kp
Max Output Level: -61 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1496
- Joined: 2004/01/21 15:22:09
- Location: London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 11:50:44
(permalink)
I'll repeat what I said earlier: if any application renders different bits to what it plays back, then there's a bug. How could anyone work with such an application in any practical or trustable sense?
|
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: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 11:55:26
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: billkath
The fact that they would do that intimates that the resultant wave file that you'll be sending to the mastering house is exactly the same whether from Nuendo or Sonar.
The fact that one sounds better in a host is what I'm wondering about, and is something that can be tested, as Ron and others are doing.
I might be misunderstanding you, but if both programs do, in fact, produce the "exact same wave file," then that file is not only what you will be sending to the mastering house, but also what your host is sending to your soundcard. There should be no difference between the data that is sent to hard disk as exported audio and data that is sent to your souncard's main outs. There are a whole bunch of things that could be very legitimately affecting people's perception. It could be that cubase/nuendo users have TrueTape engaged, possibly unknowingly, it could be pan law differences, it could be that they have one version turned up slightly louder than the other, it could be that one platform is more appealing to them in terms of workflow/user interface, and that, as a result, they are producing better mixes on that platform. It could be that they have both platforms set to apply dither, and they are hearing a preference for one type over another. The only way to tell whether one program does, in fact, have some kind of "better sound" based on some sort of technical superiority, is to actually run a bona-fide double-blind, such as the one Ron is trying, or a blind listening test such as Lynn Fulton's. On the other hand, you may find that you consistently get subjectively better-sounding results from one platform over another because that platform better suits the way you work, even if they both use the same plugins and "sound the same." You might even find that you ultimately produce better work on a platform that sounds "worse," if there is such a one. This issue of some software platforms "sounding better" than others comes up a lot, and obviously stirs up a hornet's nest of conjecture, anecdotes, and speculation. shea is right in the sense that what matters, at the end of the day, is what he hears coming out of the speakers, even if it's only based on subjective, irrational personal preference. Everyone else is correct that, so far, neither shea nor anybody else has yet provided any evidence for anyone to believe that a preference for the "nuendo sound" is anything other than either: 1. a user error, or mismatched settings, or 2. a psychological effect that has no relationship to the sound coming out of the speakers.
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 12:18:04
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: thunderkyss
When we say the files are nulling out, are we refering to after Nuendo's panning law has been changed to match Sonar?
If so, then what I am refering to wouldn't necessarily resolve to two wave files that null out.
Hi thunder, you make some good points. What you say here may very well be true, but again, there's no real way to find out for sure until we try. This is also why Ron K. would prefer to have original project files to work with, so that 1) the settings can be found that produce a nulled-wav mixdown, and 2) those settings can be compared to defaults and/or whatever is in play for the results that "sound better" in one particular app. This requires someone who is willing to stick their neck out and provide a project for each app and mixdown/master/whatever .wav's from each, and to be willing to point to the one that they say sounds better so that it can be examined objectively, preferably along with the project that produced it. And be willing to accept the results, repeating them on their end if necessary, and to admit if their perception was off.
Basically what I am understanding from this thread is this
1) The difference I hear between Cubase and Sonar, is caused by the panning law being set different in the two programs
2) My ears prefer Cubase's default
3) I should be able to get the same "sound" out of Cakewalk if I brushed up on my mixing/mastering skills.
This could be a conclusion, but until we get some real results back, we can't know for sure. Until then, for all we know, Cubase/Nuendo could really be doing something mysterious, and your ears and mixing skills may be fine. In the meantime, it's all just conjecture and hearsay. The intermediate stage between claims being raised and their justification being brought forward is just plain frustrating for everyone, especially if it goes on for too long. (Just look at what happened in this thread for proof of the claim I just made in the last sentence.) But I'll point out that I understand it is my ears that prefer what Cubase has done, and I'll concede not everyone would consider it better. But since this subject has come up many times, maybe there are a significant number of people who prefer Cubase's method to justify Cakewalk "doing something about it". Personally, this wouldn't affect my decision to upgrade to S4, but it is possible that some people may switch because of it.
