copacapripacbell.net Posted May 5, 2001 Share Posted May 5, 2001 I use Cubase VST 32 ver.5.0 on a Mac G3 All is well, I use it everyday in my studio no complaints. I record with a MOTU 2408/PCI-324 set-up using RME ADI-8 converters, and Lucid 9624's. Has anyone done a listening test between Pro Tools,Paris,Logic, DP,Cakewalk,and Cubase32? Is anyone interested? I'd like to know or hear about an audio test (0) plug-ins all systems clocked from the same source and all using a common converter. Do DAW's sound different, I beleive they do. I can hear the difference between Cubase and DP on my system. Unfortunately these are the only two I own and can test. To MY ears DP sounded better or at least was fatter more analog sounding which I know may not be best for everyone but to me thats cool. However I prefer using Cubase VST 32 I am more comfortable in that environment and Cubase for ME is more intuitive. My quest for great digital sound haunts me to get more info in regards to other DAW's ------------------ Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copacapripacbell.net Posted May 5, 2001 Author Share Posted May 5, 2001 ..........Anyone? Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copacapripacbell.net Posted May 5, 2001 Author Share Posted May 5, 2001 ..........Anyone? Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphajerk Posted May 5, 2001 Share Posted May 5, 2001 email from stevepow: Check it out - all the digital mixes I did are the identical wav form - all the stereo mix wav files are identical!!!! I couldn't hear anything different at all after wasting hours listening to them, so I pulled them into Samplitude and compared them two at a time - lined them up sample for sample and then flipped the phase on one pair. Dead silence - perfect cancellation. Even the O2R and Mixtreme Hardware Card mixes were the same as Cakewalk, Cubase, Vegas, and Samplitude. Any pair mixed together would cancel out completely with the phase flipped on one of them. Of course, the Allen & Heath analog mix was different - but very, very close. Whaddaya make o' that? makes you go hmmmmm. alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bob Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 Alphie, Then, could the difference in sound come from the converters? Ah, another shoot out ahead........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobro Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 Originally posted by alphajerk: email from stevepow: Check it out - all the digital mixes I did are the identical wav form - all the stereo mix wav files are identical!!!! I couldn't hear anything different at all after wasting hours listening to them, so I pulled them into Samplitude and compared them two at a time - lined them up sample for sample and then flipped the phase on one pair. Dead silence - perfect cancellation. Even the O2R and Mixtreme Hardware Card mixes were the same as Cakewalk, Cubase, Vegas, and Samplitude. Any pair mixed together would cancel out completely with the phase flipped on one of them. Of course, the Allen & Heath analog mix was different - but very, very close. Whaddaya make o' that? makes you go hmmmmm. Wasn't this test done without EQing, fades, crossfades, volume changes, etc? For instance, my ears tell me that I don't like what happens to a sound if I boost volume in Cubase. So I made this test- a mono .wav file (so potential differences between panning schemes aren't in the test), boosted by 3.1 dB in Cool Edit and saved as another file. The original file boosted by the same amount in Cubase, then saved as another file with the export audio function. All files in the same shared format of course. Then one of the .wavs inverted and the two files played back together in the Cool Edit multitrack view. Not the same, don't cancel each other out at all- you can hear the "ghost" between the two plain as day. Although the wavs look similiar to the naked eye in close-up, the stats under "analize" are slightly different. Did the same test, but lowering volume. Not so much difference, but still not the same. My partner blind tested me- one is "brassier", the other "woodier" in character. A/B'd, 100% accurate blind-tested. In the "Out of the blue" test, where the files are played back in random order with some dead time between plays, (so it could be for example AAABBA) so the contrast between two sounds played one after the other (AB or BA) isn't so clear, the differences were still obvious, but for the reduced volume test (2.1 dB cut) the differences and the sound were less, as they were in the analysis, and I called 5 out of 6. "The same" volume boosts/cuts were NOT the same when analized, with slight (about .2- .4dB) variations in peak, average RMS, etc. In the volume reduction test, the louder and "brassier" sounding file (Cubase) was a bit lower in every stat. Does this not imply that the balance between frequencies is being