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.

For those of us not familiar with this test, what were the conclusions?

RLD

this has to be the politest forum i have ever seen. shea proved him/herself to be a moron when he/she tried to use lossy files as evidence, yet no one has even reffered to him/her as a newb.

and when i play a wav in cool edit pro it sounds 273.4% better than the same wav played in wmp9.


m

ORIGINAL: mildew

this has to be the politest forum i have ever seen. shea proved him/herself to be a moron

Well, there goes the politeness <LOL>

What crap pro music ?


shea

But please also consider what i sent you

I will. If you happen to have the original CWP and NRP project files, you could save me alot of time by sending them along... TIA.

Calm down will you?

All you're being asked to do is to quantify what you mean when you say that product A is '20 40% better' than Product B in its audio engine. What does that mean?

I greatly prefer the beatles 'Reveolver' over the Spice girls first album subjectively, but I'd be able to define why I feel that way and I certainly wouldn't be talking in terms of percentages.

Assuming that the Sonar engine is worse than the Nuendo engine, in what aresas does this deficiency manifest itself? Is there more distortion at low levels, is the EQ out of whack, is there a qualatitive difference in the included effects? What do you mean?

You're claiming that everyone here is attacking you for what you've said. I'm saying that its what you haven't said that is annoying. I'm making music for fun, but for some of these guys their livings depend on their knowledge. If you've got some actual hard evidence as to why Nuendo is better, please post it or take Ron up on his offer.

ORIGINAL: shea

hi guys.
IN reply to all of you.
once again why is it when you discover something wrong with sonar on this forum your immediately an allien.
Lets get it straight here im a dedicated sonar user at present and some of the replys on this forum have been ambiguous and bordering very close on accusing me of piracy. how many people on this forum can hold their heads
up and say they dont use pirats I DO NOT.
And dont think for one moment that i would be so stupid and buy nuendo just to compare it to sonar .I did not buy nuendo it was our clients computer(amd 64bit 3200+) that was brought into the studio to be upgraded and he owns nuendo. It was he who wanted a replica on neundo on both machines and beleive me the difference was substantial. So lads the difference is there. if you care toget yourself a demo or copy of nuendo and try it for yourself. Idont see any reason for me to upload anything when im being accused of been dishonest
i.e that i would change one file from the other just to make a point.
Cop yourselves on i have better things to do . this allready has cost me a day of my time but it was worth it in so far that it realy proved to me that sonars engine is suspect.
Lets face it boys i appreciate ron kuper droping in here but if i am totally wrong
why does ron not say so. surely with all his resorses ,it would be simple for him to make a comparison and prove me wrong.
Its very simple lads take any 16bit wavefile , take it into both nuendo2 (by the way )and sonar and if you cant find a difference theres something not quite right with your ears.Thats the simple way to do it but be honest. To me nuendo is warmer,tighter with loads of colour whilst sonar is harder duler with out that same colour.
To ron kuper again if you know something we dont please admit it so that it can be bettered in the next update. It might also stop this argybargy and help pros be more constructive. this in turn will help the less knowledgeable people to improve.
And to all you lads dont get your knickers in a twist over it, im simply a dedicated sonar user lik your selves that strives for it to improve all the time.
After all ,if all we do is praise, it never will be.
I hope i dont seem in any way arrogant because i don mean to be.


shea

I still can't see any credibility there .. stating "20%-40% better" and then suggesting to send MP3 files to prove anything... blah

Putting me in this group SERIOUSLY compromises your credibility Shea

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

The reason for the "argybargy" is you are offering up a subjective observation as "fact". Ron has offered to try to objectively measure the difference you say you hear. Please take him up on his offer.

ORIGINAL: sani
If Sonars Producer edition costs more then the Studio edition, it doesn't mean that the audioengine form S3PE is better!

And yet Studio is 40% cheaper than Producer... I smell a conspiracy!

Serioiusly, though, I think this thread is 60-70% more entertaining than the other threads on this forum...

Yes, it tastes great, and it's less filling.

ORIGINAL: danhazer
Dude...Culvers. Butter Burgers, frozen custard...Num. Culvers.

Yes... that's it. The Jewel of the Midwest. It's lunchtime, and I'm ready for a run right now!

