| Author
|
FL Producer 5 Cubase SX 2 comparison.
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 19:36
|
Hi all,
I have just got back from Christmas celebrations and find that this thread has degenerated into non-sense, name calling, emotional jibberish and plain old stupidity. Please stop it and think twice or thrice before posting because it makes everybody here look bad. There is absolutely no need for that.
I will give this one general answer in this thread and leave it at that. If you want more information, details or a response from me, please send me a private message. Also, I am working on a site for people to upload the results of the tests they have performed. After that, when the upload site will be ready, I will start a new thread with explanations and a call for people to help and participate in the test.
I can't speak for other people so I won't even try. I will tell you what my ideas are with this test and what I expect from it:
First of all, I see this as the first test in a series of such tests that will compare various aspects of the most popular audio + midi sequencers on the market today. (Depending on what contributors have available of course). I think it is a good idea to start with the basics. That means testing the audio summing engine of the various sequencers.
Originaly the test was going to be done at 24 bits as that is what most proffesional producers use these days. At least in the Psytrance scene. In light of the information we received from Image Line, the developer of Fruity Loops, we have decided to also include tests at 16 bit. That doesn't mean we are not going to do tests at 24 bit nor does it make the 16 bit test erronous or irrelevant. There could always be a coding error in the 16 bit engine of a sequencer that supports 24 or 32 bit audio. It also shows potential users of each product what they can and can't expect from any of the products.
This does not make the test biased in anyway. On the contrary. It will be very clear that Fruity Loops does not support mixdown and export at 24 bit. It is up to users to decide if they want and/or need this. In no way is Image Line influencing the way we are doing our tests. They just gave us some extra information wich we used to broaden the scope of the tests to include 16 bit mixdown and export. The results of the tests will speak for themselves.
UnderTow |
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 19:43
|
That was very much informative undertow... thanks 
hope everyone got EVERYTHING straight now... god I hope so
 Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 19:53
|
Thank you UnderTow!
Finally someone tries to give a proper explanation of what you are doing in a polite way.
I still think making the 16 bit test is pointless and purely theoretical.
But as long as it's made very clear that using truncated/dithered 16 bit files is bad practice and should be avoided it will hopefully not fool any producers into beliveing that it's acceptable practice like thockin tried to do.
The problem also seems to be that the purpose of the test is not agreed on.
I think it would have been good to make a statement which could have been approved by the participants before starting the test to avoid confusion and arguements.
I would also make the whole thing seem a bit more serious.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:00
|
"I would also make the whole thing seem a bit more serious" --- are u standing from the side suggesting it or are you actually gonna do something about it? That's the attitude of yours which i don't understand.... seriously.
Do you want to make a difference or just make remarks ? be serious...
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:01
|
Ok I lied. I will answer this post. 
Spindrift, Tim never said that it was or wasn't acceptable practice. He said it made no difference for this particular test. That is partly true. I still think there could be a coding error in the audio engine at different bit depth. This is unlikely but possible.
And indeed the purpose of the test wasn't entirely clear from the beginning and has changed a bit from H2O's original idea. That is fine and I think this is a positive result of this discussion. That is NOT a bad thing.
The following isn't aimed at anyone in particular. They are just my ideas on how to tackle problems and differences of opinion: There really is no point in just criticising as that won't achieve anything. Instead of criticising what has been said or is being done, offer new positive ideas and solutions to perceived problems. That is the only way forward.
Also don't criticise what you THINK will be the result of the test. That is just insane. It shows immense arrogance and total disrespect to people. You can only decide if it has been well done or not when the whole thing is finished and published. This is work in progress.
Thanks,
UnderTow
PS: I'll be the first to admit that I don't always follow my own advice. |
|
|
|
ZilDoggo
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
663
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:12
|
"Why do you like to make the test equal for all sequencers when they are not? "
because otherwise you could not compare them to each other.
this is the very basis of good testing.
you cannot compare apples to oranges.
but (and you cant do this with fruit) if there is a banana in both the orange and the apple then you can use that as a basis for a good comparison.
furthermore, making the tests in 16 bits will still show the same errors, depending of the origin these errors can be scaled in different parts of the signal.
it does not matter wether you use 16 or 24 bit files, the audio engine is still the same and the mathematics it does to the sound is also the same.
(but i also agree with undertow that there could be a hidden misrepresentation of certain bitdepths so it is usefull anyway to do these tests)
so, for the purpose of this test, 16 bits is just as good as 24 bits.
so, if any of the sequencers has trouble with 24 bits (or it is suggested by someone or whatever) then it is NOT a problem IN THIS CASE WITH THIS TYPE OF TEST to use 16 bit files.
if you find errors in 16 bit files, then they will also be there in the 24 bit file.
"I do not get the point in making it into a test finding out WHY it does not sound the same.
It's better left to the developers. "
not everyone here is just a computor user and musician.
i for instance make music, program, play games, solve problems, draw 3D, etc etc.,
i also like to play with sound in general and modular synth design in particular.
so, i guess there are other ppl who not only make music but do a lot of other creative things with their computers.
again, if you dont like that then dont post here anymore. start a thread of your own.
"What I would expect a producer would like to know is if and how different it sounds.
Sure it's subjective....as always with audio equipment. "
in fact, i started doing these tests some time ago because i was sure i heared a difference and some ppl with broken ears said it was not true.
so to shut them up i HAD to do actual tests because otherwise they would never see the truth.
so this subjective testing was (at least for me) the very first test i did!.
then i went on to see mathematically that my hearing was right (and it's ok cause my tests showed that fruity was buttering up the sound)
i dont think ppl would be doing these tests if all sequencers sounded the same to them.
