Every time I export an audiomixdown in cubase it sounds crap

[flex42]

1+1=2
1+2=3
2+2=4
.
.
.

[nuffink]

Nobody gives a f**k mate. For every c**t you quote saying there's a difference I'll find one who says otherwise.
The difference is my lot will have maths on their side. And they'll include every single person who writes the programs in the first place.

Welcome to k-v-r, and get your facts right huh?

I don't doubt that you def amateurs don't give a f**k, but then again, nobody seeks your "audio" services, apart from perhaps some amaterur garage demo band. If you do techno or some smilar crap it's no wonder you can't hear subtle nuances. You're def, compared to John.

This john c**t, are you f**king him?

[davor]

Nobody gives a f**k mate. For every c**t you quote saying there's a difference I'll find one who says otherwise.
The difference is my lot will have maths on their side. And they'll include every single person who writes the programs in the first place.

Welcome to k-v-r, and get your facts right huh?

I don't doubt that you def amateurs don't give a f**k, but then again, nobody seeks your "audio" services, apart from perhaps some amaterur garage demo band. If you do techno or some smilar crap it's no wonder you can't hear subtle nuances. You're def, compared to John.

This john c**t, are you f**king him?

No, I'm not f**king him. First, I'm not gay. Second, I'm in another part of the world

[nuffink]

So the little slut's free is he? Well I'm sold, give us his phone number.

[davor]

So the little slut's free is he? Well I'm sold, give us his phone number.

I don't know his number nuff Look for it on his website.

[nuffink]

So the little slut's free is he? Well I'm sold, give us his phone number.

I don't know his number nuff Look for it on his website.

So what is it then? Just a bit of light stalking?

It's Ok we've all done it. I've still got the court order from George Martin.

[stefancrs]

davor: you're amusing just go make some measurements. the difference between the three hosts I've tested, podium, cubase sx and audition is at -150dB, which is due to floating point precision. This is not audible. I used 16 tracks and buss sends. If I just ever could come around and put it online. Meanwhile, just test it for yourself.

Some math skills and knowledge in how to conduct objective tests are needed though.

I did test it Stef, I'm talking out of experience, not out of sheer assumptions, unfortunately. But I agree this discussion doesn't lead to anywhere cause we're obviously not on the same level. Let somebody answer the poor guy who opened this thread in the first place.

I'm not talking about assumptions eiter. I'm talking about that when you set up channels and bus sends + returns, playing the same audio, in different hosts and make a mixdown and then normalize this mixdown, the difference between the hosts will be the same as if first halfing the volume with a gain plugin and then doubling it. Inaudible, to any ear. No-one can hear differences at -150dB, this signal can't even be represented in a 24bit recording. Yet you claim that this is audible.

If you've done the tests, you'd know that they sound the same.

There's still lots of unscientific claims being made in this area, usually by "pros" that know very little about maths and the theoretical part of electronic and audio engineering. What they, and you, fail to see is that it all boils down to placebo effect.

[popsych]

To the initial poster : I think you're problem must be you are exporting in a low bitrate with no dither and getting truncation.

davor: you're amusing just go make some measurements. the difference between the three hosts I've tested, podium, cubase sx and audition is at -150dB, which is due to floating point precision. This is not audible. I used 16 tracks and buss sends. If I just ever could come around and put it online. Meanwhile, just test it for yourself.

Some math skills and knowledge in how to conduct objective tests are needed though.

We've talked about this before in my SAMP thread but here we go again.

1. Summing with just faders is not a good representation of sound engineering done on a daily basis
2. You admit there is indeed a -150db summing difference. Inaudible you say ? So is dither (supposedly) and frequencies beyond 22khz but a lot of people claim to PERCEIVE them. Not hear. PERCEIVE.
3. Pan laws can make ALL the difference.

[stefancrs]

To the initial poster : I think you're problem must be you are exporting in a low bitrate with no dither and getting truncation.

davor: you're amusing just go make some measurements. the difference between the three hosts I've tested, podium, cubase sx and audition is at -150dB, which is due to floating point precision. This is not audible. I used 16 tracks and buss sends. If I just ever could come around and put it online. Meanwhile, just test it for yourself.