Hey, maybe you're our man after all. The people at Cakewalk could very well "do something about it", and maybe even better than Steinberg is doing it, but I can assure you that they need those people who have noticed something different to come forward and point to specific examples that they can work with. Anything is possible in the meantime. Maybe we're in the process of discovering a new breed of people with a special genetic code that enables them to notice the difference. Who knows? We can't rule out anything until we start experimenting with real data. And by discovering the difference (if any), Cakewalk will be propelled a lot faster and farther down the road of "doing something about it". So... care to help? Thanks in advance...
|
billkath
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1076
- Joined: 2003/11/27 08:16:29
- Location: Ireland
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 14:27:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: yep
[I might be misunderstanding you, but if both programs do, in fact, produce the "exact same wave file," then that file is not only what you will be sending to the mastering house, but also what your host is sending to your soundcard. There should be no difference between the data that is sent to hard disk as exported audio and data that is sent to your souncard's main outs.
Yeah Yep, That's it exactly. I was wondering if in fact Nuendo/Cubase is exporting the same data as it is sending to the Soundcards hardware outs. What I was trying to determine that by the method I said- import,no processing, export. If it sounded better in Nuendo, but the resultant wave files nulled completely, you would have your answer.- either Sonar or Nuendo is not exporting the very same data as they are sending to the soundcard/interface.
Billy E HeartBeat Studios
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 15:09:39
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: billkath
If it sounded better in Nuendo, but the resultant wave files nulled completely, you would have your answer.- either Sonar or Nuendo is not exporting the very same data as they are sending to the soundcard/interface.
Quite right. And once (if) this was established and known, the soundcard outputs themselves could be compared. This would require capturing the outputs for both cases, either via loopback or into a second machine, and preferably into a third "impartial" app. Then, nulling the two out, again in an impartial app. (Sorry if someone else already suggested this... too many pages to wade through now.)
|
djblackice
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1
- Joined: 2004/07/13 22:44:41
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 16:31:35
(permalink)
I am new to Sonar. However, has anyone including Shea tested the programs and listened to output of both files from both machines. ( run Nuendo on the Intel, and sonar on the Intel 4 machine, then reverse the process) The test produced by Ron show that technically the files are the same.
It might be possible that the drivers for the Soundcard on the AMD machine (64 bit) are processing the sounds differently than the drivers for the Intel 4 (32 bit ) machine.
As long the the studio monitors , cables, and mixers are the same, this test should be able to put to bed this debate.
|
Jim Wright
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1218
- Joined: 2004/01/15 15:30:34
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 18:07:05
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: thunderkyss
... In my situation, I'll build a song in Sonar, bounce it to a stereo file, with no effects on the master bus. I'll open a Mastering project in Cubase, add a little compression, and that's the file I'll convert to an MP3.... Although, I find it hard to believe it is because of the panning law, when I don't do any estra panning when I "Master" in Cubase.
Maybe I just missed it, but nobody seemed to notice some key points: - bounced Sonar song to stereo file
- opened Mastering project in Cubase
- add a little compression
The panning law in Cubase should be totally irrelevant, because thunderkyss imported a stereo wave file into Cubase, and there's no additional panning going on. Everything was already panned in Sonar, using Sonar's panning law. In step 2, thunderkyss opened a Mastering project. What (if any) are the default effects in a 'Mastering' project ? Dither? TrueTape? Something else? In step 3, thunderkyss added a little compression. That just might be the whole ball game, right there! Once it's compressed -- even a little -- the average level is increased, which most people think "sounds better" (at least until the life gets squished out of the music, but let's not get sidetracked). Also -- many compressors intentionally add 'warmth', coloration, etc. (Nice tube or optical distortion, anyone?). So, from what thunderkyss said, we know the Cubase-generated audio cannot be a bit-for-bit copy of the Sonar-generated audio, because of the additional processing occuring in Cubase! This is not a slam at thunderkyss, or anyone else, just pointing out that we're not comparing apples to apples here (given the compression, maybe it's apples to applesauce ......) -- Jim
|
Scott Lee
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1120
- Joined: 2003/11/13 23:13:38
- Location: Hollywood, California
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 21:53:28
(permalink)
My eyes, my eyes! The burn, make it stop! Big thread. Had quite a chuckle. Thanks all 
|
tazman
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2435
- Joined: 2003/11/13 13:01:40
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/14 22:13:25
(permalink)
I listened to some of the music on your site. What do you use to create it? What software/hardware?