"Thats how you test audio hardware, and I don't know why it can not be applied to software as well."
because with software you can do better than subjective listening tests.
you can do actual objective tests.
and i'm sure you understand the difference, right?
"Thinking that you can be objective about the output of a sequencer is suffering from hybris. "
why is that?.,
this remark is not helping the discussion.
you basically say: you cant do it but i've got no idea why not.
so i think you are basically scared as shit of these tests.
i'm not sure why.
but you clamp yourself to the idea that only subjecive testing will give any results.
this is just not true otherwise we would not need programmers at all and we would be making everything 'by ear'.
you need to understand that before any hard or software is listened to in a test it has to be designed first!.
the test conducted here is about design of the internals of sequencers.
and i am sorry for you that you do not understand these things but they are very important for the final results.
so this test is far from useless, it tells us how the sound is processed inside the sequencer (or a part of it).
with this knowledge you could gain more control over your final sound.
again, if you dont like this kind of control then please stop reading and posting this thread.
"None of us totally understand the ins and out of all sequencers and do have to rely on our ears rather than technical "facts"."
well, i do understand most of what's going on inside a sequencer.
so that only shows how much you know about your tools.
which is ok.
but dont start telling ppl what they should or should not know just because you live by those limitations.
"The simple reason why I only outlined what I think should be included in a proper test is that most the people that wants to involve in the test seem to be more interested in proving theoretical point rather than make a serious attempt to find out the differences in output."
about 99.9% of any sequencer is pure theory.
you read books, then program. couldnt be more abstract or theoretical.
live with it. it's the essence of todays tools. (and has been for the last 20 years or so)
and again, these tests are just to support real life hearing tests.
at least with me, i heared a difference and this test just proved to me that there is a difference.
and yes, part of it is about proving the ppl that dont hear a difference wrong. you need hard FACTS to do that and you can only get facts form OBJECTIVE measurements/observations.
and discussing theoretical points is a good way of testing the test!.
|
|
|
|
H2O
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
352
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:17
|
|
Zil, check pm please. |
|
|
|
High Pulse
Darkpsy
Started Topics :
57
Posts :
1187
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:24
|
well and one subject that i think is stupid .. if u compare last version from fruity . why not test against all the last version from logic , cubase, nuendo, sonar , protools etc etc ?????
i think is a nice thread this one , but with a wrong cause .. delete this if u whant but ,, im really tired from this !
"HIGH PULSE" AKA FUSION OF DARKPSY PROJECTS
http://www.myspace.com/highpulsemusic
http://www.beatbiz.net/artists/High-Pulse <- musiC FOR SELL. |
|
|
|
H2O
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
352
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:27
|
This is not stupid at all, different versions of sequencers must be a part of test, since they can be different. FL Producer users say that FL 5.xx sound better than FL 4.xx, means we should check it as well because some of FL users still use 4.xx version.
Thanks Darkpsy |
|
|
|
EYB
Noized
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
2849
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:30
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-27 20:27, H2O wrote:
This is not stupid at all, different versions of sequencers must be a part of test, since they can be different. FL Producer users say that FL 5.xx sound better than FL 4.xx, means we should check it as well because some of FL users still use 4.xx version.
Thanks Darkpsy
|
|
I think especially for FL it is nonsense coz if u bought it u get lifetime updates. So there is no sense in using Fl4 coz Fl5 is completly backwards-compatible to Fl4.
Signature |
|
|
|
H2O
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
352
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:32
|
|
NO, depends what version of FL Producer you own. SOme versions are not livetime updated as Boxed one. |
|
|
|
ZilDoggo
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
663
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:33
|
" why not test against all the last version from logic , cubase, nuendo, sonar , protools etc etc ????? "
who said we will not test them????
everything will be tested!! (BUAHAHAHAHAAH )
why fruity right now?
cause it was just released and ppl were wondering wether fruities engine got upgraded (because tests were done earlier with fl4.)
what i'm wondering about now is wether there is a difference between fl4 and fl5
btw. another reason why the test is not yet conducted on newer versions of logic and cubase is becase it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY they would change their engine dramatically.
they would have A LOT OF disstressed customers.
possibly the same thing goes for fruityloops users and why image line didnt change the engine.
and if you are tiered of it then why keep on reading??
greetos.,
aka., |
|
|
|
EYB
Noized
Started Topics :
111
Posts :
2849
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:35
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-27 20:32, H2O wrote:
NO, depends what version of FL Producer you own. SOme versions are not livetime updated as Boxed one.
|
|
Okidoki thats true. Maybe also interesting if they really changed something in their engine.
Signature |
|
|
|
H2O
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
352
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 20:43
|
|
Test in progress. |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 27, 2004 21:01
|
@UnderTow
Quote:
| Spindrift, Tim never said that it was or wasn't acceptable practice. |
|
Well, he said it like this:
Quote:
| Does it mean your sound will suck? No. You are the reason your sound will suck. |
|
Sorry but that comment is an arrogant lousy argument about truncated 16 bit vs. 24 bit.
It is misinformation.
@ZilDoggo
You look as stupid to me as someone who think they can tell how a piece of hardware sounds by looking at the schematics of the unit.
Move over the discussion to a forum for developers instead of asking producers here to help out with the test and then tell them to shut up because they don't agree with you.
You might think you understand to 99.9% how exactly how all sequencers on the market work, just as there is electronics engineers who think they know exaclty how all hardware on the market works.
But stop asking people to leave the thread when they think a developers discussion is out of place here, because it is.
Edit:
-----
ZilDoggo....btw, since you know 99.9% about how all audio software works maybe you could explain to me what the phase comp button on my pulsar mixer does and tell me what sequencers incorporate the same feature.
So now the test is made by and for developers.
Is that the general concensus of the people conducting the test?
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
