounds pretty fine for my ears..

For me DP is great for Video ! much better than PT LE ...

BUT , we are not talking about this ,
we are talking about
32 bits float (DP) vs 48 bits fixed (TDM)



sorry for my poor english ...i need go back to my english school
Fala Andre, tudo tranquilo?

DP 5.12 is stable on my macbook, BUT, not as stable as my old G4 running PT LE 6.4 with a 001. I don't remember the last crash I had on this system. It runs fine 99% of the time. My DP 5.12 is not as stable when importing tracks, moving stuff around when I have a heavy session, etc...
Since I have a "fast" machine to run DP 5.12, those crashes are not a big issue 'cause the time to re-open the application and the session is very, very fast. I remember when I had crashes under 4.52 on my old G4, it took around 2/3 minutes to re-open the session I was working on.

Dude, PT is the standard on big studio facilities, there is no argument about it! Yes, there is OMF, and all the BS, but nothing comes close to just plug the HD on your FW port, double click on a session and start working w/o having to, consolidate or export via OMF, or whatever we have to do to move non-PT sessions around.

I agree with you: I've used ALL DAWs avaliable to mac (maybe not Ardour yet) and DP sounds good enought, to me, this conversation about each DAW have a different sound is like spliting hairs...
I believe each DAW handles the plugins (and it's latency) differently, THAT makes a huge difference on the final result and that's why I dumped mixing with PT LE 6.4.

Now, back on topic, I think each floating point DAW handles the numbers differently BUT they should sound similar, but none come close to 48 fixed...

It's all about math...
Old 28th August 2007
  #22
Registered User
 

Use DP 4.61 every day, PPC G5. Hasn't crashed in over 2 years of heavy use. If you can't make a good mix in DP then it ain't the software...

If you can't help but constantly be worried about how 48fixed might be better than 32float, than just get a pt rig and be done with it.
Old 29th August 2007
  #23
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeronimo View Post
Fala Andre, tudo tranquilo?

DP 5.12 is stable on my macbook, BUT, not as stable as my old G4 running PT LE 6.4 with a 001. I don't remember the last crash I had on this system. It runs fine 99% of the time. My DP 5.12 is not as stable when importing tracks, moving stuff around when I have a heavy session, etc...
Since I have a "fast" machine to run DP 5.12, those crashes are not a big issue 'cause the time to re-open the application and the session is very, very fast. I remember when I had crashes under 4.52 on my old G4, it took around 2/3 minutes to re-open the session I was working on.

Dude, PT is the standard on big studio facilities, there is no argument about it! Yes, there is OMF, and all the BS, but nothing comes close to just plug the HD on your FW port, double click on a session and start working w/o having to, consolidate or export via OMF, or whatever we have to do to move non-PT sessions around.

I agree with you: I've used ALL DAWs avaliable to mac (maybe not Ardour yet) and DP sounds good enought, to me, this conversation about each DAW have a different sound is like spliting hairs...
I believe each DAW handles the plugins (and it's latency) differently, THAT makes a huge difference on the final result and that's why I dumped mixing with PT LE 6.4.

Now, back on topic, I think each floating point DAW handles the numbers differently BUT they should sound similar, but none come close to 48 fixed...

It's all about math...
Fala Jera! tudo na paz brother!
To pensando num setup alternativo para poder usar o DP ..ja seria outro asunto..rs
Agora , quando entrar os 64bits pelo Leopard , nao vai ser dificil o DP passar a usar 64bits assim como o Sonar esta fazendo no XP 64.. ..
Lets return to english! heh
Thanks brother!!
Cheers!
heh
Old 30th August 2007
  #24
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

from digidesign web site
;Pro Tools TDM systems use HW DSP acceleration that utilize 24-bit fixed point math. (Comparing 24-bit fixed point and 32-bit floating point audio systems is a bit like comparing PowerPC and Intel Pentium processors...) ;
Old 30th August 2007
  #25
Gear Maniac
 

i've used DP forever,
done lots of professional work on it. commercials, albums, movie and tv songs, etc.
i love the way it works.
but i just switched to PT HD, because it sounds substantially better.

DP never really bugged me for commercial work and fast stuff, but for mixing album type stuff, i was Always frustrated about bottom, overall size and clarity.
I tried Samplitude for a while and it was a surprising difference from DP. The mix didn'[t collapse, get fuzzy, and I could hear and dial in the bottom (kick and bass). Big wow.
I moved to PT HD cause I just couldn't live in PC/Samp land.
NOt sure if PT is Quite as clear and punchy as Samplitude but it's Definitely a big improvement from DP.
That said, DP is brilliant software, i think overall it's quite a bit more user friendly than PT, and i really miss the Preamp plug in.

rob
Old 2nd September 2007
  #26
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

For me (my ears) DP has a great overall size and clarity.
bottom ? here i hear the bottom very well ..
I am using DP with 002r Super Tweak Head Mod (BLA)
Old 2nd September 2007
  #27
Lives for gear
 
deuc647's Avatar
 

Maybe its me, but PTHD has more headroom but sounds thinner compared to other daws ive used, i dunno
Old 7th September 2007
  #28
Lives for gear
 
andremattos's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deuc647 View Post
Maybe its me, but PTHD has more headroom but sounds thinner compared to other daws ive used, i dunno
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