|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:22 PM
|
#81
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magoostus
ya, ok. last time I checked, my AD converters didn't even record in fractions
|
Yes, but some of us have special fractional A/Ds.
pg
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:25 PM
|
#82
|
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 15,821
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
It does seem to suggest that not *all* the math is identical as the Reaper render faded much slower and much less.
|
But you're not testing the summing or the mixing -- you're not testing the "sound engine." It's clear (as you said, just by looking at the waveforms) that there is a different kind of fade being applied.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:25 PM
|
#83
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark
Yes, but there are 6 different shape of nodes in Reaper automation, all with different algorithm...and how many are there in Cubase? You'd have to choose nod with identical algo for a test like this to be a valid test of the audio engine IMO.
|
I checked and the default curve was "Linear", so shouldn't that math be the same? From 0 to infinity in XX seconds?
Just trying to see if the math is always the same. It appears not to be... which doesn't really mean anything.
Point being, static summing doesn't reveal those differences.
Last edited by Lawrence; 08-12-2008 at 05:34 PM.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:25 PM
|
#84
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,062
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark
Yes, but there are 6 different shape of nodes in Reaper automation, all with different algorithm...and how many are there in Cubase? You'd have to choose nod with identical algo for a test like this to be a valid test of the audio engine IMO.
|
There's no way anyway to even attempt a null test between Cubendo and Reaper, as Cubendo doesn't have sample accurate automation.
__________________
I am no longer part of the REAPER community. Please don't contact me with any REAPER-related issues.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:26 PM
|
#85
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Are you telling me the fade curves are different even when it shows you a straight line? Not sure what you mean.
If I draw a straight line from 0 to infinity in a daw (without asking for anything else) I want a straight linear fade from 0 to infinity.
I'm not clear on what you mean.
|
Right click over a nod, you'll see what I mean. You can get linear, but you also can get a bunch of other options, just like keyframe in the video world (if it help any).
Last edited by bullshark; 08-12-2008 at 05:28 PM.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:28 PM
|
#86
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenakios
There's no way anyway to even attempt a null test between Cubendo and Reaper, as Cubendo doesn't have sample accurate automation.
|
Just when I became convinced that I was wrong and that all daws were the same....
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:30 PM
|
#87
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Wavelab and Nuendo are both Steinberg's software and yet they don't sound the same playing a single mono track
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:31 PM
|
#88
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,062
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
Just when I became convinced that I was wrong and that all daws were the same....
|
Well you are wrong about the summing thing. Automation is a different beast and subject to different possible approaches concerning optimization etc...(Steinberg choose to optimize at the expense of accuracy.)
Null-test with static volume levels is entirely viable to be done between DAWs...
__________________
I am no longer part of the REAPER community. Please don't contact me with any REAPER-related issues.
Last edited by Xenakios; 08-12-2008 at 05:33 PM.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:32 PM
|
#89
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
Wavelab and Nuendo are both Steinberg's software and yet they don't sound the same playing a single mono track
|
If you hear them do, you have audition problems....
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:34 PM
|
#90
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ngarjuna
And yes, cragfx. That is exactly what's being suggested. That the pure mix engines of various DAWs do the same exact math. That is the entire argument in a nutshell.
|
But they don't all do the exact same math. Some are floating point, some are integer, some have 32-bit summing, some have 48 bit summing, some have 64-bit summing.
And this doesn't deal at all with the real-world environment, where all the other added processing is going on (EQ, pan, compression, etc. etc.)
All that aside, the bigger issue is more about the talent and competency of the person behind the tool and not the tool itself.
The most expensive studio equipment in the world will still produce utter crap when used by incompetent engineers and musicians.
But then this isn't a problem that is specific to music. Having the most expensive camera in the world, doesn't make you a photographer.
And one dear to my heart, because I own graphic design/advertising agency. Just having a computer doesn't make you a designer.
pg
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:39 PM
|
#91
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenakios
There's no way anyway to even attempt a null test between Cubendo and Reaper, as Cubendo doesn't have sample accurate automation.
|
Ah, well, there you go. At least this thread wasn't a complete waste of time, we (well, me at least) have learned that different DAW software use different implementation of automation mathematic.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:39 PM
|
#92
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark
Right click over a nod, you'll see what I mean. You can get linear, but you also can get a bunch of other options, just like keyframe in the video world (if it help any).
|
Yeah, I re-read that and yeah it was set to linear.
On the other points above, I was just doing that out of curiosity, I should have known some people would take it as some type of daw challenge. Jeez...
