dead horse (the resurrection)

[hibidy]

It just isn't necessary to try and beat that into me

That seems waaay over the top. All C00kie said was "you asked for it" and he was literally correct.

You started this thread with the statement "I don't care what the answer is", but you obviously did care, you had an agenda to begin with. When the thread didn't run your way, you responded to Art Evan's very calm, thoughtful post by saying "I have a headache", which was another way of saying "I physically can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with me anymore". That was the first rude post in this thread.

My suggestion would be to put it into context.

You started this thread with the statement "I don't care what the answer is", but you obviously did care, you had an agenda to begin with.

I explained my agenda. As for not "caring" about the answer, it has been explained IN CONTEXT enough for most people to understand either all daws sum the same, or maybe not.....either conclusion is fine with me.

When the thread didn't run your way

That's just stupid

you responded to Art Evan's very calm, thoughtful post by saying "I have a headache", which was another way of saying "I physically can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with me anymore". That was the first rude post in this thread.

Talk about bringing jumping to conclusions! It was supposed to be humorous.....the emoticon should have at the very least implied a chuckle.......especially if taken IN CONTEXT to the posts up to that point.

anyways I'm very sorry to have bothered everyone.

[C00kie]

Well, you've indirectly reanimated a thread that was dormant since March 2005

[hibidy]

Well, you've indirectly reanimated a thread that was dormant since March 2005

btw, I still have a headache
(to make sure I'm not misunderstood)

[hibidy]

so what does everyone think of this "improved" audio engine claim the abe's are making?

[stefancrs]

so what does everyone think of this "improved" audio engine claim the abe's are making?

What do you mean? What is it that you wonder?

Whether audio quality can be improved or not is a matter of definition, imo. Are the improvements audible, then audio quality has been improved, if they're inaudible (which I think Ableton agrees upon that they are), it's not about _audio_ quality. Audio is what we can hear. Improving what happens below the -130dB mark (or whatever) can be interesting from an engineering and marketing point of view, but it won't change how things sounds.

[hibidy]

I have no opinion one way or the other..........simply a topic for discussion........

[stefancrs]

I have no opinion one way or the other..........simply a topic for discussion........

Yeah, but what is there to discuss, and why do you feel you have to start discussions you don't have a "proper" interest in?

[hibidy]

I have no opinion one way or the other..........simply a topic for discussion........

Yeah, but what is there to discuss, and why do you feel you have to start discussions you don't have a "proper" interest in?

for me, I have a very proper interest. Though I do not care "what" the answer is, I for one see absolutely no evidence one way or the other. Yet, so many claim that this is "beating a dead horse" or "the question was answered"

Yet it makes sense that there "is" an answer for people.........

As far as me being the one to beat that horse, today live 7 was announced with a better audio engine. For peet's sake, I don't care if it's right or not.....but why would they claim it if indeed there is no difference?

and that is what should be discussed........

[stefancrs]

I have no opinion one way or the other..........simply a topic for discussion........

Yeah, but what is there to discuss, and why do you feel you have to start discussions you don't have a "proper" interest in?

for me, I have a very proper interest. Though I do not care "what" the answer is, I for one see absolutely no evidence one way or the other. Yet, so many claim that this is "beating a dead horse" or "the question was answered"

Yet it makes sense that there "is" an answer for people.........

As far as me being the one to beat that horse, today live 7 was announced with a better audio engine. For peet's sake, I don't care if it's right or not.....but why would they claim it if indeed there is no difference?

and that is what should be discussed........

With proper interest I meant as a participant of the discussion, which not is what you're doing, you're telling others what to discuss, which usually isn't how things work

So what do you think about my post regarding the improvements not being in the audio-range of the signal? You don't consider that an answer to the question?

[jupiter8]

I have no opinion one way or the other..........simply a topic for discussion........

