DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference?

Page: < 123 Showing page 3 of 3
Author
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3069
  • Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/24 19:39:43 (permalink)
i'm willing to give people who say they can hear the difference the benefit of the doubt but only if i see the test first.

for sample rates the only real (in my uninformed, humble opinion) test is to record something at 192/24 and then re-record it looping out and back into the soundcard at all the rates in the test including 192/24. that way resampling/dither/etc. can't be blamed.

- jack the ex-cynic
#61
Mark D.
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Joined: 2007/10/23 23:19:37
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/25 03:04:33 (permalink)
Yep said: "Could you please post your test on stashbox or some such"

Not a bad idea. I wish I kept those examples. That was a few years back on an older PC that bit the dust and lost
many files with it. I haven't had a chance or need to do such tests since. The problem would be this though. When
I saw a comparison between PT & Neve mix, for example, there were folks like me that within seconds of hearing
the PT mix after hearing the Neve said 'argh! the Neve is far better' and there were those who said 'I baredly hear
a difference' and those who say 'no difference' and those who preferred PT in the box' (God help them). Heh. But,
this exemplifies, those who'll notice a difference if I were able to post probably use the double rate due to noticing
it also, upon testing (and being suspected of placebo effect by others for it). I'd be preaching to the choir. Folks in
the past who didn't notice a different won't notice it this time either. Hearing is as much a factor as the actual test.
I was just more saying I noticed the difference and why others may not. I won't to try and change anyone's mind.
post edited by Mark D. - 2007/10/25 20:23:36

www.westernmastering.com  Production ... Mixing ... Mastering
#62
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4057
  • Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
  • Location: Hub of the Universe
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/25 12:23:47 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Mark D.
...
When I saw a comparison between PT & Neve mix, for example...

This is not what anyone here is talking about though-- a Neve console has clearly, demonstrably, and measurably different summing than ProTools (especially if you were comparing an older PT rig).

The discussion is specifically about DAWs and "in the box" summing, and countless blind tests and null tests have been performed and the results of every reproducable test are consistent. No less a figure than Lynn Fuston did an exhaustive shootout with a room full of professional audio engineers and made the results publicly available on the Awesome DAWsum disc, so anyone can evaluate the results, either in a subjective listening test, or a measured analysis.

If anyone says that they think recordings made on a Neve console sound better than recordings made on a computer, they'll get no argument from me (although I think summing is the least of it). The question here (and it is a very easy one to test decisively) is whether there is a difference in summing quality between Samplitude and Cubendo or Sonar or Logic or whatever. I think the burden of proof has to fall on one who claims to have come up with a better test that reveal differences that the other tests don't.

Cheers.
#63
Mark D.
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Joined: 2007/10/23 23:19:37
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/25 17:45:12 (permalink)
You're right. My post was sort of an analytical statement and digression
from the topic so it doesn't counter what you say, it was just an aside...
I will say this. I have the Awesome DAWsum CD and put up every one
of those files. I heard zero to only utterly slight (possibly fooled ears...)
differences between computer based DAWs. The only major differences
were comparing in the box with mixes done on the SSL or in the Oxford.

They sounded better, but at their prices, certainly had better! But then,
that was the 32 bit version of Sonar. Not the 64, I wish they could take
it back and re-do it with the 64 bit. But it is congruent to my assertions
that more bits means better headroom, less distortion, but above 24...
the added wordlength improvement becomes less and less noticable...

So I pointed out that sample rate differences will be far more noticable
(ie. 48 compared to 192 khz) than say, 32 bit float vs. 64 bit float in the
more audible ways. A good ear and gear can work within the lower bits,
and headroom of 32 and probably get so close to 64 I imagine that it'd
be a difference we'd not notice. I'm one of those 'every little bit helps'
folks, and it is nice to know Sonar beats PT (ie. SATAN) in this way...
post edited by Mark D. - 2007/10/25 20:23:43

www.westernmastering.com  Production ... Mixing ... Mastering
#64
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4057
  • Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
  • Location: Hub of the Universe
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/25 18:17:59 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: Mark D.
... I heard zero to only utterly slight (possibly fooled ears...)
differences between computer based DAWs. The only major differences
were comparing in the box with mixes done on the SSL or in the Oxford. ...

