wandersen
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 194
- Joined: 2003/12/08 21:48:20
- Location: Macon, Georgia
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 22:22:18
(permalink)
Shea:
Listen Guys,
All this scientific evidence that you are all throwing out, I don't see the sense to it at all because we are living in the real world Folks, this explains it all, doesn't it. So Shea, by your 'reasoning' then the Sun MUST revolve around the earth. Yes, to heck with all that useless scientific evidence that proves otherwise. You watch the sun set in the west, so it must be obvious to "anyone who looks" that the sun goes around the earth. Science??? Science??? WE DON' NEED NO STINKIN' SCIENCE !!! Shea, it appears your motto is truly "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made up".
Bill Andersen (wandersen) http://www.LizCoxMusic.com WinXP Pro SP2 | E6400 Core 2 Duo: 2.4ghz (oc'd to 2.82ghz) | ASROCK 775Dual-VSTA | 2GB | MOTU 2408 Mk3| 4 - UAD-1 cards in a Avid-Magma 7 slot chassis | UAD v4.7.1 | TranzPort | | SONAR 5.2
|
tazman
Max Output Level: -51 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2435
- Joined: 2003/11/13 13:01:40
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 22:29:27
(permalink)
I have had "customers" come over my studio and ask for PT or other things. My answered has always been "you are here to record music as a musician, not as an engineer, why do you worry about what it is recorded on? You should only worry about the end product." Most of those "customers" said they would see at the end of the first session to see the quality, and all of those "customers" at the end said they would definately come back because they liked what they heard.
Cheers,
|
wandersen
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 194
- Joined: 2003/12/08 21:48:20
- Location: Macon, Georgia
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 22:32:15
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: SteveD
ORIGINAL: shea
When half a dozen good paying customers come to your studio, and insist on using Nuendo...
And this is the ONLY reason I have Nuendo. I refuse to use the VERY limited edition of Pro Tools and have no desire to be locked into only 8 channels of proprietary hardware and pay twice the price for the plugins I already own.
So what's next in line in terms of industry recognition? Nuendo.
But it doesn't sound better to me, and it has more problems than Sonar does, and Sonar gets better by a much bigger margin than Nuendo does with each release. All this for a great price, accessable involved technical support, this forum of highly competent and knowledgeable users, and NO DONGLES.
It won't be long before Sonar has the industry recognition it deserves.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Sonar Rocks!
Sorry to be OT Steve, but mucho thanks for steering me to the UAD. It's wonderful. Best money I've spent....BESIDES SONAR PE that is.
Bill Andersen (wandersen) http://www.LizCoxMusic.com WinXP Pro SP2 | E6400 Core 2 Duo: 2.4ghz (oc'd to 2.82ghz) | ASROCK 775Dual-VSTA | 2GB | MOTU 2408 Mk3| 4 - UAD-1 cards in a Avid-Magma 7 slot chassis | UAD v4.7.1 | TranzPort | | SONAR 5.2
|
Billy Buck
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2101
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:25:15
- Location: Atlanta, GA.
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/07 23:04:37
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
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.
