Protools is cracked--wide open

[Animus]

Very interesting development....

http://www.airusersblog.com/home-page/2010/5/23/pro-tools-hd-m-powered-unlocked.html

[Daryl]

I guess that AVID has to go after this with a vengeance, as it's the hardware that makes all the money. The same way that Apple has to do the same with OSX. If you can run these systems using your own superior hardware, then that would be a large loss for either company.

D

[TerryG]

I guess that AVID has to go after this with a vengeance, as it's the hardware that makes all the money. The same way that Apple has to do the same with OSX. If you can run these systems using your own superior hardware, then that would be a large loss for either company.

D

Ya, and evidently it's the hardware that makes all the money because Avid intentionally crippled the software to force users to buy Accel cards to open access to voices... voices that now number 10000 via the hardware emu.

I'm not defending cracks, but doesn't this make Avid look like real bastards for using these tactics?
Cards have a legitimate reason to exist for dsp plugins (like UAD)... but not for track count limits, etc...

[Animus]

What exactly are voices in Protools? They are different from track counts from what I understand.

[TerryG]

What exactly are voices in Protools? They are different from track counts from what I understand.
That's my understanding too... the Accel cards increase track count and voices... which we now know was a scam.

[MattiasNYC]

What exactly are voices in Protools? They are different from track counts from what I understand.

If I'm not mistaken a mono track = 1 voice, a stereo = 2, and so on.

[Animus]

That's my understanding too... the Accel cards increase track count and voices... which we now know was a scam.


What are voices though?

[dcwave]

I'm not on board with the whole "scam" thing in relation to the dsp cards and voices. At my day job we have DSP cards. We lock down conferencing resources and have a hard limit - going beyond that customers have to get a new card. Could the resources go beyond the arbitrary limit we set - yes. Why don't we let conferencing be used then? Profit. Pure and simple - we are a for profit company and setting an "artificial" limit on the DSP allows us to remain profitable.

[OpenMind]

If I'm not mistaken a mono track = 1 voice, a stereo = 2, and so on.

I guess you may be right, as Pro Tools was developed from the architecture of 1980s samplers... where voices limited your polyphony.

I don't know much / anything about PT, but I used to follow all developments in the new world of digital music in those days.

[nikki-k]

Voices..
Basically, the DSP is via chips (DSP chips) on the cards. These are utilized to "build" a mixer in software.. a TDM Mixer. Since the Mixer "lives" on the cards, the only latency introduced is from the analog to digital and digital to analog conversions.. plus the most minuscule amount from process time. Actually, since each DSP chip can only provide so much power for building a Mixer, once a mix gets large enough, multiple chips will be used, and thus the "TDM Environment" is one built from several/many TDM Mixers.. or submixers if you so desire it put. Say you can build one 8x2 mixer on each DSP chip, and want to do a 32-track mix; you need 4 DSP chips just for that chore, and each of those TDM Mixers would actually be submixes. It is more complex, but actually quite simple once the basics are understood. Delay Comp is available as "Short" and "Long," with Long requiring more DSP of course. Bit and Sample Rate also contribute to the amount of DSP required, and then certain tasks (such as certain TDM plug-ins) require specific DSP Chip types. An HD Accel card has more than one type of DSP chip.

I told ya that story to tell this one..

Since the TDM Mixer(s) live on the TDM/HD cards, and since the cards do not have any form of storage for audio data, it must be bussed in.. enter Voices! You could simply think of a Voice as a one-way only Gate, or valve, or whatever you consider similar. When audio data leaves or enters the TDM Mixer from anywhere except the I/O hardware (such as a Digi 192 I/O), it will require one Voice per channel, per direction of travel. So, when you record, the audio enters via the audio I/O hardware, passes into the TDM Environment, and needs to be stored somewhere.. so, it will need to then leave the TDM ENvironment.. via one Voice per channel. Record a single, mono audio channel, one Voice. Record a 5.1 source, 6 Voices. Playing back that audio no longer requires audio to exit the TDM Environment, but it does now require it to re-enter.. once again, one Voice per channel.

Now the fun part..
Say you have a 32 track mix, all mono tracks of audio. That is 32 Voice sbeing used to get the audio back into the TDM Environment. Say you place an RTAS plug-in in the first insert of each track; since the RTAS processing is being done prior to the TDM Environment, said processing will be done BEFORE that Valve/Gate/Voice.. so, still 32 Voices. But, say you want to... Audio from HardDisk -> TDM plug -> RTAS Plug -> TDM Plug -> RTAS Plug -> TDM Plug -> TDM Mixer -> Audio Output; Add 'em up! Audio enters, one Voice per = 32 Voices. TDM Plug process is first, so before anything else, the audio data MUST utilize a Voice to enter the TDM Emvironment to have access tot hat DSP. To do RTAS processing next, the audio must leave the TDM Environment.. another 32 Voices! Do that RTAS processing, re-enter for a second TDM plug on each (32 more Voices), and then once again leave to do a second RTAS process (32 more Voices), and back in for the final TDM plug and Mixer (32 more Voices), then output via Digi 192 I/O.. grand total: 160 Voices!!!

Start doing a 5.1 mix with ADC Long, and jack it up to 24/96k, and the number of DSP chips on those HD cards required will be in the HD3 Accel neighborhood, easily. And this is why the Voice, track and other counts were low by today's standards. It is a hardware based system, very much like the analog systems we would work with. 16 track 2"? Sync up a second, and deal with the limited track count. But, with today's available DSP, those HD cards simply become far too restrictive. No real scam here, just simple math. So- do they then invest in more powerful chips, expand the available counts, and hope the market will support such a beast? Good question! Problem is, while PT LE with a 001 was an incredible thing to have when computer power was less than a fully maxed TDM system, to have any such limitations today is suicidal IMO. Problem is, they were so heavily invested in that hardware, and I imagine they figured if they lifted the imposed limits on the software that did not require cards with DSP chips, it would devalue the HD line so much so that they would be out of business.. IF they continued with the same business model. Since the LE and MP versions of PT use the same code base.. think of LE and MP as "seeing" the CPU(s) in a native system as being a giant TDM resource, but not really TDM.

Nuendo can do more than Cubase; is Cubase incapable of doing those things? Or is it simply a "software castration" of sorts, ala Pro Tools LE/MP is to PT HD?
PT TDM systems are quite interesting, but I do not see the need anymore. I am more comfortable using an HD4 Accel or greater system than I am with any other available system; but, it is cost prohibitive, and for composing- no way. That the numbers come as some shock to people is a bit... shocking. But, if humans really are that stupid...

[nikki-k]

Forgot to add:
That explanation is what many miss when they invest in a "simple" HD1 Accel system, and figure they will simply use RTAS plug-ins. It is fine for simpler mixes. But, once one understands the architecture and subsequent requirements for anything exceeding "simple," it becomes obvious that all possible factors should be considered before investing in ANY PT HD system. IMO, an HD3 Accel is a bare minimum, unless one is planning on doing 64 tracks or less, no TDM plugins, 24/44.1k or 24/48k, stereo work. An HD1 Accel is about useless for decent sessions, and an HD2 can be restrictive... I would not want to have to divide my "artistic mind" to afford that kind of.. "benefit"?

[Animus]

thanks nikki, very interesting. Sounds like a real pain in the ass. Maybe Steinberg ain't so bad. :-)

[TAFKAT]

+1

Awesome stuff Nikki, and explains a lot why a "Native" PTHD system with the current RTAS architecture is still inherently locked to the legacy TDM hooks under the bonnet.