FWIW, I agree 100% with that assessment, and my original assertion about all the major, current-generation DAW engines sounding the same was based largely on that test and similar ones.

As to the point about 64-bit vs 32-bit, the answer is obviously that 64 bit is more accurate, and offers greater resolution and also greater headroom, in theory anyway. However if you make some real-world comparisons I think most people will find that the advantages are largely if not entirely academic/theoretical. For one thing you would have to have a pretty deliberate and extreme test mix to even create any *detectable* differences between the ultimate 24-bit output of a 32-bit vs a 64-bit mixdown of the same signal. And to my knowledge there are no 32-bit DA converters and I cannot imagine that they would offer any real-world advantage to human listeners, given the massive amounts of headroom and resolution already available in 24-bit, and also given the inherent noise limitations of the conversion process.

The early 16-bit fixed-point summing busses were clearly inadequate for real-world multitrack mixing, because they simply truncated way too much information even if you were super-careful about gain-staging at every step. 24-bit is certainly good enough for high-quality recording, and *almost* good enough for a summing bus. 32-bit float allows for as much internal headroom as any sane engineer would ever need, and for a massive safety buffer of extra resolution just in case you want to for instance combine a lot of low-level tracks and then compress the hell out of them and crank up the makeup gain. 64-bit knocks the cover off the ball by essentially providing more internal resolution than anyone could possibly ever use even in the most outlandish scenarios with psychotic-bad gain staging. But unless you are way into extreme digital gain-staging on massive multitrack projects I think you would be hard pressed to ever even achieve a detectible difference between 32- and 64-bit in the ultimate 24-bit output from the DA on most kinds of real-world applications, much less any actual audible "improvement."

64-bit audio engines are those kinds of things that are cool to have for insurance, e.g. you never ever need to worry about loss of resolution in the summing bus (which lingers on as something of a sore spot for a lot of audio engineers). They are also part of the universal "more is better" psychology that drives product development and marketing.

Cheers.
post edited by yep - 2007/10/25 18:29:19
#65
Mark D.
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Joined: 2007/10/23 23:19:37
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/25 20:15:31 (permalink)
Yep - yep, you're right. It is that bit of insurance, and likely undetectables. Since I operate
that even grains of sand can fill up Yankee Stadium if you have enough (and it's not a bad
idea if you're a Red Sox fan, heh) I tend to lunge for every sonic advantage, no matter if
it is small or even not always yeilded. Do you find a difference between analog vs. digital
summing? I certainly do and it was huge. You'd hav an opinion on it that I think I'd value.

www.westernmastering.com  Production ... Mixing ... Mastering
#66
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4057
  • Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
  • Location: Hub of the Universe
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/25 21:36:08 (permalink)

ORIGINAL: Mark D.
...Do you find a difference between analog vs. digital summing?...

I think far and away the most obvious and biggest difference between analog and digital summing is price.

If you have access to a high-quality analog mixing console or a piece of kit such as a Dangerous 2-bus, then you can compare the difference for yourself and see what you think. All else being equal and money being no object I'd probably rather mix through a high-end large format console with modern computer-controlled automation, but I think most of that preference is just because I like faders and knobs and analog meters much better than a mouse and a screen, and also because I really like some of the built-in effects on good mixing consoles.

I personally think that most of the bad rep that digital has is either outdated or the product of bad practice, even among some very knowledgable and experienced people who should know better. In particular I think that a lot of people develop bad habits related to digital peak metering that are non-issues if you are using VU meters in an all-analog setup.

I personally think that the sonic differences between a high-quality digital setup and a high-quality analog rig are fairly small, and happen in different ways in commercial studios than home studio operators tend to think. I think some hobbyists put more effort, time and obsessive research into deciding which preamp to buy than they put into shopping for a car or even a home, and that's not the case in big commercial studios.

Most professional building contractors will own a whole lot of expensive tools that may be rarely used or highly specilized, but that doesn't mean that a dedicated amateur can't build a great deck with a couple of cheap power tools and a lot of elbow grease. Moreover the professional contractor probably relies a whole lot on simple hand tools and is probably perfectly willing to work with the cheap Ryobi power drill if the Dewalt one is not working or needs to be charged or is in the other room or whatever.