Yes, please do, and provide a link so we can easily access it, so the next time(and there will be a next time, there always is), we can refer to it and not waste so much bandwidth and hot air  Recently, I took the opportunity to do a barebones mix of a 16/44 project in both SONAR 3.11 & Nuendo 2.2 drawing from the same pool of (24 audio track) wave files, on the same DAW, to a 16/44 stereo wave file, just to see if their was a sonic difference in audio quality of each final stereo mix. The song I used, for this test, is from the excellent "Production-Mixing-Mastering with Waves" CD based interactive course by Anthony Egizii, "Take it Away". All the songs for the course come with Pro Tools, Nuendo, Logic, Cubase & SONAR project files that pull from the same wave file pool and have near identical mixes. Each song's wave files with associated project files come on separate CD-ROM's. I deleted all the Waves plugins and only inserted the Voxengo Elephant 2 Master Limiter in EL2 mode, on the master outs, of both SONAR & Nuendo. There is no dithering and I adjusted Nuendo's pan law to match that of SONAR (-3db). I then exported each mix to a stereo 16/44 wave file. I could not honestly hear an audibly significant difference, one way or the other. I would challenge anyone to discern which was Nuendo and which was SONAR, in a blind test. I can hear John & Susie Q. Public arguing in their car, over that last song they heard on their radio/cd player, "No that was Pro Tools!", "No, that was really Nuendo!". Your both wrong that was actually SONAR  It sometimes makes me wonder if SONAR was a $1500.00 dollar app and Nuendo was priced @ $400.00, would these same comments about SONAR's perceived lack of audio fidelity be still occurring? Instead of splitting hairs about perceived lack of audio fidelity (without any proven valid scientific tests to back it up), on SONAR's part as compared to more expensive audio hosts, why not spend more time actually creating new music with the state of the art professional audio tools we already have. It sometimes makes you wonder how the Beatles and George Martin were able to create sonic masterpieces, on a noisy 'ol four track reel-to-reel, where actually splicing tape and bouncing tracks by hand were the standard fare of the day. IMO, given a good song, decent mics/mic pres, musicianship and a decent DAW, there is no reason you cannot put out a professional quality sounding product, using SONAR. If you would like to listen to the Nuendo & SONAR mixes for yourself the links are below. This is for educational purposes only. In order to keep the quality high and file size low, I used Sound Forge 7 to create MP3's (Med Quality-VBR Stereo-44K), of each mix and labled them A & B. Which is Nuendo and which is SONAR? http://www.streamload.com/billybk1/Take_it_Away_B.mp3 http://www.streamload.com/billybk1/Take_it_Away__A.mp3 Anyway, the point is they both sound great, even without all the fancy Waves effects. Once you have a finely crafted song with a hook, well recorded tracks and a complimentary arrangement your 90% there, it practically mixes itself, no matter what host you are using
Win 10 Pro x64 | i7 4770k | ASUS Z87 Deluxe/Quad w/ TB 2.0 | 16GB Corsair RAM | Apollo Twin Duo USB | UAD Satellite Octo USB | UAD-2 Quad + UAD-2 Solo PCIe | SONAR Platinum x64 ∞ | REAPER 5 x64| TranzPort
|
subgeek
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 142
- Joined: 2004/02/16 01:03:52
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 00:02:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: shea
Listen Guys,
All this scientific evidence that you are all throwing out, I don't see the sense to it atall because we are living in the real world. I will admit one thing, I am not scientifically minded, but I am in the music business for the past 30 years. Making a living from it is the only thing I am interested in and that is providing the best possible service and an end quality product to our clients. These clients are not interested in the scientific analasys of a wav file, they are only interested in what they hear in the final product.
i fail to understand your argument that the output is different. the digital output was shown to be the same, bit for bit. once it's out of the studio and onto a CD, the bits are the same whether they came from nuendo or sonar. that means it was the same. how can the output be different and the same at the same time? it can't. what we need in order to believe you is proof showing that the output is not the same. people aren't attacking your argument because it's against sonar. it's because the real world evidence people have seen goes against what you've said. provide evidence that supports your statements and people are more likely to agree. people (for the most part) aren't even denying your claims; they're simply questioning them and asking for proof. it's not so out of line as you think it may be. there are two possibilities. shea is taking this too personally, or simply WHBT WHL
|
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
2004/07/08 00:07:42
(permalink)
Turn off the internal dither. It isn't the best. Ron, From what I've read about the internal processing that goes on in most DAWS there are embedded dithers along the internal signal chain that cannot be turned off. Can you comment on that vis a vis Sonar? This might explain why even fully nulled .wav files can sound different when played on their respective systems (while the data written to the HD is identical). I'm still learning about DAW internals so your input would be very helpful as I continue to evaluate competing programs. Thanks, BJ
|
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
2004/07/08 00:13:45
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: wandersen
Sorry to be OT Steve, but mucho thanks for steering me to the UAD. It's wonderful. Best money I've spent....BESIDES SONAR PE that is.
|
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
2004/07/08 00:55:44
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Billy Buck
I could not honestly hear an audibly significant difference, one way or the other.
