jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 8 Sound Different (sound setting help) SOLVED
Hey, First of all this isn't a true Cakewalk VS Cubase topic and don't want to start any arguments but it is something that has troubled me for 8 years with varying versions of Cubase and is solved with Cakewalk and wanted to hopefully find out why. A quick bit about us. Basically my Dad has been in music since the 60's in various bands and in the 70's to late 80's he worked for EMI as a producer and then got out of music for a while. I am now learning from him. We have tried various audio interfaces ranging from MOTU's to Focusrite and have settled on RME Raydats and AIO cards in a self built computer. Basically we have spent years in Cubase and the sounds whether they are recorded audio or VST instruments always sounded distant and thin sounding. We thought that maybe it was just us so we got some old 24 Track Tape Reels out and listened to them and the sounds instantly sounded more up front and thicker sounding. We tried everything to try and solve this switching mixing desks, computer parts, cables, checked for phasing, khz, bitrates, making sure everything is synced properly etc etc and just could never get it. I spent a good few months talking to RME trying suggested things from their support but could never get it right. We assumed that it was one of the downsides of digital recording. I purchased Cakewalk Sonar X3 really to see what it was like not expecting anything different in the audio department but it was instantly apparent that when I plugged a guitar in it was more upfront and fuller sounding. I tried it on various computers with different interfaces and this was the same on all of them. When mixing you don't end up battling to get the mix you want. I have also tried Presonus Studio One 3 and this is exactly the same as Cubase, thin sounding. The question is why would this be the case? Is it something setup wrong in Cubase and Presonus or is it that the Audio Engine in Cakewalk is far better? Again I'm trying not to Bash Cubase or start fanboy wars but it can't be helped. I'm more trying to bring it to peoples attention If you need to know anything else please ask :) Kind Regards Joe
post edited by jmd87 - 2015/07/17 09:04:32
- Sonar X3 Producer, Windows 7 64bit, 2 x 6 core Xeon E5, 48GB Ram - RME AIO, Cakewalk UM3G - Kontakt 5, Halion 5, Omnisphere, Waves, Addictive Drums 1/2, Superior Drummer, Battery, FM8, Absynth, Roland JV1080 etc - Adam AX7 Monitors, JBL 4311B Monitors, Beyerdynamic dt 770 pro Headphones, Sony MDR-7506 Headphones
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 09:20:34
(permalink)
Without getting into the technical ins and outs they should sound the same if no fx are involved.
The way to check this is to create an audio file in one program and then export it and import it into the other. Having the 2 tracks lined up now invert the phase of one. They should cancel out and you should hear nothing.
Then do the reverse and create some audio in the other program and do the same export it and import into the other program. Repeat the steps
If the files don't null then the difference is some noise coming from somewhere.
My experience in lots of DAWs is that they null. If you dig deep enough there'll be a reason why you hear differences.
In the end it's al 0 & 1 s
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 09:26:34
(permalink)
Hi,
Thanks for the reply :)
We have all ready tried that one with a clean guitar signal recorded straight in and you didn't need to export it to hear the difference but will try this in a mo.
And did the same with Addictive drums 2 in cubase and Cakewalk and again could hear it straight away.
Any other suggestions? :)
Kind Regards
Joe
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 09:34:01
(permalink)
Also don't be worry about going into Tech Talk. I do freelance computer programming as a side line so It doesn't phase me :)
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 09:35:20
(permalink)
Maybe the volume levels are differing?
If you are using an RME, you can use DigiCheck to assert that the volume levels sent to the speakers from the two programs are the same. Some DAWs build in some headroom, making the output seem a little quieter. In otherwords, clip lights blink before you have a digital clip ... as a warning really.
So, from Sonar play a track and note the DigiCheck EBU Meter levels for the track. Then listen to the same from the other program. Do the meters read the same for both?
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 09:36:50
(permalink)
Ears can lie. Math doesn't.
I'll bet anything that there's some hidden eq setting or something you've missed. In the final analyses they all (DAWs) sound the same when it comes out the 2 bus.
It's what you do inside that makes the difference.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 09:37:00
(permalink)
Hi,
Thanks for the reply. This is one of the first things RME asked me to try and there seemed to be know issues there either :/
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 09:58:10
(permalink)
mudgel
Ears can lie. Math doesn't.
