COCKOS
CONFEDERATED FORUMS
Cockos : REAPER : NINJAM : Forums
Forum Home : Register : FAQ : Members List : Search :
Old 08-12-2008, 10:59 AM   #41
Zee
Human being with feelings
 
Zee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
Default

Just a little tought that comes to my mind now and then :

We who know that there are differences between audio quality output of daws, would sound a bit less like we are trashing reaper if there wasn't people like Jason Brian and co. making a joke out of everything we are sharing here.

Maybe what we want afterall, is to make reaper better ?
Zee is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 10:59 AM   #42
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee View Post
What part makes you laugh ?
all of it, no offense (unless it was indeed a joke)
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 11:01 AM   #43
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee View Post
Just a little tought that comes to my mind now and then :

We who know that there are differences between audio quality output of daws, would sound a bit less like we are trashing reaper if there wasn't people like Jason Brian and co. making a joke out of everything we are sharing here.

Maybe what we want afterall, is to make reaper better ?
umm i dont think you are trashing reaper at all.

im not making a joke out of anything, i thought you were.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 11:03 AM   #44
Zee
Human being with feelings
 
Zee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill View Post
umm i dont think you are trashing reaper at all.

im not making a joke out of anything, i thought you were.
You sound like a kid who wants to play TWISTER...
Zee is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 11:05 AM   #45
Chris_P_Critter
Human being with feelings
 
Chris_P_Critter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a van, down by the river
Posts: 3,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonTheron View Post
Here you go Chris P!:

Thanks bro.

"nom, nom, nom..."
Chris_P_Critter is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 11:14 AM   #46
Zee
Human being with feelings
 
Zee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
Default

Hi Justin

If you ever are interested in comments (positive and constructive ones) on the sound engine that a lot of people could offer (while a damn lot just can't), I'd suggest creating a thread for it where kids wouldn't be allowed to post jokes and potato pictures....

In the meantime, I'll stay away from such non-sense.

Good luck with the project

Respect.
Zee is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 11:17 AM   #47
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

I guess you're also staying away from the point that bit for bit accuracy (as in total null) means identical. Or perhaps you have a qualified source you can cite to refute this basic, well-known principle?
ngarjuna is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 11:18 AM   #48
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee View Post
You sound like a kid who wants to play TWISTER...
naked twister?
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 11:18 AM   #49
Jason Brian Merrill
Human being with feelings
 
Jason Brian Merrill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northeastern PA, USA
Posts: 20,966
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee View Post
Hi Justin

If you ever are interested in comments (positive and constructive ones) on the sound engine that a lot of people could offer (while a damn lot just can't), I'd suggest creating a thread for it where kids wouldn't be allowed to post jokes and potato pictures....

In the meantime, I'll stay away from such non-sense.

Good luck with the project

Respect.
I suggest you participate in the NUMEROUS threads @ SEVERAL forums including this one and argue your point there.
__________________
Beliefs do not require respect. People do.
Jason Brian Merrill is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 12:40 PM   #50
jamieson1974
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 201
Default

Though it is hard to find where I live, I do love a good game of Twister.
__________________
Jamieson Tobey
www.jamiesontobey.com
jamieson1974 is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 01:22 PM   #51
Chris_P_Critter
Human being with feelings
 
Chris_P_Critter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a van, down by the river
Posts: 3,574
Default

".....nom, nom, nom"

*wipes hashbrown debris from face*

TWISTER?!?!?! COUNT ME IN DUDES!

In all seriousness, let me apologize in advance, because I don't mean to offend with this statement

I can understand that certain folks feel adamant about this subject - and I can respect that, but I can't help but poke fun at these threads when all there is to go by is one persons ears versus another. These claims require proof and in 9 out of 10 cases, none is put forth, like in this case it seems.

Sorry... feisty today. Too many Redbull's or something...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee View Post
and potato pictures....
No. Hasbrowns. There is a difference.

Last edited by Chris_P_Critter; 08-12-2008 at 01:28 PM.
Chris_P_Critter is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 01:30 PM   #52
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Give Zee credit for creativity, if nothing else. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that bit-for-bit accuracy can still contain differences in "deepness, perspective and thickness of the audio."
ngarjuna is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 01:34 PM   #53
schwa
Administrator
 
schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 10,531
Default

How did we get two of these going at once?
schwa is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 02:15 PM   #54
Tedwood
Human being with feelings
 
Tedwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast UK
Posts: 14,303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
Give Zee credit for creativity, if nothing else. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that bit-for-bit accuracy can still contain differences in "deepness, perspective and thickness of the audio."
Quite, but I am surprised at the glaring omission of Warmth
__________________
The grass is greener where it rains
Tedwood is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 03:51 PM   #55
todd_r
Human being with feelings
 
todd_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 618
Default

..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee View Post
Because the only way to make 2 softwares null themselves, is to have exactly the same mix and the same sound in both software.... wich then means that they do sound the same....But, for that, you need to NOT consider deepness, perspective and thickness of the audio....
Fail.
.
todd_r is offline  
Old 08-12-2008, 04:48 PM   #56
Kihoalu
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Silicon Gulch
Posts: 536
Default

Quote:
Give Zee credit for creativity, if nothing else. This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that bit-for-bit accuracy can still contain differences in "deepness, perspective and thickness of the audio."
Quite, but I am surprised at the glaring omission of Warmth
Not to mention preservation of your precious bodily fluids. You must drink only grain alcohol and pure rainwater or distilled water to be sufficiently aware of these subtle difference's in sound.