changed, differently by the two programs, with a simple volume change? Inverting one .wav rather than the other doesn't make any difference. Obvious, just wanted to point out that I was trying to do a thorough test. (For blind tests, which we do all the time, the testee goes into the other room with Sennheiser HD 600 phones.) I checked the possibility of a prog adding for instance a bit of silence at the beginning of a file when processing, which I seem to remember some shareware prog doing. That wouldn't explain the difference in sound, but it might explain the .wavs not cancelling each other out. But that didn't happen with either program. The files were lined up, didn't have to move them, but I zoomed in to make sure, like stevepow did. Unless there's something in the export or saving function, which doesn't seem likely in light of stevepow's test , I can't think of any uncontrolled element introduced in the test. If someone can think of a variable I overlooked, I'd be glad to do the test again. This was nothing but a small change in volume, much less the many many processes normally involved in a real-life mix. It would be great if others would try this test and tell us their results, with various programs of course. A while ago I tried a bunch of demos, don't really want to go through downloading and installing them again! Well, even if I have overlooked some variable and that is what causing the differences (which are of course much greater with more processes), the differences ARE there, even with the slightest processing. What did I learn from this test? Trust your ears. Try it yourself, with various programs! It's actually kind of fun. -CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian T Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 This is a largely unexplored territory, but it seems to be a pretty major growing interest. Lot's of speculation and anecdotal "wisdom" flying about, including I suppose some of my own. IMO, there are *definite* differences between DAWs sonically, even when playing back the same files, thereby taking the A/D equation out of the loop. Those that maintain the "digital is digital...there is no difference" argument surely must not be hearing the same things I am. Or a large number of other people as well. But there are a large number of variables affecting audio reproduction from a DAW to be isolated and a truly exhaustive and scientific test is no small undertaking. I've seen a few test that attempt to settle the question, but none so far that I would consider definitive. I do know what my ears say, but until I can prove it objectively, I'm chillin' out. There are plans being made to do totally objective and scientific testing on several high end platforms that would involve owners/users/fans of all the involved platforms in the same place at the same time with the same sources. The pledge is to be ruthless regarding the results, wherever that may lead. And it's obvious that many people will believe what they will, regardless of whatever facts may be presented. When it happens, the results along with the means and hardware used in the tests will be made public. But even then, proof of the differences, assuming they exist ,will be unlikely to disuade existing users from preferring what they've already spent their hard earned money on, whatever that may be. OTOH, for new and undecided buyers, such a test might be a beautiful thing. Regards, Brian T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted May 7, 2001 Share Posted May 7, 2001 EQ algorithms are very different. Internal resolution for processing makes a difference...and so on. There are as many variables in the a digital system as there are in a guitar amp. The question is, though, which sounds better? The answer is...it depends. I tend to think different digital systems tend to sound "different" rather than "better" or "worse." Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uh Clem Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 Originally posted by Bobro: Wasn't this test done without EQing, fades, crossfades, volume changes, etc? For instance, my ears tell me that I don't like what happens to a sound if I boost volume in Cubase. So I made this test- a mono .wav file (so potential differences between panning schemes aren't in the test), boosted by 3.1 dB in Cool Edit and saved as another file. The original file boosted by the same amount in Cubase, then saved as another file with the export audio function. All files in the same shared format of course. Then one of the .wavs inverted and the two files played back together in the Cool Edit multitrack view. Not the same, don't cancel each other out at all- you can hear the "ghost" between the two plain as day. Although the wavs look similiar to the naked eye in close-up, the stats under "analize" are slightly different. Did the same test, but lowering volume. Not so much difference, but still not the