KVR Audio

tonymead · Post by **tonymead** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:56 pm

Hi.

I Have been using Cubase SX for about a year but there always seemed to be a 'harshness' to the sound and it also seemed a bit flat (vocal signal chain: Samson C01 > Joe Meek VC3 > Audiophile 24/96).

I have been trying the demo's of Sonar 4 and FL Studio and instantly, using the exact same set up the sound in both of these programed seemed both warmer and a lot smoother and professional.

Or am I just hearing things, can Sonar and FL really sound better. I am seriously thinking of swapping hosts now.

Anyone have any insight/comments on the above.

Cheers

Tony Mead

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:10 pm

Steinberg uses a different metering system. It is -3db compared to other systems in general. Usually when people notice a difference in "quality" it is a db difference not a tonal quality.

dimitar · Post by **dimitar** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:29 pm

SJ_Digriz wrote:Steinberg uses a different metering system. It is -3db compared to other systems in general. Usually when people notice a difference in "quality" it is a db difference not a tonal quality.

Wow

pls givme more info pls

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:53 pm

There is an AES spec/standard (17 I think) for measuring. That spec comes with test files for calibration. If you run them in Cubase you get a reading that is -3db from the documented value of the file.

Steinberg for whatever reason is 3db below that lvl at 0db. Although the Cubase statistics tool measures RMS correctly. Wavelab also uses the Steinberg measuring system.

I have no idea why this is or what system the Steinberg method is based on.

But, I do know that when you get the average lvl the same in the 2 files that most if not all percieved differences will disappear. There are other factors that come into play however.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:57 pm

It's kind of ironic that I was just going through my struggles with trying to set up a K-System meter in Cubase to K-14 specs. That db difference was giving me fits when trying to change the SPL levels of my monitors based on a K-20 file. My brain was in pain.

Peter Pan · Post by **Peter Pan** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 4:58 am

The soundquality is improved in Sonar 4 vs. Sonar 3.

The exact same files just sound better.

Can't speak about cubase, as I don't have it.

kilroy · Post by **kilroy** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:50 am

The best "sounding" DAW is whatever one the best song writing is arranged on.

meroveus · Post by **meroveus** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:53 am

So, how much better do files sound in Sonar4 as compared to Sonar3? 40% better?

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:07 am

At least 33.3% Which is up 15% from the most recent version of Guitar Tracks, too.

dimitar · Post by **dimitar** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:25 am

@SJ_Digriz

is there a possibility to calibrate Cubase meters like
Sonar Meters...or how to read them correctly

How I should read the meter levels.I just discover
with Sonar Demo that when mix and watch meters in Sonar my mixes sounds more natural and well balanced!?

is there any catch!?

Thank you!

p.p
sorry for my bad english

dimitar · Post by **dimitar** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 8:34 am

Can someone explain me ..Why pan law in Sonar in default
is 0db!? or I'm wrong...

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:44 pm

dimitar wrote:is there a possibility to calibrate Cubase meters like
Sonar Meters...or how to read them correctly

I don't know how you "calibrate" meters in Sonar so I can't compare the 2. You can't calibrate meters in Cubase, but you can adjust the color and width of the color bands ON the meter in Cubase. This is not in fact adaquate. There are after market meter plugins that perform different methods.

dimitar wrote: How I should read the meter levels.

?? err...this makes no sense.

I just discover with Sonar Demo that when mix and watch meters in Sonar my mixes sounds more natural and well balanced!?

If you are comparing to Cubase again, my guess would be that you are having a db difference not a quality difference. I recently ran the Sonar 64 demo. I did some exports from it. There is ZERO difference in output quality between that and SX-3.

Typically when a company says they improved the audio engine, that doesn't mean it "sounds" better. What they usually mean is that they have fixed performance issues. For example they could have had a situation of x number of tracks in xxx configuration that caused audible math errors. But for the most part if you put a known audio file in an application, export it to the same AVG output then the 2 files will phase cancel. I've done that test myself between Cubase 2, Sonar ?? can't remember which version, Logic, Pro Tools and the supposedly "better" sounding Samplitude.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:53 pm

meroveus wrote:So, how much better do files sound in Sonar4 as compared to Sonar3? 40% better?

20%-40% -- which brings it exactly up to parity with Nuendo, according to one well-known expert.

O_:-}

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 2:57 pm

Meffy wrote:20%-40% -- which brings it exactly up to parity with Nuendo, according to one well-known expert.

6 out of 7 Dentists suggest Dentine to their patients who chew gum.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:00 pm

I think "Nine Out of Ten Doctors" would be a great name for a band. :-)

Sound quality in Cubase vs Sonar