These are WAY different! First of all 'B' is quite a bit louder. The string synth in the beginning of 'B' is dry and monophonic, in 'A' it is wet and has a wider image. In fact 'B' is far more monophonic in general than 'A'. This may have to do with reverb settings. Listen to, for example the chimes at the very beginning. (0:12) The intro guitar lead in 'A' sounds chorusy, but not in 'B' The non mute guitar parts are in the opposite channel. (2:00 is a good spot to hear it) The low harmonies in A are a lot louder or perhaps missing from 'B' entirely (listen to any of the "Take it away" starts of any chorus). The lead vocal is sometimes doubled (or has chorus added) in 'A' but not in 'B'! (~2:00) ORIGINAL: Billy Buck
I would challenge anyone to discern which was Nuendo and which was SONAR,
I have no idea. But I can tell you they are not even close to the same. I am not trying to be picky. It's just that in a circumstance like this you have two possible outcomes: 1. Really listen and hear the difference or lack of difference in reality. 2. Hear what you WANT to hear. ;) I also don't mean this in a critical way towards you at all Billy. You are one of the most level headed logical posters out here in the ether. Always knowledgeable and often the first to help those in trouble. I appreciate the comparison. If we can get the mixes a little closer it would be even more interesting. cAPS
< Message edited by cAPSLOCK -- 7/8/2004 12:59:34 AM >
"We da da sahw pe paw fidlily-doobee afidlily-dooten-bweebee!" -Shooby
|
Hsusy
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 45
- Joined: 2004/07/07 12:31:51
- Location: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 01:18:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: shea
Listen Guys,
All this scientific evidence that you are all throwing out, I don't see the sense to it atall because we are living in the real world. I will admit one thing, I am not scientifically minded, but I am in the music business for the past 30 years. I think for a few exceptional individuals here no one can claim to be truely scientifically minded. But let's face it, What are we dealing with here, is a piece of software and there are no tubes or transisters of circuits to make it sound better, it's codes. Lines and lines of codes. So the people responsible can only address the problem you have by change or improve their codes. But here is the thing tho, they can't see(hear) the problem. The final output of their program is IDENTICAL to somebody else's. Whatever beyond that is our own perception, and that's very very subjective. When half a dozen good paying customers come to your studio, and insist on using Nuendo, simply because they know the final product sounds better, I would have to agree with them, but most importantly, I have to stand back and take note of whats happening here. I would have thought that I gave a good enough analasys of my observations and I was merely asking why, but so far I end up with 5 pages of scientific useless discussion because after all guys, the people who spend their money recording are only interested in what they hear in the final product.
Customer is always right? Sorry Shea but it just sounded like you have caved into peer pressure. I could be wrong here but that just sounded like it to me. From what I can see so far the cakewalk team have not try to cover up anything and in fact they have tried their best to solve the problem the best they know how. Perhaps the only solution for you is to get nuendo in your studio if the quality sounded that much better to you. BTW, I don't belong to the "Sonar 3" Club, yet. I am on my way to pick up my copy RIGHT NOW. I have tried the demo and I was sold and I ditched my once beloved Cubase. So this is my last post before I became "biased".