Justin's Mother was right, the world IS hollow, in fact it is also flat! Sounds contradictory but it isn't, with sufficient improvements in your way of thinking you will realize that it is actually a Klein Bottle.

Remember nowadays enlightened people everywhere are realizing that Science is just another religion, thanks to the efforts of our outstanding President Double-Yuh. So any physical or scientific proof you may present is suspect from the start. I looking forward to the day the church takes over again and we get rid of you troublesome Galileo types.

Personally I'm glad I graduated from Commiemartyrs High instead of Morescience High, so I can see these things in their true essence.

Sorry - Couldn't resist!
__________________
Inundated by a Perfect Storm of Gluten-Free Artisanal Bespoke Quinoa Avocado-Toast Toilet Paper.
Mahope Kakou (Later Dudes)...

Last edited by Kihoalu; 08-12-2008 at 05:12 PM.
Kihoalu is offline  
Old 04-11-2009, 02:13 PM   #57
tehsux0r
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 91
Default Ooh-er

Hi all,

Sorry to dredge this up again. I just feel I need to relay a few impressions after reading both this thread and another one on the same topic. Given what I've seen here, I fully expect to get flamed into the ground for defending the OP, but I feel some things need to be said even if people don't want to hear them.

In my brief time on the CC forums, everyone has been polite, knowledgeable, articulate, and helpful to me, and I hope to be able to contribute back in whatever way I can. I'm sure many others feel the same way, and it's a refreshing change from the holier-than-thou arrogance brimming beneath the surface of so many forums (especially technical) on the Web.

This thread does nothing to reinforce that feeling. This thread shows exactly the kind of low-hanging-fruit-picking hostility that characterises the worst of Internet discussion. What we have here is someone who:

* seems to think there's some difference in what they're hearing, and who might be absolutely right for many reasons, the least likely of which is the mixing code at REAPER's core;
* seems convinced that that is the cause rather than either placebo effect or their own failure to set up genuinely identical test conditions;
* wants to air their opinion and seems to want to discuss it.

That's fine in my book, and here's some theory as to why a claim like this does not deserve knee-jerk condemnation:

* sound-quality and timbre differences between digital-audio equipment have been noted for many years by music and audio professionals, and are a matter of established fact;
* even in a bug-free FPU, the rounding mode and precision can noticeably affect the sound of any floating-point audio processing, especially convolution- or FFT-based stuff where differences can cumulatively add significant quantisation distortion;
* the IEEE-754 standard is not universally implemented by FPUs;
* IEEE 754 is a fairly "loose" standard, and can be implemented in different ways by different FPUs without technically violating the spec.

In practice, of course, we're all using Intel-architecture chips with IEEE floats and (as far as I know) identical output for the same input. The FDIV bug is ancient history, and there are obvious best practices for achieving transparency in audio processing that are probably followed by the developers of most or all of the main DAW contenders, including REAPER.

All of that might be obvious to some here. You might think the OP is wrong (hell, I sure do), and you might have had this discussion a hundred times before (haven't we all!). You might lose respect for the poster or think they're illogical or stupid, and you might feel like rushing to defend the honour of a product many of us have come to know and love against the same damn irritating argument. The fact of the matter is that, if you're genuinely confident that your view is correct, none of these reactions have any rightful place in an actual response.

Poking fun light-heartedly is fair enough if you really must, but reading responses that (a) gloatingly put people down, and (b) rubbish a sound idea (where I come from that's called misinformation), even if it doesn't apply in reality, does nothing to enhance my opinion of you. You might not care about alienating the OP, but with reactions like this you also alienate any intelligent reader who understands the difference between parroting popular belief and thinking logically.

Ask yourself this: would a mastering engineer laugh in the OP's face for asking this question? In most cases, the answer is "no", because mastering engineers' livelihoods depend on making extremely fine discernments without deluding themselves. They know, like any engineer, that almost everything makes a difference and everything is a compromise, and that there are no stupid questions. They would explain, without judging the questioner, why the claim could be true but almost certainly isn't; if that answer didn't work, they'd ask for some proof so they could track down the difference.