I really can't see a fully scalable PT Native system unless they get right away from TDM/RTAS.

What will be really interesting is how this unlocked version of HD performs natively without the limitation imposed by the DSP.

[nikki-k]

thanks nikki, very interesting. Sounds like a real pain in the ass. Maybe Steinberg ain't so bad. :-)

lol..
Well, like I said- go back several years, and the benefits were there. Today, it is a simple matter of people who used PT TDM for the benefits and ease of use that simply know that system.. moving to something else is a bit rough. Then count the people who went analog, then PT, and now? Going from analog to digital was a pretty big step. If someone can still get their work done with the ease they desire on that system, despite the limitations.. why switch? If they get "forced" to use another app and hardware, and discover benefits.. whole new story then I think.

When I got into PT, and ended up helping with certian things, I had a benefit of digging in and asking questions.. many of which were answered, some of which were not. If a new version of PT came out that rivaled C5 for me with regard to feature set, I would still actually prefer to go back to 7.4 for final tracking/mixing. Pretty solid, and I know. PARIS is the only other app I would ocnsider at this point, and I would actually love to have a nice RADAR NyQuist setup... but give it a year ;)

[nikki-k]

One of the more interesting things is that RTAS is buggered. Once you grasp HOW they make the Native version of Pro Tools, and consider HTDM's Epic Fail, questions arise pretty quickly. IMO, they are building a house on a foundation made for something else.. there is a reason you do not have user assignable key commands, ADC is difficult, and several other shortcomings. Almost like having a plane that will not crash, operates well for standards a couple decades old, and seats a decent number of people. But, try to use that plane for mass commute to a Mars colony? Sorry, but ya gotta build a new vehicle.. that awesome plane will NOT do the job, and trying to modify it instead of building something new... would you buy a ticket on that flight? Other apps are like an entire airline, plus NASA. Sure, there will be crashes and tragedies; but, weigh that against the benefits.

To dig into the TDM Environment, and realize what they did.. wow.. quite beautiful! PARIS was equally so I think. With the PT paradigm though.. Voices, TDM architecture, Master Faders (so very unknown by many, misunderstood by more), Bussing, etc... technological beauty. Innovative. And stable (previously). It took me several months to come up with a system that would become a defacto standard system for TDM/HD on Windows, based upon questions, answers, white papers, and some trial/error. About as solid as any Mac.. if the user set it up properly and exclusively. (sigh) Ah, the good old days... now I want a TSR-8 1/2" and an M-2516... hehehe!!

[kdm]

PARIS is the only other app I would ocnsider at this point, and I would actually love to have a nice RADAR NyQuist setup... but give it a year ;)

I know some guys still running Paris (gives me chills thinking about the duct tape required to keep a Paris rig running these days... lol). It certainly had some great aspects to it, but it was quite a limited system by today's standards overall though. Jails and a few other feautres were cool, but midi was so archaic and convoluted I had to blink twice to be sure I hadn't been transported back into 1988 when I attempted to use it - which was only once.

Interesting to hear your perspective of PT native's potential flaws. Imho, Digi has held onto the PT core design about 8 years too long. They really need to bite the bullet and start fresh for their sake and the customers', or they will have a hard time keeping up, even with the legacy of being "standard" to fall back on. Standards only last so long, even in this industry.

[Daryl]

[QUOTE=TerryG;23084]
Cards have a legitimate reason to exist for dsp plugins (like UAD)... but not for track count limits, etc...[/QUOTE
I don't agree there. I put UAD in the same camp as Dodgydesign. I see no difference. There is nothing wrong with running plugs using the processing power of your computer.

D

[TerryG]

Cards have a legitimate reason to exist for dsp plugins (like UAD)... but not for track count limits, etc...
I don't agree there. I put UAD in the same camp as Dodgydesign. I see no difference. There is nothing wrong with running plugs using the processing power of your computer.

D
My comment wasn't about the merits of dsp cards.
I was making a distinction between a company who uses onboard dsp for processing (UAD) versus Avid using onboard dsp at least partially as a ruse to unlock certain functions/capability that this hack has revealed was already available in the software.

[Daryl]

Ah, I see. Well no argument from me there.

D

[LEX]

I'm a little surprised that everyone is so "SHOCKED" that PT's track count is limited in the software.

I always thought it was obvious. Through the updates over the years, the track count has increased, but the hardware hasn't changed.

LOL! We still have a rock solid single core, G4 933 with 3 HD cards (no accels) and the track count went up from 5.3.1 to 6.9. I think we can do 160 total tracks with 96 physical tracks.

Maybe it is more of a shock to those who don't own PT or use PT. That I can understand.

I think the next version, update or what not, the will just open it up.

LEX

[nikki-k]

Uh... there is no ruse or deception going on in regard to PT HD. In fact, one could view it as the opposite of a UAD card + native app; instead of the app and non-UAD existing on the host CPU, it exists on the DSP card(s), while non-TDM plugs exist on the host CPU. The DSP chips on the HD Accel cards (et al) are finite, which is one aspect that is appealing to some, even now. There are *absolute* numbers pertaining to allocation, so all one needs to do is plan accordingly.. hence an earlier remark I made in comparison to old analog, say 16 track 2". To be able to have, say, 3 HD Accel cards and know exactly what they can do, and do so every single time without any flux in performance, can be a boon. With today's available native power it can seem like more of an unnecessary restriction, but it is simply a different approach. Is that 16 track 2" an unnecessary restriction?

With the last incarnation, HD Accel, things were opened up enough to do pretty sizable sessions. Compared to a fully native solution.. well, it is, effectively, comparing apples to pears.
There is no more "room" to open anything on the cards; new DSP chips would be required for that. Yes, the potential is there, but no "great misdirection" or ruse exists there. It is as simple as the restrictions of an analog system.

For the native version of Pro Tools, it is simple marketing decisions.. period. Yes, the software has coding limits that CAN exceed what the current hardware is capable of. That has been (effectively) proven. Digi/Avid has never come out point blank and stated such, but it is a pretty simple deduction. To sit back and cry, "We have been cheated!! See what the gods have done to us!!!" is actually quite humorous. Ignorance, cognitive dissonance.. whatever one decides to cite for themselves, so be it. Maybe caveat emptor? If Chevy made a $70k Corvette, and then made a $15k Lamevette, who in their right mind would ever think the two would be equal??? Could the Lamevette be modified to be equal or better than the Corvette? Well, I suppose with a lot of work, some team could, erm, crack that little bit ;)

The problem is quite simple: A workspace has been created that "feels good" to many people. But, the only way to fully enjoy it is through the flagship.. an expensive flagship that makes little sense to most people today (but not all!). Due to it's very nature, and some poor thinking in future proofing, it lacks considerably due to it's finite capabilities and ancient coding. Waning economy and interest makes recoding without recoup due to severely declining hardware sales a no-brainer: it ain't gonna happen. Well, not this year or next. Funny thing is, if the workspace is so attractive, why has no one produced a comparable native solution?? Reaper is nearing a time when it can be modified by the end user to imitate the majority of that PT environment, sans TDM/RTAS and session compatibility.

