View Full Version : If he has fight in him, this could get interesting. If he doesn't, it's all over.
RiffWraith
02-01-2009, 01:55 AM
http://cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=824849
Who is 'we' anyway?
Hehe, as much as I am over this debate - it still does provide me some good entertainment. A producer I work with was told by another engineer that "the maths is better in Protools"......since then we have done plenty of work in Nuendo and the maths has sounded fine :D - but I still make a point of letting him know how much I hate it when 5+5 sounds like 12 :rotfl:
MattiasNYC
02-01-2009, 02:11 AM
Quite frankly I don't see the point in your (RiffWraith) post (at Cubase.net).
His claim seems to be that there's no audible difference with "No Panning, all tracks set to 0dB, Master set to -20dB, no FX."
Do you disagree with that?
Arguing the opposite of the OP's premise is pointless. Most of us have done similar tests and null'd out the major DAWs. Arguing "real world" mix test comparisons is apples and oranges. Also a waste of time compared to making music.
1. Unity gain/no or full pan tests are the only true core summing tests.
2. Real world mix comparisons are as pointless as saying a Honda is a better car because you like to wear blue when you drive.
3. Any DAW can sound great, if you use great tracks, and great plugins and/or outboard gear. But, the operator can truly suck, regardless.
4. If any piece of gear sounds different than another comparable piece, it's better to know why it does, than try to prove that it does.
Jonesy
02-01-2009, 02:37 AM
I guess that a Daewoo, a Ford and an Aston Martin will all do pretty much the same thing traveling in a straight line at 60 km/hour too, but it doesn't tell the real story, does it?
It depends on what you think the "real story" is. If it's about getting from A to B, then they are all cars. If it's about the user interface, then they all allow for a different experience for different people. None of the above will make you a better driver though.
Jonesy
02-01-2009, 03:46 AM
There was a very interesting article published a couple of years ago by a computer geek that I have filed away but have not found again, it was a bit over my head, but basically it was about DAW's and why they can sound different. He described six or so unusual circumstances where a DAW's mathematics could come unstuck, such as wrapping very high numbers, which would lead to very different outcomes depending upon how the software was coded.
He basically said that doing general operations should lead to identical performance from every DAW, but that there are a lot of trickier situations that need the code to be very well thought out to operate gracefully, so it is likely that each DAW would handle things differently.
I am reminded of the issue with N2 with some plug-ins where the audio would start sounding like a motor boat when there was no input to the plug and the software did not know what value to assign. The work around was another plug-in to put a low noise floor into the audio chain.
My comment with the car analogy was not to say that one DAW is better than the other, but to point out the weakness of his testing methodology.
I am not a programmer, but I would like someone to explain to me what happens when a DAW has to add 2 or more numbers that total more that the DAW can count to at 32 or 64 bits? Does it lop the number off? Does it wrap the result? what are the options?
TAFKAT
02-01-2009, 04:49 AM
As soon as I read the first post I shook my head and laughed, oh no , not again.. :sleeping:
This has been beaten to death over at DAWbench with a lot of the members reading in and participating here, it comes up at least 3-4 times a year at G.S, so I am not going to join in the fray again except to say that those that believe the unity gain, zero panning test can be used to guage the "sound" of an audio engine , and that all DAW's sound the same is an argument that I will never find consensus with for wide and varied reasons, the simplest being that as soon as you move off unity gain, center pan, add an insert, etc , the subtleties of the varying mix engines will come into play, and the whole "methodology" goes out the window IMO.
Also the whole area of "sound" is so subjective , I am yet to see any discussion on the subject not end up in the combatants doing this ..:willy_nilly:
I'm with Sam on this one, for those more interested in the mathematics when it comes to "sound" , then more to power to them....
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/images/smilies/abduct.gif
Gary Glitter
02-01-2009, 08:57 AM
RiffWraith, you are a very feisty man and you love a good argument. I like this trait in you. Never afraid to question and stand by your views. I imagine your wife must suffer many a late night whilst you unleash your passion and masculine aggression upon her. Grrrrrrr RiffWraith. Rough beast. Very nice indeed. Your music on your site is superb. :icon_yes:
shanabit
02-01-2009, 09:47 AM
Fun to watch people completely wast time:pop_corn:
RiffWraith
02-01-2009, 10:55 AM
Your music on your site is superb. :icon_yes:
Well, thank you!
His claim seems to be that there's no audible difference with "No Panning, all tracks set to 0dB, Master set to -20dB, no FX."
Do you disagree with that?