When faced with claims like this, and in the light of experience, it's our duty to ask for proof in the form of reproducible test procedures and digital audio files. It is also our duty to make more than a token effort at civility. If the OP declines to provide evidence, we're utterly justified in disregarding their claim, and we can do so just fine without putting anyone down. Believe me, very few readers will take a lone unsubstantiated claim on a forum as gospel, especially when it's followed by several calm and civil refutations; dogpiling just to make it clear that this person is Super-Wrong™ does more harm than good, because it insults the intelligence of the third-party reader while making you look less mature than the OP. I wouldn't blame such a reader for giving the OP's opinion more credence after reading some of these replies.

I hope this doesn't make me a pariah.
tehsux0r is offline  
Old 04-11-2009, 04:24 PM   #58
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tehsux0r View Post
Lots of polite discourse...
I don't necessarily dispute anything you have said. However...the OP didn't have "questions". He exclaimed that REAPER "Both Cubase and Reaper mess with the sound in a bad way. i.e. Cubase sounds like a high quality MP3(lossy)while Reaper sounds harsh in the top end." and that Samplitude is the best in his book.

Did you catch the claim (never supported with even a shred of evidence [but with logic so poor it hurt my brain]) that nulling doesn't indicate bit for bit transparency? Or the constant baiting of those people trying to say, "Just null test it, if it doesn't null, then yes, something is wrong"?

And this is NOT the usual discussion that happens on the REAPER forums along the lines of this topic (search around, you'll find plenty of threads with meaty arguments on both sides). Neither the OP nor Zee innocently glided into this forum to get more information; as you said, everyone knows that this discussion in particular is going to generate some waves on just about any audio forum on the net. When you post on a forum specifically to engender ire, when you constantly bait those who disagree with your position without providing any direct clash or evidence, when you come to a manufacturer or content creator's forum specifically to tell them (without really anything specific or helpful at all) that their product just isn't good enough for you, it's called trolling.
ngarjuna is offline  
Old 04-12-2009, 06:22 AM   #59
tehsux0r
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
I don't necessarily dispute anything you have said. However...the OP didn't have "questions". He exclaimed that REAPER "Both Cubase and Reaper mess with the sound in a bad way. i.e. Cubase sounds like a high quality MP3(lossy)while Reaper sounds harsh in the top end." and that Samplitude is the best in his book.
Okay, the "questions" thing might be referring to the other thread I read, and I'm not going to even dignify his allegations about sound quality with a response, because they don't deserve to be taken seriously when you consider all the facts.

Side note: calling REAPER's internal processing 64-bit is misleading - the mantissa of a 64-bit float is 54 bits if you include the implied 1 and the sign, so on a centred signal, without processing, quantisation distortion should be constant at or below -325dB (let's ignore denormals to be conservative).

Even allowing for a loss of 16 bits or so for track effects (easier than you'd think, especially with multiply-accumulate operations like FFTs or convolution), that leaves us an effective signal-to-noise ratio of 38 bits, which even a mastering engineer listening in his studio shouldn't be able to distinguish from the "real thing" (theoretical identical processing with infinite SNR). Floats are different beasts to integers, however - addition tends to destroy more accuracy than multiplication - so even this figure might overestimate the final SNR. In this extreme case, things aren't so clear-cut.

My point is just to show how throwing around ideas like "64 bits" and "it's just math - how can it be wrong?" is not by any means the final word on sound quality. While REAPER of course has no influence over the internal processing of your plugins, any differences in REAPER's LSB-level mixing could theoretically show up at just-audible levels with enough of them inserted.

All that said, the OP is clearly not talking about such an extreme case, so skepticism is appropriate, even if pooh-poohing the theory itself is going way too far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
Did you catch the claim (never supported with even a shred of evidence [but with logic so poor it hurt my brain]) that nulling doesn't indicate bit for bit transparency?
Kind of. I don't remember that claim being seriously and explicitly made, but maybe my brain's just protecting itself from damage ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
Or the constant baiting of those people trying to say, "Just null test it, if it doesn't null, then yes, something is wrong"?
Sure - the consistent failure to actually follow up the claims with even rudimentary investigation should ring alarm bells, even if nothing else does. I would make a short post detailing what I think the most likely culprits are, and that I'd be prepared to eat my hat with BBQ sauce if REAPER's internal sound engine, or that of any of the other DAWs he's testing, is responsible for the claimed effects, and probably leave it at that. Any further posts by the OP that don't clarify the problem with some kind of procedure or test file would then do nothing to advance the discussion and could be justifiably ignored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
And this is NOT the usual discussion that happens on the REAPER forums along the lines of this topic (search around, you'll find plenty of threads with meaty arguments on both sides). Neither the OP nor Zee innocently glided into this forum to get more information;
Sure, I never claimed they did. Even so, the way we respond to this kind of hit-and-run opining says as much about us as the way we respond to legitimate posts. If it's this easy to make us defensive and aggressive, and start slinging mud at the provocateur, what will a reader coming from Google think? "Oh, just another forum flamewar - yawn."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
as you said, everyone knows that this discussion in particular is going to generate some waves on just about any audio forum on the net.
That may be, but most audio forums on the 'net (indeed, most forums there period) are pretty hostile places because the members can't be bothered to keep their judgements of other people out of a discussion. Are we really aiming so low as to be no better than other Internet forums?! Shudder.

