# Any sonic benefit of using pro tools to mix?



## Danny_Owen

Hi guys,

I think I already know the answer to this one, but is there any sonic benefit of using pro tools to mix down? Whilst a lot of composers write everything in Logic, I've seen countless web-articles where people say everything is always mixed down in Pro Tools, just wondering if anyone knows why? 

Is it just because that's what the mixing engineers prefer to work on, or are there sonic benefits of using Pro Tools? I can't imagine there really are... I know that the stereo pan pots are different in that there's two pan controls, and that panning works on a 201 point scale rather than the 128 midi scale that logic uses, but other than that..?


----------



## gsilbers

It's for other reasons.
Pro tools will be slave to logic/dp/cubase and have a mix template that will mix the gigastudios samples plus logic tracks AND create stems all in one pass.

And working with video and audio is easier in pt. (IMO) .

Plus u send a pt session to theic stage amd the engineers will use import session data amd quickly load the mx stems. 

So, it saves a lot if time and headaches. That's why many composers who cam afford it get it. 

Doesn't mean u couldn't do everything within your main daw, it's just another way. 
And it matter more in 32 bit daws because tracks count affects memory so it's easier to run out of memory with extra audio tracks used to do stems, busses etc plus vsts etc. And with pt u unloaded some weight to another pc.

So several reasons why pt but not because it sounds better. 
But u can look up debates of this as well, 
folks say tdn plugs at 48 fixed floating point sounds better....
Audio engine is better, bla bla IMO is up to the engineer.


----------



## Ashermusic

The sonics have FAR less to do with the application than the hardware, plug-ins, and skill of the mixer in that application.

There are arguments for mixing in PT, and I do so for my projects frequently, but none of them have to do with PT intrinsically sounding better than Logic Pro.


----------



## Danny_Owen

That's what my suspicions were, thanks for clearing that up for me. Interesting, Gsilbers, I might have to look more into that at some point, sounds like it could be helpful!


----------



## gsilbers

dexterflex @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> gsilbers @ Wed Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's for other reasons.
> Pro tools will be slave to logic/dp/cubase and have a mix template that will mix the gigastudios samples plus logic tracks AND create stems all in one pass.
> 
> 
> So how does one go about setting this up? I really enjoy scoring in Logic but would like to create stems inside Nuendo. Can I hook up my mac and gigastudio pc to my Neundo system? Also wouldn't it just be easier to export the audio and import it to Nuendo? I guess with Pro tools and their format it won't translate well.
Click to expand...


pro tools cAn import aiff and wav so there shouldn't be an issue.

And yes u can export the audio files to another daw for mixing and it's the same. But it could be time consuming sometimes.
U could even mix in logic in another session. 
It depends on each composers need amd pref.


As for hooking up nuendo I'll give u a quick rundown...

1 digital interfaces for each computer and hook up midi between them for mtc so they sync up. 
Route each output where u want it in the other daw.
You'll have to find out more of eah daw for the specifcs.

But if u are ok with exporting the tracks to another daw then do it that way.


----------



## spectrum

Ashermusic @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> There are arguments for mixing in PT, and I do so for my projects frequently, but none of them have to do with PT intrinsically sounding better than Logic Pro.


I disagree. 

As a longtime Logic user (since 1987), the primary reason I started using Pro Tools for mixing was purely for sonic reasons. There is a major difference in the sound of the mix buss between the two DAWs. 

While both DAWs can record audio files equally well, I find Pro Tools to be sonically much more accurate in playing back audio files and the PT mix buss/mixer to be much better sounding for combining signals. It sounds much fuller, more transparent and more accurate to me. 

The playback and mixdown audio quality in Logic has been a constant source of problems for me over the years. I still use both DAWs on a regular basis, I use Pro Tools now pretty much soley because of the sonic problems I have in Logic.

So why don't more people notice the difference?

I think the reason for this is that very few people actually monitor their files in multiple applications like I do. I also monitor the sources directly bypassing the DAW entirely for comparison all the time, which very few people ever do. Also, my monitoring environment is a lot better than most people's....more like a high-end mastering studio. So I can hear these issues really easily here. The audio playback issue in Logic is apparent on Input as well, so it sounds like it's faithfully recording and playing back your source.

However, when you playback those same source files you recorded in Logic in another application like Quicktime or Pro Tools, you'll notice that they really sound quite a bit better than what they sounded like when you were listening to them in Logic. Try it sometime with a really high quality stereo ambient acoustic recording sometime....I think you'll be shocked. It's really not hard to hear the difference at all.

I don't what it is about Logic's Mixer/Audio playback code that causes this issue....I only know that it's there and it's been there since the beginning. I wouldn't use Pro Tools if it wasn't there, because I've always preferred Logic and that's the DAW that I know the best. I've researched what causes this and done lots of tests and spoken to the top Logic people about it for many years, but at the end of the day I just have to go with what is working and sounds right to me. So I've tried using it again and again for audio with each update, but I've pretty much given up on it ever changing.

BTW, nearly every app playbacks back audio files a little different sonically. Idally, they would all sound the same. For example, Quicktime and Peak are very accurate sounding. But try A/B'ing a great quality mix audio file in Quicktime and iTunes and you'll hear a massive difference with playing back the identical audio file! 

Don't get me wrong though, Logic is a wonderful DAW and VIs sound great hosted in it and OF COURSE you can make wonderful sounding music with it....no argument there.

My issue is purely with the sonic accuracy and how Logic sounds purely in the digital domain with hi-res audio files. For this application, I've found Pro Tools and other DAWs like Cubase, Nuendo and Digital Performer to be much better.

My 2 cents. 

spectrum


----------



## RiffWraith

spectrum @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> As a longtime Logic user (since 1987), the primary reason I started using Pro Tools for mixing was purely for sonic reasons. There is a major difference in the sound of the mix buss between the two DAWs.
> 
> While both DAWs can record audio files equally well, I find Pro Tools to be sonically much more accurate in playing back audio files and the PT mix buss to be much better sounding for combining signals. It sounds much fuller, more transparent and more accurate to me.



Eric - out of curiousity, what are you basing that on? Have you done a null test with files from both PTools and Logic, where the op busses were at 0, and no plugs were used?


----------



## José Herring

Pro tools HD 24bit 192k was the first digital system I heard that rivaled the pristine quality of really good 2inch tape systems. I noticed that a lot of high end composers that could still afford 2inch switched to PT as their multitrack recording solution in live sessions.

As far as DAW is concerned with all due respect to Eric, I think that the audio interface is the crucial component. I don't know if you did your test, Eric, running Logic as a front end to Protools, but if you didn't then I think the crucial difference would be the interface. Though I did speak to a guy once that does a lot of instruction videos for all the major DAW platforms and he said that to his ears Cubase had a distinct sound advantage, but I don't know him well enough to trust his ears.

I know that Cubase with the SSL Alpha Link with a Mixtreme card sounds better to my ears than PT does and it's about $25,000 cheaper than a similarly equiped PT system. On the other hand the RME solutions are really, really good, but the sound is a tad bit thinner though accurate across the frequency spectrum. On RME interfaces it's easier for me to hear the distinct difference of the mid to low mid frequency range.

In truth though dealing in the world of samples and VI's I find that the audio interface is the least of my worries sound quality wise.

Jose


----------



## Ashermusic

spectrum @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> Ashermusic @ Wed Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are arguments for mixing in PT, and I do so for my projects frequently, but none of them have to do with PT intrinsically sounding better than Logic Pro.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> As a longtime Logic user (since 1987), the primary reason I started using Pro Tools for mixing was purely for sonic reasons. There is a major difference in the sound of the mix buss between the two DAWs.
> 
> While both DAWs can record audio files equally well, I find Pro Tools to be sonically much more accurate in playing back audio files and the PT mix buss/mixer to be much better sounding for combining signals. It sounds much fuller, more transparent and more accurate to me.
> 
> The playback and mixdown audio quality in Logic has been a constant source of problems for me over the years. I still use both DAWs on a regular basis, I use Pro Tools now pretty much soley because of the sonic problems I have in Logic.
> 
> So why don't more people notice the difference?
> 
> I think the reason for this is that very few people actually monitor their files in multiple applications like I do. I also monitor the sources directly bypassing the DAW entirely for comparison all the time, which very few people ever do. Also, my monitoring environment is a lot better than most people's....more like a high-end mastering studio. So I can hear these issues really easily here. The audio playback issue in Logic is apparent on Input as well, so it sounds like it's faithfully recording and playing back your source.
> 
> However, when you playback those same source files you recorded in Logic in another application like Quicktime or Pro Tools, you'll notice that they really sound quite a bit better than what they sounded like when you were listening to them in Logic. Try it sometime with a really high quality stereo ambient acoustic recording sometime....I think you'll be shocked. It's really not hard to hear the difference at all.
> 
> I don't what it is about Logic's Mixer/Audio playback code that causes this issue....I only know that it's there and it's been there since the beginning. I wouldn't use Pro Tools if it wasn't there, because I've always preferred Logic and that's the DAW that I know the best. I've researched what causes this and done lots of tests and spoken to the top Logic people about it for many years, but at the end of the day I just have to go with what is working and sounds right to me. So I've tried using it again and again for audio with each update, but I've pretty much given up on it ever changing.
> 
> BTW, nearly every app playbacks back audio files a little different sonically. Idally, they would all sound the same. For example, Quicktime and Peak are very accurate sounding. But try A/B'ing a great quality mix audio file in Quicktime and iTunes and you'll hear a massive difference with playing back the identical audio file!
> 
> Don't get me wrong though, Logic is a wonderful DAW and VIs sound great hosted in it and OF COURSE you can make wonderful sounding music with it....no argument there.
> 
> My issue is purely with the sonic accuracy and how Logic sounds purely in the digital domain with hi-res audio files. For this application, I've found Pro Tools and other DAWs like Cubase, Nuendo and Digital Performer to be much better.
> 
> My 2 cents.
> 
> spectrum
Click to expand...


All I can tell you is that a high profile engineer I know and who you might well be familiar with (who would be pissed if I mention his name, so I won't) reached exactly the opposite conclusion and sold his HD rig.


----------



## Frederick Russ

DAW wars! (akin to yelling "food fight!" in a crowded Junior High school cafeteria... )

I know an equal amount of people who 1) write in Logic and mix in PT (I'm not one of them) or 2) stay in PT exclusively or 3) use DAE as the audio source for either Logic or DP. I wonder though if the accuracy debate may also be attributable to the audio interface - if that is the case, I do prefer Apogee or Metric Halo over Digidesign any day of the week. This is however by far a subject of endless debate as the internet is literally filled with points on either side. Have fun.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Are we talking about Pro Tools HD or LE? Because I can't imagine HD would sound different * with different sequencers operating it by "remote control."

* I've found that pretty much any two audio files will sound different from one another whenever you change something - even the digital cable. It makes no sense, and you can argue that if they cancel they're identical, but I've bleedin' 'eard it.


----------



## C M Dess

Best sonic benefit is good coloration plugs treated with respect andòÜ   ×¬ÖÜ   ×¬×Ü   ×¬ØÜ   ×¬ÙÜ   ×¬ÚÜ   ×¬ÛÜ   ×¬ÜÜ   ×¬ÝÜ   ×¬ÞÜ   ×¬ßÜ   ×¬àÜ   ×¬áÜ   ×¬âÜ   ×¬ãÜ   ×¬äÜ   ×¬åÜ   ×¬æÜ   ×¬çÜ   ×¬èÜ   ×¬éÜ   ×¬êÜ   ×¬ëÜ   ×¬ìÜ   ×¬íÜ   ×¬îÜ   ×¬ïÜ   ×¬ðÜ   ×¬ñÜ   ×¬òÜ   ×¬óÜ   ×¬ôÜ   ×¬õÜ   ×¬öÜ   ×¬÷Ü   ×¬øÜ   ×¬ùÜ   ×¬úÜ   ×¬ûÜ   ×¬üÜ   ×¬ýÜ   ×¬þÜ   ×¬ÿ


----------



## spectrum

josejherring @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> As far as DAW is concerned with all due respect to Eric, I think that the audio interface is the crucial component. I don't know if you did your test, Eric, running Logic as a front end to Protools, but if you didn't then I think the crucial difference would be the interface.


This is all using the same interfaces of course.



> Though I did speak to a guy once that does a lot of instruction videos for all the major DAW platforms and he said that to his ears Cubase had a distinct sound advantage, but I don't know him well enough to trust his ears.
> 
> I know that Cubase with the SSL Alpha Link with a Mixtreme card sounds better to my ears than PT does and it's about $25,000 cheaper than a similarly equiped PT system. On the other hand the RME solutions are really, really good, but the sound is a tad bit thinner though accurate across the frequency spectrum. On RME interfaces it's easier for me to hear the distinct difference of the mid to low mid frequency range.


Yeah, you are talking about totally different stuff.

Of course the Interfaces, A/D and D/A converters all change the sound radically.

I'm not talking about that at all.

I'm talking about the ability to playback and sum files in the digital domain only.


----------



## spectrum

Frederick Russ @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> DAW wars! (akin to yelling "food fight!" in a crowded Junior High school cafeteria... )
> 
> I know an equal amount of people who 1) write in Logic and mix in PT (I'm not one of them) or 2) stay in PT exclusively or 3) use DAE as the audio source for either Logic or DP. I wonder though if the accuracy debate may also be attributable to the audio interface - if that is the case, I do prefer Apogee or Metric Halo over Digidesign any day of the week. This is however by far a subject of endless debate as the internet is literally filled with points on either side. Have fun.


I'm not talking about DAE or Audio Interfaces at all. There's obviously huge differences there.....I'm talking pure file playback and summing/mixing quality in the digital domain.


----------



## spectrum

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> Are we talking about Pro Tools HD or LE?


I have both.

I have not noticed any real difference in the sound between the two when you are working purely in the digital domain....same D/A convertor, etc.

When you open a Pro Tools session in LE and in HD it sounds the same. (unless there are missing plug-ins, ADC, super heavy session, etc.)



> * I've found that pretty much any two audio files will sound different from one another whenever you change something - even the digital cable.


Right...in this case, I'm talking about the same digital cable and the same file.

The only difference is what host plays the file....nothing else.

The topic of the thread is basically asking the question, "Do different hosts sound different?" 

My answer is an emphatic YES!



> It makes no sense, and you can argue that if they cancel they're identical, but I've bleedin' 'eard it.


Yep!

For those that don't believe me, try this simple test:

Take a great sounding 24-bit stereo mix that you have. Use something with a lot of dynamic range and great natural ambience...especially something with real instruments, acoustic drums, percussion, etc.....something really hi-fi.

• Take that file and play it on your desktop with Quicklook

• Take the same file and open it in Quicktime (should sound the same as it did on the desktop. This is because Quicklook and Quicktime use the same code to play the file)

• Now drag the same file to iTunes. Turn off all Enhancers/EQs etc and listen to it.
Notice any difference when you A/B it with Quicktime? 

• Now take the same file and drag it to Logic and play it back.

• Now take the same file and drag it to Digital Performer and play it back.

• Now take the same file and open it in Pro Tools and play it back.

• Now take the same file and drag it to Cubase and play it back.

• Now take the same file and drag it to Peak and play it back.

etc, etc.

BTW....you have to use the same audio outputs and D/A convertor with all these hosts, otherwise the test introduces all sorts of variables.

Of course the better your monitoring environment, the more noticeable the results will be. If you don't notice any difference with Quicktime and iTunes, then you should look at having your monitoring system improved....since that's one of the most obvious differences.

It's an interesting test.....try it and see what you find.


----------



## spectrum

Ashermusic @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> All I can tell you is that a high profile engineer I know and who you might well be familiar with (who would be pissed if I mention his name, so I won't) reached exactly the opposite conclusion and sold his HD rig.


That's fine of course. Everybody should try them out and use what they like. It is indeed a subjective thing.

What I will say though is that our experience and access here is highly unusual in the industry and so my conclusions are not just based on a whim or a quick test. Here's why what we do is so different:

Even the best engineers in the music business do not work with the same files/same projects over and over again on a regular basis over a period of many years - all working on the same system, in the same room with the same convertors, speakers, etc.

Also, not many recording engineers have actually worked with Logic, Cubase, Ableton, Pro Tools LE, Pro Tools HD, Fruity Loops, Acid, Nuendo, Reason, Sonar, Peak, Wavelab, Audition, Sound Designer, Infinity, Keymap, all the hardware and software samplers, etc, etc.

Because we have all this stuff on our rig for support and development, we're in an unusual position and have more experience with this "digital host voodoo" than most of the most famous engineers do working in the regular music field....where they are often doing all their comparisons with different projects, different artists, different days, different rooms, speakers, interfaces, etc.

Because we are working with the same files over on the same system, we make some interesting discoveries that way.

Here's another crazy thing I discovered because of our unique situation:

I found that different colors of CD-Rs produce dramatically different sounding results on duplicated discs when you send them to manufacturing!

How could we know this?

Because for years, we re-manufactured revisions of our demo CDs with the same files and just adding a new demo or two for new products.

In these tests, the same software, the same computer, the same settings, the same files. the same drives, the same CD-Burner, the same manufacturer, same stamper, etc was used. The ONLY difference was the color of the physical CD-R discs I used to master.

Sometimes I used Blue CD-Rs, sometimes Green, sometimes Silver and sometimes Gold.

What I discovered is that if you send a Blue Disc master, the manufactured discs will come back sounding radically brighter. The Green Disc master will produce dramatically darker sounding manufactured CDs.

Silver and especially Gold produced the most faithful results, sounding like what I heard in the original source.

I kept testing this phenomenon over a period of about 10 years and came up with the same results every time.

The people at Sony manufacturing thought I was nuts, until some super smart engineer figured out that the reason they sounded different had to do with the whole thing being an optical process, so the colors could interact with the lasers in certain ways to produce different sonic results. 

So I wasn't crazy after all! (...at least not in that limited way  )

Some day, someone will figure out why this is happening at the code level in the various DAWs, but I'll just keep trusting my ears for now.


----------



## gsilbers

wow i havent ever seen u write this much in a non omni/synth thread!  

seems u are really into this and that says something.


----------



## Revson

gsilbers @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> wow i havent ever seen u write this much in a non omni/synth thread!
> 
> seems u are really into this and that says something.


I'm grateful for Eric's posts here as I've just run into this experience personally, and frustrated as hell thinking "this can't be!" This on a stereo acoustic recording, multiple sources on the same stage. The depth and coherent imaging available in this kind of recording makes the differences readily apparent.


----------



## Mike Greene

spectrum said:


> What I discovered is that if you send a Blue Disc master, the manufactured discs will come back sounding radically brighter. The Green Disc master will produce dramatically darker sounding manufactured CDs.


Okay, I get the "trust your ears" argument. And I'll agree that summing busses do different voodoo in the various DAWs (I have both ProTools HD and Logic and do prefer the sound of PT, although my "tests" are very subjective.)

But reproducing CDs is a matter of rewriting zeros and ones.

They either rewrote them accurately, or they didn't. There's no EQ setting. The zero either got transferred as a zero, or else it was mistaken for a one. So I don't see how there could be differences (assuming no errors.)
Sure....math-wise it makes no sense.

With that said, I remember Bernie Grundman saying something similar about DAT tapes years ago (he claimed he could hear differences in cloned tapes.) Which is also nuts. But Bernie is no bozo, and neither are you, so I'll maaaaaaaybe consider there might be something to this. But not until I hear it for myself.


----------



## Narval

spectrum @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> some super smart engineer figured out that the reason they sounded different had to do with the whole thing being an optical process, so the colors could interact with the lasers in certain ways to produce different sonic results.


That explanation seems to make sense, at least theoretically, although the idea that lasers do read digits differently because of the disc color, that's a bit shocking.

I've always liked golden disks, and now I have a good reason for that.  Thanks!

May I ask what speakers are you using?


----------



## spectrum

Mike Greene @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> Okay, I get the "trust your ears" argument. And I'll agree that summing busses do different voodoo in the various DAWs (I have both ProTools HD and Logic and do prefer the sound of PT, although my "tests" are very subjective.)
> 
> But reproducing CDs is a matter of rewriting zeros and ones.


True....and for that matter, so is playing a single audio file in a host.

Theoretically, they should indeed all sound identical.

But they definitely don't.

In fact, I've never had a manufactured CD sound identical to the master I've sent to the plant. Manufactured discs have a slightly smoother sound, CD-Rs sound a bit edgier.



> They either rewrote them accurately, or they didn't. There's no EQ setting. The zero either got transferred as a zero, or else it was mistaken for a one. So I don't see how there could be differences (assuming no errors.)


Sure....math-wise it makes no sense.

The guy who figured out the "green pen" trick to make CDs sound smoother was also laughed at, until you try it, realize it works....and then somebody smart later figures out it's related to what the color green does to lazer reading or something like that.

All I can say though is that there was indeed a technical explanation that related to the formulation of various materials and how the various optical processes affected it sonically.



> With that said, I remember Bernie Grundman saying something similar about DAT tapes years ago (he claimed he could hear differences in cloned tapes.) Which is also nuts. But Bernie is no bozo, and neither are you, so I'll maaaaaaaybe consider there might be something to this. But not until I hear it for myself.


I actually learned a lot of this from Bernie showing me stuff like this in his environment on lots of different mastering sessions.

The biggest shocker was in the early "Sound Tools" days of digital audio when he had me bring in my original DAT masters and then he A/B'ed me my edited version that I had digitally bounced into the computer and back with the source DATs and the difference was astounding!

That was pretty much the moment I stopped blind trusting the "ones and zeros" argument once and for all. From that point on, I started to always critically listen to everything that could change the sound. I realized that digital recording and analog recording are not as different as we originally thought. Just as every component and process in the analog chain affects the sound, the same is potentially true for digital recording, so you have to watch out just as much.

I don't always agree with Bernie though. He claims that even copying files from one place to another can affect the sound, which I have never found to be an issue (thankfully!) - and I've very likely copied and listened to a whole lot more of those copied files than Bernie has. 

He's got some of the best ears in the world though, that is for sure!

The basic lesson is to never just "trust" that everything sounds fine and the same. It's VERY useful to have a control reference to listen to. For me that's listening to my original file in Quicktime/Quicklook on the OSX desktop. That has proven to be the most accurate playback source for me.

Interestingly, the simpler the app, often the more accurate it sounds....just like how the same "shortest distance wire" philosophy applies in the analog world of audio.

It seems to be much harder to playback audio faithfully in a complex app like a DAW than it is for really simple apps. Perhaps that's also why iTunes sounds so poor compared to Quicktime. 

One of my favorite recording apps for stereo recording is Audio Hijack Pro, which is super simple and costs like $30 bucks. It sounds really faithful and I never have an audio issues with it.


----------



## spectrum

Just for the record, I still use Logic as my main composing/virtual instrument computer.

I use Pro Tools now as my multitrack audio recorder/mixer and have been mostly pretty happy with how it is currently sounding these days. The only disappointments have been in the sound changing through buss routing and things like that....so it's not perfect audio-wise, but it's excellent sounding and faithful to what I put into it.


----------



## spectrum

Narval @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> spectrum @ Thu Jun 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> some super smart engineer figured out that the reason they sounded different had to do with the whole thing being an optical process, so the colors could interact with the lasers in certain ways to produce different sonic results.
> 
> 
> 
> That explanation seems to make sense, at least theoretically, although the idea that lasers do read digits differently because of the disc color, that's a bit shocking.
Click to expand...

Obviously, the numbers are all there in every one of these cases. I don't know exactly what goes on in all the optical reading transfers and why it results in such drastically different results....I only know that the results were consistently this way.



> May I ask whatòÜ¾   ×¼¼Ü¾   ×¼½Ü¾   ×¼¾Ü¾   ×¼¿Ü¾   ×¼ÀÜ¾   ×¼ÁÜ¾   ×¼ÂÜ¾   ×¼ÃÜ¾   ×¼ÄÜ¾   ×¼ÅÜ¾   ×¼ÆÜ¾   ×¼ÇÜ¾   ×¼ÈÜ¾   ×¼ÉÜ¾   ×¼ÊÜ¾   ×¼ËÜ¾   ×¼ÌÜ¾   ×¼ÍÜ¾   ×¼ÎÜ¾   ×


----------



## Colin O'Malley

Eric,

I've had this nagging feeling mixing in Logic for a while, and trust what you are saying. Question for you: is it possible that what we're hearing is entirely a monitoring issue within Logic? As an example, I mixed a fairly large orchestral session in Logic. I started having a sense of the image collapsing a bit. However, the final stereo mastered track sounds fine to me when I listen to the final mix on the dub stage in Pro Tools (not exactly a scientific test, but the summing was done in Logic). That lead me to think it relates to how Logic handles playback and monitoring, and it may not be a destructive problem it's baking into the audio files. Does that make any sense? 

Colin


----------



## Ashermusic

It is very hard for me to disagree with Eric ever, and I am not necessarily doing so here. BUT :lol: 

That said, as circumstances have it, I had lunch yesterday with 2 audio engineers (and a fellow composer) one from Pennsylvania and one from Seattle, both of who use both PT HD and Logic daily for mixing for their clients. I printed out what Eric wrote and asked them what their thoughts were. Both by the way have met Eric, know his work, and respect him greatly, as I do.

The engineer from Penn was the more expansive but the engineer from Seattle essentially concurred with him. He said that while the different DAWS do indeed sound a little different, which sounds "better" is very subjective and also very dependent on the material. Certain kinds of material, to his ears, sounded better in PT and certain kinds of material sounded better in Logic. He also said that he would need a lot more specifics before he could validate or invalidate Eric's tests. But in his experience, nothing pointed to any DAW sounding objectively better across the board on all kinds of source material. He feels he gets equally good sounding results in both but that there are many workflow reasons why he prefers to mix in PT so unless the client wants another, that is his choice.

All four of us agreed that the room, the audio interface's clocking, plugins, and most of all, skill within the DAW were far greater factors anyway.

Most of the films/TV shows/DVDs I have scored have been with an engineer who mixes in his room in PT and the clients and I have been very happy with the way they sound. The last films I scored was with the same engineer but we mixed in my his room in Logic and the client and I were very happy with the way it sounds. The DVD I just finished scoring I mixed by myself in Logic and the picture mixer, who mixes in PT, was highly complimentary on the quality both compositionally and mix-wise in his comments to the client and the client and I are happy with the way it sounds.

Bottom line: While the sound of the DAW may indeed be a factor, it is IMHO way down the list of factors you should, err...., factor in when deciding which program you want to mix in. Considering how much a PT HD rig and all theTDM plugins cost might factor into it a LITTLE also :twisted: 

BTW, Eric a musician you know well told me that I should tell you that he used DP for years and now uses Logic and cannot believe anyone prefers the sound of DP.

Subjective? Of course. Obviously however, Eric's opinion should be given a lot more weight than mine but I did at least want to present an alternative view.


----------



## Frederick Russ

Just thinking out loud: is the real issue more to do with summing tracks digitally vs summing in say a large format console with an standard mix bus architecture? Not to build to case either way for ITB vs OTB, but it seems with Logic, PT, DP etc, I'm beginning to wonder if the digital math for summing in each case is equal. 

My story is that I like Logic a lot though and have visited friends with PT systems but in both cases recently heard the sequencers summed to an high end analog OTB summing mixer rather than via the sequencer itself. To me I can hear a very acute sonic difference in either case: improved and tighter bass definition, better imaging and separation, a "taller" mix for lack of a better term - when nothing else had changed.


----------



## RiffWraith

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> * I've found that pretty much any two audio files will sound different from one another whenever you change something - even the digital cable.



That might be correct - and that does in fact make sense.



Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> ... and you can argue that if they cancel they're identical, but I've bleedin' 'eard it.



If the files cancel completely, there is no difference. If you hear a difference, there may be other factors at play, D/A converters, sound card, cables, desk, etc.



spectrum @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> For those that don't believe me, try this simple test:
> 
> Take a great sounding 24-bit stereo mix that you have. Use something with a lot of dynamic range and great natural ambience...especially something with real instruments, acoustic drums, percussion, etc.....something really hi-fi.
> 
> • Take that file and play it on your desktop with Quicklook
> 
> • Take the same file and open it in Quicktime (should sound the same as it did on the desktop. This is because Quicklook and Quicktime use the same code to play the file)
> 
> • Now drag the same file to iTunes. Turn off all Enhancers/EQs etc and listen to it.
> Notice any difference when you A/B it with Quicktime?
> 
> • Now take the same file and drag it to Logic and play it back.
> 
> • Now take the same file and drag it to Digital Performer and play it back.
> 
> • Now take the same file and open it in Pro Tools and play it back.
> 
> • Now take the same file and drag it to Cubase and play it back.
> 
> • Now take the same file and drag it to Peak and play it back.
> 
> etc, etc.
> 
> BTW....you have to use the same audio outputs and D/A convertor with all these hosts, otherwise the test introduces all sorts of variables.
> 
> Of course the better your monitoring environment, the more noticeable the results will be. If you don't notice any difference with Quicktime and iTunes, then you should look at having your monitoring system improved....since that's one of the most obvious differences.
> 
> It's an interesting test.....try it and see what you find.