Some math skills and knowledge in how to conduct objective tests are needed though.

We've talked about this before in my SAMP thread but here we go again.

1. Summing with just faders is not a good representation of sound engineering done on a daily basis
2. You admit there is indeed a -150db summing difference. Inaudible you say ? So is dither (supposedly) and frequencies beyond 22khz but a lot of people claim to PERCEIVE them. Not hear. PERCEIVE.
3. Pan laws can make ALL the difference.

I know that we have. I also know I'm a lazy-ass for never putting the tests up online If anyone else feels like doing it, please do. The test was based upon playing 16 channels of invidual white noise and sending each channel to two busses as well.

1. It was atleast with busses as well. It does not matter if one inserts fx as well, as long as one applies exactly the same fx in all hosts.

2. That summing difference is there _within one host_, not just when comparing hosts. If you pull down a tracks fader for instance 1dB and pull up the master 1dB, the result will have a difference at -150dB, compared to when having the faders like you had them before. It's not a difference between hosts, it's what happens to any material going through a "destructive" process, be it digital or analog.

Dither when going to 16bit is not inaudible if you're working with very dynamic material. The people claiming to perceive above 22khz probably would not be able to tell the difference between silence and a 22khz signal. A lot of 16bit recordings probably go down to using just 10 bits during parts of the track. Dithering will be audible.

3. In any decent host, you can set the pan law yourself, so that doesn't make hosts sound different (because you can set them up to sound the same).

[digitalmessiah]

..... but you seem to be far more knowledgeable...

My ears are obviously more knowlegable than yours. But if you can't hear the difference between the summing up of different daws that's not my problem but yours.

what's with the freaking attitude? M'Snah even gave you a pat in the back for being more knowlegable.

[Equilibrium]

OK, but I don't think Equilibrium is saying his mixes are "less immediate" or "a hair less snappy" - sounds like he's got a serious problem there.

It would help, I think, if Equilibrium could say what it actually sounds like? Quiet? Garbled? Dull? He's being stangely vague. Otherwise we could get in a huge(r) flaming session about this.

I do agree with Stefancrs about summing, though.

It's heavily distorted, the pitch is far lower, it's about as muddy as can be... also the file ends up being a lot longer, in the sense that it would have to be time stretched to be it's original length... also if you do that it remains muddy, with lower pitch and distorted. I've done a reinstall, but that hasn't made any difference.

It's a really wierd one...

Thanks for the constructive replies. I's nothing to do with something that requires some extraordinary hearing though so whatever it is everyone else is ranting about has nothing to do with it.

Thank you

[IIRs]

It's heavily distorted, the pitch is far lower, it's about as muddy as can be... also the file ends up being a lot longer, in the sense that it would have to be time stretched to be it's original length...

Sounds like a sample-rate issue..? make sure you are exporting at the same rate as your current soundcard setting. (Also, try opening the "dodgy" file in an audio editor, and see if it plays correctly.)

[UltraJv]

It sounds as if he has changed as many settings as possible in Cubase in order to get the worse sound he could Why not just use the standard settings of 16 bit 44.1 and be done with it? On the Steinberg forum, the first thing they ask is do you have a dongle? What version of SX? Then what sound card/audio routing and monitors are used...

[IIRs]

Why not just use the default settings of 16 bit 44.1

Because then it will sound worse than the live playback.

Use 24 or 32-bit unless it needs to be burnt directly onto CD, at whatever sample-rate you are running the card.. if thats the wrong sample-rate (eg, you need to burn it to CD) you either need to sample-rate convert the file after export, or stop trying to re-import it into a project with a different setting..

[UltraJv]

In this case, I disagree, he is having basic problems - the last thing you do is change settings to solve it. We need more info from him not conjecture from others. I wonder why he hasnt posted this on the official Cubase forum ?