Yeah, but what is there to discuss, and why do you feel you have to start discussions you don't have a "proper" interest in?

for me, I have a very proper interest. Though I do not care "what" the answer is, I for one see absolutely no evidence one way or the other. Yet, so many claim that this is "beating a dead horse" or "the question was answered"

Yet it makes sense that there "is" an answer for people.........

As far as me being the one to beat that horse, today live 7 was announced with a better audio engine. For peet's sake, I don't care if it's right or not.....but why would they claim it if indeed there is no difference?

and that is what should be discussed........

One side has explained the theory behind it,done the tests,submitted the results,encourage people to make their own tests to verify they're correct,even some guys that makes the DAWs says there's no difference.We make it the same way everyone is.There's really only one way to do it. The other side says "I can hear it". Which ones do you believe ?

How can you say there's no evidence one way or the other ? There's plenty.

[C00kie]

I for one see absolutely no evidence one way or the other.

You should have read this and this when looking for proof. It's blatantly there...

As far as me being the one to beat that horse, today live 7 was announced with a better audio engine. For peet's sake, I don't care if it's right or not.....but why would they claim it if indeed there is no difference?

That wasn't today, but just over a month ago. But anyway, the difference is there although it's unperceptable. They've dealt with rounding errors resulting in imperfections at around -180dB. Note that's 70dB below the noise floor of most DAC's.

The only reason for it is to aim for perfection..

[hibidy]

@stefancrs

sorry man, I do not get what you saying, and I am not dictating which direction the conversation should go........sorry I come across differently.

@Jupiter8

again, I neither believe or disbelieve what you are saying, I am again stating that if live 7 is advertised with a better sounding/summing/whatever engine.........it goes against anything discussed to this point as far as results.......no?

@whomever - I'm mystified at how bad my words are coming across .......I am neither trying to control, take sides, whatever! Anything that is an issue with me I believe I've stated. I can't understand what else I have to say to prove I'm not trying to be rude, force opinions............etc........

[Pipelineaudio]

again, I neither believe or disbelieve what you are saying, I am again stating that if live 7 is advertised with a better sounding/summing/whatever engine.........it goes against anything discussed to this point as far as results.......no?

No.

Justin Frankel has also shown that there are some errors possible in some systems. They only happen some of the time, but perhaps they could have a cumulative effect.

This effect is an ERROR. It isnt that it sounds better or worse, the issue to me is more that it doesnt give you what you put in, when you tell it to.

This may be what ableton is talking about and what they have dealt with

[hibidy]

remember, I did use dead horse in the title...........that out a account for something in my favor

I'll tell you one that I do not believe (and I admit...I should have been more clear on this being the number one reason I started this stupid thing), and that's that I need to spend 99 bucks to solve a math problem. As far as I can tell, it's as much of a scam as anything......the proper way (if you want people to believe the so called fact) is to list it as common knowledge.

Quite frankly, I have allot of things I can sell for 99 bucks that you can come to your own conclusions on.......

2+2 = 4? send me a check and I'll show you how to prove it's right.......here's my address..........

[stefancrs]

@stefancrs

sorry man, I do not get what you saying, and I am not dictating which direction the conversation should go........sorry I come across differently.

@Jupiter8

again, I neither believe or disbelieve what you are saying, I am again stating that if live 7 is advertised with a better sounding/summing/whatever engine.........it goes against anything discussed to this point as far as results.......no?

@whomever - I'm mystified at how bad my words are coming across .......I am neither trying to control, take sides, whatever! Anything that is an issue with me I believe I've stated. I can't understand what else I have to say to prove I'm not trying to be rude, force opinions............etc........

What part do you mean that you do not get? That you try to start a discussion where there isn't one, which IS dictating the conversation. Or that stuff below the hearing threshold won't be an improvement of the audio quality? Ableton agrees on this. The rest is marketing speak. They have improved the mathematical quality if their audio engine, whether this is called audio quality improvement or not is a matter of definition of the words "audio quality". I wouldn't hesitate to join the audio-is-what-you-can-hear crowd. But I totally understand why you still would call it audio quality improvement when speaking marketing-speak.