I am sorry Eric, that is *NOT* how you test audio.



spectrum @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> Have you done a null test with files from both PTools and Logic, where the op busses were at 0, and no plugs were used?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....of course.
> 
> I've done this null test with every DAW in existing....guess what, they all perform the test perfectly!
> 
> (and they all sound different)
> 
> So what does that tell you.
Click to expand...


I dont know what that says...did they _completely_ cancel? If not, then they are not identical, and you have a pretty darn good set of ears. If they did cancel, then they are identical, regardless of what your ears tell you. 

Bear in mind: when you do a null test, it is either ITB - or with _identical_ equipment/cabling/signal path if not. In either regard - if done properly and the files cancel, there is no difference.

Cheers.


----------



## Ashermusic

Frederick Russ @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> Just thinking out loud: is the real issue more to do with summing tracks digitally vs summing in say a large format console with an standard mix bus architecture? Not to build to case either way for ITB vs OTB, but it seems with Logic, PT, DP etc, I'm beginning to wonder if the digital math for summing in each case is equal.
> 
> My story is that I like Logic a lot though and have visited friends with PT systems but in both cases recently heard the sequencers summed to an high end analog OTB summing mixer rather than via the sequencer itself. To me I can hear a very acute sonic difference in either case: improved and tighter bass definition, better imaging and separation, a "taller" mix for lack of a better term - when nothing else had changed.



I don't think anyone denies that in the best of all possible worlds where budgets and time do not factor in as much, like making a CD perhaps, that summing out of the box through high quality analog electronics makes for a better sound.


----------



## Narval

@ Danny_Owen
Imo some people here tend to exaggerate a bit, in various directions (or dawrections). Logic will tell you that the most logical choice is to use logic. In truth, the only sonic benefit of using pro tools to mix is that in pro tools your mix will sound better.

:D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

RiffWraith wrote:



> If they did cancel, then they are identical, regardless of what your ears tell you.



You're welcome to believe that.

And yet in one of the instances I'm thinking of, a nerdfest in which we just swapped cables to make a digital transfer, that means I - and four or five other people in the room, all of whom were trained professionals (among them Professor Thonex), who wrote down the same things independently on two different occasions - are all deluded in exactly the same way.

Remember, we're talking about very subtle differences that require a good monitoring environment to hear. Whether those differences are important enough to care about is another discussion, but I trust my ears when they tell me that whenever you change *anything,* the question isn't whether there's a difference, it's what the difference is. 

Yes, even if two files null.


----------



## Danny_Owen

lol, I really opened pandora's box with this one, oops 

I have to say, whenever I'm in pro tools I somehow seem to 'think' like a mixing engineer, and the job of composing is done. It feels good to separate the two sometimes for sure.

My mbox2 currently makes god awful noises all the time though, I've searched all the digidesign forums, loads of people seem to have the same problem and all the admins ever tend to say is 'download the latest drivers' (which I've done) and no joy, so no pro tools for me yet anyway! 

I have enjoyed pro tools 8 so far though, a lot more than 7. it's close enough to logic to get around, certainly for mixing anyway.

Thanks everyone for your feedback, I didn't expect such a huge response! Stuff to think about...


----------



## Dave Connor

I must confess I found Eric's point extremely persuasive. I have always thought my files sound better when in Pro-tools (I use DP) but figured that's because they're in a proper studio environment and not my home studio.


----------



## C M Dess

There's another, quicker way to prove the daws sound _different_. Raise the gain fader on a maximized / normalized file up till the file clips, then raise it to the same level in another environment. The program will react differently and clip at different points, the clipping itself will sound different.

I'm pretty sure logic has a built in Tape emulator effect for such cases. It's one of the reasons I prefer Logic over Cubase.


----------



## Ashermusic

C M Dess @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> There's another, quicker way to prove the daws sound _different_. Raise the gain fader on a maximized / normalized file up till the file clips, then raise it to the same level in another environment. The program will react differently and clip at different points, the clipping itself will sound different.
> 
> I'm pretty sure logic has a built in Tape emulator effect for such cases. It's one of the reasons I prefer Logic over Cubase.



Well PT is fixed point and Logic is floating so I don't think that is relevant.


----------



## Simon Ravn

midphase @ Thu Jun 10 said:


> I'm 100% with Eric on this one. I compose in Logic and then stem out and do my final mixes in Pro Tools. I always feel like the stemming process puts less strain on the reverb buss and mix buss and that's why when I open the files into Pro Tools the sound is different. But there is no doubt in my mind that Pro Tools sounds different than Logic. When I switched from DP to Logic, it was immediately apparent to me that Logic sounded different from DP...but in my case I thought that Logic sounded considerably better than DP.



I want to go the ProTools route for mixing. Actually, last year I bought a HD2 system which is still lying in my closet, because I am waiting for Apple to get their act together and release new Mac Pros... 

But one question.... how do you keep it all in sync? I use a combination of Gigastudio and Vienna Ensemble Pro, which means that I would be able to record the GS outputs directly into ProTools - I know ProTools can sync to MTC of course, but is it 100% accurate? So.. when I start playback in Logic, PT would start recording at the EXACT same timecode as in Logic?

And then the VEP stuff... that will have to be bounced to files (realtime or offline) - of course I could bounce them to Logic and then play them back realtime into ProTools, but that will be a bit silly and time consuming to do another pass on the audio. Ideally the bounces would be in exact sync with the realtime recorded stuff, which I can then import into ProTools and place at the same start position on the timeline. But I don't know if this will work in reality.. is that how you do it or don't you use GS anymore, removing the realtime aspect of the process?


----------



## Dietz

_[comment from the sideline]_

Most people I count on agree about the fact that in the end, all DAWs would sound the same under _ceteris paribus_ conditions, which means you use the same periphery, _including the same GUI_ (and of course no proprietary audio processing). Double blind tests have been proving this.

IOW: Different graphical and ergonomical solutions lead to different acoustical results. I tend to put everything else into my personal "urban legends"-folder. 

That said, it's been quite some time since I've heard someone calling Logic being the best-sounding DAW ... Using Nuendo/Cubase - ProTools HD - Logic in a 1:1:1 ratio, with a bit of Sequoia/Samplitude, too, I get the worst results from Logic 8-) ... in my book, this means that Logic's GUI is my least favorite one.


----------



## RiffWraith

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> RiffWraith wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they did cancel, then they are identical, regardless of what your ears tell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're welcome to believe that.
Click to expand...



No it's not my opinion, nor what I believe - it's fact. Saying that two files are identical when they completely phase cancel is not an opinion nor belief. Now, if you listen to those two files out of different DAWs with different sound cards/interfaces, signal path, etc, that is a different story. 

Cheers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's a fact that 1 + -1 = 0.

It's also a fact that I and other people have heard files that phase-canceled audibly sound different, and that we described hearing the same things independently in two double-blind tests a couple of weeks apart. While our ears can be fooled, this was not the graphics or the ergonomics - we weren't looking at the screen!

Eric gave the example of the oscilloscope showing two waveforms that appeared identical yet obviously sound different. What if there's something else going on with digital playback that phase-canceling isn't sensitive enough to reveal?

I suspect you'd find something different in the files if you examined the bits. And no, this wasn't different DAWs or sound cards/interfaces. The only thing we switched was the digital cables.


----------



## RiffWraith

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> What if there's something else going on with digital playback that phase-canceling isn't sensitive enough to reveal?



Such as?


----------



## re-peat

All this talk about sonic excellence — no matter how interesting — is unfortunately somewhat irrelevant, it seems to me, knowing that most of us create sound canvasses with mainly sampled and/or virtual instruments, the audio of which is, by its very nature, condemned to live in the Land of Sonic Mediocrity. 
I mean, the moment you load a few strings-, percussion- or brass-patches from a samplelibrary — _any_ samplelibrary —, you’ve already manoeuvred yourself into a corner of such sonic poverty, that no amount of protoolsing will ever be able to get you back out of there. The compromise is in effect once you decide to use sampled sounds. After that, it doesn’t really matter anymore which DAW you happen to work in, I believe.

It may well be that ProTools is slightly better equipped than other DAWs to sum a number of digital audiotracks (although, frankly, I doubt that, in a blindfold-test, most of us would be able to differentiate consistently between a Protools-mix, a Logic-mix, a Cubase-mix, a DigitalPerformer-mix or a Harrison Mixbus-mix), but I’m pretty sure that if ProTools’ summing superiorty does exist, it will only be of musical significance when dealing with professional, well-engineered, state-of-the-art recordings of real, living sound.

Sampled and/or virtual instruments (let alone, a mix which consists of nothing but these type of sounds) simply don’t have the organic richness, depth and sonic sophistication for a specific DAW’s audio engine to really matter. Orchestral mock-ups (or sample-based productions in general) — no matter how expertly they are crafted and/or produced — are not the domain of the serious audiophile. 

I run (nearly) all my audiotracks through an Anamod ATS-1 and often sum through the Thermionic Fat Bustard. But I’ve discovered — with a touch of dissappointment, I must admit — that the heart of the (sample-originated) audio remains as lifeless and one-dimensional as ever. So, while these expensive, high-end boxes undeniably contribute a layer of (analog) niceness, the audio doesn’t really get any better, not in a fundamental way. Learning from these experiences, I’m more convinced than ever that audiophile considerations have little or no relevance for musicians/producers who have to make do with sample-based audio material. And whatever difference there may be between ProTools’ and Logic’s audio engine, it’s completely and utterly meaningless for most of us.

_


----------



## midphase

Nice!


----------



## SvK

"Any sonic benefit to mixing with PT?"

nope

SvK


----------



## Ashermusic

SvK @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> "Any sonic benefit to mixing with PT?"
> 
> nope
> 
> SvK



That's helpful :roll: 

Care to expand on it a little?


----------



## SvK

ok...i was trying to be funny. 

The differences one would encounter between the systems is so minimal that it makes no difference as to how that piece of music affects (rocks, moves) the listener.

Therefore it is a pointless debate.

Know how to write. Know how to mockup. Know how to use an EQ well.

That's it.

That Action piece I posted many months ago?
Logic....NO 3d party effect/eq/compression plugins. No WAVES, no protools, no dynamics compression.....

But DANG had I just known about the superior summing in PT, It would have moved people soooo much more. Hell it might have made the mix 0.00000000000011 % better.

Guess I really blew that one 

Just solid mixing with ANY of the major DAWS with good libraries will do nicely.

SvK


----------



## Narval

Right. And 96kb mp3 sounds just fine.

Or maybe 128kb would make a difference as to how a given piece will affect the listener? How about 192kb? 256?... Are we getting closer to the desired effect on the listener?


----------



## re-peat

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> re-peat, all of that has been said in previous posts.


*Nick,*

Then this thread must contain posts which aren't visible to me because, apart from José's remark that "when working with samples, his audio interface is the least of his worries", I can't really find anything that comes anywhere near to saying what I said.



Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> I think most sample developers care a lot about the sound quality.


Developers may care about sound quality all they want (and I certainly don't doubt that they do), fact is that sample-based music is, by definition, sonically vastly inferior to a well-engineered, professional recording of living sounds. I am sorry, but LASS, or HS, or KH Diamond, or GPO, or the Vienna VI Orchestra don't sound any better or worse when mixed in Logic or in ProTools. It will always sound flat, artificial and lifeless, whichever DAW you pick. Because that is how sample-based performances — even the very best ones — sound. If you know of a mock-up that makes a "ProTools vs Logic"-discussion meaningful and relevant, I sure would like to hear it.

---------------------------

*Bryla,*

Unless I'm seriously mistaken, the opening poster's primary tools for making music are sampled and/or virtual instruments. And, going by what I've read and heard previously here, this also seems to be the case for quite a few of the other participants in this thread. So I really don't understand what's wrong with focussing on sample-based music with the comments I made. On Gearslutz, this would be an entirely different discussion, yes, but here on the _Virtual Instruments_ Composers Forum?
By the way, I also fail to understand how "Eric pulling the same audio file into every sequencer" should determine the course this thread is supposed to take. 

_


----------



## bigdog

smackdown!


----------



## Dave Connor

It seems to me that if one piece of gear didn't sound better than another the entire history of recorded sound would be completely different. Are all these DAWS identical at every stage? What about live recordings and not just lifeless samples? Everything is just the same and no difference to our ears?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

re-pete: I agree for the most part. But I took what you posted as saying that nobody here is putting this in proper proportion, and that's not the case. Eric said earlier on that he's talking about live recording, and I posted that whether these kind of differences are important is another discussion, but they do exist.

If that's not what you were saying then never mind.

Riffwraith, you are too ARE TOO arguing!


----------



## synthetic

I'm not sure I believe that "if you invert one of the signals and cancel, there is absolutely no difference." That sounds like "if the oscillator shows they are the same then there is no difference." Because even if the difference is in the noise floor (or below it) doesn't mean it's not there. 

Eric, have you tried summing in a digital console or analog summing? I think that either of those sounds more different than the difference between DAWs because [strike]of floating point math[/strike] my ears tell me so. 

(I could say that my the summing in my TASCAM DM-3200 digital console sounds better than Logic, but you shouldn't believe me because I work there.)

I regretted participating in a analog summing shootout because my "anything but #3" turned out to be the in the box mix. So now I'm in the process of upgrading my converters (SSL Alphalink) and getting a Dangerous 2-Bus LT. Because analog summing gets rid of that pinched, digital sound and IMAGING comes back! Things sound father back behind the speakers! You can reach out and touch the imaging, it just opens up. 

So the debate on which DAW summing sounds best, to me, can be answered "none of them." I spoke to Alan Sides and he said that a $600 Mackie mixer has better summing than Pro Tools HD! So when he does a remote project he takes a Mackie with him for the monitor mix.


----------



## spectrum

Dietz @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> _[comment from the sideline]_
> 
> Most people I count on agree about the fact that in the end, all DAWs would sound the same under _ceteris paribus_ conditions, which means you use the same periphery, _including the same GUI_ (and of course no proprietary audio processing). Double blind tests have been proving this.


Hey Diez 

That's not the case here.

We do double-blind listening tests all the time and we can pick out the results and identify the sources over 90% of the time every time we do the tests.

BTW...we've been doing this double-checking of our results with different ears on a weekly basis for about 20 years, to make sure that we aren't crazy.....so this is not without some data and scientific testing methods....as best you can do at least, since the sonic difference results don't currently measure these types of differences in any kinds of testing measurements you can perform.

I have no doubt that the tools will improve to the point where these differences will be able to be explained and measure with more sophisticated tools in the future.

I've found that tests like the reverse-phase "null" test are really poor at showing differences. Even things as obvious as the very poor quality of iTunes quality playback (which are quite easily heard without a special environment) don't show up in these kinds of "nulling" tests.

Cheers,

spectrum


----------



## spectrum

SvK @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> ok...i was trying to be funny.
> 
> The differences one would encounter between the systems is so minimal that it makes no difference as to how that piece of music affects (rocks, moves) the listener.
> 
> Therefore it is a pointless debate.
> 
> Know how to write. Know how to mockup. Know how to use an EQ well.
> 
> That's it.
> 
> That Action piece I posted many months ago?
> Logic....NO 3d party effect/eq/compression plugins. No WAVES, no protools, no dynamics compression.....
> 
> But DANG had I just known about the superior summing in PT, It would have moved people soooo much more. Hell it might have made the mix 0.00000000000011 % better.
> 
> Guess I really blew that one
> 
> Just solid mixing with ANY of the major DAWS with good libraries will do nicely.
> 
> SvK


I think you are missing the point of the thread. This is purely about sonics and preserving sound quality.

The question was not whether you could make a great mix or great music with any of these DAWs.

I have heard amazing sounding mixes and killer music done entirely with Garageband.

I've also heard horrific and embrassingly bad sounding stuff done with Pro Tools HD 192k systems with the Lavrey convertors and expensive analog summing stuff.

You can make great sounding mixes and wonderful music with every DAW on the market and NONE of them sound "bad".

What we are talking about is getting the best and most accurate hi-fi results. It's an important topic if you are trying to produce stuff at the highest level sonically. So this is very much an audio engineering/mastering topic, not a musical one.

I tend to believe that it's a good idea to be the best you can be at both side....hence my interest and passion in this topic.


----------



## spectrum

synthetic @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> Eric, have you tried summing in a digital console or analog summing? I think that either of those sounds more different than the difference between DAWs because [strike]of floating point math[/strike] my ears tell me so.


Of course, there is a huge difference there.....but that's an entirely different topic, because that topic is about what coloration and conversion sounds best.

I love analog summing and have mixed that way lots of times. Excellent tool for warmth and "glue".

For many years, I worked with custom made "Quest" analog mixers....and these sound clearer than any Neve or API console!

However, analog summing/mixing is not the best option to use for clarity and accuracy though. Digital ITB mixing is a much better way to go for accuracy and clarity.



> (I could say that my the summing in my TASCAM DM-3200 digital console sounds better than Logic, but you shouldn't believe me because I work there.)


It very likely does. Almost all of the dedicated hardware digital mixers summed signals much better in the digital domain that Logic's mixer does in my experience.



> I regretted participating in a analog summing shootout because my "anything but #3" turned out to be the in the box mix. So now I'm in the process of upgrading my converters (SSL Alphalink) and getting a Dangerous 2-Bus LT. Because analog summing gets rid of that pinched, digital sound and IMAGING comes back! Things sound father back behind the speakers! You can reach out and touch the imaging, it just opens up.


Yeah for sure. You should check out the Thermonic summing device too...it's really, really creamy and awesome sounding for that gorgeous analog sound. I think you'd really like it.



> So the debate on which DAW summing sounds best, to me, can be answered "none of them." I spoke to Alan Sides and he said that a $600 Mackie mixer has better summing than Pro Tools HD! So when he does a remote project he takes a Mackie with him for the monitor mix.


Nah....I've tried and tested dozens of different model Mackie mixers and their summing is almost universally really terrible with very little headroom. 

This is about the only one I've found that actually sounds pretty good believe it or not:

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/402VLZ3/

Alan is an analog guy and has very little experience with ITB mixing.....so his entire world is about analog summing with the finest analog consoles on earth and the coloration it provides. (he probably tried a digital ITB mix once and hated it...hence that comment)

I can guarantee you that Alan has never mixed a project on a Mackie mixer. 

Any DAW mixing ITB is going to produce a much clearer and pristine/accurate sounding mix than any Mackie mixer will....and sometimes that's what you want.


----------



## John Rodd

I thought i'd chime in here....

A while back I was in a position to compare mixes summed in Logic vs mixes summed in ProTools HD.

It was a level matched test..... and I could hit one button to switch back and forth between the two summing situations, on the fly, as I listened...... but always listening to the same converters and clock.

*The ProTools summing sounded wider and deeper, without a doubt.
*
I was able to do the same test week after week, with different music....... the results were 100% repeatable. I could pick one from the other, blind.... 100% of the time.

just my experience....


----------



## Waywyn

Eric, out of curiosity:
Did you ever lay your hands on Mixbus?
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=108&Itemid=42 (http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/joomla/ ... &amp;Itemid=42)


----------



## Ashermusic

John Rodd @ Fri Jun 11 said:


> I thought i'd chime in here....
> 
> A while back I was in a position to compare mixes summed in Logic vs mixes summed in ProTools HD.
> 
> It was a level matched test..... and I could hit one button to switch back and forth between the two summing situations, on the fly, as I listened...... but always listening to the same converters and clock.
> 
> *The ProTools summing sounded wider and deeper, without a doubt.
> *
> I was able to do the same test week after week, with different music....... the results were 100% repeatable. I could pick one from the other, blind.... 100% of the time.
> 
> just my experience....



You say its a "mix" so, what were the pan laws? Were there plugins? Were all the tracks set to unity gain? Is it the same mixer and is he equally skilled in both? Unless all the variables were eliminated, the test is meaningless.

I know some PT based engineers who tried mixing in Logic and did not even know about the Direction Mixer. When I explained to them they said, "Oh, well that changes things."


----------



## bigdog

Seems like the unanswerable question, or the lost chord.

OK here's my experience. My engineer and I heard the same thing as John and Eric indicate, except with DP. I don't know or use Logic so I can't speak to that.

Also I get masters from different composers who all have different systems (the specifics of which I do not know) and I can always hear the difference. Only one guy has PTHD (nobody has a PT native system) and his mixes always have more depth, etc., as do mine. The Logic ones in particular have a coudiness or masked quality to them. 

Of course none of this has anything to do with the actual music itself. This is a technical discussion.

I work completely in PT8 after 20 years of DP. Through a variety of circumstances I ended up with a large PTHD system which I never would have gone out and bought. I just has all the stuff and decided to consolidate everything. The midi in PT8, while useable is still not great. DP (and I'm sure Logic too) are much more fun for us composer types. However I have found that TO MY EARS, PT undeniably sounds better. Better here is defined as richer, deeper, more full. FWIW the other guys I work with hear it too. Without being asked they always ask why my mixes sound better. It ain't me - I'm not a mixer.


----------



## John Rodd

Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 12 said:


> You say its a "mix" so, what were the pan laws? Were there plugins? Were all the tracks set to unity gain? Is it the same mixer and is he equally skilled in both? Unless all the variables were eliminated, the test is meaningless.
> 
> I know some PT based engineers who tried mixing in Logic and did not even know about the Direction Mixer. When I explained to them they said, "Oh, well that changes things."



Fair question.

14 stereo pairs. so panning is a non-issue
all faders at zero, so a non-issue
no plugins, so a non-issue

I was simply summing 14 premixed audio tracks - once in Logic, once in PT HD.

:wink:


----------



## Ashermusic

John Rodd @ Sat Jun 12 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say its a "mix" so, what were the pan laws? Were there plugins? Were all the tracks set to unity gain? Is it the same mixer and is he equally skilled in both? Unless all the variables were eliminated, the test is meaningless.
> 
> I know some PT based engineers who tried mixing in Logic and did not even know about the Direction Mixer. When I explained to them they said, "Oh, well that changes things."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair question.
> 
> 14 stereo pairs. so panning is a non-issue
> all faders at zero, so a non-issue
> no plugins, so a non-issue
> 
> I was simply summing 14 premixed audio tracks - once in Logic, once in PT HD.
> 
> :wink:
Click to expand...


Well, that seems like a fair test then John.


----------



## Frederick Russ

Personally I've noticed that regardless of sequencer, summing instead to an outboard summing mixer seems to yield pretty much the same result. Mixes summed this way - usually around 8 stereo stems going to different stereo outputs - to me sounds wider, taller with improved spatial imaging, detail and definition when nothing else has changed regardless of whether its PT, Logic, DP, Nuendo, Reaper or Samplitude. The thought is that digital summing math should be the same between sequencers but I think there are definitely differences as others here have suggested - but only in how things are being summed digitally.


----------



## Narval

I believe this to be a matter of speakers and ears, in the sense that some speakers and some ears are more sensitive to little differences than others. Which also accounts for what one calls "little" differences.


----------



## Ashermusic

Eric wrote: " So why don't more people notice the difference? 

my monitoring environment is a lot better than most people's....more like a high-end mastering studio. So I can hear these issues really easily here. The audio playback issue in Logic is apparent on Input as well, so it sounds like it's faithfully recording and playing back your source."

I have since talked to a number of pros who use both and opinions are roughly split down the middle as to whether they agree with this.

That said, whether empirically true or not, it changes little for me. When I have a well budgeted project, I will hire an engineer and he will probably mix it in PT because the engineers I use are all more skilled with it. On a less well-budgeted project, I will mix myself in Logic, and so far at least, I have had no negative comments from my clients or their picture mixers.

What I found almost universal agreement on is the following as to what matters relatively:

1. The quality of the composition, its arrangement, orchestration, etc.

2. The skills of the mixer in the DAW of his/her choice.

3. The quality of the hardware, audio interface, clocking ADA converters, speakers, room, plugins, etc.

And considerably lower than these 3, the sound of the DAW. 

So I stand by my original advice to the OP Danny, that the sound of the DAW, while possibly a factor, matters FAR less than the other elements to those of us who compose music for picture, CD releases, etc., and, like the OP presumably, probably do not have the kind of very high end listening environment and equipment and discretionary income that Eric has, and should be factored accordingly into the decision.


----------



## Dietz

spectrum @ Sat Jun 12 said:


> Dietz @ Fri Jun 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> _[comment from the sideline]_
> 
> Most people I count on agree about the fact that in the end, all DAWs would sound the same under _ceteris paribus_ conditions, which means you use the same periphery, _including the same GUI_ (and of course no proprietary audio processing). Double blind tests have been proving this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Diez
> 
> That's not the case here.
> 
> We do double-blind listening tests all the time and we can pick out the results and identify the sources over 90% of the time every time we do the tests.
> 
> BTW...we've been doing this double-checking of our results with different ears on a weekly basis for about 20 years, to make sure that we aren't crazy.....so this is not without some data and scientific testing methods....as best you can do at least, since the sonic difference results don't currently measure these types of differences in any kinds of testing measurements you can perform.
> 
> I have no doubt that the tools will improve to the point where these differences will be able to be explained and measure with more sophisticated tools in the future.
> 
> I've found that tests like the reverse-phase "null" test are really poor at showing differences. Even things as obvious as the very poor quality of iTunes quality playback (which are quite easily heard without a special environment) don't show up in these kinds of "nulling" tests.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> spectrum
Click to expand...


Hi Eric,

I have nothing than highest respect for your efforts and the (masterful!) results you and your team have achieved during all those years. Still I'm wondering why no mastering facility I know of uses Logic for their needs if the audio engine is really superior to the rest. Usually they would be the first to jump ship even for the slightest improvements in sound.

Kind regards,


----------



## José Herring

Folmann @ Sun Jun 13 said:


> Does anybody have A/B examples?



This would be very helpful. 

I've been following this thread with intense curiosity. But, in all truth in my experience I can't tell the difference between all the major DAWs Cubase, Logic, and DP. On the other hand, I've uniformly have found that projects that I've heard on PT have sounded to my ears universally cold and sterile. Kind of like an engineer's tool rather than a musical tool. Of course my subjective experience is hardly scientific, but I've heard tracks that were done in Cubase then transferred over to Protools HD and in protools the tracks sounded different but to my ears nowhere near better. The tracks when transferred lost a tiny bit of their warmth and pristine quality.

Jose


----------



## Waywyn

K, I can't post tracks here, but out of curiosity, I just threw some stems from a recently composed tracks into Cubase and into ProTools LE.

Cubase runs a MOTU 828 and PT an Mbox1, however, I think since all has been calculated internally I cannot speak that the soundcard might be an issue.

To prevent clipping on each project I lowered ALL stems equally to -4dB


1. Then I took both files and runned them through the Waves PAZ analyzer and saved the analyzed data to a txt file.

2. Then I imported both tracks into Cubase, created two new audio tracks and reversed the phase on one.

3. Then I took both tracks imported them into DSP Quattro and runned the find Peak and RMS tool.


Of course I have to say I am not an expert in audio analyzing nor do I know if these tests show anything constructive or might result in heavy laughter since they might say nothing about it.

Here are the results:

1. the extracted data is absolutely the same. Not even one tiny variation on the numbers:

Just an excerpt (looks exactly the same on each txt):


FRQ (Hz): Left (dB): Right (dB): 



22 -11.7 -14.0
65 -10.0 -9.1
108 -14.2 -13.6
151 -17.7 -16.3
194 -21.0 -21.0
237 -20.7 -21.4

2. They absolutely nulled out. Not one tiny little movement on the master out

3. One track had an RMS of -22.01 the other one of -22.03
The analyzed peak on each track was exactly 00:02:17:531 on each track ...


My question is now, do these numbers say anything?
If they tracks would show at least a tiny little difference wouldn't there be some tiny little meganano signal flow when nulling them?