If you read my post, you will see that I never disagreed with it. I only questioned how he arrived at the conclusions he did.
"I/we can not hear a difference". Well, just because you can't, doesn't mean there is none.
"I/we can not hear a difference". What qualifies you to be able to tell?
MattiasNYC
02-01-2009, 12:29 PM
There was a very interesting article published a couple of years ago by a computer geek that I have filed away but have not found again, it was a bit over my head, but basically it was about DAW's and why they can sound different. He described six or so unusual circumstances where a DAW's mathematics could come unstuck, such as wrapping very high numbers, which would lead to very different outcomes depending upon how the software was coded.
Kind'a sounds like nonsense to me... based on what you wrote...
He basically said that doing general operations should lead to identical performance from every DAW, but that there are a lot of trickier situations that need the code to be very well thought out to operate gracefully, so it is likely that each DAW would handle things differently.
"Likely" is a keyword there. It seems to me that most programmers and engineers have come to very similar conclusions about very few options for "doing it right". So I think it's actually the opposite - each daw does not handle things "their own way".
I am not a programmer, but I would like someone to explain to me what happens when a DAW has to add 2 or more numbers that total more that the DAW can count to at 32 or 64 bits? Does it lop the number off? Does it wrap the result? what are the options?
I don't know what "wrap" means, but there's plenty for you to read on the topic from quite knowledgeable people. My understanding is this:
1) The "basic" functions are so similar between DAW's that it's entirely futile to worry about any difference. Summing, panning etc may contribute a minor difference but it is of such a small magnitude that once you've dithered the end result there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Especially not if you're going to massacre it down to a 256k mp3 and listen to it on shitty headphones on the subway.....
2) The stuff that actually makes a difference is the sound of included plug-ins. A Nuendo EQ sounds different from a PT EQ etc. Pan-law differences also makes you perceive things differently. But all of this is pretty irrelevant too as many people use third party plugs, and even if they didn't a skilled engineer could achieve pretty much the same result anyways. It's a matter of work-flow and how you do things rather than quality.
I am not a programmer, but I would like someone to explain to me what happens when a DAW has to add 2 or more numbers that total more that the DAW can count to at 32 or 64 bits? Does it lop the number off? Does it wrap the result? what are the options?
I was a programmer for many years, starting with Z80 Assembler, which I taught myself before the age of the internet. Inside Cubendo, AFAIK all math is done with 32-bit floating point, which can be performed by the internal FPU of your machine's microprocessor. It is unlikely that one machine's FPU does inferior floating point than another. The only variable would be the conversion to integer, which again is an unlikely point of contention. Unless some grievous error has been coded in and not identified (again, very unlikely), then there isn't likely to be any deviation in the math between audio engines.
Well, in my testing I found this.
Using the Same Nuendo session.
The AMD chips have a much warmer sound, but slightly smeared top.
The Intel Chips have a thicker bottom and clear top.
So I guess depending on your taste, you can chose the CPU that will yield more toward your liking because of each chips "math".
LEX
Sound Drifter
02-01-2009, 04:15 PM
interesting.... I always wondered why I prefer mixing R&B on my intel machine.:eusa_whistle:
The AMD chips have a much warmer sound, but slightly smeared top.
The Intel Chips have a thicker bottom and clear top.
Oh of course - which is why I prefer the current Core2Quads, etc over AMDs. Did you also notice the difference in imaging when using a faster FSB? I also prefer Mushkin or Corsair ram over most other brands - it seems to enhance the clarity of Intel chips a bit more.
The Guru
02-01-2009, 04:33 PM
You guys are all wet. Everyone knows it's the Flux Capacitor brand the controls the sound quality. :icon_rolleyes::098::iconyfcys3::D
TAFKAT
02-01-2009, 05:55 PM
..ahhh yes, but you guys are missing one other critical ingredient as well, the brand of hard drive , everyone knows WD sound warmer , with Less Squawk , More Boom ©
Not to mention the quality of the power cable .. :eusa_whistle:
BTW: Can't wait for those dudes who bought those analog summing amps because PT didn't have the required headroom, also we know by the shear volume of reliable first had accounts over the years that many in Nashville who track in PT, will mix in Nuendo because of the superior summing engine.. :icon_yes:
Everyone who is really in the know, knows that the real determination of audio quality is your power supply.
No, I am not kidding.
Power supply is important, but what power substation your studio is near is even more important, but you'll pay a premium in rent/mortgage there. People think real estate prices go up because of mountain views, popularity or beach front proximity, but it really all hinges on the quality of that area's power substation.