Cheers,
|
v42x
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 150
- Joined: 2004/07/09 11:49:59
- Location: mk:
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 12:13:40
(permalink)
having followed this thread since page 1, i thought i'd dig out my demo version of cubase sx. imported a few wavs (ex Sonar), added a few plugins (eventually, after much swearing at the interface  ) and lo... the tracks sounded different - worse. not so full. a little brighter or tinnier at the top end perhaps? then i deinstalled it cos SONAR ROCKS (sic)
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 13:11:29
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: vojx
having followed this thread since page 1, i thought i'd dig out my demo version of cubase sx. imported a few wavs (ex Sonar), added a few plugins (eventually, after much swearing at the interface) and lo... the tracks sounded different - worse. not so full. a little brighter or tinnier at the top end perhaps?
then i deinstalled it cos SONAR ROCKS (sic)
I will pre-empt anyone with any quips about percentages right here, right now! We must stay focused... remember, we're waiting for results from Ron Kuper, and we don't want this thread to be moved! That's too funny, though, almost irresitibly so...
|
Master Chief [Cakewalk]
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1053
- Joined: 2003/11/03 19:20:44
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 13:30:37
(permalink)
Here's an update with findings so far.
I've been exchanging email with "shea" coming to an understanding how his mixes may have come out differently. Part of this has been doing some experiments with various simple test files.
I did some A/B testing with Nuendo and SONAR, comparing the results of soft synths in the engine. The test file I've been using is a C major scale. I rendered it through 2 different synths: rgc SFZ (using a GM sample set), and Garritan Personal Orchestra using a solo Stradivarius violin. Note that I used VST(i) versions of both plugins, because I didn't want to accidentally discover a difference in some vendors DXi vs. VST(i) implementation.
In these two cases the audio mixdown from SONAR and Nuendo nulled out completely ... except for a 1-tick difference in the rendered note duration. It's hard to tell if which application is off by 1 tick. Could this 1 tick difference account for the difference in "feel"? Perhaps, but I personally doubt it, since the start times are exactly indentical.
Bottom line: SONAR and Nuendo soft synth rendering seems to null out 100% (factoring out a 1 tick note duration difference).
BTW, shea told me that in SONAR he was using Kontakt DXi and in Nuendo Kontakt VST(i). So it's possible that this explains the differences he heard.
Also, shea was using Reason with Rewire in his testing. I haven't done a Rewire test yet, but I'll post an update when I find out. Right now a difference in how Rewire synths are rendered is the only possible ways I see these 2 engines as being different.
|
EricRichmond
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 237
- Joined: 2003/12/29 02:37:39
- Location: Boston, MA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 13:48:48
(permalink)
thanks for the update, and thanks for taking the time to do this.
I know its appreciated by everyone on the forum.
|
HumbleNoise
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2946
- Joined: 2004/01/04 12:53:50
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 14:01:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: EricRichmond
thanks for the update, and thanks for taking the time to do this.
I know its appreciated by everyone on the forum.
What he said Ron and shea, Thanks so very much for the effort.
Humbly Yours Larry Sonar X2 x64 MAudio 2496 Yamaha MG 12/4 Roland XV-88 Intel MB with Q6600 and 4 GB Ram NVidia 9800 GTX Windows 7 x64 Home Premium
|
Al 
Max Output Level: -35 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4047
- Joined: 2003/11/07 01:03:27
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 14:04:37
(permalink)
thanks for the update, and thanks for taking the time to do this.
I know its appreciated by everyone on the forum. Ditto . good to hear . " ..except for a 1-tick difference in the rendered note duration. It's hard to tell if which application is off by 1 tick. Could this 1 tick difference account for the difference in "feel"? " 1 tick .. ok , its sure not what shea was hearing there . anyways , one tick difference in the duration of notes .. but from how many ticks per quarter note ? 960 ? with a 960 setting i wonder how you could even tell a 1 tick difference of the rendered AUDIO .. ! 1/960 is close to ..nothing :) if its one tick from 120 ticks per quarter note - i could understand any doubts if it makes the music to sound a bit different but still , close to impossible... this has nothing to do with dynamic range , freq. ranges and the "overall" sound .
