I appreciate the distinction Seth, and honestly, I get it. I've read similar and worst elsewhere. 

And claiming that the engine sounds "just as good as anything" in such a context wouldn't really make for a brilliant introduction to any product.

Danny Danzi

bobguitkillerleft


Its always refreshing to read of peoples like of Sonar,when they work in studios which by definition,seem to have to have PT,in order to be a functioning business,as seems to be the case SO OFTEN!

Obviously there are some who use Sonar at a proffessional,successfull level [panup-yay!!]but as PT was adopted as the industry standard[?],I sometimes question my choice in going to cakewalk,but hearing of PT users preferring Sonar is something I need to hear occaisionally,as I find Avids whole scenario,just way too expensive,and forcibly so: "PT HDX is only compatible with Nehalem/Westermere Mac Pro's"!

Such a concept seems ridiculous when one realises the MP hasn't been updated since July 2010!,and pro Daw builders are getting ready to build systems with the intel E5 2600 8core Xeons,just ONE of which was recently tested by Scott @ ADK,being about TWICE as able to load plugins,as a Stock i7 2600k!.

Just MO as I see it. 

I too use Sonar as my professional DAW of choice. I have PT here for one reason only...and that is because there have been people over the years that would call and ask "you got pro tools?" If you said no, they hung up on you and didn't even care how good your sound was. Also, I do quite a few remixes for people that have pt sessions. It's nice to just bring it in instead of asking for wave files or AIFF or to even mess around with OMF. You made the right call going with Sonar. If it works well for you and you can get everything done without crashing, it's the right choice. If you have issues and constantly find yourself frustrated with Sonar, you just find a DAW that is more to your liking and move on really. Each DAW has a little something different to offer but they all allow you to end up at the same place if they work properly. Anything else is pretty subjective and per user. But don't ever question your choice...the best choice is the DAW that works for you and with you. :)
 
-Danny

Thanks for the encouraging words man,too cool!


I definitely can't hear any sonic differences in your files,only the smallest of performance differences,and even then it's in a good way.


What do you think Apple will do with the MacPro? If they release a new one with these new Sandy Xeons,I can't even imagine how wildly expensive it will be,especially when a bare bones 12 core[Xeon 5650 2.66 GHz x2] in Australia starts at $5000 AUD right now! 

I put off getting into recording for too long because of the MacPro-Pro Tools Mantra,and thought I could never afford it,but in a way,I think I bought in at the right time,
I eventually discovered I could do it for less,by staying well clear of Apple/Avid.
X1 does not behave on my Dell laptop[April 2011 XPS l502x i7 2630qm]-No metronome-gone,and I must re-apply Audio after I open every project.
It's TOTALLY pure and stable on the overclocked desktop,so I do kind of understand the naysayers a bit,but the desktop I made double sure of the parts,the shop put it together,and the Gigabyte motherboard makes it so easy to overclock.
 With the Zalman cooler it's usually under 30c never going over 50c being hammered,it geekbenches at 14,000.

Cheers man,Bob.

My most recent build up I've done dinged me $6700. 

I haven't really noticed Apple prices going up either...

Jind

Danny Danzi

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

Danny,


Just wondering why you did not just use a DI files so that you could rule out most performance related differences.  While I understand that would require you to record the DI using one program and importing it into the others, thus possibly allowing naysayers to blame it on the actual program you used to capture the test file, but a DI, reamped via a common plugin using the same plugin with the same preset and all other settings being equal would seem to remove the performance aspect out of the mix since the DI used would be the same for all tests.  


Just wondering,

Jind, you pretty much answered the question in your comment. :) What I hoped to accomplish was to show that if we actually recorded and rendered using the same front end, plugin, plugin preset and export from the DAW in which each piece was recorded in, we would achieve the same results.
 
In my opinion, any one with a good set of ears that knows the difference between tonal coloration and performance tonality will not be able to tell a difference. They'll be able to separate performance tonality from supposed DAW coloration.
 
For example, if I pick some notes far back as close to my trem as possible, they will appear brighter than if I played in the center or near my neck pick-up. If I rotate my pick slightly, some of the notes will change in tone. All of these examples slightly change the flavor but they don't change the actual tone as a whole. There is no drastic eq curve alteration other than a possible spike on an analyzer due to me possibly emphasizing something execution wise. You know...like say a pinch harmonic or maybe a flat picked section instead of a slightly off axis pick attack.
 
