COCKOS
CONFEDERATED FORUMS
Cockos : REAPER : NINJAM : Forums
Forum Home : Register : FAQ : Members List : Search :
Old 05-21-2009, 08:46 AM   #81
Bubbagump
Human being with feelings
 
Bubbagump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr jkn View Post
It feels like I have wasted precious time, well now off to make some music instead.
We done told ya.
__________________
www.theslang.com
Bubbagump is offline  
Old 05-30-2009, 03:36 AM   #82
With an E
Human being with feelings
 
With an E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In perpetual hope
Posts: 265
Default

I don't really know enough about much of this to get deeply involved, but...

isn't all of this null testing stuff about 1s and 0s; the bounced files?

Cited differences in DAW sound quality are about listening to sound in the air.

What about the stuff that happens just beyond the point of final summing?

Out of mere interest and curiosity, I wonder does DAW A interact with audio drivers and thus DACs differently to DAW B and might those subtle differences (in the interaction of app and driver) be rendered even less subtle by other components in the chain (DAC filters for example) that lead eventually to the air hitting our ears?

In short; are there differences BEYOND the null test?

There may have been discussion already which clears this up but I haven't seen it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mr jkn View Post
Well ok, i understood that the different digital summing engines nulled when everything was set at unity.

I also have samp and always thought that it sounded "smoother" than reaper when I mixed with it. Always believed it was how the programs handled effects differently. So i set out a test today.

8 same identical wav.files at unity in both reap and samp AND a sonitus compressor with the same preset on resp. masterbuses - very hard compression btw. Well damn, I thought, if not samp sounds smoother anyway, when the plug was crushing this hard. So I rendered them both at 24bit, with no dither.

Listened to them in mediaplayer and found the samp a bit smoother.

BUT, loading them into reaper, and phase reversing one of the files - COMPLETE null (-inf.)! Nothing, there was nothing! Did the same thing in samp, same-same..

I have no proof to upload, you have to take my word for it.
So, goodbye summing-anxiety and extensive reading of discussions on this topic. It feels like I have wasted precious time, well now off to make some music instead.
With an E is offline  
Old 05-30-2009, 05:23 AM   #83
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by With an E View Post
I don't really know enough about much of this to get deeply involved, but...

isn't all of this null testing stuff about 1s and 0s; the bounced files?

Cited differences in DAW sound quality are about listening to sound in the air.

What about the stuff that happens just beyond the point of final summing?

Out of mere interest and curiosity, I wonder does DAW A interact with audio drivers and thus DACs differently to DAW B and might those subtle differences (in the interaction of app and driver) be rendered even less subtle by other components in the chain (DAC filters for example) that lead eventually to the air hitting our ears?

In short; are there differences BEYOND the null test?

There may have been discussion already which clears this up but I haven't seen it.
From post #40:
Quote:
It is possible to do null tests or bit for bit comparisons which compare the original audio master against the final pressing, assuring that the audio data had not been altered after it left the mastering house.
emphasis author's
From Bob Katz, Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science, 2nd Edition, 2007, Burlington, MA, page 36.

Bit for bit accuracy means the two files are identical.
ngarjuna is offline  
Old 05-30-2009, 05:31 AM   #84
With an E
Human being with feelings
 
With an E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In perpetual hope
Posts: 265
Default

Thanks for your reply ngarjuna, but the words 'null test' or 'bit for bit' should not be used in a reply to my post.

I have specifically tried to prompt people to think beyond this.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
From post #40:

emphasis author's
From Bob Katz, Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science, 2nd Edition, 2007, Burlington, MA, page 36.

Bit for bit accuracy means the two files are identical.
With an E is offline  
Old 05-30-2009, 11:10 AM   #85
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by With an E View Post
Out of mere interest and curiosity, I wonder does DAW A interact with audio drivers and thus DACs differently to DAW B and might those subtle differences (in the interaction of app and driver) be rendered even less subtle by other components in the chain (DAC filters for example) that lead eventually to the air hitting our ears?

In short; are there differences BEYOND the null test?

