edited and reborn ONLY because of abletons live 7 claim.
Let's beat this to death shall we??????
DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!
dead horse (the resurrection)
-
- KVRAF
- 6490 posts since 14 Jun, 2004 from Rochester, NY
-
- KVRAF
- 9590 posts since 17 Sep, 2002 from Gothenburg Sweden
So you want a link to results but i can't link to what i said or what someone else except you said. That don't leave many options but to link to something you said,does it ? And since you don't know we're in quite a pickle,are'nt we ?
We did the test here on KVR for about a year ago. It was me,stefancrs and some other fellas. If could be arsed to find the thread it would still be a link to "I said so". So either you take someones word for it that has done the test or you do the test yourself. It is quite easy but there's still some possibility to screw up.
You just sum a couple of audio files (we used 16 IIRC) the exact same way in several hosts. Take two resulting files,flip the polarity on one of them and all that is left is the difference between them.
We did the test here on KVR for about a year ago. It was me,stefancrs and some other fellas. If could be arsed to find the thread it would still be a link to "I said so". So either you take someones word for it that has done the test or you do the test yourself. It is quite easy but there's still some possibility to screw up.
You just sum a couple of audio files (we used 16 IIRC) the exact same way in several hosts. Take two resulting files,flip the polarity on one of them and all that is left is the difference between them.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
@being in a picklejupiter8 wrote:So you want a link to results but i can't link to what i said or what someone else except you said. That don't leave many options but to link to something you said,does it ? And since you don't know we're in quite a pickle,are'nt we ?
We did the test here on KVR for about a year ago. It was me,stefancrs and some other fellas. If could be arsed to find the thread it would still be a link to "I said so". So either you take someones word for it that has done the test or you do the test yourself. It is quite easy but there's still some possibility to screw up.
You just sum a couple of audio files (we used 16 IIRC) the exact same way in several hosts. Take two resulting files,flip the polarity on one of them and all that is left is the difference between them.
but again, this isn't about me.......I keep hearing two things over and over.
-the results are proven
-er, cause I said so
I don't think I'm alone in saying it's essential to have the thesis, the body of work, and the results in an outline IF indeed it is to be a proven fact.
-
- KVRAF
- 2844 posts since 1 Jan, 2003
It did get hashed out. Tests were done, results were posted. Some still claimed to hear differences at levels at -150 dB or something outrageous.
Hard facts don't matter to some folks here. God could appear at KvR and dispute these summing myths, but those that want to believe their DAW sounds better than your DAW would argue and argue and argue...
So, yes, dead horse. Take my advice and give up.
Hard facts don't matter to some folks here. God could appear at KvR and dispute these summing myths, but those that want to believe their DAW sounds better than your DAW would argue and argue and argue...
So, yes, dead horse. Take my advice and give up.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
I totally hear that, and I am not saying it ISN'T true......
But I want to see, and know how it was done. What started this was some lame links with absolutely no plausible info stating they had proven it.
Frankly, I've only heard one host I thought was lacking in sound quality and I'm not naming it
But I want to see, and know how it was done. What started this was some lame links with absolutely no plausible info stating they had proven it.
Frankly, I've only heard one host I thought was lacking in sound quality and I'm not naming it
-
- KVRAF
- 9590 posts since 17 Sep, 2002 from Gothenburg Sweden
Some links so you can decide for yourself who you believe in. Nothing mindblowing just some extra support for my case so to speak.
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=164528&mpage=7&key=
In this thread Ron Kuper Vice President of Engineering at Cakewalk makers of Sonar wrote in a Sonar-Nuendo comparison
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... out-3.html
Remember we have people on this board that does this for a living and noone so far has claimed to do anything other than simple summing. That's all there is to it. Simple addition. You cannot make it more efficient than that. There's no shortcuts to take which lessens the CPU load. The whole thing is an urban myth.
But it simply does'nt matter how much proof you can present.Some people chose to believe in woodoo instead. There's nothing you can do about it. You can prove it 'til you're blue in the face and they still answer:I can hear the difference.
What do you answer then ?
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=164528&mpage=7&key=
In this thread Ron Kuper Vice President of Engineering at Cakewalk makers of Sonar wrote in a Sonar-Nuendo comparison
and thisAs I said, I'm looking for analytical understanding of how the 2 engines differ. Listening to 2 MP3 files won't tell me that -- I don't know what the Nuendo project looked like vs. the SONAR project. If they sound different, then I'd like to understand why, because in theory the 2 apps shouldn't be different.
I did a test with simple audio files and plugins, and produced WAVs the were bit for bit identical.
Fredo moderator at Nuendo.com although not a programmer for Steinberg he's in close contact with them wrote in this threadAll audio data in SONAR is stored using 32-bit floats. When we sum 2 values together, they stay in the float domain and don't get rounded or truncated. The only rounding happens at the very end of the chain, when the samples are converted back to integer for streaming to the driver. This is the processing stage where dither is typically applied.
AFAIK SONAR is no different in its use of floating point summing than other apps such as Neundo or Cubase.
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... out-3.html
Ableton just did a similar test just to prove there's nothing wrong with their "audio engine" though i have'nt been able to locate it.is there a new sound engine in Cubase/Nuendo 4?
No.