Contrast this with the hobbyist studio operator who feels that (s)he *must* use the most expensive piece of kit they own on every track. I've seen some very highly-paid engineers plug into a Behringer noise gate or whatever because they already had the API one set up for a different application or whatever that they didn't want to re-adjust, and this kind of stuff happens without a second thought in the professional world (and yes, they *do* have Behringer noise gates in commercial studios, same as building contractors have cheap duct tape).

At the end of the day, you make it work by working with what's available to you. If you have an open-ended budget in a big commercial studio, then you have a lot more options. But anyone with good material, great performances, good ears and decent monitors can make a great record if they have the skill and the knowledge.

And as a lifelong Red Sox fan, I won't even begin to talk about stuff that you could fill Yankee Stadium with, except that I look forward to seeing it filled with Boston All-Stars in the '08 All Star game. ;)

cheers.
#67
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3069
  • Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/25 22:45:30 (permalink)
ORIGINAL: yep
Contrast this with the hobbyist studio operator who feels that (s)he *must* use the most expensive piece of kit they own on every track.


today, i got the biggest increase in sound quality since i went 24-bit. i got my portable vocal booth from realtraps and laid down some tracks with it. instantly noticeable improvement (thanks mostly i'm sure to my nasty-sounding recording space). it was $300.

it's my opinion that the best money spent is at the front of the signal chain (recording space, instrument/vocalist), not the end. the expensive stuff will just more accurately capture nasty sound.

- jack the ex-cynic
#68
Mark D.
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Joined: 2007/10/23 23:19:37
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/27 03:00:07 (permalink)
Great points gentleman. At the risk of debate that could be ineteresting I'll say this. Real Traps products certainly work. The portable vocal booth thing is better than
an empty room I'd guess for sure. I've never used it, and myself have the SE Electronics Reflexion Filter instead. Despite the bad rep the stand attachment has, in a
few minutes of tinkering, removing some parts, simplifying it (minalism works everywhere) I'd gotten it to go on the stand effortlessly, perfectly and adjustably, with
none of the issues others have. I can't remember what I did so I couldn't even describe it to you. Heh. But anyway. There was a video on Real Traps page of a guy,
in a room with a TLM 103 microphone and first recording vocals/claps like that, then with Reflexion, then with Real Traps. Well. I liked Reflexion better. In fact, that
video may have been taken down for what they heard from listeners that agree with me that the Reflexion sounded better. The noted it coloured the signal, but the
way it did was highly useable, and infinitely better than the Real Traps version. Their version was downright boomy and likely due to the mic having behind it a huge
corner that would make the entire Storyk design group wince. Likely why Reflexion is rounded. Round traps can't fold, granted, it's one disadvantage in comparison.

I do agree with the make the best of what you got point. We have to bloom where we're planted quite often. But while I can say I live by that and myself mix all the
work I do in-the-box, no external hardware involved in that once it gets recorded. It works being a minimalist and for a short path, so there are advantages. I'll say
a friend had that Neve summing box though and on work he did in the box (fairly well done, one project I assisted his mix on) everything done there, no matter the
mix, or how well done, improved through that. Believe me, I wish it didn't. And it wasn't a small difference after he dialed in that stereo expansion knob. I've used
psycho-acoustic stereoizers and enhancers and have grown to despise almost all of them (especially in mono, even using 'just a little bit'). But, this was not the
case for that. The mix honestly improved in a way that made the stereo image more cohesive vs. smeared as other 'wideners' do. It was just amazing. So, to
that extent, I suggested in my ridiculous idea list for Sonar 8, the following. A summing box, to bridge that affordability gap for us. Does this seem possible?

1) Offer a simple USB 2.0 or FireWire (1 or the new 2) box we can plug in that will send a finished mix, as all the seperate tracks, into it over the USB / Firewire
cable into it. It's powered entirely off the USB / Firewire bus. Once in that, it internally splits it into 16 or 32 tracks that were sent in from SONAR, on seperate
'wire' paths. Minimal wire or direct metal connections that are better than any wire. Then it internally recombines them as a stereo track to send back on that
same USB/Firewire connection to Sonar to any bus or track. Preferably the master bus for mastering (if you do all your mastering in there, as I do). Also, fully
software controlled. The size of an external hard drive. Full benefits of external summing boxes with a shorter, less lossy path, lower price, and better sound.

