zentatonic
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 606
- Joined: 2004/02/10 08:00:48
- Location: Fairhaven, MA USA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 17:05:07
(permalink)
Maybe your buddy's soundcard settings were a little louder?
|
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
2004/07/06 17:21:50
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: daverich
ORIGINAL: shea
I hope i dont seem in any way arrogant because i don mean to be.
shea
I think maybe half the reason most of us are taking this with a huge pinch of salt is that we've all used all these programs for years.
you say you were using a 16bit file. - Well that might be the answer right there. Nuendo uses Apogee dithering and sonar uses - *ahem* well nevermind what sonar uses - it's just different ;)
Kind regards
Dave Rich.
That's a very good point.
|
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
2004/07/06 17:32:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jake68
Ive been only using Sonar for a while.
I dont think Sonar is as good as Nuendo. Not in its sound not in its interface.
... Unfortunately I have to use all this stuff day in day out, it all has its draw backs, trouble is with Sonar the drawbacks are the quality of the real time reproduction and the interface. Sorry.
Jake, Are you comparing raw tracks? I honestly didn't hear a difference on the raw dry tracks. I will say that I did this comparison quite a while ago and my gear has changed since then. But still... Do you have the time or inclination to post a comparison for us? Remember... you're on the Cakewalk Sonar User Forum now... not Steinberg's, and you've got Cakewalk's Chief Technical Officer listening and participating here. That doesn't happen over there. If there's a difference... I'd like to hear it. And Cakewalk would like to address it.
|
Andrew Milne
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 574
- Joined: 2003/11/05 20:16:11
- Location: Islington, London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 17:42:07
(permalink)
C'mon Shea back it up. If you're right then Cake need to deal with it, if you're wrong then you need to deal with it.
|
Jake68
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 224
- Joined: 2003/11/23 06:23:04
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 17:49:59
(permalink)
The most effective way to here the difference is with Kick drums in my experience.
Bass line sitting with kick drums panned dead centre. Its a night and day difference on my systems.
Beleive me, I want it NOT to be!
|
Andrew Milne
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 574
- Joined: 2003/11/05 20:16:11
- Location: Islington, London, UK
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 18:08:10
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Jake68
The most effective way to here the difference is with Kick drums in my experience.
Bass line sitting with kick drums panned dead centre. Its a night and day difference on my systems.
Beleive me, I want it NOT to be!
Sounds like that could just be a pan law issue -- doesn't Nuendo have a default -6dB pan law (SONAR's is 3dB), so that means that the kick in Nuendo will be louder (compared to any tracks which aren't panned centre) and therefore "better".
|
Sid Viscous 
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1532
- Joined: 2003/11/30 10:05:25
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 19:01:50
(permalink)
Nuendo sounded better than Sonar 2, but I don't know about Sonar 3.
|
jlgrimes
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1639
- Joined: 2003/12/15 12:37:09
- Location: Atlanta, Ga, USA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 19:19:26
(permalink)
Hi folks
I hope you people out there don't think that I'm being ****y here. I am a Sonar and Cakewalk lover now for a long time. I got my hands on Nuendo 2 and did an exact project comparison in Nuendo and Sonar and I could not believe the difference in quality between the two audio engines. Nuendo is away ahead of Sonar even if it is only the audio engine.
Since our main priority is quality first, we are led to believe that we are using the best in Sonar but I don't believe that now after testing the same project in Nuendo and I think it begs the question of Cakewalk: Are we really up there with the best or is there still something seriously lacking in the audio engine? Is there anybody out there that has done a similar test that would agree or disagree with me? Again I don't mean to be ****y but since we pay our money we honestly believe it to be the best or is it?
What do you think????