Audiocave
02-01-2009, 09:37 PM
Arguing the opposite of the OP's premise is pointless. Most of us have done similar tests and null'd out the major DAWs. Arguing "real world" mix test comparisons is apples and oranges. Also a waste of time compared to making music.
True. My point to him with summing is that summing is not a test of the "core audio engine"... it's only a test of the 'summing math' of the audio engine. If that's all an audio engine ever did was sum then ... it might mean something much more valuable. Of course they do much more than that. My only reason for entering those kinds of threads is to maybe help stop them. Good luck with that one.
I agree though, it's a huge waste of time. People will always think some particular daw or another is 'broken' and that's why their mixes don't sound like Bruce Swieden's. :rotfl:
But come on, it's the Internet. Many (if not most) Internet discussions eventually become pointless re-hashes. :D
Well, Vin is right. WD's sound warmer.
Don;t forget to use a Sharpie (Balck) and color your Pins.
Big difference.
When you are done, and have your master, take a green sharpie and draw around the horizontal edge of the CD to retain the low end.
Poop always helps too.
LEX
Here is my response.
http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=825282#825282
LEX
I poop modded my U47 and it definitely improved the bottom end....
TerryG
02-02-2009, 01:27 AM
Fun to watch people completely wast time:pop_corn:
I suppose if watching other people waste their time is your entertainment, you're not wasting your time watching them....
but, wouldn't you rather be wasting your time somewhere else looking for something more entertaining?
MODS: my apologies for adding any life to this nonsense thread, but this comment was too funny to ignore.
shanabit
02-02-2009, 02:40 AM
I suppose if watching other people waste their time is your entertainment, you're not wasting your time watching them....
but, wouldn't you rather be wasting your time somewhere else looking for something more entertaining?
MODS: my apologies for adding any life to this nonsense thread, but this comment was too funny to ignore.
I am in fact wasting my time watching others waste time, how sad is that LOL
Now you know how bored I am hahah. time to hit a movie:pop_corn:
good catch Terry:wink:
TAFKAT
02-09-2009, 05:58 PM
.. for those with a spare few minutes and some brain cells to spare..
Check out one of the original Summing threads at G.S that was just resurrected Here (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/178659-daw-summing-comparison-new-testing-angle-3.html)
Its another train wreck, but I just can't look away..
:pop_corn:
TAFKAT
02-09-2009, 06:21 PM
Nate,
I did say a few spare minutes and some brain cells to spare.. :eusa_whistle:
Sound Drifter
02-09-2009, 07:08 PM
Why the personal attack for a comment on the subject in general, Vin?:eusa_eh:
:icon_cry:
Cmon, Nate. Cheer up! :leghump:
TAFKAT
02-09-2009, 07:32 PM
Why the personal attack for a comment on the subject in general, Vin?:eusa_eh:
Good grief Nate, lighten up.. , it was a joke.
Seems you can dish it out , but we need to walk around on egg shells around you.., lesson learned.
Feel free to ignore me in future please , I'll show you the same courtesy..
TAFKAT
02-09-2009, 07:40 PM
.. :D
Better ?
:009:
if only we had had little popup smilies to use in life - then we could attain world peace for sure....
:D
if only we had had little popup smilies to use in life - then we could attain world peace for sure....
:D
If only everyone was not so insecure or maddeningly cocksure we could attain Nirvana. We could go on...
Sound Drifter
02-10-2009, 01:14 AM
Much.
Because of my post? :leghump: :nut:
2407WFPHC
02-10-2009, 06:49 AM
Well, in my testing I found this.
Using the Same Nuendo session.
The AMD chips have a much warmer sound, but slightly smeared top.
The Intel Chips have a thicker bottom and clear top.
So I guess depending on your taste, you can chose the CPU that will yield more toward your liking because of each chips "math".
LEX
The BIOS revision also affects the "math's" depth of field significantly - so make sure you try EVERY BIOS available for your motherboard to find the best sounding one for your setup. Each BIOS update should be accompanied by a fresh OS installation from the original XP install disc followed by critical listening sessions with SP1/SP2/SP3 as well (we all know how much different SP2 sounds from SP1 and SP3 - right?). It is a lengthy process and not well researched (you pretty much have to do the leg-work yourself), but well worth it if your ears are "good enough" to hear the differences.
And how could you forget about the soundcard drivers? :nono: You also have to test every soundcard driver with every possible BIOS/ServicePack combination if you are "serious" about your audio.