www.westernmastering.com  Production ... Mixing ... Mastering
#69
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 4057
  • Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
  • Location: Hub of the Universe
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/27 04:10:34 (permalink)
FWIW, if cost is an issue, a passive analog "summing box" is about the easiest thing in the world to make. Just take a metal box, drill some 1/4" holes in it, pop in some TRS jacks, and rail all the tips to one conductor, and all the rings to another, with say 5k resistors in line on each connection. Sleeves connect directly to ground (duh). If you don't trust wire you could even do it all with solid metal, although personally I'm not sure how copper is better a conductor when it's a flat plate than when it's a round wire, but to each his own. Then simply plug in all your soundcard outputs to the TRS jacks. Take one lead off the tip rail and one off the ring rail and there's your summed output. For stereo, just do it twice.

If you're smart or want to get fancy you can experiment with different resistor values depending on the number of channels and the actual input and output impedance load and so on, but the resistor is basically serving the same purpose no matter what value you use, just there to keep the inputs from loading down the other ones and to improve isolation. To make it easy you could put in pots instead of resistors, but that somewhat comprimises the "pristine" signal path.

In any case I'm not sure how much sonic benefit you'd achieve, but there's a simple way to get true, passive "analog summing" for an afternoon of soldering and about $20 in parts, depending on the number of channels.

To me, if you're into analog summing of digital tracks, the biggest variable is going to be the quality of the digital to analog converters. So personally I can't really see much advantage to a cheap USB box with how ever many channels of DA conversion being "analog summed." Seems a bit esoteric and over-complicated for something that's probably going to sound worse unless you pack it with premium DA, and if you're putting serious money into the internal DA then wouldn't you rather have access to those outputs instead of having a bunch of say Mytek converters locked in a summing box?

Anyway, if you think it would be helpful then I won't protest any feature requests.

Cheers.
#70
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3069
  • Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/27 12:34:04 (permalink)
not having an se reflexion filter handy i can't make any kind of informed comparison, but i prefer to color things after they are on disk.

- jack the ex-cynic
#71
Mark D.
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Joined: 2007/10/23 23:19:37
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/27 15:56:07 (permalink)
Reflexion - Right Jack. What I found was the Real Traps coloured the low end of the sound
FAR MORE than the Reflexion did. It wasn't even close. It was boomy all over. What I had
found in the case of the Reflexion wasn't a milder and more diffuse coloration. Ie. even in
my studio, in the area they sing which is acoustically treated very well, the Reflexion still
had a kind of improvement in the tightness and clarity of the vocal, a big difference. That
is why I'd recommend one testing it. I can't imagine a typical home studio that won't get a
benefit out of it. Even Craig Anderton, I think, said pretty much what I'd said. While with a
Real Trap, since it gives a corner behind the mic to induce (not prevent) standing waves...
like the Reflexions circular shape, seemed to malign the sound worse. I mean, better than
a bare, bad acoustic room, but questionable as far as in a better room. The high end rings
it controls are good, but you want a bit of liveliness and not boominess. It seems that they
get rid of the liveliness or bury it under what seems to be a 80-300 khz bump they create.

Yep. Good points. Of course my idea would be passive. Now on why metal here vs. copper
is different, it's a huge difference. I for example sold all my Monster Cable on E-Bay to buy
exclusivly solid core copper. Solid core has a lot less loss/smearing than stranded and in an
A/B test (again, blind, and I didn't keep the results, this was a while ago) it proved to be true.
Monster beat all other stranded cable. Zaolla, with a solid Silver core was better in ways and a
lot worse in ways. But solid core copper wire (I use Evidence Audio) beat them all in every way.

Now, if one ueses that they benefit. But even the wire fanatics at WireWorld Cable, which makes
the most expensive esoteric pro-audio cable out there (also solid core) admit their best is never
as good as a direct connection, of the original source metal to the connected metal. Since there
is a wider but shorter path created by that. But we are now dealing in minutia. Safe to say high
quality solid core copper will be very close to pure metal on a board. Whichever would work to
negate loss. Here is where my idea vastly differs from the other ideas for a summing box now.