If those numbers plus the nullify test should say and matter something, I at least know that the Cubase sound engine is up to the PT one


----------



## Waywyn

Edit: I just noticed that the track with the lower RMS is a tiny bit longer (800ms). So that might change the result since the track got a bit more slience toward the end. However if the tracks would have the same lenght, they would be also absolutely identical.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dietz:



> Still I'm wondering why no mastering facility I know of uses Logic for their needs if the audio engine is really superior to the rest. Usually they would be the first to jump ship even for the slightest improvements in sound.



Eric is saying the opposite: Logic sounds *worse.* But he also says that he uses Logic for V.I.s. Horses for courses.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mr. Asher wrote:


> What I found almost universal agreement on is the following as to what matters relatively:
> 
> 1. The quality of the composition, its arrangement, orchestration, etc.
> 
> 2. The skills of the mixer in the DAW of his/her choice.
> 
> 3. The quality of the hardware, audio interface, clocking ADA converters, speakers, room, plugins, etc.
> 
> And considerably lower than these 3, the sound of the DAW.



Meandering a little:

I agree with that hierarchy, but I'd insert another factor between 1 and 2: good yet better sounding music can often beat higher quality music in the ears of many beholders.

And because people hear the outsides better than the middle, one of the first beyond-the-basics tricks is to make sure the low end is powerful and that there's some very high stuff going on. Then the middle almost takes care of itself - again, with the qualification "beyond the basics."

I'm thinking of a car commercial-type cue I wrote a couple of years ago that came to life as soon as I added an RMX triangle loop.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 13 said:


> Mr. Asher wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> What I found almost universal agreement on is the following as to what matters relatively:
> 
> 1. The quality of the composition, its arrangement, orchestration, etc.
> 
> 2. The skills of the mixer in the DAW of his/her choice.
> 
> 3. The quality of the hardware, audio interface, clocking ADA converters, speakers, room, plugins, etc.
> 
> And considerably lower than these 3, the sound of the DAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meandering a little:
> 
> I agree with that hierarchy, but I'd insert another factor between 1 and 2: good yet better sounding music can often beat higher quality music in the ears of many beholders.
> 
> And because people hear the outsides better than the middle, one of the first beyond-the-basics tricks is to make sure the low end is powerful and that there's some very high stuff going on. Then the middle almost takes care of itself - again, with the qualification "beyond the basics."
> 
> I'm thinking of a car commercial-type cue I wrote a couple of years ago that came to life as soon as I added an RMX triangle loop.
Click to expand...


Surely that goes against the Fletcher Munson findings?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

This should be a new thread, however since you asked...

It has to more to do with filling out the frequency bandwidth than with Fletcher-Munson, I think. But if anything it would confirm F-M because you're making the low and high ends more prominent.

Disclaimer: this cue isn't high art - just a commercial assignment:


http://files.me.com/virtualinstruments/nm3792.mp3


----------



## Dietz

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 13 said:


> Dietz:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still I'm wondering why no mastering facility I know of uses Logic for their needs if the audio engine is really superior to the rest. Usually they would be the first to jump ship even for the slightest improvements in sound.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric is saying the opposite: Logic sounds *worse.* But he also says that he uses Logic for V.I.s. Horses for courses.
Click to expand...


Duhhh!!!! :oops: 

Silly me! I think I was misguided by the following sentence in Eric's message:



spectrum said:


> "I wouldn't use Pro Tools if it wasn't there, because I've always preferred Logic and that's the DAW that I know the best. "



Thanks, Nick, for pointing out my misunderstanding, and SORRY ERIC! for the confusion. All is well


----------



## Waywyn

Could maybe someone enlight me? 

To be serious, I am really curious about that issue:
If a track sounds more deep, more convincing, alive, wide etc. ... shouldn't this also have info in the frequency meter? Why does a track which is mixed/summed in PT exactly null out with a track from Cubase?

Would that mean that Cubase 5 soundengine works exactly as perfect as the PT one?


----------



## Waywyn

Okay, just a tiny little update:

I also loaded the stems into Logic and did a quick render.

Then again all three tracks into Cubase and phrase reverted each and listened back to the others. Absolutely no fragment, they completely null out - 100% silcence.

In my opinion if there would be any hint of a little (dis)advantage in the audio signals you would definitely hear fragments during the whole track, no?

All these tests were done in:

Cubase 5, ProTools LE 8, Logic 8

Again, the little time I spent with ProTools now and digging the basic functions it is definitely and probably the best way to comp and care about audio mixing .. but sound and enginewise all sequencers are absolutely identical.

Please let me know and correct me if I have done any mistakes on that test!
I would be happy to repeat them with thrown hints.


----------



## chimuelo

Every now and then a thread comes along and makes all of the other nonsense we sift through worth the time spent.
This is one of those threads.
I have heard PTools since '94 and always noticed the difference in quality. I was led to believe it was becasue of the nature of DSP.
So I bought Scope DSP cards since I have my own budget. My theory was wrong but I did acquire the Modular synth which is still being developed and 12 years old now.
My newest XITE-1 venture was a repeat of the first, but since I now have a giant Modular synth that can run a dozen or so 16 voice Modular patches ( dependant on complexity ) and play them in realtime live I can hardly complain.
I have way better converters now which sound great live, but whenever I record in town here everywhere I go has PTools, and still PTools always seems to stay on top.
I have tried Pyramix, Samplitude, Cubase, Reaper, Logic and Scope.
My favorite is Scope since I can zip through pre production after years of use.
But at the end of the day, when recording, the engineers here as well as myself all agree that PTools still rises to the top.
But the sound of my Analog synths recorded using my ancient Otari deck still beat any digital/DSP rig........too bad they lose that warmth and depth when converted.
Great thread.

I especially liked the Moog/Odyssey story......... :mrgreen:


----------



## Dom

Interesting topic. I have just done a summing comparison between Pro Tools HD and Logic.

Here are the two files (44.1 kHz, 24 bit Wav):

http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing1.wav
http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing2.wav

At the moment I won't say which is which. The two files cancel out 100%. They are bounced to disk from 9 stereo stems, all at 0dB. The stems are: Omnisphere, VSL basses, sampled piano, live flute and oboe (recorded in Pro Tools HD, Great River ME1-NV preamp), small live string section (recorded in Pro Tools HD via Neve 88R). I have also done a test with all stems left dry (no reverb). The bounced mixes cancel out too.

Versions used: 
Pro Tools HD Accel (192 interface) 8.01cs1 on mac OS 10.5.8
Logic 9.1.1 on mac OS 10.5.8

You are welcome to download the files and play them back in a player of your choice. The style of music is relevant to what I am doing now, but may not be for you.


----------



## Waywyn

Dom @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Interesting topic. I have just done a summing comparison between Pro Tools HD and Logic.
> 
> Here are the two files (44.1 kHz, 24 bit Wav):
> 
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing1.wav
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing2.wav
> 
> At the moment I won't say which is which. The two files cancel out 100%. They are bounced to disk from 9 stereo stems, all at 0dB. The stems are: Omnisphere, VSL basses, sampled piano, live flute and oboe (recorded in Pro Tools HD, Great River ME1-NV preamp), small live string section (recorded in Pro Tools HD via Neve 88R). I have also done a test with all stems left dry (no reverb). The bounced mixes cancel out too.
> 
> Versions used:
> Pro Tools HD Accel (192 interface) 8.01cs1 on mac OS 10.5.8
> Logic 9.1.1 on mac OS 10.5.8
> 
> You are welcome to download the files and play them back in a player of your choice. The style of music is relevant to what I am doing now, but may not be for you.




Thanks Dom, nice cue by the way!!
Absolutely no difference to me ...



Just as a sidenote. I did another quicktest with Mixbus and I DO hear a significant difference in this track. The track does NOT cancel out compared to the others. What I hear is a very soft sizzling and smooth signal in the higher register ...

... as far as I know the Mixbus technology I know that they implemented the algo from their big Harrison consoles ... so I guess the signal will be treated and colored for what the other sequencers don't do.


----------



## germancomponist

Dom @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Interesting topic. I have just done a summing comparison between Pro Tools HD and Logic.
> 
> Here are the two files (44.1 kHz, 24 bit Wav):
> 
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing1.wav
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing2.wav
> 
> At the moment I won't say which is which. The two files cancel out 100%. They are bounced to disk from 9 stereo stems, all at 0dB. The stems are: Omnisphere, VSL basses, sampled piano, live flute and oboe (recorded in Pro Tools HD, Great River ME1-NV preamp), small live string section (recorded in Pro Tools HD via Neve 88R). I have also done a test with all stems left dry (no reverb). The bounced mixes cancel out too.
> 
> Versions used:
> Pro Tools HD Accel (192 interface) 8.01cs1 on mac OS 10.5.8
> Logic 9.1.1 on mac OS 10.5.8
> 
> You are welcome to download the files and play them back in a player of your choice. The style of music is relevant to what I am doing now, but may not be for you.



A very cool idea to do this, Dom!

Today I am only on my old Yamaha NS 10M Studio monitors but also here I hear the different. To my ears:

Summing 1 = Logic
Summing 2 = PT

Yeah, this is the different Eric, John and some others were telling here. I am so happy that I am not allone by hearing this different.  

In so many other forums when I tried to explain the different I was attacked by so many people.... . 

Gunther


----------



## RiffWraith

Dom @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Interesting topic. I have just done a summing comparison between Pro Tools HD and Logic.
> 
> Here are the two files (44.1 kHz, 24 bit Wav):
> 
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing1.wav
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing2.wav
> 
> At the moment I won't say which is which. The two files cancel out 100%. They are bounced to disk from 9 stereo stems, all at 0dB. The stems are: Omnisphere, VòÞ®   ØC«Þ®   ØC¬Þ®   ØC­Þ®   ØC®Þ®   ØC¯Þ®   ØC°Þ®   ØC±Þ®   ØC²Þ®   ØC³Þ®   ØC´Þ®   ØCµÞ®   ØC¶Þ®   ØC·Þ®   ØC¸Þ®   ØC¹Þ®   ØCºÞ®   ØC»Þ®   ØC¼Þ®   ØC½Þ®   ØC¾Þ®   ØC¿Þ®   ØCÀÞ®   ØCÁÞ®   ØCÂÞ®   ØCÃÞ®   ØCÄÞ®   ØCÅÞ®   ØCÆÞ®   ØCÇÞ®   ØCÈÞ®   ØCÉÞ®   ØCÊÞ®   ØCËÞ®   ØCÌÞ®   ØCÍÞ®   ØCÎÞ®   ØCÏÞ®   ØCÐÞ®   ØCÑÞ®   ØCÒÞ®   ØCÓÞ®   ØCÔÞ®   ØCÕÞ®   ØCÖÞ®   ØC×Þ®   ØCØÞ®   ØCÙÞ®   ØCÚÞ®   ØCÛÞ®   ØCÜÞ®   ØCÝÞ®   ØCÞÞ®   ØCßÞ®   ØCàÞ®   ØCáÞ®   ØCâÞ®   ØCãÞ®   ØCäÞ®   ØCåÞ®   ØCæÞ®   ØCçÞ®   ØCèÞ®   ØCéÞ®   ØCêÞ®   ØCëÞ®   ØCìÞ®   ØCíÞ®   ØCîÞ®   ØCïÞ®   ØCðÞ®   ØCñÞ®   ØCòÞ®   ØCóÞ¯   ØCôÞ¯   ØCõÞ¯   ØCöÞ¯   ØC÷Þ¯   ØCøÞ¯   ØCùÞ¯   ØCúÞ¯   ØCûÞ¯   ØCüÞ¯   ØCýÞ¯   ØCþÞ¯   ØCÿÞ¯   ØD Þ¯   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØD	Þ°   ØD
> Þ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØD Þ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØD              òÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØDÞ°   ØD Þ°   ØD!Þ°   ØD"Þ°


----------



## José Herring

Rousseau @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> I honestly prefer the sound of the first one. Sounds more open and less crowded somehow. If they do sum to zero then that's just weird and I'm scratching my head. :shock:
> 
> (this is monitoring in Nuendo 4 BTW)



I can hear it too. Both files sound different. File number 1 has more space and is more open and airy. File 2 is darker and has more depth but loses some of the pristine airyness and highend.


----------



## José Herring

Rousseau @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> I honestly prefer the sound of the first one. Sounds more open and less crowded somehow. If they do sum to zero then that's just weird and I'm scratching my head. :shock:
> 
> (this is monitoring in Nuendo 4 BTW)



I can hear it too. Both files sound different. File number 1 has more space and is more open and airy. File 2 is darker and has more depth but loses some of the pristine airyness and highend.


----------



## SvK

NO....

There is NO difference..

1) Bring BOTH files into Logic

2) Place them on adjacent tracks

3) Insert "Gain" plug-in (utilities/gain) on 2nd track

4) Open GAIN plugin and invert left AND right phase.

The sound disappears COMPLETELY....
That means there is NO difference..NONE, NADA, NICHTS

SvK


----------



## José Herring

Well I can hear a distinct difference. Damn the science of it.


----------



## Waywyn

Would be curious what you guys say about my three examples, anyone?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I haven't listened yet, but to do my best to answer Alex' questions:



> If a track sounds more deep, more convincing, alive, wide etc. ... shouldn't this also have info in the frequency meter?



Not necessarily if the differences are in the time domain. Also, the differences can be more subtle than a frequency meter is capable of identifying.




> Why does a track which is mixed/summed in PT exactly null out with a track from Cubase?



That's the question! If you look at it mathematically, as Riffwraith does, then you don't have to bother listening. 1 + -1 = 0 no matter where you are in the universe, so therefore your perception is wrong. If she floats she weighs the same as a duck, therefore she's made of wood, therefore she's a witch, so we burn her.

On the other hand, what if there's something in the way the files play back that the null test doesn't pick up? Maybe image smearing doesn't show up in a null test, for example.


----------



## SvK

Sprry about double posts..Weirdness going on. I am not doing it on purpose 

Jose...

We are sppeaking of the 2 files posted by Dom correct? They cancel out 100%

You do understand that if their where even the slightest sonic difference between them tthey would NOT cancel out right?

Sorry but it's in your head, accept it.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Again SvK, not necessarily.


----------



## midphase

Do they cancel out?


----------



## SvK

I know I sound arrogant here, but this is driving me crazy. 

TOO BE CLEAR:

When I say they cancel out. I'm talking ABSOLUTE silence.

Which means they are identical.

SvK


----------



## SvK

"Hey SvK, do you trust more your ears or more the mathematic?"

arrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhggggg

They CANCEL OUT COMPLETELY

 oh man

SvK


----------



## germancomponist

Maybe we can´t hear the warmth sole.  :mrgreen:


----------



## José Herring

I'll put my rep on the line and make a decision.

From what Eric was posting about PT. My guess is that File 2 is PT.

As far as the cancellation test. Meh, That's math not music.


----------



## Waywyn

germancomponist @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So to me, if a track totally cancels out when reverting the phase from the same track which was rendered inside another sequencer, .. and this all in all happens with three sequencers either way and - in my case - two soundcards were used - and it still nulls out - then I honestly don't believe that there is something which cannot be mathematically explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mathematic seems not to be the 100% way to explain audio results....?
Click to expand...


Gunther, it is not just about audio results. It is about digitally created 1s and 0 which simulate an audio signal.



germancomponist @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> But one question: In what daw/sequencer have you done the single audio-track recordings?



I composed the track (just an excerpt) in Cubase back then and printed out the stems as 24bit 44,1Khz. These stems are used now for my shootout.


----------



## Waywyn

josejherring @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> That's math not music.



Sorry, but let me correct this. You are listening to mathematically created music


----------



## SvK

You guys ever hear of the "Producer Knob" ?

Singer is doing a take in the booth. He says: "hey I need more reverb on my voice"...You do NOTHING, and over talk-back say "Hows that?" He says ..."Ah much better thank you!"

food for thought...

SvK


----------



## José Herring

Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's math not music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but let me correct this. You are listening to mathematically created music
Click to expand...


Argggg.... I just wish the guy would post the results and put this argument to rest. I don't know how they could be different. But they are.


----------



## drasticmeasures

Danny_Owen @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> Hi guys,
> Whilst a lot of composers write everything in Logic, I've seen countless web-articles where people say everything is always mixed down in Pro Tools, just wondering if anyone knows why?



Hi Danny,

All these other debates aside, the main reason "media" composers mix/deliver in Pro Tools is because it is the 'standard' in town, mainly because they were there first. All the post houses/studios/engineers switched from racks of DA-88s to Pro Tools universally around 1997-98ish when PT was the only way to go...so I believe it's basically a hold over.

As far as sonic difference, I haven't noticed it personally, though I haven't really A/B'd anything.


----------



## SvK

I can see Russia from my house...

SvK


----------



## germancomponist

I am sitting on the mixer now for more than 25 years, and I have always trusted my ears. 

Yeah, DOM, can you post the results?


----------



## Waywyn

Jose, how about a take on my three tracks?


----------



## Tod

Heh heh, I think this calls for the blind fold test. You've got to have an accomplise. If you think you can hear the difference then blind fold yourself and have your partner play things at random about 12 times. If you get it right 12 out of 12 then there probably is something different. If you miss it once then there could still be a difference but it becomes less of a factor. Twice, and the difference will be so small that it probably don't matter. Much more then that and it starts to show how easy it is to be fooled. :mrgreen:


----------



## José Herring

Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Jose, how about a take on my three tracks?



I did. I listen to 2 of them. Couldn't tell the difference. But in all honesty the audio quality wasn't that great. Very cloudy in the low mids. Need to scoop out some of the low mid frequencies on each of the very ambient patches as the build up actually clouds the music quite a bit.

So I stopped listening after two tracks because it was tough to tell the difference and my ear was drawn to the low mid region which needs a little work.

best,

Jose


----------



## germancomponist

Eric?


----------



## Waywyn

josejherring @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose, how about a take on my three tracks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I listen to 2 of them. Couldn't tell the difference. But in all honesty the audio quality wasn't that great. Very cloudy in the low mids. Need to scoop out some of the low mid frequencies on each of the very ambient patches as the build up actually clouds the music quite a bit.
> 
> So I stopped listening after two tracks because it was tough to tell the difference and my ear was drawn to the low mid region which needs a little work.
> 
> best,
> 
> Jose
Click to expand...


Thanks Jose,

you are right, this mix isn't the best, ... but please keep one thing in mind. These are the printed out stems to go into my mixing session ... so obviously most of the sound editing, notching, compressing, eq'ing would happen - well, after I uploaded them


----------



## germancomponist

...


----------



## Synesthesia

Guys,

There has been an interesting discussion on this raging on the womb forum, hope Frederick doesn't mind me mentioning, I'm sure its a place some of us visit but its primarily for mix engineers.

Some pretty eminent scientists and audio engs on there are adamant that a null test is only half the picture and they have been working on other ways to codify and therefore be able to test the things they know they can hear, 100% of the time, versus the fact that trad audio testing can't identify these differences.

Indeed, as Nick said, time domain for starters.

Personally I *wouldn't* necessarily accept that just because two files 'null' (as described) in a sequencer playback engine, it follow that the files are mathematically identical.

I would prefer to examine those files at a bit by bit level to see what the score is.

However I have neither the time nor the inclination to embark on something like that!

As an example though. Imagine taking an 'overview' of a complex picture made up of black and white dots. Lets say you are averaging the whole picture into a 2x2 square, so you are examining four 'pixels'. You can of course imagine all kinds of variation 'behind the four' that will still result in the same four pixel result.

What I'm trying to say is that you need to know at what level a null test as described here represents the bit level information. Bearing in mind what I know (admittedly not that much though) about error checking in digital audio I would suspect that you are not getting the whole picture.

Just my 2p!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## José Herring

Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> josejherring @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jose, how about a take on my three tracks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did. I listen to 2 of them. Couldn't tell the difference. But in all honesty the audio quality wasn't that great. Very cloudy in the low mids. Need to scoop out some of the low mid frequencies on each of the very ambient patches as the build up actually clouds the music quite a bit.
> 
> So I stopped listening after two tracks because it was tough to tell the difference and my ear was drawn to the low mid region which needs a little work.
> 
> best,
> 
> Jose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks Jose,
> 
> you are right, this mix isn't the best, ... but please keep one thing in mind. These are the printed out stems to go into my mixing session ... so obviously most of the sound editing, notching, compressing, eq'ing would happen - well, after I uploaded them
Click to expand...


Ah. Makes sense. 

Anytime Dom wants to chip and settle things I think now would be a good time.


----------



## Waywyn

Yes, Jose I know it sounds like a stupid excuse ...
I have of course a final mixed and externally mastered version of this track, but I thought since it is just about summing and finding differences, ... what the heck :o)

But usually (if possible) I tend to focus on composition first, the render out the tracks and take care about all the polishing, notching and usual blabla :D


----------



## Dietz

Synesthesia @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> [...] Indeed, as Nick said, time domain for starters. [...]


If two files are identical bit-wise (which is easy to check even without any nulling-tests or the like), running within the same audio-engine, synced to thy same clock, and you still hear a difference ---- then the audio-engine is flawed  ... there's no space for variance in the time domain (aka. jitter) in this scenario.

If they are _not_ identically bitwise, but still seem to cancel out, then it might be a wise idea to record the left-over "silence", normalize it, and listen what you've got. If it's pure noise, then it might be that you like the noise-pattern of one file more than the other. If the residuum is modulated (i.e. you hear _any_ remains of the original signal), then the files didn't pass the nulling test, and we can go on with the discussion what we like more (and why).


----------



## SvK

Dietz....

exactly

SvK


----------



## Severian

This is similar to the discussion pianists have had about vibrating your finger on the key after depressing it, some pianists claim they can change the tone and/or induce a subtle vibrato. Most scientifically minded/logical ones say that's impossible as the hammer rises back up and thus can no longer affect the string no matter how much you jiggle the actual key connected to the hammer, but many people claim no matter what the 'science' says, they can perceive a very subtle difference in tone and some even go so far as explaining that the top concert pianists achieve their unique tones in such miniscule techniques. 

Remember at the quantum level nothing is identical even if they have the same exact bits of data 0 1 01 01 etc, as someone else explained at a higher resolution level there is even a very minute difference in sound (that human ear will probably never detect, at least 99% of ears) in different colored CD discs because the laser reading the binary on those colors reads it slightly differently at the microscopic level thus passing along a slightly variated stream of information. 
Remember all math/science is relative. Yes even 1+1 is not really equal to 2 in practice because if you actually add two objects together the whole will never equal the theoretical sum of the parts because in combining together there are minute quantum reactions that will take place i.e. chipping away of tiny amount of material that instead of 2.0 will make it more like 1.9999999999999999 etc 

So when you're talking about a bit is a bit, well that's only at a certain level of resolution, at higher levels of resolution and relativity it's not the truth but the question is can the human ear discern such minutiae, well there lays the rub.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dietz, the question is whether two audio engines sound different. It may well be the noise pattern, or it could be something else.


----------



## SvK

Nick....the question is whether a bounce in PT yields a different sounding file than a bounce in say Logic......

that was the question and the answer is and will remain NO.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

At first listen I don't hear any difference with them side-by-side in Logic, but I also can't get them to null with the Gain plug-in. This is the kind of thing I always do in Pro Tools...


----------



## SvK

Just follow my instructions . They null .

Place file 1 on audio track 1
place. File 2 on audio track 2

insert plugin "gain" on audio track 2

open plugin gain

invert left and right phase....(remember to engage BOTH left and right phase buttons....that's probably what you got wrong)

Enjoy the silence 

svK


----------



## SvK

The "gain" plugin is located inside the "utilities" Plugin directory. Easy as pie.

SvK


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I know how to do that, SvK. Of course. But for some reason they're not nulling.

However, I also didn't poke around to figure out why not. It's probably something silly like PDC.


----------



## RiffWraith

So, uh, nobody wants to take me up on my offer?


----------



## José Herring

RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> So, uh, nobody wants to take me up on my offer?



What offer?


----------



## spectrum

Dietz @ Sun Jun 13 said:


> Hi Eric,
> 
> I have nothing than highest respect for your efforts and the (masterful!) results you and your team have achieved during all those years. Still I'm wondering why no mastering facility I know of uses Logic for their needs if the audio engine is really superior to the rest. Usually they would be the first to jump ship even for the slightest improvements in sound.
> 
> Kind regards,


I think you may be mistaken about something...we are actually in agreement and your statement backs up my argument. 

My comments here are examples of my findings over the years are that the audio engine in Logic is indeed NOT superior to Pro Tools and some other DAWs and audio applications. I haven't had any real issues with the engine in Pro Tools and have had pretty good results with it overall.

Hope that clarifies my comments.


----------



## spectrum

Dietz @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Thanks, Nick, for pointing out my misunderstanding, and SORRY ERIC! for the confusion. All is well


No worries.


----------



## spectrum

Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Could maybe someone enlight me?
> 
> To be serious, I am really curious about that issue:
> If a track sounds more deep, more convincing, alive, wide etc. ... shouldn't this also have info in the frequency meter? Why does a track which is mixed/summed in PT exactly null out with a track from Cubase?
> 
> Would that mean that Cubase 5 soundengine works exactly as perfect as the PT one?


That's exactly the problem.

You will find that pretty much all the DAWs null out "perfectly" with the current testing results, even though they all clearly sound different.

One of our software guys explained that one of the issue can be in how the software interfaces with the hardware, which could be part of the reason that the nulling test doesn't work to show the auditory differences.


----------



## spectrum

SvK @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> You guys ever hear of the "Producer Knob" ?
> 
> Singer is doing a take in the booth. He says: "hey I need more reverb on my voice"...You do NOTHING, and over talk-back say "Hows that?" He says ..."Ah much better thank you!"
> 
> food for thought...
> 
> SvK


Sure...but you don't have to be rude. 

There are a few of us here that have been doing digital audio since the earliest days of it, so simple explanations like yelling that "it's ABSOLUTELY SILENT" don't really help the discussion.

BTW...what tools are you measuring this perfect silence with?


----------



## SvK

My apologies,

just realized I've been angry all week. Sorry everyone. No more caps.

Best,

SvK


----------



## spectrum

Synesthesia @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Some pretty eminent scientists and audio engs on there are adamant that a null test is only half the picture and they have been working on other ways to codify and therefore be able to test the things they know they can hear, 100% of the time, versus the fact that trad audio testing can't identify these differences.


Thanks...that's exactly my point.

The argument that the null test is perfect because as far as we know it SHOULD be, puts an awful lot of faith in the perfection of the test itself.

I tend to trust my ears first and then test to see if what I'm hearing holds up over time or not. I'm very willing to adjust my point of view too, because I've certainly been wrong before. 

However, the Logic audio issues I've brought up are ones that I have never been able to solve without going to another application.


----------



## spectrum

SvK @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> My apologies,
> 
> just realized I've been angry all week. Sorry everyone. No more caps.
> 
> Best,
> 
> SvK


No worries! 

This is a controversial topic for sure.


----------



## spectrum

Severian @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Remember at the quantum level nothing is identical even if they have the same exact bits of data 0 1 01 01 etc, as someone else explained at a higher resolution level there is even a very minute difference in sound (that human ear will probably never detect, at least 99% of ears) in different colored CD discs because the laser reading the binary on those colors reads it slightly differently at the microscopic level thus passing along a slightly variated stream of information.


Just to be clear, the differences in using different colored CD-Rs for mastering/manufacturing did not produce subtle differences....these were dramatic differences that the majority of musicians would be able to easily hear.

If you've ever heard poor error correction or other digital anomalies on CDs, you'll agree that these are not so subtle.


----------



## spectrum

C M Dess @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Why is this silence so loud?
> http://www.cmdess.com/Null_Fail.aif
> 
> Warning harsh file turn down levels.


I couldn't hear any difference.


----------



## spectrum

Tod @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Heh heh, I think this calls for the blind fold test. You've got to have an accomplise. If you think you can hear the difference then blind fold yourself and have your partner play things at random about 12 times. If you get it right 12 out of 12 then there probably is something different. If you miss it once then there could still be a difference but it becomes less of a factor. Twice, and the difference will be so small that it probably don't matter. Much more then that and it starts to show how easy it is to be fooled. :mrgreen:


It is a valuable tool to show how you can be fooled (and that is indeed a factor)

Although scientists like to use the double-blind A/B test as the ultimate test, there are some important factors to consider about these types of listening tests:

When you are talking about subtle differences and doing clinical A/B audio listening tests, it's very difficult to achieve 100% repeatable results with any human being. Haven't met any perfect people yet, so it's highly likely that they can get confused at least some of the time.

In fact, it's much more difficult to identify two different sounding sources when they are perfectly level matched, than it is in regular use.

