Hi guys,
The below post was snipped from the MOTU-Mac list (mostly about DP, Digital Performer). It speaks for itself...
QUOTE:
From: "mschleunes" <mschleunes@yahoo.com>
Subject: 64-bit Traktion sounds better than DP
I downloaded a demo of Traktion from the Mackie website and set up an exact
replica of a mix in DP to see whether the 64-bit mixing function in Traktion
sounds better than the 32-bit internal processing of DP 4.52. It really does. In
fact, I would say it's pretty amazing.
I love everything about DP except the mix sound. Traktion is way behind in
terms of features, and it uses a very different metaphor for bussing and plug-
ins. The learning curve is not steep, however, and the sound is just amazing.
Traktion will be available on May 1st, and I'll be buying it to do my mixes
(though I'll still use DP for recording and arranging). By the way, on the mix I
compared, Traktion appeared to use about half the CPU that DP did to
achieve the same mix result. Is it using the plug-ins more efficiently? I don't
really know, but this was a pleasant surprise."
END QUOTE
Tracktion 2 sounds better!
-
- KVRAF
- 3335 posts since 18 May, 2003 from Sweden
-
- KVRist
- 169 posts since 10 Feb, 2003 from Melbourne, Australia
Wow 
That's so encouraging
The only way is up for us Tracktioneers I feel
Steve
That's so encouraging
The only way is up for us Tracktioneers I feel
Steve
-
- KVRAF
- 6490 posts since 14 Jun, 2004 from Rochester, NY
I wonder how much he was paid ...
but seriously, how does it sound better?
but seriously, how does it sound better?
-
- KVRAF
- 1615 posts since 28 Mar, 2005
better resolution = less noise (especially when there is a lot of level difference between tracks) = more detail "clarity" etc = beter sound.
You won't hear these differences if you don't have a decent monitoring setup (includes a quiet place to listen!) but they are there. I recall people saying they couldn't hear a difference between 16 and 24 bit sampling when that first turned up.../
You won't hear these differences if you don't have a decent monitoring setup (includes a quiet place to listen!) but they are there. I recall people saying they couldn't hear a difference between 16 and 24 bit sampling when that first turned up.../
-
- KVRist
- 182 posts since 25 Nov, 2004 from From Madrid to Heaven
Tha`s 100% true. In fact, and using Vsti instruments only, the sound quality of the mix is definitely superior than the one that you can achieve in Sonar or Cubase for PC.... I don´t know why. 64 bits and/or plug ins management?...
Tom
-
- KVRian
- 831 posts since 7 Sep, 2004
I doubt that the advantages of 64bit-float can be heard in rock/pop/dance-mixes with it's high levels.
Maybe in classics in silent passages, which become fully normalized.
For me this is a marketing-gimmick as answer to the actual summing-hype.
Imagine two identical setups, while one has normal internal 32bit-float and the other the 64bit, but in the 64bit one, you have your EQ settings and in the "old", "outdated" and "technically inferior" 32bit setup Bruce Swedien corrects one, two or max. three EQ-settings - what do you guess, whose mix will sound better. Well, the Swedien-mix would sound much better, even it would be only calculated in 16bit.
The morale of the story is: be cool and forget the technical blabla which only distracts from reflecting own deficits and learn to mix - improve your mixing skills, which can be always improved and do never trust in people telling you, that it were the sequencers, compressors or eqs, that make a good sound.
If T2 offers 64bit calculations is the least interesting thing ever.
Maybe in classics in silent passages, which become fully normalized.
For me this is a marketing-gimmick as answer to the actual summing-hype.
Imagine two identical setups, while one has normal internal 32bit-float and the other the 64bit, but in the 64bit one, you have your EQ settings and in the "old", "outdated" and "technically inferior" 32bit setup Bruce Swedien corrects one, two or max. three EQ-settings - what do you guess, whose mix will sound better. Well, the Swedien-mix would sound much better, even it would be only calculated in 16bit.
The morale of the story is: be cool and forget the technical blabla which only distracts from reflecting own deficits and learn to mix - improve your mixing skills, which can be always improved and do never trust in people telling you, that it were the sequencers, compressors or eqs, that make a good sound.
If T2 offers 64bit calculations is the least interesting thing ever.