It's just another unsubstantiated, puffed-up opinion. We've all opined loudly at some point in our lives, and it can be annoying to some people (understandably so), but how long have we had the Internet now?! Like it or not, this is situation normal. How we respond to it defines whether we're part of the solution or part of the problem (forgive the phrase, but it's apt).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
When you post on a forum specifically to engender ire
I don't think we need to speculate about the poster's intentions. It's a good way to justify a hostile response, but not very useful beyond that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna View Post
, when you constantly bait those who disagree with your position without providing any direct clash or evidence, when you come to a manufacturer or content creator's forum specifically to tell them (without really anything specific or helpful at all) that their product just isn't good enough for you, it's called trolling.
Maybe, but whether it's actually trolling or just ill-informed happy-hour bluster depends on intentions. We all have to deal with apparent trolls in real-life too, but we usually have the sense not to keep escalating the confrontation until it ends in a bloodbath. We try to deal with them up to a point, and if that doesn't work we ignore them. Just because it's the Internet, we don't have to adopt the standard Internet mentality of constantly looking for a brawl.

There's always a small chance that the OP actually believes what they're saying (I know, the thought is disturbing ), and reacting as if somebody just insulted our collective momma actually makes us look less confident in what we're saying. Both the OP and outside readers pick up on tone, and it adds to the confusion.

Give me five minutes and I'll find an acrimonious Internet argument where the majority don't actually know what they're talking about. The only way to send the message that we do know what we're talking about is to make the tone of our discussion different to that of the others.

ANYWAY... I don't want to turn into the lone champion of politeness on the Internet. I hope what I'm saying makes sense to whoever reads this, though.

My real beef with the thread was the tone of mocking dismissal, and the knee-jerk hostility to anyone who dared to point out that talking about the "sound" of a digital-audio system is not automatically stupid. That kind of "if you're not with us, you're against us" reasoning is way out of line, and only fans the flames by alienating more objective contributors.

In context, of course, there's every reason to believe the OP is dead wrong on this, but those reasons need to be explained in detail rather than glossed over with a smug put-down.

A comparable example would be to write "CD sound is perfect, you idiot" in response to a discussion about the relative sound quality of album transfers from the '80s and '90s, or a question over whether there's merit in using higher sample-rates. Some of the posts here border on that, and it isn't at all helpful. There are real engineering issues at stake here, and at the very least there should be room for a brief summary of the reasons why the OP is almost certainly wrong, preferably with links to some of the more lucid posts from past threads.
tehsux0r is offline  
Old 04-12-2009, 11:03 AM   #60
ngarjuna
Human being with feelings
 
ngarjuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tehsux0r View Post
...
Give me five minutes and I'll find an acrimonious Internet argument where the majority don't actually know what they're talking about. The only way to send the message that we do know what we're talking about is to make the tone of our discussion different to that of the others.

ANYWAY... I don't want to turn into the lone champion of politeness on the Internet. I hope what I'm saying makes sense to whoever reads this, though.

My real beef with the thread was the tone of mocking dismissal, and the knee-jerk hostility to anyone who dared to point out that talking about the "sound" of a digital-audio system is not automatically stupid. That kind of "if you're not with us, you're against us" reasoning is way out of line, and only fans the flames by alienating more objective contributors.
...
That seems fair to me.
ngarjuna is offline  
Old 04-12-2009, 02:06 PM   #61
tehsux0r
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 91
Default

God, I did go on, didn't I! Hope no-one fell asleep
tehsux0r is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 07:48 AM   #62
TheArchitect
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by merge View Post
Hi guys,

thanks for your input. It is clear to most who work prefessionally in the audio world that each DAW's mix buss has a unique audio engine performance and therefore effect on the quality of sound reproduction.

There is no user error in this testing process. The same wav file that was tracked into Merging Pyramix 6 was used without conversion and played back as a single wav file in each DAW at 88.2k with the same external HEDD 192 convertors using the same external clock. Oh, and the apps were running side by side so that there were direct comparisons available within a moment of reassigning the ASIO driver.

Before you start flaming with irrational comments maybe go try some real testing yourself. We have available to us in the studio Pyramix 6, Protools HD, Cubendo 4, Sampquoia and Reaper and have tested each DAW extensively under numerous configurations.

Best,
merge
Great. Go use samplitude and quit bothering us.
__________________
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 04-13-2009, 08:11 AM   #63
vanpet
Human being with feelings
 
vanpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 167
Default

I think the consortium of audio software makers should make an emergency meeting to announce the world, once and for all, that software and hardware mixing are two different beasts. If a type of resistor or capacitor can deeply affect the sound that goes through it, a digital "+" sign does precise math, be it on a Mac, on Linux, on Windows 3.1 or whatever.

