certainly but you cant discount the facts my good man...furthermore, I find that when you Blah blah techno babble...blah bedy blabedy blah blah blah way over everyones head blah blah who cares blah blah blah...then I am usually out of the woods. Certainly you concur? Your thoughts?
6strings
No Offence guys just playing

ORIGINAL: yep

The bottom line remains: does sonar sound different from nuendo?

I think it does and will continue to think that until Ron completes all tests aforementioned and then assures us that it doesn't:

They shouldn't, no matter how much the programmers were paid,

???

it hardly requires specialized programming skills to make the numbers round off correctly.

in maths(same priciples as binary code) there are obviously many ways to achieve an outcome. 10+10+10+4 =34 or 2 times 17 or 50 -16 or 11 times 3 +1 now it may be the same outcome and well understood coding practices but it is(take note here) quite literally A DIFFERENT PATH. Now why am i wrong for assuming this can affect the audio? well i don't think that i am wrong!

I was, I must confess, one of those who thought Nuendo/Cubase sounded better than Sonar for awhile (in fact, I think my very first post on these forums might have been to exactly that point).

Did that original statement make you a troll?If your whole world is sonar and you practically live in this forum,then good for you but don't try and attack freedom of speech and genuine people who question matters just because they want the best available tools. Just because you live here with your little darling sequencer doesn't give you the right to put down other contributers.If i don't think things have been done properly then i'll say so,but if they haven't,then i'm happy to engage in heated discussion to prove my own points as long as profanitie's and offensive tactics are kept to a minimum.So get out your snot rag and stay on the issue!!!

ORIGINAL: gdugan
Bill, the problem is that the wav format allows more info than just pure sound data, therefore identical sounding wav files could have binary differences while having no audio information differences. It would also be hard, I think to make sure you've got the wav files exactly starting and stopping at the same place. 1 byte off and fc will spew a list of mismatches for the whole file.

Ah, I see. I knew that the wave file contained the sample and bit rate info, but I just did a little more research into the format and I see that there can be all kinds of pseudo-standard data chunks that can be included in the file, which would definitely cause a problem.

However, since I'm hell-bent on the concept using FC to compare wave files at this point , I suppose you could get around both of these problems by importing both the waves you want to compare into an audio editor like Sound Forge, making sure they are both trimmed and lined up exactly to the sample, and then exporting them to two new wave files. Since these two new files would be created by the same program, they should be identical in the extra data baggage, while still containing the original audio data that we want to compare.

ORIGINAL: steve austin

If your whole world is sonar and you practically live in this forum,then good for you but don't try and attack freedom of speech and genuine people who question matters just because they want the best available tools. Just because you live here with your little darling sequencer doesn't give you the right to put down other contributers.
-----------------------------------------

You know...This the exact reason that Cakewalk needs to have a seperate user forum for registered users sort of like Samplitude so Jaggoffs like you Stevie Austin (wow you having that name sure is a shame for the great city of Austin and who should we all blame....ba dum dum paow)cant just waddle on in and spout off about "my system, That I am oneday going to have( cause I dont have one now), will be sooooo much better than yours and and and and stupidity..stupidity...irritating antagonistic BS and and ..you cakewalk user people stink...sniff sniff.)try and entice anger out of people as well as just be a nuisance to everyone.....why would a seemingly intelligent person like you want to go somewhere you dont and wont ever want to be and have the people already there not want you to be there because you are a troublemaking Jaggoff? Please dont say anymore and go find logic dot whothehellcares dot org and let them know you are home and that you just had a terrible dream and you were this bigmouth idiot from dan unduh that everone hated and you were sooooo horrible....and sniff sniff .....
GO AWAY and STAY AWAY......
with much love and sweet tenderness
6stringsat100mph

ORIGINAL: ericlemmons
Even then, I suspect groups of humans lilsten to the results, you'll get a variety of opinions. It's sort of like asking which sunset is the prettiest. My personal favorte was the June 5th, 1981 sunset.