There are all sorts of psychological, physiological, stress and fatigue factors that go into A/B testing that people don't consider and factor into the most results....such as listening to a piece back to back vs A/B'ed throughout the piece, etc. or whether a person closes their eyes during a listening test.

That's one of the reasons why I don't rely on them as "the gospel truth" as much as checking the results a different playback levels on different days, etc. 

The double blind A/B test has it's place for sure and it's one of the best tests we have available....we do it all the time here....but it's not infallable either due to the Human Factor.


----------



## spectrum

RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> So, uh, nobody wants to take me up on my offer?


I'm happy to go on the record stating that in my mastering room environment, I cannot tell where you are switching between the two tracks....I don't hear any noticeable switching happening in this example. There's certainly not big differences here in this example, however it was created.

Note that this is not necessarily a great test of the mixbuss sonic issues though. Every DAW has different math used for the fader gain stages....and this math can sound quite different at different levels.


----------



## Synesthesia

C M Dess @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Science is just as dangerous a weapon in the hands of the certain. :twisted:
> (



Although I've been a professional muso for the last 17 years I remember my Aeronautical Engineering degree enough to know this is certainly true!!

:D


----------



## Waywyn

spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could maybe someone enlight me?
> 
> To be serious, I am really curious about that issue:
> If a track sounds more deep, more convincing, alive, wide etc. ... shouldn't this also have info in the frequency meter? Why does a track which is mixed/summed in PT exactly null out with a track from Cubase?
> 
> Would that mean that Cubase 5 soundengine works exactly as perfect as the PT one?
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly the problem.
> 
> You will find that pretty much all the DAWs null out "perfectly" with the current testing results, even though they all clearly sound different.
> 
> One of our software guys explained that one of the issue can be in how the software interfaces with the hardware, which could be part of the reason that the nulling test doesn't work to show the auditory differences.
Click to expand...


Thanks Eric for clarifying, ... but I just ask myself if a track sounds sonically different there HAS to be something going on in the file which should be measurable. All what's happening is that 0s and 1s are changing, varying and are placed in different orders. So if something triggers and causes this boost in quality, there definitely has to be an evidence.

I mean it's not a spiritual discussion or something which has to do with feelings which can't be analyzed anyway. We are just talking a binary based audio file on a digital medium.


----------



## germancomponist

Maybe someone has got the time to test the audio files with tools like this one: http://www.ymec.com/products/dssf3e/index.htm o/~


----------



## P.T.

Some things are actually unknowable.

Science isn't always right and corrects from time to time. Anything they are saying right now could be wrong waiting to be corrected.

I have also learned to mistrust my perceptions.


----------



## Synesthesia

Alex,

I'm not stating definitively that you are wrong, as I have too much early science training mojo still running through my veins to be able to state that without being able to run a series of experiments, which would still only let me conclude that 'It appears that....' ..!

However - you are (I think - correct me if I am wrong) - assuming that because you don't 'see' any signal in your null test, that this means that the files must be identical at a bit level.

Without some kind of bit by bit comparison software, that is a dangerous assumption, no?

Again, I am speaking purely hypothetically, as I have not tested these files myself in a scientific manner, and all respect intended.

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Synesthesia

Anyone interested maybe this software could compare the files?

http://kdiff3.sourceforge.net/

I would love to play around with it but I'm on a deadline and I can't do anything this week..!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Waywyn

Paul, thanks for your reply. Just to set this right. I am definitely not up to say that this null test proves everything - I am just trying to understand without trying to doubt peoples opinions but question things in general.

I know some things cannot be measured, proved and there might be never evidence for something, but as long as it is all taking place inside a computer there has to be something showing evidence of what's happening.

Thanks for the tools also, but is there something similar on MAC?


----------



## Dom

I'll identify the two files (each sums 9 stereo stems at 0dB) I posted yesterday morning. 

http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing1.wav Logic 9.1.1 summing
http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing2.wav Pro Tools HD 8.01cs summing

They null, and to me they sound identical. It's good to be ruthlessly scientific when auditioning the files, switching back and forth a lot without knowing which is which. It's interesting that some of you perceived a difference though. As pointed out, this test may not be universally useful (for example as all faders are at 0dB), but it was a practical test for my own benefit. I actually mix often with all faders set at 0dB, at least for virtual instruments, as the volume is controlled via midi on slaves. 

I use both Logic and PT HD and will continue doing so, but I more recently shifted all my mixing from PT HD onto Logic, as I am sequencing in Logic anyway. If using a lot of virtual instruments, then for me, the sonic benefits of mixing in Logic are (coming back to the original question):

1. I can easily change some notes or velocities, articulations on midi, rather than having to resort to compression, editing, fader movements.

2. Rather than using eq I can change expression on virtual instruments, or change filters on synths.

3. I can add another element easily, similar to Nick B adding a last minute triangle loop to liven up the high end.

4. Digidesign 192s have a fan that raises the ambient noise in the control room

5. Not much going back and forth between PT and Logic, bouncing tracks etc. Time saved to improve writing and orchestration.

Non-sonic benefits are: Far lower power consumption without a whole PT rig running. Less heat, less air-con needed, less power for air con, a slightly less unhappy planet. 

I still do all the tracking for orchestral sessions in Pro Tools, and i can't see a way around it.


----------



## RiffWraith

josejherring @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, uh, nobody wants to take me up on my offer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What offer?
Click to expand...


This one:



RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> germancomponist @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have just imported them into Cubase 5 and compared them there with only my ears. The amp I use with the Yamahas is an old AIWA Hifi Amp. (always for comparing here in my studio)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Err, I think your ears are fooling you. There is no difference.
> 
> Here:
> 
> http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/sumtest.wav
> 
> Little test I did. Loaded files into Cubase, did not set the phase rev on either fader, solo-d the first track, and while the transport was playing, arowed up and down here and there from one track to the other, thereby playing one track out the op bus, then the next, then the first, etc. Using the arrow kc ensured tha transition from track to track would be seamless. Above is the result of this. If you can hear a difference, tell me which file is which and at what point I made the switches.
> 
> In fact - I challenge _anyone_ to tell me which file is which and at what point I made the switches.
> 
> And I have video of me doing this, btw.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dom

Synesthesia @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Anyone interested maybe this software could compare the files?
> 
> http://kdiff3.sourceforge.net/
> 
> I would love to play around with it but I'm on a deadline and I can't do anything this week..!


Although they are the same length, the two files differ in file size slightly, probably due to different header information. I do remember however, reading in an article somewhere that there is a Windows based audio file comparison utility, that analyses all the actual audio bits, but I simply can't find it on the net. It would be interesting to see if there really is a difference in the actual audio information.


----------



## Dom

spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> One of our software guys explained that one of the issue can be in how the software interfaces with the hardware, which could be part of the reason that the nulling test doesn't work to show the auditory differences.


If that's the case it will only affect monitoring (which is important too of course), but the files we'd typically deliver would get bounced to disk before the audio reaches the interface.


----------



## RiffWraith

spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, uh, nobody wants to take me up on my offer?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to go on the record stating that in my mastering room environment, I cannot tell where you are switching between the two tracks....
Click to expand...


Well, then, there ya go!  



spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Note that this is not necessarily a great test of the mixbuss sonic issues though.



Well, if the files null, there are no sonic issues. As for "math can sound quite different at different levels" - I am open to the possibility that two files that null @ 0 may not null at +3.6, or - 26.9, or whatever. I find that highly unlikely, but am open to that possibility.

Anyone want to do another little test?

Cheers.


----------



## Dom

RiffWraith @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Anyone want to do another little test?
> 
> Cheers.



If anyone wants to continue testing with the same 9 stereo stems I used for the first test they're welcome to download them. The zip is only 36MB:

http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/


----------



## Dom

Dietz @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> If they are _not_ identically bitwise, but still seem to cancel out, then it might be a wise idea to record the left-over "silence", normalize it, and listen what you've got. If it's pure noise, then it might be that you like the noise-pattern of one file more than the other. If the residuum is modulated (i.e. you hear _any_ remains of the original signal), then the files didn't pass the nulling test, and we can go on with the discussion what we like more (and why).



Good suggestion. I just tried this. Dither turned off obviously. The result is full scale digital noise, no residue of the of the original signal (but possibly an improvement on my original cue). 

You can hear it here, but *turn down your monitors*:

http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_null.wav


----------



## germancomponist

Dom @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> I'll identify the two files (each sums 9 stereo stems at 0dB) I posted yesterday morning.
> 
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing1.wav Logic 9.1.1 summing
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing2.wav Pro Tools HD 8.01cs summing
> 
> They null, and to me they sound identical.....



Opssss, so my ears were right. 

Mathematic is a good thing, for sure, but I always trust first my ears... . o-[][]-o


----------



## Dom

germancomponist @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Opssss, so my ears were right.


Sure, but you must admit you had a 50% chance. :wink: 
If you do a double blind test 12 times, would you still pick it out each time? Have you tried RiffWraith's test?


----------



## germancomponist

Sure, I had this 50% chance, but this is exactly this different I have heared so often.

I am on the way now to leave Germany for some days, but maybe next week I will try RiffWraith's test, but I think it would be also cool if someone else would do this?


----------



## José Herring

Dom @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> germancomponist @ Tue Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opssss, so my ears were right.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but you must admit you had a 50% chance. :wink:
> If you do a double blind test 12 times, would you still pick it out each time? Have you tried RiffWraith's test?
Click to expand...


Yes but I heard the same thing.

@ Riffraith,

I'll try your test today, but it seems to me that you need two audio files of the same exact material to compare side by side. I think it would be impossible to tell where you switched as the difference could be attributed to so many things.

But side by side it was pretty easy for me to tell in Dom's example that the two files sounded slightly different because it was the same exact material.


----------



## Synesthesia

The problem is that you are relying on the resolution of the playback device to determine if the files are the same.

This is NOT the way to do it. You have to mathematically compare both files bit by bit if you want to demonstrate that they are the same - bit for bit.

A null test won't cut it.

Cheers,

Paul

fwiw, although I didn't post up, mainly because I was working on headphones, I also believed I could hear a difference in the bass end.

Of course I couldn't judge any spacial character difference on cans..


----------



## Dom

RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Here:
> 
> http://www.jeffreyhayat.com/sumtest.wav
> 
> Little test I did. Loaded files into Cubase, did not set the phase rev on either fader, solo-d the first track, and while the transport was playing, arowed up and down here and there from one track to the other, thereby playing one track out the op bus, then the next, then the first, etc. Using the arrow kc ensured tha transition from track to track would be seamless. Above is the result of this. If you can hear a difference, tell me which file is which and at what point I made the switches.
> 
> In fact - I challenge _anyone_ to tell me which file is which and at what point I made the switches.
> 
> And I have video of me doing this, btw.
> 
> Cheers.



Sorry Josej, it was this test I was referring to. But I don't know where he switches...


----------



## José Herring

I can hardly tell. I don't think it's a fair test though because you ran it through Cubase thus involving Cubase summing and so it's not strictly a PT vs. Logic summing. But if I had to guess I would say this:

:00 Logic
:08 PT
After this I don't know
:21 PT

I was timing off of Quicktime so in case our timing info is different I'll give a verbal description:

Sounds like you start with Logic, then when the violins double the flute melody it sounds like PT. After that I can't tell. Then the bass drum hit it sounds like PT to me. And possibly the cellos leading up to the bass drum hit is PT.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The other thing about double-blind tests is that it's much harder to tell subtle differences than if you're in control. You can focus on certain things when you know exactly when the changeover is coming, you can loop over areas, etc.

Double-blind tests certainly are important, but as I've posted before, I don't agree with people who say you haven't heard something until it's been confirmed by one of these tests.


----------



## Ashermusic

There are three kinds of people:

1. Those who disbelieve things until they are proven.
2. Those who believe things until they are disproven.
3. Those who reserve judgement until things are either proven or disproven.

I respectfully submit that #3 is the wisest path.


----------



## Dom

There is a free ABX utility for for Mac (Leopard onwards) for double-blind testing of audio files. It's fun to play with when you load both files.

http://emptymusic.com/software/ABXer.html


----------



## drasticmeasures

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> The other thing about double-blind tests is that it's much harder to tell subtle differences than if you're in control. You can focus on certain things when you know exactly when the changeover is coming, you can loop over areas, etc.
> 
> Double-blind tests certainly are important, but as I've posted before, I don't agree with people who say you haven't heard something until it's been confirmed by one of these tests.



Isn't that the point though? If you know when the change is coming, you're going to hear whatever you want to hear. If you don't know, that means you have no exceptions, which translates into genuine observation. no?


----------



## Severian

In the end this thread proves only one thing:

that even when most of the top composers of the world can't agree, and when 90% of them can't hear a difference, that sort of proves that for the vast majority of people, Pro Tools is a pointless "tool" to get, and 99.999% of humanity will never hear the difference in a rendered file between Daw X and Protools, and certainly not when the file is later on mixed into a busy mix with dialogue, sound effects, etc, etc...


----------



## SvK

Nick, Jose....

My tone in those replies yesterday was angry and shrill...I wanted to apologize to both of you.


best,

SvK


----------



## ozmorphasis

Nathan Furst @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing about double-blind tests is that it's much harder to tell subtle differences than if you're in control. You can focus on certain things when you know exactly when the changeover is coming, you can loop over areas, etc.
> 
> Double-blind tests certainly are important, but as I've posted before, I don't agree with people who say you haven't heard something until it's been confirmed by one of these tests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the point though? If you know when the change is coming, you're going to hear whatever you want to hear. If you don't know, that means you have no exceptions, which translates into genuine observation. no?
Click to expand...


Only partially true. It is just as true that human perception is only capable of consciously noticing details along a limited number of simultaneous paths. In other words, if you happen to be focusing on intonation, timbre, whatever, while a subtle change occurs in some area that is nowhere near what you are focused on, it is entirely possible that you would miss this detail only because of the state of your focus.

This doesn't negate your point, but rather just points out that it is not that black and white.


----------



## Narval

Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> There are three kinds of people:
> 
> 1. Those who disbelieve things until they are proven.
> 2. Those who believe things until they are disproven.
> 3. Those who reserve judgement until things are either proven or disproven.
> 
> I respectfully submit that #3 is the wisest path.


#3 seems the least wise to me. I'd take both #1 and #2 over it at any time:
I don't believe things are impossible until they are proven so. 
I do believe everything is possible until their possibility is disproved.

Besides, the reserved judgment is completely unproductive. It is not the reservation of the nonjudgmental but the courage of the imaginative believer that expands our world, like Columbus, and creates marvels like Bach's Cantatas.

edit
And, yes, like Spectrasonics' Omnisphere. 8)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

SvK, absolutely no apology needed.

Nathan wrote:



> Isn't that the point though? If you know when the change is coming, you're going to hear whatever you want to hear.



I'd say you *can* hear whatever you want to hear, not that you're definitely going to. But sure that's the point of the tests, which is why they're very useful.

It's the next step to "you didn't hear it unless you can prove it with a double-blind test" - i.e. you're full of emu poo - that I have a big problem with. Because the other side to double-blind tests is that often they only prove that something is very difficult to hear.

Plus what ozmorphasis says...in fact I'd go farther and point out that there's often a pretty short time during which you can hear very subtle details before your brain tells you they don't exist. And it can also take a while for your ears to home in on those details too; I've had the experience of listening in the morning and not hearing what I heard very clearly the night before - and v.v.

Then there's our memory. Remembering what you heard long enough to swap cables isn't easy. And a few years ago I did a round-up of several audio interfaces, and it took me a while to be able to hear the differences every time - for that listening session; I'm sure I'd have to teach myself the differences if I repeated the tests again. (I toggled the solo button on and off without watching, so this was half single double blind.)


----------



## spectrum

Severian @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> In the end this thread proves only one thing:
> 
> that even when most of the top composers of the world can't agree, and when 90% of them can't hear a difference, that sort of proves that for the vast majority of people, Pro Tools is a pointless "tool" to get, and 99.999% of humanity will never hear the difference in a rendered file between Daw X and Protools, and certainly not when the file is later on mixed into a busy mix with dialogue, sound effects, etc, etc...


Oh no....the stuff represented in this thread hardly proves that at all. You are making some huge leaps and assumptions there.


----------



## spectrum

ozmorphasis @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Nathan Furst @ Tue Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing about double-blind tests is that it's much harder to tell subtle differences than if you're in control. You can focus on certain things when you know exactly when the changeover is coming, you can loop over areas, etc.
> 
> Double-blind tests certainly are important, but as I've posted before, I don't agree with people who say you haven't heard something until it's been confirmed by one of these tests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the point though? If you know when the change is coming, you're going to hear whatever you want to hear. If you don't know, that means you have no exceptions, which translates into genuine observation. no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only partially true. It is just as true that human perception is only capable of consciously noticing details along a limited number of simultaneous paths. In other words, if you happen to be focusing on intonation, timbre, whatever, while a subtle change occurs in some area that is nowhere near what you are focused on, it is entirely possible that you would miss this detail only because of the state of your focus.
Click to expand...

Excellent point and why it's a complex topic.


----------



## spectrum

RiffWraith @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RiffWraith @ Mon Jun 14 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, uh, nobody wants to take me up on my offer?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to go on the record stating that in my mastering room environment, I cannot tell where you are switching between the two tracks....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, then, there ya go!
Click to expand...

Sure....but it's not disproving anything necessarily.



spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Well, if the files null, there are no sonic issues.


You sound exactly like my High School teacher with the oscilloscope test. 



> As for "math can sound quite different at different levels" - I am open to the possibility that two files that null @ 0 may not null at +3.6, or - 26.9, or whatever. I find that highly unlikely, but am open to that possibility.


I'm surprised that you find that highly unlikely. This is not a controversial point at all.

Gain structure coding in the mixer software of every host varies a great deal. There are many different ways to achieve gain in the code mathematically and it's widely known that they all sound different. Any audio software engineer worth his or her salt will tell you this.

You are basically stating that there is no sonic difference in the digital domain regardless of level settings between any of the DAWS.

That's most definitely not the case.


----------



## chimuelo

Could it be that DSP based DAW's like Merging Technologies Pyramix, Scope, Duende, UAD, PoCo and ProTools are better coded...?
I believe all of them to sound sonically better, but they are more expenisve.
I settled for the XITE-1 as it is referred to as the Poor Mans ProTools.........  
Actually its the most powerful realtime DSP Modular Synth available, I just got lucky that its plugs sound good. 
I spend my cash on live rigs mostly, all of my freind have Pyramix and ProTools anyways. I have watched one rig born in '93 grow into the huge racked system it is today. Back then our HDD's were 1GB and the size of a shoebox.........

Oh, he also uses Logic as a host on a MacPro 2.93. 
I will tell him next weekend that math and Logic have replaced his 45,000 USD rig.

That'll go over like a Reggea band at a Klan Rally... >8o


----------



## spectrum

Ashermusic @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> There are three kinds of people:
> 
> 1. Those who disbelieve things until they are proven.
> 2. Those who believe things until they are disproven.
> 3. Those who reserve judgement until things are either proven or disproven.
> 
> I respectfully submit that #3 is the wisest path.


Sure, but that removes experience from the equation.

So I would add this one:

4. Those who believe their ears first, and then balance that against the known audio science.

That's where I land.

Here's why:

I've had people tell me that "There is no possible way there could be a difference between this digital xxx and this digital xxx because it's all 1s and 0s and so you are just fooling yourself" for decades now.

In each case where I heard something odd that I didn't like and I could hear a difference, I started trusting my ears first instead of the people swearing there could not possibly be a difference because "it's all digital...you are nuts!"

In every case where I get repeatable results over a long period of time, eventually the heavy technical minds figure out what is going on and why these results are happening and can show it in a way that is measurable. This has happened over and over for me, including all of the following topics that are now widely known:

Error correction
Jitter
Clock smearing
Interpolation issues
16 bit vs 24 bit
Sample rate conversion
Word clock
Dither
Recording differences from one digital recorder to another
etc
etc
etc

Before each of these and dozens of other issues regarding digital audio were figured out technically, audio engineers heard issues and complained that they weren't getting the results they needed. These complaints from respected ears like Bernie Grundman prompted the smart tech minds to figure out why certain things seemed to be happening. 

So my point is that even in the digital audio world. the "ears" have always driven the pursuit of superior audio, so let's not be so quick to dismiss claims and issues that are raised when they are a result of a long time of listening.

I've discovered dozens of tricks and weirdnesses within the digital audio realm that sometimes defy explanation. Eventually there is an explanation for why something happened or why the results were different than expected, it's interesting and helpful to learn why, but ultimately all I care about is that it sounds right.

Here's another example from my experience and why it's not a result of "hearing what I want to hear"....often the consequences of the results are quite devastating and the worst news I could possibly get:

Anyone that's been around a while will know that the most popular and sophisticated looping application for sample developers for a long, long time was the program developed by Antares called "Infinity". Hundreds of sample libraries and thousands of samples were developed using it. A widely respected industry standard.

So when we were making Atmosphere and Trilogy, I was using Infinity to do the looping of course. I was very familiar with how Atmosphere and Trilogy sounded unlooped in the UVI engine because we did all the mapping work first and then the looping was the last stage in that project. After about six months of work looping I started to notice that I was not digging how the instruments were sounding nearly as much as I had been before. I figured it was probably just burn out and ear fatigue, etc....pretty common when you have been working on the same thing too long.

Then one day I tried listening to the unlooped version again for some reason and suddenly there was all the beauty and fullness that had gone away! I was like...HUH? The only difference with the files was that they had been looped in Infinity or not. Everything that had passed through Infinity sounded worse than the originals. It didn't make any sense....even the attacks and non-looped sections sounded noticeably different. Totally weird, but it was a big problem.

After confirming the results with several other people and them hearing this same really big difference in clarity/imaging, I got really bummed out. Atmosphere and Trilogy were almost finished and we were under huge pressure to release them ASAP. If I released them as they were, no one would know the difference because end users never heard the original unlooped versions....however, we would know the difference and that was not something we could really live with.

So we decided to delay the releases another 6 months and redo all the looping in far less powerful programs....and in many cases, we had to manually splice the attacks of the unlooped samples on the the looped sustains by hand, one by one for thousands of samples! Pure torture!

But there was no doubt that the result was way better sounding and it was worth it.

Do I know why Infinity has this problem? No and I don't really care what the reason is. I just knew that we had to never use it again and that I should never ever, ever, ever just trust that anything going on in the digital domain just "works because it's just files and ones and zeros". I've found out the hard way way too many times that to achieve the best results in digital audio, you can never stop listening and checking to see if everything is cool.

Which is not a bad thing to have to do in the audio world after all.


----------



## synthetic

I'm still maintaining that analog summing is where it's at, at least in 2010. All of my favorite scores and albums were mixed analog, and most continue to be. Perhaps there's more math than we thought going on, or the resolution isn't high enough or who knows. 

That said there is certainly a difference between digital systems. Especially digital consoles like Euphonix, SSL and Harrison.


----------



## spectrum

synthetic @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> I'm still maintaining that analog summing is where it's at, at least in 2010. All of my favorite scores and albums were mixed analog, and most continue to be. Perhaps there's more math than we thought going on, or the resolution isn't high enough or who knows.


That's much easier to explain. At that point it's really about preferring the coloration of what analog brings to the party. This is how most of us have experienced recorded music and good analog is indeed very tough to beat or achieve in the digital domain. 

Transformers, op amps, discreet summing amps....all that stuff has a huge impact on the sound.

Of course when you you go "out of the box" you really have to factor in the sound of the D/A and A/D hardware especially....there are massive difference in sound here from system to system, so just going "analog" is not necessarily going to be automatically better. In fact, if you don't have great sounding hardware, don't bother. The sound of the convertors and the analog circuitry is super important to get the kinds of great results that you hear on classic recordings.


----------



## synthetic

spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Sure, but that removes experience from the equation.
> 
> So I would add this one:
> 
> 4. Those who believe their ears first, and then balance that against the known audio science.
> 
> ...



Yeah man. Preach it brother. Exactly my attitude as well. 



> Of course when you you go "out of the box" you really have to factor in the sound of the D/A and A/D hardware especially....there are massive difference in sound here from system to system, so just going "analog" is not necessarily going to be automatically better.



Right. This is why I haven't attempted analog summing in my own studio until I have the converters to make it worthwhile. 

I wish analog summing didn't sound better (to me), it's very expensive and inconvenient! Much easier/faster to "Bounce to disk." But look at most of the top mixers in the world, still using big ol analog consoles. Often at their own expense.


----------



## chimuelo

Brotha' Man Spectrum.
I truly enjoy reading all of your posts as I learn from each one.
The Infinity example just saved me form wasting my time as I am sure I would have noticed the difference too.
I haven't sampled for 15 years and recently found out that I needed to do my own samples for the hardware Solaris synths Sample Oscillator.
I already have some Kyma waveforms but will be adding my own ideas.
Instead of leaving them unlooped I shall just finish them in the STS Sampler as I do them.
Thanks Again,

And by all means please continue, you are on a roll, and I am a meger Sponge amongst Starfish................


----------



## spectrum

Dom @ Mon Jun 14 said:


> Interesting topic. I have just done a summing comparison between Pro Tools HD and Logic.
> 
> Here are the two files (44.1 kHz, 24 bit Wav):
> 
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing1.wav
> http://www.dominikscherrer.com/audio/3M6_summing2.wav
> 
> At the moment I won't say which is which. The two files cancel out 100%. They are bounced to disk from 9 stereo stems, all at 0dB. The stems are: Omnisphere, VSL basses, sampled piano, live flute and oboe (recorded in Pro Tools HD, Great River ME1-NV preamp), small live string section (recorded in Pro Tools HD via Neve 88R). I have also done a test with all stems left dry (no reverb). The bounced mixes cancel out too.
> 
> Versions used:
> Pro Tools HD Accel (192 interface) 8.01cs1 on mac OS 10.5.8
> Logic 9.1.1 on mac OS 10.5.8
> 
> You are welcome to download the files and play them back in a player of your choice. The style of music is relevant to what I am doing now, but may not be for you.


One question on this test:

How were the 9 stems originally created? Which host did the original mixes for the stems?

(nice piece BTW)


----------



## cc64

Hi all,

i've been following this thread from afar as i'm not into tech as much as i should i guess...a bit lazy :oops: 

Having read Eric's few last post i got to the last one where he quoted Dom. I was curious and downloaded the 2 tracks and i tried to decide wich one, if any, sounded better to me.

I chose the 2nd one. I tought it sounded creamier...that's the word that came to mind.

I noticed that Dom's post was relatively old and that he reveals in a later post that no2 was done in ProTools.

Would be cool if Dom or someone else could post 10 more A/Bs and i, or someone else for that matter, could be sort of a test subject. It would be interesting to see how i would score. 

We would see if my finding no2 was a fluke or if i could spot PT 80 to 100% of the time. Since i am really not into sound engineering and not very tech oriented and i don't own Logic nor PT, i'm on DP, plus i've got nothing to lose, if i get like 0% i won't òß»   Ø‡ß»   Ø‡ß»   Ø‡ß»   Ø‡²ß»   Ø‡³ß»   Ø‡´ß»   Ø‡µß»   Ø‡¶ß»   Ø‡·ß»   Ø‡¸ß»   Ø‡¹ß»   Ø‡ºß»   Ø‡»ß»   Ø‡¼ß»   Ø‡½ß»   Ø‡¾ß»   Ø‡¿ß»   Ø‡Àß»   Ø‡Áß»   Ø‡Âß»   Ø‡Ãß»   Ø‡Äß»


----------



## Waywyn

RiffWraith @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Anyone want to do another little test?
> 
> Cheers.



I kinda ask myself if the links I posted are completely invisible?!


----------



## gsilbers

A little off topic but in the same realm


Eric, (or anyone) have u heard a difference between EW play and kontakt? 

I have a friend that swears that kontakt doesn't soun as good as play and it makes everything soundS smaller. 

And it's very or more noticeable with the orchestral lobs which are on both platforms.

Have run intothis in your tests ?

(The only play lib I have is sd2)


----------



## midphase

I think QLSO sounds better in Play than in Kontakt....however that doesn't necessarily mean that Kontakt's playback engine isn't as good, but it could mean that certain adjustments have been made in the Play version of the library by East West to improve the overall sound.


----------



## rgames

spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Error correction
> Jitter
> Clock smearing
> Interpolation issues
> 16 bit vs 24 bit
> Sample rate conversion
> Word clock
> Dither
> Recording differences from one digital recorder to another
> etc
> etc
> etc
> 
> Before each of these and dozens of other issues regarding digital audio were figured out technically, audio engineers heard issues and complained that they weren't getting the results they needed.



