It is proved that Cubase export has better quality than FL export ?

On 2010-01-12 06:04, SCHRANZ MILITIA wrote:
David Guetta use FL like many other house artists...
i thinks FL has top quality like cubase & other music softwares...

http://www.myspace.com/schranzevilmusic

On 2010-02-10 14:33, Elad wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

On 2010-02-12 17:43, Fragletrollet wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-02-10 14:33, Elad wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Good one. Altough, I do find it weird how they do the DA/AD loop-test with the Soundblaster card. They do a 20-loop experiment with an audio sample (out and in 20 times), and compare it with the original file. The difference is miniscule, but what I find intruiging is that there is no info on what system this is monitored on. If its monitored from the Soundblaster, its pretty obvius the details/degrading of the DA/AD loop wont be heard, but on a much higher grade DA it might have been. Maybe this is Ethans point, that most people will listen on soundblaster quality soundcards so the difference will not be heard?

On 2010-02-14 13:07, Spindrift wrote:
Sure, a lot of people will experience a big difference when switching interface.
There are many reasons for that, and here are some, going from the most common and noticeable:

1) Placebo
Anyone working with audio should have noticed how strong the placebo effect is when it comes to how we perceive audio.

2) Level differences
If the output of the card is better matched with the sensitivity of the input you are feeding the signal into, the better it will sound.

3) Cabling
Maybe one interface enables you to use a nice pair of balanced XLR's instead of unbalanced phono.

4) Technical differences in the output of the soundcard
Differences in dynamic range, frequency response, jitter and distortion tends to be small even between very cheap interfaces and high-end ones. In the test you notice that since running a signal trough a converter 20 times would make any noteworthy differences very obvious.
If you can't hardly hear the difference when it's amplified 20 times it's fair to assume that you can't notice it at all during normal operation.

On 2010-02-15 11:10, Fragletrollet wrote:
Yeah we agree then


But you must agree, trying to identify what the soundblaster "masks" while monitoring from the soundblaster doesnt make much sense.

On 2010-02-17 15:46, PoM wrote:
today all cards must be fine i guess, but the frequency is not flat ,here a laptop card for example http://www.revue-audiophile.fr/userfiles/image/Dantan/LMAPLN/image008.jpg
i remember my rme beeing almost flat except a roll off in the lowend

there s some soft to check , you connect the output to the input to get the response, should try with the digital i/o to see withotu any convertion if it s the same

On 2010-02-17 12:50, Spindrift wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-02-15 11:10, Fragletrollet wrote: Yeah we agree then But you must agree, trying to identify what the soundblaster "masks" while monitoring from the soundblaster doesnt make much sense.

You should be able to hear any noise, distortion, uneven frequency response and jitter when it's amplified 20 times, even when playing the recording back with the card that has the inconsistencies. You just hear them amplified 21 times instead of 20.

But I don't know why you assume that it's a part of the test to listen to the result on the soundblaster? You can download the recordings and listen for differences using your SSL converters if you like.