:willy_nilly: :willy_nilly:
The BIOS revision also affects the "math's" depth of field significantly - so make sure you try EVERY BIOS available for your motherboard to find the best sounding one for your setup. Each BIOS update should be accompanied by a fresh OS installation from the original XP install disc followed by critical listening sessions with SP1/SP2/SP3 as well (we all know how much different SP2 sounds from SP1 and SP3 - right?). It is a lengthy process and not well researched (you pretty much have to do the leg-work yourself), but well worth it if your ears are "good enough" to hear the differences.
And how could you forget about the soundcard drivers? :nono: You also have to test every soundcard driver with every possible BIOS/ServicePack combination if you are "serious" about your audio.
:willy_nilly: :willy_nilly:
WEll, Even number BIOS updates sound better than odd number updates.
LEX
WEll, Even number BIOS updates sound better than odd number updates.
LEX
Unless you're gay.
True North
02-11-2009, 02:15 AM
Unless you're gay.
But if your Bi then you can use both even and odd bios update numbers....:eusa_think:
TAFKAT
02-12-2009, 03:44 AM
O.K,
Getting this back on Topic,
The G.S thread took a twist with claims that lower buffer settings alter the sound of the plugins because they restricted the amount of time that the plugin had to crunch the required calculations... :nuts:
Whats even more interesting is that the persona suggesting that had some punters forming a conga line agreeing that they had experienced what he was suggesting ..
Proof positive that we will find our own truth..:icon_yes:
This whole psychosis surrounding this debate intrigues me, I find it interesting how it splits into 2 distinct camps, those that believe the nulling test is the end all, and others that are of the same opinion to mine which simply stated is that as soon as you use plugins , eq, move off unity gain, center pan, etc, i.e, what we actually do when using the DAW applications , all bets are off in regards to DAW's sounding the same..
I am betting this time next year we will still be .. :willy_nilly:
TerryG
02-12-2009, 04:19 AM
This whole psychosis surrounding this debate intrigues me, I find it interesting how it splits into 2 distinct camps, those that believe the nulling test is the end all, and others that are of the same opinion to mine which simply stated is that as soon as you use plugins , eq, move off unity gain, center pan, etc, i.e, what we actually do when using the DAW applications , all bets are off in regards to DAW's sounding the same..
I am betting this time next year we will still be .. :willy_nilly:
OK, I'll bite...
Null tests work to prove that a null is only possible when two identical files are played while one is in opposite phase yet perfect sync with its counterpart. And, any departure ie: pan, eq, plug-in chain, gain structure, etc, between files summed in different DAWS (or different channels within the same DAW) will eliminate the possibility of them being identical and thereby creating a null. This is not up for debate, it's mathematical physics.
Do DAWS sound different? Dumb question.
DAWS have different architectures that allow humans to alter the math and signal pathways differently, which results in different sound.
Sometimes the result is intentional by chosen degrees of coding (how accurate do we write the math short of +/- infinity?), sometimes a quirk by flaws in coding. In any case, human variables.
Is one better than another? Dumb question.
Humans will make varied subjective selections based on their circumstance.
In any case, this all becomes irrelevant when humans are reminded of the larger factor involving our individual perceptions: We are humans.
We all hear differently based on variables of age, environment, health, etc. Every modern specification of measureable distortion and bandwidth analysis exceeds the capacity of the human ear to distinguish.
Can you tell the difference between -107dB and -112dB? Of course not.
But, numbers on a spec sheet or comparing brand names will make you believe you can. We are human, so we are affected by the psychology.
Every time these types of hyperbolic debates arise, I like to offer up the fact that we can never truly reproduce the sound of 1968 simply because the parts per million of air pollutants had an obvious effect on the sound transmission through the air, and those pollutants are different now... not to mention the fluctuations in ambient temperature and barometric pressure of the control room during any given recording session back in the day... while factoring in the changing density of cigarette smoke versus marijuana on the frequency response after Charlie's last bong hit... just how deep do you want to go with all of this speculation, theory, and opinion???
The moral of the story:
Do what sounds good. If others like it too, you're on to something.
Cheers :icon_cool:
Personally, I will gladly forego imperfections or my personal preferences in tones, effects, or color of a mix in favor of simply liking the song. A perfectly mixed piece that sucks as a composition is shit no matter how much money was spent on creating it.
TAFKAT
02-12-2009, 04:42 AM
Null tests work to prove that a null is only possible when two identical files are played while one is in opposite phase yet perfect sync with its counterpart. And, any departure ie: pan, eq, plug-in chain, gain structure, etc, between files summed in different DAWS (or different channels within the same DAW) will eliminate the possibility of them being identical and thereby creating a null. This is not up for debate, it's mathematical physics.