|
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
2004/07/08 01:24:52
(permalink)
Hats off to cAPS  very true These are WAY different! WOW.. i can't believe this .. maybe its all a mistake and these are not the final two "identical" mp3's ? anyways , its true that these are totally different mixes .. the reason would be different volumes/pans and plugins .. even if the plugins were set to have the same preset its obvious that the send/return amount are not the same.. maybe Billy was sure that the the author of the course was doing exactly the same mix ( if POSSIBLE at all .. ) on all these - "Pro Tools, Nuendo, Logic, Cubase & SONAR project files that pull from the same wave file pool and have near identical mixes." near identical ? ...hmmm ."near" isn't too scientific , not at all . sorry Billy , not your fault .. and like cAPS said i've seen many good posts from you .. i don't mean to criticize .
|
LabDog
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 913
- Joined: 2004/03/11 05:31:48
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 02:43:28
(permalink)
I'm with cAPs here, there are major differences in these two tracks. My Mackie faders are all on Unity, with my Main L/R Mix fader at 21 under U. While 'B' is louder over all, hitting near constant at -7db and moving toward -4 and -2db, it's bass is blended into the overall track more while being more subtle than the bass in 'A' causing it to sound tighter than how it is presented in 'A'. There is also a harmonic vocal track panned to the right in 'A' that's near missing in 'B' being turned down so low. 'A' is quieter over all, hitting near constant at -20db and moving upward to -10 and -7db at times. The other vocal lows are louder in 'A' as well as the instrumental lows as if there was simply a greater focus given to bass and lows overall in this mix. 'B"'s highs are also more prevelant than 'A''s. There are things that I like in both mixes: The lead in both are near the same, but 'B's has slightly more highs in the EQ'ing. I like the overall instumental track of 'B' because it is louder with the bass (sounding compressed) being more subtle and exact because of it. I like the overall vocal mix in 'A' more than 'B' because you can hear the lower harmonies better making the entire track seem more complete. As to which is better that's still subjective and I have no positive idea which DAW produced either, but I'll guess that 'A' comes from Sonar bassed on tracks I've done. LabDog ----------------------------- I'll be in the Lab if you need me
< Message edited by LabDog -- 7/8/2004 2:48:22 AM >
|
Brandon Ryan [Roland]
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3458
- Joined: 2003/11/06 03:29:12
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 03:01:44
(permalink)
Panning law....panning law....panning law? Still wondering if Shea has tried setting the panning law the same in Nuendo as it is in Sonar? I've actually read all 6 or 7 pages of this thread and, maybe I missed it, but I still find myself wondering if this is the "problem". "Punchier", "fuller", etc....sounds like classic panning law to me (i.e. more mono/center energy). Forgive me if memory clouds some of the details, but I remember when Nuendo 1 came out (or whatever they first changed the panning law in) and I was on the phone with a friend and I SWORE up and down that this "new audio engine" sounded better. Steinberg seemed to suggest that it "shouldn't", and yet the web was ablaze with those claiming more "punch", "clarity", etc. It finally came out that the default panning law settings were different between Nuendo and Cubase and when I set them the same?....lo and behold the two "audio engines" sounded the same. So I'm still curious if this has been checked into as a cause? ORIGINAL: shea
Listen Guys,
All this scientific evidence that you are all throwing out, I don't see the sense to it atall because we are living in the real world. I will admit one thing, I am not scientifically minded, but I am in the music business for the past 30 years. Making a living from it is the only thing I am interested in and that is providing the best possible service and an end quality product to our clients. These clients are not interested in the scientific analasys of a wav file, they are only interested in what they hear in the final product.
When half a dozen good paying customers come to your studio, and insist on using Nuendo, simply because they know the final product sounds better, I would have to agree with them, but most importantly, I have to stand back and take note of whats happening here. I would have thought that I gave a good enough analasys of my observations and I was merely asking why, but so far I end up with 5 pages of scientific useless discussion because after all guys, the people who spend their money recording are only interested in what they hear in the final product.