Certain things were lied about; things written in the software that were simply not turned on, yet claimed to be features that would require too many man-hours to implement. To be upset about this though, one would need to have owned an LE rig for awhile, and have asked certain questions. But the rest of it? Elementary, my dear Watson. And when I weighed my desires/needs with what my HD4 Accel rig provided versus what other native solutions provide? Simple! Sell the HD rig, buy a 002 for that nice "at home" feeling, and search for a new app... cause no way will Digi (now Avid) open it up to make LE exceed their HD line, and as I said: HD is finite by nature. Simple.. elementary. But, definitely hurt to let go of a workspace I found so.. intuitive and comfy.

[LEX]

Uh... there is no ruse or deception going on in regard to PT HD. In fact, one could view it as the opposite of a UAD card + native app; instead of the app and non-UAD existing on the host CPU, it exists on the DSP card(s), while non-TDM plugs exist on the host CPU. The DSP chips on the HD Accel cards (et al) are finite, which is one aspect that is appealing to some, even now. There are *absolute* numbers pertaining to allocation, so all one needs to do is plan accordingly.. hence an earlier remark I made in comparison to old analog, say 16 track 2". To be able to have, say, 3 HD Accel cards and know exactly what they can do, and do so every single time without any flux in performance, can be a boon. With today's available native power it can seem like more of an unnecessary restriction, but it is simply a different approach. Is that 16 track 2" an unnecessary restriction?

With the last incarnation, HD Accel, things were opened up enough to do pretty sizable sessions. Compared to a fully native solution.. well, it is, effectively, comparing apples to pears.
There is no more "room" to open anything on the cards; new DSP chips would be required for that. Yes, the potential is there, but no "great misdirection" or ruse exists there. It is as simple as the restrictions of an analog system.

For the native version of Pro Tools, it is simple marketing decisions.. period. Yes, the software has coding limits that CAN exceed what the current hardware is capable of. That has been (effectively) proven. Digi/Avid has never come out point blank and stated such, but it is a pretty simple deduction. To sit back and cry, "We have been cheated!! See what the gods have done to us!!!" is actually quite humorous. Ignorance, cognitive dissonance.. whatever one decides to cite for themselves, so be it. Maybe caveat emptor? If Chevy made a $70k Corvette, and then made a $15k Lamevette, who in their right mind would ever think the two would be equal??? Could the Lamevette be modified to be equal or better than the Corvette? Well, I suppose with a lot of work, some team could, erm, crack that little bit ;)

The problem is quite simple: A workspace has been created that "feels good" to many people. But, the only way to fully enjoy it is through the flagship.. an expensive flagship that makes little sense to most people today (but not all!). Due to it's very nature, and some poor thinking in future proofing, it lacks considerably due to it's finite capabilities and ancient coding. Waning economy and interest makes recoding without recoup due to severely declining hardware sales a no-brainer: it ain't gonna happen. Well, not this year or next. Funny thing is, if the workspace is so attractive, why has no one produced a comparable native solution?? Reaper is nearing a time when it can be modified by the end user to imitate the majority of that PT environment, sans TDM/RTAS and session compatibility.

Certain things were lied about; things written in the software that were simply not turned on, yet claimed to be features that would require too many man-hours to implement. To be upset about this though, one would need to have owned an LE rig for awhile, and have asked certain questions. But the rest of it? Elementary, my dear Watson. And when I weighed my desires/needs with what my HD4 Accel rig provided versus what other native solutions provide? Simple! Sell the HD rig, buy a 002 for that nice "at home" feeling, and search for a new app... cause no way will Digi (now Avid) open it up to make LE exceed their HD line, and as I said: HD is finite by nature. Simple.. elementary. But, definitely hurt to let go of a workspace I found so.. intuitive and comfy.

Chevy makes 3 Vettes.

120+k ZR1 - Supercharged, carbon fiber brakes (same as on the Enzo) - 640 HP - This thing destroys all Ferrari's, most the Lambo's, and just about any exotic.

85k - Z06 - V8 big block - 505hp, beats most exotics 430's, Gallardo's ect.

60k+ Coupe - 435HP - can take out alot of cars.

People upgrade the coupe and the Z06 all the time with superchargers. But, there is warranties and damage that can be done.
I've seen an 800 HP z06 before.

Will it bet the ZR1 around a track. No. Off the line, maybe.

The 3 are certainly not equal.

LEX

[TAFKAT]

Lets swing this back to AVIDGATE (http://www.airusersblog.com/home-page/2010/5/25/pro-tools-crack-the-analysis-of-avidgate.html) , shall we..

I think AVID are pushing shite up hill if they think they can get the genie back in the bottle with censorship..

I wonder how long before the admins here get a cease and desist , and I'd like to be a fly on the wall for the response... LOL

[LEX]

Cease and desist? I doubt it.

We are not posting links to this software, so there isn't anything they can really do. They can censor their own forum, but not others.
The information is all over the web.

This is a US based forum, US server location as well. If the information is leaked out, then it is public information.

It would be like Apple trying to shutdown all the bloggers who talked about the leaked iPhone. Can't happen.

LEX

[LEX]

No I'm not talking about the response of AVID to this episode of the Pro Tools crack, but of the user base. As one guy put it (before the story was pulled from the AVID forum) 'it's like waking up and finding out your girlfriend was a guy in a previous life'.

I'm just shocked the user base is really that clueless.

LEX

[TAFKAT]

Cease and desist? I doubt it.

We are not posting links to this software, so there isn't anything they can really do. They can censor their own forum, but not others.
The information is all over the web.



They have already sent a cease and desist to that blogger , and have now pulled so called official support for the Blog.. , they are also fighting a running battle at G.S having threads deleted as well.

Trust me Mate, their reach is wider than their own forums.

Anyhow,

Let em try to pull a cease and desist here..

[Animus]

I would tell them where they shove it. :smash:

[LEX]

Let em try to pull a cease and desist here..

That's what I'm saying. Other forum's are pulling because they are probably threatening to pull their advertising.

Other than that, there isn't much they could do, any attorney would agree as well as any court.

LEX

[nikki-k]

The party gets more fun!! Turns out.. from a, erm, "reliable source," that things are moving along smoothly! To further explain some of the, umm.. "fixing".. this crack team has done... (crack teams fixing software.. hmm.. has never happened before, has it.. lol.. )

...we will be able to patch the actual drivers for your device to be recognized by Pro Tools.
This will decrease the additional latency by removing the "middle-man" layer. As
an FYI, the way Pro Tools institutes the hardware requirement is by modifying the
sound data. The algorithm to decode this modification lives in the driver. So while
it is possible to add certain information to the driver to get it recognized and
able to be used and seen by Pro Tools, the sound will be incredibly distorted. Our
next approach will be a plug-in KEXT approach, that overrides methods in the
existing driver and adds the algorithm to ANY driver, giving it the capability to
decode the sound data from Pro Tools.

Oh- and Lex- Corvettes rule!! hehehe!!!
One of the things that hit me first after getting out of the hospital when I became a paraplegic was realizing I would have to sell my beloved 2000 'Vette. It was a manual transmission (of course! If I cannot shift it, I aint ownin it), so off it went. Actually had a guy from Michigan fly down to buy it, and drive it back! I still cry over losing my Vette. Not the greatest car, and not everyone loves them. But, I am a fangirl of them. If someone gave me a Ferrari, I would sell it to buy a Vette. Or more guitars...

[Sam]

There is one thing that this 'Native' PTHD wont do as well as 'real' pthd. As nikiki has explained - the mixer lives in DSP land - and so I can have a 60-70 track mix running with an HD3 accell system pretty maxed out with TDM plugs. If I then want to drop in a vocal take on a track that is sitting there with all its processing on -i can - without any regard to buffers or plugin delay etc etc....