Eric

I agree, that was a good one. But I think you'll find that most professionals believe the sunset on August 17th, 1994 was 20-40% better. <sorry>

ORIGINAL: steve austin

... now it may be the same outcome and well understood coding practices but it is(take note here) quite literally A DIFFERENT PATH. Now why am i wrong for assuming this can affect the audio? well i don't think that i am wrong! ).

I have always restrained myself when I felt the urge to jump into these volatile discussions or comment on what is obviously incorrect. I can't help myself on this one. Just out of curiosity...

Steve, What is your theory on how the WAV file is even aware of the algorithm the software used to arrive at the result? Do you believe it contains all of the intermediate steps in the calculation and not just the result?

Most people believe that the audio you hear is only the conversion of the resulting digital data to analog audio. I think that there are several folks trying to politely point out where some "scientific" information" presented in the forum may be in error. Hopefully novices reading all of the information presented can distinguish the good from the bad.

I still think everyone should look at THIS THREAD which may give you an idea of where your exchange with s austin might go.

OR his PROFILE HERE ..... the posts speak for themselves.

Personally, I would leave it be, as I don't think you are involved in a legitimate, fair discussion (shiny thing in the water, and all that, you know?), but of course, it is up to you.

Good Luck, and Cheers

SteveJL,

I appreciate your continued warnings and have indeed read the link. Whilst acknowledging your warning I am trying to give the benefit of the doubt as I stated a few posts up from yours. I do not see the point in becoming personal.

This is my only post where I have not tried to comment on the actual topic under discussion, whether trying to be constructive or trying to help someone realise a misunderstanding.

Whilst I appreciate the warnings I cannot help noticing that this thread would be a small fraction of the length if personal comments offering absolutely nothing to the subject were removed.

If Mr. Austin decides to ignore the help or decides to be personal I will make my own decision on whether I continue. This forum is a great place to learn only as long as people are prepared to help. If it degrades to the level where everyone shows a lack of understanding for laymen or overeagerly declares "trolling" this resource will slowly die.

It seems to me that some of you actually like my company even if it's just because you need a baddy to focus on, while the rest of you get into conformity behaviour and group mentality.Have you ever heard of reverse racism,well i'm starting to think this is reverse trolling.I'm happy to be the troll if you've nominated me but i can't see anything about my posts that constitutes that label.
Now i'll try and make this real simple for the cynics and conspiriano's.
What part of Rounding and truncation ERRORS don't you understand. My logic(thanx Spock)tells me that when a programmer or coder defines his course of action for truncating and rounding,then the resulting ERRORS(the unavoidable byproduct of the process) is highly unlikely to lead to the same outcome because of the word ERRORS being part of the process.I'm quite sure that each coder must have his or her own idea of what ERRORS lead to the least amount of CORRUPTION TO THE OUT COME(in this case the analog audio), errors being part of the process of truncation and rounding. Therefore each coders idea of how to achieve the most favourable outcome with the least amount of CORRUPTION(rounding and truncation ERRORS) before being translated back to listenable audio must be different.
So one would have to conclude that the outcome is not the same,except that it is an audio signal,but they wouldn't all be using the same coding style.
In a rally car race,they all arrive at the same destination but the amount of rounding and truncation errors, oops i mean damage sustained is quite different and although two cars may have started out looking and being the same,they most definitely don't come out the same at the end do they now!

:This is my only post where I have not tried to comment on the actual topic under discussion, whether trying to be constructive or trying to help someone realise a misunderstanding.

well i still don't think there is a misunderstanding because Ron's previous posts have confirmed a difference in the integer which is the definition for the outcome before being translated to audio(of which also the translation process could have differing techniques,which means theres another spanner in the works) even though the outcome is the same as far as being an audio signal is concerned.Therefore that would also confirm that the resulting audio may not end up exactly the same because Ron said he could hear a difference.And the guys in charge of samplitude have said that they aim to preserve the integrity of the audio signal as well(and there not refering to A/D D/A conversion)which if it was all the same outcome they wouldn't need to state such a phrase,would they now.As another example,all A/D converters have the same outcome which is a digital representation of the original audio,but they certainly don't give the same result do they!
Now if you deem this replie to be trolling then go and find something else to do.

If Mr. Austin decides to ignore the help or decides to be personal I will make my own decision on whether I continue.