Shea
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel." WG SONAR Platinum | VS-700 | A-800 PRO | PCAL i7 with SSD running Windows 8 x64 | Samsung 27" LCD @ 1920x1080 | Blue Sky monitors with BMC | All kinds of other stuff
|
keith
Max Output Level: -36.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3882
- Joined: 2003/12/10 09:49:35
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 03:33:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
ORIGINAL: Greg Hendershott [Cakewalk]
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Don't you boys have a certain "envelope bug" that needs fixin'? [sm=lol.gif]
|
Akshara
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1139
- Joined: 2003/12/05 18:16:12
- Location: Colorado, US
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 03:37:34
(permalink)
All this scientific evidence that you are all throwing out, I don't see the sense to it atall because we are living in the real world. Shea, We're not just talking science to be confusing. I understand coming from a creative place as I work with several producers who don't care about what's under the hood as long as it works well. In all this scientific jargon, I think the point is getting lost... When two wave files are identical, that means they will sound exactly the same when played through the same sound system. In Nuendo and Sonar, when all things are equal the resulting wave files are identical, and many people including some here in this thread have gone to great lengths to demonstrate this. If for some reason the resulting file from Nuendo sounds better than one from Sonar, then the two mixes aren't the same. This means that subtle differences in Panning, Gain, FX, dither, jitter, etc. have combined to create a different sounding mix in Nuendo. Now with your not being a scientific man, you might not recognize that when you posted here that the audio engine of Nuendo is vastly superior to Sonar's, that you were referring to a very specific element of these programs, and not simply referencing the overall mixing and processing differences between the two. I think that might be why you're getting so much flack, and why there may be some confusion as to the intensity of the responses. The phrase "audio engine" brings out the tech-heads. With your mixing technique and approach, and with the way you have your gear setup, you are experiencing a considerable quality difference between Nuendo and Sonar. What the scientific approach does is to help us narrow down to exactly what is causing that difference between the two. There are a lot of variables in a studio that need to be considered when getting a great sound from mic to final CD. The audio engine of the software is only one. All we're saying is that there's an extremely high probability that there's some other element being utlized in Nuendo or in that particular audio setup that is getting you the results that you're experiencing - because it's been scientifically proven, and verified with the ears of many professionals here (some who've participated in this thread, what up SteveD!), that there is no difference between Nuendo and Sonar in regards to the inherent capabilites of their audio engines. I hope that helped clarify things some. You shoud know that I gave over an hour of my life to reading through this entire thread and responding twice now. The reason I point this out is because that's of value to me, and shouldn't be simply disregarded as some quack cakewalk fanboy trying to obfuscate the truth with big words and scientific mumbo jumbo. The effort demonstrated by many here in this thread, including Ron's last offer to give time toward running a test based on your recommendations, is coming from "the real world." Namaste.
< Message edited by Akshara -- 7/8/2004 3:46:48 AM >
|
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
2004/07/08 03:40:48
(permalink)
|
RTGraham
Max Output Level: -57 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1824
- Joined: 2004/03/29 20:17:13
- Location: New York
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 04:02:58
(permalink)
Shea, I'm typing this in a large font in hopes that you will read it more carefully than you have perhaps read some of the other posts. Please understand, above all, that my intent here is to HELP you, not insult you.
You came to this forum with a specific concern, which could be phrased as the following question: "Why does Nuendo sound different to me than SONAR on a seemingly identical project, and is there anything I can do about it?"
The manner in which you posted your question, and the manner in which you became belligerent, prompted some bickering. But the bottom line is, your question was actually answered here - you've just been so busy defending yourself and your opinion that you haven't looked at the answer.
A few people have explained differences in the way SONAR and Nuendo handle specific audio issues, most prominently the "pan law." Let's throw the "scientific tests" out the window for a moment - I understand that you consider yourself to be a "regular guy" who has worked in music for a long time, and you just want to please your clients. If that is truly the case, then you should consider the information that so many people have kindly provided you about the pan law. Try adjusting Nuendo's pan law setting to match the way SONAR handles panning, and then see if you still perceive a difference in sound quality.