If I dig in a bit harder on a few notes or play a section a bit more forceful, those are dynamic tonalities, not DAW coloration. These are the little nuances people *may* have picked up on. But the over-all tone remains the same. Play them all at the same time and you'll hear what I mean. When they sound a bit strange or seem different, it's due to human timing and slightly different execution. A trained ear for sound can tell the difference between these anomalies and true tonal coloration coming from "somewhere else" is my point.
 
At the end of the day, if someone truly does hear a difference and can actually prove it, it will not be the kind of proof that is blatantly obvious to the human ear that would make any of us use one of those DAWs over another. It's not like we're hearing the warm sound of tubes in a version and a slightly brittle transistor sound in another. Another test people could do would be to take my files, bring them into another DAW and just export them. But I sort of did that out of each DAW for each performance so in my opinion, there would be no need for that. It is also my belief that because these sound so much the same, that if I were to recreate the DI without using guitar rig and exported it and then imported it into each DAW and added GR after, we'd end up with the exact same results we have now. With the way I did do it, I also believe we'd hear something that would be pretty obvious in my opinion if any of these DAWs were coloring my tones.
 
Keep in mind, we shouldn't be nit-picking these...you either instantly hear something drastically different or you don't, know what I mean? For someone to say one DAW is muddier than another while placing blame on the audio engine or whatever...that to me means it should be something we all hear and it should leap right out at us without even analyzing it. In my examples it's not a case of one sounds like mud, one sounds bright, the other sounds perfect. They all have the same exact delivery tonality wise...so in my opinion, this was a pretty successful test showing that if there is something else going on, I do not believe it is the audio engine on the DAWs I have tested on. I hope that answers your questions. :)
 
-Danny

I had to do a bit of back page digging around in KvR but I finally found a nice piece of work done on this topic...

http://www.image-line.com/support/FLHelp/html/app_audio.htm

The guy who wrote this also seems to be collecting all kinds of threads on this very topic...methinks he is going to put together a black museum of infamous threads...

Ahhh,
 
Finally!  The OP has squeezes a few precious moments away from the family to record (very quickly, so don't rip me for my sloppiness...and no, I didn't hit a bum note in the Sonar file on purpose :).
 
Anyhow, here are 3 files that illustrate how Amplitube sounds within: Reaper, Live, and Sonar.
 
I'm using the following equipment:
 
E-MU 1616m audio Interface
E-MU ASIO drivers
16 bit recording
44.1
all inputs and outputs @ 0db
rendered at 24 bit wav
Windows XP   -  32 bit DAW for all (Reaper/Live/Sonar X1c
Fender Stratocaster w/ EMG DG-20 pickups
Amplitube 2  - Patch is JC CLEAN
Sonar Expanded X1c
Reaper 3.73
Ableton Live Lite 8
 
Here you go:
 
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/66587011/Sound%20test%20Files.zip
 
Clearly, you can hear a difference in volume/clarity/fidelity in the Reaper and Live versions.  I'll say the the Sonar version sounds more "hollow", certainly not as crisp as the other 2.
 
Remember, the same can be said when using Guitar Rig.
 
I also ran a test using the emulated out on my Blackstar HT-60 Soloist combo, directly into my audio interface.  The sound, while monitoring live, was EXACTLY the same within the 3 DAWS.  So, this leaves me to believe this is a problem when handling VST's and live audio input.
 
So, there you have it....I cannot explain what is going on, but it's definitely not placebo....can anyone help?  Cakewalk?
 
Thoughts everyone?
 
Thanks for listening-
Bob
 

Kevo-

No, they were all recorded in MONO.

Just to clarify-

In All three DAWS, Mono input was selected.  there was a mono wav file recorded, not a stereo file.  I am absolutely positive.  Not sure how KEVO came to that conclusion.

brozobob


Just to clarify-

In All three DAWS, Mono input was selected.  there was a mono wav file recorded, not a stereo file.  I am absolutely positive.  Not sure how KEVO came to that conclusion.

It was very simple.
Load the files and watch the meters.
 