Shea Does Nuendo sound brighter, fuller, smoother? Are you using the same audio card with the same drivers when you are doing this a/b test? Personally I think Sonar sounds pretty good. (My setup at least.) I never listened to audio in Nuendo but I use Pro tools digi 001, which sounds overly bright but punchy. Sonar sounds warmer and smoother with a nice high end. It is not punchy though, but I thought the sound quality comes from my hardware card (echo layla24). There are pops when I try to play a multitrack at very low latencies but there are none if my latency setting is above 20ms. I typically can't tell the difference between wav files if I use Sonar, Sound Forge, or the Windows Media player. However I can tell a definite difference in Reason. Reason has a punchy sound but its highs sound mushy and the dynamics aren't that good, but when I Rewire into Sonar, it sounds good. Just curious.
|
Alndln
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2003/11/06 10:15:35
- Location: NY
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 19:22:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: SteveD
There are a lot of unhappy users in the Nuendo forum. The main reason at this time is that cross-fades is broken. Produces pops and clicks on playback and export. There are also complaints about Nuendo's internal panning law. This is the exact point Shea seems to be ignoring.Experienced Nuendo users know this has been the apps downfall and are the main 2 points in chasing users away.Shea doesn't say wether he's mixing in or out so I'll assume he's mixing out bypassing Nuendo's master bus(the problem).That brings us to Lynn Fustons summing bus shootout CD which pretty much put all these arguments to rest regarding DAW differences in mixing out(all things being equal).Anyway,Iv'e used Nuendo long enough to know the score,others may feel differently.
|
nachivnik
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 604
- Joined: 2003/11/04 11:42:55
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 19:27:18
(permalink)
Edit: Meaningless
< Message edited by Howdy -- 7/17/2004 11:34:31 PM >
|
Alndln
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2003/11/06 10:15:35
- Location: NY
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 19:29:47
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: ghijkmnop
I want to know how any of you can afford to A/B test these applications. I know I can't.
... I honestly don't know how people who are legitimate small studio folks (let alone hobbyists) can afford to engage in speculative wastes of money.
I can't speak for Shea,but I made the investment in Nuendo while Cakewalk 9 was still out and I wanted to seriously get into softsynths and looked at the surround engine as an investment for the future.I now know otherwise unfortunately.Had there been other choices with similar features at the time I doubt I would have spent that much money on a software host.Live and learn.
|
jlgrimes
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1639
- Joined: 2003/12/15 12:37:09
- Location: Atlanta, Ga, USA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 19:34:52
(permalink)
I'm just teasing you a bit. But, people have really only asked you for clarification and substantiation of your claim. In turn, you have only offered this - To me nuendo is warmer,tighter with loads of colour whilst sonar is harder duler with out that same colour. - purely subjective, and hardly reason enough to take your statements as gospel. Clearly, the properties of Nuendo2 (real or perceived) meet your needs better than Sonar. Use it in good health. What soundcard are you using? Does this test holds the same results using different sound cards (A proper test needs to use the same or identically configured computer (same model) and the exact sound card with the same drivers)? Chances are if you are using the Nuendo designed card, it would sound better in Nuendo. It is possible for a soundcard on one program to sound different on another because of driver problems. Sonar on my system doesn't sound hard. It's highs aren't exaggerated but sounds clean to me. I'm going to import an audio file into Cubase demo (I don't have Nuendo. Nuendo ads don't even mention their superior sound quality over Cubase.) and see if I can tell a difference.
|
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
2004/07/06 19:36:22
(permalink)
To ron kuper again if you know something we dont please admit it so that it can be bettered in the next update. I have done simple file playback comparisons between SONAR and Cubase SX (same engine as Nuendo), and in my simple tests the two applications completely nulled out. This was taking a few tracks, exporting to WAV, and then subtracting SONAR's export from Cubase's in Sound Forge. Bit for bit indentical. This is why I am curious to see the project files you tested with. Not to disprove your ears, but to isolate what is different among the two projects to make one sound different. I'm sure there is a logical explanation for what you are hearing.
|
WireRage
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 988
- Joined: 2003/12/06 15:29:49
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 20:10:48
(permalink)
Shea,
All sarcasm to the side and in all honesty I appreciate the need for better quality in our apps. that we choose to use. Even if you are feeling insulted by other users please see this one thru by giving Ron K. a chance to address the situation at hand, since he is involved. It only makes sense that if you discovered different results that you would want to compare and share the results with someone who can make a difference. Please finish what you started and stay focused on your original idea.
