| Author
|
Sound engine ???
|
Top-down
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
119
Posted : Dec 8, 2004 10:42
|
Alohha to you all !
Bumped couple hundreds of times into this "Sound engine" thing (comparing sequinsers) - please explain what it is and how do you know it is good or bad or better or worst.
Thanks for your time and effort in advance !
|
|
|
thockin
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
114
Posted : Dec 8, 2004 18:50
|
|
It's something people talk about when they don't really know what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 8, 2004 19:52
|
Different sequencers sound differently.
I have debated this with some DSP coders that think it's not much reason why it should be so.
On the other hand I have compared fruity/orion with Logic and can clearly hear a difference when mixing many tracks.
I would myself not mind to work with orion if it was not for the sound quality.
And I heard many people that give up using orion/fruity/reason because they also can't get a sound they are satisfied with.
Just try it yourself and make the same mix of a bunch of tracks in different sequencers and do a blind test to compare the results.
 (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
WAVELOGIX
Wavelogix
Started Topics :
136
Posts :
1214
Posted : Dec 8, 2004 20:20
|
|
as i said earlier , tracks made by me in nuendo sound far better than tracks made in fruity loops , always ... |
|
|
|
Top-down
Inactive User
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
119
Posted : Dec 8, 2004 21:09
|
No solid defenitions ? Numerical parameters ? Program algorithms ?
No offence, Spindrift, but your mixing/sound design skills could be just way better with Nuendo (which, probably is more comfortable in this area) than with that same Orion.
|
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 8, 2004 21:58
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-08 21:09, Top-down wrote:
No solid defenitions ? Numerical parameters ? Program algorithms ?
No offence, Spindrift, but your mixing/sound design skills could be just way better with Nuendo (which, probably is more comfortable in this area) than with that same Orion.
|
|
Offence...well you where just agreeing with what I said.
Although stienberg have traditionally been the one's realeasing some of the worst sounding audio software in my ears I'm sure nuendo sounds better than fruity.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
slyman604
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
11
Posts :
263
Posted : Dec 9, 2004 00:29
|
|
i remember reading about this on kvr and the guy from spectrasonics was saying how he could hear the difference between all the various audio packages and that digital performer had the cleanest path. I assume he knows what hes talking about. |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 9, 2004 02:59
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-09 00:29, slyman604 wrote:
i remember reading about this on kvr and the guy from spectrasonics was saying how he could hear the difference between all the various audio packages and that digital performer had the cleanest path. I assume he knows what hes talking about.
|
|
Maybe he is hearing panning law differences. If an audio sequencer is well built, they sum the audio channels in exactly the same way. This has been tested many times and the results are usualy unequivocal. There is no difference.
The funny thing is that systems that have been proven to make exactly the same mixes are still reported to sound different even by some knowledgable people. That just shows that even the best get influenced by other aspects than sound.
The way these tests are performed is very simple: Load a bunch of tracks in different applications. Sum all the audio. Compare the resulting exported files and if they are bit for bit identical, they are doing exactly the same thing. And still people hear differences ...
Btw, I am talking about Cubase, Nuendo, Sonar, Logic and DP. I don't know if any tests have been performed with Reason, Fruity loops, Project 5, Orion, Live or other applications.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Amygdala
Amygdala
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
175
Posted : Dec 9, 2004 10:32
|
A sound-engine is basically that part of the program that handles sound - access to the soundcards registers, mixing, manipulating and recieving input sound from elsewhere. In different programs, the sound-engine is different (of course) - different code, different ways of doing stuff (mixing for example), and may include different aspects - in one engine maybe you are only interested in handling input/output, and then do arithmetic elsewhere.
I guess Thockin is partly right. When you have built the sound-engine yourself, THEN you know what you're talking about... Else the whole-sort-of-general-mish-mash behind the userinterface could be called "sound-engine" (misleading as it is...)
-A |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 15, 2004 18:38
|
I keep having this discussions every now and then and there is always people that try to explain bit depth and panning laws and how it should be impossible that various sequencers sound different.
I have done blind test comparing myself (in that case comparing cubase, logic and yama 02r) and was not expecting to hear differences, but they was clearly there.
I don't care how many people tell me it's a myth.
I don't have super hearing and can hardly tell the difference on a 192k mp3 and a wav.
I have been trying to make a couple of tracks in Abelton recently, and no matter how much I love the way the program works I cannot get the same depth in the sound in logic.