There may have been discussion already which clears this up but I haven't seen it.
it's been discussed already. if you're using ASIO there is very little that can go wrong (or even be configured) apart from buffer size. the last time i used it, as an API there is like one function you call to do your audio IO. other APIs might be different though but you really should be using ASIO (on PC) anyway.

the only other ASIO variable is the sample rate and bit depth that the device is open at, and you can usually check that in the DAW. in reaper it's in the top-right hand corner of the screen.

if software is talking to a driver incorrectly, the results are usually catastrophic, not subtle.
dub3000 is offline  
Old 05-30-2009, 02:24 PM   #86
With an E
Human being with feelings
 
With an E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In perpetual hope
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub3000 View Post
it's been discussed already. if you're using ASIO there is very little that can go wrong (or even be configured) apart from buffer size. the last time i used it, as an API there is like one function you call to do your audio IO. other APIs might be different though but you really should be using ASIO (on PC) anyway.

the only other ASIO variable is the sample rate and bit depth that the device is open at, and you can usually check that in the DAW. in reaper it's in the top-right hand corner of the screen.

if software is talking to a driver incorrectly, the results are usually catastrophic, not subtle.
Right. I had to look up API, but I see what you mean.

Still, while I understand the idea of two identical files canceling when one is out of phase ie the null test, and I understand the packeting of output data by the driver, I often wonder whether there are elements beyond the output of the DAW (as I said).

Apart from ASIO, is there anything affecting audio prior to conversion to analogue? My Lynx2 card for example, has quite a few variables. Will all DAWs necessarily interact exactly the same way with this 'stuff'?

I would love to see the results of a test with an unmovable full spectrum mic on a stand in an anechoic room where the files are played all the way to the analogue domain (sound from speakers) again.

There would be absolutely no arguing about a positive null test in THAT scenario!

All of this is of course just idle curiosity (to me); it was after all a weak signal from a pirate radio ship, coming through a 2" speaker in a tiny transistor radio under my pillow which turned me on to music in the fist place!!!!
With an E is offline  
Old 05-30-2009, 08:42 PM   #87
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by With an E View Post
I would love to see the results of a test with an unmovable full spectrum mic on a stand in an anechoic room where the files are played all the way to the analogue domain (sound from speakers) again.
....or instead of doing that: you could build yourself some bass traps and actually make a serious difference to the quality of the sound bouncing around in your room, instead of worrying about whether the driver is truncating the 64th bit of your wave data.

seriously, have you bothered measuring your monitor/room response with a decent mic? go get roomeqwizard (it's free) and stop worrying about the DAW. we all have much bigger problems than the digital side of things.

(edit: if you are interested in wasting time doing that original test, get a sound card with a digital out and record that into a separate system with a digital in. you can do your null test like that, that's all post-driver on the source machine and it *should* cancel out providing there isn't a jitter problem on your digital i/o - spdif has known {minor} jitter problems under some situations, apparently. but i feel dirty just reading this thread now, it's that pointless)

Last edited by dub3000; 05-30-2009 at 08:51 PM.
dub3000 is offline  
Old 05-31-2009, 03:23 AM   #88
With an E
Human being with feelings
 
With an E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In perpetual hope
Posts: 265
Default

Useful post dub.

With regard to room anomalies, I think you are right; these can have a more deleterious affect on your sound than DAW differences (if they exist).

Most (other people's) music I play to reference the sound in my room sounds great, both in the room and in adjacent rooms with doors open. I don't have any treatment other than incidental furniture which has the convenient effect of absorbing low end boominess and flutter echo as well as scattering early reflections. All the same, I must try Roomwizard!

As you imply; perspective in these things is essential.

Hope the OP isn't annoyed with the shift in focus of the thread

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub3000 View Post
....or instead of doing that: you could build yourself some bass traps and actually make a serious difference to the quality of the sound bouncing around in your room, instead of worrying about whether the driver is truncating the 64th bit of your wave data.

seriously, have you bothered measuring your monitor/room response with a decent mic? go get roomeqwizard (it's free) and stop worrying about the DAW. we all have much bigger problems than the digital side of things.

