DAW bounce megatest!

[koolkeys]

Can't someone make a pan law VST that can be applied to the master bus and will basically apply an EQ curve or something that will change the pan law? Sorry, it's off topic. And maybe not possible. I just thought I'd suggest it.

I don't think that's possible. You can obviously replace the master pan with your own pan control, but you can't alter the panning on already panned material, unless it's just positioned mono. Even then, if the signal contains two or more summed tracks, it'd be nigh on impossible to seperate and correct.

Better just to use your own choice of pan control if you'd rather not use the host's own panning method.

But isn't the pan law just basically an EQ style curve that effects different parts of the stereo field volume-wise, like a narrow dip in centered items because of how it sounds louder in the middle, and other configurations? It's not actually the panning itself. So no panning would have to be done in the plugin. It would only make the final output match the panning law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the law. I have to admit that I don't know all the details, just that it exists and the basics. Am I way off?

Brent

[stefancrs]

Can't someone make a pan law VST that can be applied to the master bus and will basically apply an EQ curve or something that will change the pan law? Sorry, it's off topic. And maybe not possible. I just thought I'd suggest it.

I don't think that's possible. You can obviously replace the master pan with your own pan control, but you can't alter the panning on already panned material, unless it's just positioned mono. Even then, if the signal contains two or more summed tracks, it'd be nigh on impossible to seperate and correct.

Better just to use your own choice of pan control if you'd rather not use the host's own panning method.

But isn't the pan law just basically an EQ style curve that effects different parts of the stereo field volume-wise, like a narrow dip in centered items because of how it sounds louder in the middle, and other configurations? It's not actually the panning itself. So no panning would have to be done in the plugin. It would only make the final output match the panning law.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the law. I have to admit that I don't know all the details, just that it exists and the basics. Am I way off?

Brent

The panning law just sets how the volume is altered as you move a mono sound in the stereo field. Has nothing to do with EQ.

edit: read more here: http://www.harmony-central.com/articles ... ning_laws/

[IIRs]

The pan law might affect the mix you get if you "touch nothing". Some mixers will attenuate centrally panned signals, while Tracktion will play them at unity and boost signals panned to the side instead. You need to know how each host works, and make allowances for it if necessary, otherwise the test is worthless.

[EcHo2K]

@Echo2K: I think the renders are not comparable. You said there was a "don't touch anything" rule (which led to -3dB lower T render btw) and at the same time you (or whoever did the test) used outboard gear in the PT case. Apples and oranges I'd say ...

well, if you look at the files you'll se there is another PT bounce done ITB without outboard, the Dangerous bounce is made just to hear what kind of difference and external summing box make on the final result.

[voidar]

You know, the best testament to a DAW-applications' sound is when you actually do something (process) with it.

[zeoy]

@Echo2K: I think the renders are not comparable. You said there was a "don't touch anything" rule (which led to -3dB lower T render btw) and at the same time you (or whoever did the test) used outboard gear in the PT case. Apples and oranges I'd say ...

well, if you look at the files you'll se there is another PT bounce done ITB without outboard, the Dangerous bounce is made just to hear what kind of difference and external summing box make on the final result.

OK it's clear now though I still believe this has no place in the specific test.

[PaulG]

Hey, wow,

This test is almost the shoe in for tracktion for me. I am going through "host frenzy" now - having both T2 and Sonar5, was looking at the u/g to S6 but after hearing the PT HD version and making the T2 levels match I don't "hear" that much difference at all...and I am not going to go by micro-milli-analyzer tests.

A good positive sale for Tracktion here!

[EcHo2K]

in my opinion Tracktion is much closer to cubase/nuendo and PT LE (just more bass in my opinion) while PTHD remains cleaner and more defined, but anyway i prefero how the mix sounds with the external summing box so i think i'll get one, or i'll build one...

[Lunch Money]

Wow. I try to avoid being rude and all, but that's just utter bollocks and completely the psychological effect of... what... appearance of the sequencer?

Regardless of the argument of summing errors ore lack thereof (see the other thread if you want to get into THAT) there's DEFINITELY not a host with more bass. They just wouldn't build in hard-coded bass boost EQ. Moving along, "clearer and more defined" don't really mean anything, so it's pointless to argue about that one... but well... getting back to "more bass"? It's not a matter of opinion. It's just a simple matter of fact. Either something has more bass or it doesn't. And your sequencer clearly should not. It's up to YOU to decide the amount of bass.

If you could show me that PT LE had more bass as a matter of fact, that's cool... but you can't just say that it has more as a matter of opinion.

Greg

[stefancrs]

Clearer & more defined usually means "slightly louder". Usually. When people say that one thing sounds clearer and more defined than another atleast, but it's not a general rule ofcourse It's just that slight volume differences usually aren't percieved correctly and instead of hearing a change in volume we hear a change in "clarity", "definition", "sparkle", "precision" and such things.

[Sascha Franck]

OMG, the same thing again.
If a host is sounding different from others on a clearly 100% mathematical operation such as summing a few signals (that hopefully were way below 0dB, otherwise summing them would require touching faders to avoid overloads, in that case the test would be completely moot), then it is broken.
If a single stereo file loaded onto a unity gain track is sounding different due to whatever misinterpreted panning laws (which should *only* kick in once you touch your pan control, really), this qualifies as he host being at least partially broken. Unity gain is unity gain.
Al the hosts I'm able to test with do this properly. A single stereo file sounds the same in each of them (both when being bounced and when being listened to).
A bunch of (way below 0dB max. level) stereo files summed together sound the same as well. If they don't, something is broken. In Logic 5.5.1, Cubase SX 3, Samplitude 8 SE the results are identical bit for bit (and most likely in Energy XT and Reaper as well, but I haven't even been bothered to check).

And fwiw, in case things are implemented properly, the internal resolution a host is working with shouldn't matter at all as long as each individual channel doesn't go into the red, as long as the master fader doesn't go into the red and as long as there's no further processing but plain playback only involved. That's why using files way below 0dB is so important in "raw" summing tests. Anything else would require the host to do at least "some" processing work. In theory just backing up whatever fader by a defined amount of dBs should probably be the same in each host, but you never know...

As far as Tracktions master out defaulting to -3dB goes, that's not necessarily a too bad thing because you may not run into master clippings that quickly. But well. I mean, not that it'd be a big drama to lower it yourself to get rid of the red LEDs...