Jind

bobguitkillerleft


Ok?

Humour us,whats the deal with 42?

I can't possibly be the only one that got that reference?  I find that hard to believe.


Doesn't anyone know that the number 42 is "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything and is calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years to be 42. Unfortunately no one knows what the question is. Thus, to calculate the Ultimate Question, a special computer the size of a small planet and using organic components was created and named "Earth".

Really?????  I'm the only one besides the person who first posted the number 42?  Really????

I know it makes my music better in every way possible.

Really????  No Douglas Adams fans?

I got the reference :)

Also of interested is that the first 4 bytes of a tiff file indicate the byte order and then the number 42 "A carefully selected but random number"


Cheers


Grif (Master of useless trivia)

Perhaps that was why V7 was such a disaster for me although IIRC it did improve as soon as I went OS x64 8 was even better, I didn't use 8.5 for long enough to give an opinion, and X1 has been superb.

Humour us,whats the deal with 42?

 
42 is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of Life the Universe, and Everything.
 
You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
 
Regards,

i'm 42

miguelito

Humour us,whats the deal with 42?

 
42 is the ultimate answer to the ultimate question of Life the Universe, and Everything.
 
You can read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy
 
Regards,

Thanks, Zaphod's odd influence returns.

On a different note,XP compatibility? never heard of that being a problem before.
I can't believe how many 8.5 users are phobic of X1.......get X1c,X1d,W7 x64 and get into it! 

I know I'm late on the game but here is my two cents:

I work in a big commercial studio. There are actually seven studios where I work, I'm in studio "B".  We use exclusively PT. PT is great for post work but when mixing music, what people call "tranparency" can actually be a "problem". A mix sounds good when things glue together (depending on the style of course). With PT, this is tough to acheive some times. Things sound precise and clear, but elements sound seperated. Therefore, we use prug-ins on the master bus to warm up, muddy up, in order to glue the track together to get a good feel out of the music. Sure, people use PT in pro studios, but the main reason is that it is a mature program that is solid and versatile; not because it sounds better. I use Sonar at home for personsal projects, and, maybe it is cause I'm so used to working with PT, I find Sonar's sound and vibe more enjoyable. Sonar's PX64,VX64 and VC64 plugins are so cool and well adapted to the task compared to PT stuff which are pretty generic...

The sound: When I compose stuff for production, I use Sonar when working at home. I generally bounce my tracks seperatly for mixing at work on the PT. I also bounce a reference mix to hear in the studio. My reference mix is sometimes used "as is" and in the case of remix, the difference has more to do with monitoring difference than the "sound" of Sonar if any. In the case of a complicated tracks of course, this doesn't apply cause I don,t spend enough time on the rough mix.

I never had a chance to compare the two back to back, but one thing is sure, one can achieve a very good mix out of Sonar, that is certain. 

I worked on writing the music for a TV series and I had a partner working with me on a Logic setup. We would often listen to each others tracks. He regularly comented on the quality of the sound coming out of my system.  This was 5 years ago though bot I remember Logics reverbs and EQ sounding metalic and sterile, I was working with Sonar"s onboard Lexicon an Sonitus suite and they sounded way better. Poor reverbs an EQ,s are more damaging to a mix then a percieved muddyness, that can be fixed with propper mastering. 

In any case, I won't learn anything to anybody here by saying that a good mix starts with a good tune a good performance and good arranging. Mixing is a dynamic craft. You make decisions according to what you are hearing. If you have dificulty mixing, your monitoring should be the first thing to fix in the form of speakers, and room. 

My theory about hi-fi is as follows:

Take Picasso, rub some bacon on his glasses so his vision becomes blur. Ask him to paint. He will still be able to do a masterpiece. If you clean his glasses and ask him to look at what he painted he will discover details about his painting that he couldn't see while paintuing. But if he had clean glasses while he painted, he probably would have painted the same picture. Some hi-fi freaks have better sound systems at home than in recording studios. This doesn't meen that the engineer that mixed the tune on a lesser sound system didn't make a good enough job to be enjoyable on the super hi-fi system. Try to imagine Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon mixed on PT. Would it have been a better album? Back in the days, these guys wouls have killed to have have half of what Sonar has to offer.

Just thinking out loud I guess..

 
So long, and thanks for all the fish 
 

http://studioone.presonus.com/3259/but-does-it-really-sound-better/

Gotta hand it to those marketing men...the mystique of some DAW sounding better than another goes ever on.... 

trimph1


http://studioone.presonus.com/3259/but-does-it-really-sound-better/

Gotta hand it to those marketing men...the mystique of some DAW sounding better than another goes ever on.... 

Ya, to make a claim like that without quantifying it and testing it scientifically is, well, marketing at its worst IMHO. 


The bottom line is you can't claim your audio engine sounds better than others unless you do tests with the exact same material in different DAWs using the exact same settings. Otherwise, its like, does one DAWs plugins sound better/ different than the other's? 


At the end of the article the writer hands his findings to their 64-bit audio engine. Well, if that's the case, perhaps we should get credited with the best sounding DAW since we basically invented the 64-bit audio engins in the DAW world.


Just saying ... 


SP

John T


It's really dodgily written that blog entry. It doesnt actually make any real claims at all, just says "hey, if you think it sounds better, then wo are we to disagree?". Bit dishonest that I think. 

Exactly. This subject demands a scientific examination since it can be proved and disproved. Something like, 'which monitors sound best' is fine with a conclusion like, if you think it sounds best', since its a matter of opinion. DAW audio engines are not, IMHO.


SP

The bottom line is you can't claim your audio engine sounds better than others unless you do tests with the exact same material in different DAWs using the exact same settings.

 
And that's exactly what I did Seth. :) I sure can't hear a difference in the files I posted up. 3 different performances of the same passage recorded in each DAW and exported out of each DAW. If there is a difference, I sure can't hear enough of one that would make me choose one over the other. Did you happen to check them out? I'm curious as to what you or some of the other bakers thought about it. I think the people that have chimed in here mentioning hearing differences in my files are basing that on how my performance varied to some degree in each one. There's only so perfect one can play the same thing 3 times...and I'm one of those guys that isn't a very consistent "play the same exact thing" player. But for the life of me, I sure can't tell a difference that is blatantly obvious.
 
-Danny

CONSPIRACY! YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

Thread of the Month. This place is packed with pros.

What's your point? The ProChannel modules do indeed have a "sound". Don't see how that relates to this thread.

Rain



"There’s a reason SONAR just sounds better. SONAR's industry-first, end-to-end, 64-bit double precision floating point mix engine allows you to mix with sonic clarity using a suite of versatile effects, powerful mixing tools, and endless routing possibilities."
http://www.cakewalk.com/P...ouble-Precision-Engine

Sorry couldn't resist...

Yes, a 64-bit double precision audio engine will dos sound better than a 32-bit float, 24-bit, etc. engine. This can be proved mathematically that there will be less rounding errors in the summing with a 64-bit audio engine vs. others.


Comparing 64-bit audio engine to 64-bit audio engine, I doubt there would be a difference.


SP