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

bapu

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".

No sir, I didn't imply, I stated it as fact as that's what I believe to be true. I could be wrong though.

Being a troubleshooter at heart (and by profession ha ha), it's not all the inconceivable for me to believe that something was tweaked on the bus side that would be causing him to experience this.

Like I said in the other thread (or was it this one, I'm getting confused now) ... it's all in the code and how it's written. They did change some things in X2, for example, it supports 384kHz sample rate now, X1 did not support that.

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.

Bub

Being a troubleshooter at heart (and by profession ha ha), it's not all the inconceivable for me to believe that something was tweaked on the bus side that would be causing him to experience this.

Replying to my own comment ... I saw a thread not all that long ago where someone came in the forum and said how much better X2 sounded.

What was it they were hearing? Who knows.

Peace brothers.....

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! 

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

Hey! Can I have my thread back?

jamesyoyo


Hey! Can I have my thread back?

This child sez Ya!!!!

DCMonkey


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

Exactly!  I'm sure that a lot of system flakiness could be traced back this, hence my argument for sandboxing apps.  At the very least, it would protect the O/S from getting hosed.




Best,
guitardood