Kind Regards,
John
|
shea
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:21:31
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 21:06:01
(permalink)
Hi Ron
Thank you for your involement.
Since our internet service is very slow at the moment i will send you 2 mp3s
tomorrow
I will mail them for your attention with all the details.
Hope this is ok
shea
|
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
2004/07/06 21:35:06
(permalink)
Great, thanks. FYI, I just finished this test again. Here are my findings. Test 1: Dry mono engine comparison. I took a 10 second mono audio clip and imported into SONAR and Nuendo. I then exported the project to a WAV, loaded the 2 WAVs into an editor a subtracted one from the other. Out of box, SONAR produced a hotter mix. However, if I went back to Nuendo and set its pan law to 0dB instead of -3dB the two files nearly nulled out completely. Why not totally? Because Nuendo's exported file had a few msec of silence instead of the first few msec of the actual file. IOW, bug in Nuendo's export code. But disregarding that, bitwise identical. Test 2: Dry stereo engine comparison. Same thing with a stereo clip. This time no pan law adjustment was required, and Nuendo didn't insert silence as the first few msec of the exported clip. In this case the 2 exported files also nulled out completely. Test 3: Same as test 2, this time using Spin Audio Roomverb as an insert on the single stereo track. Exported WAVs also nulled out exactly.
< Message edited by Ron Kuper [Cakewalk] -- 7/6/2004 9:49:46 PM >
|
SteveJL
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4644
- Joined: 2004/01/23 05:26:38
- Location: CANADA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/06 23:11:09
(permalink)
Hi James
I've been going through this thread and trying to get my brain around it.
I've always had the impression that the "audio engine" per se is the components of the app (Sonar) that are responsible for the processing, routing, mixing and timing, etc of the audio data itself.
Since this seems to be kind of a vague, elusive part of the app, I have a bit of trouble understanding how it could be tested, as there are so many other things that affect the final sound.
Can a true, solid comparison really be made?
Thanks for any input you or anyone can give.
|
koolbass
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 853
- Joined: 2003/11/13 23:27:43
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 00:16:58
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: keith
ORIGINAL: daverich
I downloaded samplitude, nuendo, logic6 for pc, cubase, vegas, performer, protools,sonar5 and paris and I can tell you they is NAAASTY compared to Krystal.
Percentages, please! I want percentages!!! [sm=tongue.gif]
Krystal? I'm not familiar with that program. I live in the south(USofA), and around here, Krystal means these rancid little burgers that one buys with 20 in a bag for $5. (And the next day, you will not wish to be near polite society ... whew ... now that's what I call NAAASTY ... at least 45% nastier ... KRYSTAL burgers!!) <g>
< Message edited by koolbass -- 7/7/2004 1:30:20 AM >
Cheers, Lance "koolbass" Martin Sonar Platinum, Sound Forge Pro 12, ADK built audio computer: Intel 8 core i7 Haswell-E overclocked 4.2GHz; 32 Gig DDR4/2666 ram; Corsair 850W power; Windows Pro 10 x64; Geforce GTX 980 video w/4 monitors (Acer 27" touch screen/primary); 3 Seagate drives - OS, audio, samples, 2 TB external USB3 bkup drive; RME MADIface XT; Ferrofish A16 MKII ADDA; Lucid GenX 6-96 clock www.BoogieHouseMusic.com
|
cAPSLOCK
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1071
- Joined: 2003/11/28 11:16:14
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 00:20:42
(permalink)
|
sammyp
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 752
- Joined: 2004/05/20 23:39:43
- Location: N.B. Canada
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 00:22:15
(permalink)
chalk it up to british humour!
|
Jim Wright
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1218
- Joined: 2004/01/15 15:30:34
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 00:27:02
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: shea
Hi Ron
Thank you for your involement.