(edit: if you are interested in wasting time doing that original test, get a sound card with a digital out and record that into a separate system with a digital in. you can do your null test like that, that's all post-driver on the source machine and it *should* cancel out providing there isn't a jitter problem on your digital i/o - spdif has known {minor} jitter problems under some situations, apparently. but i feel dirty just reading this thread now, it's that pointless)
With an E is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 05:08 AM   #89
apozaf
Human being with feelings
 
apozaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria / EC
Posts: 124
Default

just read through that thread, really crazy opinions there.
"daws don't sound - they do math" ??? ever thought about how computers actually do math? they cheat whereever they can, therefore also when rendering. that's why saw studio mixes sound way better than many others. sound quality differs so much between different daws, there is really no need to discuss this fact.
apozaf is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 05:11 AM   #90
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
just read through that thread, really crazy opinions there.
"daws don't sound - they do math" ??? ever thought about how computers actually do math? they cheat whereever they can, therefore also when rendering. that's why saw studio mixes sound way better than many others. sound quality differs so much between different daws, there is really no need to discuss this fact.
you're trolling, right?
dub3000 is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 05:11 AM   #91
Kainer
Human being with feelings
 
Kainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Cologne/Bangkok
Posts: 1,258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
sound quality differs so much between different daws, there is really no need to discuss this fact.

U should check your informations. maybe do tests for yourself.
I would say what u said right now is b***s**t.
sorry.
__________________
I am old here

http://kainerweissmann.de
Kainer is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 05:15 AM   #92
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

This thread should be stickied: maybe we can use it sort of like the spam trap, as a catch all for the DAW conspiracy threads.

So I'll contribute:

Not only did REAPER sound inferior to ProZorz DAW, it also killed my mother and raped my father. True story. Anyone who doesn't believe it is either a deluded fanboi or in on the conspiracy.
ngarjuna is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 05:33 AM   #93
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
This thread should be stickied: maybe we can use it sort of like the spam trap, as a catch all for the DAW conspiracy threads.

So I'll contribute:

Not only did REAPER sound inferior to ProZorz DAW, it also killed my mother and raped my father. True story. Anyone who doesn't believe it is either a deluded fanboi or in on the conspiracy.
it's okay now though, they fixed that bug way back in v2.41.
dub3000 is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 09:34 AM   #94
apozaf
Human being with feelings
 
apozaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria / EC
Posts: 124
Default

no, i'm not trolling, sorry if it seemed like that.
some of my friends are learned audio engineers and i told them bout some opinions here and they said that it is absolute b...shi...t that daws only do math and all sound the same. well, to be honest i would not hear any difference but if you check rendered mixes (same input, same effects ect.) and make a checksum of the wavefile there are differences. not that i could hear them (well, i do in some older daws and i am sure saw-mixes have brilliant quality)
don't want to start a flaming war in this great forum, so everyone his own opinion. gtx.

also "merge" is right in his opening post that in a project daws sound different as it is just a preview, like video in a videocut software.

Last edited by apozaf; 06-10-2009 at 09:40 AM.
apozaf is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 02:15 PM   #95
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
no, i'm not trolling, sorry if it seemed like that.
some of my friends are learned audio engineers and i told them bout some opinions here and they said that it is absolute b...shi...t that daws only do math and all sound the same.
no comment on their mixing skills (and i've heard really weird crap come out of the mouths of incredibly talented mixers) but your learned audio engineer friends need to read up on their math. what they're saying might have been partly true more than a decade ago but it's FUD now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
well, to be honest i would not hear any difference but if you check rendered mixes (same input, same effects ect.)
exactly

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
and make a checksum of the wavefile there are differences. not that i could hear them (well, i do in some older daws and i am sure saw-mixes have brilliant quality)
can happen due to different WAV file header information (different DAWs pad metadata differently - e.g. track author, ACID looping info etc, this isn't audio data though and won't affect the actual audio being played), or silence at the beginning/end of a track.


Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
also "merge" is right in his opening post that in a project daws sound different as it is just a preview, like video in a videocut software.
no, it's not a preview. it's full resolution data, unless you're explicitly turning features down (e.g. in reaper you can run the playback engine with a lower quality resample or time stretch mode for better performance and a higher quality one for rendering, but you can set those to anything you want so it's a bit of a moot point).
dub3000 is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 02:46 PM   #96
apozaf
Human being with feelings
 
apozaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria / EC
Posts: 124
Default

well, i'm a physicist and quite into math and i know how coumputers handle math. maple for example really gives out good integrals and differntials (and that is what rendering is about), cause it has very expensive algorythms in it. still they do interpolation. most other calculators or whatever cheat cheat alot depending acuracy, they just do an approach with more or less accuracy. no daw out there has the math of a really expensive industry-standard like maple for example.
rendering a project is an incredibly demand on how those algoryhthms handles all that stuff. there ARE differences. not that we could hear them more or less, but they are definately there.
apozaf is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 02:58 PM   #97
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
well, i'm a physicist and quite into math and i know how coumputers handle math. maple for example really gives out good integrals and differntials (and that is what rendering is about), cause it has very expensive algorythms in it. still they do interpolation. most other calculators or whatever cheat cheat alot depending acuracy, they just do an approach with more or less accuracy. no daw out there has the math of a really expensive industry-standard like maple for example.
rendering a project is an incredibly demand on how those algoryhthms handles all that stuff. there ARE differences. not that we could hear them more or less, but they are definately there.
i think you'll find that calculus isn't used anywhere in the mixer path in any DAW except in effect plugins. if we ARE talking about plugins there are situations where that statement holds - e.g. anything that's doing analog hardware emulation is going to be doing lots of tricky math, like what you described. but if you want to talk about plugin quality, that's totally unrelated to this particular topic, since non-broken plugins will sound the same in any host.

the mixer path is basically just floating point adds (summing) and floating point multiplies (gain/pan), with delays for PDC (potential for error here but works fine in reaper and most other hosts). there isn't anything else in there to murk up the sound.

(just for clarity - if we're bringing up credentials, i'm a qualified elec eng, have been working professionally as a software engineer for a decade, using computers for making music since '91 and as a hobbyist have contributed to or released a couple of different niche audio tools. nothing compared to the serious pro guys, but i do have some background, i'm not just talking out of my butt)

edit: i think these sorts of threads are REALLY dangerous. people are always looking for a reason why their mixes suck, and blaming the tools is an easy way. someone with no experience is going to look at this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
well, i'm a physicist...
and think: "wow, a physicist reckons DAWs are crap", post it on other message boards, and go out and drop loads of cash on an external summing box or whatever. and their mixes will still suck.

Last edited by dub3000; 06-11-2009 at 01:15 AM.
dub3000 is offline  
Old 06-10-2009, 02:59 PM   #98
TheArchitect
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
well, i'm a physicist and quite into math and i know how coumputers handle math. maple for example really gives out good integrals and differntials (and that is what rendering is about), cause it has very expensive algorythms in it. still they do interpolation. most other calculators or whatever cheat cheat alot depending acuracy, they just do an approach with more or less accuracy. no daw out there has the math of a really expensive industry-standard like maple for example.
rendering a project is an incredibly demand on how those algoryhthms handles all that stuff. there ARE differences. not that we could hear them more or less, but they are definately there.
If files null, they null. I have yet to see an example where they didn't that wasn't easily explained by something obvious. The math may not be "perfect" but it appears they are identically imperfect as far as I can tell
__________________
Primary
Reaper v3.12
Intel Quad Q6600 2.4ghz / Intel D975XBX2KR Mobo
4gb Geil RAM / WD Caviar SE16 7200rmp SATA2 drives / Antec 650w Trio PS
RMA Hammerfall 9632 w/ 4input daughter board

Reamote Slave
Reaper v3.12
Intel P4 2.6gh / 2gb RAM / WD Caviar SE16 7200rmp SATA2 drives

Apps
Antares v5 / Kompact v1.04 / Melodyne
Kjaerhus GCO-1Compressor
Kjaerhus Classic Plugs / SIR1
TheArchitect is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 01:10 AM   #99
apozaf
Human being with feelings
 
apozaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria / EC
Posts: 124
Default