So this 'unlocked' version with a software audio card written to interface the PT i/o with the core audio driver of whatever hardware you have wont be any good for software monitoring I think - certainly not at the stages of the mix I described earlier. Just look at how coreaudio performs regardless of any hack n patch with a software emu arbitration to deal with. So unless these dudes have incorporated some funky sort of split buffer routine a la Logic then I dont know how much fun this is going to be to record and mix on - certainly not without some workflow adjustments from ones process on a DSP driven HD system....

So while this is very interesting and certainly blows LE out of the water with regard to how limited it really is without any technical justification (cmon we all knew it was marketing responsible), BUT PTHD really does have limits that aren't lies (as Terry was hinting at) as the whole mixer environment lives on DSP, and as Nikki explained this has both advantages and limits. If those advantages outweigh the limits for your particular workflow then you will still stick with HD until Divid™ really get some serious Native solution together - for me that needs a total rethink and trashing of RTAS - and as Nikki said - they really need to start again from scratch....

With my current i7 system and Nuendo I can get so close to that disregard of buffer sizes that I m pretty bloody happy actually. I can be mixing and drop in some gtr, percussion or a bv at the last minute now without having to touch anything - its set and forget at 64 samples.....only a very high load (95%+) on my UAD quad with 'certain' new uad plugs can cause it to get a little cranky

[Animus]

This is interesting insight into the culture of Avid... http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Avid-Technology-Reviews-E2291.htm

Makes me wonder if the people who kracked protools were disgruntled ex-employees.

[kdm]

I worked for high tech companies years ago, and scathing comments such as these (esp. from those of us in development), were limited to companies that are no longer in business. That's very bad news for Avid. Doesn't incite confidence in investing in ProTools either.

[dcwave]

Quite the amazing read! Makes one wonder if AVID is in business in spite of itself and for how long it can sustain its internal business model

[blob]

WOW...:icon_eek3:...someone should post this link to the PT idiots on gearsmutz... i won't, they would kill me, virtually..
So now AVID took Euphonix, seems to me both will die in the near future...

[TAFKAT]

Hmmm,

Something is feeling a little off with that website to be honest..

I remember reading a lot of the posts that have been timestamped 2010 , last year on the same website , so unless I somehow slipped in some time/space continuum vortex, which is not entirely out of the question I may add, a lot of those posts have been modified to look like they have been posted recently.

Question I ask would be, why ?

Also with the postings being anonymous, who's to say they are just not fabricated by competitors ?

Now I am not saying I don't believe that AVID seems to be chasing their own tails lately, as I have experienced first hand just how disorganised they are this year, but I would still take anything I read posted on that site with a grain of salt..

Just my 2 cents..

[ROCKINROG]

Wow. I knew the company was in disarray but it seems like the CEO is milking it and not really taking it in any real direction besides cost cutting. They are in a state of big changes though and sometimes it takes alot but if you piss off your main engineers or any/all of your employees you'll definitely sink the ship. Those posts go back as far as 2008 Vin.

[Animus]

Hmmm,

Something is feeling a little off with that website to be honest..

I remember reading a lot of the posts that have been timestamped 2010 , last year on the same website , so unless I somehow slipped in some time/space continuum vortex, which is not entirely out of the question I may add, a lot of those posts have been modified to look like they have been posted recently.

Question I ask would be, why ?

Also with the postings being anonymous, who's to say they are just not fabricated by competitors ?

Now I am not saying I don't believe that AVID seems to be chasing their own tails lately, as I have experienced first hand just how disorganised they are this year, but I would still take anything I read posted on that site with a grain of salt..

Just my 2 cents..


Well it's fact that they are outsourcing to Kiev which can't be good for morale or quality control. Now they know how we feel when they outsource Cubendo to Germany. :D

[funkcity]

Interesting (Glassdoor) that CEO Gary Greenfield has a 4% approval rating...That's worse than the US Congress! Gary does not come from this business but he was brought in to turn it around. With a salary of 35K and an annual bonus of 650K and who knows what stocks I think he'll do fine! :) Lots of folks at Avid have been compensated very well in past years and this is the end game!

The head of their technical development Dave Lebolt left and went to Apple. What is left is what transpired though his technical leadership. That said, no other company has had the wherewithal to build that many control surfaces. And now through some shrewd business moves they own a major player; Euphonix. Not too bad!

The TDM explanations here are quite revealing....But they can hire the best engineers to fix all this if they want! They have former Nuendo engineers Lars and Martin on staff now. There is a path if they choose to use it.

But in all fairness, Avid/Digi is a huge success story for an American company.
Avid practically invented nonlinear picture editing with networked workgroups a long time ago.
ProTools/Sound Tools began as a cheap alternative to the Fairlights, AudioVisions, Synclaviers, et... and all the other expensive options of the day. Unfortunately a lot of that legacy technology has stayed. But time marches on and the internet has driven folks to expect a lot more for a lot less..(Think Reaper here!)

My beefs with them have always been:
* No MADI
* Writing 2 separate fade files for every region or clip (listen to drive activity some time!)
* Voices..Its time for these to go away
* Networking ..It will not see a standard RAID system or a DVD or a CD or write to them...
* The biggie! The summing bus sounds like mush!
* Track count limitations

On the plus side:
* Control surfaces at any price point...incorporation EuCon protocol
* World standard DAW compatibility
* Synchronizers, Machine control..it all works
* Destructive Punch record.
* Satellite.... an improvement over Steinberg's System Link.
* live "Venue" product
* They will keep Euphonix products "open" as they have been...a MAJOR philosophy change for Avid/Digi

If you assume that they are out there to make a profit then you can understand their modus operandi. As a public company they are increasingly challenged. Every business has suffered through the recession and the pie to get a piece of is smaller. So they too must do more with less manpower.

The crack... Hmmm. There will be some gotchas with it and as folks say...It had to happen.
This is not just a crack but software has been written to run this....and now it seems more is on the way.

But Avid had to know this was coming and I'm sure future plans will compensate.
They see the 12 core machines and know they can utilize this power also.
Their hardware has to be expensive for them to make a profit. That said, that hardware biz might not be a good one for the future.

This does seem to be a prime time for them to overhaul their code base....but they never have before. Short term profits may scuttle the thought.

[MattiasNYC]

* The biggie! The summing bus sounds like mush!


ehm........

[LEX]

My beefs with them have always been:
* No MADI
* Writing 2 separate fade files for every region or clip (listen to drive activity some time!)
* Voices..Its time for these to go away
* Networking ..It will not see a standard RAID system or a DVD or a CD or write to them...
* The biggie! The summing bus sounds like mush!
* Track count limitations

Yep, agree with them.

Though, there is a MADI box coming from what I am told (Or you can just get the SSL Box)

Pro Tools Native will do away with most the rest of it. Biggest complaint from me, is the summing and just the general sound.

Summing is crappy. On the stage, comparing 24 tracks recorded on a Tascam HD recorder, it takes the bright and brittle sound away.
Recording into PT vs recording into a DA98. The DA98 sounds better.
Even playing back a decoded AC3 through the DMU sounds less bright.

PT is legendary for that bright and brittle sound. Its the 48 point fixed processing.

I'd bet PT Native will be 64 bit float with all the trimmings.
On system, expandable into whatever you need or what. DSP in addition to Host, countless I/O without massive amounts of expensive boxes.