The differences between DAWs are numerous and important, but the mythical "audio engine (tm)" is bullshit. Using the "audio engine (tm)" improvement as a marketing gimmick is bullshit, and people doing this should hang themselves for dumbing down the audio community.
vanpet is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 09:53 AM   #64
schwa
Administrator
 
schwa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 10,531
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ieso View Post
I said to the professional audio engineer seated to my right, "I say, Monty, Reaper sounds like buttocks!" "Jolly right" responded Frederick, the professional audio engineer standing to my left, wearing a look of whimsical disdain.
That killed me in 2008 and it still kills me today. Best post ever.
schwa is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 10:02 AM   #65
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 13,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tehsux0r View Post
God, I did go on, didn't I! Hope no-one fell asleep
I appreciate such a long and detailed response

However, the issue in this case is the cart before the horse. Before people go on about what the differences could be caused by first they should show there IS a difference

they havent

This is like watching two 'footers argue over whether or not bigfoot eats only a vegetarian diet, without first showing there even IS a bigfoot

Earlier in this thread JasonTheron posted this http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13473

That should have stopped the speculation right there till someone could prove there was a difference
pipelineaudio is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 11:08 AM   #66
Oxytoxine
Human being with feelings
 
Oxytoxine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 374
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tehsux0r View Post
Okay, the "questions" thing might be referring to the other thread I read, and I'm not going to even dignify his allegations about sound quality with a response, because they don't deserve to be taken seriously when you consider all the facts.

Side note: calling REAPER's internal processing 64-bit is misleading - the mantissa of a 64-bit float is 54 bits if you include the implied 1 and the sign, so on a centred signal, without processing, quantisation distortion should be constant at or below -325dB (let's ignore denormals to be conservative).

Even allowing for a loss of 16 bits or so for track effects (easier than you'd think, especially with multiply-accumulate operations like FFTs or convolution), that leaves us an effective signal-to-noise ratio of 38 bits, which even a mastering engineer listening in his studio shouldn't be able to distinguish from the "real thing" (theoretical identical processing with infinite SNR). Floats are different beasts to integers, however - addition tends to destroy more accuracy than multiplication - so even this figure might overestimate the final SNR. In this extreme case, things aren't so clear-cut.

My point is just to show how throwing around ideas like "64 bits" and "it's just math - how can it be wrong?" is not by any means the final word on sound quality. While REAPER of course has no influence over the internal processing of your plugins, any differences in REAPER's LSB-level mixing could theoretically show up at just-audible levels with enough of them inserted.

All that said, the OP is clearly not talking about such an extreme case, so skepticism is appropriate, even if pooh-poohing the theory itself is going way too far.



Kind of. I don't remember that claim being seriously and explicitly made, but maybe my brain's just protecting itself from damage ;-)



Sure - the consistent failure to actually follow up the claims with even rudimentary investigation should ring alarm bells, even if nothing else does. I would make a short post detailing what I think the most likely culprits are, and that I'd be prepared to eat my hat with BBQ sauce if REAPER's internal sound engine, or that of any of the other DAWs he's testing, is responsible for the claimed effects, and probably leave it at that. Any further posts by the OP that don't clarify the problem with some kind of procedure or test file would then do nothing to advance the discussion and could be justifiably ignored.



Sure, I never claimed they did. Even so, the way we respond to this kind of hit-and-run opining says as much about us as the way we respond to legitimate posts. If it's this easy to make us defensive and aggressive, and start slinging mud at the provocateur, what will a reader coming from Google think? "Oh, just another forum flamewar - yawn."



That may be, but most audio forums on the 'net (indeed, most forums there period) are pretty hostile places because the members can't be bothered to keep their judgements of other people out of a discussion. Are we really aiming so low as to be no better than other Internet forums?! Shudder.

It's just another unsubstantiated, puffed-up opinion. We've all opined loudly at some point in our lives, and it can be annoying to some people (understandably so), but how long have we had the Internet now?! Like it or not, this is situation normal. How we respond to it defines whether we're part of the solution or part of the problem (forgive the phrase, but it's apt).



I don't think we need to speculate about the poster's intentions. It's a good way to justify a hostile response, but not very useful beyond that.



Maybe, but whether it's actually trolling or just ill-informed happy-hour bluster depends on intentions. We all have to deal with apparent trolls in real-life too, but we usually have the sense not to keep escalating the confrontation until it ends in a bloodbath. We try to deal with them up to a point, and if that doesn't work we ignore them. Just because it's the Internet, we don't have to adopt the standard Internet mentality of constantly looking for a brawl.

There's always a small chance that the OP actually believes what they're saying (I know, the thought is disturbing ), and reacting as if somebody just insulted our collective momma actually makes us look less confident in what we're saying. Both the OP and outside readers pick up on tone, and it adds to the confusion.

Give me five minutes and I'll find an acrimonious Internet argument where the majority don't actually know what they're talking about. The only way to send the message that we do know what we're talking about is to make the tone of our discussion different to that of the others.

