Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2021, 11:13 AM   #1
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default Reaper audio engine sounds too "glassy"/cold ?

Using Reaper now since 3 years as mostly my main DAW.

However, the longer i use it i notice, that the sound of Reaper seems somehow overly transparent, slightly cold, or "glassy" to me, which is an effect i constantly seem to have to counteract.

I've been - and still sometimes am - a long-time user of other DAW, like Cubase, Nuendo, Pro Tools and Logic Pro.

Reaper sounds the coldest to me, there is a tendency, that it takes the body of sound away somehow.
Pro Tools is almost plain neutral, high class.
Cubase/Nuendo are a little warmer, fat on body, juicy sounding (almost like an EMU III sample compared to an AKAI sampler, for the ones who know),
Logic sounds very good, though a little mushy, and certain built-in plugs are unusable (the limiter is a medium-level catastrophe)

Has anyone else -> with experience on other DAW <- noticed Reaper sounding slightly cold, overly clear?

Thanks for sharing, and i wonder how to improve this audio engine, while the democratic concept of Reaper is world-leading. The sound, to me, isn't yet there.

EDIT: All of the above is of course personal opinion/experience and I am asking for exactly that from you - so if you should feel tempted to shoulder-pad yourself about how much :you: know but nobody else and totally want to teach me ... then don't post. I am not that alone. We all cook food ... with water, and exchanging cooking methods in a friendly, same-level, respectful way is completely appreciated. Grazie mille.

Last edited by jayrope; 04-03-2021 at 03:09 PM. Reason: typo
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:26 AM   #2
Cosmic Pig
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 398
Default

If you're digging into the tiny if not imaginary differences between daws maybe it's your skill level that isn't there yet.
Cosmic Pig is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:34 AM   #3
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

Making an exception for Mixbus(where that they have intentionally put their thumb on the "Sound" scale...)?

No. I don't think that Reaper sounds the way you have described.

Matter of fact, I would just plain disagree with how you described Cubase. Don't remember that at all from my time using it.

Certainly don't ever recall thinking that it sounded "Warmer..." than Reaper.
numberthirty is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:35 AM   #4
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Unless you can tell the difference reliably in blind tests (with mixes done identically in all regards other than the fact they were done in different DAWs), it's imaginary and possibly a result of your expectations (confirmation bias). You wouldn't be the first to assume Reaper's "engine" "sounds cheap" because you paid less money for it, or that Pro Tools sounds "high class" because you paid a lot of money for it. It's human nature, one of the flaws of our thought processes.

If however you mean "the entire architecture of the DAW" which includes all the "stock" plugins in each DAW as part of your assessment, yes there will be differences among all of them. You can eliminate that completely by choosing the same plugins in each DAW (use third-party plugins).

Mixbus is the only exception since it has distortion intentionally "built in" to the mixer architecture. This can easily be mimicked with separate plugins though.

Last edited by JamesPeters; 04-03-2021 at 11:42 AM.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:53 AM   #5
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Pig View Post
If you're digging into the tiny if not imaginary differences between daws maybe it's your skill level that isn't there yet.
Point taken, although the difference between warm or glassy is a matter of daily long-time experience, otherwise i wouldn't hava asked/posted this, as a question. What's your own experience like?
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:54 AM   #6
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Unless you can tell the difference reliably in blind tests (with mixes done identically in all regards other than the fact they were done in different DAWs)...
I am doing direct comparisons, of course, otherwise i wouldn't post about this. Did you?
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:56 AM   #7
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
I am doing direct comparisons, of course, otherwise i wouldn't post about this. Did you?
Yes. And I tested the results by null testing. There was absolutely no difference. The "engine" of those DAWs makes no difference at all if:

-pan law is the same
-levels are the same
-no plugins are used
-no resampling is used
-no time stretching is used
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:56 AM   #8
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
Matter of fact, I would just plain disagree with how you described Cubase. Don't remember that at all from my time using it.
Are you running both in direct comparison?

A memory is a memory, you know.
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:58 AM   #9
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
A memory is a memory, you know.
An assertion without evidence is baseless, you know.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 11:59 AM   #10
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Unless you can tell the difference reliably in blind tests ...
Yes i do comparisons directly, even just on the base of pulling tracks in and relating them with just the same volumes compared. Admittedly i should do a direct comparison of such mixes in Reaper and Cubase, then choose sthg. like Wavelab just to calculate elctrical difference. Its a good idea in general. Thanx for pointing that out. However my question was about a general impression that people might have, and i do have especially mastering colleagues who did notice a difference such as i initially described.