Come on dude,in what way have you helped me,your own theory has massive rounding errors in it,and you can't prove your case because it's incorrect,and my case is looking stronger by the moment. and i may start to think that you are actually trying to make me get personal.forget it and stay on the issue,or go and make some music!

dont you do it

Mr. Austin.

You have now clearly changed your argument and replaced it with an even more facile thought. It should be abundantly clear to any 11 year old that there is only one correct and trivial answer from ANY rounding or truncation process. There is simply no opportunity for an error if the process is performed correctly whatever the algorithm.

I can only conclude therefore that you are out of your depth technically or indeed behaving as I have been warned. I think it is most likely the latter.

Good-bye and have a nice life.

Oh........
OK Shea thanks for clearing us up on the whole free speech thing...Jeez I did not realise I was acting out of line...once again you have helped me understand the error of my ways...and now you post this very helpfull excerpt from some unknown worthless thread and it somehow helps me with a bunch of issues I have both in my personal life as well as a musician and a recording guy. You are a most helpful guy....its not everyone that would come into an entire community with very little communication skills and shout out his personal thoughts and opinions none-of-which are based on any factual stuff...like you know...the facts and junk...and then also offer up a new way of living and caring for our fellow man.....Thanks from the bottom of my heart. I thank you and my Family thanks you...
Now run along to Nuendo and help them as you have us.....God Speed, Sir. (snappy Benny Hill type salute)
In the highest of regards,
6strings

Not to worry RT,ole 2strings at 10mph is just attempting to take over from Yep and akshar(god knows how hard they're trying to keep their nose out of this lot).
I seriously conclude that all the apps don't sound the same after recording to disk,panning laws and db differences aside.I truly believe that each apps coders have their own style at achieving what they deem to be the most ideal outcome.
I think Shea is correct for showing the email that stated that the sonar owners just can't handle the truth.(i didn't state that,the email did!)

You have now clearly changed your argument and replaced it with an even more facile thought. It should be abundantly clear to any 11 year old that there is only one correct and trivial answer from ANY rounding or truncation process. There is simply no opportunity for an error if the process is performed correctly whatever the algorithm.

The argument hasn't been changed Ease,i've just reinforced it with more examples that i deem a good parallel to support my original statement.You can't disprove me though can you,and for the one's who care then the burden of proof is on you ,because the accusation of inferior audio imprinting is levelled at this app,and it's in your own interest to make sure it's up to scratch.Hopefully Ron will come back with an HONEST AND ACCURATE answer.

I can only conclude therefore that you are out of your depth technically or indeed behaving as I have been warned. I think it is most likely the latter.
Good-bye and have a nice life.

i think my post has blown your uncertainty out of the water,and therefore you are correct to leave.

and anyway Mr graham,your post sounded pretty patronising itself. give me a self taught photographer with a natural innate gift over a Uni trained geezer any day.Some people do music with a passion and most successful artists have the passion or a natural gift,programmer singer or otherwise.So don't give us your techni snobbery.Even the FBI ended up
hire'ing self taught hackers because they we're quite simply outgunned by them.
I believe Shea point blank,and my posts have given the reason why i think so.A lot of us know whats what,thats why things get a reputation,and thats that!
I believe the test i desribed to Ron to carry out will prove it. Intuition and Logic can combine to make a powerful tool U know.

in maths(same priciples as binary code) there are obviously many ways to achieve an outcome. 10+10+10+4 =34 or 2 times 17 or 50 -16 or 11 times 3 +1 now it may be the same outcome and well understood coding practices but it is(take note here) quite literally A DIFFERENT PATH. Now why am i wrong for assuming this can affect the audio? well i don't think that i am wrong!

Your argument here is that the DIFFERENT PATH taken to get the same answer is where the problem lies.

What part of Rounding and truncation ERRORS don't you understand. My logic(thanx Spock)tells me that when a programmer or coder defines his course of action for truncating and rounding,then the resulting ERRORS(the unavoidable byproduct of the process) is highly unlikely to lead to the same outcome because of the word ERRORS being part of the process.I'm quite sure that each coder must have his or her own idea of what ERRORS lead to the least amount of CORRUPTION TO THE OUT COME(in this case the analog audio), errors being part of the process of truncation and rounding. Therefore each coders idea of how to achieve the most favourable outcome with the least amount of CORRUPTION(rounding and truncation ERRORS) before being translated back to listenable audio must be different.