< Message edited by Al -- 7/15/2004 2:15:53 PM >
|
SteveD
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2831
- Joined: 2003/11/07 13:35:57
- Location: NJ
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 14:12:20
(permalink)
Thanks for the update Ron.
Sorry for the OT banter. We're a crazy bunch, but dead serious and very particular about the quality of our software apps.
You and Shea are really helping us all.
|
Master Chief [Cakewalk]
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1053
- Joined: 2003/11/03 19:20:44
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 14:51:38
(permalink)
1 tick .. ok , its sure not what shea was hearing there . Actually, I was the one who observed the 1 tick difference, not shea. I heard it by taking audio exported from SONAR and Nuendo from the "same" project and playing them side by side with one track's phase flipped. (This is how I can tell if 2 waves null out.) What I heard was the teensiest "blip" of sound at the very end of each note. When I zoomed way in I could see that one note was rendered every so slightly longer than the other, seemingly 1 tick.
|
Al
Max Output Level: -35 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4047
- Joined: 2003/11/07 01:03:27
- Location: NYC
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 15:05:30
(permalink)
Actually, I was the one who observed the 1 tick difference, not shea i just meant to say about the 1 tick issue that "its sure not what shea was hearing there" ORIGINALLY , his reason for him posting the 1st message here.. the better "overall" sound quality in N ( that HE heard ) . so i don't know what to write.. "hearing there" or " WAS hearing there" better "overall" quality from N - there is a big difference .. help ! ;) ok , what i'm really asking is if shea agrees with the results ..
< Message edited by Al -- 7/15/2004 3:43:18 PM >
|
woodamand
Max Output Level: -77 dBFS
- Total Posts : 673
- Joined: 2003/11/10 15:56:37
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 15:10:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
1 tick .. ok , its sure not what shea was hearing there . Actually, I was the one who observed the 1 tick difference, not shea. I heard it by taking audio exported from SONAR and Nuendo from the "same" project and playing them side by side with one track's phase flipped. (This is how I can tell if 2 waves null out.) What I heard was the teensiest "blip" of sound at the very end of each note. When I zoomed way in I could see that one note was rendered every so slightly longer than the other, seemingly 1 tick.
Could anyone even imagine the guy that runs Steinberg doing testing like this? Thanks Ron!
|
SteveD
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2831
- Joined: 2003/11/07 13:35:57
- Location: NJ
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 15:12:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: woodamand
ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
1 tick .. ok , its sure not what shea was hearing there . Actually, I was the one who observed the 1 tick difference, not shea. I heard it by taking audio exported from SONAR and Nuendo from the "same" project and playing them side by side with one track's phase flipped. (This is how I can tell if 2 waves null out.) What I heard was the teensiest "blip" of sound at the very end of each note. When I zoomed way in I could see that one note was rendered every so slightly longer than the other, seemingly 1 tick.
Could anyone even imagine the guy that runs Steinberg doing testing like this?
Thanks Ron!
NO.
|
losguy
Max Output Level: -20 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5506
- Joined: 2003/12/18 13:40:44
- Location: The Great White North (MN, USA)
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 16:10:18
(permalink)
Thanks for the update, Ron. Your presence and attention to these details is really phenomenal. The Bottom Line result is gratifying, and agrees with your previous results. Now, back to the first part... ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
Here's an update with findings so far.
I've been exchanging email with "shea" coming to an understanding how his mixes may have come out differently. Part of this has been doing some experiments with various simple test files.
If anything productive comes of these exchanges, it would also be truly helpful, as it would serve to tie up any remaining loose ends about the perceived differences, and if they are real, what they may be caused by, such as the panning law, for example. If the Bottom Line has already established that they are not real, then again, we can state it clearly, once and for all, and point back here (or to a tech note) if/when it ever comes up again. Thanks again!
< Message edited by losguy -- 7/15/2004 3:13:58 PM >
|
shea
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:21:31
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 17:58:16
(permalink)
Thanks guys for for staying with us
So far i do not agree because this is totally different to what i presented to Ron
I did present a way to prove my theory by been able to null out a project in Sonar and nuendo ,but so far it has not been addresed.
I could post it here but i owe it to Ron to give him the time to come up with a solution, i thing it would be better for us all.