ANYWAY... I don't want to turn into the lone champion of politeness on the Internet. I hope what I'm saying makes sense to whoever reads this, though.

My real beef with the thread was the tone of mocking dismissal, and the knee-jerk hostility to anyone who dared to point out that talking about the "sound" of a digital-audio system is not automatically stupid. That kind of "if you're not with us, you're against us" reasoning is way out of line, and only fans the flames by alienating more objective contributors.

In context, of course, there's every reason to believe the OP is dead wrong on this, but those reasons need to be explained in detail rather than glossed over with a smug put-down.

A comparable example would be to write "CD sound is perfect, you idiot" in response to a discussion about the relative sound quality of album transfers from the '80s and '90s, or a question over whether there's merit in using higher sample-rates. Some of the posts here border on that, and it isn't at all helpful. There are real engineering issues at stake here, and at the very least there should be room for a brief summary of the reasons why the OP is almost certainly wrong, preferably with links to some of the more lucid posts from past threads.
good post with good intention and arguments
Oxytoxine is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 11:26 AM   #67
tehsux0r
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanpet View Post
I think the consortium of audio software makers should make an emergency meeting to announce the world, once and for all, that software and hardware mixing are two different beasts. If a type of resistor or capacitor can deeply affect the sound that goes through it, a digital "+" sign does precise math, be it on a Mac, on Linux, on Windows 3.1 or whatever.

The differences between DAWs are numerous and important, but the mythical "audio engine (tm)" is bullshit. Using the "audio engine (tm)" improvement as a marketing gimmick is bullshit, and people doing this should hang themselves for dumbing down the audio community.
What's mythical (and a much more pernicious form of dumbing down) is the idea that software and hardware, or analog and digital, processing are somehow inherently different - this is nonsense. Digital is capable of approaching some ideals (especially with regard to filter performance) more closely (and cheaply) than analog, and some problems are much easier to solve digitally, but that doesn't change the fact that engineering compromises are still involved. See my (long) post above for details about aspects of mixing that can differ between computing platforms.

I really don't see why there's an objection to the term "audio engine" either. What term would you prefer when referring to the real-time mixing core of a software multitracker? Attempting to dismiss discussion on this by trivialising the theoretical possibility of oversights in critical code doesn't clarify anything. Although I strongly doubt that REAPER suffers from such oversights, I wouldn't dare dismiss the possibility out of hand.

For instance, did you know that the default FPU rounding mode in some compilers (e.g. MS Visual C++) is "towards zero"? That's the worst possible choice for audio because it produces zero-crossing distortion, yet none of us can say for certain that any one DAW overrides this with a more sensible choice because we can't see the code.
tehsux0r is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 11:42 AM   #68
tehsux0r
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
I appreciate such a long and detailed response

However, the issue in this case is the cart before the horse. Before people go on about what the differences could be caused by first they should show there IS a difference

they havent

This is like watching two 'footers argue over whether or not bigfoot eats only a vegetarian diet, without first showing there even IS a bigfoot

Earlier in this thread JasonTheron posted this http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13473

That should have stopped the speculation right there till someone could prove there was a difference
Absolutely right - that was a great post, and it says all that needs to be said.

My problem (in the context of this evidence-free thread ) is with people trash-talking as if software/digital is somehow magically perfect and you'd have to be an idiot to question its quality. This kind of horrendous dumbing down hurts the discussion and diminishes understanding of the issues; even though the post you linked to demonstrates that there's no problem in reality, the baseless defensiveness here looks even worse to an outsider than the original baseless allegation.

-- sux

P.S. Great tutorial vids!
tehsux0r is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 01:37 PM   #69
vanpet
Human being with feelings
 
vanpet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 167
Default

tehsuxor > so, what's the best sounding engine, then? Can I stick with Reaper?
vanpet is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 03:56 PM   #70
tehsux0r
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vanpet View Post
tehsuxor > so, what's the best sounding engine, then? Can I stick with Reaper?
I wouldn't know for sure, as I haven't done any null/listening tests myself. As I said in my earlier posts, I'd be very surprised if there's any difference. More importantly, pipelineaudio (http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=13473) did a null test that proves there's no difference at all between some of the main DAWs in most cases, at least to 24 bits' accuracy. IIRC small amplitude errors can show up on one or two programs if the master fader is non-zero, but amplitude errors are unimportant compared to actual distortion, so that wouldn't stop me using those programs.

It would be nice to be able to prove that all of the floating-point DAWs set the FPU rounding mode to "nearest" (or another mode that's sign-symmetrical), and produce identical results up to 32 or more bits, but this is impossible without higher-resolution testing, and problems might arise in finding a common output format between some of the DAWs. If they all null up to the 24th bit anyway, it's debatable whether any theoretical rounding problems beyond that would be audible even in ideal listening conditions, especially when you consider that even the best ADCs can only manage about 20 bits' accuracy when you take jitter and thermal noise into account!