I'll bet anything that there's some hidden eq setting or something you've missed. In the final analyses they all (DAWs) sound the same when it comes out the 2 bus.
It's what you do inside that makes the difference.
Hi, thanks for the reply. There is a difference. I have scoured through Cubase and checked nothing is turned on just a straight feed in and out. I've spent alot of time trying everything suggested solution in the past (before I got cakewalk a few weeks ago) everything from installing fresh versions of windows so there's no possible junk of the system. I've checked volumes etc etc. If it is the case that it should sound the same why do people say that Protools is a bit brittle sounding and Logic is warmer sounding due to the audio engines used? (this isn't a dig at you at all more a question really) Kind Regards Joe
|
gswitz
Max Output Level: -18.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5694
- Joined: 2007/06/16 07:17:14
- Location: Richmond Virginia USA
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 10:11:16
(permalink)
I'm not one of the people who expects any difference in sound. If I record 1001001 and play it back without effect, I expect to get back 1001001. Audio Engine should only be a means to write it to disk and read it back after if there are no effects in the chain. Once you start adding FX, all bets are off. The RME you are using doesn't have Pre amps, right? So are you using different Pre Amps? That should make a pretty good difference if you are. Microphones? Mic placement? What does your dad say? Sounds like he has some skills and he's on site.
post edited by gswitz - 2015/07/05 10:19:14
StudioCat > I use Windows 10 and Sonar Platinum. I have a touch screen. I make some videos. This one shows how to do a physical loopback on the RME UCX to get many more equalizer nodes.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 10:27:40
(permalink)
I had this happen to me with Samplitude. It turned out I was using the Sam audio ASIO driver. In Sonar I was using the WDM driver that came with my interface. When I switched the Sam driver to the right WDM drive there was no difference. Cubase has a generic ASIO driver and it may not work well for your interface. See what happens with a different driver. Not all drivers are equal. Personally I believe Sonar has better driver support than may other DAWs. Here is the tread I started about this. http://forum.cakewalk.com...0-better-m3234755.aspx
post edited by John - 2015/07/05 10:37:44
|
Pragi
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1173
- Joined: 2010/09/19 11:46:59
- Location: Village of the sun
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 10:38:40
(permalink)
Hi, your experience with q- base is similar to mine : After logic (Emagic) finished the support for windows based systems in 2003 I checked several sequencer to get the ( nearly ) same sound, and, more important to me, the workflow and never had the feeling it sounds nearly as good as Logic (5.5 that time ), til I tried Sonar 7. Imo the workflow of Cubase that time was like a pain in the neck . During the discussion with other musicians and programmers nearly every time the theory arrised, that all none edited tracks must sound the same in every DAW. I´m not a music and progran scientist but I still could swear- there is a difference. Just my subjectiv 2 cent......
post edited by Pragi - 2015/07/05 10:49:05
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 10:41:18
(permalink)
gswitz
I'm not one of the people who expects any difference in sound.
If I record 1001001 and play it back without effect, I expect to get back 1001001.
Audio Engine should only be a means to write it to disk and read it back after if there are no effects in the chain.
Once you start adding FX, all bets are off.
The RME you are using doesn't have Pre amps, right? So are you using different Pre Amps? That should make a pretty good difference if you are. Microphones? Mic placement?
What does your dad say? Sounds like he has some skills and he's on site.
Hi, It was my Dad that was convinced something wasn't right and then put it down to old age and got his ears tested which were fine and as soon as we tried Cakewalk he said "I bloody knew it wasn't me!" haha :) Basically we are using a Soundcraft mixing desk which goes into the RME AIO card via ADAT. Guitar we use a DI box straight into the mixing desk then into computer and used a VST we put together to get the best guitar sound we could (pretty damn close to a tube amp!) Vocal Mics are in a vocal booth. These have never changed for Cubase or cakewalk. Like you he said what you are playing straight in without any FX's is what you should hear back out! Hope that helps? Kind Regards Joe
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 10:42:26
(permalink)
John
I had this happen to me with Samplitude. It turned out I was using the Sam audio ASIO driver. In Sonar I was using the WDM driver that came with my interface. When I switched the Sam driver to the right WDM drive there was no difference.