I'm not sure I follow - of course these effects can change the sound. The theoretical bases for those differences have been known since the very dawn of digital signal processing. What is arguable is whether or not it's enough to actually be recognized. In many cases it is.

There are a number of claimed differences that have no theoretical basis, though. For example: claims that different digital cables make a difference. That one I'm almost ready to put on the bulls%$t list. As long as the signal is locked, I can't dream up an explanation of how that could be.

Think of it this way: you hear people talk about swapping one digital cable for another and hearing a difference in the audio. Well, what about the hard drive cable? The digital audio passes through that. Can those people hear a difference when they swap the hard drive cable? And what about all the other data passing through that crap cable? Your spreadsheets and e-mail come up just fine. Why is all that digital information transferred without a problem?

How about the motherboard? The traces between the PCI bus and the processor carry the digital data, as well. And how about the frontside bus? The data also move from RAM to the processor. Are there audio-specific motherboards optimized for digital audio quality? If we all solder new traces onto our motherboards will we suddenly hear a difference in audio quality? Methinks not.

We all pass huge amounts of digital data through our computers using crap cables and crap traces and crap timing circuits without ever running into data integrity issues. It's digital! That's the great thing about it! And yet folks go out and spend $200 for a digital audio cable.

rgames


----------



## synthetic

gsilbers @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> Eric, (or anyone) have u heard a difference between EW play and kontakt?



YES samplers sound different. I've tried the same library in GigaStudio versus GVI versus Kontakt versus EXS and the difference was surprising. (I liked them in that order.) I'm sure Eric has even more experience with this. The Roland S-760 sounded so much better than the other samplers, even better than Giga for some things.


----------



## Ashermusic

synthetic @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> gsilbers @ Wed Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eric, (or anyone) have u heard a difference between EW play and kontakt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES samplers sound different. I've tried the same library in GigaStudio versus GVI versus Kontakt versus EXS and the difference was surprising. (I liked them in that order.) I'm sure Eric has even more experience with this. The Roland S-760 sounded so much better than the other samplers, even better than Giga for some things.
Click to expand...


Could not disagree more. The E III always sounded better to me than the Roland S-760 because the filters were much nicer. And Gigastudio always sounded worse to me than the EXS24.


----------



## Dom

spectrum @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> Cool app...thanks!
> 
> Too bad it always starts from the top. An ideal A/B tool would allow you to switch while it's playing.



You can move the playhead so it starts in the middle as well, but yes, you can't A/B while it's playing. 



spectrum said:


> One question on this test:
> 
> How were the 9 stems originally created? Which host did the original mixes for the stems?



They are bounced out from Logic, as the VIs (Omnisphere, Sam Percussion on EXS24) and VSL (Basses) comes into Logic via VE Pro. The reverb (Lexicon PCM Native) is added via aux. I had to include the reverb with the stems, rather than during the summing, as the Lexicon's modulation would probably have prevented the files from nulling. I also did a version of this test without reverb, which I could post.




spectrum said:


> (nice piece BTW)



It's the last note that makes all the difference... :wink:


----------



## Dom

Ashermusic @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> And Gigastudio always sounded worse to me than the EXS24.


Most definitely! Particularly if Gigastudio had to do some SRC, for example using 44k samples in a 48k session it sounded awful.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Did you run a double-blind test to prove that?

If not you're totally deluded and didn't hear it because they phase-cancel.


----------



## Dom

No need for sarcasm. I did my PT vs Logic test because I am using both and I'm interested if I can hear a difference in their summing. I couldn't hear a difference (but apparently others can), so I did a null test, and posted the results on this board. That's all! :wink:


----------



## synthetic

Ashermusic @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> synthetic @ Wed Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gsilbers @ Wed Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eric, (or anyone) have u heard a difference between EW play and kontakt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES samplers sound different. I've tried the same library in GigaStudio versus GVI versus Kontakt versus EXS and the difference was surprising. (I liked them in that order.) I'm sure Eric has even more experience with this. The Roland S-760 sounded so much better than the other samplers, even better than Giga for some things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could not disagree more. The E III always sounded better to me than the Roland S-760 because the filters were much nicer. And Gigastudio always sounded worse to me than the EXS24.
Click to expand...


Well, "sounds better" is a personal choice. Like looks or tastes better.


----------



## Dietz

rgames @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> [...] Well, what about the hard drive cable? The digital audio passes through that. Can those people hear a difference when they swap the hard drive cable? And what about all the other data passing through that crap cable? Your spreadsheets and e-mail come up just fine. Why is all that digital information transferred without a problem?
> 
> How about the motherboard? The traces between the PCI bus and the processor carry the digital data, as well. And how about the frontside bus? The data also move from RAM to the processor. Are there audio-specific motherboards optimized for digital audio quality? If we all solder new traces onto our motherboards will we suddenly hear a difference in audio quality? Methinks not. [...]
> 
> rgames


You will laugh - but I know a _brilliant_mastering engineer who would swear to high heaven that he hears the difference whether an audio file streams from disk A or from disk B (which is at least _somewhat_ comprehensible if one takes into account that there _might_ be influences from electric currents powering the disk drives to the word clock), and he also claims to hear whether an audio file was delivered by FTP, or on behalf of data CD or DVD (... he prefers the latter; FTP makes the sound mushy and damages the stereo imaging ~o) ).

Go figure.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

"No need for sarcasm"

I was actually tweaking Mr. Asher about the EXS sounding better than Giga. Sorry, I wasn't clear. 

Dietz, mastering engineers are a distinct species. Of course they hear a difference!


----------



## Narval

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> mastering engineers are a distinct species. Of course they hear a difference!


Laugh all you want, but that's the basis of why they are expensive: they hear nuances unavailable to the rest of us.

A distinct species for sure.


----------



## synthetic

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> "No need for sarcasm"
> 
> I was actually tweaking Mr. Asher about the EXS sounding better than Giga. Sorry, I wasn't clear.



I thought my answer was more diplomatic.  But that's the first time I've heard someone say they thought EXS was a better sounding sampler. But some people liked the real clear Kurzweil K2000/Akai sound and others liked the lusher(?) sound from Rolands. The Akai was more flat, the Roland more musical to me. 



> Dietz, mastering engineers are a distinct species. Of course they hear a difference!



Eric Johnson preferring the sound of alkaline batteries in his stomp boxes or whatever. The new Premier Guitar shows that he likes the sound of a certain _screw_ in the back of his cabinet, with the amp placed 90 degrees from the cabinet on a special wooden chair. Hey, whatever makes you happy man. ~o) 

But like Eric P I do believe that you might hear a difference with crazy stuff like that. Everyone will say you're crazy, then 5 years later they'll figure out what you were hearing. Allen Sides says he can hear the difference in a copy of a CD. He can pick it out in an a/b test. 

The important thing is to LISTEN to these things first, THEN dismiss them. "Oh hey, I can hear the difference... well that's going to cost me, dammit."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Why does my sense of humor not translate into posts?


----------



## synthetic

Maybe writing classes would help?


----------



## synthetic

spectrum @ Wed Jun 09 said:


> But try A/B'ing a great quality mix audio file in Quicktime and iTunes and you'll hear a massive difference with playing back the identical audio file!



Damn! Just did this. Crap. Gonna be very inconvenient to listen to music now.


----------



## P.T.

"Eric Johnson preferring the sound of alkaline batteries in his stomp boxes or whatever."

I have never compared sound, but alkaline batteries put out a different voltage than other types and that may affect the sound because the circuit is being fed a different voltage.

Alkaline batteries also have a more stable voltage across their lives whereas other batteries tend to drop in voltage steadily as they age.

These things aren't always BS and scientifically groundless.


----------



## Narval

synthetic @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> he likes the sound of a certain _screw_ in the back of his cabinet


That's understandable, good sounding screws are so hard to find these days.


----------



## Dietz

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 17 said:


> Why does my sense of humor not translate into posts?


Don't worry, it's okay - you don't plan to do writing as a day job, do you? :mrgreen:


----------



## Lunatique

spectrum @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Too bad it always starts from the top. An ideal A/B tool would allow you to switch while it's playing.
> 
> This app seems developed primarily to test the listener's accuracy in identification. Definitely a useful reference.....just wish you could also A/B while it's playing.



There ARE apps out there that allow you to switch while playing, and free ones too. I used one a while ago and I can't remember what it's called. If I remember I'll let you guys know. But if you do a search I'm sure you'll find it. Audiophile forums like hydrogen and head-fi would likely be experts on these types of apps since they are fanatical about lossy/lossless/compression double-blind tests. Gearslutz as well.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

No way, Dietz. Only at night.


----------



## Waywyn

Okay, think I will take my files down. Sad noone gives it another go. Would have been curious and interesting!


----------



## MassSound

Some thoughts and a theory.

Not to be taken too seriously. but who knows... 

http://www.blipways.com/blog/?p=7


----------



## synthetic

Check out the posts by Peter Weihe in this thread:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/25264/0/96/0/ (http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... 64/0/96/0/)

They tried to do a scientific test at a university about analog summing. Their tests seem to show a reduction in dynamic range in the analog domain, but everyone preferred the sound of the analog summing. Of course the converters used were crucial as well. A very well-conducted test.


----------



## Waywyn

synthetic @ Fri Jun 18 said:


> Check out the posts by Peter Weihe in this thread:
> 
> http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/25264/0/96/0/ (http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... 64/0/96/0/)
> 
> They tried to do a scientific test at a university about analog summing. Their tests seem to show a reduction in dynamic range in the analog domain, but everyone preferred the sound of the analog summing. Of course the converters used were crucial as well. A very well-conducted test.



Damn, I recorded with Peter yesterday. I should have asked him about this topic 
Will meet him in a few days again!


----------



## synthetic

Interesting info from that thread questions the math of these null cancelling tests. According to an engineer from Neumann, a signal mixed with its out-of-phase twin with a level difference of 0.1dB will produce a -38.8dB subtraction. A 0.05dB difference provides -44.8dB of level change. So unless the levels are precisely lined up (which may be impossible even in a digital system), you will always hear some low-level artifacts. (Provided you're in a room where you can monitor -60dB signals.)

They were never able to exactly null two mixes except for two passes through the same signal chain. So two analog summing passes would not null, unless the same converters and mixer was used. 

I'm still saving for an analog summing system. If it's good enough for Shawn Murphy, Simon Rhodes, Bob Clearmountain...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I bet it would be very easy to build, Jeff, especially if you just make it X by 2 with no panning, assigns, or input level pots (which I think most of them don't have). There isn't much in there other than a power supply, a couple of op-amps, and a few resistors.

You could make it complicated by using tubes instead of op-amps, but that's probably too much added color.

Those compressors you built are a lot more complicated.


----------



## synthetic

Well, I'm saving for good converters. (Decided on SSL Alphalink MADI AX)

I have thought about building it myself, but I'll probably just buy the Dangerous 2-Bus LT. Another way to go is the Folcrum passive mixer into whatever preamps you want. The simplest I've seen is a DB25 connector full of 1% resistors terminating to a pair of XLR connectors, doesn't get much simpler than that. 

Anyway, my next DIY project is turning a garage into a floating studio control room...


----------



## José Herring

synthetic @ Fri Jun 18 said:


> Well, I'm saving for good converters. (Decided on SSL Alphalink MADI AX)



Ooooohhh, niiiiiiiice. If you get the madiextreme 64 card with it you'll turn your computer into a 64 channel ssl mixer and it sounds sweet. Same characteristics of the hardware SSL but cleaner and more pristine sounding.

Jose


----------



## synthetic

I spoke to a friend (Oso at RCP) who recommended the RME MADI card over the SSL, better driver support.


----------



## José Herring

synthetic @ Fri Jun 18 said:


> I spoke to a friend (Oso at RCP) who recommended the RME MADI card over the SSL, better driver support.



Still great. Total mix software is awesome too. I like the Soundscape mixer that comes with the xtreme series cards though.


----------



## spectrum

Ashermusic @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> Could not disagree more. The E III always sounded better to me than the Roland S-760 because the filters were much nicer.


The Roland 760/770 are widely known as some of best sounding samplers ever made. They still sound better in certain ways than any current software sampling engine and they are our reference point for how a sampler should ideally sound. The Roland interpolation and filters were very special.

The E-III's filters were pretty limited actually compared the E-IVs. But overall sound-wise, the Roland's are always nicer sounding to me using the same sample files transferred properly. I can say this confidently because I've actually had to A/B about 100,000 samples in both machines. 

It depends a LOT on how the samples were put into the Roland.....a simple Akai library conversion is not the way to do it, since the Roland's had a special emphasis/de-emphasis curve that was bypassed when using the Akai import function. Some people make that mistake and then misjudge the sound of the Roland's.


----------



## spectrum

> spectrum said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question on this test:
> 
> How were the 9 stems originally created? Which host did the original mixes for the stems?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are bounced out from Logic, as the VIs (Omnisphere, Sam Percussion on EXS24) and VSL (Basses) comes into Logic via VE Pro. The reverb (Lexicon PCM Native) is added via aux. I had to include the reverb with the stems, rather than during the summing, as the Lexicon's modulation would probably have prevented the files from nulling. I also did a version of this test without reverb, which I could post.
Click to expand...

Very interesting. 

That's actually what I suspected and why I think your stem test is not a good one for checking the audio quality difference between the two hosts that I'm talking about in this thread.

This is my theory as to why the two examples sound extremely close to each other and not at all like the results that I have experienced many times:

Your stems were mixed FIRST in Logic, so the "Logic sound" is already built into the test files.

Logic plays back bounced stems from Logic fine....the sound quality that was lost in the original recordings has already been lost, so there's not much more to lose there.

Pro Tools also plays back your "Logic mixed stems" sounding faithful to the sound of the Logic mixed stems.

A better test would be to just test your original live recording files that you recorded directly in Pro Tools.


----------



## spectrum

synthetic @ Wed Jun 16 said:


> spectrum @ Wed Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But try A/B'ing a great quality mix audio file in Quicktime and iTunes and you'll hear a massive difference with playing back the identical audio file!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn! Just did this. Crap. Gonna be very inconvenient to listen to music now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess I should have posted a warning about that consequence....sorry!

I feel the same way. It would be so convenient if you could rely on iTunes to play back audio files properly, since it's such a great organizational tool.

It is majorly inconvenient to have it messing up the sound your your audio files!

Anyone else try it? It's not a small difference.

Same ones and zeros and same hardware....just a different playback host made by the same company.

Hence the discussion.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> The simplest I've seen is a DB25 connector full of 1% resistors terminating to a pair of XLR connectors, doesn't get much simpler than that.



That's unlikely to sound good, and if the object is analog color then you want it to be active. At least I'd want it to be active.


----------



## synthetic

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 18 said:


> The simplest I've seen is a DB25 connector full of 1% resistors terminating to a pair of XLR connectors, doesn't get much simpler than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's unlikely to sound good, and if the object is analog color then you want it to be active. At least I'd want it to be active.
Click to expand...


Well, that's how any summing mixer works. There's a buffer/input stage and then a gain makeup. The above has to be plugged into a microphone preamp to make up the gain loss.

And the object is NOT analog color as you say, the point is to get the best-sounding mix. I'm not doing this to just "run it through some tubez to make it phatt."


----------



## Ashermusic

spectrum @ Fri Jun 18 said:


> synthetic @ Wed Jun 16 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrum @ Wed Jun 09 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But try A/B'ing a great quality mix audio file in Quicktime and iTunes and you'll hear a massive difference with playing back the identical audio file!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn! Just did this. Crap. Gonna be very inconvenient to listen to music now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I guess I should have posted a warning about that consequence....sorry!
> 
> I feel the same way. It would be so convenient if you could rely on iTunes to play back audio files properly, since it's such a great organizational tool.
> 
> It is majorly inconvenient to have it messing up the sound your your audio files!
> 
> Anyone else try it? It's not a small difference.
> 
> Same ones and zeros and same hardware....just a different playback host made by the same company.
> 
> Hence the discussion.
Click to expand...


I tried it but I do not hear a "massive" difference, just a small difference and to my ear it is only different, not one or the other necessarily better. It depended on the material. Somethings I played I thought sounded better in QT, some better in Logic.

But several of us LA guys (most of whom you know Eric) plan to get together to do a blind test in the next week or two because frankly, any other kind of test is meaningless.

Also, I am mostly concerned with how what I deliver sounds to the client so probably we will do a bounce In Logic, then one in PT, through the same hardware, unity gain, no panning, etc., burn them onto a CD randomized in order and play it back through the same hardware so that we are not listening to it through any DAW and listen to them. The only one who will know which files are which ion the CD will be a guy NOT participating in judging.

My belief is that we we will all fail miserably in trying to consistently identify which is which and which is better but we shall see.


----------



## david robinson

hi jay,
"a voice of sanity amongst madness"
thank you.
j.


----------



## Narval

Madness: "Some people have better ears than others."
Sanity: "Nonsense, all ears are the same."

So, yeah, right - madness vs sanity. :roll:


----------



## midphase

"But several of us LA guys (most of whom you know Eric) plan to get together to do a blind test in the next week or two because frankly, any other kind of test is meaningless. "


I wanna go I wanna go!!!!


----------



## spectrum

Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> I tried it but I do not hear a "massive" difference, just a small difference and to my ear it is only different, not one or the other necessarily better. It depended on the material. Somethings I played I thought sounded better in QT, some better in Logic.


Jay...the "massive difference" comment you misquoted from me was about iTunes vs Quicktime....not Logic vs Quicktime. The iTunes difference is not hard to hear on a good system and you can do the test really quickly by playing the same file on the desktop vs in iTunes.

The point of the iTunes comparison is to establish that the same file can sound noticeably different when played back in two different applications. Hence, it's not just "all ones and zeros" and the way the host is coded can affect the playback sound of an audio file. This should be widely accepted knowledge, but as you can see from this thread....many people refuse to believe this reality and it is not really very widely known.

That's great that you tried and the Logic vs Quicktime test on source material though and are noticing clear differences between the two.

Which means this:

On a subjective level, you've basically just proved my point. 

There shouldn't be any difference at all and that's the problem that I have with Logic. I have had numerous problems over the years getting Logic to accurately playback an audio file as well as many other hosts do.

When I record something as a digital audio file, I expect it to playback the same way on any host. What I need is as simple as that. 

I have not been able to achieve this very basic requirement with Logic and I have with other hosts like Pro Tools, Peak, Nuendo, etc.

I mean...that doesn't make any sense right? It's the same file on the same computer through the same hardware!

Pro Tools vs Quicktime does not have this issue. I don't notice issues with the way Pro Tools plays back an audio file.....it sounds accurate and I've never had a problem with that part of it.

Peak vs Quicktime is basically no difference at all.

Not being able to play back the file identically is a real drag sometimes if you are trying to preserve that top 5% of sound quality throughout a project (which is why one uses killer pre-amps, convertors, etc).

Now for many media composers, that top 5% is meaningless. It's going to get buried with the SFX and dialog and data compression anyway, so who really cares! (which is the comments that I'm seeing here in this thread)

I do! 

In the work I do, I actually need this top 5% and maybe it's only applicable to people with great systems, but for me it's an important thing to preserve....which is why I'm so obsessive about this topic.

When the topic comes to "Is it necessary for making great music?" of course not.....this is purely a discussion about sonics.



> But several of us LA guys (most of whom you know Eric) plan to get together to do a blind test in the next week or two because frankly, any other kind of test is meaningless.


Cool....the test conditions are super important though.

As Dom's test showed, it's very easy to make false assumptions and get less accurate results because of the way the files are prepared.



> Also, I am mostly concerned with how what I deliver sounds to the client so probably we will do a bounce In Logic, then one in PT, through the same hardware, unity gain, no panning, etc., burn them onto a CD randomized in order and play it back through the same hardware so that we are not listening to it through any DAW and listen to them. The only one who will know which files are which ion the CD will be a guy NOT participating in judging.



There are a lot more details than that to consider.

A huge one is what the CD burning software is.

If it's iTunes, it will erase any differences between any of these hosts.

Also....CDs are 16 bit...and what is the CD player? How is it connected?

It's very easy to screw up these tests so that what you are A/B'ing has already been affected in a negative way.

Once the purity/air/imaging stuff is degraded....they basically do sound all the same....and that's what an A/B listening test will reveal.


----------



## spectrum

I noticed that this thread is now getting a lot of attention and generating fighting on other forums and all over the Internet. I probably should have kept my mouth shut because I know this topic drives people crazy....especially technical folks....which is why I rarely talk about this stuff.

My apologies for stirring the storm! 

So just for the record, a couple of thoughts:

• These are just my highly subjective opinions, not all the results of scientific tests. While my opinions are the result of a lot of listening and experimenting over years of doing this, I'm by no means an expert on the technical side of it. Indeed, I'm always learning and discovering new things about this topic and am very open to any new information on this topic and checking my results. But I leave the science to others far more qualified on those topics than I am.

• I've done many types of measurement and data comparison (null, bit by bit, etc) tests over the years with various technical people too, that have been helpful. However, for better or worse, because of the infamous "oscilloscope" experience of my youth, I always trust my ears first and the data second...I approach the topic as an audio guy first....that's just me. 

The vast majority of valuable things I've learned in audio production have come from listening. The people that have great ears tend to be the ones that I've learned the most valuable lessons from. I've been so lucky to get to work alongside and learn from people like Bruce Swedien, Bernie Grundman, Doug Sacks, Allen Sides, Jack Puig, Humberto Gattica, Chris Lord-Alge, and so many other equally amazing ears over the years...what a privilege it has been!

However, that doesn't mean that I arrogantly don't care about the technical side of it....which I absolutely believe is very important and very often informs my opinions too. I don't inherently distrust technical tests....that would be absurd. 

I've just found so many tests to later show other issues in the testing itself that I don't put immediate 100% trust in them the way the majority of technical people seem to...especially with software programmers when the topic is digital audio.

• The main question for me with digital audio has been "Can I trust the data?". Theoretically, you should be able to. Certain parts of it I certainly do trust. However, experience taught me early that I cannot "Turn my back on it" to quote Bob Ludwig, as the technical data later showed that this was in fact true, I became far more suspicious about digital audio and that careful consideration and checking that I've done has most definitely resulted in my productions over many years sounding substantially better. 

Anyone that's ever worked with me over the years will tell you that my Mantra is "Never Stop Listening". They will all tell you stories of really surprising discoveries we've made as a result. Mistakes get made in digital audio when you stop listening and double-checking to make sure everything is still sounding OK.

• I do not have any axes to grind with anyone....especially the Logic guys. I've known them since 1987 and we have a very good relationship and have had lots of great discussions on many topics for many years. I'm pretty sure that they all think I'm crazy about this particular topic, which is perfectly fine with me. 

I just decided awhile ago to use Logic for it's strengths and Pro Tools for its strengths. 

After many years, I was not convinced that Logic is as good for audio production as Pro Tools is from a purely sonic perspective.

Since that was exactly the topic asked at the start of this thread, that's why I answered with my opinion that in my experience it is not as good and there are some distinct sonic advantages to Pro Tools that I have clearly and consistently noticed. (Mental note: Keep mouth shut in future.) 

Feel free to disagree!

I am not on a mission to prove my point....I'm just sharing my experiences and what I've found in a friendly discussion with you guys. Nothing more than that.


----------



## Ashermusic

Understood Eric. but you need to understand that for me, anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. If it isn't in a controlled blind test, as talented as accomplished as you are, you're saying you hear the difference is meaningless to me EXCEPT that it makes me want to blind test it because of my respect for you.

Also, the difference I heard between Logic and QT was small compared to simply changing an EQ setting.


----------



## spectrum

Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> Understood Eric. but you need to understand that for me, anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. If it isn't in a controlled blind test, as talented as accomplished as you are, you're saying you hear the difference is meaningless to me EXCEPT that it makes me want to blind test it because of my respect for you.


You've got the wrong idea.

I'm not a mission to prove my case here. 

I'm just sharing my experience, that's all.



> Also, the difference I heard between Logic and QT was small compared to simply changing an EQ setting.


Sure. So you can imagine how much larger the difference is when magnified by numbers of tracks and also when the quality of monitoring environment is really high-end.

There should be no difference at all since both apps are playing the same file and for my work I really can't really live with any difference at all.

I don't really notice any difference from Quicktime when I play a file in Pro Tools.

.....and that perfectly encapsulates why I said what I did about there being a difference. 

That little difference to you is a sonic benefit to me. 

Cheers, best wishes and goodbye to all,

spectrum


----------



## Ashermusic

spectrum @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> [.


You've got the wrong idea.

I'm not a mission to prove my case here. 

I'm just sharing my experience, that's all.

[/quote]

Totally understood Eric, I know you have no agenda here and neither do I.

I am now just intellectually curious to see what blind testing will reveal.


----------



## synthetic

spectrum @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> Cheers, best wishes and goodbye to all



Uggh, did Asher chase off another expert? I hate when he stomps the discussion like that. :(


----------



## P.T.

What is this? 

Some kind of religion?

People get angry over such things?
What's wrong with them and why would you care?


----------



## synthetic

Analog summing makes me feel like this.


----------



## Ashermusic

synthetic @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> spectrum @ Sat Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, best wishes and goodbye to all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uggh, did Asher chase off another expert? I hate when he stomps the discussion like that. :(
Click to expand...


I chased him off? How, by partially disagreeing with him?

No one but no one respects Eric more than I do but he is a sound developer, not George Massenburg.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> Jay wrote something like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and we know that any other test is meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted over and over why other tests are extremely meaningful!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


To you perhaps, but to guys like me who are convinced that we ALL are sometimes tricked by our ears, no.


----------



## Ashermusic

Sorry, this post was not necessary.


----------



## Ashermusic

midphase @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> "But several of us LA guys (most of whom you know Eric) plan to get together to do a blind test in the next week or two because frankly, any other kind of test is meaningless. "
> 
> 
> I wanna go I wanna go!!!!



Oy, I should not have posted this


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

You should have posted whatever you want, but "guys like you" are simply wrong. Double-blind tests are extremely useful, but saying that everything else is useless is going to chase people like me off the internet for good with a loud huffing pout.


----------



## synthetic

Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 20 said:


> synthetic @ Sat Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrum @ Sat Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, best wishes and goodbye to all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uggh, did Asher chase off another expert? I hate when he stomps the discussion like that. :(
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chased him off? How, by partially disagreeing with him?
> 
> No one but no one respects Eric more than I do but he is a sound developer, not George Massenburg.
Click to expand...


He owns a multi-complex studio and has more gold records than the entire board put together 5 times, and you're going to explain to him what a blind test is? Dick move.


----------



## synthetic

Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 20 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should have posted whatever you want, but "guys like you" are simply wrong. Double-blind tests are extremely useful, but saying that everything else is useless is going to chase people like me off the internet for good with a loud huffing pout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I will have done the public a great service :twisted:
Click to expand...


----------



## Ashermusic

synthetic @ Sun Jun 20 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> synthetic @ Sat Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrum @ Sat Jun 19 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, best wishes and goodbye to all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uggh, did Asher chase off another expert? I hate when he stomps the discussion like that. :(
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I chased him off? How, by partially disagreeing with him?
> 
> No one but no one respects Eric more than I do but he is a sound developer, not George Massenburg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He owns a multi-complex studio and has more gold records than the entire board put together 5 times, and you're going to explain to him what a blind test is? Dick move.
Click to expand...


I did not explain to him what a blind test was, I only explained why it is for me the only valid test.

I guarantee you Eric understood where I am coming form better than you seem to.


----------



## Ashermusic

Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 20 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should have posted whatever you want, but "guys like you" are simply wrong. Double-blind tests are extremely useful, but saying that everything else is useless is going to chase people like me off the internet for good with a loud huffing pout.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I will have done the public a great service :twisted:
Click to expand...


BTW, it case someone is new here and does not know this, Nick and I are very good friends and this kind of banter that you see here between us is also the way we interact sometimes in person and on the phone. We both like and enjoy it. 

I love and respect him, and in fact, he was the tech editor for my recent book.


----------



## Ashermusic

C M Dess @ Sun Jun 20 said:


> Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashermusic @ Sun Jun 20 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love and respect him, .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I figured. My post at least was directed more at the chasing off Eric sentiments. I don't think that's the case here, Eric doesn't seem like that kinda dude, to storm off. Not sure how the rumor started...I don't know why people target you so much either after all your help on the forums...it's weird. 8)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It never occurred to me. I have been on forums where people were downright insulting to Eric and he responded politely and did not storm off, so it would never even occur to me that he would do so in the light of my polite disagreement.