If any of the floating-point DAWs use bad rounding modes (unlikely), the cumulative effect of this in in-process (DLL) effects plugins that inherit that mode at run-time would likely be far more damaging than the mixing itself: a single 1024-point FFT-based plugin running in "round towards zero" mode could strip 10 bits off the effective accuracy of the signal in one go!

Until a more sophisticated test with some FFT effects is done, or someone takes a debugger to REAPER to look for the rounding-mode reset, this null test proves that REAPER has enough accuracy for my needs.

-- sux

P.S. To answer your question: REAPER sounds much better than the others as long as you run it off a memory stick that's been kept in the freezer for 24 hours. REACOMP.DLL can sound a bit harsh if it's too warm.

tehsux0r is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 04:06 PM   #71
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schwa View Post
How did we get two of these going at once?
Possibly a subtle experiment in whether two threads on the same topic will tend toward post-for-post accuracy or will instead exhibit differences on depth and thickness.
Lokasenna is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 06:01 PM   #72
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna View Post
Possibly a subtle experiment in whether two threads on the same topic will tend toward post-for-post accuracy or will instead exhibit differences on depth and thickness.
Someone said that Reaper sounds like "buttocks", so you need two threads... one to represent each ass cheek.
Lawrence is offline  
Old 04-13-2009, 07:38 PM   #73
liteon
Human being with feelings
 
liteon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 510
Default

ah, the never ending discussion...

things to take note here:

- digital summing is indeed in the lines of clean math where "1+1=2" and 32bit fp is 32bit fp. this statement suggests that all modern audio summing programs should give the exact same results in theory. edit: now i see that tehsux0r explained better.

- as justin said the most common case of resulted differences is due to "user error". you may however categorize "user error" as:
-- "listening error" when the listener is perceiving two compared mixes as different even if they are exactly the same. a good example of such "error" is the clock listening case. if you listen to the clock you may hear - "tick-tack" but the actual sequence is "tick-tick-tick...". this is caused by the fact the brain does not like repetitions in sound and masks the perception.
-- "setup error" this error is produced by incorrect settings/minor differences in the compared mixes. the problem here is that the list of parameters involved is very big, but even the minor differences will register. i will give you a good example of this (probably only d. dambrin (flstudio) knows about this - my respects to didier). if you add a wav file in flstudio's sampler by default the filter is always enabled and is part of the signal chain. the transfer function of the filter produces a super small magnitude boost/shift in the top end. as far as i remember the difference was so small that you cannot catch it with any normal metering (phase invertion). even if you set all parameters of two compared mixes - exactly the same. you will also have to prove that your measuring tools are 100% accurate. in a sense what is [-inf]? even the smallest "errors" at 1e-6db will build up exponentially and in the case of a very complex 40 track mix, the sound may be altered a lot from the, state of "clean".

if someone asks me: "do these small differences add that much?", i would say "yes and no":
"yes" would be, because i believe that the amount of information which is alter by the human brain is very large and in a sense we are hearing less than we are supposed to - unnecessary information is filtered out and this plays a big role in our evolution, because we can think more instead, compared to cats and dogs which can hear the dither noise at 16bit (-96db) very clearly. but we still can enjoy the sound of the non-linearities of analog which are in these ranges. how is that explained?
and...well "no" would be, because music is art and blaming the tools in art is an excuse in my opinion.

and i will quote Andrei Tarkovski to hammer the nail on this post :
"An artist never works under ideal conditions. If they existed, his work wouldn't exist, for the artist doesn't live in a vacuum. Some sort of pressure must exist. The artist exists because the world is not perfect. Art would be useless if the world were perfect, as man wouldn't look for harmony but would simply live in it. Art is born out of an ill-designed world."

lubomir

Last edited by liteon; 04-14-2009 at 12:49 AM. Reason: typozzz
liteon is offline  
Old 04-24-2009, 08:45 PM   #74
daveyboy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10
Default