The fact that so many of your clients believe that Nuendo is better than SONAR is mostly a matter of the way Steinberg has marketed it. It's an advertising issue, not necessarily a quality issue. It's perfectly understandable that your clients would come in to your studio wanting Nuendo. But if you're really doing your job right, they will leave your studio wanting whatever program you make their song sound good with. That's a function of your own ability as an engineer and musician, your own choice as to which program you like using better, and your own willingness to learn how to use that program to the best of your ability. It sounds like you're not very willing to learn, and I think perhaps you should address THAT before even trying to deal with differences in software capabilities.
Again, I say this in hopes that it will help you to improve your career, your productivity, and your fulfillment. Please try to use what I have said here to your advantage, instead of being insulted. - Russell
~~~~~~~~~~ Russell T. Graham Keys, Vocals, Songwriting, Production russell DOT graham AT rtgproductions DOT com www DOT myspace DOT com SLASH russelltgraham
|
planist
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 883
- Joined: 2004/01/29 12:07:49
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 04:19:17
(permalink)
three cakewalk people in this thread - thats a new record... something seems to be interestingto them ... the topic???  i think, if shea does not provide any example ogf the difference he hears then this thread should be stopped. jeff
|
semieval665
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 45
- Joined: 2004/06/16 02:06:42
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 04:42:05
(permalink)
1200 bones vs 500bones ( or in this case I guess 1700 bones) Is nuendo 140 percent better? BTW, why are certain reasonable questions flamed by a certain crowd when stupid ones are rewarded with an endless discussion and a filling of cyberspace? 
|
Dickie
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1071
- Joined: 2003/11/06 06:46:33
- Location: West Sussex, UK
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 04:42:59
(permalink)
Original: Ron Kuper:
Again, I don't dispute the emotional aspects of people's choices in software, and how they perceive quality. But the only thing I am capable of doing to improve the situation (if it needs improving) is to look at it analytically. Maybe if Ron inproves the software by 20-30% you will be happy. As long as he tells you that is what he has done... he doesn't need to supply proof does he ? !
< Message edited by Dickie -- 7/8/2004 10:47:31 AM >
Dickie
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
|
sani
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 300
- Joined: 2003/11/06 14:25:54
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 05:42:04
(permalink)
Greg Hendershott wrote: That doesn't mean we're satisfied. SONAR isn't in as many studios as I believe it deserves to be. Not even close. We're just getting started. Dear Greg: It is only up to you and Cakewalk if Sonar will be in as many studios as you want. Changes in Sonar since version 1 are much smaller than changes in Cubase, Nuendo or in other programs. I believe that next Sonar will be better, but also will be the competition! At this time Sonar doesn't have some serious tools/possibilities for working on multiple audiotracks and I'm sure that many people relly on that. You sure have other programs in your company. Take a look and compare. Take also a look into the topic what people expect from the next version. Many features that people are asking for are already included in other programs. Big studios don't relly on a included vsampler or (good) sonitus plugins. They need the right tools/features to record and edit midi/audio.
|
Billy Buck
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2101
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:25:15
- Location: Atlanta, GA.
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 06:56:20
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: cAPSLOCK
ORIGINAL: Billy Buck
I could not honestly hear an audibly significant difference, one way or the other.
These are WAY different!
Hey cAPS, I am glad you noticed This was a quick mix comparing Nuendo & SONAR for sonic fidelity, the so-called audio engines of both apps, first & foremost, to prove a point. Does one mix actually sound 20%-40% better than the other.
First of all 'B' is quite a bit louder.
I did that on purpose. Subjectively, some people think louder is better. I figured I would put that notion to the test.
The string synth in the beginning of 'B' is dry and monophonic, in 'A' it is wet and has a wider image.
In fact 'B' is far more monophonic in general than 'A'. This may have to do with reverb settings. Listen to, for example the chimes at the very beginning. (0:12)
The intro guitar lead in 'A' sounds chorusy, but not in 'B'
The non mute guitar parts are in the opposite channel. (2:00 is a good spot to hear it)
The low harmonies in A are a lot louder or perhaps missing from 'B' entirely (listen to any of the "Take it away" starts of any chorus).