Last edited by jayrope; 04-03-2021 at 12:05 PM.
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:01 PM   #11
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
I am doing direct comparisons, of course, otherwise i wouldn't post about this. Did you?
Unless it's proper blind A/B/X testing, it's irrelevant and wide open to bias without realizing so. There is ton's of science supporting this, meaning you have to be able to properly demonstrate it. The first red flag is using non-audio terms like glassy, cold, 3D or whichever terms people like to use when they think they hear something but don't go the extra mile to prove to themselves whether they actually heard it or not.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:02 PM   #12
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Be sure to do the mixes identically in all regards. Sorry if it sounds as though I'm beating a dead horse, but this subject has been brought up many times on this forum, the Cakewalk forums, The Steinberg forums, and possibly others that I'm not aware of. Most times, people overlook something important. Rendering to a different file type (or different encoding of MP3) is one of the most embarrassing things that someone overlooked, that I can recall. Pan law (and differences in volume due to folder depth) was another. Working with mono files in mono tracks, versus how Reaper works (always 2 channels or more, unless you configure it explicitly by the routing dialog, which no one thinks about) might also affect your result.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:02 PM   #13
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
An assertion without evidence is baseless, you know.
I agree to this, but an "impression" is not an assertion, makes sense to differentiate this.
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:04 PM   #14
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Unless it's proper blind A/B/X testing, it's irrelevant and wide open to bias without realizing so. There is ton's of science supporting this, meaning you have to be able to properly demonstrate it. The first red flag is using non-audio terms like glassy, cold, 3D or whichever terms people like to use when they think they hear something but don't go the extra mile to prove to themselves whether they actually heard it or not.
Maybe it was unclear to you, but i was talking about my personal bias n the first place. This thread is not about science, it is about personal impressions. So in that regard, did you directly compare different DAWs and what is your impression?
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:07 PM   #15
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Yes. And I tested the results by null testing. There was absolutely no difference. The "engine" of those DAWs makes no difference at all if:

-pan law is the same
-levels are the same
-no plugins are used
-no resampling is used
-no time stretching is used
Again point taken. My impression stays the same, and my initial question was, if people have a similar one (or not). Maybe that question doesn't appeal to you in the first place, however, that was my question. Can you answer that from a personal view point?
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:09 PM   #16
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
Again point taken. My impression stays the same, and my initial question was, if people have a similar one (or not). Maybe that question doesn't appeal to you in the first place, however, that was my question. Can you answer that from a personal view point?
"Impressions" and "personal opinions" are completely worthless in this regard. Either Reaper's "engine" "sounds different" and it can be demonstrated, or it doesn't and cannot be demonstrated.

As for my "personal viewpoint": there's no difference at all. This personal viewpoint is backed by evidence.

My "hostility" in this stems from the subject always being brought up by someone who claims to know better, and never backs down, only disappearing from the forum when it's demonstrated that they've been wrong the whole time.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:10 PM   #17
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
"Impressions" and "personal opinions" are completely worthless in this regard. Either Reaper's "engine" "sounds different" and it can be demonstrated, or it doesn't and cannot be demonstrated.

As for my "personal viewpoint": there's no difference at all. This personal viewpoint is backed by evidence.

My "hostility" in this stems from the subject always being brought up by someone who claims to know better, and never backs down, only disappearing from the forum when it's demonstrated that they've been wrong the whole time.
That is your opinion and i respect that. However i was asking about personal impression, not a "scientific" (data-based) study. You may be able to respect that as well, if you can. I am not claiming to know better, i am simply asking for personal ears.

Also i am completely disagreing about the role of personal viewpoint here, because that's what makes humans/users move into this or that direction. And that is at the base of my question. You are obviously vry much a fan of Reaper. I respect that. Me, too. However, read the initial post again, please. Thanks
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:13 PM   #18
n997
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
Has anyone else -> with experience on other DAW <- noticed Reaper sounding slightly cold, overly clear?
I've recently been migrating projects from other DAWs to REAPER, and have noticed no discernable differences that can be attributed to REAPER's mixing math.

As far as my theoretical understanding goes, with 32-bit and higher mixing, the differences (if any) between applications are far below noise floor of most monitoring equipment anyway.



I too would be surprised if anyone could, in a proper double blind test, reliably tell apart audio clips mixed in different DAWs from same exact source files, at same exact settings including pan laws, with same exact plugins (thus leaving summing math as only variable being tested). I'd expect the result of such test to be that all DAW sound the same, except perhaps those that intentionally add some coloration to the signal in their summing math.


