Audio Engine?

[tony tony chopper]

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?

don't listen to them. If what you call 'audio engine' is about mixing & outputting sound, then there's no magic, it's not analog, it's dead simple & all sequencers will do that the same way.

I'd like to agree with you with "Fruity seems to have the same audio quality to me as cubase does", but honnestly, they will all mix the same way. What can be different are equalizing, compression or other included effects, but you're not forced to use them.
Plugins might not work as well in all hosts, but they will always have the same 'sound quality', in all hosts.

& it's not a matter of faith, it's just math. Mixing signals is A+B. A+B is A+B, it's a simple addition & there's no reason for a host not to be able to add 2 things.
There are things that can matter, but not in what you're calling 'audio engine'.

This won't prevent people telling you that their VSTi's sound better in some hosts than others, though. But when it's in favor of FL, better surf on that rather than complain

[chagzuki]

That's what seems logical to me.
A host will facilitate a certain workflow, yes, but I don't think this lends itself to something that can be categorized as 'sound quality'.

[Robert Randolph]

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?

don't listen to them. If what you call 'audio engine' is about mixing & outputting sound, then there's no magic, it's not analog, it's dead simple & all sequencers will do that the same way.

I'd like to agree with you with "Fruity seems to have the same audio quality to me as cubase does", but honnestly, they will all mix the same way. What can be different are equalizing, compression or other included effects, but you're not forced to use them.
Plugins might not work as well in all hosts, but they will always have the same 'sound quality', in all hosts.

& it's not a matter of faith, it's just math. Mixing signals is A+B. A+B is A+B, it's a simple addition & there's no reason for a host not to be able to add 2 things.
There are things that can matter, but not in what you're calling 'audio engine'.

This won't prevent people telling you that their VSTi's sound better in some hosts than others, though. But when it's in favor of FL, better surf on that rather than complain

*sigh* One would almost think you'd have some clue. Not all hosts do it "the same way". And it's easily proven, as to which way is the right way... then we get into a nice discussion.

This is exactly what im talking about, denial that there is a math problem in modern software. It wont ever get fixed if no one fesses up. A minor problem, but still one that is rather "simple" to address.

And I would think having to take 10 steps to insert a VST EQ as opposed to 2 steps to use a native EQ equates to "forcing" you to use it as much as not being able to use the vst at all.... well pretty damn close.

-R bert

[Robert Randolph]

That's what seems logical to me.
A host will facilitate a certain workflow, yes, but I don't think this lends itself to something that can be categorized as 'sound quality'.

So You're telling me you can use the same type of tool, slightly differently designed (say a phillips, vst a flathead srcewdriver) and still put together all the same things?

Tools and workflow, the core of the result. Music is intuition and instinct, when the worlflow of your medium prohibits this results will vary greatly.

-R bert

[ModuLR]

I don't quite buy that Gol (and I'm somewhat surprised like Robert hearing it from FL)...

Play reason back by itself... then playback reason rewired thru SX and tell me you don't hear a difference? I certainly did. Different hosts DO sound different. Even the same host can sound different. Look at the difference between Live v1.xx and v2.xx+ ... the audio engine is definately without a question different.. and fortunately it's better.

Different host can indeed have their own qualities however minor they may be. I used the examples above because they are not subtle.. but extremely obvious differences in quality.

[chagzuki]

SX has panning laws. That could alter the sound.

[chagzuki]

Yes Robert, but a host is more likely to determine to a larger degree the style of music I make, whereas I've done things in SX and Tracktion that are identical. You couldn't say that the work I've done in Tracktion has a sound quality different to that of Cubase or Orion.

I mean, they have different styles, but not 'more airy in the high end' etc. More like, excessive use of arpeggiation, lots of chopped up audio, etc.

[ModuLR]

I should have focused specifically on Ableton Live v1 vs v2+ ... it is a extremely clear example of how a host's audioengine can sound completely different.. so obviously not everyone as Gol mentioned must do it the same.

Although I'd agree the differences might be very very small and relatively unnoticed by most including myself (hell I've got a small hearing loss and tenitis on my right ear)

[Robert Randolph]

Wanna see some differences? Load 128 tracks of uncorrelated bandlimited white noise. 1-1000hz then do the same with 15000 to 22000, then 20000 to nyquist.

The results will almost all be different at some point. Some hosts will be similiar, but not all.

Now, set the gain on every track to -1.0 and redo it. This seperates the hosts even more.

Now do the inversion test. exact same file, first... 64 tracks Inverted, then 64 tracks natural. Then interlace them. 1 natural, 1 inverted, 1 natural, 1 inverted etc...

Wanna play more? Use a Dirac impulse and you're favorite reverb (that responds). You'll be surprised at what hosts change it.

Now toy with dither a bit....


Math schmath. Some hosts are similiar, most are not. And those that are similiar happen to be the ones that are *very* dissimiliar in workflow. If I werent so bogged down with trying to finish up my graduate and post-graduate studies Id write all this shit up, but it's just plai nonsense. I know you all are smart people and can figure it out eventually, even if just by using your ears.

-R bert

[morelia]

I'm glad to see this discussion expanding. If a software sequencer on it's own really does effect the sound character then I want to know. I realise I can hear by listening and if it is significant I may be able to tell but my speakers are old and have a range of about 75-17000 (that's all I can hear up to).

I take recorded tracks from my computer to another computer an import them into cubase. They sound the same to me as they did at home in FLStudio. Well not the same (better monitors etc) but still happy with the sound. Not a real good AB method but I am happy with the quality.

I see what you are talking about Robert with the sequencer and the influence this has on writing. Now that I think about it I am sure the songs I write now are not something I could or would have written when using a Tascam 8 track and notator hooked up to an ASR10, M1, DW8000 and Roland JP or JX or something.

Thanks all

[Robert Randolph]

I short, the obvious answer is stay the hell away fnorm FL (their bloody programmers apparently know nothing, and customer service is wank), and buy tracktion

-R bert

[tony tony chopper]

I short, the obvious answer is stay the hell away fnorm FL (their bloody programmers apparently know nothing, and customer service is wank), and buy tracktion

ok my mistake, I should have realized who I'm talking to, my answer wasn't professional at all. Here it is corrected, sorry again:

My speakers are shit so it is hard to tell but Fruity seems to have the same audio quality to me as cubase does.

You're right Morelia, FL Studio indeed reaches the same audio quality as Cubase, thanks to our years of advanced knowledge in DSP, & some well-kept secrets of ours. Our audio engine quality is scientifically proven & patented.

[morelia]

I like working in fruity for midi. As far as audio recording goes though I would prefer something else and T looks like a goer. Customer service. I have never had a prob with Fruity customer service. They have always helped me quickly with any of the very few probs I've had. Although who needs it with such helpful people at KVR. It's just the pure crap that I read on the forums keeping me away from there.

[Robert Randolph]

I short, the obvious answer is stay the hell away fnorm FL (their bloody programmers apparently know nothing, and customer service is wank), and buy tracktion

ok my mistake, I should have realized who I'm talking to, my answer wasn't professional at all. Here it is corrected, sorry again:

My speakers are shit so it is hard to tell but Fruity seems to have the same audio quality to me as cubase does.

You're right Morelia, FL Studio indeed reaches the same audio quality as Cubase, thanks to our years of advanced knowledge in DSP, & some well-kept secrets of us. Our audio engine quality is scientifically proven & patented.

Keep in mind this is the kinda of wonderful people you'll be dealing with at the fruity camp. fruity indeed.

-R bert

[BlahBlah]

So if you are so sure about this, why have you not posted the results of a test? (or have you?)


I like tests.