ok guys, if you are so certain about this i believe you. it's just i talked to two of my friends that made the audio enginering school and they have another opinion. maybe they are wrong. and from what i know that math isn't exactly math on different computerapps i thought they may be right.
why that immensive price for saw studio?
apozaf is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 01:19 AM   #100
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
ok guys, if you are so certain about this i believe you. it's just i talked to two of my friends that made the audio enginering school and they have another opinion. maybe they are wrong. and from what i know that math isn't exactly math on different computerapps i thought they may be right.
why that immensive price for saw studio?
it's been that expensive forever - it's an old app. most of the audio path in there is hand coded assembly apparently, which made a lot of sense on when everyone had 486s, less so now. must be a nightmare to debug.
dub3000 is offline  
Old 06-11-2009, 05:25 AM   #101
apozaf
Human being with feelings
 
apozaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria / EC
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub3000 View Post
and think: "wow, a physicist reckons DAWs are crap", post it on other message boards, and go out and drop loads of cash on an external summing box or whatever. and their mixes will still suck.
lol - no, thank you - i just studied that crap - never wanna have something to do with it again
(good this tread is in the spam-trap)
i never stated DAWs are crap, really, how could i.

Last edited by apozaf; 06-11-2009 at 11:11 AM.
apozaf is offline  
Old 06-16-2009, 06:30 AM   #102
apozaf
Human being with feelings
 
apozaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria / EC
Posts: 124
Default

i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.
i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.

i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.

so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....

Last edited by apozaf; 06-16-2009 at 06:49 AM.
apozaf is offline  
Old 06-16-2009, 07:50 AM   #103
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.
Your awesome data that you have provided aside, I can only say: your null test was incorrectly setup.

Quote:
i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.
Summing != effect handling. If you had started a thread saying "DAWs seem to handle effects differently", you'd probably get an interesting discussion. This discussion, however, is about the summing/mix engine. If your "it didn't null" test involved "lots of effects", then you didn't test the summing engine.

Quote:
i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.
This tells me conclusively that your null test is not sound. Or you're using effects which are time-variable effects (not the same each render), in which case the difference you're seeing is in your apples and oranges test and has nothing to do with comparing one summing engine with another. Rendering the same track/song 3 times with no time-variable effects will get you the same file 3 times; that behavior is so basic that if it didn't work, you'd see a LOT of complaining about it on the forums. Just further evidence that your supposed "null test" involves way too many moving variables.

Quote:
so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....
Are you serious? Do you really not understand why there are different rendering options?
ngarjuna is offline  
Old 06-16-2009, 08:27 AM   #104
apozaf
Human being with feelings
 
apozaf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria / EC
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
Are you serious? Do you really not understand why there are different rendering options?
no, i don't
cubase doesn't have this. some daws can only bounce. reaper is the first daw i used with so many rendering options.

if this thread is only about the mixingengine i agree completely. no need to discuss this.
apozaf is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 08:40 AM   #105
Blastrio
Human being with feelings
 
Blastrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 258
Default CEO

That message was posted by Samplitude's CEO.
He might be right though. I mixed down a one track mix down to a stem of one track in Samplitude, and it sounded better in my home system than the same Reaper mix sounded on the subway station speakers.

Blastrio

Last edited by Blastrio; 09-14-2009 at 10:00 AM.
Blastrio is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 09:37 AM   #106
musicbynumbers
Human being with feelings
 
musicbynumbers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: brighton, uk
Posts: 12,788
Default

You will not have much luck trying to null vst files as they randomize stuff as well as midi not being synced to samplerate (sample accurate) in most daws. You need to use audio files and not mp3's just pcm standard.

Null files are the shining light of truth in this witchery summing thread!! lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.
i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.

i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.

so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....
musicbynumbers is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 09:50 AM   #107
Blastrio
Human being with feelings
 
Blastrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveyboy View Post
Couldn't the original poster just put up the 3 "versions" of the same file as bounced from the different daws so everyone could hear the difference?? For me it's so much more about the content (song/performance ) then the actual daw anymore. Who cares. A great song is a great song and crap is crap, no matter how high the fidelity.
Absolutely right. That's what I always thought. You just have to listen to most of the radio stuff today to understand that. It's all been done on the best analog equipment, by the best people in the best listening environments, but it's (for the most part) absolute crap. An average sounding amazing song will give you the shivers, while a super sounding pop piece of dung will go by unnoticed. That goes for all forms of art.
I really don't think that the average listener will be listening to your song, going: "Hmmmmmmmm, yeah it could have been an amazing song, but that excessive half of a dB at 12.534 khz on the vocal is killing me. Maybe that would've been ok if the ratio on the compression would be a little higher, maybe 3.6 instead of 3.4"
Believe me. I've heard so much crap posted on forums by people debating meaningless aspects. "Yeah, I've re-recorded the song with this preamp, a lot more clarity now, listen for yourself..." Dude, forget the preamp and go get some emotion and songwriting/playing/singing skills instead.
I totally love Reaper. I've been making music on the PC for 12 years. I've tried almost every DAW out there, except for the "only Mac" ones (I've only worked with ProTools on a Mac), so far, it's the best I've used, and at 225$ / 60$, it's an absolute steal. I think that's one of the reasons why some people don't take it too seriously (also the name maybe). I'm in the process of switching from Ableton Live, which costs a lot more. I know that it's kind of a specialized tool, but for my needs, which are less DJish and more multitrackish, it looks like a toy compared to Reaper.

Reap on guys, Reap on.

Blastrio

Last edited by Blastrio; 09-14-2009 at 11:29 AM.
Blastrio is offline  
Old 09-14-2009, 03:25 PM   #108
AudioWonderland
Human being with feelings
 
AudioWonderland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by apozaf View Post
i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.
i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.

i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.

so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....
Confucious say, educate yourself, lest you get schooled in public...
AudioWonderland is offline  
Old 09-15-2009, 07:20 AM   #109
With an E
Human being with feelings
 
With an E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In perpetual hope
Posts: 265
Default

I personally, keep an open mind and would be happy to hear either side of this debate proven.

It strikes me though that people defending the idea that there is no difference in daw sound quality sound just a little zealous sometimes; as if it was a religious belief.

Pardon my ignorance, but how do we know the null test cancels completely?

Is it that we hear nothing or see no activity on the meters? Or is the resulting file a completely flat line?

Does all the harmonic content of the phase inverted files cancel?

Does the resolution of our video and audio gear allow us to be certain?

I'm minded of the discussion regarding super harmonics and how they might or might not (in spite of their very small energy levels) influence sound in the audible spectrum. I know hard filtering in A to D converters chops the super harmonics. I wonder whether very subtle artifacts from the A to D conversion might produce very low level distortions which are further altered within the daw when any actions are performed (beyond simply flipping the phase)?

And of course, if the only thing we did was flip the phase there would be no point in a test would there, ha ha?

Last edited by With an E; 09-15-2009 at 07:26 AM.
With an E is offline  
Old 09-15-2009, 08:53 AM   #110
dub3000
Human being with feelings
 
dub3000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,837
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by With an E View Post
I personally, keep an open mind and would be happy to hear either side of this debate proven.

Is it that we hear nothing or see no activity on the meters? Or is the resulting file a completely flat line?
i've opened a rendered null-test file and it's all 0's. not sure what other proof you need.


Quote:
Originally Posted by With an E View Post
Does the resolution of our video and audio gear allow us to be certain?
the resolution of the software is much much better than the resolution of your hardware (and the quality of your room treatment, probably).
dub3000 is offline  
Old 09-15-2009, 09:05 AM   #111
With an E
Human being with feelings
 
With an E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In perpetual hope
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dub3000 View Post
i've opened a rendered null-test file and it's all 0's. not sure what other proof you need.

Well if you are not sure, I'm definitely not sure




Quote:
Originally Posted by dub3000 View Post
the resolution of the software is much much better than the resolution of your hardware (and the quality of your room treatment, probably).


You are of course right.... probably
With an E is offline  
Old 09-15-2009, 06:25 PM   #112
AudioWonderland
Human being with feelings
 
AudioWonderland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by With an E View Post

Pardon my ignorance, but how do we know the null test cancels completely?
Physics. Science. Etc......
AudioWonderland is offline  
Old 09-16-2009, 01:50 AM   #113
With an E
Human being with feelings
 
With an E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In perpetual hope
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioWonderland View Post
Physics. Science. Etc......