As for the psychological impact of different DAWs, I can definitely confirm that effect on myself. A project in FL Studio, for example, feels different than the same exact project data in REAPER.
I would not bet a cent on me being able to tell the resulting audio apart in a blind test - but if I see the GUIs, I can feel a difference, to the point of sometimes worrying whether aesthetics of user interfaces (and other connotations I have associated with particular DAWs) could actually steer the musical directions of my work, in same way how studio decoration does.
n997 is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:13 PM   #19
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
That is your opinion and i respect that. However i was asking about personal impression, not a "scientific" (data-based) study. You may be able to respect that as well, if you can. I am not claiming to know better, i am simply asking for personal ears.

Also i am completely disagreing about the role of personal viewpoint here, because that's what makes hmas move into this or that direction. And that is at the base of my question. Read the initial post again, please. Thanks
I did re-read your original post, and now I'm going to quote it in its entirely, just in case you edit it and try to backpedal further (edit: you definitely did just that, as predicted):

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
Thread title: Reaper audio engine sounds too "glassy"/cold ?

Using Reaper now since 3 years as mostly my main DAW.

However, the longer i use it i notice, that the sound of Reaper seems somehow overly transparent, slightly cold, or "glassy" to me, which is an effect i constantly seem to have to counteract.

I've been - and still sometimes am - a long-time user of other DAW, like Cubase, Nuendo, Pro Tools and Logic Pro.

Reaper sounds the coldest to me, there is a tendency, that it takes the body of sound away somehow.
Pro Tools is almost plain neutral, high class.
Cubase/Nuendo are a little warmer, fat on body, juicy sounding (almost like an EMU III sample compared to an AKAI sampler, for the ones who know),
Logic sounds very good, though a little mushy, and certain built-in plugs are unusable (the limiter is a medium-level catastrophe)

Has anyone else -> with experience on other DAW <- noticed Reaper sounding slightly cold, overly clear?

Thanks for sharing, and i wonder how to improve this audio engine, while the democratic concept of Reaper is world-leading. The sound, to me, isn't yet there.
This thread was not your saying "I admit to having a personal bias, and I wonder if any of you do as well." You explicitly stated that Reaper's "audio engine" "isn't there yet" and "needs improving".

Don't bother backpedaling.

I see you edited the previous post I quoted, adding "You are obviously vry much a fan of Reaper. I respect that. Me, too." This has nothing to do with which DAW I prefer. The sound of these DAWs is identical.

Last edited by JamesPeters; 04-03-2021 at 03:46 PM.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:21 PM   #20
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
Maybe it was unclear to you, but i was talking about my personal bias n the first place. This thread is not about science, it is about personal impressions. So in that regard, did you directly compare different DAWs and what is your impression?
You are unclear to everyone because your first post reads as if you hear something that these DAWs actually posses - otherwise maybe state that up front so we all understand it's just an opinion/impression. It sort of sounds like you are saying they posses audible differences, but hide behind personal impression the moment you are called to the carpet to prove it so to speak.

I'm am perfectly fine if "mojo" exists in your head, or mine and that regardless of where it exists, it has value, but that isn't the gear, it's the mind.

I started with Logic for PC in the late 90s, then Cubase/Nuendo, then Reaper. I certainly used to be like your first post, then I started testing myself to understand what I actually heard or didn't which saved me a hell of a lot of time and money.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.
karbomusic is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:29 PM   #21
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
It sort of sounds like you are saying they posses audible differences, but hide behind personal impression the moment you are called to the carpet to prove it so to speak.
It sort of exactly is that, 100%. The last 2 sentences of his original post couldn't be any more clear. He wouldn't say "i wonder how to improve this audio engine", and "The sound, to me, isn't yet there", if he were admitting to any personal biases.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:32 PM   #22
n997
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
Sorry if it sounds as though I'm beating a dead horse, but this subject has been brought up many times on this forum, the Cakewalk forums, The Steinberg forums, and possibly others that I'm not aware of.
In FL Studio forums there has been a pinned thread about "audio engines" for years now. In it, the staff have made considerable efforts to explain the subject to people who have uncertainty and doubt about it, in relation to FL Studio in particular. The fact that it remains pinned since 2009 is telling, though.
n997 is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:33 PM   #23
Cosmic Pig
Human being with feelings
 
Cosmic Pig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 398
Default

There are many bigger questions in the pursuit of recorded music that these piddly things. Which is more important; bit rate or distortion on a snare track. Where you put the mic or getting a summing amp?

