| Author
|
It is proved that Cubase export has better quality than FL export ?
|
Sputer
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
315
Posts :
2709
Posted : Sep 13, 2009 15:37:23
|
just to know . . {sorry if it already answered}
  ..."Be yourself, let your conscience guide you...
Follow your heart, not the people around you"... |
|
|
|
psycox
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
269
Posted : Sep 13, 2009 18:55
|
 please use google to read about the ranking of all daw's. there some good articles about digital mixing and the limits of this technic.
|
|
|
|
Sputer
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
315
Posts :
2709
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 03:42
|
oh ok .. there is no simple answer here I see
..."Be yourself, let your conscience guide you...
Follow your heart, not the people around you"... |
|
|
|
tHuJoN
Freakulizer / Khainz
Started Topics :
115
Posts :
932
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 16:26
|
|
Sputer
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
315
Posts :
2709
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 16:48
|
so lets say I made track on FL.
then I export all channels to wav {without EQ on them} then open cubase and import those wavs.
EQ them and everything and finaly export as a track.
it has any different than doing export from the fruity in the first place?
..."Be yourself, let your conscience guide you...
Follow your heart, not the people around you"... |
|
|
|
Suloo
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
87
Posts :
2822
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 18:17
|
|
is fruity 32bit float capabil at all?
-------......-------...-..-..-..-.-.-.-.- |
|
|
|
psycox
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
269
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 19:04
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-14 18:17, Zork wrote:
is fruity 32bit float capabil at all?
|
|
yes.
and now for all that have a lot of time. try this:
choose two loops with same tempo. (44khz 32bit).
choose two or more daw's (sonar,cubase,logic,ableton live ,fruity,reaper).
make to audio channels in your daw's and insert there your loops.
export the audiofile with 44khz 32bit as wav.
go to a audioeditor of your choice and then import the wav's and normalize all to the same point.
now you can hear wich daw has the best exporting function.
be sure you have never activated dithering etc.
|
|
|
|
Andreh
Bash / Kernel Panic
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
690
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 19:36
|
One thing i know: Cubase/Nuendo sounds better than FL. I made some years ago using Cubase 2 and FL 6, and cubase sounds really better.
I dont know if newest versions of FL does better these days, but in the past not.
Bash's Home:
http://www.myspace.com/bashbr
Mind Tweakers Records:
http://www.mindtweakers.com |
|
|
|
The_Guardians_Of_Truth
Atma
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
379
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 20:25
|
Wrong !... FL has exactly the same exporting quality as Cubase, Logic, Sonar..(as long they can export on 32 bit). Only the panning laws are different...and thats why when you make tests it may look they sound different.
But, if you really wanna make a test you have to do it with mono files to cancel the "panning laws". But, this is very hard because they export in stereo even if your sound in sequencer is mono.
I'ts always easy to blame the the DAW soft or the VST's, sound card, monitors etc...
And, just because few of you didn't got satisfied results with one or other software this doesn't mean the soft is the problem 
NEW ALBUM OUT SOON !!!
"ATMA - Music Revolution"
www.myspace.com/atmastudio |
|
|
|
Andreh
Bash / Kernel Panic
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
690
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 21:06
|
Well i can agree with u by one point: The sound card and the speaker used for the test i made are really crap. But in that test, i got big diferences.
In that case, i used a VST called TRITIUM and a mono kick sample. Same preset, no equalization in both hosts. Cubase/Nuendo got a more cristall resulta than FL.
I think its time for a re-test! 
Bash's Home:
http://www.myspace.com/bashbr
Mind Tweakers Records:
http://www.mindtweakers.com |
|
|
|
Suloo
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
87
Posts :
2822
Posted : Sep 14, 2009 22:36
|
|
hm, cubase 4/5 actualy got mono export..test would be cool yeah
-------......-------...-..-..-..-.-.-.-.- |
|
|
|
bandarlog
Bandarlog
Started Topics :
44
Posts :
809
Posted : Sep 15, 2009 17:22
|
And again and again the same shit... Weren't there tests done & covered using phase reverse or something proving that there absolutely no difference. As for panning: You have to stereo seperate the master channel a bit in FL in order to make it sound good. Lot of people don't. Another thing is the velocity of samples if you use the sampler. The velocity isn't maximised with lower volume as a result. Audioclips don't have that. Even if there were a difference, above stated settings or lack of settings are probably more responsible for people's opinions on FL sounding worse.
http://www.soundcloud.com/bandarlog
http://www.ektoplazm.com/free-music/bandarlog-memoirs-of-the-moment |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
OOOD/Voice of Cod
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Sep 15, 2009 18:21
|
Most (all?) DAWs will output bit-identical copies of audio if the channel and master faders are left on zero, so simply loading in a loop or a VSTi and exporting it vanilla will not tell you anything.
If you want to try and test for any differences in the mixing engines you need to add FX plugins and move faders so the engine is actually doing something to mix what you hear. I would not recommend using VSTis, but rather loops or static audio files, since VSTis do not always produce an absolutely repeatable output.
Even then, don't trust your ears, because the placebo effect will be very strong in tests like this. Phase inverting and adding the two test renders together will eliminate everything common to the two files and leave you with only the differences, which you can then analyse with your DAWs Statistics function and a good spectrum analyser. Remember though that the 'difference file' will not tell you which DAW those differences came from; for that you will have to use your ears and brain But be careful of the placebo effect!
Mastering - http://mastering.OOOD.net :: www.is.gd/mastering
OOOD 5th album 'You Think You Are' - www.is.gd/tobuyoood :: www.OOOD.net
www.facebook.com/OOOD.music :: www.soundcloud.com/oood
Contact for bookings/mastering - colin@oood.net |
|
|
|
Andreh
Bash / Kernel Panic
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
690
Posted : Sep 15, 2009 21:20
|
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-15 18:21, Colin OOOD wrote:
Most (all?) I would not recommend using VSTis, but rather loops or static audio files, since VSTis do not always produce an absolutely repeatable output.
|
|
Thats a interesting information. The biggest difference that i percept in my "lamme" test, was the VSTi reproduction. The same preset sounds twice time brighter/clean/crystal in cubase/nuendo.
Bash's Home:
http://www.myspace.com/bashbr
Mind Tweakers Records:
http://www.mindtweakers.com |
|
|
|
0hz
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
261
Posted : Sep 18, 2009 00:13
|
short answer, yes cubase export is better then FLs.
im not gonna get in to details because im to lazy to write a 2 page post.
the difference is in the summing, not the individual track export.
if you create exactly identical mix ( identical fx, panning, volume etc...) using external measurement program so you will be sure that each track is identical in both daws , the cubase mixdown will sound better ( warmer, more 3d and overall punchier). the difference is not jaw dropping....but there is a difference.
regarding the vsti reproduction, its exactly the same.
if someone thinks its not then his doing something wrong.
those conclusions where made testing FL7 vs cubase 4. maybe FL9 has a better audio engine. |
|
|
|