Since our internet service is very slow at the moment i will send you 2 mp3s
tomorrow
I will mail them for your attention with all the details.
Hope this is ok
shea
It would be much better to send raw WAV files than .mp3s (to avoid possible coloration issues from the MP3 encoder). At the very least, make sure that you use the exact same MP3 encoder, configured exactly the same on both systems (Sonar and Nuendo). MP3 encoders definitely introduce perceptual artifacts (even to my aging ears), and since you're stating that Nuendo "sounds better", you want to minimize anything else that might be going on in the signal chain. It would also be helpful to know what dithering plugin is being used (as daverich suggested above). If one system is using Apogee and another something else, that could be it right there (I've got several different dithering plugins, and some are definitely better than others, at least to my ears). Just my two bits ... Jim
|
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
2004/07/07 01:08:43
(permalink)
Jim , all VERY true . everyone are right about the fact that for a real a/b shea needs to do his test with EXACTLY the same equipment , levels.. dave mentioned dithering ..
all true .
after all that ( by now Ron also posted now his findings ) shea comes here and say " i will send you 2 mp3s tomorrow "...come on !
shea , no offense .. but are you serious ?? now we really can't take too seriously your "N sounds better" talk .. this doesn't sound reliable , and believe me
there are enough good people here that post in this thread and DO like to listen or to see results of "official" tests that show no doubt and that
sonar's engine is just fine .
.. some don't even doubt it but want others to have full confidence with Sonar .. - its up to you to prove it , yes , we do want to listen ..
but to suggest after all that to send mp3 files ..and get a conclusion ? sure not !!
talking about mp3's.. the MINIMUM is to mention which encoder , settings ( say you are going to use some high Kbps rate ) or preset - much info about this on the web..are you even aware of that ? maybe suggest using a 256Kbps VBR ( files would still be pretty small..much less than a WAV..for your "slow internet service" )
or even lossless compression - APE ( monkey's audio ) or so ..
Many would agree - it must be WAV files , nothing else . actually no problem with lossless , at all .
back to Jim - " MP3 encoders definitely introduce perceptual artifacts (even to my aging ears) " -
not always... you should try the better quality encoders..with high settings ( 256Kbps or 320Kbps ) and VBR guys couldn't tell
whats WAV and what's the mp3 file.. there were listening tests on at least one site .
most of the guys that hear artifacts are used to 128 or 160 CBR .. i'm pretty sure , correct me if i'm wrong . ( all that - for our EARS..not talking about bit to bit comparison ).
|
shea
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:21:31
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 08:27:02
(permalink)
Hi Ron
Lets get real here, this thread is away over the top and i'm the one standing to lose from all this because i learned a lot on this forum and to be honest i.m.o. Sonar is away ahead of Nuendo in every department except for this one.
All we are getting here is people trying to avoid the issue and make me look as if im stupid
There are three other very highly rated pros here in the business who are also not stupid.
Have a look at ( jgreenlee, jerrye, especially Jake68, stevejl, Jim wright,) are they also wrong?
Im not trying to convince anybody, im merely stating a point that i beleive to be true.
As for wavefiles, i dont see the point in you coming back with a lot of useless scientific information about the
difference in extraction of two wavefiles.Surely its what we hear that matters.
Any wavefile will sound much the same even if played through windows media player,
Right! This is exactly what im using and im talking about listening with your ears and not any sceintific jargon.
Having gone into it more, i believe that with wavefiles the difference is not as apparent but the problem seems to be the way the two programes handle softsynths and rewire. The difference here is miles apart.