Your argument here is that the answer has ERRORS. Therefore your argument has changed.

Come on dude,in what way have you helped me,your own theory has massive rounding errors in it,and you can't prove your case because it's incorrect,and my case is looking stronger by the moment. and i may start to think that you are actually trying to make me get personal.forget it and stay on the issue,or go and make some music!

Please illustrate by cutting and pasting from my posts and show everyone where I presented a theory. Then also show any example of where I have rounded ANYTHING and explain the errors.

If the process of rounding or truncation can result in ANYTHING other than the correct answer please provide alternative CORRECT answers to the following:

1. Rounding.

1.493627649832

Rounded to 4 significant figures is
1.494

Rounded to 8 significant figures is
1.4936276

2. Truncation.

1.493627649832

Truncated to 4 significant figures is
1.493

Truncated to 8 significant figures is
1.4936276

Before you can claim errors in these processes I challenge you to provide alternative CORRECT answers. Unless you can do this I consider that your arguments are completely baseless. Also note that I have not shown HOW I got these CORRECT answers so I cannot see how my method can be relevant.

Without an answer to these very specific challenges any further points you make are just hot air. Onlookers may judge for themselves. I will make no further response until you can come up with an answer to my challenge, specifically any number other than those I have given that is correct, and let everyone else make their own decisions on whether any further comment from you has any validity whatsoever. Please do not be silly and claim the difference between the original number and the result of the process is actually an error of rounding, after all that is the complete object of rounding.

If you can come up with an alternative and more accurate way of sending a 32 bit float number to a 24 bit D-A converter I, along with Cakewalk, Steinberg or ANY DAW software vendor, would be intrigued to hear it, although I would advise you to apply for a patent first.

Zblip,

If you read my previous posts you will see that I agree that there may well be something in all of this. I would also like to get to the bottom of it and possibly as a consequence see an improved product. I have not actually theorised here but just presented some simple facts to those who are theorising with apparently little knowledge of how things really work. I have thus tried to explain how various functions actually work. The fact that the processes mentioned can ONLY affect the LSB in accuracy and are thus, to all intents and purposes virtually inaudible with respect to the reported ( dare I say 20-40%!!)variations have been overlooked by some.

I did in fact suggest an alternative POSSIBLE problem where slight delays could cause much larger errors and become audible. This involved delays in soft synth's and/or effects where, if there was insufficient time to complete ALL the processing needed for even one sample of the mixed output to the soundcard, an old value could be used for the mix. As sample to sample variations of any single track will be far larger than a single bit (just look at any synth or recorded waveform) then a large difference in sample mixes could result. I am NOT saying that a single sample will make that much audible difference but I wonder how many tests on this effect have been done as it involves many different vendors. We all know that some effects/synth's use more CPU than others and that if the audio engine runs out of CPU time we get a digital "burp". What happens (if anything) to the timing of the mix as this limit is approached but NOT exceeded? I believe the answers to this question would far exceed in significance the effect of any rounding or truncation as has been proposed.

Of course the timing may be perfect but having struggled with and worked with many software engineers it is common knowledge that the windows operating system has never been designed as "real time" and that many applications have struggled to get things to happen at the "right" time. DAW software is only one area where "real time" processing is critical and neither PC nor Mac's can claim to really support "real time" use. A sound card is designed to work in a real time as, with the A-D and D-A processes, things must happen at the correct time. If the host computer cannot supply the information in time what happens?

To support this suggestion I could point to shea's own test where, when he used an external machine for the synthesisers (and I think) effects, the audible difference between Sonar and Nuendo disappeared. He claims that using the same software but on the same machine, he could then hear the differences. The maths and algorithms have NOT changed but the sound has? What I have suggested would explain the difference quite comprehensively. For this reason I think it is worth further thought and testing. I am sure from the information Ron Kuper has presented that he is also thinking on similar lines. I am eagerly awaiting his conclusions.