No argument here Bro.. :wink:
The issue I have with the supporters of the null is gospel mantra, is that they use it to claim that all DAW's sound the same, which is fine within the confines of the strict parameters the test is done under, but mute in a musical or engineering sense for all of the reasons stated and agreed on.
In the end, we need to get back to being musicians and engineers, not bloody mathematicians..
The latest round at G.S was an interesting read in parts tho
:009:
colony nofi
02-12-2009, 07:24 AM
Hey Guys...
Ah, this old topic. My random 10pm thoughts after a long day. Not sure they are worth too much / adding anything. But hey...
Now, I certainly don't claim to have golden ears. I've mixed a few things in my day...some I'm proud of, others I'm not. I've used PT HD, DP, logic, the old trusty soundworkshop console, and Nuendo. If I listened back to some now, (where I might have forgotten what I mixed em with) the only one's I'd be able to identify for certain are the ones mixed on the desk. More often than not to tape. And that is VERY recognizable. Different paradigm altogether...different sound altogether.
But, as far as the different DAWS go, I'm very much in agreement with Terry. Asking if they sound different is the wrong question. Actually what you wrote Terry was one of the best posts I've seen on this topic.
Maths is maths. We know how that works (well, down to VERY VERY VERY small numbers). Psychological reactions / perceptions are another thing entirely.
So to my take on this :
Hypothetically....
Give me an album to mix.
Each track I'd mix two, three, four times. Never referring back to the previous mix - starting again each time.
Sometimes on the same DAW, sometimes on different.
I don't know a single person on the planet who could at the end of it tell me which song / which version was done on which DAW. I'd love to be proved wrong, but thats my take on it.
And really, it doesn't matter in the end if it sounds right. If it has that vibe...
Gotta go....
Cheers, B.
In the end, we need to get back to being musicians and engineers, not bloody mathematicians.
The irony of this is that as such, we are performing abstract mathematicians.
Can you tell the difference between -107dB and -112dB? Of course not.
But, numbers on a spec sheet or comparing brand names will make you believe you can. We are human, so we are affected by the psychology.
I disagree. If you have been aware of the psychology for any length of time, you can ignore the hyperbole. It's called cynicism, and it's a very human trait.
foxysounds
02-12-2009, 09:42 AM
I have to disagree with the sentiment that Maths is just Maths and all the DAWs will be the same in that respect.
As was previously pointed out, the floating point calculations will all take place inside the processor's FPU and should yield the same results for all DAWs. However, the audio being captured will have to be converted from the (e.g.) 24bit format of the audio card to the internal floating point format. For output to the audio card it will have to be converted back to 24bit (or similar). I would be willing to bet that the bulk of the code for most DAWs is written in C or C++ and these languages give a degree of control over how such conversions are performed. In fact they give more control than most C/C++ programmers even realise. I have been programming for years and now lead a team of programmers and my experience is that for every 4 C programmers in a team only 1 will really know the language intimately and the others will make mistakes which, without thorough code reviews will go unnoticed for years (and I'm talking about seasoned professionals here - not rookies).
Also, I believe I'm right in saying that PT, unlike the other DAWs does not use floating point internally. This will certainly make a difference.
Among the floating point DAWs I would be astonished if they all do the maths identically. However, having said that, any difference is likely to be miniscule and of course, in the next release they might fix a bug in the audio engine (and probably introduce 2 more in the process). Unless there are obviously audible problems, comparing them is therefore rather pointless IMHO.
Simon.
Chances are that they are using the same compiler anyways, which means that the maths will be performed in a similar, if not identical fashion.
TerryG
02-12-2009, 02:51 PM
I disagree. If you have been aware of the psychology for any length of time, you can ignore the hyperbole. It's called cynicism, and it's a very human trait.
Sure, and that cynicism is why I have no problem using Behringer gear if it gets the job done for anyone who can't afford the moon.
It's specs and capabilities are well beyond anything available when the majority of the most successful recordings of all time were created.
It all comes down to artistic and musical talent. Nobody can discern the brand of mixer or converter or DAW in the end.
TAFKAT
02-12-2009, 04:21 PM
It all comes down to artistic and musical talent. Nobody can discern the brand of mixer or converter or DAW in the end.
+1.
I have heard some amazing work completed on entry level DAW applications / hardware , while at the same time hearing absolute dog piles created by others who believe in the motto that who ever has the most expensive and largest array of gear wins. The later who inevitably had wooden ears, so all the gear couldn't save them from delivering a polished turd :eusa_whistle:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.