And I always mix kick and bass with the output from logic on my pulsar mixer because I can clearly tell the difference in the result.
I wonder if logic really would tell everyone how the manage to get superior sound to the budget sequencers and cubase.
Maybe they would keep that info to themself??
Anyway....let's skip discussions about the technical in's and out's of how audio is handeled in the various sequencers...because frankly none of us knows....and I doubt that even people who develop the code for one piece of software knows exactly how the others work.
Blind tests is the only way to tell...it cant be done by simply quoting some technical data that should prove that they sound the same.
They clearly sound different if you use the software as you do when producing. Sometimes marginally sometimes drastically.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Lithium
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
646
Posted : Dec 15, 2004 19:01
|
spindrift you´ve said it all  |
|
|
|
Rishi
Rishi
Started Topics :
50
Posts :
244
Posted : Dec 16, 2004 10:14
|
I think i saw some post in here , about fruity sounding the same as Logic or cubase ,
And there was a link for an article about a man ,,. who did some tests .. ( also there are downloadable files in the article , so u can try for ur self ) ..
but i dont know if this is true ..
He said there was no difference in the sound engine og fruity or logic/cubase ..
sounds strange to me .. 
3ó BooOoM ShanKaRA 3ó
<<<<Full On Dreams Vol 1 Out now>>>>
www.virustekk.com |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 16, 2004 11:19
|
Hehehe...that article was a farse if you ask me.
I am pretty sure I can not hear a difference when mixing four tracks.
The differences start to become obvious at eight tracks or more in my experience.
Especially comparing fruity and cubase which is not so far from eachother in quality.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
H2O
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
352
Posted : Dec 16, 2004 14:01
|
|
That article isn't a farse, it is just a basic sample comparison. It not claim that Cubase and FL Producer have same "sound engine", you should read the conclusion. Logic mentioned once in article under therm "monopoly" but nothing more. |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 16, 2004 14:33
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-15 18:38, Spindrift wrote:
I keep having this discussions every now and then and there is always people that try to explain bit depth and panning laws and how it should be impossible that various sequencers sound different.
|
|
Actually it is possible that they sound different especially if the panning law is different. That will make a drastic change in the mixed sound. The thing is that you can adjust the panning laws in most modern sequencers so you can make sure that there is no difference.
Quote:
|
I have done blind test comparing myself (in that case comparing cubase, logic and yama 02r) and was not expecting to hear differences, but they was clearly there.
|
|
The O2R certainly sounds different. Actually I sold mine because I really didn't like the sound of it. But an O2R is 20 bit and not 24 bit and you can't make sample accurate bounces anyway. Mixers are a different topic than sequencers.
Quote:
|
I don't care how many people tell me it's a myth.
|
|
It isn't a myth. It is just that the differences can be explained by factors like panning laws or truetape stuff on Cubase (basicly distortion). If you set the panning laws to be the same on the different major sequencers and turn off things like truetape, dithering or anything like that, they produce bit for bit identical wave files
If you hear a difference in between two bit for bit identical wave files, you are either doing something wrong or are imagining things.
About panning laws, they can make a difference when you just do a summing mix but don't make that much of a difference when you actually work and do a mix by hand because you will automaticly compensate for the panning laws. You just pan stuff and set levels so that things sound the way you want them to.
Quote:
|
I wonder if logic really would tell everyone how the manage to get superior sound to the budget sequencers and cubase.
Maybe they would keep that info to themself??
|
|
There is nothing to hide. If the output is bit for bit identical, it really doesn't matter how that is achieved.
Quote:
|
Anyway....let's skip discussions about the technical in's and out's of how audio is handeled in the various sequencers...because frankly none of us knows....and I doubt that even people who develop the code for one piece of software knows exactly how the others work.
|
|
There really arn't that many ways to sum bit words. I reckon most sequencers use exactly the same methods. The differences arise when you look at functionality, signal flow, features, interface etc.
Quote:
|
Blind tests is the only way to tell...it cant be done by simply quoting some technical data that should prove that they sound the same.
|
|
Yes it can. Just look at the output files. If they are the same ... there isn't anything to discuss.
Quote:
|
They clearly sound different if you use the software as you do when producing. Sometimes marginally sometimes drastically.
|
|
Of course. Every sequencer will make you work in a different way so you will most probably get different results. But everyone will get different results and it is up to the user to choose their favorite sequencer. The actual summing of audio within the sequencer isn't really an issue and certainly has less of an impact on the sound than your work methods.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