Use this test
midifile+a couple of audio trks
Baseline use Reason rewired using finger bass sample from reason soundbank.
Piano rthm Reason grand piano sample
Rthm gtr Kontakt 12 string sample
Drums Reason tight kit sample
Strings Reasons superstrings sample going to Reason mixer, 2 chs, panned left and right
Lead piano Halion using giga piano sample
Accordion Kontakt using soundfont sample can be anything.
The file can be a simple cw song with vol, pans, revs, plugs, EVERYTHING, the same values in both tests.
Both on the same machine.
Now i dont give a damn whether anybody believes it or not, but if you come back and say that their is no differince
here then i beleive that your not being straight.
And surely lets say im wrong as somebody insultingly said that Nuendo is 2.5 times more expensive than
Sonar, come on, there has to be something different.
And in my opinion, it's all to do with the two ears and quality, so you and everybody else, except for a few that know,
cut the bullsh.. and help Sonar by sorting it out.
I have sent you 2 x 20 sec wavefiles that will probably be flamed by saying that i changed them to make a point.
The bottom line is if their is no doubt created here, why is there so much interest created in the thread?
Why not take it with a pinch of salt as somebody said.
Lets learn!!!!
shea
|
Jim Wright
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1218
- Joined: 2004/01/15 15:30:34
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 09:14:21
(permalink)
Al, back to Jim - " MP3 encoders definitely introduce perceptual artifacts (even to my aging ears) " -
not always... you should try the better quality encoders..with high settings ( 256Kbps or 320Kbps ) and VBR guys couldn't tell
whats WAV and what's the mp3 file.. there were listening tests on at least one site .
most of the guys that hear artifacts are used to 128 or 160 CBR .. i'm pretty sure , correct me if i'm wrong . ( all that - for our EARS..not talking about bit to bit comparison ). Always glad to learn something new. Which encoders do you prefer? Any recommended links to comparisons, listening tests etc.? I'm in the market for a new encoder, as it happens. Thanks -- Jim
|
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
2004/07/07 09:33:32
(permalink)
As for wavefiles, i dont see the point in you coming back with a lot of useless scientific information about the
difference in extraction of two wavefiles.Surely its what we hear that matters.
I chose WAV files (+ waves through plugins) because in these cases the data is still processed by the audio engine. If the engine has any influence over the color or dynamics of the sound, then a wave file will expose the differences as readily as anything else. Baseline use Reason rewired using finger bass sample from reason soundbank.
Piano rthm Reason grand piano sample
Rthm gtr Kontakt 12 string sample
Drums Reason tight kit sample
Strings Reasons superstrings sample going to Reason mixer, 2 chs, panned left and right
Lead piano Halion using giga piano sample
Accordion Kontakt using soundfont sample can be anything. I can easily put together a file like this, in SONAR and in Nuendo. If I then produce a WAV fiile mixdown from this project in both apps, and the 2 WAV files truly null out against each, will you then believe that there is no difference between these 2 engines sonically? If I or someone else here goes through the effort to create the test that will end this debate once and for all, I want to make sure it'll truly end the debate. Otherwise we'll be wasting my time trying to convince those who cannot possibly ever be convinced.
|
Rustic Raf
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 453
- Joined: 2004/03/24 18:37:05
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 09:41:54
(permalink)
The bottom line is if their is no doubt created here, why is there so much interest created in the thread?
Why not take it with a pinch of salt as somebody said.