Yes, there are people here that target me and some of it I have brought on myself I know. I have strong opinions, I can be tactless and clumsy at times in expressing them honestly and I can be dismissive of those who make negative statements on working composers and developers if I do not think they have earned the right to do so publicly by their achievements. Which at times irritates some people here. I get that.

So thank you for your supportive comment and concern but rest assured I am a big boy and I can handle it.


----------



## Ashermusic

C M Dess @ Sun Jun 20 said:


> Not directed at what Nick said but what synthetic said.



Yeah, I know. Jeff is one of those who apparently I have irritated.
C'est la vie.


----------



## germancomponist

:roll: 0oD


----------



## Mike Greene

I'm quite certain Eric was not "chased off." He said it's a friendly discussion and that's certainly how I've interpreted it. Eventually we all get to the point where we've said what we needed to say on a topic and repeating it starts to become a waste of time. Not "waste of time" meaning people who disagree are idiots, but "waste of time" meaning at 8 pages, there's a lot of repeating one's self that goes on. There comes a time to bow out. If I were Eric, I'd call it done too. No animosity.

But that's not the real purpose of my post:

I will strongly disagree with Eric where he said, _"I probably should have kept my mouth shut because I know this topic drives people crazy....especially technical folks....which is why I rarely talk about this stuff. "_ I, for one, happen to think this is a fantastic thread and the extra tangents are exactly the kind of discussion we can all benefit from. It's a perfect example of what makes VI-Control so cool. Is there *anyone* who regrets Eric (or anyone else) bring up their theories??? I seriously doubt it. Like I said - fantastic thread.

I'm like Jay and RiffWraith in that I'm pretty skeptical about a lot of this (especially the swapping digital cables or different color CD-Rom dye claims.) But I can't deny Eric and Nick have great ears and are no dummies, so I absolutely want to hear these opinions because I've been wrong plenty of times before. The discussion is a complete benefit for all of us. So please, Eric (and everyone else,) *do* talk about this stuff when the urge strikes you.


----------



## Ashermusic

[quote="Mike Greene @ Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:33 pm"
I will strongly disagree with Eric where he said, _"I probably should have kept my mouth shut because I know this topic drives people crazy....especially technical folks....which is why I rarely talk about this stuff. "_ I, for one, happen to think this is a fantastic thread and the extra tangents are exactly the kind of discussion we can all benefit from. It's a perfect example of what makes VI-Control so cool. Is there *anyone* who regrets Eric (or anyone else) bring up their theories??? I seriously doubt it. Like I said - fantastic thread.

I'm like Jay and RiffWraith in that I'm pretty skeptical about a lot of this (especially the swapping digital cables or different color CD-Rom dye claims.) But I can't deny Eric and Nick have great ears and are no dummies, so I absolutely want to hear these opinions because I've been wrong plenty of times before. The discussion is a complete benefit for all of us. So please, Eric (and everyone else,) *do* talk about this stuff when the urge strikes you.[/quote]

Exactly true. Had Eric had not chosen to chime in and disagree with me, I would not have even bothered to try to get some guys together to test it but because I respect him so much, I am now looking forward to it to see if we hear what he hears.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I agree, and I find Mike Greene's judgment about people to be incredibly good.


----------



## SvK

I luv lamp


----------



## SvK

I luv lamp


----------



## Narval

Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 21 said:


> Had Eric had not chosen to chime in and disagree with me, I would not have even bothered to try to get some guys together to test it but because I respect him so much, I am now looking forward to it to see if we hear what he hears.


And because you respect him so much, you hope that your test results will prove you wrong so that you can respect him even more, right?


----------



## germancomponist

Mike Greene @ Tue Jun 22 said:


> I'm quite certain Eric was not "chased off." He said it's a friendly discussion and that's certainly how I've interpreted it. Eventually we all get to the point where we've said what we needed to say on a topic and repeating it starts to become a waste of time. Not "waste of time" meaning people who disagree are idiots, but "waste of time" meaning at 8 pages, there's a lot of repeating one's self that goes on. There comes a time to bow out. If I were Eric, I'd call it done too. No animosity.
> 
> But that's not the real purpose of my post:
> 
> I will strongly disagree with Eric where he said, _"I probably should have kept my mouth shut because I know this topic drives people crazy....especially technical folks....which is why I rarely talk about this stuff. "_ I, for one, happen to think this is a fantastic thread and the extra tangents are exactly the kind of discussion we can all benefit from. It's a perfect example of what makes VI-Control so cool. Is there *anyone* who regrets Eric (or anyone else) bring up their theories??? I seriously doubt it. Like I said - fantastic thread.
> 
> I'm like Jay and RiffWraith in that I'm pretty skeptical about a lot of this (especially the swapping digital cables or different color CD-Rom dye claims.) But I can't deny Eric and Nick have great ears and are no dummies, so I absolutely want to hear these opinions because I've been wrong plenty of times before. The discussion is a complete benefit for all of us. So please, Eric (and everyone else,) *do* talk about this stuff when the urge strikes you.



+ 100 o-[][]-o


----------



## Ashermusic

Narval @ Mon Jun 21 said:


> Ashermusic @ Mon Jun 21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Had Eric had not chosen to chime in and disagree with me, I would not have even bothered to try to get some guys together to test it but because I respect him so much, I am now looking forward to it to see if we hear what he hears.
> 
> 
> 
> And because you respect him so much, you hope that your test results will prove you wrong so that you can respect him even more, right?
Click to expand...


I could not care less about whether I am proven right or proven wrong. I am only interested in seeing what results.

And either way, my respect for Eric will not be affected as it is absolute.


----------



## germancomponist

josejherring @ Tue Jun 15 said:


> Dom @ Tue Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> germancomponist @ Tue Jun 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Opssss, so my ears were right.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but you must admit you had a 50% chance. :wink:
> If you do a double blind test 12 times, would you still pick it out each time? Have you tried RiffWraith's test?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but I heard the same thing.
Click to expand...


o-[][]-o


----------



## P.T.

You should not be hearing things that men in lab coats say that you should not be hearing.

Have you no respect for your gods?


----------



## germancomponist

P.T. @ Tue Jun 22 said:


> You should not be hearing things that men in lab coats say that you should not be hearing.
> 
> Have you no respect for your gods?



The world is flat, a pane..... . :mrgreen: o-[][]-o


----------



## Ashermusic

BTW, it occurs to me that something may have gotten lost in this discussion. When/if we pull off this blind test, we are not endeavoring to nor could we prove Eric "right" or "wrong." Eric hears what Eric hears and none of us are so arrogant as to tell him he does not. I am not going to ell anyone they do not hear what they think they hear, only that our perception of what we hear can be affected by a large number of circumstances.

All we can accomplish as a group is to test whether a number of us can do so consistently in one blind test. If we can, then I may have to alter my opinion of how much the sonic factors of a DAWs summing should be factored into choosing one. If not, since we are pro users with decent ears and know that most users and their clients have neither "golden" ears, excellent equipment, and a pristine listening environment, then I will stand by my conclusion that it is relatively a minor factor.


----------



## midphase

Wow....9 pages and going! Who would have thought?

BTW, I think Eric should continue to participate, I'm not quite sure why he thinks he should have not contributed his thoughts? Nobody has said anything negative, this has been one of the most civil discussions around here in a while, and information like this, while being controversial, should be diffused to the masses.

BTW, I'm totally serious about being part of this test that you guys are putting together...someone PM me the info once you decide time and location.


----------



## re-peat

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 22 said:


> (...) a lot of this is highly program-dependent. Usually it's in the space that you hear subtle details, and music that doesn't have a lot of space doesn't show up the differences.


My point exactly. (page 2 of this thread)
_


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Sorry re-. I'm sure you said it better.


----------



## prib

Hello everyone,

This is my first post here and I'm also new to this forum. Although I'm an avid reader of music and audio related forums, I rarely/never write on them. 
However, the topic in question really matters to me, and this is probably the best thread on the subject that I've ever encountered (and you know there's hundreds of those!).

I'll give you a little background on me and I'll also try to give you some specifics on what I think is the "science" and, consequently, the "problem" behind this "What DAW sounds best" question.

I've been a software engineer for almost 15 years now, but I have a lifelong interest in music composition and production. So, I've been using music software from early on.

Last year I founded a small multimedia company with a musician friend, to try to change a bit the course of my life, and we got a major assignment to score and do all the audio post-production stuff for a TV 3D animated/cartoon show, which is still running and, hopefully, will continue for some years to come.

To make it short, we started to be a little more picky about our sound, because now we have an audience hearing what we do. We made a considerable investment in software, sample libraries, hardware and acoustic treatment, but we are not nearly at pro-level, although much better than we were. 

Using Sonar 7 as our main platform, because I was already very familiar with it, we started to hit some bad stability problems and started to look elsewhere.
Being on a budget, we switched to Reaper, which we've absolutely come to love.

It all started when we had a full mix with a considerable number of effects done in Sonar and decided to begin the transition, porting the whole project to Reaper. We adjusted every setting in the effects, adjusted levels/gain, pan (pan law too) and rendered it all to a WAV 24bit file. The client heard it and said the beta we had sent in the day before was sounding much better. We first thought that was not possible, because we were a bit late and didn't really compare with the previous version, but went ahead and exported the then current version in Sonar.

Comparing the 2, they were not even near. Subjectively speaking, the Sonar version was better by some really considerable and definitely perceptible margin. The mix was more coherent and glued and the spacial image was wider. After all, the mix was done in Sonar and then simply ported to Reaper. So, we thought that we should adjust the mix in Reaper and try to get it close to Sonar, but it was very, very hard to come close. We ended up doing that specific mix in Sonar, because the client had already heard a version made in it before. Anyway, we have used Reaper ever since.

However, I've been into this question again lately and I will try to describe what I think of it. I have to make a disclaimer here, and say that I'm totally with Eric Persing and the others, when they say DAWs and other apps can and do sound different. I really think the null test doesn't prove anything, specially when it's done on a "black box" where I can't see the code.

During 3 years of my career as a software engineer, I've done a lot of consulting and custom development related to financial markets trading. And it's a rule of thumb that we can't use "plain" floating point types (double, float, etc.) on anything that aims to be reliable (just google something like "float datatype for financial").

The most eye-opening experience I had was when I was presented with a backtesting forex system, made for a private client, which was giving very inaccurate/unexpected results. I quickly realized the problem was that it was coded using native floating point types. As the application was developed in C# .Net, I changed every native floating point type to Decimal, which handles precision a lot better, at the cost of performance. The results were now as expected, but comparing one version to the other, the differences were even bigger than I first thought. For example, on a year-long backtest of tick data (that equates to multi-billion floating point operations), what was a profitable strategy with the prior version was now a loser. It's one of those things that needs to be seen to be believed.

Now why did that happen? Explaining it in an easy way, processors don't work natively in a decimal fashion (1 byte is divided into 8 bits, as you know). So, when I have a number like say, 21.3, depending on language and compiler, compilation may end up with, for example 21.2999999998. It can be really imprecise with rounding (64 bits numbers are more precise, but not enough for some applications). Now add to that fact, that we can do a lot of operations with that number, operations that will add up loss of precision. As an example, when you see the processor utilization hitting 50% on your DAW, you can bet that it's doing a lot of floating point operations per second. Because the floating point native types are handled natively by the processor, they are orders of magnitude faster than, for example, the Decimal .NET type, because this datatype is using integers to handle the floating point part.

When I read the following phrase by the developer of SAWStudio, I thought he really nailed it:



> The integer math used in SAWStudio results in a much higher performance engine and the results prove out to be very silky and smooth sounding... many people are starting to notice the difference... in fact that is starting to be the number one comment when people are first looking into the SAWStudio approach. There has been so much talk of floating point having more resolution than integer... not really effectively true, especially if you consider that resolution as being random in its accuracy... the SAWStudio summing engine design is such that it always maintains a full 32 bit wide storage path all the way through the loop, while maintaining a full 64 bit register width for the intermediate math, which virtually eliminates ANY internal bus clipping during the scaling and processing algorithms required during the mix.



That's the reason why they are thinking about processors with a decimal floating point unit and that's also why Intel has developed a high-performance decimal floating point library for financial applications (http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-decimal-floating-point-math-library/). I'm starting to think the audio world probably needs to use it too.

To demonstrate this point, let's use the files Dom posted. Some say they hear a difference, some say they don't and some go for the simplest explanation: "They null".
I have to be honest, with my current monitoring equipment I can't hear any difference. I also loaded both files on Reaper, and they null.
But I'm still a bits and bytes guy, so I wanted to see the wave byte data and see if there was any differences. First of all, both files are different in size. That can be due to the header and the total number of samples. With an audio editor, I verified and 1 of the files had just 1 sample more than the other, so I trimmed the silent parts and now they are exactly the same, in timing and in total number of samples (1,313,247). Of course, they are unchanged, so they still null. My attachment size limit on this forum is only 128KB, so I uploaded the files to SendSpace for you to try: http://www.sendspace.com/file/773bqb and http://www.sendspace.com/file/hhft3m.

Now to the bytes part. They still null, but are they identical byte-wise? You can use any tool available for file compare (even the old DOS "fc" command) and you'll see a never ending stream of differences. In fact, using WAV specific file comparison tools like the ones that comes with FooBar2000 or ExactAudioCopy (and these guys do know that reading reliable data from an audio CD is not exact science), you'll notice that 633,986 out of 1,313,247 samples are different between the 2 files. That equates to 48,2% of different samples, scattered through the whole length of the music piece. And that's just the result of summing in 2 different DAWs.

Of course, I can't hear the differences on my equipment, but I firmly believe that these different bytes going through more accurate converters, clock, acoustics and monitoring do start to sound differently. After all, these bytes are entering the analog domain and there's a lot happening there that can actually "amplify" the floating point "problems" introduced by the different summing processes, which are far from being identical bytewise.

Now, if a DAW is using floating point native operations everywhere without caring too much about precision (like that piece of financial software I told you about), the more operations you do, the more differences you add. To experiment with this idea, let's add a maximizer or some gain VST plugins (like Sonalksis FreeG) to the main bus of the project with the 2 nulled files. Adding gain, at some point you start to hear noise. We are amplifying the real audible differences between the files, so they are not really nulling, otherwise we would have silence no matter how much gain we added.

(continues on the next post)


----------



## prib

(continued from the last post)

Now add some static FX (in terms of math), like a compressor to the 2 music tracks inserts (the normal and the reverse phased one). Reaper is good for this, because it comes with a lot of scripted FX effects where we get to see the code and the variables. I used the 1175 compressor because it applies the exact same calculations to the incoming sound samples. Drive it to some pretty exagerated settings. Put an instance of the compressor on both tracks with identical settings. Because these compressors are now processing 2 source files which are almost 50% different bytewise, even if these samples are only slightly different, they will start to be more pronounced with increased floating point operations. In my case I can start to hear the music piece coming through after inserting 3 compressor instances in a row with the exact same settings on each of the 2 tracks. They are no longer nulling (they never did), and the difference is no longer just noise. It's music! If you do this exact experience using the same file on each track, they will forever null in these conditions, no matter how much you try to amplify possible differences.

So I think the argument here is the opposite: that it is nearly impossible for any 2 DAWs using floating point native datatypes to sound exactly the same, especially if you are doing a full blown mix on it, because you are adding a lot of operations which are causing the signal to become significantly different in every step. You have to take into account that even the order in which you perform those operations will give different results, and I really doubt any 2 DAWs do everything the same way. So it's not just summing and "math is math" and "a null is a null". If you are not using decimal floating point operations you are going to end with different results, however irrelevant they may be to you.

I do think the developer of SAWStudio nailed it again when he wrote:



> Unfortunately most of the industry uses floating point math, without having really considered these problems and options it seems, and that has resulted in the sound signature that digital has become associated with. And yes I say most, because even though it is not widely publicized, some of the highest regarded digital audio products actually use integer math also.



Of course, I don't really know the ins and outs of a DAW application, but I do know that native floating point math has to be used very carefully (or don't use it at all) when you want realiable results. And I think that's the whole point of digital audio.

Sorry for my long post. I hope it can be useful in a constructive manner to this debate.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

@prib
I just downloaded your files and nulled them in my DAW.
I boosted the result by 144dB and still got silence.

Where you are right is, that a DAW uses a limited resolution, and that sometimes limited resolution for processing data in a PC can be the source of weird bugs.
Where you are wrong is, that the DAW-resolution (usually 32bit) wouldn't be high enough for the tasks of a DAW (simple multiplication and summing).

Different DAWs might produce slightly different results, but those results are below the noise-floor of a 24bit audio-file. They are below -144dB.
They are cut off, when you're going down to 24bit.
Those errors appear in a range, which gets thrown away afterwards anyways.

You'd need ridiculous amounts of compression/amplification to raise them up to a level, where it'd matter. Those amounts are never reached while mixing. 

Everyone, who claims to hear differences between DAW-summing, does:
- suffer from flawed perception
- not have a clue of digital processing
- not understand, that the dynamic range of a 24bit file is more than enough for human hearing

It's a bit dissapointing to see someone like Eric making those ridiculous claims. But hey .. he's a sound-designer, not a programer/scientist.


----------



## midphase

Ouch!


----------



## chimuelo

I have to chime in now since somebody brought up Integer math.
I have used Cubase for 15 years and never have used it for mixing. I find that soft sequencers are much better than the MC500-MKII's and QX-1's I used in the 80's, but they don't sound as good as a dedicated mixing application.
I use Reaper for large streams of filtered MIDI for lighting, Cubase for the sheer speed of automation and creation of MIDI tracks, but until they sound better than my ancient 32bit Integer DSP app, they will do what they were designed to do best, sequence and host.
I really wish the Native sequencers sounded better. I would love to stop dragging around my rack and use a laptop. Someday I probably will, but until then my 32bit Integer app is the only choice for me.
The downside is that once I export the audio the magic is gone and it sounds no different than a Native sequencer.
But since I use the automated VDAT tracks for sampled content, and then hardware analog synths and DSP synths live, its a perfect match.
I dump the MIDI into Gigastudio for the drums and ethnic percussion stuff, then record over the rhythms in real time using various VSTi instruments. Then we perform live with hardware analog synths and DSP synths over the recorded tracks. I have tried using a Native sequencer and I still hear no difference what so ever since SX2 and I am on 5.1 now. So I know there's a difference. It's too bad there's no way to export the magic.
Another reason the 32bit Integer rocks is because its realtime and the hardware surface controls are extreme. I can control the entire show with the MIDI Solutions F8, 2 x footswitches and 2 x expression pedals, and a pair of SAC-2K's. Cubase suffers with large MIDI streams.
Someday I will use native sequencers. The VST effects quality starting catching up with DSP a few years ago, but Native mixing and integration of hardware is slightly behind the curve.
On another note, I recently got my 35mm Laptop card for the 1U XITE-1 so my racks went from 28U down to 8U. 6U of that is for rack mounted Analog synths, so DSP seems to be gaining ground again. 
So I have to say I love Native, DSP and hardware. 
Whatever sounds the best or works the most reliable, I will use.
The 3 places I record at locally all swear by Logic and ProTools. They use Logic for Pre Production, but master w/ProTools and hardware.
I imagine they run on a tight budget due to the competition, but surely they would save a lot of time just using Logic.....? Must be a reason they like ProTools other than the integration of hardware.


----------



## Fernando Warez

Well, now I'm really confused. But it is interesting...



BTW, anyone tried Harrison Mixbus?


----------



## Dom

Interesting post prib, and welcome. 

My guess the differences between the two files may be down to me using the "stereo dithered mixer" plugin (as opposed to "stereo mixer") in Pro Tools. The dither may be the noise that we hear if we normalize the "null", as has been suggested by Dietz. As soon as I have time, I'll repeat the test without the dither, and also with all stems originating in Pro Tools, as Eric suggested.

The compressor test is very interesting - I'll give it a go myself!

Dom


----------



## germancomponist

Yes, very interesting, as this thread is. 

@prib: Thank you for your post, I never had thought about such things.... .


----------



## Waywyn

Thanks for all those valuable posts. It makes a lot of more sense if someone tries to explain the math behind it and probably is going on behind summing up tracks ... 

I was just assuming that with cancellation you might find proof that tracks which null out are completely identical ... and of course I have to admit that there is always something (dunno the psychological term) which influences and manipulates you. Kinda like: Yes, one file simply HAS to sound better or worse ... and suddenly you start hearing things which are not there.

I am also a bit dissapointed that noone didn't go my sequencer shootout I posted (or dared?) ... the simple trick was that all tracks were simply rendered in Cubase one after another. I just hit three times "audio export" ... yes I know I am a mean guy, but I just wanted to experiment. Big sorry! 

Anyway, if someone finds a tool which shows more info about audio files and goes deeper with analyzing stuff - let me know.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

C M Dess @ 2010-06-24 said:


> -EnTaroAdun-
> 
> Did you try normalizing the "silence"?? 8)
> 
> I did this procedure mentioned above about 7 pages back and then Dom did the same thing. We both got noise.


Oh, sorry.
Just found out, that I did a mistake last time and the signal actually didn't got boostet.

Now I see, what you mean.
So there are differences at ca. -138dB. Rounding/truncation-differences (maybe even just caused by dithering) at the two least significant bits of the 24bit file.



prib @ 2010-06-24 said:


> I'm sorry if in my last post I passed my message in an arrogant manner or tone, but that was never my intention. Nor was it my intention to pass myself as a brilliant scientist, which I'm clearly not.


Huh.
Wasn't my intention to imply something like that. Sorry, if it looked like that.


----------



## José Herring

@ Waywyn, yes I long suspected that's what you did as the two files I did hear sounded completely identical.

@ Prib,

So Dom's files don't null after all and those of us that heard a difference aren't crazy. Thanks for the insight. You gave me enough info to figure out why I could hear a subtle difference between the Logic file and the PT mix.


I guess the question is what math is being used in Logic vs. PT. And I found out that Logic is using 32bit floating point and PT HD is using 48bit fixed point on their respective mix buses. Also using PT LE may not be much different as it also uses 32bit floating point math on the mix buss. Looks like PT HD IS summing differently than other DAWS.

So that could be the mathematical difference that all you "science" people are looking for. ( and by the way I know a few scientist who are musicians and they make lousy musicians so I have no idea why any composer in his right mind would make the claim that we need to be scientific about all this. As artist the subjective is much more accurate and leads to much better results than science ever will. Have trust in yourself and don't worry too much about verification from the outside world. The subjective world is much more interesting and can be much more accurate. Science is weak compared to the power of music and our own subjective perception-- in my subjective opinion :mrgreen: ).


----------



## Waywyn

josejherring @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> @ Waywyn, yes I long suspected that's what you did as the two files I did hear sounded completely identical.



LOL, yes I guess this will be 90% of all possible answers now after I told what I did :o)


----------



## Ashermusic

josejherring @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> So that could be the mathematical difference that all you "science" people are looking for. ( and by the way I know a few scientist who are musicians and they make lousy musicians so I have no idea why any composer in his right mind would make the claim that we need to be scientific about all this. As artist the subjective is much more accurate and leads to much better results than science ever will. Have trust in yourself and don't worry too much about verification from the outside world. The subjective world is much more interesting and can be much more accurate. Science is weak compared to the power of music and our own subjective perception-- in my subjective opinion :mrgreen: ).



There are a number of famous scientists who were also decent musicians. And sorry, but the first half of the statement "the subjective is much more accurate " strikes me as oxymoronic although the second half "leads to much better results than science ever will." is less problematic for me.

We do need science to create wonderful music but we do need science if we are going to objectively verify or disprove claims that are made that can be measured.

Both are important. Turning 180 degrees from wrong usually only brings you to a different kind of wrong.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

prib @ 2010-06-24 said:


> ... and my later experiment prove that DAW summing is not exact math, ...


Of course it isn't exact. It uses a limited resolution ... systems with a limited resolution are never exact for all operations.
But the resolution is still more than high enough to push every errors down to a level, where they are not even nearly audible.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Thanks for that post, Prib. Very interesting.


----------



## Narval

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> We do need science to create wonderful music but we do need science if we are going to objectively verify or disprove claims that are made that can be measured.


Theory follows in the steps of practice.
Science fails to follow in the steps of art.
What someone hears inside his mind cannot be measured.
Case closed.


----------



## Ashermusic

Narval @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do need science to create wonderful music but we do need science if we are going to objectively verify or disprove claims that are made that can be measured.
> 
> 
> 
> Theory follows in the steps of practice.
> Science fails to follow in the steps of art.
> What someone hears inside his mind cannot be measured.
> Case closed.
Click to expand...


You declaring "Case closed" does not make it so as you are not a recognized authority on the subject as far as I know. Correct me if I am wrong and you come up as one on Wikipedia.

What any given individual hears "inside his mind" is not the issue. I have said repeatedly I will not tell anyone that they do not hear what they think they hear, and any conclusions they draw from that are perfectly valid for themselves. But if we are going to advise others with broad statements of qualitative comparison, then it helps if it can be demonstrated in a blind test of multiple users and if not, it must be taken with a grain of salt IMHO.


----------



## José Herring

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> josejherring @ Thu Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that could be the mathematical difference that all you "science" people are looking for. ( and by the way I know a few scientist who are musicians and they make lousy musicians so I have no idea why any composer in his right mind would make the claim that we need to be scientific about all this. As artist the subjective is much more accurate and leads to much better results than science ever will. Have trust in yourself and don't worry too much about verification from the outside world. The subjective world is much more interesting and can be much more accurate. Science is weak compared to the power of music and our own subjective perception-- in my subjective opinion :mrgreen: ).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of famous scientists who were also decent musicians. And sorry, but the first half of the statement "the subjective is much more accurate " strikes me as oxymoronic although the second half "leads to much better results than science ever will." is less problematic for me.
> 
> We do need science to create wonderful music but we do need science if we are going to objectively verify or disprove claims that are made that can be measured.
> 
> Both are important. Turning 180 degrees from wrong usually only brings you to a different kind of wrong.
Click to expand...


The subjective is much more accurate. In other words it's better for you to be sure of yourself and what you think and observer than to worry if there's any proof. You like Stravinsky better than Shostakovich. You don't need proof as to why. For you Stravinsky was better than Shosty. You're absolutely sure about it. For you that statement is accurate. Why would you want to put that to any scientific scrutiny? Even if it were proven that Shosty was more true to the scientific laws of harmonic relationships ( of which there is a science of harmony and to which he was scientifically more accurate in his use of the laws of harmony) it wouldn't matter. To you Stravinsky was more innovative. He may have been but believe me you there was no science behind his innovation, just his own sense of logic based on his own opinion.

As far as scientist making good musicians I've only known of one or two. I've actually know more lawyers that are good musicians than scientist. Scientist are for the most part trying to kill the subjective reality of themselves and others in favor of objective reality and in music almost 90% of what we do is all subjective. That's why science has a hard time understanding art and the behavior of people.

I remember reading in a physics book once about the arc a ballet dancer took while leaping on stage. And they figured out the arc she should have taken scientifically and the actually arc she did take and in their diagram the theoretical arc of the dancer should have taken according to the "laws of physics" and the actual arc that she took in real life were way, way off. 

So one could conclude what they "scientist" would conclude and think that there's something wrong with the ballet dancer even though her arc was longer and at the apex of her arc she went several feet in a complete horizontal direction (scientifically impossible) or you could conclude what I did which is that you can't take the subjective experience of people out of the equation and expect that your observation will be all that accurate. There are no absolutes in this universe. The Heizenberg uncertainty principle is very much at play. The subjective experience of the observer as you look more and more closely at stuff plays a significant roll in the actual outcome of any scientific experiment. People are powerful. More powerful than scientific laws of the universe. People bend these laws according to their will all the time. Look at Heifetz play the violin. After a few minutes you'll start to think that it's not possible for somebody to yield a violin bow as smoothly as he did. But yet he's doing it.

So for me at some point the science ends and the actual music making begins. And I completely agree with Eric, trust your ears and your feelings first and let the "science" of it catch up to you, because in actual truth you're already 1000 yards ahead and know instinctively all the answers that the scientist are so desperately trying to seek, namely the question to "How are you alive?" You're alive you know it. You're alive because you can think and perceive and feel and communicate those thoughts perceptions and feels in others through words or through music or through paintings, ect.... There are no real scientific explanation that has any real merit as to why you can do these things, but yet, there you are and so you do.

