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

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>

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.

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.

You're talking apples and oranges.  Loading a WAV and playing it out is not the same as having 20 tracks each recorded individually into each DAW and then mixed with 5 to one bus and 5 to another and so on and then the 4 sub mixes going to a master bus and then out to a file.  Through that entire process, there was an immediate discernible difference, at least to my ears.  But to each his own.

Best,
guitardood


P.S.  BTW, no need to be a smart aleck.  I've been nothing but polite and haven't been one of the jerks calling anyone a liar.

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

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.

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.

bapu


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

Like the child that you come across as being, you made it personal and quite frankly I don't have the time to waste on the likes of yourself.  Have a nice life.

<iggy>


Best,
guitardood

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?

You should do a null test guitardood 

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


Sometimes with music software what you see is not always what you get too- Liquid Mix used to have a problem where what you dialed in on the grapgh was not what the program DSP was doing to the audio signal- that caused much confusion. Maybe Sonar EQ has similiar defects- I don't know.