You can't get better than it already is. All existing DAW's have a summing engine which produces the *exact* same results, down to the LSB's. Difference is that one will have dither noise at -136 dB, while the other will have distortion at -136 dB. The only thing that eventually can be improved are the internal effects, but those have nothing to do with the sound engine.
Again, every DAW on the market has a sound engine which allows you to mix your projects at the best possible digital standards.
It becomes a different story when you push your DAW over the technical limits. (and I see people doing this all of the time these days) In this case, Nuendo stays the "most forgiving" mix engine on the market. There are about 1500 dB of headroom in a 32-bit floating mixer, if that isn't enough ....
Remember we have people on this board that does this for a living and noone so far has claimed to do anything other than simple summing. That's all there is to it. Simple addition. You cannot make it more efficient than that. There's no shortcuts to take which lessens the CPU load. The whole thing is an urban myth.
But it simply does'nt matter how much proof you can present.Some people chose to believe in woodoo instead. There's nothing you can do about it. You can prove it 'til you're blue in the face and they still answer:I can hear the difference.
What do you answer then ?
-
- KVRAF
- 1811 posts since 18 Jan, 2005 from Lost in the blinding whiteness of the tundra
There are some people who have a religious faith in the power of their own ears and don't need all this unneccessary science like 'doing a blind test' to confirm this. But there are also a lot of people who are just a bit easily swayed by the FUD coming from the fanatics in the £5000 a metre brigade. And it'd be quite nice to have some nice authoritative looking links you can send them to, which will give them step by step instructions for doing a summing test (eg making sure that they've got the panning laws the same) on Cubase and Fruityloops (which is always the one that comes up most often) and verifying for themselves that they sound exactly the freakin same.jupiter8 wrote:But it simply does'nt matter how much proof you can present.Some people chose to believe in woodoo instead. There's nothing you can do about it. You can prove it 'til you're blue in the face and they still answer:I can hear the difference.
What do you answer then ?
The links upthread here are really good, although with forums there's always some idiot muddying the waters by saying that "the mids in Ableton are too oaky and the bass needs to be more spherical" and claiming that they can hear a difference between waves even though they cancel bit-for-bit due to some pseudoscience hocus pocus.
It's a rave, Lewis!
-
- KVRist
- 291 posts since 16 Apr, 2006
The other day in response to a Reaper forum thread I did some quick testing involving mixing four stereo files in Reaper, and the same four in Audition. There was a slight difference. Working from the point of view that there should not be a slight difference, I went back over my procedure and found a stupid mistake. Did it again, and despite the fact that mixing four files in two DAW's identically is hardly difficult, I made a different stupid mistake. Rather than saying "hey, these really are different" I thought "hey, I've done something stupid again" - and at the third attempt, got bit for bit identical results.
Using something like Audition which enables you to create a silent file, take one sample and set it to a precise value, then mix that file with itself in various different programs and examine the resulting sample value, you can double check the simple maths involved. Mix a sample with a value of 1000 four times with itself, you should end up with a sample with a value of 4000. It's that simple. If your DAW gives a different result, then your test is highly likely to be flawed. Your DAW is highly unlikely to be wrong.
Now I could imagine that in theory a DAW developer might say, "if I make that sum equal to 4004 then it'll sound better subjectively" and he might or might not be right. But I wouldn't buy it. I want correct. If I then want it to sound different from correct, so that to me, subjectively, it's better than correct, I'll do that myself with some effect, thank you very much. Any DAW developer who claims that a simple summing mix in his program sounds better than in another program is simply saying that his summing is not correct.
Using something like Audition which enables you to create a silent file, take one sample and set it to a precise value, then mix that file with itself in various different programs and examine the resulting sample value, you can double check the simple maths involved. Mix a sample with a value of 1000 four times with itself, you should end up with a sample with a value of 4000. It's that simple. If your DAW gives a different result, then your test is highly likely to be flawed. Your DAW is highly unlikely to be wrong.
Now I could imagine that in theory a DAW developer might say, "if I make that sum equal to 4004 then it'll sound better subjectively" and he might or might not be right. But I wouldn't buy it. I want correct. If I then want it to sound different from correct, so that to me, subjectively, it's better than correct, I'll do that myself with some effect, thank you very much. Any DAW developer who claims that a simple summing mix in his program sounds better than in another program is simply saying that his summing is not correct.
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
You asked for it....hibidy wrote:I have a headache
So why read on if you don't care...hibidy wrote:I don't care what the answer is
My MusicCalc is temporary offline.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 42529 posts since 21 Dec, 2005
why would you want to attack me over it? What could I have possibly done to get your skirt in a knot?C00kie wrote:You asked for it....hibidy wrote:I have a headache
So why read on if you don't care...hibidy wrote:I don't care what the answer is
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
Because you set something to fire, acting like you don't care, and then go watching in the crowds, giving indications to the firemen
DAW summing threads are definitely dead. Noone needs to proof you that 0 + 0 = 0; 0 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2.
DAW summing threads are definitely dead. Noone needs to proof you that 0 + 0 = 0; 0 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2.
My MusicCalc is temporary offline.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
We are the KVR collective. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
-
- KVRAF
- 10597 posts since 13 Jun, 2004 from Alberto Balsam
A surprising amount of people do thoughC00kie wrote:No one needs to proof you that 0 + 0 = 0; 0 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 2.