RAID - I will under trickery. If the RAID can be mounted as a local drive it will treat it that way.
There was a system with fiber optics (expensive though) that would mount locally on multiple systems and I believe would let you work on the same session at the same time, but I could be wrong about that or it didn't work right.


On the plus side:
* Control surfaces at any price point...incorporation EuCon protocol
* World standard DAW compatibility
* Synchronizers, Machine control..it all works
* Destructive Punch record.
* Satellite.... an improvement over Steinberg's System Link.
* live "Venue" product
* They will keep Euphonix products "open" as they have been...a MAJOR philosophy change for Avid/Digi

Yep, all those too. Adding Euphonix's massive programming and expert networking ability to the table adds a MASSIVE ability for the next version of PT.

Destructive Record. A needed thing for Nuendo. No one wants to have to process 48 tracks on a million clips before they can leave to conform.
With the RAM overhead discovered with Nuendo 4/5, I can only see it as a problem as a recorder with it reaching a point where it F's up at a critical time.

Maybe it won't, but I wouldn't want to chance it.

When ever I need to do stem bounces at home, I pop it into Nuendo and bus it that way.

LEX

[MattiasNYC]

Summing is crappy. On the stage, comparing 24 tracks recorded on a Tascam HD recorder, it takes the bright and brittle sound away.
Recording into PT vs recording into a DA98. The DA98 sounds better.
Even playing back a decoded AC3 through the DMU sounds less bright.

same ADACs?

[LEX]

same ADACs?

All AES. All Digital. Only Analog path is the speaker which comes out the system 5 via a Euphonix 703 DA converter.

LEX

[funkcity]

Yep, agree with them.

Though, there is a MADI box coming from what I am told (Or you can just get the SSL Box)

Pro Tools Native will do away with most the rest of it. Biggest complaint from me, is the summing and just the general sound.

Summing is crappy. On the stage, comparing 24 tracks recorded on a Tascam HD recorder, it takes the bright and brittle sound away.
Recording into PT vs recording into a DA98. The DA98 sounds better.
Even playing back a decoded AC3 through the DMU sounds less bright.

PT is legendary for that bright and brittle sound. Its the 48 point fixed processing.

I'd bet PT Native will be 64 bit float with all the trimmings.
On system, expandable into whatever you need or what. DSP in addition to Host, countless I/O without massive amounts of expensive boxes.

RAID - I will under trickery. If the RAID can be mounted as a local drive it will treat it that way.
There was a system with fiber optics (expensive though) that would mount locally on multiple systems and I believe would let you work on the same session at the same time, but I could be wrong about that or it didn't work right.



Yep, all those too. Adding Euphonix's massive programming and expert networking ability to the table adds a MASSIVE ability for the next version of PT.

Destructive Record. A needed thing for Nuendo. No one wants to have to process 48 tracks on a million clips before they can leave to conform.
With the RAM overhead discovered with Nuendo 4/5, I can only see it as a problem as a recorder with it reaching a point where it F's up at a critical time.

Maybe it won't, but I wouldn't want to chance it.

When ever I need to do stem bounces at home, I pop it into Nuendo and bus it that way.

LEX

ProTools Native Hmm... A big job but highly do-able.
They seem to be having a problem going the next step in a timely manner...sound familiar! :)
MADI should have been there long ago.
The Euphonix purchase is a major deal. It says they are and will continue to be a major player and spend money to do so!
Their destructive punch is also better than Tascam/Timeline Tapemode in functionality and track count.
Protools fiber options using CommandSoft's Fiberjet software works great. I've tested 3 MacPro PT 48 track recorders all punching in over existing material at the same time to the same RAID 5
The RAID box showed 10 percent activity....Worked great but you must have Fiberjet to trick PT into thinking its local storage.

[MattiasNYC]

All AES. All Digital. Only Analog path is the speaker which comes out the system 5 via a Euphonix 703 DA converter.

LEX

Sorry, but this is confusing. What's the signal flow?

You mentioned recording into different devices, the DA98 and PT......

[LEX]

Sorry, but this is confusing. What's the signal flow?

You mentioned recording into different devices, the DA98 and PT......

Everything connected to the S5 is digital. All going through a Euphonix AES converter over MADI.

Everything on the console goes through the control room insert (5.1) into said recording device. All clocked to the same source.

The only analog chain in the console is the speaker system. MADI goes to the Analog 703 converter, then 524 Mon Comms box, which feeds the speaker systems.

LEX

[MattiasNYC]

So the are you using the DA98 and PT as recorders only then? With the mixing done on the Euphonix? Because I'm not seeing where the summing is being done...

[LEX]

So the are you using the DA98 and PT as recorders only then? With the mixing done on the Euphonix? Because I'm not seeing where the summing is being done...

Tascam 2424, Dolby DMU, DA98 and PT are the recorders.

The Euphonix is the sum and monitor. All summing is being done through the Euphonix whether it be stems or 5.1 and LtRt.

There is a slight difference between the 2424 stem recorder and the direct channels directly from PT to the console.
The return is less bright. Warmer if you will. Alot more pleasant.

With the 5.1 returns of 2424, PT, DMU or the DA98, PT output is far brighter and more brittle then the rest.

In comparing stems played back from PT or the 2424, it is the same way.
No summing, just direct to bus from channels, and returns (paddles) of the 2424.

Since most of the bigger stages use PT as a recorder as well for stems and PM, they have the advantage since it is bright both ways, and they can trim the top end down a bit.

I don't even want to go into internal summing in PT as it is awful. The only ones who are "shocked" at my comment are those who mix directly in the box.
Its really only those who can A/B a multitude of record mediums that can compare and hear the difference.

LEX

[MattiasNYC]

Well if you're only running 1's and 0's digitally in and out of Pro Tools and the DA98 then clearly there is no difference between the two. If there is there's an actual error going on somewhere, and it by definition can't be the summing. So to use that as an example of "poor summing" seems like..... voodoo... (or nonsense)....

[funkcity]

Poor Summing...
On the Scoring Stage at Fox we never summed in the box. It was always through the analog Neve 88R.
On the dub stage when we summed in the box the results were quite a bit different than if you were to go AES only through the AMS DFC.
We actually had to untwist some mixes that were done in the box and remix through a real console!

Here is anther deal, it seems that sounds that are lowered in the mix no longer speak until they are pulled forward. (louder) I don't know how you quantify that?
So yes its harder to create the full sonic image if you will. I know mixers that purposely slightly pan the dialog of different characters in the scene slightly off from one another just to carve out a sonic space that seemed to be OK in the analog days!....but not now...Go figure!

All of the top dubbing and scoring mixers know and hear this degradation. They use Antelope Audio(expensive) clocks (This makes an audible difference with PT !)
and custom converters and relegate PT to a simple recorder only on the scoring stage.
Usually a feature film score is at 96K and this too helps capture the music in it's best form.

You cannot deny the flexibility and functionality of doing it ALL in the box.
It's extremely friendly and powerful and addictive. However, until the sound quality comes around the top golden ears ain't buyin' it.
..... And neither am I.

[Animus]

What do you are think of Cubendo's summing engine comparatively then?

[funkcity]

Good question...I'm not going to have a good answer here.
With my Tascam FW-1884....not good
With A Steinberg MR816...much better
Through a Harrison Digital console using RME MADI..we didn't use the Steinberg summing.. Hmm..
It would be a good test though one day. The general consensus is that its better but you need a really dense mix with lots going on to test it.