So I get tired of all these people saying that science is sooooo absolute and that if two files null that these files are sooooo identical and that if the science is sooooo right then people that don't agree must be crazy or deluded. But then you dig a little deeper as Prib can and you find out that the files were not the same and just because you can't perceive the subtle difference "subjectively" doesn't mean that others can.

"Trust your feelings Luke" _Obi Wan Kenobi_


----------



## Ashermusic

There is so much here Jose that I cannot address it all. Subjective evaluation of art is indeed valuable but subjective evaluation of measurable phenomena is not so much so.

It is fine for one to say that "this streaking comet looked huge and is beautiful' but quite another to say "the comet has an average of 76 years to orbit the earth."

And numbers matter. If in a blind test of 100 people, 97 consistently hear a difference and describe one as sounding better, then it is reasonable to say that "most people will find the sound of one to be better sounding" even though 3 may prefer the other. if it is 53-47, then it is not reasonable to say that, only that I as an individual found one to better sounding.

Science is not the enemy of art, it is a partner. Gallileo and Schweitzer were both scientists and excellent musicians.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> The Heizenberg uncertainty principle is very much at play.



And Heisenberg was a scientist. 

But we're not trying to measure the position and speed of subatomic particles simultaneously, we're deciding why two different DAWs would sound different from one another. It's definite that there's a scientific explanation for the answer. Whether we know it is another matter, but there's no uncertainty about whether it exists!

Having said that, I do trust my own five senses above all else.


----------



## José Herring

Ashermusic @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> There is so much here Jose that I cannot address it all. Subjective evaluation of art is indeed valuable but subjective evaluation of measurable phenomena is not so much so.
> 
> It is fine for one to say that "this streaking comet looked huge and is beautiful' but quite another to say "the comet has an average of 76 years to orbit the earth."
> 
> And numbers matter. If in a blind test of 100 people, 97 consistently hear a difference and describe one as sounding better, then it is reasonable to say that "most people will find the sound of one to be better sounding" even though 3 may prefer the other. if it is 53-47, then it is not reasonable to say that, only that I as an individual found one to better sounding.
> 
> Science is not the enemy of art, it is a partner. Gallileo and Schweitzer were both scientists and excellent musicians.



Now I know why you drove Eric off. You are quite missing the point and there really is no point of agreement for us to even have a conversation on this subject.

Even in this simple test 2 out of about 20 people subjectively picked up on subtle differences in the files. The whole mob including you jumped on us as foolish. Then Prib offers a great explanation. I did a little research and found that the Logic mix bus and the PTHD mix buss sum using a different mathematical function. Thus providing a possible explanation as to why there are sonic difference's in Dom's files.

Subjectively that's good enough for me and like Eric, I bid you the best of luck in trying to convince everybody that doesn't agree with the mob mentality that they're foolish and really what we need to be is "more scientific".

Good day on this subject.
And I don't recall ever hearing Gallileo play or ever playing anything he composed. And to be honest I don't know anything about Schweitzer.


----------



## midphase

Just to clarify...I don't think it was Jay who drove Eric off....but simply the idea that other forums started aggressive threads on the subject based on what Eric said.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Ashermusic

Just for the record, I did not call anyone foolish.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Where are those threads, Kays? I'm curious.


----------



## chimuelo

Well Nick promised that in the next issue of VM Mag that this would be discussed in detail with various scientists such as Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC that has recently learned Windows Server 2008 comes with a free Firewall.
And no debate can hold any validity without Sarah Palin. So it should be a great issue.
Preview below.
:lol:


----------



## Ashermusic

ROTFL!


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Dunno, if it was already posted here, but before the "discussion" goes on, I recommend to watch the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ&fmt=22


----------



## midphase

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> Where are those threads, Kays? I'm curious.



Hell if I know...but Eric mentioned in his last post that apparently people were having heated discussions elsewhere about what he said here. Must be KVR or some of those other places I never go to since VI Control sucks plenty of time out of my work schedule already.


----------



## Synesthesia

NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Ethan is totally wrong in so many places in that video.

I posted it a few months ago, *not having watched it* for general interest.

I then watched it.

There has been a long long long topic on the womb forums about this.

Ethan also outed himself having deliberately borked a double blind test, he fixed it - and then admitted so online in several places, quite happily.

A little science is a dangerous thing.

There are many errors of scientific fact in that video.

It is dangerous also to assume that if 90 out of 100 punters can't hear the difference it doesn't exist.

There are people in our industry with exceptional hearing, Eric is one of them.

I can't play like Pogorelich. That doesn't mean it is not possible to play like Pogorelich.

Jeez, guys, that video is junk. I regret ever having posted a link to it.

En Tar Adun - as you confidently stomped all over Eric's thought, and Prib's posts - based on your own erroneous 'test' - I think maybe you owe them some for of apology too rather than continuing in this rather confident vein.

Jose -- I feel you about the muse, the creativity etc: As a composer but trained scientist (only to BEng level in Aeronautical Engineering) I can attest to the fact that a decent scientist always keeps an open mind -- and certain does not make blanket statements like some of those made here stating confidently that 'there is no difference - look at the math (sic)'.

In fact, as Prib points out, when we do actually look at the math, instead of blindly making sweeping statements based on little and flawed theories, we discover that there are indeed significant differences between the way DAWs sum.

Jose heard it, I heard it, and so on.

There are many many great engineers who can pick out the Tape from a digital copy of the Tape playback 10 times out of 10.

Just because I may find that difficult, doesn't mean that they can't do it.

All respect,

Paul


----------



## Fernando Warez

chimuelo @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> Well Nick promised that in the next issue of VM Mag that this would be discussed in detail with various scientists such as Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC that has recently learned Windows Server 2008 comes with a free Firewall.
> And no debate can hold any validity without Sarah Palin. So it should be a great issue.
> Preview below.
> :lol:



Hehehe! Man, these elitist have a way to find guys who look credible to sell their sh**t!
I'm obviously talking about the guy here.


BTW, if you're an elitist, how do you bring back your environmental agenda in the msm? hmmm... Blow up an oil rig maybe?


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:


> There has been a long long long topic on the womb forums about this.


 :roll:
I know this thread. It's even more ridiculous than this one.



Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:


> En Tar Adun - as you confidently stomped all over Eric's thought, and Prib's posts - based on your own erroneous 'test' - I think maybe you owe them some for of apology too rather than continuing in this rather confident vein.


My test wasn't erroneous. I just had the boosting done on the wrong mixer-channel the first time. I already corrected my answer on that one.



The problem in all those threads is the following:

There are people claiming to hear differences, but not a single one of them could ever prove it. Everytime there's done a proper blindtest (and that means more than just _one guess_) they fail.
That's a fact!

Next thing is, that people, who actually know how digital signal processing works, explain to you, that it's BS and the resolution is more than high enough.
The pseudo-golden-ears-people don't believe it and throw in some pseudo-technical-arguments, which have nothing to do with the reality.
The people with knowledge try to explain, why those "arguments" don't apply in reality, but the esoterics simply don't listen.

And so we always have an endless "discussion".


----------



## chimuelo

Totally agree Fernando.
But don't kid yourself, Sarah also is a spokesperson, but for Rupert Murdoch.
I am expecting after she finishes Jay Ashers' course, she will convince Rupert Murdoch to release the DAW to end all DAW's called Illogic Pro.
It will smoke ProTools, Pyramix, Scope, Samplitude and SAW Studio, but nobody will be able to prove why it sounds so good..............hence the name.


----------



## Synesthesia

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a long long long topic on the womb forums about this.
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:
> I know this thread. It's even more ridiculous than this one.
> 
> 
> 
> Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> En Tar Adun - as you confidently stomped all over Eric's thought, and Prib's posts - based on your own erroneous 'test' - I think maybe you owe them some for of apology too rather than continuing in this rather confident vein.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My test wasn't erroneous. I just had the boosting done on the wrong mixer-channel the first time. I already corrected my answer on that one.
Click to expand...


Err... so yes, you made an error. Erroneous. Get yourself a dictionary.




EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> The problem in all those threads is the following:
> 
> There are people claiming to hear differences, but not a single one of them could ever prove it. Everytime there's done a proper blindtest (and that means more than just _one guess_) they fail.
> That's a fact!
> 
> Next thing is, that people, who actually know how digital signal processing works, explain to you, that it's BS and the resolution is more than high enough.
> The pseudo-golden-ears-people don't believe it and throw in some pseudo-technical-arguments, which have nothing to do with the reality.
> The people with knowledge try to explain, why those "arguments" don't apply in reality, but the esoterics simply don't listen.
> 
> And so we always have an endless "discussion".




Hmm. I don't think its worth arguing with you. Your stated opinion on this board :




EnTaroAdun @ Sat Feb 20 said:


> Most overrated:
> 1. expensive high end reverb gear
> 2. orchestral music



For some reason you seem to think that any kind of excellence is bunkum, whether its 'high end reverb gear' or 'golden ears' (your expression not mine)

Where are the results for some of these 'every time' blind tests you refer to? Or are you simply spouting a load of nonsense to back up your ridiculous argument?

Do you think your ears are as good as for example, Tom Coyne? George Marino? or maybe Brad Gilderman? I've worked with all these guys. They seemed to think that 'expensive high end audio gear' was important to the process of making great records.

Who are you anyway? Where are any citations for any of these things you are presenting as 'facts'?

Jeez.

Paul :roll:


----------



## synthetic

Well if anyone is interested in a real scientific test I still think that this guy did a really good job of a shoot out with the local university. And I can't imagine any digital summing algorithm being more accurate than a 10k 1% resistor. Sure there's ADDA distortion to worry about but quite a few people think it's worth the effort. 

Womb Forums is where I heard the first summing shootout by Kenny Giola. That's what really sold me. 



synthetic @ Fri Jun 18 said:


> Check out the posts by Peter Weihe in this thread:
> 
> http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/mv/msg/25264/0/96/0/ (http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... 64/0/96/0/)
> 
> They tried to do a scientific test at a university about analog summing. Their tests seem to show a reduction in dynamic range in the analog domain, but everyone preferred the sound of the analog summing. Of course the converters used were crucial as well. A very well-conducted test.


----------



## Fernando Warez

chimuelo @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> Totally agree Fernando.
> But don't kid yourself, Sarah also is a spokesperson, but for Rupert Murdoch.
> I am expecting after she finishes Jay Ashers' course, she will convince Rupert Murdoch to release the DAW to end all DAW's called Illogic Pro.
> It will smoke ProTools, Pyramix, Scope, Samplitude and SAW Studio, but nobody will be able to prove why it sounds so good..............hence the name.



Chimuelo, the only thing i like about Palin is that she's kind of cut. Other than that, my view on her is that she deserves an Howard for being the biggest useful idiots in the history of politics. That's very bad! And that makes her very dangerous. And the sad thing is she probably think she's doing a service to her country... those idiots are the worse threat we face in my opinion.

I hate to keep this off topic but who do you think Murdoch answers to? Because they all have to answer to a higher force you know? :wink: ...Well I'll just tell you. And that is the power of money. It's basically a private cartel of international banksters.


SAW Studio? = 8)


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:


> Err... so yes, you made an error. Erroneous. Get yourself a dictionary.


Yes, _I_ made an error. This does not make the test errorneous.



Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:


> For some reason you seem to think that any kind of excellence is bunkum, whether its 'high end reverb gear' or 'golden ears' (your expression not mine)


It's misguided to assume you'd know anything about my position on those things just by reading (and missunderstanding) a few of my posts.
Also the attempt to push my person into a certain direction doesn't add anything of substance to a discussion.
Would be nice, if you end this now.



Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:


> Where are the results for some of these 'every time' blind tests you refer to? Or are you simply spouting a load of nonsense to back up your ridiculous argument?


In threads like this one all around the web. There were numerous threads at KVR, some at Gearslutz, some in some german forums, etc. And no, I won't search them for you.
But doesn't it make you suspicious, that there never was such a test with the result of the esoterics being right?
Why don't you try yourself by doing such a test by the way?
Why are people arguing about things, they think they'd hear without making sure, they actually do?


----------



## Synesthesia

Your test, as performed by you, had a significant, one might say, critical error.

From the OED: 

Erroneous (definition) :

• adjective wrong; incorrect.

— DERIVATIVES erroneously adverb.

— ORIGIN Latin erroneus, from errare ‘to stray, err’.

Aaaa-nyway. getting back on topic.

Rather than relying on the vast emporium of scientific evidence that are the KVR and Gearslutz fora, another interesting actual example is to repeat one test contained within the thread quoted by Synthetic above:



> from Andy Simpson:
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I would not be quite so quick to assign greatness to the ear/brain in this case.
> 
> In my opinion, the results and examination of 'leftovers' from a 'sum/cancellation test' are extremely unreliable if not totally misleading.
> 
> For example, if we take a 16bit recording and truncate it to 8bit (without dither) and do the 'inverse sum' test we find the 'leftovers' somewhere around -48dB and below.
> 
> Andy



and again following up:


> Hi Peter,
> 
> My point regarding the example of the (nasty) 8bit truncation is that the -48dB distortion products of an 8bit truncation are very far from subtle.
> 
> However, as the tabulated input of the Neumann engineer describes, simply changing the gain of one of a pair of identical inverse polarity files will alter the gain of the summed 'leftovers' in apparently drastic fashion.
> 
> Not only will very audible distortion (ie. 8bit truncation) lead to 'apparently low' leftover (-48dB) in the ideal cancellation test, but in the case of identical undistorted files, where linear gain differs by only 1dB, the leftover will be around -22dB (files that will sound essentially identical in A/B).
> 
> In other words, if the gain is not absolutely equal in the inverse-sum test, looking at the level of the leftovers will not be very useful.
> 
> Of course, I would expect the distortion introduced by the devices under test to be repeatably audible but I would not expect much correlation between leftover level and audibility of distortion, since according to the test methodology, an 8bit truncation should be less audible than the other distortion introduced in the test.
> 
> That the Haufe transformer achieved the lowest leftovers result most likely indicates that the gain was most closely matched in this case, rather than saying very much about the distortion introduced.
> 
> Andy



So - are you interested enough to actually perform this test - its pretty easy to do this as described and have a listen.

What does this tell you about null tests?

Again - and this will be my final word as I have no interest in banging my head against a wall repeatedly on the internet:

Just because a bunch of people on KVR/Gearslutz can't hear a difference in some files (which I guess is what you are inferring - without any links - even a single one - to back up your assertion) doesn't mean that people who actually do this for a living at a high level can't hear these differences as clear as night and day.

*Even in my writing room* - which while it is treated, is a long way from being a control room - I can *clearly* hear the difference between a load of tracks in a new logic 'quick n dirty' (non templated) track all coming out of Outputs 1-2, to the separated out parts all on their own tracks in Protools being summed in Protools.

And I mean the simple expedient of bouncing each element into its own stereo pair in tools, at unity, no other changes, just allowing Tools to sum these elements and not Logic.

Of course, of course of course, it is more apparent the more tracks you have. Two stereo pairs, not much difference. 16 stereo pairs, major major difference.

But the kicker is -- I don't have to have someone explain to me *why* there is a difference. You see I can use my ears and hear it for myself.

And I certainly don't need to listen to someone tell me there *is no* difference, when I can clearly hear it.

Over and out,

Paul :mrgreen:


----------



## José Herring

Just wanted to put in an apology to Jay Asher for reacting kind of harshly to his critique of my post. It was going overboard to insinuate that he ran Eric off of the discussion. I have no real idea why Eric left this topic and to blame it on any one person is totally unfair of me.

I've met Jay in person on several occasions and have hung out with him at NAMM a few years in a row and I and many, many others including Eric I'm sure have nothing but respect for him and for the knowledge that he brings to this field.


o-[][]-o


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:


> What does this tell you about null tests?


Nothing new. I know that for years, I did those tests years ago, and I knew the results before doing tests like that.

What does it tell to you? Or what did you want to tell me by quoting it?
Obviously you don't really understand the meaning of those results.



Synesthesia @ 2010-06-24 said:


> I can clearly hear the difference between a load of tracks in a new logic 'quick n dirty' (non templated) track all coming out of Outputs 1-2, to the separated out parts all on their own tracks in Protools being summed in Protools.


You listened blind?


----------



## Mike Greene

I think there might be some misunderstandings on what some of us are "skeptical" about. I can't speak for Jay or anyone else, but I personally don't have much doubt that various DAWs sum differently and sound different from one another. Prib's tests (welcome, by the way) seem to prove it, in one case at least. He did a null test which confirmed there were artifacts. Heck, that's all the science I need right there. I'm sure Jay would agree. (Although, of course, I'd want confirmation that the test was properly and accurately conducted, and the noise that was in the null test was truly audible at 55 db gain. But it sounds like Prib knows how to conduct an experiment, so I'm good.)

Which one sounds *better* is of course another story altogether, and for that, we do need blind tests because otherwise the results are too easily tainted by other psychological factors. Not much science to that, other than in how to properly carry out a taste test.

So speaking strictly for myself, that's not where I'm being skeptical. I don't doubt Eric's claims that Quicktime sounds better (or at least different) than iTunes. Or that ProTools sounds better (or, again, at least different) from Logic. Book me a seat on the bandwagon.

My skepticism is with Eric's claims that different dyes made CDRoms sound different. Or Nick's claims that digital cables sound different. Or Bernie Grundman's claims that cloned DATs sound different. I'm not saying they're wrong. (After all, with the glaring exception of Nick, these are smart guys.) I'm just skeptical.

That's not to say I don't trust my ears. I'm just saying I don't trust *their* ears. :mrgreen:


----------



## Narval

Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> What does this tell you about null tests?


That they call 'em null for a reason.

:D


----------



## synthetic

Right, as I posted earlier if the two signals are even 0.1dB different then the sum/difference signal will be -38.8dB, which you should be able to hear. This confirms my feeling that these "inverse phase artifact" tests are useless, because it's damn difficult to level match to less than 1/10th of a dB. You need to test which one sounds better.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Mike Greene @ 2010-06-25 said:


> Prib's tests (welcome, by the way) seem to prove it, in one case at least. He did a null test which confirmed there were artifacts. Heck, that's all the science I need right there. I'm sure Jay would agree. (Although, of course, I'd want confirmation that the test was properly and accurately conducted, and the noise that was in the null test was truly audible at 55 db gain.


The test actually proved, that both DAWs sound totally the same.

The errors were not "at 55dB gain". He made them audible with 55dB of boosting, which doesn't tell us anything, because we don't know how loud his listening-system was set at this point.
Like I said, the errors are at -138dB. This means the differences appear at 138dB below the 0dB-level of the original ... right at the end of a 24bit file as expected.
--> Not audible. No different sound.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

synthetic @ 2010-06-25 said:


> Right, as I posted earlier if the two signals are even 0.1dB different then the sum/difference signal will be -38.8dB, which you should be able to hear. This confirms my feeling that these "inverse phase artifact" tests are useless, because it's damn difficult to level match to less than 1/10th of a dB. You need to test which one sounds better.


They are clearly not useless. They just don't work in both directions.

Nulltests are great to prove, that there are no audible differences.
But they can't prove, that there _are_ audible differences.


----------



## synthetic

Null tests can prove that a file is a copy of another file, I suppose. But playing back some kind of low level noise and saying, "aha there is a difference" isn't proving anything to me.


----------



## RiffWraith

Narval @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> Synesthesia @ Thu Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does this tell you about null tests?
> 
> 
> 
> That they call 'em null for a reason.
> 
> :D
Click to expand...


Exactly.



Mike Greene @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> .....but I personally don't have much doubt that various DAWs sum differently and sound different from one another.



Well, actually. if you have a look at p. 4 (?), you will see that Dom's test did in fact prove that DAWs do _not_ sum differently - at least Logic and P-Tools don't.



Mike Greene @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> Prib's tests (welcome, by the way) seem to prove it, in one case at least. He did a null test which confirmed there were artifacts.



Not sure what Prib's test proved. If I am missing something, I apologize in advance, and please set me straight if need be, but if I read it correctly, he had audio in one DAW, added some fx/plugs, ported the audio to another DAW, adjusted that DAW's plugs/fx the same as the first DAW, and saw that the resulting mixdowns did not null. Well, _of course _those files are not going to null. 

I am going to make a suggestion here - let's see if anyone takes me up on it. You want answers? Real answers? Go to the pros. No, not people on an internet forum - the real Pros. The phone can be a powerful tool when doing research, and trying to learn. I mean, how did people do it before the internet? Pick up the phone, and make some calls. Call Skywalker. Call Sound One. Call C-5. Call W.B. Who's hot in London nowadays? Call them. Call, and ask for an audio engineer. Ask for somone in the audio transfer dept, or a cheif audio engineer - hell if you are brazen enough and get lucky - you might even wind up with a re-recording engineer on the phone. Call up, tell them the situation, and see what they say.

Skywalker - (415) 662-1000
C-5 - (212) 645-3680
W.B. - (818) 954-1625
Sound One - (212) 765-4757

Cheers.


----------



## José Herring

You are missing the fact that Prib showed that the files don't null.

And you're also missing the fact that Logic and Protools do sum differently. Logic sums using 32bit floating point math and PTHD sums using 48bit fixed point calculations. 

So in fact the files are slightly different and the two programs do sum differently.

No need to call but I will. It's documented that the two programs use a different math on the mix buss. It's easy to find out.


----------



## RiffWraith

EnTaroAdun @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> Nulltests are great to prove, that there are no audible differences.
> But they can't prove, that there _are_ audible differences.



HUH?!?! :lol:

Null tests prove there are no audible differences
Null tests can't prove there are audible differences

I say again....HUH?!?! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## José Herring

RiffWraith @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> EnTaroAdun @ Fri Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nulltests are great to prove, that there are no audible differences.
> But they can't prove, that there _are_ audible differences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?!?! :lol:
> 
> Null tests prove there are no audible differences
> Null tests can't prove there are audible differences
> 
> I say again....HUH?!?! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...


Riff, the files don't null.


----------



## RiffWraith

josejherring @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> You are missing the fact that Prib showed that the files don't null.



Again - if he did what I think he did - thay _shouldn't_ null. But that is not how you do a proper null test.



josejherring @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> And you're also missing the fact that Logic and Protools do sum differently. Logic sums using 32bit floating point math and PTHD sums using 48bit fixed point calculations.
> 
> So in fact the files are slightly different and the two programs do sum differently.



Dom's files nulled, no?



josejherring @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> No need to call but I will.



Yeah - and don't go calling your intern buddy at the Palace Of Zimmer.....LOL! :lol:


----------



## Mike Greene

RiffWraith @ Thu Jun 24 said:


> Mike Greene @ Fri Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....but I personally don't have much doubt that various DAWs sum differently and sound different from one another.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, actually. if you have a look at p. 4 (?), you will see that Dom's test did in fact prove that DAWs do _not_ sum differently - at least Logic and P-Tools don't.
Click to expand...

For some reason, I thought his results were the opposite. My mistake. (I looked back and it's page 3, FWIW.) In that case, I renew my skepticism on that topic. However, I'd have to test this one (like most of the other things) myself to really have an opinion one way or another. Unlike dye colors or digital cables, I *can* imagine DAWs using different methodologies for mixing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Ethan



Say no more.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Mike "2 Unplugged 02Rs" Greene wrote:



> Nick is a total banana



Heisenberg disproved that.


----------



## RiffWraith

josejherring @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> And what intern? I was hanging with a guy who did all the sounds to Transformers I and II .....



I was KIIIIIDING!!!!! :lol:


----------



## RiffWraith

josejherring @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> N Dom's files have proven not to null and showed some small artifacts at extremely low levels.



Huh? Where? Not here. What have I missed?


----------



## gsilbers

i know this has been mentioned several times.. 

but i think there SOOOOOOOOO MANNNYY other variables that will matter way more than this. 

even if u get the same files and u mixed in pro tools and then did the same mix but in logic it will sound different because of a number of reasons. even if u mixed twice the same project in the same pro tools.. 
time of day, attitude, energy, ear fatigue, 
workflow, creative intentions.. 
then work environment factor like most folks will have different interfaces for PT than logic, or if its pro tools chances are its going to be in a bigger better sounding studio cause thats what engineers use.. of course debatable.. but there are sooo many other reasons why there would not be a clear difference b/w the 2. 

the environment for a perfect setting blind test has too bee soo controlled that in real life it would not matter at all!!! 

make note im not saying one is better than the other or not, but that to find out would be next to impossible with all the other variables.. 
who is mixing it, when its been mixed, etc etc. 
if u run several audio files and just do a mix down in a perfect control setting you might hear a small tiny difference but in a real life situation mixing a whole project in a day and then coming the next day and mixing it in the other DAW (even the same one) and being better or worst because of the DAW is ridiculous. plus youll have a client saying that the mix" sounds to yellow and u need to change it to red "
sp as long as the client is happy (or if you are lucky.. U are happy,) then its all it matters


so to be clear.. im just poo pooing you'alls argument on both sides and think the whole think is ludacris. :lol:


----------



## Narval

gsilbers @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> but i think there SOOOOOOOOO MANNNYY other variables that will matter way more than this.
> ...
> as long as the client is happy (or if you are lucky.. U are happy,) then its all it matters


Right, but what you're missing is that Pro Tools is gonna make the client happier than Logic. Unless he's Italian.



:mrgreen:


----------



## EnTaroAdun

synthetic @ 2010-06-25 said:


> Null tests can prove that a file is a copy of another file, I suppose. But playing back some kind of low level noise and saying, "aha there is a difference" isn't proving anything to me.


It proves, that this little bit of noise is the only difference. What else have you expected?



josejherring @ 2010-06-25 said:


> It's documented that the two programs use a different math on the mix buss.


Wrong!
The math is the same. The resolution is different.
Both resolutions are high enough to push every errors below the resolution of a 24bit file.
The differences on the last two bits of the 24bit files in this example come almost certainly from dithering.



RiffWraith @ 2010-06-25 said:


> HUH?!?! :lol:
> 
> Null tests prove there are no audible differences
> Null tests can't prove there are audible differences
> 
> I say again....HUH?!?! :lol: :lol: :lol:


1. take a signal
2. run it through an allpass filter
3. try to null it with the original
--> Will totally not null, but still sound totally the same.


----------



## Narval

EnTaroAdun, try this:
1. record a mono track
2. duplicate it
3. pan them hard left - hard right
4. invert the phase on one of them
5. listen using headphones.

How come they don't null?


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Is this supposed to be a joke?
Sorry, I miss the point.


----------



## Narval

No it's not a joke. Did you try it? What is your explanation for why those identical audio files don't cancel each other out although they are in opposite phase?


----------



## EnTaroAdun

They don't cancel each other out, because they're not on the same channel.
One signal is on the left channel of a stereo-track, the other one on the right channel.


----------



## Narval

Never mind channels. There is no stereo tracks. What there is, there is two mono audio recordings, identical and in opposite phase. You send one of them to your left ear and the other one to your right ear. Why don't they null in your brain? How do you scientifically explain that?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Narval, are you asking rhetorical questions or looking for the answer (which is that it's because your brain is blocking the two waves from encountering each other to cancel).

As an aside, what you're talking about is an old - and pretty poor - technique for recording vocalists who don't want to use headphones: put the mic in the exact position where the reversed-polarity signals from left and right cancel.


----------



## Narval

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> because your brain is blocking the two waves from encountering each other to cancel


"Blocking" is not the right word, but you are pretty close to the real answer. The brain is a special medium. It is a medium that treats sound in a different way than digital, analog, or even mechanic-acoustic medium will treat it. 

Same bird behaves differently in the air than under the water, and will behave differently on the ground. In different environments, sounds behaves differently. Sound does behave in the digital medium in a certain way, in analog it behaves in a different way, in the air it behaves in a different way, and inside the brain in a different way.

My point being: you are comparing flying with swimming with walking. Apples with oranges with coconuts with bananas.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Who is "you"?
And what are you talking about?

Yourself was it, who brought up this strange question with the brain.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Actually, "blocking" is the exact word, Narval!

But while I think I agree with your point, I'm not sure exactly what it is.


----------



## Narval

_"your brain is blocking the two waves from encountering each other to cancel"_

The brain does not block the two recordings. On the contrary, it makes sure that they do actually meet, within its own medium. (In the case of a stereo recording, the brain unifies two different recordings into one internal sonic field.) So, not blocking their meeting but rather ensuring it.

Now, my point. The sound, what is it? The sound is what is heard inside one's own brain. The brain translates mechanical vibrations into sound. It's called internal hearing - based on some sort of imponderable electrical alchemistry. Can't see it, can't measure it, can't say anything about it. Suffice to say that some people's internal hearing is sharper than others'. Which accounts for mastering engineers hearing differences unavailable to the rest of us. That's one aspect of the case: where the actual sound does take place - in the brain - and why we hear slightly different.

