Audio Engine?

[morelia]

What effect can an audio engine have on the music you make. If the software is processing at 32bit then can different sequencers produce different quality.

I am thinking if I buy tracktion I can afford a nice new microphone. But if the audio engine is not as hot as the one cubase uses I might be better of with my old mic and cubase. My speakers are shit so it is hard to tell but Fruity seems to have the same audio quality to me as cubase does. Is this right. Do they sound different?

morelia

P.S. Tracktion seems like a bloody brilliant audio sequencer. The only thing that seems a pain is the fact that you can't show/hide different parts of the interface like in cubase. Does that bother any one else.

[Robert Randolph]

They can, and do sound different. Plenty of people will tell you otherwise because a. they cant hear it or b. they dont grasp the entire picture. But it is the general consensus (mine as well) that tracktion sound much better than cubase. Amplitude (as it relates to volume/loudness) wont be much affected by the sequencer, the sound differences will be more subtle.

-R bert

[funky lime]

use whatever will help you write better songs... if the song itself sucks, sound quality from the audio engine wont make much of a difference

[morelia]

Robert, I was surprised to hear you say Tracktion sounds better than cubase given the cost difference. Sounds almost too good to be true.


Funky, I work best in cubase but don't own it myself. I do most of my writing with FL Studio on my computer at home. I am thinking of buying cubase but trackion looks great and apart from a few things (that I am sure I would get used to) it seems great for audio. FLStudio is still a bit annoying for recording guitars although I like it for drums and midi.

[Robert Randolph]

Generally in the audio world almost everything under 1000$ the cost is measure of features not quality. When you get over the 1K mark, quality is the main issue of price. It's just how things work unfortunately. Some exceptions, but nearly every hardware and software peice available these days follows this general rule

-R bert

[chagzuki]

Robert, you've edited your post haven't you?
I remeber you saying that Cubase's 64 bit internal mixdown gave a more airy, open sound.

[Robert Randolph]

Robert, you've edited your post haven't you?
I remeber you saying that Cubase's 64 bit internal mixdown gave a more airy, open sound.

are you on crack? Wait... i forgot who i was talking to

in general use, Cubase has a rather grainy high end at the very least and a thin low-end (which often isnt a bad thing). Cubase SX 2 does supposedly use a proper accumulator (as did SX 1 and VST on mac), but their method of dithering and conversion are less than stellar. I love uv-22, and even as it's included in cubase but they managed to muck it up a bit...

Ive spoken to quite a few people on the subject and most seem to agree that tracktion sounds thicker in use than cubase and a bit less fuzzy, for comparison samplitude is "articulate, clear and bright", logic "warm, clean and comforting", sawstudio "precise, and sharp" etc... terms are hard to express. Personally I prefer the sound of samp over them all once I learned to tune/use it properly (which has taken time), but tracktion and logic sound rather similiar and quite good for sample/software based music.

-R bert

[chagzuki]

That must have been a different thread. This is to do with 'summing' or whatever it's called isn't it?
I mean if I play a single wav in various sequencers it will sound the same, right?

[Robert Randolph]

That must have been a different thread. This is to do with 'summing' or whatever it's called isn't it?
I mean if I play a single wav in various sequencers it will sound the same, right?

LOL.

1 + =

Why doesnt that equation make sense? You cant sum a single track. And he's asking baout the sound, summing is a very minor (but for some reason prominent because people like to deny its existance) part of how and why an app sounds like it does.

-R bert

[Robert Randolph]

In some instances a single wave played in a sequencer as it is setup to do proper multitracking work, it will sound different. If you wanna just talk about maht all day, have at it... there is an issue there, but it's the smallest one in the cause of an app sounding the way it does.

-R bert

[chagzuki]

Well then I'm another person who's lost when it comes to understanding this stuff. Could you explain how an audio engine can differ - What is it if not maths?

[Robert Randolph]

Included effects

workflow (is it easier to grab an EQ first or a compressor, or to just grab the fader?)

color (red vs blue, they actually change your method of thinking)

dither (big one)

fader/pan resolution and dithering

Features (will you use CurveEQ as often if there is no PDC? Howabout freeze, that will change your work style)

Formats (TDM systems have generally much higher quality effects than VST...)

Wave display (take note next time you record to how many of your judgements are based on what you see, not what you hear. some sequencers loser more than 50% of the transients in the display!)

good enough for now? there's plenty more if you sit down and stare at your fav sequencer for a while, the brain is a very complicated thing and the signal path of a sequencer is much more than just summing files. and on it goes....

The whole 'with all things equal' shit is absolute nonsense. With all things equal THE RESULT WILL BE EQUAL. If all the software were meant to create the same result and the same sounds, it would be made the same. Heck, go get a console and listen to your mixes in comparison... i bet you end up using much more volume fader and alot less "effects"

-R bert

[Robert Randolph]

Ooops, twins!

-R bert

[chagzuki]

Oh, I get you.
But I find I use the same VSTs in different hosts. And eXT has brought them closer.

[Robert Randolph]

Oh, I get you.
But I find I use the same VSTs in different hosts. And eXT has brought them closer.

Different hosts even handle effects differently so I've read (from authors)....

-R bert