DCMonkey


The VC++ redistributables have been installed as Side-by-Side assemblies since VC++ 2005. There are multiple copies of those DLLs in your c:\windows\WinSxS directory and programs declare either a specific version to load or ask for the most recent minor version. It can even handle locally installed copies of these DLLs. The DLL Hell scenario you describe doesn't apply.

Not to say there can't still be problems with this system. Most of the search results from your suggested term seem to be related to having the proper redist packages installed or installed correctly.

I thought the side-by-side stuff was for .NET programs, as there still exists standalone MSVC*.dll in the windows system directory and even more puzzling, why would Sonar (or other programs which do so) still need to install the C++ runtime if it supposed to be "assembled" on the fly as needed?




Best,
guitardood

bapu

guitardood

bapu

guitardood
but the overall mix sounds leaps and bounds better and was created with a lot less additional EQ than on X2.  http://www.musicpreview.c..._cover_Samba_Pa_Ti.mp3

Hasn't the rumor been long since quashed that all DAWs "sound" the same and that one mix being better than the other is not the DAWs merit but the merit belongs to the person and VSTs?

Don't know who supposedly quashed the "rumour", I'm just reporting my actual frustration with a problem and my experience in resolving the issue.  Under X2 on the same mix (Yamaha motif for all instruments other than the live guitar), I needed to put a high shelf at 10k (q=.76) of almost 12 db in some cases to get the mix to sound flat when translated.  I'm not blaming Sonar entirely as I feel my KRK V8s are partially responsible due to their over emphasis on the highs and are certainly not the best "reference" monitors despite their price of $499 each and $900 for the sub.  Perhaps you should reread my statement which you quoted.  I'm not saying pro tools sounds better, I'm saying my mix, on the same hardware with the same room and same monitors and same ears, when translated to other platforms (i.e. car stereo, boom box, living room 5.1 system, laptop speakers)  sounds leaps and bound better without major EQ surgery on the two track mix.  Or to be more accurate:  They sound the same, after I applied a 6 db shelf on the lows and a 12db shelf on the highs to the Sonar version of the two track mix down which was not required on the PT version.   Granted there is not supposed to be a difference, but unfortunately there is a difference and again it sound's as if Sonar (since X1) is compressing bus inputs rather than allowing them to clip.  I haven't looked at Sonar's source code so this is entirely conjecture on my part in an attempt to explain the difference in mixes from one platform to another.  And again, for the record,  I'M A FANBOI!

Best,
guitardood

IIRC correctly there was thread where the exact same raw WAV was loaded in numerous DAWs and exported to 16/44.1 WAV and was given a blind test. The results were a) nearly all admitted that there was no discernible difference and b) nearly every "guess" as to whch DAW it was, was wrong. 


But..... I'm probably lying as most of us do here in these forums. <edit: sorry for the joke poke at a comment made earlier, I should have put a  in here>

And, IIRC there were null tests done to prove that nothing was different about the exported WAVs.

I was not being a smart aleck. I was serious in everything I posted.

Oh OK, I get it. I should have posted a smiley face on the "lying" line. It was a poke of fun to someone a few days ago who said we all lie.

Sorry about that.

Bub


That blind test wasn't done with any of the X series.

As far as I can tell, trying to keep up with this, is guitardood said this applied to the X series.

Unless I'm mistaken.

That's an odd statement, IMO.


Most have conjectured (and even you implied once Bub, IIRC) that the SONAR X engine is based on 8.5 (which only makes perfect sense in the software developer world) because CW did not announce "an overhauled/entire new engine".


I'm not saying guitardood did not hear what he heard, but "science is science" IMHO.


And I will be the first to admit that maybe I may not be grasping the science properly. But what good is not believing in a null test if most believe it is the way to see if two (supposedly same) files are the same?

Bub


That blind test wasn't done with any of the X series.

As far as I can tell, trying to keep up with this, is guitardood said this applied to the X series.

Unless I'm mistaken.

Exactly.


Best,
guitardood

guitardood

DCMonkey


The VC++ redistributables have been installed as Side-by-Side assemblies since VC++ 2005. There are multiple copies of those DLLs in your c:\windows\WinSxS directory and programs declare either a specific version to load or ask for the most recent minor version. It can even handle locally installed copies of these DLLs. The DLL Hell scenario you describe doesn't apply.

Not to say there can't still be problems with this system. Most of the search results from your suggested term seem to be related to having the proper redist packages installed or installed correctly.

I thought the side-by-side stuff was for .NET programs, as there still exists standalone MSVC*.dll in the windows system directory and even more puzzling, why would Sonar (or other programs which do so) still need to install the C++ runtime if it supposed to be "assembled" on the fly as needed?