Lets learn!!!! I want to learn ! Yes ! BUT. You can't learn by approaching a subject with a pinch of salt. You wrote about sound quality difference so please don't feel bemused as to why people are so interested in this thread. We want to know. You are trying to make it sound like there is some kind of conspiracy here. " Yes we know that Sonar's audio engine is c**p but keep Shea confused and belittle his argument...." NOT SO ! The bottom line really is this: you made a statement . In your statement you talk about facts and mention percentages. You want to bring precision to your argument/opinion.That's fine. However, you then run away when asked to provide the data which led you to your conclusion. How fair is this ? You then call upon Ron Kuper to proove the results that you have arrived at. This is very silly and completely unfair. You then want to prove your 'facts' by providing MP3 files. Again, very silly. Why don't you send a CDr to Cakewalk with all relevant files ? We can wait a bit. Would that not make it more precise and put you in a more trustworthy light ? Don't take this post in the wrong way. I'm not getting at you, but your methodology, which is rether unproffesional. Peace. 
|
Alndln
Max Output Level: -65 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1275
- Joined: 2003/11/06 10:15:35
- Location: NY
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 10:14:57
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: shea
All we are getting here is people trying to avoid the issue and make me look as if im stupid
That's a bunch of crap,Iv'e used Nuendo for over 3 years personally and Cakewalk/Sonar even more.So far it's you whov'e avoided all technical discussion on this subject regarding pan law settings,mixing in v/s out and the difference regarding Nuendo's master bus.And you continue to do so.I won't even begin to discuss how Steinberg handles math w/plugins during mixdown because that's obviously way over your head.Do yourself a favor,grab a copy of Lynn Fuston's(well known Nashville engineer)DAW summing bus shootout CD,because these yests have already been done and this matter has been put to rest long ago.Get the CD,then do your own test and post the technical data here here, then we'll have somthing to discuss,otherwise I'm beginning to smell a troll who didn't expect to be shot down so early.Prove me wrong.
< Message edited by Alndln -- 7/7/2004 10:16:58 AM >
|
Phil B
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 164
- Joined: 2003/11/17 10:40:35
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 10:41:30
(permalink)
Well, I think Ron pretty much settled it, no? In trusting your ears, there are so many variables that could color the sound and invalidate comparisons that Ron's "technical" tests are the only way to truly compare. For example, the cables running from the two audio interfaces into your mixer or amplifier could make a difference, the channel eq's being applied and their settings, etc. There's just too much that can be different to trust your ears. If the wav files are identical, then they are identical. End of story. Something else is making the difference in what you hear, not the audio engines.
|
danhazer
Max Output Level: -54.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2053
- Joined: 2004/01/08 17:05:18
- Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 10:47:26
(permalink)
As for wavefiles, i dont see the point in you coming back with a lot of useless scientific information about the
difference in extraction of two wavefiles. This whole thing is a travesty and a sham and a mockery! It's a travesshammockery!  Shea, I'm sorry but you are WAY out in left field. First you said it was the overall sound, randomly throwing out percentages and other unsubstantiated data. Now you say it's just the soft synths...How will you change your story next?  Ron's test is 100% indisputable. To argue against it shows ignorance on your part. This whole thing is unbelievable. I'm out,
|
SteveJL
Max Output Level: -29 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4644
- Joined: 2004/01/23 05:26:38
- Location: CANADA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 10:47:56
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: shea
There are three other very highly rated pros here in the business who are also not stupid.
Have a look at ( jgreenlee, jerrye, especially Jake68, stevejl, Jim wright,) are they also wrong?
Im not trying to convince anybody, im merely stating a point that i beleive to be true.
shea
Putting me in this group SERIOUSLY compromises your cedibility Shea, as flattering as it is, I am surely not qualified.  Also, your statement "im merely stating a point that i beleive to be true" is fine as far as personal thoughts or coffe-table discussions go, but to come here the way you have, speaking of (unsubstantiated) facts and (vague) percentages, is also compromising your credibity. I get interested in these discussions as a way to learn, and sometimes I can contribute. If this proceeds, could you please approach it a bit LESS defensively, and MORE scientifically. It would be better for everyone in the long run. When these types of issues come up, it becomes more than "what you hear" and more about structured testing. We just recently went through something like this with the 44.1 vs 88.2 Listening Tests Thanks for anything you can do.
|