Cubase has a generic ASIO driver and it may not work well for your interface. See what happens with a different driver.
Not all drivers are equal. Personally I believe Sonar has better driver support than may other DAWs.
Here is the tread I started about this. http://forum.cakewalk.com...0-better-m3234755.aspx
Hi, I had already checked that long ago and have always used the ASIO drivers that came with the RME card not any internal ones supplied by Cubase or Cakewalk. Thanks for trying to help though :)
|
Zargg
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10666
- Joined: 2014/09/28 04:20:14
- Location: Norway
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 11:48:28
(permalink)
Hi. I did see a post earlier, where a person did notice a significant difference (for the better) in audio quality in recent SONAR versions. I cannot hear / feel any difference myself. But that could just be my ears 
Ken Nilsen ZarggBBZWin 10 Pro X64, Cakewalk by Bandlab, SPlat X64, AMD AM3+ fx-8320, 16Gb RAM, RME Ucx (+ ARC), Tascam FW 1884, M-Audio Keystation 61es, *AKAI MPK Pro 25, *Softube Console1, Alesis DM6 USB, Maschine MkII Laptop setup: Win 10 X64, i5 2.4ghz, 8gb RAM, 320gb 7200 RPM HD, Focusrite Solo, + *
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 11:51:49
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby jmd87 2015/07/09 08:32:58
If it's stereo material, maybe it's different panning laws?
|
charlyg
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 950
- Joined: 2015/02/27 22:10:47
- Location: West Hills, CA
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 11:58:11
(permalink)
Oh-oh, there are laws in Sonar? I may be the first to break them ALL. I take that back, I don't know enough yet to break them ALL.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 12:33:49
(permalink)
charlyg
Oh-oh, there are laws in Sonar? I may be the first to break them ALL. I take that back, I don't know enough yet to break them ALL.
Right! We're all going to jail!  Maybe we can make some music using the bars?
|
Kalle Rantaaho
Max Output Level: -5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7005
- Joined: 2006/01/09 13:07:59
- Location: Finland
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/05 13:20:36
(permalink)
I'm in the "that's illusion" camp.
When your sound card has changed the music into ones and zeros, any software that
plays it back correctly, with no FX or other manipulation, "must" sound the same.
Nulling test is the simplest way to get solid proof. Ears don't matter. If you get total silence
when nulling, the audio is the same sample by sample.
SONAR PE 8.5.3, Asus P5B, 2,4 Ghz Dual Core, 4 Gb RAM, GF 7300, EMU 1820, Bluetube Pre - Kontakt4, Ozone, Addictive Drums, PSP Mixpack2, Melda Creative Pack, Melodyne Plugin etc. The benefit of being a middle aged amateur is the low number of years of frustration ahead of you.
|
Soundwise
Max Output Level: -62 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1419
- Joined: 2015/01/25 17:11:34
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/06 05:47:58
(permalink)
|
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8424
- Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/06 11:13:56
(permalink)
That was me who started the thread about hearing a much better ,,, in your face... sound from projects made in 8.5 played back in our newest version. It turned out to be the added step of Mastering in Wave Lab killed something instead of making it better. I still practice the same steps over all and I feel my newest set up IS sounding better. I think it's a combonation of the whole, Better computer processing, better audio interface and better drivers and software. And I'm not using differrent settings. There is something better going on because things just keep getting better here in Sonar land.
post edited by Cactus Music - 2015/07/06 11:23:10
|
einstein36
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 511
- Joined: 2003/11/05 21:38:31
- Location: TX
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/06 13:29:53
(permalink)
It's not necessary audio drivers, etc. It could just be the way the programmers write the underlying algorithm when taking those zeros and ones and outputting them into sound. I know that the way Sonar is coded is probably completely different than the way Cubase or even Pro tools is coded, so yes, it probably does sound different between different programs. If Noel, or some other programmer wants to chirp in here on this fact... Of course, I think Sonar is 20-40% better 
|
ampfixer
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5508
- Joined: 2010/12/12 20:11:50
- Location: Ontario
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/06 17:44:49
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby jmd87 2015/07/09 08:33:35
I'm with Craig on this one. Panning laws or render dithering would be my starting place when trying to find the difference.