In the event that Jayrope isn't actually being paid to go out and sabotage other daws I'll just say it doesn't matter. It's a click bait pile of thread.

Leastways, I personally am much more concerned with what mic and where it goes. The reason tunes sound like crap is 99% of the time is lousy production, mic and placement, mix, mastering, room etc. and on and on. Waaaay down the bottom of that is daw and bit rate and myriad other micro crap, yet we continue to talk about minor shit endlessly.

I wouldn't care too much, but it sucks to see budding engineers go down that rabbit hole. I suspect sales goofs are trolling forums, so apologies to Jayrope if you ain't indeed a sales goof.
Cosmic Pig is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:34 PM   #24
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 29,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
It sort of exactly is that, 100%. The last 2 sentences of his original post couldn't be any more clear. He wouldn't say "i wonder how to improve this audio engine", and "The sound, to me, isn't yet there", if he were admitting to any personal biases.
Well I was trying to be nice. As the line/hook hangs in the water in a slow-moving boat, there will be plenty of fish to grab it and play to keep the thread open along with the plenty of word salad and semantic detours to push it along, but since there doesn't seem to be any desire here to do other than that, I'll probably save Justin some database space.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like.

Last edited by karbomusic; 04-03-2021 at 01:01 PM.
karbomusic is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 12:46 PM   #25
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by n997 View Post
In FL Studio forums there has been a pinned thread about "audio engines" for years now. In it, the staff have made considerable efforts to explain the subject to people who have uncertainty and doubt about it, in relation to FL Studio in particular. The fact that it remains pinned since 2009 is telling, though.
It's amazing how often this comes up on forums, as though people don't want to believe the truth.

The conversation can be useful, but also it can be destructive, depending on just how far people are willing to argue without testing (properly). A volume difference of even 1 dBfs might be enough for someone to appreciate one sound compared to another. Often, comparison files posted for blind testing aren't even the same level. So round and round it goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Pig View Post
There are many bigger questions in the pursuit of recorded music that these piddly things. Which is more important; bit rate or distortion on a snare track. Where you put the mic or getting a summing amp?
Agreed. Even if there were minor differences in the "audio engines" of the DAWs, I wouldn't care. I'd compensate for them the way I always compensate for anything I don't like in a mix. If the differences in "audio engines" of DAWs were so much that a person couldn't compensate for them, then I'd consider the "audio engine" flat-out broken. That should clearly not be the case to even a casual (biased) observer.

I recall a comparison I posted on the a forum years ago. I think it was about how rendering at all (just to WAV at the same overall volume setting, no difference in pan or levels) would be enough to "compromise" the sound, specifically that one DAW was worse than another when rendering to uncompressed WAV. In this case, I think it was on the Cakewalk forums (I was still using Sonar X1, but was also starting to use Reaper). When I posted my tests for people to listen to, only a few people in that argument bothered to download and compare the files. That says a lot in itself. The files were:

1) A song which was not imported into a DAW.
2) That same song file but rendered neutrally in Sonar.
3) That same song file but rendered neutrally in Reaper.
4) That same song encoded to a compressed format, then played from an old iPod into my audio interface, recorded in Sonar and then rendered. This whole process done TWICE in a row to get the final resulting file. lol.

Case #4 should've been glaring, based on the "expertise" of these people and their superhuman ears. No one noticed which file it was. The thread died. So much for the experts. A few people did look at the source files to mention some differences which could be detected by software, but subjectively no one could guess even the encoded-to-MP3-twice-and-recorded-to-the-interface file.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:00 PM   #26
Rumario
Human being with feelings
 
Rumario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 145
Default

Regardless of which DAW someone regularly publishes a post, their DAW sounds somehow different. At least that's what I've seen in Cubase, Reason, Ableton, and now Reaper for the past 4 years.Always the same pattern, always the same voodoo. This is even worse with hardware or plugins.

Stop the

V O O D O O

free your mind.
__________________
I am a comedian and satirist. Ironic, sarcastic and cynical. This is my essence. But I never mean it personally. Do not feel offended. It's just a joke. Like the whole life.
Rumario is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:08 PM   #27
RCJacH
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 215
Default

Years ago I did a double blind test with two audio files rendered with 64bit floating point setting and the same file with 39 bit fixed point, all from reaper, and got 100% correct.

The difference is in the ultra highs, I was using etymotic earbuds and could hear audible clicks in transients, which I used to distinguish between the two settings.

