| Author
|
Sound engine ???
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 16, 2004 20:16
|
When I tested properly with cubase logic and the 02r me and my co-producer could easily identify cubase (at the time of version 4) as sounding inferiour.
We where mixing eight channels via ADAT and then it was not much discerable difference between logic and the 02r.
The signal from when we mixed with logic was going thru the 02r and via it's lowly converters so it was not a good comparasion of the 02r and logic, but it was telling enough to sway my co-producer into giving up on using cubase.
I would be interested in finding out more about the test you refer to undetow, beause I herd very few that use various sequencers a lot disagree that they do sound different.
And all cubase users seem to claim that it got the nuendo "sound engine" it should sound better.
There is more involved in mixing that actual summing of levels, and when using a program like for example orion, which is great fun to work with, you just can't get really fat and deep sound.
You tell me the reason that that is the case if it ain't got to do with the maths in the program....I'm very curious because if it wasn't for the sound of logic I can think of a couple of other peices of software I would rather use.
Although it's better than orion I also can't get the sound I am used to either, no matter how hard I try.
When I switch on phase comp on my pulsar mixer the DSP goes up, but the sound also improves audibly.....wonder if logic does that by default maybe.
Anyway, show me the tests that shows bit-by-bit identical copies of some 16 tracks with identical chains of plugins comparing a software like orion with Logic or DP.
You will really make me totally baffled.
There is differences, I heard them and so have thousands of other producers.
I must add that my hearing is not better than me being quite incapable of telling the difference on a 192k mp3 and wav.
So keep quoting some technical reasons about how summing happens and there is nothing that could make it different.
I know that I heard drastical differences between various software, so I don't need to test it more.
  (``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 17, 2004 02:59
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-12-16 20:16, Spindrift wrote:
When I tested properly with cubase logic and the 02r me and my co-producer could easily identify cubase (at the time of version 4) as sounding inferiour.
|
|
Ah, I have no idea about Cubase 4. The tests I am aware of were with Cubase SX and Nuendo.
Quote:
|
We where mixing eight channels via ADAT and then it was not much discerable difference between logic and the 02r.
|
|
Out of curiosity, was the O2R using an external clock?
Quote:
|
The signal from when we mixed with logic was going thru the 02r and via it's lowly converters so it was not a good comparasion of the 02r and logic, but it was telling enough to sway my co-producer into giving up on using cubase.
|
|
Hehe.  Like I said before, it is hard to compare hardware sequencers with mixers. And the O2R, at least the one I had, doesn't sound very good.
Quote:
|
I would be interested in finding out more about the test you refer to undetow, beause I herd very few that use various sequencers a lot disagree that they do sound different.
|
|
I will dig up the URLs ... but like I said, there are issues that can affect the sound especialy if you take a bunch of audio files and load them into different sequencers and just bounce the audio to listen. I would say that panning laws are the most important difference. If your center audio is 3 or 6dB louder in one sequncer compared to another even your granny will hear the difference. That doesn't mean the one engine is better than the other though and when you actually create a mix, you will set panning and levels accordingly so it isn't a "real" issue.
Having said that, I don't like the default SX and Nuendo panning laws. I prefer the equal power cosine distribution laws. That is the same as on most analogue mixers. I don't know why Steinberg chose what they did ...
Another issue can be dither. Any idea what Logic uses? I havn't checked.
Quote:
|
And all cubase users seem to claim that it got the nuendo "sound engine" it should sound better.
|
|
Not a very convincing argument.
Quote:
|
There is more involved in mixing that actual summing of levels,
|
|
Agreed and this is usualy what makes the difference in sound.
Quote:
|
and when using a program like for example orion, which is great fun to work with, you just can't get really fat and deep sound.
You tell me the reason that that is the case if it ain't got to do with the maths in the program....I'm very curious because if it wasn't for the sound of logic I can think of a couple of other peices of software I would rather use.
|
|
Oh I don't know about Orion. I specificaly said that the tests I am aware of were with Logic, Cubase (Nuendo and SX) Digital Performer, Protools and Sonar. (Actually now that I think about it, I'm not sure DP was one of them. I will look for the URLs).
I'm sure there are alot of products that sound less good but I was only talking about the "high-end" audio and MIDI software sequencers.
Quote:
|
Although it's better than orion I also can't get the sound I am used to either, no matter how hard I try.
When I switch on phase comp on my pulsar mixer the DSP goes up, but the sound also improves audibly.....wonder if logic does that by default maybe.
|
|
What is this phase comp? I have never used the Pulsar platform so I have no idea what this does.
Quote:
|
Anyway, show me the tests that shows bit-by-bit identical copies of some 16 tracks with identical chains of plugins comparing a software like orion with Logic or DP.
|
|
Not Orion. That isn't in any of the tests I read. I'll dig up the URLs but not right now.I'm off to bed.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 17, 2004 14:36
|
Quote:
| Agreed and this is usualy what makes the difference in sound. |
|
Thats all I'm talking about....the differences in sound.
Not of plugins shipped with the program, but of the sound of the mixing or "sound engine".
And if Orion sounds different what makes it sound different if the maths involved in the mixing is so straight forward?
Why can some software using the same bit resolution in the mixing not sound different than other for technical reasons, while some can?
It's not like orion work in 16bit internally.
I have not compared logic to DP, sonar or cubase so I really have no idea if they sound identical nowadays or not.
They might very well be similar sounding enough to not make it much of an issue when choosing between them.
But still in my experience with the sound of various software I'd be very surprised if the where truely identical.
I have tried orion, abelton and fruity and found that I'm very dissatisfied with the sound I get.
My pulsar mixer also sounds clearly one step better than logic and I always output the kick and bass to separate channels and mix with the main output from logic because it makes a big difference.
It does sound better even without the phase comp switched on.
I don't know technically why. I don't know how the phase comp works exactly.
And I must say that it seems unnecessary to know unless you want to design audio software yourself.
For producing it's enough to be able to use your ears.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
high tek
Started Topics :
3
Posts :
20
Posted : Dec 17, 2004 19:37
|
there is definately without a doubt a difference in sound when comparing various sequencers with same variables.
example of this is reason: it always sounds like reason.
the mix engine in reason is crap, although the program itself is fun.
my friend that works in a music store told me logic users were buying cubase SX just to mix on it because the summing in SX was at higher bit depth and apparently sounded clearer, although this was at least a year ago - i dont know if it still applies.
|
|
|
|
|