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.
__________________
Dave , Reaper 4.10 64 bit, OS X.6.7, intel 8 core 2.8 xeon, 10 gbs ram, Logic 9.1.5, DP 7.24, PT 9.0.5, Apogee Symphony, UAD 2 quad, pro studio in LA great for composers and producers www.recordla.com
daveyboy is offline  
Old 04-25-2009, 07:06 AM   #75
tehsux0r
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
-- "listening error" when the listener is perceiving two compared mixes as different even if they are exactly the same. a good example of such "error" is the clock listening case. if you listen to the clock you may hear - "tick-tack" but the actual sequence is "tick-tick-tick...". this is caused by the fact the brain does not like repetitions in sound and masks the perception.
Very interesting. I'd noticed the apparent difference but not really thought about whether it was real.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
in a sense what is [-inf]? even the smallest "errors" at 1e-6db will build up exponentially and in the case of a very complex 40 track mix, the sound may be altered a lot from the, state of "clean".
Absolutely. This is why I think it's dangerous to extend some of the general defences in this thread to big mixes with lots of effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
...compared to cats and dogs which can hear the dither noise at 16bit (-96db) very clearly.
Is this really true? Very interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
but we still can enjoy the sound of the non-linearities of analog which are in these ranges. how is that explained?
The only way I can think to explain it is that we're very adaptable - under critical listening conditions, with training, and with repeat listening to the same material, we're capable of approaching the abilities you attributed to dogs and cats - a lot of our listening process, especially in music, is adaptation and prediction. This even extends to chords and structures, and explains why certain types of music that play with established patterns but subvert them at the last minute can be more interesting to some listeners. It also leaves room for the pollution of our perception with unreal artefacts of that prediction/extrapolation process, though. I think this is a pretty good description of placebo effect, and the limitations of our perception (owing to, for example, our lack of a better-developed cochlea) just make it worse by forcing us to try to hear past those limitations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
and...well "no" would be, because music is art and blaming the tools in art is an excuse in my opinion.
Up to a point, yes. I don't think that you can disregard tools or technique completely, though. A really crappy/distorted mix, for example, will prevent listeners from hearing everything that's going on in a song, and that can't be good most of the time. Sound quality, engineering, production, mixing, music, lyrics, performance - these all have a tangible effect on how good the final product "is".

In my opinion there's a weighted sum going on - if you can hit a certain minimum standard in all of these areas, your song is much more likely to be loved by the masses than if you excel in one or two areas but neglect others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by liteon View Post
and i will quote Andrei Tarkovski to hammer the nail on this post :
"An artist never works under ideal conditions. If they existed, his work wouldn't exist, for the artist doesn't live in a vacuum. Some sort of pressure must exist. The artist exists because the world is not perfect. Art would be useless if the world were perfect, as man wouldn't look for harmony but would simply live in it. Art is born out of an ill-designed world."

lubomir
Absolutely. It's not just imperfection, though - restrictions are necessary to prevent overindulgence. The constraints under which, for example, the Beatles had to work (e.g. very limited multi-tracking) actively promoted the development of what they did by forcing decisions to be made.

The last couple of decades have seen a gradual removal of the technical barriers faced by musicians in the past, and while this has resulted in new areas of exploration (industrial/pop production, for example) it has also waylaid countless people. I don't know how many gear freaks I've met who never get around to actually finishing a recording, because all the options technology has given them lead to a kind of candy-store paralysis. In the past, these people would have been forced to "just do it already", whereas now they're less effective.

My personal way of dealing with all this is to treat REAPER like a traditional analogue studio desk as much as possible, and play parts fully (i.e. two or three comps per track wherever possible). I use soft synths, but only to replicate natural/classic instrument sounds. I very rarely edit instrument sounds directly, either on hard or soft synths. The whole approach is a bit like a '70s studio, but a hell of a lot cheaper!

I'm not saying anyone else should necessarily do things the way I do. What's important is to make some decisions up-front (the specifics don't matter) about basic workflow so as to avoid the everyday detail/experimentation traps; exceptions can then be made as the needs of the work dictate.

Last edited by tehsux0r; 04-25-2009 at 07:09 AM. Reason: phrasing
tehsux0r is offline  
Old 04-25-2009, 07:44 AM   #76
Tedwood
Human being with feelings
 
Tedwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast UK
Posts: 14,303
Default

I'll tell you another funny thing - I still hear my alarm clock and mobile phone after it has stopped ringing!?

Not really of course but it sounds like it to me. It seems to have got worse with age
__________________
The grass is greener where it rains
Tedwood is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 02:14 AM   #77
junioreq
Human being with feelings
 
junioreq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Buffalo NY
Posts: 1,091
Default

ok, I have an idea. Make a black website, black background that is, and put a soundclip on it.

Then make a white website, but a clip on that.

Ask a someone that doesnt do audio editing what one sounds better.

Any guesses what one they will pick??



~Rob
junioreq is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 05:45 AM   #78
zappsunzorn
Human being with feelings
 
zappsunzorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Virginia Beach VA
Posts: 2,271
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pasdkdas View Post
but we still can enjoy new york escorts...
The only way I can new york asian escort think to explain it is that we're very adaptable - under critical listening new york escort conditions, with training, and with repeat listening to the same material, we're capable of 4
new york asian escorts approaching the abilities you attributed to dogs and cats - a lot of our listening process, especially in music, is adaptation and prediction.
I can not confirm that Reaper sounds better with 4 New York Asian escorts, but my perception of sound might be compromised enough to make me believe that it does.
zappsunzorn is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 12:15 PM   #79
Chris_P_Critter
Human being with feelings
 
Chris_P_Critter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a van, down by the river
Posts: 3,574
Default

Time to warm up some more Hashbrowns, I see.

__________________
The Freeze Tag Assassins
Chris_P_Critter is offline  
Old 05-21-2009, 07:36 AM   #80
mr jkn
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Posts: 127
Default Ok, ok - they null.. I´m convinced.

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.
mr jkn 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 08:30 AM.


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