Best,
guitardood

Actually, I was somewhat mistaken. VC++ 2005 and 2008 used Side-by-Side assemblies. The earlier versions either went in the system32 directory or the app directory. It looks like VC++ 2010 and 2012 have gone back to the original method. The redist package plops them in system32, but as a developer you can also include them in your app directory. Why Sonar doesn't do the later I don't know.


Something I'm curious about is what happens when VST plugins and the Host app (ie: Sonar) are compiled against different runtime versions.

Peace brothers.....

backwoods
My busses never clip so I don't know if X2 is compressing rather than clipplinig. 

This is exactly my point.  Theoretically if you send two -1db tracks into a bus, they should sum to a volume which should cause clipping (digital clipping usually resulting in all sorts of clicks and pops) and it does not.


With all due respect, the null test is not the same as having recorded all the same tracks, using the same instruments though re-recording under each platform and then mixing all those tracks back out.  Same hardware, same bitrate, different OS & DAW.


Just to give you an idea of the painstaking steps I took to form my opinion:


BTW, this was performed on the 30-day trial of PT which I used to decide if I should plunk down the big bucks to get a copy.


I only used the Motif's sounds for synths, drums and bass in both scenarios.  Each instrument was recorded individually to it's own track as was each individual drum and percussion piece (yes I wasted all of that time listening to the tune over and over to capture each part separately, TWICE).  The guitar was a Gibson ES-335 Vintage Reissue going through a POD-HD Treadplate w/speakersim (with no other POD fx) through the PODS balanced outs into the Motu 24/IO. The rhythm guitar was a Taylor electric acoustic through the POD's non-amplifier sim acoustic setting.

In Sonar, I used a combination of Sonitus/EQ and DSP-FX delay and the rest were UAD-1 plugs  (pultec, 1176ln, LA2A, LA3A, Neve 88rs, EMT640, Dreamverb, Precision Limiter).   In PT I couldn't use the Sonitus EQ's or FX-Delay and had to use PT's native 7-Band EQ and their multi-delay.  All the routing was pretty much the same.  Cymbals to a cymbal bus, toms to a tom bus, all drums to a drum bus, keys to a keyboard bus, guitar to a guitar bus, bass to a bass bus and finally all of the busses to a master bus with the pultec and emt640 mastering verb.  I started with pretty much the same settings on the fx including the EQ curves on the individual tracks and their respective busses.

The two track mix then went out of the Motu and into a hardware tube compressor and right back into the final mix track which had another pultec and precision limiter and then finally bounced the outputs from the final mix to an MP3 file.

The Sonar version sounded a bit more compressed where it shouldn't, but most importantly, the final pultec on the sonar mix needed to have the gain on the high shelf boosted to it's max and the low shelf boosted an additional 3db in order to sound comparable in the translation.

You are more than welcome to believe what ever posts you wish, but for me, the proof is in my own subjective testing I used to decide if I should give Avid the ridiculous sum they were asking.

Best,
guitardood

jamesyoyo


Hey! Can I have my thread back?

This child sez Ya!!!!

Mooch4056


Guitardood....You're the one talking apples and oranges. 

When you have 46 tracks going through 6 busses set to power dither and a compression ration 2:2 on a dbx 266xl and a lexicon reverb with a small room delay divided by 3.14 that it is common knowledge that no matter what DAW you are using it will come out sounding the same every time EVEN IN MP3 format let alone wave. This was studied exclusively by Robert John Mutt Lange in a 2005 study. I mean come on his is total fact and common sense. Google it dude!! 

Personally I prefer tape. I'll never give up my tascam 16 M reel to reel. 


But to each his own. 


(Eye roll) 

Sheeeeesh! 

It's 2012 and Sonar has gone through what, 5 revisions.  But sure, a 2005 study by someone who I never even heard of is more relevant than my own testing done over the past 3 months.   It's an opinion for Christ's sake.  Get over it.   Jesus!


Even bigger eye roll

Best,
guitardood

jamesyoyo


Hey! Can I have my thread back?

Very sorry, James.


Best,
guitardood

X2a definitly works better than the forum software!!!

webbs hill studio

a 2005 study by someone who I never even heard of

guitardood


i hope you are kidding-if you have never heard of Mutt Lange then you must be living in an audio bubble of your own.


do yourself a favour and check out his discography before you discredit his work and whilst it is 2013 a wav is still a wav and it`s how you make them that makes these forums go round.
cheers

webbs hill studio

a 2005 study by someone who I never even heard of

guitardood


i hope you are kidding-if you have never heard of Mutt Lange then you must be living in an audio bubble of your own.


do yourself a favour and check out his discography before you discredit his work and whilst it is 2013 a wav is still a wav and it`s how you make them that makes these forums go round.
cheers

Oh the work I quoted was tongue in cheek made up study and ridiculous  ... But I thought that was obvious .. 


The part of not knowing who Mutt Lange..... Is like claiming you're a hall of fame baseball player and you never heard of Babe Ruth




So I made my point I think