Regards, John I want to make it clear that I am an Eedjit. I have no direct, or indirect, knowledge of business, the music industry, forum threads or the meaning of life. I know about amps. WIN 10 Pro X64, I7-3770k 16 gigs, ASUS Z77 pro, AMD 7950 3 gig, Steinberg UR44, A-Pro 500, Sonar Platinum, KRK Rokit 6
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/06 17:57:07
(permalink)
I did an experiment a few years ago comparing the sound of 4 DAW's. I have got a great multitrack session that Roland gave me when I was working for them selling V Studios and it sounds stellar. With no plugins at all you get a stellar mix with just the right balance of fader settings. (This multi is a serious lesson in musicianship and miking techniques!) I compared the sound of Pro Tools, Sonar, Studio One and Logic. I set the fader levels exactly on all four DAW's and pan laws the same and only panned L, C and R. I then rendered out the 4 mixes. There was no difference between any of them. They all sounded identical. In fact so much so you can get a perfect null with any two of them. I also blind tested a room full of engineers and believe me no one was hearing any differences either. The OP is also talking rubbish about Studio One 3 sounding thin. It does not. It sounds fabulous. End of story. Once you start using plugins and things then all bets are off but in summing mode it is really hard to pick any DAW. I am sure Cubase would have tested fine too. If the OP is getting thin poor sounding mixes it could be due to his own lack of experience. The end result in is your hands not the DAW. I teach sound engineering too and use Logic and ProTools a lot in that situation and at home I have got 6 DAW's actually. (Only use one though manily) I am often moving the same material between them (for private teaching purposes) and I am not hearing major differences anywhere.
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2015/07/06 19:05:51
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/07 05:47:59
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
I did an experiment a few years ago comparing the sound of 4 DAW's. I have got a great multitrack session that Roland gave me when I was working for them selling V Studios and it sounds stellar. With no plugins at all you get a stellar mix with just the right balance of fader settings. (This multi is a serious lesson in musicianship and miking techniques!)
I compared the sound of Pro Tools, Sonar, Studio One and Logic. I set the fader levels exactly on all four DAW's and pan laws the same and only panned L, C and R. I then rendered out the 4 mixes.
There was no difference between any of them. They all sounded identical. In fact so much so you can get a perfect null with any two of them. I also blind tested a room full of engineers and believe me no one was hearing any differences either.
The OP is also talking rubbish about Studio One 3 sounding thin. It does not. It sounds fabulous. End of story.
Once you start using plugins and things then all bets are off but in summing mode it is really hard to pick any DAW. I am sure Cubase would have tested fine too.
If the OP is getting thin poor sounding mixes it could be due to his own lack of experience. The end result in is your hands not the DAW. I teach sound engineering too and use Logic and ProTools a lot in that situation and at home I have got 6 DAW's actually. (Only use one though manily) I am often moving the same material between them (for private teaching purposes) and I am not hearing major differences anywhere.
Hi Thanks for the reply, So I have done some null tests with no FX on just one instrument and they are not cancelling out. I tried this in Cakewalk, Cubase and Studio One 3. I have checked the Dithering and also the pan laws and Cubase was set the same as Cakewalk and Studio One 3 had slight differences that I altered to bring them to all to the same settings. I also the a test and bypassed the mixing desk and DI box (just incase it was something like a sync issue) but the same results. Is there anything else I can try. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to cause and wars between the DAWS at all its I'd just like to know what has caused this issue. I highly doubt a company as big as Steinberg would make such a great program and then miss out on the audio engine so it has to be something wrong at my end. :) Kind Regards Joe
|
KPerry
Max Output Level: -44 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3120
- Joined: 2011/04/26 15:13:15
- Location: London, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/07 06:57:51
(permalink)
How far out is the nulling? If it's very small amount, could it be down to one host reading -3dB (say) on a fader and meaning -3.1, whereas another is -2.9?
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/07 07:26:36
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby Glennski 2015/07/08 06:06:47
As an aside to all this.... as Noel once pointed out, but seems to have given up saying, since hardly anyone seems to want to take his point - there is no "audio engine" in Sonar, or in any of the other DAWs, not in the sense of being something that affects the sonic characteristics of playback.