The lead vocal is sometimes doubled (or has chorus added) in 'A' but not in 'B'! (~2:00)
These points are all very true. Can't get one past you cAPS! I tried to get the mixes as "close" as possible in a very limited amount of time. The only effects in either project were the Waves plugins and I purposely deleted them all out of each project, to get them as dry as possible. The whole point to this was whether could you absolutely tell which was mixed in Nuendo or in SONAR. My contention is that you can't and that if you are competent enough you can get a professional quality mix, whether using Nuendo or SONAR. The original poster stated that the audio in Nuendo was 20%-40% better, from a sonic & fidelity point of view, than SONAR. I just don't see/hear it.
< Message edited by Billy Buck -- 7/8/2004 7:57:52 AM >
Win 10 Pro x64 | i7 4770k | ASUS Z87 Deluxe/Quad w/ TB 2.0 | 16GB Corsair RAM | Apollo Twin Duo USB | UAD Satellite Octo USB | UAD-2 Quad + UAD-2 Solo PCIe | SONAR Platinum x64 ∞ | REAPER 5 x64| TranzPort
|
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
2004/07/08 08:24:13
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: RLD
For those of us not familiar with this test, what were the conclusions?
RLD
Suprisingly(or not so surprisingly)little difference in any app tested(pretty much all of them),all tests were done with the same hardware ect. ect. ect.,although I don't remember the link,the CD is still availible.
|
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
2004/07/08 08:24:39
(permalink)
From what I've read about the internal processing that goes on in most DAWS there are embedded dithers along the internal signal chain that cannot be turned off. SONAR has an embedded dither that can be turned off.
|
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
2004/07/08 08:26:29
(permalink)
If you would like to listen to the Nuendo & SONAR mixes for yourself the links are below. This is for educational purposes only. In order to keep the quality high and file size low, I used Sound Forge 7 to create MP3's (Med Quality-VBR Stereo-44K), of each mix and labled them A & B. Which is Nuendo and which is SONAR? These MP3s don't null out. If they came from the same WAV, they would. I have no doubt that the difference is explained by a subtle difference between the Nuendo and SONAR project. (For example, in my experience, with mono clips you need to send Nuendo's pan law to 0dB to match SONAR.) I think any A/B comparison would really benefit from the original project files from both applications.
|
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
2004/07/08 09:04:21
(permalink)
|
shea
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 343
- Joined: 2003/11/06 16:21:31
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 09:31:23
(permalink)
I will post my conclusion in the evening
shea
|
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
2004/07/08 09:33:08
(permalink)
SONAR has an embedded dither that can be turned off. Ron, Thanks for the reply. I understand about the built-in dither. What I was referring to was the dithering of audio data that can't be turned off because its part of the code that does the summing. From what I understand about this, every time audio is processed any way internally there is either rounding or truncation of the data taking place. Its been said that the best digital systems (mixers or DAW programs) handle these operations with specializd dither algorithms which either do not add cumulative noise to the signal or do it in such a way that its randomized and below the threshhold of audability. From what I understand, most programs use algorithms that result in the accumulation of the same effect which ends up introducing distortion and/or noise which is perceived as "that cold digital sound." With the number of possible operations taking place because of the complexity of signal routing and effects, this could add up to something that can be heard. What I'm wondering now is if what is heard through the speakers is the same as what is saved on the hard drive (as raw, unmodified .wav files). This could be the reason why the listening experience sounds different for some than what the nulling tests say is the same. I may be completely mistaken here though a simple test you could do would determine that. Try recording the digital output of a Sonar mix into Sound forge and bring in the same file off your disk. If they null out completely then you will at least have shown that whats on the HD is exactly the same as what's played back. Maybe this doesn't prove anything and maybe I don't know exactly what I'm talking about but it would show that the program isn't corupting the data as its played back. On the 3daudio website there was a lengthy discussion of just this subject and if you're willing to sort through it all, it may help you clarify some of your points regarding Sonar's "audio engine."
|
Billy Buck
Max Output Level: -54 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2101
- Joined: 2003/11/05 22:25:15
- Location: Atlanta, GA.