[LEX]

Poor Summing...
On the Scoring Stage at Fox we never summed in the box. It was always through the analog Neve 88R.
On the dub stage when we summed in the box the results were quite a bit different than if you were to go AES only through the AMS DFC.
We actually had to untwist some mixes that were done in the box and remix through a real console!

Here is anther deal, it seems that sounds that are lowered in the mix no longer speak until they are pulled forward. (louder) I don't know how you quantify that?
So yes its harder to create the full sonic image if you will. I know mixers that purposely slightly pan the dialog of different characters in the scene slightly off from one another just to carve out a sonic space that seemed to be OK in the analog days!....but not now...Go figure!

All of the top dubbing and scoring mixers know and hear this degradation. They use Antelope Audio(expensive) clocks (This makes an audible difference with PT !)
and custom converters and relegate PT to a simple recorder only on the scoring stage.
Usually a feature film score is at 96K and this too helps capture the music in it's best form.

You cannot deny the flexibility and functionality of doing it ALL in the box.
It's extremely friendly and powerful and addictive. However, until the sound quality comes around the top golden ears ain't buyin' it.
..... And neither am I.

Well at least I'm not the only one who can hear it.

This 1's and 0's BS is fine on paper, but not on the stage. The difference is clear and audible.

And my stage isn't incorrect either.

LEX

[MattiasNYC]

Good question...I'm not going to have a good answer here.
With my Tascam FW-1884....not good
With A Steinberg MR816...much better
Through a Harrison Digital console using RME MADI..we didn't use the Steinberg summing.. Hmm..
It would be a good test though one day. The general consensus is that its better but you need a really dense mix with lots going on to test it.

Uhm, neither the FW nor the MR does summing though, right? So really what you're comparing is the converters.

I'm really struggling to comprehend why it is that people that work with this for a living have such a hard time even understanding what they're comparing.

[MattiasNYC]

Well at least I'm not the only one who can hear it.

This 1's and 0's BS is fine on paper, but not on the stage. The difference is clear and audible.

If two strings of numbers are exactly identical they "sound" the same. That's a very simple concept. I mean, it's not even up for debate. This is a technical and mathematical certainty.

Now, you're first saying that Pro Tools summing isn't good enough, and then when you explain the workflow it turns out you're not using summing at all - hardly compelling reasoning.

Secondly, if you say that "1's and 0's BS is fine on paper, but not on the stage" then clearly you don't grasp the concept I'm hinting at. If the digital audio stream between the recorders is the same then it'll sound the same - unless there's an error somewhere in the process, or something ELSE that is contributing to the difference.

The latter would be if the recorders clock differently for example, and it affects the sound. If that's the case then fine, that's a valid argument, but it has nothing to do with summing.

A studio I worked with wanted me to mix a record and the artist who made the decision was choosing between me, another engineer who also produced a few tracks (he was on Nuendo) and yet another engineer who had moved down to Nashville (and is doing quite well). I got a call one day from the Nuendo engineer who asked me about something the artist had asked him about.....

Basically, when talking to the Nashville engineer the artist was told that the engineer had an Alesis Masterwhateverthey're called that gave the final mixes more width. So the Nuendo engineer asked me what I thought about it. I said it's bullshit. Because it is. I then later met the Nashville engineer and he told me, seriously, to my face, that what he claimed was true. He basically went digital out of PT into the Alesis, and it then sounded better somehow. Problems:

1) PT already summed the signal. So the only thing he was doing was transferring the digital stream to Alesis. No change there.

2) He was recording onto the Alesis hard drive, so clocking was not an issue.

3) He claimed that PT somehow perhaps couldn't keep up when recording the final file during bouncing. The hard drives would be "taxed" heavily or something. Uhm, ok. So then where is that limit? Is it when you're recording (bouncing) stereo tracks to a disc drive from a session with 24 tracks? With 48 tracks? 77? When does this happen? After all, if you can't trust it during mixdown, which is only recording 2 new tracks, how can you trust it when tracking 24 sources simultaneously?

4) Digital errors are either correlated to the signal or not. I have a hard time seeing how a hard-drive would make errors during reading/writing that would correlate to the information in the digital stream. How would the drive know what the stream "means"? It's much more likely that a hard-drive error would result in clicks/pops or dropouts rather than a change in "width".

5) I tested it. Recorded to DAT via digital 1-2 out of PT. Then recorded back into PT. Invert one, sum, and ZERO.

So forgive me if I am critical of these claims when they show up.

Oh, and on summing: As far as I have seen the differences in summing between various digital summing engines occur so far down in the audio that it's likely covered by dither or room noise. So even though there may be a difference it won't be audible, by definition.

[kdm]

Uhm, neither the FW nor the MR does summing though, right? So really what you're comparing is the converters.

That is correct.

I've seen many "summing tests" incorrectly keep other variables in the process, such as converters, or a variation within the analog listening path, or different clocks, or adding an analog two-channel path through a console that isn't used for DAW playback, etc. The only way to compare summing is through one high end converter, with all digital from each source, same pan law within DAWs, all locked to the same clock. I can guarantee you a console's summing (certainly analog, and even digital as well) will sound different from a DAW's direct output to a monitor.

Even just the inherent frequency response characteristics within analog will alter the sound audibly by comparison.

Just my opinion here (though I'm pretty certain I am right) - determining what the differences are, should and likely will lead one to understand whether the difference is actually "better" for some application or technical reason, or just different because of inherent differences in each channel's path affecting the sound of the mix itself (in the case of summing several, or many tracks together). I've heard complaints about DAWs "falling apart" with dense mixes, but when I hear a mix through a console, I hear the narrowing effect some console-channels have on summing, or simply EQ choices that can naturally reduce the denseness - something that can be done with EQ in a DAW (whether you want to or prefer one or the other is another matter). '

(Asking why a mix must be so dense that it would fall apart is another matter of arrangement, production and mix choices as there is only so much sonic space, no matter what mix method you use.)

Some differences are valid, such as smoother frequency response and EQ (high end analog chains), better stage width/depth from high end converters; but others are assumed "better/worse" without understanding the inherent differences of the two methods are going to sound significantly different "out of the box", but not necessarily if treated differently when mixing.

Digital isn't perfect, but analog isn't either - but for different reasons. Any comparison should quantify those differences. It just makes good engineering sense to me to not simply say, A or B is "better", period.

[funkcity]

Uh M2...
That is what I have listened through with Nuendo. Actually my experience is various Tascam and M-Audio boxes, MADI Yamaha DM2000, and MADI Harrison MPC Digital.
All of my pro work is ProTools so I have a much better experience base to draw from. And wasn't this thread about ProTools anyway !!
I did not say I'd have a good answer for Cubendo!!

A proper shootout is not what this thread is about.

<<<< I'm really struggling to comprehend why it is that people that work with this for a living have such a hard time even understanding what they're comparing. >>>
That's bullshhit and you know it!!
The typical ITB mixer will say this because they are so used to the sound that it's just fine.

I've done some tests for low end bass fidelity. I really didn't want to think that 24 bit would sound better....but it did! And theoretically the only improvement should have been noise floor.
Why does an oven temp/controlled clock sound better than a standard crystal clock... the jitter in parts per million should not make a difference and who knows what the receiving word clock inputs and their circuitry are doing... But with ProTools it absolutely does, sonically, to everyone in the room. It makes a difference! It ain't all ones and zeros! Just ask the plugin developers.

[kdm]

I've done some tests for low end bass fidelity. I really didn't want to think that 24 bit would sound better....but it did!

