SAMPLITUDE RULES (DAW Summing)

[Kingston]

we are professionals

As a more serious sidenote,

Bartender, ggive me two of whatever you're serving to that table of professionals over there!

[HanafiH]

nufflink,
Are you implying that I don't understand what -150dB means, or are you saying that any difference of -150dB is ridiculous to discuss anyway?

Yes. To both. If you understood the first you wouldn't ask the second.

Every one a winner.

[nuisance sonore]

I remember a while back, it was discovered that Tracktion had a bug in its render engine. It would cut everything below -75 dB or thereabout, not bad in itself since it's very close to normal audible range limits, but when you added dithering, noise would be added into the -60/-55 dB range, squarely within audible range. Then of course if you were to compare such a file with one from another sequencer there would be audible difference, even if the exact same dithering algo was used.

Then there's this other example first reported by my associate. Take a normal midi/vsti project containing 8 midi tracks, open and render the project and call it "A", without closing the sequencer, render again and call it "B" and then another and call it "C". Tracktion in this case would render 3 slightly different files, small difference but very easily audible for annyone and easily seen in any wave editor. Now close the sequencer (Tracktion in this case) reopen and render 3 times again. Render "A2" will exactly match "A", "B2" will match "B" etc... The answer had to do, apparently and I'm still not sure it's not a bug, from free running oscillator in the VSTI; why would it reset upon opening the sequencer and not between render in a session is completely beyond me.

What I'm getting at is this, is it not possible that, even tought in theory all the hosts should sound the same, that some bugs or different methods in implementation would make a difference? And I'm talking audible difference here.

[jens]

What I'm getting at is this, is it not possible that, even tought in theory all the hosts should sound the same, that some bugs or different methods in implementation would make a difference? And I'm talking audible difference here.

sure - but even if:

1. Hifiboom wouldn't notice it...

2. it would be measurable


So where are the valid results of properly executed tests?

[nuisance sonore]

So where are the valid results of properly executed tests?

I don't know, I haven't seen any in this thread so far, pro or con, and it's a year old...

[jens]

So where are the valid results of properly executed tests?

I don't know, I haven't seen any in this thread so far, pro or con, and it's a year old...

bingo

[Kingston]

Oh dear. I hope the god you guys aren't starting to doubt.

You can do the tests yourself, but I would be a waste of yours and everybody elses time.

[jens]

You can do the tests yourself

why should I? I'm usually entirely satisfied with the output of my 40€ sequencer (and if not I make a bug-report) - in other words: no, we agree...

[Kingston]

(cool I've been wanting this icon here as well. just found it. yay)

[hifiboom]

you are too funnay

man, I don`t mix wav files in a host!

I mix VSTi and VST-fx....

Erm ... well sorry to burst your bubble, but Guess what VSTi outputs? wav data! Guess what VST-fx input and output? wav data! The same stuff thats in a wav file. Exactly the same.

Maybe you are right that there are no differences mixing wav files.....

But we are professionals and I do not buy Cubase to just mix loops!! ( then I could use any other 40$ software )

With VSTi synths etc. there are drastical sound differnces... and nearly every mix with VSTi in Cubase sounds little ill (phasing effects, digital harsh sound)

Ohters do confirm this, too.

Professional? O RLY? I don't believe that.

Here's a good test - Use a third host, not cubase or samplitude, and export a wav file of a VSTi playing. Then, import that wav into both Cubase and Samplitude, with the same reverb on the same preset, and export them to another wav file. Then, take an audio editor, and normalize them to the same value. I will guarantee you that they will sound the same (and I hate Cubase just as much as the next person).

And as we can discuss this in a normal way, there are other idiots (like arke) that cannot talk on a normal level, because they are just kids that never know what hardware should sound like...

What hardware should sound like? What HARDWARE should sound like? If you're looking for hardware sounds then go back to using hardware step sequencers, hardware synths, and hardware 8-track tape recorders. In the meanwhile, we'll be making sounds with our software that is just as warm as hardware, sounds much more clear, and is easier to set up too.

hey you little sun of a whore. Its your sig. change to every shit you have in your small head...

Oh yeah, and before you start insulting, make sure you understand the language well enogh to make a meaningful insult. You're welcome to insult me in german, if you wish, I understand it just fine. Otherwise, you're just making yourself seem excessively stupid. Oh wait, you are.

I was not the one that started with insults....


never mind.

Its too hard to discuss if there is a difference or not as it is even hard to discuss at all with some people..

On the one hand, you criticize my sound comparison, on the other hand you did not do any test on your own at all.

[Kingston]

on the other hand you did not do any test on your own at all.

Put it like this you clown, would you jump in a boiling melt of lava, when you full well know you would die?

Now if someone comes tell you won't get hurt, would you reconsider jumping?

Think about why the analogy works with your suggestion, then come back.

Ok that was a bit too difficult,

If someone comes tell you 1+1 isn't 2, would you believe him? That's how this thread is for the most of us.

[jens]

On the one hand, you criticize my sound comparison, on the other hand you did not do any test on your own at all.

look mate, let me tell you a story:

someone says there are rats with wings (some of them live in his attic) but people don't believe him. 'Show us a pic', they say. And so he comes up with this:




'That's just hilarious', people say 'that's just a drawing, and anyway: it rather looks like a handicapped dog' - 'well', he aswers 'I had no camera at hand - but you can still clearly see it has wings - and come on: what dog has got whiskers?' - 'show us a photo', people reply 'we aren't convinced in the least' - so he comes up with this:



'dude, do you think you are funny?', people now ask - ' why?' - 'well, where are the wings on the rat?' - 'see', he answers - 'it's pretty dark in my attic and the flashlight on my camera is very weak - but can you tell from the photo that it does not have wings? - nope, you can't - and that's because they are in fact there - I have seen them with my own eyes - and if you still say the rat on the pic hasn't got any wings then go on and prove it!'

[nuisance sonore]

and if you still say the rat on the pic hasn't got any wings then go on and prove it!'

Fine:

[Kingston]

This now turned into 'problems with empirical research for preschool' afternoon club.

[jens]

and if you still say the rat on the pic hasn't got any wings then go on and prove it!'

Fine:

yeah, couldn't be arsed to put more work into it...

you get the point anyway, don't you?


Kingston, if you think about it you and me said basically the same in different words!