I shoulda knew the "person behind the chair" argument was gonna come out...
I didn't say (or imply) that one is better than the other because of that. Relax... do you guys just test stuff sometimes just to see what happens?
With no agenda? Gawd...
Last edited by Lawrence; 08-12-2008 at 05:48 PM.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:51 PM
|
#93
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Relax... do you guys just test stuff sometimes just to see what happens?
With no agenda? Gawd...
|
Why would they ? They've been told already that it is a waste of time since all daws null.... loool...
Again : This ''mix nulling thing'' is a myth and the funniest one ever in the audio world !!
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:52 PM
|
#94
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,373
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
I checked and the default curve was "Linear", so shouldn't that math be the same? From 0 to infinity in XX seconds?
Just trying to see if the math is always the same. It appears not to be... which doesn't really mean anything.
Point being, static summing doesn't reveal those differences.
|
As Xenakios said that Cubase might only have audio block accurate automation, it would be interesting if you could try your test again with a 10kHz sine wave (or anything, so the waveform will look like a block so we can clearly see how the sound gets changed, it might also be some scaling going on so e.g. REAPER might do scale on a log base while cubase is linear, etc...). However it is clear that the more you go into interactive parts of any DAW there WILL be difference but these are because of different designs of THESE INTERACTIVE parts, but which doesn't mean that the DAWs will sound different, because the mixing that is the summing should be the same for all given DAWs (apart from discrepancies in the data type used to process the audio). So when automation doesn't NULL, even though a basic summing test nulled, only means that their automation works different, now it will be subjective to say that one automation's sound is better, because they are simply different and the underlying mixing is the same (as proved by the summing test), which means I have no clue what I'm talking about anymore....
Just see it this way DAWs are like calculators on some you can enter sqrt(2) directly. On others you gotta do 2^(1/2), while on others there is no way to enter it, but you got to enter the result 1.4142 yourself. Then there are calculators that have 70 digits some have 15, some only a mere 5. Some display floating point numbers such as 0.05 others can't. Some have big knobs other don't. Some have big displays, some are programmable. But their calculated result will always be right and the same among each other. And everyone arguing each DAW sums different is basically arguing that some calculators results are better than others.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:52 PM
|
#95
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Of course if you make to daws sound the same they will null !!!
The question is : Do they require the same process to sound the same ?
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:56 PM
|
#96
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
I suppose that most of you guys also think that all reverb plugins are equal ?
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:02 PM
|
#97
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Yeah, I re-read that and yeah it was set to linear.
On the other points above, I was just doing that out of curiosity, I should have known some people would take it as some type of daw challenge. Jeez...
I shoulda knew the "person behind the chair" argument was gonna come out...
I didn't say (or imply) that one is better than the other because of that. Relax... do you guys just test stuff sometimes just to see what happens?
With no agenda? Gawd...
|
I read no mention of chair, challenge, person or agenda even thought I am on of those and own at least one sample of the others. And, even thought it might not look like it from my typing (wrong kerning maybe? I know I should watch that...), I'm perfectly relax. And I'm happy you did this test because I've learned that, even thought both are set to linear, using automation in two host will give different result.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:04 PM
|
#98
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
I suppose that most of you guys also think that all reverb plugins are equal ?
|
Before this post, I simply labeled you as an uninformed individual. But now I realize you're just a troll. plunk.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:04 PM
|
#99
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 8,062
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
I suppose that most of you guys also think that all reverb plugins are equal ?
|
You're being plain ridiculous...Of course they sound different but the reasons for that are WAAAAAYYYY beyound what bit depth and data type they use internally. I think the old Lexicon hardware units work at something like 18 bit integer and they sound excellent, far better than most 64 bit floating point plugin offerings today. But the difference in sound has to do with far more complex DSP issues than the processing bit depth...
__________________
I am no longer part of the REAPER community. Please don't contact me with any REAPER-related issues.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:06 PM
|
#100
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,467
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
I suppose that most of you guys also think that all reverb plugins are equal ?
|
:sigh:
Go and read something about what logic fallacy and burden of proof means.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:10 PM
|
#101
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
There you guys are jumping on every occasion I give you to make me look idiotic or plain wrong.... But the more you geniusses talk, the more you proove me to be right.... lol
This is a party or what ?