Shea
|
halljams
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 148
- Joined: 2003/11/06 20:54:22
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 18:11:36
(permalink)
Ron....Just as a side thought, speaking of ticks....
What is with the oversight on the slide function where we cannot use samples?
Please please please give us that option in sonar 4.
it is very important for parallel compression or any type of processing we do when we send tracks out and back, to and from analog land to set our tracks back up and accomodate the latency incurred.
Just thought i'd squeeze that in there. Thanks
|
BJ McKay
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 136
- Joined: 2004/02/17 23:24:08
- Location: USA - not Dothan, AL
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 18:14:05
(permalink)
Ron,
Did you get a chance to compare the data in a file recorded by Sonar with the same file passed through the mixer and out by SPDIF?
I hope you can find the time to look into this as I think you have proven that its unlikely the current line of testing that you were pressured into doing will show anything but infinitely minute differences.
The reading I've been doing on audio engines seems to indicate that driver data handling along with inherent dithering in the audio engine code (which you described to me) could be what accounts for variations from program to program.
Thanks
BJ
|
shea
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:21:31
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 19:12:26
(permalink)
Thanks for sticking around.
No I do not agree at the moment.
I presented my conclusions to Ron and the way I have done my tests, in other words, I am able to match the quality of Sonar and Nuendo identically.
Since this hasn't been totally addressed yet, by Ron, I owe it to him to give him time to come back with a solution, hence the reason, I do not want to post it here yet. He's definately on the right track though, even if he is not referring to the methods and the files that I sent him, as yet.
Shea
|
Bill OConnell
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 760
- Joined: 2003/11/10 12:50:44
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 19:37:20
(permalink)
Ron, I, too, wish to thank you for spending all the time on this and communicating the results.
I think a lot of this perception comes from old (and much undeserved) baggage about Cakewalk being perceived as providing music software for the casual hobbyist.
I trust your marketing people are working on getting some big name endorsements for Sonar 4. You've made some big inroads with Sonar 3. If Sonar 4 is a clean, well-tested release--and not encumbered with some stupid copy protection scheme--I think you'll really be in a position to shake up the industry.
As they say here in Boston: It's gonna be really wicked good.
|
SteveD
Max Output Level: -47 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2831
- Joined: 2003/11/07 13:35:57
- Location: NJ
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 20:44:42
(permalink)
Well then it's gonna be wicked good... I wanna see Sonar listed in THIS document on page 13 under Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) and page 19 under Glossary of Recording Technologies by this time next year: The Grammy P&E Wing of The Recording Academy® formed a Delivery Specifications Committee, which has created The Delivery Recommendations for Master Recordings document.
|
jardim do mar
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1247
- Joined: 2003/12/02 06:23:57
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 21:53:19
(permalink)
thanks ron, for sharing with us your results and most of all your time,,, I use both apps , and I'm having a hard time trying to understand the (intention) of this whole discussion, keep up the great work you are doing with sonar, it's quite an accomplishment on your part,,,
marcella And Remember,,,,One thing at a Time.....
|
Bill OConnell
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 760
- Joined: 2003/11/10 12:50:44
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 22:16:43
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: SteveD
Well then it's gonna be wicked good...
I wanna see Sonar listed in THIS document on page 13 under Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) and page 19 under Glossary of Recording Technologies by this time next year:
The Grammy P&E Wing of The Recording Academy® formed a Delivery Specifications Committee, which has created The Delivery Recommendations for Master Recordings document.
Doesn't seem to be a very exclusive club--I think Cakewalk's PR department should send them a press release with a complimentary copy of S3PE. I agree, Steve, if Cakewalk wants to be taken seriously as an industry standard, they'd better get themselves listed in places like that document.
|
RickH
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 75
- Joined: 2004/03/23 08:36:16
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/15 22:29:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: shea
I presented my conclusions to Ron and the way I have done my tests, in other words, I am able to match the quality of Sonar and Nuendo identically.
Wait. I'm confused. I really don't want to start another war of words here, but wasn't the whole point of this thread originally to claim that Sonar was not capable of matching Nuendo's audio quality? Or are you saying that the quality can be matched, but that the method and workflow differ? I realize we'll have to wait out the final results, but maybe you can clarify a bit more what you just said. R. ==
|