same. My partner blind tested me- one is "brassier", the other "woodier" in character. A/B'd, 100% accurate blind-tested. In the "Out of the blue" test, where the files are played back in random order with some dead time between plays, (so it could be for example AAABBA) so the contrast between two sounds played one after the other (AB or BA) isn't so clear, the differences were still obvious, but for the reduced volume test (2.1 dB cut) the differences and the sound were less, as they were in the analysis, and I called 5 out of 6. "The same" volume boosts/cuts were NOT the same when analized, with slight (about .2- .4dB) variations in peak, average RMS, etc. In the volume reduction test, the louder and "brassier" sounding file (Cubase) was a bit lower in every stat. Does this not imply that the balance between frequencies is being changed, differently by the two programs, with a simple volume change? Inverting one .wav rather than the other doesn't make any difference. Obvious, just wanted to point out that I was trying to do a thorough test. (For blind tests, which we do all the time, the testee goes into the other room with Sennheiser HD 600 phones.) I checked the possibility of a prog adding for instance a bit of silence at the beginning of a file when processing, which I seem to remember some shareware prog doing. That wouldn't explain the difference in sound, but it might explain the .wavs not cancelling each other out. But that didn't happen with either program. The files were lined up, didn't have to move them, but I zoomed in to make sure, like stevepow did. Unless there's something in the export or saving function, which doesn't seem likely in light of stevepow's test , I can't think of any uncontrolled element introduced in the test. If someone can think of a variable I overlooked, I'd be glad to do the test again. This was nothing but a small change in volume, much less the many many processes normally involved in a real-life mix. It would be great if others would try this test and tell us their results, with various programs of course. A while ago I tried a bunch of demos, don't really want to go through downloading and installing them again! Well, even if I have overlooked some variable and that is what causing the differences (which are of course much greater with more processes), the differences ARE there, even with the slightest processing. What did I learn from this test? Trust your ears. Try it yourself, with various programs! It's actually kind of fun. -CB Good man Bobro - yes my test was straight up - no EQs, Pans, Fades, Plugins - since the mix (summing) buss was called into question. When I get a bit of downtime, I'll look into this more with some more variations - panning, fades, etc. Also, all my tests were done at 16-bit - the LCD since I was using some old DA88 drum tracks for the test. Would be interesting to do another with all the internal optimization stops pulled out that these programs offer. You have to do these tests to make sure you know what you are hearing. I was glad there was no difference in my comparison since I could not repeatably and reliably hear one. So, right on - trust your ears - but test anyway just in case http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif BTW, I wouldn't care if Cakewalk or Sonar sounds like a mountain of gold - that is some buggy, unpredictable code those TwelveMonkeys are cranking out - in my world, we'd call it Beta III or Release Candidate(RC)0 at best. Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital www.bullmoondigital.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman1ovation.net Posted May 10, 2001 Share Posted May 10, 2001 Originally posted by copacapri@pacbell.net: I record with a MOTU 2408/PCI-324 set-up using RME ADI-8 converters, and Lucid 9624's. Do DAW's sound different, I believe they do. I can hear the difference between Cubase and DP on my system. Unfortunately these are the only two I own and can test. To MY ears DP sounded better or at least was fatter more analog sounding which I know may not be best for everyone but to me that's cool. I don't doubt your experience or ears, and I have nothing here to do comparisons at the moment, but assuming that you are using the same hardware with Cubase and Digital Performer, I don't see how it would be possible for the sound to be different. I have always assumed that once the audio is turned into digital via an AD converter (the SAME converter in all cases), ANY software would pop out identical sound provided (1) neither program has edited the sound in any way (including normalizing volume or any such thing.... no sample rate conversions... no nothing, and (2) the audio goes from digital to analog via the same DA converter in all cases. As long as the software is merely "storing" the digital data, and playing it in the default manner it was fed in, I would think any program on any platform would be utterly "transparent" sound-wise, whether it was Pro Tools, DP, Cubase, Logic, or any DAW with or without MIDI sequencing (since both of the software programs mentioned are basically sequencers that added digital audio). My reason for spelling all this out is not because I know. It's this: if I have something wrong in my thinking, I want it cleared up before my purchasing arm makes its big sweep! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copacapripacbell.net Posted May 10, 2001 Author Share Posted May 10, 2001 Musicman1, I too was of the same belief but I have heard it with my own ears. Same hardware same audio just different sofware. Please dont get me wrong I dont think Cubase sounds bad. The contrary it sounds really good. DP in further analysis sounds louder for sure. Fatter bass at least it seems so. I tend to work ten times faster in Cubase and I also like the transparency of the audio. Nevetheless I am still looking forward to Nuendo for Mac. ------------------ Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copacapripacbell.net Posted May 10, 2001 Author Share Posted May 10, 2001 Musicman1, I too was of the same belief but I have heard it with my own ears. Same hardware same audio just different sofware. Please dont get me wrong I dont think Cubase sounds bad. The contrary it sounds really good. DP in further analysis sounds louder for sure. Fatter bass at least it seems so. I tend to work ten times faster in Cubase and I also like the transparency of the audio. Nevetheless I am still looking forward to Nuendo for Mac. ------------------ Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozbassyahoo.com Posted May 10, 2001 Share Posted May 10, 2001 My .02..... Definitely there are differences between platforms for one reason if nothing else - latencies. The more tracks you pile up with processing, the more variable latencies you will get, the more phase problems etc etc . Also, the more tracks that are hitting that master mix bus can really affect the final sound according to the "mixer" resolution within the program. I use PT TDM, and it is not bad. It is a lot better at handling multitrack sessions than Logic and Cubase in my experience from a sonic POV. I would imagine then that there would be definite sonic differences between the different host based DAW's that are around, depending on how whizzy the software is in handling multi-track audio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copacapripacbell.net Posted May 10, 2001 Author Share Posted May 10, 2001 Well...... not really. The test me and a friend have been conducting lately (last night) We have maxed our track count to 8 tracks minimum two. Far as latency with host based DAW's at playback monitoring the stereo I have never heard such a thing myself. The one thing I did not want this post to get into or turn into was a my DAw is better than yours kinda thing. That stuff never helps. I'm not implying anyone has done that thus far just to say I had not mentioned PT for that reason. However since Ozbass mentioned Pt i must say that last night we did a little comparison as close a we could between PT TDM,Cubase 32,and DP. No surprise they all sound like DAW's they all have there merits. Yes DP still sounds more like analog to me just a little more smooth. Bass was just that much more fatter. Your ears may have a different story. The only thing I must mention about the Pt rig we used was we did not have access to an ADAT bridge so we could not use the same converters as Cubase and DP (RME-ADI 8) To (ME) there is no comparison in sonic quality between the 888 and the RME the latter is just so clear and deep sounding. Also note the audio files we were using in last nights test were recorded on PT @ 24 bit 44.1 no plug-ins/ Audio recorded on an Alesis M20 20 bit/44.1 Some listens were only stereo then four tracks then eight. The big surprise was when my friend miced his Martin Accoustic guitar and recorded a few passes to all Daw's mentioned. First PT then DP and lastly Cubase but we used 32 bit mode. Not much difference between Cubase and DP both guitars were well represented the highs seemed to be a little bit clearer,at least it seemed to be at 4:00Am in Cubase. PT obviously recorded with it's converter was good just not as present as the other two. I believe this was an A/D issue more than likely. Neither my friend and are acredited techs or sonic scientist our point was to just have some fun recording with some cool toys. Doing the listening with our ears. Thought maybe I'd let you all know what a couple of average yahoos found. ------------------ Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copacapripacbell.net Posted May 10, 2001 Author Share Posted May 10, 2001 sorry double post. This message has been edited by copacapri@pacbell.net on 05-10-2001 at 01:53 PM Cheers, La Vida Musica Copa Capri Recorders Hollyhood Productions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.