There is audio information, and said information is presented to the audio interface, which then converts it into analogue signal. That's it. A wave at 0db panned centre without processing is the same all over. All else is misunderstanding and confirmation bias.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/07 07:29:32
(permalink)
People don't want to believe in confirmation bias, because you feel a bit silly when you've fallen prey to it and then discovered you were wrong. But nobody should. It's a very powerful cognitive effect. You're not foolish for falling for it; everyone falls for it. And you can't truly understand it until you've been really, really wrong because of it.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/07 07:42:41
(permalink)
When I did my tests I set faders to only whole numbers eg -6 db, -9 db etc. No decimal points etc.. Yes I got very close to complete nulls with any two files. There were some artifacts but they were like -60 to -70 db down in level so we all know that is bordering on nonexistent. To make such a radical statement though that Studio One is thin and sounds not good is just silly. I am very particular about how any DAW sounds and if it was that bad I would have ditched it long ago. If I put the OP into a blind test I don't think he would fair that well. It is well known that the differences between DAW's is very minimal if at all audible. In straight summing mode that is. Once you start introducing bundled plug-ins etc then it all changes because then the differences become much more apparent. The OP is not doing the test correctly. If he is hearing noticeable differences and I don't doubt that, there are other factors at play. I hear the sound in my head. I can use any DAW in the world and arrive at it. That is what you should be aiming for.
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2015/07/07 09:34:10
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Anderton
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 14070
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:02:03
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/07 21:48:21
(permalink)
There are times when the musician is right and the specs are wrong. For example it is entirely possible that different batteries can give different sounds in different effects if there is poor power supply rejection.
I once witnessed a heated argument between two musicians about cables. One said "wire is wire" and the other said "cables make a huge difference in sound." I joked "so you play keyboards, and the other guy plays guitar, right?" Turned out that was exactly the case.
The odds are highly unlikely that digital audio played back straight through the same converter from different DAWs will sound different. But I won't rule out anything. For example we all know what happens if a DAW is bumping up against latency limits - crackling etc. But what if it's just brushing up against those limits, to the point where the sound is different but not necessarily broken? Granted, when programs processed 16-bit audio just varying the faders enough damaged the sound. That's no longer the case. SONAR's 64-bit audio processing, or the typical DAW of today's 32-bit floating point audio, should be enough to record and reproduce anything an interface can convert.
I don't doubt the OP hears a difference but am not sure what mechanism would account for it. It could be something as simple as a subtle level mismatch, or of course, poltergeists.
|
jmd87
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 44
- Joined: 2015/06/22 10:12:02
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
Re: Cakewalk Sonar X3 VS Cubase 6/7/8 Audio Engine?
2015/07/08 05:27:59
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
When I did my tests I set faders to only whole numbers eg -6 db, -9 db etc. No decimal points etc.. Yes I got very close to complete nulls with any two files. There were some artifacts but they were like -60 to -70 db down in level so we all know that is bordering on nonexistent.
To make such a radical statement though that Studio One is thin and sounds not good is just silly. I am very particular about how any DAW sounds and if it was that bad I would have ditched it long ago.
If I put the OP into a blind test I don't think he would fair that well.
It is well known that the differences between DAW's is very minimal if at all audible. In straight summing mode that is. Once you start introducing bundled plug-ins etc then it all changes because then the differences become much more apparent.
The OP is not doing the test correctly. If he is hearing noticeable differences and I don't doubt that, there are other factors at play.
I hear the sound in my head. I can use any DAW in the world and arrive at it. That is what you should be aiming for.
Hi, I'm not personally attacking Cubase or Presonus I'm telling you what I hear at my end which means there is something going wrong somewhere and I'm trying to solve the issue. I don't use any FX's at all and We and our Engineer can notice the difference. I took on board what Noel and JohnT have said about there being "No Audio Engine" (I did try changing the topic heading but It won't let me for some reason) Also I'm not afraid to admit I'm wrong. If it was some setting I have missed I would say straight away as it helps anyone in the future :) We have tried starting from blank projects with nothing loaded so not any chances of it hitting buffer Limits to cause crackling etc just incase and it was the same. The other factors at play are what we are trying to find. Also KPerry I shall get the details for you :) Kind Regards Joe
|