The second aspect has something to do with the limits of measuring mechanical vibrations (or, in digital, mathematical-approximations-of-mechanical-vibrations). Measurements of (mechanical or analog-electrical) vibrations only account for certain changes, not for all of them. Sound is a ghost. Some things go unseen and unaccounted for. And yet they might be heard by he who has the ears for it. Besides, measurements are discrete, while vibrations are a continuum - one fundamental incompatibility. As for digital measurements of the way mathematical-approximations-of-vibrations do interact with each other in a numerical medium - that's even more removed from air vibrations. Never mind the real sound, the one that takes place in the brain.

These two aspects above, when combined, do account for why Eric's principle is right: "Trust your ears." The internal ear can't lie. There is no sound other than the one it provides. That's the only sound that does exist. The REAL sound. Everything else is just approximations of it.

In any case, the argument of "I don't see it therefore it doesn't exist" is less sound (!) than the argument of "I can hear it therefore it must exist."


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> The brain does not block the two recordings. On the contrary, it makes sure that they do actually meet, within its own medium. (In the case of a stereo recording, the brain unifies two different recordings into one internal sonic field.) So, not blocking their meeting but rather ensuring it.



This is getting semantic, but it absolutely is blocking the two waves from encountering each other and canceling when you do what you described above! The brain is also fusing the image, of course, but the psychoacoustics don't come into play when two waves have canceled before reaching your ears (like when they're combined in a mixer or DAW). That's why noise-canceling headphones work so well, for example.

Now, there's another important thing coming into play (not for this discussion, but it's very important in general), and that's that the only time we hear canceling and sort of the opposite - comb filtering - is when the two waves come from the same angle. That is psychoacoustic, and it's why our ears and brain are different from a microphone.

But one digresses.


----------



## RiffWraith

Narval @ Sat Jun 26 said:


> The internal ear can't lie.



I hate to break it to you, but there are thousands of engineers with alot more experience than you who would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Which accounts for mastering engineers hearing differences unavailable to the rest of us



I take that with a massive grain of salt! They know what to listen for and how to identify it (i.e. what freq, as every engineer does), but there's a lot of sales mystique involved - not to denigrate the talent and skill of the whole profession, just to say that they don't hear any better than you or I do.

Anyone can develop those skills pretty easily. The Golden Ears Audio Eartraining Program (www.KIQproductions.com) has been around for years because of that.

As to sound being a ghost and all that, well...while I agree with the gist of what you're saying - or at least the conclusion - I don't believe for one minute that this is in the realm of the occult.

Two things sound audibly different or they don't. Or they do and the differences are too subtle to notice or care about. Etc.


----------



## Narval

RiffWraith @ Fri Jun 25 said:


> Narval @ Sat Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The internal ear can't lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but there are thousands of engineers with alot more experience than you who would wholeheartedly disagree with that statement.
Click to expand...

You may have reasons to believe so, but I'd like to hope their number will significantly decrease upon reading the sentence that comes right after it.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Whatever people do hear in their "inner ear", their brain or whatever ... no human being is able to hear signals, which are 100dB quiter than another signal, which is covering it.
At least nobody could ever prove such super-hearing-abilities.

The nulltest in this thread showed us the differences between two renderings of different DAWs.
Those differences were found at -138dB (and most likely caused by dither).

Everyone, who (foolishly) thinks he could hear those differences, should do a series of blindtests to prove it. Everything else is just blabla.


----------



## Narval

You are making two wrong assumptions: (a) that one cannot innerly hear what was not previously measured, and (b) that everything one innerly hears can be measured before entering the ear.

But you are actually missing the main point. There are four different (and imperfectly connected) things: (1) mechanical vibrations, (2) analog-electrical approximations of mechanical vibrations, (3) digital approximations of analog-electrical approximations of mechanical vibrations, and (4) mental approximations of mechanical vibrations (aka sound). You can measure whatever you want in the first three mediums, and your measurements will (partially) cover those vibrations and their various approximations. However, you cannot enter the fourth medium, which means that your previous measurements will say nothing about sound. Remember, sound only comes into existence after the brain translates mechanical vibrations into, well, sound.

Your microscope will tell you a few things about the shape, size, color, etc, of someone's neurons, but nothing someone's thoughts. Your camera will tell you a few things about the shape, size, skin color, etc, of a woman, but nothing about what someone senses when touching her body. It's all in the mind. Sound doesn't exist outside the mind. 

So please, don't tell me what I do (or do not) think, based on what your microscope "reveals" to you. Don't tell me about the sensation in my fingers when I touch my girlfriend's body. Don't tell me what I hear and what I don't hear. Your instruments will always only tell the trivial part of the plot. The story is something far beyond that, is something that your instruments will never tell you anything about. You better sit back and listen.

o/~


----------



## Ashermusic

NONE of the following is directed at ANY individual who has been part of this discussion. I repeat, NONE of the following is directed at ANY individual who has been part of this discussion.

Once again, what any given individual hears or thinks they hear is valid for them and should not really be an issue.

Where it BECOMES an issue is when people promote their perceptions when they cannot be demonstrated in an empirical way. Then it becomes like the guys selling magnets and copper bracelets to alleviate certain health issues. There are lots of people who anecdotally say it helps them but no scientific tests have given us any reason to believe it.

In other words, if a scientific set of tests invalidates it, that should be the conventional wisdom until some others validate it. That does not mean that any individual is not free to arrive at different conclusions based on their experiences but it DOES mean that they should not go around promoting it as being on an equal footing.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

But isn't that stating the bleeding obvious, Jay? If something exists then of course it can be demonstrated in an empirical way.

The argument is whether the only empirical way is to stage a double-blind test. And you've already lost that argument, because it isn't. 

But seriously. What if you hear something that I don't hear, but then you say "Hey, listen to the blurring of the triangle image" and I then hear it?


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jun 26 said:


> But isn't that stating the bleeding obvious, Jay? If something exists then of course it can be demonstrated in an empirical way.
> 
> The argument is whether the only empirical way is to stage a double-blind test. And you've already lost that argument, because it isn't.
> 
> But seriously. What if you hear something that I don't hear, but then you say "Hey, listen to the blurring of the triangle image" and I then hear it?



At that point, I think psycho-acoustics is involved and I trust those not at all. Which is why the double-blind test is necessary and once again, why you are as usual dead wrong


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Narval @ 2010-06-26 said:


> You are making two wrong assumptions: (a) that one cannot innerly hear what was not previously measured, and (b) that everything one innerly hears can be measured before entering the ear.


Aha ... and where exactly in my posts did you found those assumptions? :roll:
Actually I did not say anything like that. This also has nothing to do with the discussion.

Or well .. actually it's the reason, why people need to do blindtests for critical listening.
As you said, nobody can know or measure, what people hear in their brains.
What they hear is not exclusively influenced by the sound waves getting into their ears. This is exactly the reason, why _perceived_ differences in sound might not be actually existent in the sound waves (and soundfiles).



Ashermusic @ 2010-06-26 said:


> In other words, if a scientific set of tests invalidates it, that should be the conventional wisdom until some others validate it. That does not mean that any individual is not free to arrive at different conclusions based on their experiences but it DOES mean that they should not go around promoting it as being on an equal footing.


Exactly.


----------



## Narval

EnTaroAdun @ Sat Jun 26 said:


> _perceived_ differences in sound might not be actually existent in the sound waves


Or, they might be actually existent there, only your lousy microscope can't catch them.  

You see, you are now assuming that, if someone hears something that your _microscope_ can't see, that means there's something wrong with the person's hearing rather than with the microscope. And yet, your microscope is surely myopic, while some persons do have very sharp ears.

Besides, the human ears and brain do perceive in a continuous manner, adequate to the way air vibrations occur - while your measuring tools do operate with discrete data, or electrical-analog at best, both just mimicries of what truly happens in the air. No instrument can capture the continuum of mechanical vibrations, in the exact way they naturally occur. Except for the ear. Fact is, the only reliable instrument for hearing is the ear.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Microscope? You mean microphone, right?



Narval @ 2010-06-26 said:


> You see, you are now assuming that, if someone hears something that your _microscope_ can't see, that means there's something wrong with the person's hearing rather than with the microscope.


I haven't assumed anything like that.
What I wrote is, that the human listening experience is influenced by more factors than just the ear-part. Nothing wrong about that .. it's just how the human brain works.



Narval @ 2010-06-26 said:


> Fact is, the only reliable instrument for hearing is the ear.


That's utterly wrong. The ear is far away from being anywhere near reliable.
Furthermore the ear is just a microphone as well. And the human brain is not able to process data from the ear seperately. So even if the ear would be totally steady and reliable, you are still not able to interpret its data without getting disturbed by everything else.



Anyways .. could we get back on topic?
This thread was about audible differences in DAW-summing. In this case, there is no microphone invloved to measure. The digital data can be analyzed without any outer influences.
This was done countless times (even in this thread), and it always proved, that any differences (if there were any at all) are so low in level, that no human being could ever hear them.

I repeat myself, but again:
The test in this thread showed differences at -138dB (most likely caused by dithering) below the usage-signal.
I think we can all agree, that this is a level, which is inaudible.


----------



## Narval

EnTaroAdun @ Sat Jun 26 said:


> Microscope? You mean microphone, right?


_Microscope_ was a metaphor for "observing/measurement instrument."

_The ear is far away from being anywhere near reliable._
For reasons already explained, the ear is the best equipped to observe the continuum of air vibrations.

_Furthermore the ear is just a microphone as well._ 
The ear is not a microphone. The microphone is a (failed) attempt to a ear.

_And the human brain is not able to process data from the ear seperately._
The brain is pretty well equipped to process the data from the ears. What is heard, THAT is the sound. Not the digits in a computer.

_So even if the ear would be totally steady and reliable, you are still not able to interpret its data without getting disturbed by everything else._
There is no disturbance and no other sound data than the sound (=reliable) data processed inside the brain. Again, the brain is perfectly equipped for that.

_Anyways .. could we get back on topic? This thread was about audible differences in DAW-summing._
The topic has never been left, and it is: why external data fails miserably to account for differences that don't translate to the visual world, and why hearing is the best way to appreciate sound.

_In this case, there is no microphone invloved to measure. The digital data can be analyzed without any outer influences._
Digital data is not sound. Digital data is an approximation of an analog-electrical approximation of mechanical vibrations. Digital data is a mockery of a mockery.

_This was done countless times (even in this thread), and it always proved, that any differences (if there were any at all) are so low in level, that no human being could ever hear them._
For reasons already mentioned, and given the true nature of sound, digital data and "null tests" are completely inappropriate means to account for subtleties that only the inner ear can observe. 

_I repeat myself, but again:
The test in this thread showed differences at -138dB (most likely caused by dithering) below the usage-signal.
I think we can all agree, that this is a level, which is inaudible._
Your -138 is a number that only accounts for what external instruments can observe about mechanical vibrations. It does not and it cannot account for what one does actually HEAR. If you want tests, then start with what is heard, and then try to account for that. Not the other way around. 

That test does not and cannot account for differences that can be heard but not measured due to [1] the _microscopes'_ imperfections, [2] to the different mediums (digital approximations and mental representations), and [3] to the incompatibility between discrete measurements and continuous hearing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> At that point, I think psycho-acoustics is involved and I trust those not at all. Which is why the double-blind test is necessary and once again, why you are as usual dead wrong



There are two incorrect statements in there, Big Chief Asparagus Urine.

2. Double-blind tests are necessary.

Just posting that automatically makes you a pervert.

1. If something has to be pointed out to you, it's psychoacoustic and not real.

Hello? So if I don't hear that a note is out of tune, does that mean it's not? Or if I don't hear that a chord has b9 does that make it a regular 7?


----------



## EnTaroAdun

@Narval

I give up.

It's not possible to have a viable discussion with someone, who not only ignores but even totally turns around well known facts.
Your funny ideas of how the brain works, what an ear is, and how to describe digital audio information are that far off, that there's no hope, that you'll ever understand this topic.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jun 26 said:


> Hello? So if I don't hear that a note is out of tune, does that mean it's not? Or if I don't hear that a chord has b9 does that make it a regular 7?
Click to expand...


No, it only makes you a musical moron.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

But what if I hear it when A/B-ing myself but not in a double-blind test?

What kind of a moron am I then?


----------



## Ashermusic

Just for the record folks, I DON"T wear lingerie.

(Or do I? :twisted: )


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

So it's true: you've stopped.

But as chimuelo says, there's nothing to be ashamed of.


----------



## lee

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=289775


----------



## Ashermusic

I just came back from a meeting that had about 25 LA based audio engineers, mostly PT/hybrid guys. I simply put the question to them, "Is it possible for 2 audio files to null and yet still be able to hear a difference?"

To a man they agreed that it is.


----------



## Ian Dorsch

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing that, Jay!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Did you conduct a double blind test to make sure you counted right, Jay? If not then you were wrong.


----------



## Dom

Interesting, Jay. Are you still going ahead with the blind test that you planned last week?


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Ashermusic @ 2010-07-01 said:


> These guys, or most of them at least, all know at least as much as you do.


About digital signal processing? Obviously not.



Ashermusic @ 2010-07-01 said:


> Their credits speak for themselves.


Their credits may speak for them being great audio engineers, but this is totally independant from knowing, what's going on under the hood.



Ashermusic @ 2010-07-01 said:


> One of them said that the null test is inherently flawed so therefore though they null they are not identical and if I come to his studio he will show me how and why this is so.


Can't wait to hear more details on that claim. :roll:



Ashermusic @ 2010-07-01 said:


> Years ago, Bob Katz was ridiculed by some for saying that he could hear the difference between a DAT and its copy until it turned out that there WERE inherent flaws in DAT that lead to his being able to do so.


Has still nothing to do with _this_ topic.



Ashermusic @ 2010-07-01 said:


> These guys and others claiming this have too many years of big time experience to be simply victims of their own ignorance.


How do you come to this conclusion?
Having experience doesn't make you immune to the placebo-effect. And ignorance is something every human is influenced by from time to time.


----------



## germancomponist

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> ....
> Everyone disagreeing on this shows just his stupidity ... not more, not less.



Your arrogant and unfriendly way is annoying! It is completely sufficient if you write in the other forum insulting sentences!


----------



## EnTaroAdun

I know, reality is hard ... so keep going on living in your dream-world.

Hey, maybe you're right. This is not stupid, it's more like .. really .. intelligent!
Just live in the world you like to live .. no matter if it's real or not. :D

I can probably learn a lot from you!
So please, sensei, teach me the way of ignorance.


----------



## mikebarry

All this discussion needs is some Christopher Hitchens and popcorn.


----------



## dinerdog

I would have to agree with Eric and the others that there is a difference. This is totally unscientific, but even more evidence. I was looking at a film I was scoring in Logic and needed to find the same spot in the Quicktime outside of Logic. When I looked at the "exact same" Quicktime movie side by side, there was a quite noticeable difference in exposure/detail. The Quicktime is brighter and more detailed etc...

Now if that same digital file 'looks' different inside of Logic and through Quicktime alone? Is there any doubt that the exact same audio file sounds different? Use your ears AND your eyes.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

You're comparing apples with elephants here.

1. In your test, you have the same information/file goin _in_ the program. In a DAW-comparison-nulltest, you compare, what comes _out_.

2. Such a video uses compression, which has to be decompressed by the decoder. Some decoders might not work as well as others to save CPU-power. Some players might even add filters on their own to "improve" the picture-quality.
This is totally not comparable with uncompressed audio-data.


----------



## germancomponist

EnTaroAdun, there are some birds who fly thousends of miles from year to year from Europe to Greek and back to the exactly same place where they had started their fly. 

Can you explain it to me mathematically? LOL


----------



## midphase

Is that Danny Glover?


----------



## RiffWraith

dinerdog @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> Use your ears AND your eyes.



No - wrong. 

You don't base whether or not two audio files sound identical on whether or not two video files look identical. Your test deals with playing the same file in two different apps to the same monitor. If the two files look different, this proves that each app may output the same video file differently. Fine. If your point is "well, if app a outputs video differently than app b, then that means that app c outputs audio different from app d", then that is not a valid argument. We are dealing with two entirely different methods of processing data. Besides, once you output audio from app c through one signal path, and then output the same audio from app d through a different signal path, then yes, there may be an audible difference. _That_ is the equivalent of your vid test. But if you are talking about two of the same (nulled) audio files within the _same_ app/medium/console/signal path/whatever - both played at the same volume - there is no audible difference. I challenge anyone to find otherwise - with me present. :D 

Oh, and someone kindly post a valid explanation as to why null tests are inherently flawed?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

They're not inherently flawed, they're just not sensitive enough to pick up low-level details (in my opinion). Bit comparisons have to be 100% accurate, but then you have to be sure the files weren't altered while being played back or recaptured - sort of like shaking your own hand.


----------



## germancomponist

My idea is the following:

I will write a short piece with, lets say 16 tracks. I will write it with using the "Kontakt-Library", to be sure that you (most) all have the same library.

I will upload the midifile and the Kontakt-Multi. So you all can import the midifile and the Kontakt-multi into your own sequencer.

We all mix(bounce) my midifile without using any tool from the different sequencers. Let us mix it to 16bit, 44,1 kHz, as the CD standanrd is.

Then let us compare all the files by our ears and...., the null-test. 

I would do it in Cubase 5


----------



## Dom

germancomponist @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> I will write a short piece with, lets say 16 tracks. I will write it with using the "Kontakt-Library", to be sure that you (most) all have the same library.
> 
> I will upload the midifile and the Kontakt-Multi. So you all can import the midifile and the Kontakt-multi into your own sequencer.
> 
> We all mix(bounce) my midifile without using any tool from the different sequencers. Let us mix it to 16bit, 44,1 kHz, as the CD standanrd is.
> 
> Then let us compare all the files by our ears and...., the null-test.
> 
> I would do it in Cubase 5



Why not. I would however suggest 24 bit. It would reveal low level detail better. It's a long time since I have done anything in 16 bit. I would only use 16 bit if I was mastering a CD. Potentially the null test won't work anyway (disaster!  ) as we'd be relying on midi timing. I could do this in PT HD or Logic.


----------



## Narval

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> Oh, and someone kindly post a valid explanation as to why null tests are inherently flawed?


I wouldn't say they are inherently flawed. It's just that they are built to tell a different story than we are built to hear. Also, a story about different things: null tests speak either about running electrons or about digits, while our brain speaks about mechanical vibrations of the air.

In other words, null tests "look at" electric signals and digits, while the brain "looks at" mechanical vibrations. So, both the studied object and the methodology differ. Hence the different results.


----------



## EnTaroAdun

That's wrong.
The brain actually interprets electrical signals.

Besides that, your argument is invalid anyways as explained numerous times.


----------



## Tod

> That's wrong.
> The brain actually interprets electrical signals.
> 
> Besides that, your argument is invalid anyways as explained numerous times.



Humm, heh heh, I always wondered what the fizzing and buzzing was going on in my head.



> Interesting, Jay. Are you still going ahead with the blind test that you planned last week?



I'm also anxious to see how this turns out.


----------



## dinerdog

midphase - yes, that's Danny Glover, though I don't see the picture anymore. Maybe I attached it wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Suggestion, EnTaroAdun: lower the tension a little bit. People don't like to be insulted, regardless of how strongly you're committed to your own beliefs.


----------



## RiffWraith

Narval @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> .... while our brain speaks about mechanical vibrations of the air.
> 
> In other words, null tests "look at" electric signals and digits, while the brain "looks at" mechanical vibrations.





EnTaroAdun @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> That's wrong.
> The brain actually interprets electrical signals.



Actually, I think you are both right, in a way. Read on; If Narval is to be taken for_ precisely _what he said, well he is a bit off. But you could make the argument that those 'mechanical vibrations' (aka, sound waves) are taken and translated/transferred into electrical signals.

And yes, for what it's worth - I find this subject fascinating. From audiologyawareness.com:

_Vibratory energy propagated through the fluid produces deformation of the organ of Corti, in turn resulting in shearing forces on tiny tufts of "hairs" or cilia extending from the upper surfaces of the "hair cells." This shearing action triggers an electro-chemical signal that travels upward through the auditory nervous pathway which passes through the internal auditory canal to the brainstem and then upward to the auditory processing centers in the temporal lobes of the brain._ 

And another, much simpler (but basically the same) explanation from ehealthmd.com :

_Fluid waves in the cochlea are changed into electrical impulses, which travel rapidly along the auditory or hearing nerve to the brain._

Now, I am no doctor, so I can't vouch for the accuracy of anything I find on the net, but I think it's safe to say that those two articles are correct.


----------



## RiffWraith

germancomponist @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> My idea is the following:
> 
> I will write a short piece with, lets say 16 tracks. I will write it with using the "Kontakt-Library", to be sure that you (most) all have the same library.
> 
> I will upload the midifile and the Kontakt-Multi. So you all can import the midifile and the Kontakt-multi into your own sequencer.
> 
> We all mix(bounce) my midifile without using any tool from the different sequencers. Let us mix it to 16bit, 44,1 kHz, as the CD standanrd is.
> 
> Then let us compare all the files by our ears and...., the null-test.
> 
> I would do it in Cubase 5



Bad, bad idea. You are really going to open a can of worms with that one. The only way we can insure that the tests are correct, is that if everyone involved uses identical instruments, and that none of the patches are RR.

As we all know, many of us tweak patches - all it will take is for one person to load, say, an EW stock Violin patch, and someone else to load that same patch - not realizing that 5 years ago, they slightly tuned or slightly panned some of the zones - and then the test is completely out the window. But the problem is that if that 2nd person forgets that the patch is tweaked - what happens then? The resulting files are not going to null, and everone will be screaming: "see - TOLD YOU!!!!!" 

And if anyone uses any RR patches - well, need I say more?

You can do this exercise if you want, but I am telling you now, this is asking for all kinds of trouble.

Cheers.


----------



## Narval

RiffWraith @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> Narval @ Fri Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... while our brain speaks about mechanical vibrations of the air.
> In other words, null tests "look at" electric signals and digits, while the brain "looks at" mechanical vibrations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EnTaroAdun @ Fri Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's wrong.
> The brain actually interprets electrical signals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I think you are both right, in a way. Read on; If Narval is to be taken for_ precisely _what he said, well he is a bit off. But you could make the argument that those 'mechanical vibrations' (aka, sound waves) are taken and translated/transferred into electrical signals.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the brain translates the mechanical vibrations into _electro-chemical_ signals that are identical to those running inside gear circuitry? Or identical to the digits in an audio file? That's pretty unlikely, primarily because they are different mediums. Which is precisely my point: two different mediums will treat vibrations in different ways. Electrical and digital tests will observe the vibrations in their own ways that are different from the ways of the brain (which are far more complex). Being different mediums, there will surely be differences between their observations. 

A camera will see a different landscape than a person would. Take two pictures, invert the colors in one of them - they will "null." Put a person in the same position as the camera and she will observe things that the camera didn't capture. And she's not crazy. It's just that different mediums give different results.


----------



## Synesthesia

Playing things back in the sequencer is not a valid test IMHO.

Even if you try and lay a click down twice in Logic it flams with itself.

EnTaroAdun, have you examined the two files bit by bit? can you paste into a post here the first 1000 bits to prove your assertion that they are identical?

If not, you have nothing else to say in this discussion.

Best

Paul


----------



## germancomponist

RiffWraith @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Bad, bad idea. You are really going to open a can of worms with that one. The only way we can insure that the tests are correct, is that if everyone involved uses identical instruments, and that none of the patches are RR.
> 
> As we all know, many of us tweak patches - all it will take is for one person to load, say, an EW stock Violin patch, and someone else to load that same patch - not realizing that 5 years ago, they slightly tuned or slightly panned some of the zones - and then the test is completely out the window. But the problem is that if that 2nd person forgets that the patch is tweaked - what happens then? The resulting files are not going to null, and everone will be screaming: "see - TOLD YOU!!!!!"
> 
> And if anyone uses any RR patches - well, need I say more?
> 
> You can do this exercise if you want, but I am telling you now, this is asking for all kinds of trouble.
> 
> Cheers.



Hm, so I must also upload a little library with 16 instruments...., smile. But you know what my idea was, to do what we do every day with our daws and then compare our results. (The mixing I would do midi-wise and it would be included in the midifile, so no using of any plug, fader, e.t.c. would be needed.) 

I think this is the only one way to show if there are differents between DAWs soundwise. Maybe, who knows, sounddifferents results from the different programmed Kontakt Sampler (VST, TDM, RTAS, AU)..... . Could be true. Yes, no?


----------



## EnTaroAdun

Synesthesia @ 2010-07-02 said:


> EnTaroAdun, have you examined the two files bit by bit? can you paste into a post here the first 1000 bits to prove your assertion that they are identical?


Maybe you missed my post, where I said, that they are indeed not identical:
http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... 302#223302

There are differences on the last two bits of a 24bit file (not audible in any cases). I can post a pic of the wave-form after normalizing, or just post the difference-file here (normalized? not normalized?).
Is that, what you meant?



Nick Batzdorf @ 2010-07-02 said:


> Suggestion, EnTaroAdun: lower the tension a little bit. People don't like to be insulted, regardless of how strongly you're committed to your own beliefs.


Ok.
You're right. The comment about stupidity wasn't necessary.


----------



## RiffWraith

Narval @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Are you suggesting that the brain translates the mechanical vibrations into _electro-chemical_ signals that are identical to those running inside gear circuitry?



Not me. Please read my ENTIRE post.



Synesthesia @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Playing things back in the sequencer is not a valid test IMHO.



Sure is a valid test - especially when playing files side by side to see if they null.

Cheers.


----------



## Synesthesia

EnTaroAdun @ Thu Jul 01 said:


> *They most likely don't even know, what nulling means. If two files null, they contain the same data.*
> To say, you'd be able to hear differences in a comparison of *two identical things* is beyond stupid ... actually more stupid than a human could be (I hope), so it must be really the case, that they just don't know what nulling means (as it seems to be the case with many people here as well).
> 
> Or no .. let me rephrase this:
> Actually people hear *a lot of (pseudo-)differences*.
> But it must be clear, that *those differences do not come from the files, which contain the same data*. They come from expectations, flawed perception .. the errors of the human brain.
> Everyone disagreeing on this shows just his *stupidity* ... not more, not less.


----------



## Synesthesia

RiffWraith @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Synesthesia @ Fri Jul 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Playing things back in the sequencer is not a valid test IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure is a valid test - especially when playing files side by side to see if they null.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


Riff,

I agree that you can listen to see which sounds better, but any null comparison (a slightly pointless test anyway) is impossible due to the low resolution of timing in midi data.

Try laying the same click down to timecode from logic into protools... flam city!

Cheers,

Paul


----------



## Dom

germancomponist @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> Hm, so I must also upload a little library with 16 instruments...., smile.


Well I have never altered any instruments of the Kontakt stock library, if there was ever a need to alter them, I would have done that within the session, which doesn't affect the instrument on the hard disk. The only thing I HAVE done is batch re-saved them in K4 format.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

FWIW, I was talking to one of our base coders on Wednesday about what differences there might be between an audio engine which uses floating point maths and one that is fixed. The answer is *lots* apparently and that both systems have their merits and demerits (he then lost me when he was talking about mantissas etc). BUT, and I think this might be crucial to this discussion, if your system is fixed point then it is much easier apparently for a coder to predict the outcome of the summing of multiple audio streams and that might account for differences and indeed qualitative differences. 

Cheers

Stephen


----------



## EnTaroAdun

So please talk to him again and ask him explicitly, in which range the errors of those systems will be for the tasks of a DAW (summation and multiplication in a certain range).


----------



## RiffWraith

Synesthesia @ Fri Jul 02 said:


> .... but any null comparison (a slightly pointless test anyway) is impossible due to the low resolution of timing in midi data.



I wasn't aware we were talking about nulling MIDI files. Or did you try and use trickery and chicanery in order to introduce it into this discussion?  :lol: 

But seriously - yeah, I hear where you are coming from with the MIDI data, and it locking to code; a lot of that has to do with the reference used, be it video balckburst vs wordclock (48 vs 47.952) vs whatever - or maybe nothing. 

Anyway, my " especially when playing files side by side " comment was really meant to mean audio files.

Cheers.


----------



## RiffWraith

Ashermusic @ Sat Jun 19 said:


> But several of us LA guys (most of whom you know Eric) plan to get together to do a blind test in the next week or two because frankly, any other kind of test is meaningless.



This ever happen?


----------