I believe you. However the effect you are using is a stereo effect.
With the track interleave in Sonar toggled to Mono, you are still
hearing a mono signal.
 
That is why it sounds the way it does. 
 
EDIT:
I didn't know whether you recorded the part in stereo or mono.
All I know is there is a stereo signal in the other two files.
 
It *IS* the track interleave setting in Sonar that needs to be toggled.
 

Well, I'll be a horses A**     Flipped the switch, and voila, sound is exactly the same in all programs. 


Classic.


Epic thread none the less.

brozobob


Well, I'll be a horses A**
 
Flipped the switch, and voila, sound is exactly the same in all programs.
 
Almost 10k in views for nothin!
 
So, my next question is, where should the interleave be set when recording guitars?  Stereo or mono; then, is there a general rule to follow with this button?
 
-Bob

This one will go down in Sonar forum history.

Move over Phuket Ling-Ling time to relinquish your crown...

Well done kevo, well spotted.

I can tell my grandkids that I was there the exact time it concluded....too funny.

Good Boy!

It gives me the creeps. Are you all floating down there? 

The only thing missing here are the 4 kittehs of the apocalypse.....

For the love of God, someone please append "-SOLVED" to the thread name!

Jind


Thanks for the response Danny - as a guitarist myself I get what you are talking about, but the technical side of me tells me when doing comparisons to rule out as many variables as possible, sort of the KISS principle of troubleshooting.  If someone hears a difference between two files of the exact same performance (down to the 1s and 0s if at all possible) would tell me more than subjective observations about terms such as muddiness or hashness, warmness or brightness, as these can have a different meaning to different people.  I think as you pointed out - it's really about whether one hears something different at all regardless of how they define it. My "better" could be the complete opposite of your "better".  

I think one thing most of us can agree on - great music can be created on almost any commercial platform. There are so many more variables that have a greater impact on the final result than what program I recorded the take on.  As was said early on in this thread - the last thing the A&R guy is going to look at is what DAW that great song that got an artist signed to a label was made on.

Not a problem Jind. And you're right in what you say. I just wanted to try and rule out that something was happening during the tracking/creation process as well as the export. I felt bringing in the same file may have brought up a few possible questions since it would have been recorded using one DAW. Too easy for people to jump on that train like you had mentioned in your first response to me. :)
 
At the end of the day...poor Bob figured out what his issue was. I gotta admit Bob, I respect you not only for your honesty, but for sticking to your guns because you were right...there definitely was a difference there! At least we know what it is now and you yourself can see these DAW's all sound the same. :) Kevo, good ears! :) I missed all this action...darn it..I actually had to do something I don't normally do since you guys last saw a post from me....and that is....sleep! :) Glad we got this sorted.
 
I will say, though we solved the OP's issue, there was a pretty credible engineer posting on here mentioning this "mud". I was curious to hear an example from him as well as a deeper look into how his DAWs may have been set up. He's gotta be missing something somewhere. Heck, I'll throw all caution to the wind and trust my ears on something....but even *I* make mistakes or miss something once in a while. LOL! It reminds me of a little discussion with CJ one time on another forum. I was voicing my opinion about something I was so positive on, I was starting to become a bit of a jerk about it. Low and behold...I was so wrong I wound up apologizing to CJ for about 5 messages. Even if we're credible and live this stuff 24/7, there's no such thing as "perfect" that's for sure. :)
 
-Danny
 
P.S. a note on stereo interleave: When I record mono tracks, it auto switches for me. I have no problems with it the way it is now. When I record a stereo track, it switches for me there too...so to be honest, it's rare for me to ever touch the stereo interleave button other than when I listen to a mix in mono and kill one of my monitors. That said, I always set up my in's and outs manually before I record something. I never just open up a new project, press arm and start recording with defaults. All my "new projects" are usually templates with everything all ready set up. For example, I know that in most projects I will have two independent guitars. One will be set to Layla Left In or RME Left In, the other Layla Right In or RME Right In. My lead guitar tracks are usually recorded in stereo because I like to use some of the chorus effects from my guitar pre-amp. So this one will always be a stereo track. This way, I never make a mistake and my tracks are always ready to go.
 
One thing I will say though....I really would like to have the stereo interleave button brought back onto my track pain instead of using inspector to see it. We're talking one little button....I definitely miss it being where it was.