One. 90% of studios using them have to have a wire on every output from the D/A and then to
the A/D after it sums it. There is loss there. Put it all in one box with a much shorter more direct
path, you will get less loss. Every inch of cable equals loss even in the best. Noticable? Not inch,
per inch. But when it's 10 feet per track going to the summing box, time 16-32, that is 160 -320
feet of wire between source and destination. Not to mention 20 feet more going back into that &
most studios might invenst in high end cable for a few things, but few, spare high end studios w/
that kind of budget, will venture to have all their cable high end solid core. 320 feet of Belden or
Canare or Horizon is going to induce loss. It's not debatable, it's how important it is to the person
who's using it or choosing not to use it that is the issue. Great recordings have been done on just
inexpensive stranded cable. They may have been slightly greater with better cable. One can just
write that off, but those with the grain-of-sand mindset know that you may not hear a little bit of
a difference. But if you don't just brush off 100 'little differences' the combined improvements for
not letting little stuff go can be huge. This mindset is employed in building high end desks, and in
the high end monitoring systems used in major studios or mastering facilities that care about wire.

I went off a bit there. But my point is this. If Apogee or Prism or Fairlight or Otari or Benchmark
or (arguably among those I hear called among the best for converters) or Roland (winks to our
friends at 12 Tone who work with them now) licenses from them for it, were to build a box like
this, with a great D/A A/D on both ends, it would be costly. But there are systems that are not
a lot worse in quality, only slightly (ie. the converters in the new affordable 8 channel Focusrite
ISA (for digital conversion) have been called as good as those we hear in the upper eschelons
of converters. And the card option for that affordable box is also quite affordable. So one can
put a good DA/AD in a box like that for not that much money. The idea of a simple Fire Wire,
one cable connection, one jack connection is so minimal, without needing gain, pan, or any
kind of headphone amp or whatever, just the guts that do the analog summing, cuts costs
- especially in electronics/raw material and design simplicity. I think this could be done...

To be blunt, I'd heard the differences between Prism, which in the test CD I heard was the
best sounding high end converter and cheaper ones. But the difference wasn't as huge as
other differences I've heard in the studio. Solid core wire vs. stranded, or double sample
rates over 44.1 or 48, for example, seemed far bigger differences to my ear. So there's
reason to believe there is enough to gain in analog summing to negate a small bit of the
loss you get with adding a D/A, A/D step, and with only great (but not premium) DA/AD.

I'm just amazed, given what USB 2.0 and FireWire can carry, and the known loss having
hundreds of feet of cable between, hasn't been considered. I mean, mutliple in and out
conversion boxes used now, DA/AD or both in one box, could easily build this into their
systems. Offer a parallel internal wire/metal path for each of the 16 outs, so you can go
with the XLR out or have an additional simple internal summing of them in unity analaog
as two tracks you can bring up (again all via the already existing connection to your PC
or Mac) in your DAW summed and ready for mastering effects. It would hardly increase
the size of the boxes and folks seem not to mind 2 unit size conversion boxes, anyway.
Just brainstorming idealistically here, I know. But I'm surprised nobody thought of it yet.

www.westernmastering.com  Production ... Mixing ... Mastering
#72
jacktheexcynic
Max Output Level: -44.5 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 3069
  • Joined: 2004/07/07 11:47:11
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/27 21:16:56 (permalink)
ok, i see what you are saying. i noticed a reduction in boominess compared to earlier recordings but i might go back and verify it. again, my room sounds terrible (it's not as bad as a cube bedroom but bad enough to prevent good quality recordings) and so i probably would have been happy with either product. the realtraps one seems a bit more versatile, and based on what you said, a lot easier to set up.

anyway i'm not trying to argue or anything. i would love to try them both out but i don't think it would be worth the effort in my particular case. in a pro studio for sure though.

- jack the ex-cynic
#73
Mark D.
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
  • Total Posts : 122
  • Joined: 2007/10/23 23:19:37
  • Location: Massachusetts
  • Status: offline
RE: DAWs sound engine! Is there any difference? 2007/10/30 02:14:52 (permalink)
Oh, no problemo dude. I never did think you were arguing, I just like to discuss products ups and downs a lot. I am sure there
are valid benefits to the Real Traps sheild. I do appreciate the discussion and it's good to hear from one who's used a product.
post edited by Mark D. - 2007/10/30 02:25:31

www.westernmastering.com  Production ... Mixing ... Mastering
#74
Page: < 123 Showing page 3 of 3
Jump to:
© 2024 APG vNext Commercial Version 5.1