Last edited by Barbarossa on Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- The Teach
- 8273 posts since 23 Jul, 2002 from flatness
good and accurate ARENT the same thing ...
slainte
rob
slainte
rob-
stephengardner stephengardner https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=49515
- KVRist
- 62 posts since 27 Nov, 2004
I agree tracktion sounds better than DP to me... on the last project I did in Nashville.. no contest everyone here picked T
-
- KVRAF
- 1615 posts since 28 Mar, 2005
no barbarossa - I can very clearly hear the difference between 16 and 32 bits buss. Also of course engineering strategies for 24 bit fixed and 32 bit floats are totally different - again you can hear a difference in sound as well. I have not had the opportunity to try the 64 bit T2 because of the noise...
No, a wide buss won't make your crap mix good, but a too narrow or poorly implemented buss is a constraint on what you can accomplish - more headroom and S/N are always better - not just a gimmick.
disclosure: I do not make techno music.
No, a wide buss won't make your crap mix good, but a too narrow or poorly implemented buss is a constraint on what you can accomplish - more headroom and S/N are always better - not just a gimmick.
disclosure: I do not make techno music.
-
- KVRist
- 76 posts since 7 Mar, 2005 from Moscow
T2 is little miracle with this.
I can hear it very well, but I probably have much better setup than rest of the crowd. When I mix 16+ stereo tracks 64-bit is simply more precise, resolution is higher and the difference is bigger than between good and excellent converter for example.
This subject needs more experiments, but from first impressions 64-bit is strong point for T2 (in my case maybe the strongest).
GYang
I can hear it very well, but I probably have much better setup than rest of the crowd. When I mix 16+ stereo tracks 64-bit is simply more precise, resolution is higher and the difference is bigger than between good and excellent converter for example.
This subject needs more experiments, but from first impressions 64-bit is strong point for T2 (in my case maybe the strongest).
GYang
Don't forget that your music might eventually outlive you.
-
- KVRian
- 1372 posts since 22 Sep, 2003 from New Delhi, India
So, what you ppl re saying is that if i were to open a mix I did with T1 using the 32 bit mix engine, in T2 using the 64bit mix engine, my mix would sound better... dont think so, but ill try.
Sidhu
Sidhu
-
- KVRAF
- 1615 posts since 28 Mar, 2005
Hi Sidhu - yes it could sound better - why not do an experiment and flip the phase on the original and sum so we can see if there is any difference and if so on what order of magnitude. I would guess an error signal around -100-120 db not much, but, like dither, sometimes a small noise makes a big difference.
-
- KVRAF
- 3364 posts since 16 Feb, 2004 from atop a katamari
of course anyone can say "64 bit means nothing, if you're any good you can get a great mix on a 16bit console running at 44.1kHz"; well if that kind of attitude is all that matters then why do people bother buying 192kHz hardware, run dual processors and use a full-blown analogue suite of top of the range processors and signal paths? if you're any good you can get the best sound from typing binary into an old dos system!
having 64bit mixing is great. it won't matter to some people, but it may well make the world of difference to others. enhanced fidelity at any stage in processing is never 'just marketing fluff'. it can be put to use and gives just that extra bit of juice.
having 64bit mixing is great. it won't matter to some people, but it may well make the world of difference to others. enhanced fidelity at any stage in processing is never 'just marketing fluff'. it can be put to use and gives just that extra bit of juice.
Kick, punch, it's all in the mind.
-
- KVRian
- 1372 posts since 22 Sep, 2003 from New Delhi, India
thats an excellent idea semidemiquaver...but i gues ill have to bounce my 64bit mix once... can u do that for me..??semiquaver wrote:Hi Sidhu - yes it could sound better - why not do an experiment and flip the phase on the original and sum so we can see if there is any difference and if so on what order of magnitude. I would guess an error signal around -100-120 db not much, but, like dither, sometimes a small noise makes a big difference.
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
Because they're afraid! Scared to be laughed away with their supposedly "outdated" (but nevertheless very usable) gear. Fear of being behind the rest of the crowd.haydxn wrote:if you're any good you can get a great mix on a 16bit console running at 44.1kHz"; well if that kind of attitude is all that matters then why do people bother buying 192kHz hardware, run dual processors and use a full-blown analogue suite of top of the range processors and signal paths?
My dad is not afraid of anybody. He still uses my first PC, an Olivetti 8088 based XP (hmmm, seen those letters before) on 4MHz with floppy disks that can only store 360kB. He runs WP4.2 on Dos3.3. And his system boots up faster (from floppy!) than my giga-super-duper tomorrow's machine! And he still writes the same letters as he would do with a Windows-based system, or a type writer for that matter