ORIGINAL: patrickhamm
Please provide some actual data to back up your claim that Krystal burgers are 45% nastier. Thank you.

I think I saw a technical paper showing an average Nastometer reading 45% higher than "just plain Nasty". But you may not want to quote me on that...

A short illustration, bear with me:

Back in the days when I was still doing PC repairs one of the worst dreaded cases are the intermident errors that only surface when the system is in the customer's premises. Customer will walk thru the door screaming murder because his/her PC has crashed for the Nth time this hour and we must get it fixed because they have purchased extended warraty blah blah blah. Take that offending system and have it running in the workshop and guess what, it does not miss a beat. The customer would return and we will inform them the bad news and that's where the saga starts. Most of them are very reasonable and would co-operate with us when asked to bring-in other bits and pieces such as keyboard and monitor to see if the problem is "out side the box". We run more tests and hopefully we can get to the bottom of the problem. But once in a while, things don't work out so well. Days even weeks and many a trips later, the same customer return with the same problem and we have throw everything we know at it trying to solve it but still the same thing. Lab: Not a problem for days; Customer's place: PC chaos.

Customer understanably gets really annoyed, starts accusing us of lying about the lab results or just get downright personal. And the only thing I can said to them is: "Sorry, but I can't fix a problem I can't see."

Now before I get kicked off of this fine forum, let me get to the point: Shea, I can see you want to resolve a problem, but simply put, Ron can not fix a problem that he can't see (or hear).

Point 1. Audio quality is extremely subjective. Ron's method of wave comparison is as fair and objective as can be. If the "output" of the two audio engine are exactly the same, then that should really settle the issue no contest. I am as layman as they come, and I can see that Ron isn't trying to put up a scientific smoke screen.

Point 2. As far as I can tell, you are objecting to the differences between the "audio engines" which takes all the inputs and produces an output and Ron have so far proven that the two audio engine produce identical results (digital files). May I suggest that the quality difference you perceive has got to do with how the two programs "playback" the results (soundwave perceived by your ears). There is a big difference between the two statements "there is something wrong with the audio engine." and "The playback sounds better on A compared to B.) Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it possible to have different programs playback the same file with slight "quality" differences? (all other things being equal ofcourse")

Point 3. And this is my last point. Please don't get defensive, Shea. I believe everyone here at the forum wants to get problem solved whenever one surfaces. I only brought up my past experiences because situations like this people often get caught up in the emotions and forget that people do want to get the problem sorted. And in order for us to do that we all need to be open and be objective. And a measure of good faith in each other is required I believe. After all, it makes no sense for Cakewalk wanting to cover something like this up, especially in a open user forum.

Sorry for the long post, hope I have said something worthwhile.

Cheers.

May I suggest that the quality difference you perceive has got to do with how the two programs "playback" the results (soundwave perceived by your ears).

Not possible. The output of the exported wave file needs to be perfectly identical to what you are hearing in the application. Another way of testing this is to take the same SONAR file that nulls out against the Steinberg engine and import it back into SONAR. Then invert the phase on the imported file and you will get a null. I've done this test to assure myself that SONAR's export feature works correctly and it has been successful every time. This test should eliminate the "playback" theory as a possible explanation of Shea's unsubstantiated claims.

If there really is a difference in what he's hearing, it has to be chalked up to something logical and should be able to be explained and duplicated over and over again. Not some mysterious difference between the audio engines.

Thanks,

Playback out of the soundcard *might* not be identical to what results from a mixdown, but only if there's a bug somewhere. For example, going back a few years now, one of the early versions of the Echo ASIO driver had a one or two sample delay introduced in one channel - so the sound during playback would be 'phasey' whereas the sound from an export, which would bypass the driver, would be fine if played back through the MME driver. It's a rare case - and is indicative of a bug - but possible.

Otherwise, Ron's right on the money: unless someone is changing the laws of maths, if two sets of data null, whether they're audio, video or anything else, then they are the same, period. Any perceived difference is due to psychological effects (which I'm sure we can all agree can occur) rather than actual, physical differences.

Shea,

Pardon me if this has been asked and answered but since you seem to want us to trust your ears over a more objective nulling test, have you listened to output of the respective programs blindly or did you always know beforehand what program produced the results you were listening to?