Few years later I got into Airwindows plugins, with the release of desk4, I came to a realization, or maybe a hypothesis, that the so called warmth of analog sound is essentially the rounding off of ultra highs from saturations, especially slew-based ones.

I personally find reaper generated audio to be quite accurate, compared to the ones I generated with python and numpy. However I might not be experienced enough to make that conclusion, perhaps the most warm sounding audio signal must be generated by pure c or c++ algorithms.
RCJacH is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:14 PM   #28
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 9,055
Default

I recorded a base-2 line in REAPER,

11011110111110000100011001010011101001010110110101 111100011001110101101111100111011111011111

but it sounds like REAPER is playing this back!

11101011011111001110111110111111101111011111000010 001100101001110100101011011010111110001100
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:17 PM   #29
ErBird
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,161
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCJacH View Post
Years ago I did a double blind test with two audio files rendered with 64bit floating point setting and the same file with 39 bit fixed point, all from reaper, and got 100% correct.

The difference is in the ultra highs, I was using etymotic earbuds and could hear audible clicks in transients, which I used to distinguish between the two settings.
Then the fixed-point file was clipping.
ErBird is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:18 PM   #30
zeekat
Human being with feelings
 
zeekat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Polandia
Posts: 3,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
I recorded a base-2 line in REAPER,

11011110111110000100011001010011101001010110110101 111100011001110101101111100111011111011111

but it sounds like REAPER is playing this back!

11101011011111001110111110111111101111011111000010 001100101001110100101011011010111110001100
I recognize this djent song
__________________
AM bient, rund funk and heavy meteo
my bandcamp+youtubings
zeekat is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:19 PM   #31
Rumario
Human being with feelings
 
Rumario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCJacH View Post
However I might not be experienced enough to make that conclusion, perhaps the most warm sounding audio signal must be generated by pure c or c++ algorithms.
Javascript is best, it makes a particularly warm signal because it is so slow. Just kidding, the programming language doesn't matter.
__________________
I am a comedian and satirist. Ironic, sarcastic and cynical. This is my essence. But I never mean it personally. Do not feel offended. It's just a joke. Like the whole life.
Rumario is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:20 PM   #32
numberthirty
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrope View Post
...

i do have especially mastering colleagues who did notice a difference such as i initially described.
That is because a lot of people will buy into that such a difference exists and that their ears are sharp enough to hear this difference.

Does not mean that it exists in actual reality.
numberthirty is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:23 PM   #33
domzy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 4,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeekat View Post
I recognize this djent song
i'd never heard of the djent genre before (i live a very sheltered life), so at least something educational has come out of this thread
domzy is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:24 PM   #34
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 9,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zeekat View Post
I recognize this djent song
The ones and zeros depict the up/down strokes of the palm muted Guitar Hero controller.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:29 PM   #35
mccrabney
Human being with feelings
 
mccrabney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 3,668
Default

Quote:
Pro Tools is almost plain neutral, high class.
neutral when compared to what?
__________________
mccrabney scripts: MIDI edits from the Arrange screen ala jjos/MPC sequencer
|sis - - - anacru| isn't what we performed: pls no extra noteons in loop recording
| - - - - - anacru|sis <==this is what we actually performed.
mccrabney is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:38 PM   #36
JamesPeters
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near a big lake
Posts: 3,943
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by domzy View Post
i'd never heard of the djent genre before (i live a very sheltered life), so at least something educational has come out of this thread
I'm sorry for your loss (being exposed to djent).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mccrabney View Post
neutral when compared to what?
Compared to "high class", obviously.
JamesPeters is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:45 PM   #37
b2001
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 671
Default

Compared to overly transparent, slightly cold, glassy, lowfat on body, non-juicy, mushy sounding DAWs...
b2001 is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:54 PM   #38
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mccrabney View Post
neutral when compared to what?
read first post again.
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:55 PM   #39
jayrope
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Corner of an asteroid
Posts: 118
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
That is because a lot of people will buy into that such a difference exists and that their ears are sharp enough to hear this difference.

Does not mean that it exists in actual reality.
if you define reality as what you personally can hear, yes. That wasn't the point of my intial question, read again.
jayrope is offline  
Old 04-03-2021, 01:56 PM   #40
domzy
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 4,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesPeters View Post
I'm sorry for your loss (being exposed to djent).
i haven't listened to any yet, just looked it up on wiki, so there's still time to avoid any unnecessary aural unpleasantness
domzy is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.