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 10:19:52
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Ron Kuper [Cakewalk]
These MP3s don't null out. If they came from the same WAV, they would.
I have no doubt that the difference is explained by a subtle difference between the Nuendo and SONAR project. (For example, in my experience, with mono clips you need to send Nuendo's pan law to 0dB to match SONAR.) I think any A/B comparison would really benefit from the original project files from both applications.
I never intended for them to null each other out. Not even sure if that could be done with a fairly complex mix (24 audio tracks/40+ audio files/6 aux buses) done in two different mixing environments, even if you are using the exact same wave files to start with. I just wanted to show that you could get a professional quality mix using either Nuendo or SONAR. The only constraining criteria was each project had to use the same wave files, arrangement, as close to a similar mixing methodology, as possible, considering the differing mixing environments of both test hosts and then render to a stereo wave file. The whole point was to debunk the myth that somehow SONAR's sonic fidelity and audio output was inferior to Nuendo's audio engine. Both mixes are somewhat different but who can really tell which host app did what mix. Does it really matter, as they both sound great to my ears. Add the Waves plugins or even better yet, some UAD-1 plugins back into the mixes, do some further fine tuning and you would have a stellar mix ready for mastering. No ones really gonna care if the final mix was done in SONAR or Nuendo. In the final analysis, If it sounds good, then it is good.
Win 10 Pro x64 | i7 4770k | ASUS Z87 Deluxe/Quad w/ TB 2.0 | 16GB Corsair RAM | Apollo Twin Duo USB | UAD Satellite Octo USB | UAD-2 Quad + UAD-2 Solo PCIe | SONAR Platinum x64 ∞ | REAPER 5 x64| TranzPort
|
Bill OConnell
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 760
- Joined: 2003/11/10 12:50:44
- Status: offline
RE: NUENDO SONAR REALY DISAPPOINTED
2004/07/08 11:22:45
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Akshara
When two wave files are identical, that means they will sound exactly the same when played through the same sound system. In Nuendo and Sonar, when all things are equal the resulting wave files are identical, and many people including some here in this thread have gone to great lengths to demonstrate this. If for some reason the resulting file from Nuendo sounds better than one from Sonar, then the two mixes aren't the same.
This means that subtle differences in Panning, Gain, FX, dither, jitter, etc. have combined to create a different sounding mix in Nuendo. Now with your not being a scientific man, you might not recognize that when you posted here that the audio engine of Nuendo is vastly superior to Sonar's, that you were referring to a very specific element of these programs, and not simply referencing the overall mixing and processing differences between the two. I think that might be why you're getting so much flack, and why there may be some confusion as to the intensity of the responses. The phrase "audio engine" brings out the tech-heads.
Great post. That sums it up (no pun intended). Unless some spooky action from the subatomic world has glommed onto Sonar to create more jitter or something, 2 + 2 still = 4. A long shot: has anyone checked the Sonar files for Monty Python's "nasty bits"?
|
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
2004/07/08 11:44:19
(permalink)
What I was referring to was the dithering of audio data that can't be turned off because its part of the code that does the summing. From what I understand about this, every time audio is processed any way internally there is either rounding or truncation of the data taking place. All audio data in SONAR is stored using 32-bit floats. When we sum 2 values together, they stay in the float domain and don't get rounded or truncated. The only rounding happens at the very end of the chain, when the samples are converted back to integer for streaming to the driver. This is the processing stage where dither is typically applied. AFAIK SONAR is no different in its use of floating point summing than other apps such as Neundo or Cubase.
|