24-bit isn't just about noise floor - there is also better resolution for dynamic range as well, so that isn't unexpected.


And theoretically the only improvement should have been noise floor.
Why does an oven temp/controlled clock sound better than a standard crystal clock... the jitter in parts per million should not make a difference and who knows what the receiving word clock inputs and their circuitry are doing... But with ProTools it absolutely does, sonically, to everyone in the room. It makes a difference! It ain't all ones and zeros! Just ask the plugin developers.

That may very well make a difference on less stable clocks, of which there used to be quite many. Now, clocks have improved significantly even in some lower end gear, but even then, simply temp-controlling the circuit can lower heat and decrease the crystal's tendancy to wander around it's frequency variance/tolerance range - the better the crystal, the smaller that variance - and the better the remainder of the clock circuit board, the better that clock is transmitted to surrounding locked devices, such as ADs and DAs. Circuit (SMT usually) boards will operate better cooled than running hot as well.

But this isn't the sound of ProTools itself - it's the converter you are clocking. According to Mytek's developer, internal clocks will always outperform external clock unless the internal clock simply sucks - the reason is there is no jitter due to the phase locked loop required with external sync, so everything you externally sync is subject to some jitter, and that isn't just dependent on the quality of the master clock, but the PLL in the slave device.

[MattiasNYC]

Uh M2...
That is what I have listened through with Nuendo. Actually my experience is various Tascam and M-Audio boxes, MADI Yamaha DM2000, and MADI Harrison MPC Digital.
All of my pro work is ProTools so I have a much better experience base to draw from. And wasn't this thread about ProTools anyway !!
I did not say I'd have a good answer for Cubendo!!

A proper shootout is not what this thread is about.

If you're going to argue that the summing engine is "bad", and then claim that the evidence for it is the difference in converters, the you simply don't know what you're talking about. That's all I'm saying.


<<<< I'm really struggling to comprehend why it is that people that work with this for a living have such a hard time even understanding what they're comparing. >>>
That's bullshhit and you know it!!
The typical ITB mixer will say this because they are so used to the sound that it's just fine.

It's not bullshit, you just proved it!. It has absolutely nothing to do with what system you are working on, analog or digital. It has to do with the ability to analyse something.

And by the way; I never claimed that I "like" the "sound" of ITB summing when compared to analog summing. It's not about that. It's about testing methodology.


I've done some tests for low end bass fidelity. I really didn't want to think that 24 bit would sound better....but it did! And theoretically the only improvement should have been noise floor.

And an "improvement" in noise floor wouldn't make it "sound better"? Of course it would. What does this have to do with the summing engine?


Why does an oven temp/controlled clock sound better than a standard crystal clock... the jitter in parts per million should not make a difference and who knows what the receiving word clock inputs and their circuitry are doing... But with ProTools it absolutely does, sonically, to everyone in the room. It makes a difference!

I never denied that. But what does this have to do with the summing engine?


It ain't all ones and zeros!

I never said it was.


Just ask the plugin developers.

What does this have to do with the summing engine?

[TAFKAT]

:pop_corn:

[efernan]

IMHO, the most prominent variable when comparing different mixing "engines" (even analog, while not overloading/distorting) is the pan law. Anyway, all this was already debated to death. Check 3D Audio, Inc.

[MattiasNYC]

IMHO, the most prominent variable when comparing different mixing "engines" (even analog, while not overloading/distorting) is the pan law. Anyway, all this was already debated to death. Check 3D Audio, Inc.

+1.

[LEX]

While I don't want to get into a HUGE debate about this, I feel there are somethings to be said.

There are analog purists and digital purists.
Analog purists swear that digital can never match.
Digital purists say there is no difference in ANY digital recording.

I have started to wonder the concept of "how people hear" and what that means when they are listening.

When is comes to the digital purist, I often wonder if they really even listen as their stance is all 1's and 0's are the same.

That got me wondering. If all 1's and 0's are the same, then why do digital photographs look different with the same resolution?

Why is there more warmth and detail from a Fugi camera then there is with a Sony, taken at the same time, yet it is grainy and slightly washed out.

Digital Film is different too. Why do film makers chose one over the other. RED is killer, yet some prefer another format.

Are you telling me that digital video with it's 1's and 0's should be the same as any other camera?

People see the difference. As well some people can hear the difference too. It is easier visually, but much more difficult auditory.

So I say, those who can't hear a difference falls into 2 places.
1) you just can't hear
2) you just don't want to hear.

This whole debate of "difference" goes back to the analog days. Certain tape sounded different, or "better" than other tape.
Now was is a "psycho acoustic" hearing thing? No. Some people were probably able to hear the difference.

But, there is a difference. Throw all the tests over, claims over you want. Phase cancel until your balls are blue.

But, whether you hear it or not, or just dont have that kind of hearing ability there are differences.

Through my studies of sound, I've realized what I hear is shapes.
As I've listen through many things, when comparing, I hear the shape of the sound, particularly a specific sound.
Might be round, pointy, square even. I can hear it.
Maybe most can't.

I read back through this back to the 1's and 0's thing. Okay. 1's and 0's.

You have fixed point and floating point. Are they the same?
If they were they'd just be point, right.

So what happens when you run fixed point into floating point? Things change.
What happens when you run fixed, to float back to fixed?
It is in the math.

Look it doesn't take an idiot to realize the floating point sounds better. A mathematician can tell you why.

So, you either follow the math of 1's and 0's or you can actually hear the difference.
Panning laws have nothing to do with it.

If all 1's and 0's are the same, then tell me why are digital photo's different? Why are there "better" 1's and 0's cameras?
You know and I know that there is a difference visually.

Why is audio any different? It isn't.!

LEX

[Vinark]

Lex
I wholeheartedly agree with you on hearing the difference but the camera analogy is somewhat flawed I think. At this point cameras are only 12 bit at best and most consumer cameras much less then 8 bit (per colour). It's a lot of work to get a decent picture from that, which uses lots of algorithms, different for every camera and brand.
Audio AD conversion is lightyears ahead of video and differences are much bigger with imaging because of this. It's more like audio restoration. You have a very very bad recording and try to make the best of it with noise reduction and EQ and compression. Depending on the choices you or automatic software make you get different results, but it's always a compromise.
In a good room, with good mics etc we can make a recording that won't need any processing to sound great. With video/photo that is completely impossible, it's always sensor interpretation.
This said I don't like the sound of protools so I don't use it (composing musician here). What I read about it, it's simply the internal dithering, which is needed after every process in fixed point, in floating point this happens in a different way and at a much lower level (floating level....)
Vincent

[Daryl]

If the 1s and 0s are the same for digital film it will look the same. If it doesn't then the 1s and 0s are just not the same.

D

[Vinark]

Not really true either. As soon as a picture has a different resolution from the viewing resolution (eh always) Conversion has to be done and there are lot of choices there (sharpness versus detail versus anti aliasing etc).
And all camera sensors record 12 bits (with sometimes much less the 8 bits of useful info due to noise) and all monitors are 8bit, choices again. Granted a 8 bit tif with identical resolution to the viewing resolution should look the same in all software..... but does it? No way, all programs have different ideas about monitor calibration and translation.
As I said digital audio is way ahead and way purer then photo/video. And sound from a speaker much closer to reality then pictures on a monitor. Really, although the processes involved are comparable to some level, the accuracy isn't at all. Pictures are more related to painting then to reality. Sound is a reality..... which is why I love music I guess.

