Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
Yes, zoomed in to make sure.
|
Guitarhacker
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 24398
- Joined: 2007/12/07 12:51:18
- Location: NC
- Status: offline
Middleman
Ok, not to be controversial but there is a difference in the sound of Sonar and Protools and I have measured it. Now, I am still in progress on some tests but the difference may come down to VST versus RTAS when using plugins. ....... the only variable being a single instance of the UAD Precision limiter and using the same settings, yielded a very audible summing difference. (reverse phase test). The two base programs with no plugins I am testing later today when I get some time. Even if they are exactly the same, which may be the case, when you instantiate plugins they diverge in their output and you will get a different result.
All that said, the difference you are hearing is probably more attributed to the converters and possibly the monitoring system because anyone with an HD192 has probably spent some money on his room to make sure things are sounding balanced. To compare 2 DAW's properly.....and to determine if there is a difference in the sound of 2 different DAWs...ALL things must be the same. Once you add a PT specific plug or a Sonar specific plug you now are comparing apples to oranges, and there will likely be an audible difference in the sound. You must do as you stated (in essence) ... same exact track in the basic DAW with no plugs, using the same hardware...speakers, interface, etc.... then you can do apples to apples. Let us know the results of your tests.
My website & music: www.herbhartley.com MC4/5/6/X1e.c, on a Custom DAW Focusrite Firewire Saffire Interface BMI/NSAI "Just as the blade chooses the warrior, so too, the song chooses the writer "
|
Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
Sorry guys, I was going to knock this out last night but got roped into being a judge at the Guitar Center Blues Guitarist shootout. Didn't get home until late. Guitarhacker you are correct. Need to not use plug ins next time but its an interesting test and is more real world comparison of the differences of using one DAW over the other. Rarely do we work without plugins inside a DAW so it speaks to the point that although raw files may sum, any use of plugins will skew the results of what one DAW does and the perception in sound difference could drive a conversation that one sounds different (notice I did not say better) than the next one.
|
Philip
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4062
- Joined: 2007/03/21 13:09:13
- Status: offline
Hahahahah!
Am I too late to cast my vote?
Its easy to get lost in the psycho-acoustic rap to 'conquer' a great mix.
I love all your responses, Danny, Dean, Herb, Middleman, Shad, Bat, etc.
Each of you see beauty from excellent points of view.
May I add: A beautiful mix requires a lot of labor of love, period! Beauty is an evolving concept and hobbyists are powerful in the 'labor-of-love' department(s).
I may get rebuked for saying this: Methinks veteran home (hobbyist) mixes currently sound the same as pro mixes ... on all levels. But the hobbyist necessarily surpasses the pro (on all levels). The hobbyist establishes his/her quirks as tomorrow's beauty.
Think 'Vincent VanGogh'. This hobbyist outdid everyone with his quality of beauty ... and was ahead of his time. Quirky hobbyists oft love their music far above their pro-peers.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
You may be forgetting the results of some tests I did a little while back. I played multitrack sessions that were beautifully recorded of a great band and the tracks needed no plugins to sound perfect. I only panned L Centre and R and set the same fader levels over 4 DAW's. They were Pro Tools, Sonar, Studio One and Logic. I created bounces of all of them and compared them all in Studio One. There were NO audible differences as such. I got the same very high quality mix on all of them. I got either very near or perfect nulls if I set them up that way. But the moment you start adding plugins and doing other things all bets are off really. Then DAW's may sound different. And I think they might too. But I think if you have got a very clear picture of how you want a mix to sound in your mind's ear then you will get there no matter what DAW you are using. That is why I laugh at people who keep telling us that Pro Tools sounds ten times worse than Sonar. No it does not. It sounds fine and if you produced the same music inside that program you would more than likely end up producing a very similar result. It is not sound quality that is really driving us to use a certain DAW program. I think it is other things. I am supposed to be using the best sounding DAW on the planet and that is Studio One right now. But I also use Sonar, Pro Tools and Logic (especially in a teaching capacity) but I really don't hear any evidence of that at all. I think that the quality of a lot of hardware and the way DAW's process the audio are all very high now and well above the range of engineering ablities that may exist. Unlike it was back in the analog days. Two very identical tape machines could sound very different and that was silly. Now with digital the great thing is our DAW's are all very consistent in how they sound and the differences in fact are very small. With that out of the way the way forward now is to get very creative inside that medium instead. When I talk about DAW's sounding very consistent I mean at a base level so to speak. The level I did my tests at i.e. no plugins anywhere, we are just using the summing engine basically. But I love ther fact that you can use one EQ over another eg in a mastering situation. I am about to master a Hip Hop album and I was comparing the Nomad Factory Pultec EQ to the LP64 EQ yesterday while checking mixes and they sound like they are from two different planets! The Pultec just sounds so incredible over these mixes I just can't believe it. It is a funny EQ to use and get used to but once you do then it is amazing. This is where digital can also make something sound completely different from one thing to another.
post edited by Jeff Evans - 2012/05/23 18:38:55
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Middleman
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4397
- Joined: 2003/12/04 00:58:50
- Location: Orange County, CA
- Status: offline
Then there is the whole issue of older engineers and their ability to hear exactly the same frequency sets which can attribute to varying degrees of results in any shooutout test. HA! That is the real culprit in one DAW sounding different than the rest. (I joke but not by much)
|
backwoods
Max Output Level: -49.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2571
- Joined: 2011/03/23 17:24:50
- Location: South Pacific
- Status: offline
"I was comparing the Nomad Factory Pultec EQ to the LP64 EQ yesterday while checking mixes and they sound like they are from two different planets! The Pultec just sounds so incredible over these mixes I just can't believe it."
Got a new hobby horse there Jeff?  I've never tried the Nomad Pultec but I use the PSP Noble all the time and it's ridiculous to compare the Pultec style to the LP64- they are very different beasts.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Yes backwoods I totally agree with that. With the LP64 words like transparent, precision come to mind but with the Pultec it is more about tone, sound, warmth, etc.. You can use them together as well getting the LP64 doing some careful work on the bottom end etc and very high end and use the Pultec here and there in other areas for sound.
Good thing about the Pultec is you can switch off the areas you don't need to work and also switch off the Vintage Mode and it starts to sound a little more transparent and precision itself.
And I think the music determines type of EQ as well because they want a bit of a vintage vibe to this mastering and the Pultec seems to give it on these particular tracks. I am so glad I have got it right now. It is a fascinating EQ to use and I enjoy using it a lot.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Art1820m
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 393
- Joined: 2007/10/28 21:36:56
- Location: LA
- Status: offline
Hi guys this is another mix I did, can I have you guys listen and tell me what you think , is it well balanced , what am I missing. I compare with other mixes and its not quit loud enough is it muddy? opinions and advices I will very much appreciate it. Limiter ceiling -0.3. reduction 4 to 5 db. Thank you http://www.soundclick.com/player/single_player.cfm?songid=11673084&q=hi&newref=1
post edited by Art1820m - 2012/05/29 16:42:58
|