Does Ableton Live sound as good as cubase?

[Harvesteridios]

I use cubase for a long time and just now I tried Live, which is an excellent piece of software. The problem is that I think that it has lower sound quality than the other sequencers that I've used from time to time. Is it just me?

[quincy]

The general consensus froma a technical perspective is that the basic mixing (summing of digital data) is all the same in the end, and so effectively there is no diffeence in sound quality beyond what plugins, FX etc you use.

There are people who don't believe this, but its worth bearing in mind that we can easily perceive differences that aren't actually there based on a number of factors.

So basically it is very unlikely that there is any sound difference between any hosts, but of course this is only my opinion in the end.

[Bake]

20-40%!!!!!!!!!!!

[John Vulich]

20-40%!!!!!!!!!!!

What the f**k is that supposed to mean?

[sinkmusic]

a few years ago, i used to use Live2 for its functionalities other sequencers did not have, but it sounded a litte bad... how to say, like a bad stretched sample, particularly in low frequencies (80hz sinewaves basses sounded ugly) !
So i liked more using Acid3.

But the sound quality and the stretching algorythm had been greatly improved since v3.

Live4 just rocks !!!

[John Vulich]

Usually, the perception as the whether one host or another sounds better has to do with how loud it's output is. People tend to hear "louder" as "better". Hence the current disease of over-compression on most popular music these days.

[sinkmusic]

that's right that Live3 seemed to be a little louder than Live2, but the better quality of its sound was that samples were better stretched, and that, using many tracks, all tracks sounded more distinct, clear (Live 2 used to be quickly a mess using many tracks, like there had some phase inversion or some kind of an "equalization-fighting"...)

[Meffy]

JohnVulich: On the Cakewalk forum, there was a... erm, person who claimed his calibrated ears could detect a difference in sound quality between Nuendo and Sonar. The amount of the difference was 20-40%. Precise calibration those ears had. :-) He maintained this through dozens -- nay, hundreds -- of vehement posts that resembled sub-bridge-dwelling relatives of Shrek.

Anyhow, to this day the phrase "20-40%" brings a tear of laughter or of charming reminiscince to the eye of Sonar users the world 'round. And that's how I saved Christmas.

[edit] No significant, clearly audible differences were ever exhibited as far as I know.

Meffy

[Bake]

JohnVulich: On the Cakewalk forum, there was a... erm, person who claimed his calibrated ears could detect a difference in sound quality between Nuendo and Sonar. The amount of the difference was 20-40%. Precise calibration those ears had. He maintained this through dozens -- nay, hundreds -- of vehement posts that resembled sub-bridge-dwelling relatives of Shrek.

Anyhow, to this day the phrase "20-40%" brings a tear of laughter or of charming reminiscince to the eye of Sonar users the world 'round. And that's how I saved Christmas.

Meffy

yes, it was simply a bad attempt at rehashing an overplayed joke.

[Butch]

:edit

[John Vulich]

JohnVulich: On the Cakewalk forum, there was a... erm, person who claimed his calibrated ears could detect a difference in sound quality between Nuendo and Sonar. The amount of the difference was 20-40%. Precise calibration those ears had. He maintained this through dozens -- nay, hundreds -- of vehement posts that resembled sub-bridge-dwelling relatives of Shrek.

Anyhow, to this day the phrase "20-40%" brings a tear of laughter or of charming reminiscince to the eye of Sonar users the world 'round. And that's how I saved Christmas.

Meffy

yes, it was simply a bad attempt at rehashing an overplayed joke.

Oh... guess I must have missed the memo on that one. Thanks for clarifying. There have just been so many bizzare incoherent posts here lately...

[BertKoor]

[edit] No significant, clearly audible differences were ever exhibited as far as I know.

I heard this being called a myth some times. As long as there is no proof, the myth will continue I think.

Does anybody know of a scientific way to prove weather one host sounds the same as another? Can I for example with limited possibilities do a test?

[John Vulich]

[edit] No significant, clearly audible differences were ever exhibited as far as I know.

I heard this being called a myth some times. As long as there is no proof, the myth will continue I think.

Does anybody know of a scientific way to prove weather one host sounds the same as another? Can I for example with limited possibilities do a test?

If you need to employ a test, this would imply, to me at least, that there is very little (if any) audible difference... so what's the point?

Some people get so anal over bits and bytes. Just trust your ears.

[BertKoor]

Well, the point is that our ears can't be trusted! So you need a test tool. I like to see some proof that several hosts really sound the same. But how? Is there a test I can do?

[Lunch Money]

The audible difference in Live will be almost entirely a result of the pitch-shifting and time-stretching, even if a loops is only re-aligned by 1 bpm. If your composition uses the unaltered files, there will not be a sound difference.

Greg