[Daryl]

Not really true either. As soon as a picture has a different resolution from the viewing resolution (eh always) Conversion has to be done and there are lot of choices there (sharpness versus detail versus anti aliasing etc).

And therefore the 1s and 0s are not the same. :wink:

D

[Vinark]

Wasn't that the discussion? If you put an audio file into a daw are the ones and zeros coming out the same for all daws? According to Lex's ears not.....
otherwise we are just saying, if everything is the same, it is the same


Which it never is ofcourse, we are in a ever changing place in the galaxy:icon_yes::icon_no::palm:

[Daryl]

Wasn't that the discussion? If you put an audio file into a daw are the ones and zeros coming out the same for all daws? According to Lex's ears not.....
otherwise we are just saying, if everything is the same, it is the same


Which it never is ofcourse, we are in a ever changing place in the galaxy:icon_yes::icon_no::palm:
I understand what you're saying, but in order to quantify the 1s and 0s coming out of a DAW one would have to re-record them externally. If you get identical 1.s and 0s then there is no difference in sound. However, you also have to be sure that wheat you are hearing is exactly the same as the file that is exported, if you use the mixdown (or bounce, depending on the DAW) function. That is where things could change, IMO. The only way that I can see if working one way or the other is to feed the mix into an external recorder from all DAWs being tested, and then test those files.

D

[kstevege]

So, you either follow the math of 1's and 0's or you can actually hear the difference.
Panning laws have nothing to do with it.

If all 1's and 0's are the same, then tell me why are digital photo's different? Why are there "better" 1's and 0's cameras?
You know and I know that there is a difference visually.

Why is audio any different? It isn't.!

LEX

What is ironic is that ultimately everything interpreted by the senses to the brain is coded. In essence the signals sent to the brain, whether they be termed "analog" or "digital" are merely conversions of waveforms (vibrations, energy) which in essence can be broken down into 1's and 0's. Both analog and digital representions are intermedial interpretors of the original source of information, which essentialy screens the original source information. So the question is, what is the digital source recording/not recording that analog is/isn't and vice versa? Is digital recording a broader scope of the wave spectrum?

[OpenMind]

If all 1's and 0's are the same, then tell me why are digital photo's different? Why are there "better" 1's and 0's cameras?
You know and I know that there is a difference visually.
That's simple... Pick-up (image chip) and conversion.

[MattiasNYC]

Wow,

Look, there are two hats audio engineers wear....

On the one hand there's the issue of just getting the job done and making things sound great. I have no doubt that some engineers that I completely disagree with on this issue do great sounding work, just like there are others I agree with that create sub-par work. But the other issue is the actual engineering part of things. Just because you or those you like happened to be pretty good at electronics and had a good understanding of analog clearly doesn't mean that they do of digital.

So here we are, and what I'm saying is that we should be careful with what information we put out there. Not that the world will end or anything, but spreading misinformation or unsubstantiated stuff is hardly productive. If we want to talk about the subjective, fine, let's do that. But if we want to put on our "actual engineering hat" then we should be accurate.

Now, the major problem I have is the line of reasoning people take. I'm not a person that thinks all digital is all the same all the time and always sounds better than any analog. But let's be reasonable about it, ok? If we want to make a claim, then we should be able to prove it. It seems in this thread that as soon as people are urged to prove their claims they get struck by ADD and move on to another point which is completely different.

But let's start with proving what the problem is or is not. Let me give you an example:

Say you are in your studio working and all of a sudden you realize that the sound coming out of the speakers is distorting a little. You get your studio tech guy in there, and he says the problem is the wiring. You go, "uh, how would you know?", and he says "Because I worked in a different studio where they had different wiring and their sound didn't distort".

Is that a reasonable approach? Of course not. Because on its way to your ears the signal went from the playback medium (HD or tape) through processing through DA's through wiring through speaker/amp electronics and through cones... How would you know what the problem is if you don't test the components separately? It's true that "the sound is distorting", but it could be 100% untrue to say that the wiring is the problem.

So what's the reasonable and productive approach? Well, if you had at least one decent tech teacher then you'd know that it's to "dissect" the chain and test component by component.

So that's why some of your arguments break down into nonsense:

Claim: PT summing sounds bad.
Proof 1: I played back different DAWs and it sounded different.
Why it doesn't work as an argument: The DAWs all had different converters - how do you know what caused the difference?

Proof 2: I recorded into PTHD/DA98 and the return sounded different.
Why it doesn't work as an argument: How does that prove summing is different if you didn't use summing in the first place?

See?

Now, the next thing has to do with taking what someone says, and then answer something different but that sounds similar.

When "we" say that two identical files sound the same, then that's exactly what we mean. Of course files don't sound at all, but when played back in a DAW, all other things being equal, they sound the same if they contain the same information (1's / 0's). This isn't opinion, this is fact.

So the problem is when some then say; oh, well it doesn't sound all the same at all because this is fixed and that is float. Sorry, you're arguing something we haven't proposed. In that case the files wouldn't be the same in the first place, would they? It's basically setting up a strawman argument that is then shot down.

Lastly, and most importantly, are the consequences of what "we" are proposing:

1) If two files are equal, and all else is being equal in the playback chain, then ANY difference in perception MUST be attributed to something else.

The implications aren't subtle. If you run a test, such as the one I described in an earlier post (http://www.cubendo.com/showthread.php?2025-Protools-is-cracked-wide-open&p=26039#post26039) and the resulting files are identical, then there can be no difference. If someone still hears a difference, then what we have uncovered is not a technical difference, but a subjective bias and/or "hearing deficiency"!!!

2) That sometimes, if there is a difference, it is buried so far down in the noise floor that it's arguable that nobody can really tell the difference.

[MattiasNYC]

Here's another thing: let's use the camera analogy.....

Suppose we want to see if there's a difference between the printed photos taken from two cameras. For the sake of the argument let's assume that all parameters are equal, except for the quality of the pictures taken, i.e the subject is the same and we were able to shoot it exactly identically.

I run the experiment and have 99 people waiting in line as test subjects outside the room you're now sitting in. The room is lit perfectly and you have table in front of you. I tell you you will be shown two photographs, each from a different camera, and I want you to tell me what difference you see. You see me holding two photographs in my hands. I give you a blindfold to put on, and when I tell you, you uncover your eyes.

Now, what you see in front of you is one of the pictures I held in my hand. I tell you it's from a Nikon. You study it. When you're ready you put your blindfold back on, you hear me switch the photos, and then I tell you to take it off. I tell you that this now is the picture from the Canon.

Well, joke's on you, because I just shuffled the pictures and gave you the same one twice!

Question: Out of 100 people, how many do you think will say they saw a difference even though they were looking at the same thing?

As an experiment, I did a double blind comparing hardware Neve 33609 compressors and the UAD version. On top of that, further differences were induced by generating test files for the hardware on a PTHD system and the UAD files on Nuendo 4.x (all at high res). So hardware / fixed point / DAD conversion versus software / float / no conversion. Should be crystal clear differences, right? Not really.

The files were played back in a non-consistent sequence. So, A (analog), D (UAD), D, A, D, A, A for example. Results? People said they heard a difference between what ended up being the two different versions. BUT, they also heard a difference "between the same files"!

Question: Ever tweak an effect and thought you heard a change and it wasn't until you "turned the know" far enough you realized it was in bypass to begin with?


What can we learn? We can learn that our hearing is "flawed" because we allow our bias on certain topics to influence our perception.

[MattiasNYC]

Did they break 9 yet?....