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:15 PM
|
#102
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Anyone (like Justin) who designs an audio software knows that at some point, he is gonna have to decide how to program some specific elements for the way they will influence the audio output caracteristics.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:22 PM
|
#103
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOSER
Just see it this way DAWs are like calculators on some you can enter sqrt(2) directly. On others you gotta do 2^(1/2), while on others there is no way to enter it, but you got to enter the result 1.4142 yourself. Then there are calculators that have 70 digits some have 15, some only a mere 5. Some display floating point numbers such as 0.05 others can't. Some have big knobs other don't. Some have big displays, some are programmable. But their calculated result will always be right and the same among each other. And everyone arguing each DAW sums different is basically arguing that some calculators results are better than others.
|
Actually the fact that some calculators do floating-point and some don't and some do 5 digits and some do 15 is exactly the point. They do not give the same result. They give similar approximations.
What is the value for PI. (3.1415... something). It is only an approximation, because PI is as far as we know a never-ending decimal. (it doesn't repeat or zero at some point).
So you can only approximate its real value.
Why does everyone presume the math used in every DAW is the same?
They are coded differently. Some use floating point math, some use integer math. The results for those two systems will not give the same results. They round differently. Some use the hardware math processing of the CPU, some use their own software coded routines.
You do realize that hardware math co-processors from different chip sets produce different results?
here is a simple example if you have a copy of microsoft excel.
put the following formula into a cell "=22/7" and then change the cell display to numbers and 30 digits.
Excel will display 30 digits but the last 15 of them are zero.
22/7 doesn't end at 15 digits, but excel rounds to 15 digits of accuracy.
if you add .00000000000000000001 to the number it will not change. It gets thrown away.
Do you think all DAW summing engines are immune from these kinds of implementation limits and rounding errors?
try a google search on "FPU rounding errors" or "FPU calculation errors"
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:33 PM
|
#104
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovr
If you're looking at two cows and one of them looks like a llama to you, you're not actually dealing with a defective cow.
You've just got something wrong with your head.
|
omg sigged
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:34 PM
|
#105
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark
I read no mention of chair, challenge, person or agenda even thought I am on of those and own at least one sample of the others. And, even thought it might not look like it from my typing (wrong kerning maybe? I know I should watch that...), I'm perfectly relax. And I'm happy you did this test because I've learned that, even thought both are set to linear, using automation in two host will give different result.
|
No not you Bull. I didn't mean you. Sorry if you took it that way.
I actually said way back any differences in the final math would be irrelevant. The rest was just a mental exercise.
Then I get asked how many node curves does Cubase have, as if that has anything to do with the two linear curves in my test. The answer is 5 - and none - and 1001 ... since you can physically draw any kind of curve you want... which again is irrelevant to the mental exercise.
Just screwing around working the old brain cells that's all.
And as evidenced above by JBM's new sig, someone always finds an implication of "defective". Did anyone say "defective".
Last edited by Lawrence; 08-12-2008 at 06:45 PM.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:35 PM
|
#106
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
Just when I became convinced that I was wrong and that all daws were the same....
|
are you bloody serious?
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:57 PM
|
#107
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
|
Hey JBM, I meant to ask... what are those traps you have in that photo?
Very cool.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 07:39 PM
|
#108
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,373
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgrafx
Actually the fact that some calculators do floating-point and some don't and some do 5 digits and some do 15 is exactly the point. They do not give the same result. They give similar approximations.
What is the value for PI. (3.1415... something). It is only an approximation, because PI is as far as we know a never-ending decimal. (it doesn't repeat or zero at some point).
So you can only approximate its real value.
Why does everyone presume the math used in every DAW is the same?
They are coded differently. Some use floating point math, some use integer math. The results for those two systems will not give the same results. They round differently. Some use the hardware math processing of the CPU, some use their own software coded routines.
You do realize that hardware math co-processors from different chip sets produce different results?
here is a simple example if you have a copy of microsoft excel.
put the following formula into a cell "=22/7" and then change the cell display to numbers and 30 digits.
Excel will display 30 digits but the last 15 of them are zero.
22/7 doesn't end at 15 digits, but excel rounds to 15 digits of accuracy.
if you add .00000000000000000001 to the number it will not change. It gets thrown away.
Do you think all DAW summing engines are immune from these kinds of implementation limits and rounding errors?
try a google search on "FPU rounding errors" or "FPU calculation errors"
|
OMG! Your right.
So what is a good sounding DAW? I want to hear one so I can compare.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 07:46 PM
|
#109
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOSER
OMG! Your right.
So what is a good sounding DAW? I want to hear one so I can compare.
|
I think we have to pick words carefully, me the first, I admit.