I'm listening.......
With an E is offline  
Old 09-20-2009, 11:27 PM   #114
evanrabby
Human being with feelings
 
evanrabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Please add midi learn to sends. Nuts and bolts before games!
Posts: 291
Default

hahahahahahaaaaaaa....

zee is here to make sure we waste valuable time explaining logic to an irrational being...

remember his first long time ago post on this stuff....

hahahahahhaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

i believe zee should be BANNED from posting about sound quality, seriously. its not really humour, its a WASTE OF TIME. someone should CLOSE this thread.
__________________
"The Hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." --Dante, "The Inferno"
and: www.larouchepub.com organize to effect change
evanrabby is offline  
Old 11-11-2009, 01:39 PM   #115
walsh350
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 103
Default

sorry for bumping an old thread.

just started using reaper and i absolutely love it.

the only thing that came into my mind was the issue of sound quality differences in different daws.

i didnt read the whole thread but i seemed to get a jist that its just math.

do all daws use the same algorythms for their audio summing?
even if they dont does it actually make a difference?
do some daws have some sort of warming programmed into them ontop of the basic math?

sorry if these questions are ignorant but i dont go for the whole esoteric differences in sound quality shabangle. i take what guys in "pro studios" say about such things with a pinch of salt.
just because you have crazy expensive equipment doesnt inherently make your ears any better, although i except that high end studio monitors in a properly treated workspace gives you an advantage.

these questions seem logical to me.

i`m blown away by the amount of common sense in reapers` workflow and i`m trying to pick faults before i become a full blown missionary!

i understand that this debate must have been had time and time again and again i apologise to the regulars.

as i say, have only just started using reaper and am new to this forum.

the way things are looking at the moment though i`ll be sticking around.

take care chaps

Last edited by walsh350; 11-11-2009 at 01:45 PM. Reason: more thoughts
walsh350 is offline  
Old 11-11-2009, 07:34 PM   #116
Xenakios
Human being with feelings
 
Xenakios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walsh350 View Post
do some daws have some sort of warming programmed into them ontop of the basic math?
Some have been speculated to have, some are known to have done that like Propellerhead's Record. It's however considered a flaw in the DAW, not a desirable feature. The idea of a DAW isn't to polish bad recordings automatically or something, but rather act as a "garbage in, garbage out" kind of tool. (Equally the principle "diamonds in, diamonds out", will apply... )
__________________
For info on SWS Reaper extension plugin (including Xenakios' previous extension/actions) :
http://www.sws-extension.org/
https://github.com/Jeff0S/sws
--
Xenakios blog (about HourGlass, Paul(X)Stretch and λ) :
http://xenakios.wordpress.com/
Xenakios is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 07:29 AM   #117
Per Lichtman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 64
Default

Just a thought: the "Awesome DAW-Sum" comparison files can be downloaded for under $15 (probably under $13) and provide a very "apples to apples" comparison of several DAWs and expensive outboard mixing desks.

Instead of lots of debating, you could just do a blind listen to the empirical data and form a conclusion based on that. The DAWs are not the most recent versions, but it does a good job of showcasing the "range" in which summing differences can take place.

I'm not affiliated with the company in any way (in fact my VIP forum membership expired) but here's a link to that particular resource.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=12977
Per Lichtman is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 12:52 PM   #118
Diogenes
Human being with feelings
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Per Lichtman View Post
Just a thought: the "Awesome DAW-Sum" comparison files can be downloaded for under $15 (probably under $13) and provide a very "apples to apples" comparison of several DAWs and expensive outboard mixing desks.

Instead of lots of debating, you could just do a blind listen to the empirical data and form a conclusion based on that. The DAWs are not the most recent versions, but it does a good job of showcasing the "range" in which summing differences can take place.

I'm not affiliated with the company in any way (in fact my VIP forum membership expired) but here's a link to that particular resource.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=12977
LOL...

Umm... NO!

D
Diogenes is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 02:49 PM   #119
Tedwood
Human being with feelings
 
Tedwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast UK
Posts: 14,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenakios View Post
(Equally the principle "diamonds in, diamonds out", will apply... )
Nail, head, and hammer spring to mind Xen, what you don't want is "Bananas in - cucumbers out"
__________________
The grass is greener where it rains
Tedwood is offline  
Old 11-29-2009, 03:43 PM   #120
mygodmypantsaremadeofjam
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Default the pain!

oh noes I can't believe I just read every post in this thread all the way to the end.
mygodmypantsaremadeofjam is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.