|
audio is not always the same...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shockwavedj |
I'm used to compose and working on MIDI with a sequencer (Cubase SX) and then I usually render every track separately and then mix and master. But I'm a bit surprised because when I use a different app for mixing (like Samplitude) the rendered tracks sound different (and therefore the mix does)... Is it not supposed that digital audio should sound always the same?
That brings up one of the most discussed topics in the audio world... Does every DAW sound like the other? Is better "logic audio" mixer than others? if it's so... What can pc users expect in front of those hordes of superiority-complex apple freaks?
thanks! |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
Nope, no two DAW's sound the same. It's a wrong assumption to think digital = identical. It all depends on the audio engine. Most manufacturers will say something like 32 bit float internal resolution, but that's like saying "my car is red". There are different manners to handle how bits are handled, just like there are different shades of red. Eventually it's just those nuances that make the difference.
Just know, that an increased internal resolution is necessary to keep as much quality as possible. For example, a simple volume change (so yes, even gain or normalize) is nothing but a multiplication/division in the digital domain. But, multiplications, and especially divisions, create numbers that need more bits to code (just picture, your resolution is down to 1 decimal. You got 1.5 dollars. You want half of it, that makes 0.75 dollars. If you stick at a one decimal resolution, you "lose" 0.05. Might seem like nothing to you, but remember in audio, it's those little bits that make the difference (reverb tails, ambience, etc...). So you need a higher internal resolution for even simple operations like gain change. Now, if your final product has to be at the same resolution you started with, you'll need dithering (for example, you started with a 16 bit file, due to the gain change, you made it a 32 bit file. If you burn that on a cd, you'd need to dither down, if you get the point). That's why in audiophile/mastering circles, digital processing isn't taken lightly. If for example, your audio is good, but it peaks at -3 dB, they will always think first, will the "normalise" function give me better results? Maybe it will peak higher, but due to the resolution changes, you might lose more than you would have gained.
Just to say, that all that processing, even down to simple things as volume changes and pannings, aren't as simple as that. And because the internal engine functions differently from DAW to DAW, it's no surprise the sound in the end will differ.
A test has been conducted between several DAW's (even a CD has been made with the results, I don't remember the name, but Google might prove helpful). And, yes, it's perfectly credible to say that Logic may sound crisper than Cubase, but Cubase may sound warmer, etc...
Now to say PC vs Apple... That depends. If the programmers did their job right, there shouldn't be a difference in the audio engines of, let's say PC Protools or Mac Protools. The same session should sound identical on both platforms. On the other hand, did the programmers do their job well? Who knows.
Of course, how your sound will leave the computer depends on your hardware (don't laugh, some people even claim some CDR brands sound different from another, mostly due to jitter). |
|
|
| shockwavedj |
| yeah, I second all you said, but more concretely, have you used two or more daw (including hard stuff like mackie, tascam...). what's your personal opinion, specifically at mixing stage? I gave an opportunity to Logic (btw, the last versión of logic for PC) and I found the mix not at all compact but spread (of course, in relation to cubase and with a short-time test). I was a Fruity user since fruity was a pattern sampler, and I still have happy memories of it. The same about Reason. But Logic fall short of my expectations... I got very disappointed about it even though (IMO) it has one of the best softsynths ever made. Relating Protools... I haven't worked with it, but I used Avid audio plug-ins and I was told that they are the same as protools ones. They sound good but they have a... subtle interface (the same as Logic). |
|
|
| Dj Thy |
Well, from personal experience, I find Logic to sound pretty crisp. To some people it might sound a little bit harsh, but crisp is the best word I can find.
Cubase 2/Nuendo 2, I find it sounding smooth. Less precise in the high end, but not by much. Not to my unliking, really. It's a sound that fit's a lot of productions.
Protools, well, that's a mixed bag. The older Protools I didn't like at all (much because their internal resolution wasn't super, and it was audible imo, for mixing and stuff, you better went external). With the new Protools (I think since version 6) it's a lot better.
Haven't used Sonar much enough to be able to make a statement about it.
But don't confound audio engine quality and plugin quality. Both are dependent on resolution and samplerate, but mostly on how the algorhythms were programmed. Generally, you could say the plugins offered with the DAW are there to complete the package, they are usable, but that's it (some exceptions exist of course). If I could order them between the tenor DAW's, I'd say the bundled Logic effects take the crown. Then the Protools ones, then Sonar, and at last Cubase/Nuendo.
Well, except for the synths/fx qualities, the Fruity internal engine isn't really that bad. But the rendering is. I've had to compare some projects some time ago, and really, even at highest quality rendering, something was definately lost. So, personally, when I get offered a Fruity project, I prefer to run it as a VST, and record it in the sequencer there, as this sounds better to my ears.
Reason is the biggest disappointment to me. You probably have already heard about the "partial waveform" problem. Wether it is a myth or it is reality I can't confirm, but all I can say is there is definately something missing, even in the program itself (so not a rendering issue only). It sounds pretty muffled and bland to me.
But when you work with the big DAW's, it's more a matter of preference. It's not like one sounds bad and the other blows it away. There are subtle differences, most of which "normal" people won't even notice when doing efforts... |
|
|
|
|