Reaper sounds good.....
Some daws sound better tho
And some sound incredibly better in everyways....But they all have way less editing and mixing features... Wich explains why I am here despite the fact that I won't make any compromise on the sound...Wich translates by: I would definetly make reaper my main and only daw was it to sound good enough for it.
Last edited by Zee; 08-12-2008 at 07:54 PM.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 07:55 PM
|
#110
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence
Hey JBM, I meant to ask... what are those traps you have in that photo?
Very cool.
|
I actually made them myself..
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:01 PM
|
#111
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 928
|
I think LOSER is joking ZEE - i thnk the problem arises from people talking about different things - obviously all daws sound the same on simple recording and summing - there's no end of comparisons to show that. But as soon as other processes are involved then the output may be different (as Lawrence shows with the linear fade). But whether the difference is perceptible, and whether the difference can reliably be attributed some quality (like 'better') is open to debate and investigation. Personally I think the differences are so tiny as to make them irrelevent outside of some scientific contexts where extreme levels of precision are required.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:04 PM
|
#112
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
I know how hard it is to believe....
But anyone of you guys was to experiment and hear what I heard , your arms would fall off, and after your confusion had disolved, you would definetly be on our side.....
But for now, I think the first step is to get the people who can change things aware of the possibility of a better sound.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:08 PM
|
#113
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 928
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
I know how hard it is to believe....
But anyone of you guys was to experiment and hear what I heard , your arms would fall off, and after your confusion had disolved, you would definetly be on our side.....
But for now, I think the first step is to get the people who can change things aware of the possibility of a better sound.
|
As all the daws seem to sum and null ie have identical output streams - any difference in the sound is due to something else. The programmers know this. I understand that you heard a difference, but it can only be due to something outside of the summing
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:09 PM
|
#114
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregh
i thnk the problem arises from people talking about different things - obviously all daws sound the same on simple recording and summing.
|
They don't
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:11 PM
|
#115
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
You guys have more issues on your progression path than you could ever think.....
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:14 PM
|
#116
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 22,572
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zee
You guys have more issues on your progression path than you could ever think.....
|
ok, fine... proof then? Or are you going to go on and on like some born again preacher?
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:15 PM
|
#117
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,298
|
cgrafx
I think I finally understand what you're saying. You're not comparing apples to apples, though. Of course a fixed 48bit summing engine is not going to null with a floating 64bit engine. That's not even the question at all, in fact it's so obvious it doesn't even need to be stated. The question was will 2 summing engines, both using the same bit depth, null? The answer should be yes. The fact that people claim otherwise (always without being able to quantify the point) is the matter under discussion here.
What you are comparing are features of one DAW to another. The fact that some DAWs support certain bit depths and others don't is not a matter of whether the summing engines differ from one to the next. That is not and has never been what this discussion is about. At least now I think I understand your point, though. Of course it's true that a 32bit fixed engine will not null with a 32bit float engine. This is not even really debatable, they're different methods of summing. The classic question, and the one always raised in these threads, is whether or not two engines, using identical bit depths for summing, are the same. Maybe the answer is so obvious that you can't believe anyone would argue otherwise based on your background, I don't know. Or maybe I missed your point entirely, but that's what it looks like to me.
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:27 PM
|
#118
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill
ok, fine... proof then? Or are you going to go on and on like some born again preacher?
|
Proof ?
Here's your proof :
I am not alone.
(If I was to submit you with waves to null, I bet you'd be stupid enough to null them inside a single daw...) lol
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:30 PM
|
#119
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Michigan
Posts: 184
|
um..?
This idea of daws having differnt engines and "differnt sound" is so ridiculous. Anyone in their right mind knows this is bogus.
That's like saying if i if i fade 2 pictures together with photoshop, it will look differnt than if i fade 2 pictures with corel's paintshoppro. just crazy talk.
Anyone here actually program their own audio engine and agree with any of this garbage?
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:38 PM
|
#120
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 223
|
Anyways, as (again) I come to realise, you aren't worthy of a better sound....
I'll just wait for another software to be built.
(BTW, I know that stuck-up minded people like Jason are not representative of all reaper's users...But since his gigantic ego seems to be king here, I'll drag my little sorry me elsewhere quiet ....)
loool
If you are young and motivated, don't let people like that get in your way and obscure your vision.
They have no usefull knowledge to share. And can't be of any help to you but point you the wrong way....
They feel better then..
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:18 PM.
|