KVR Audio

CornerWolf · Post by **CornerWolf** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:51 am

I'm astonished to see such debate today on k- v-r..

we did tests on the french forum musicrun, and then we saw same kind of tests had been done elsewhere on the cubase espace vst, another french site appearing in kvr link list.

1.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/usobsolina/test2.rar

our tests with cubase, reason, FL and cooledit pro.
We blind tested it after one of us assembled the rar file with results obtained by different persons and apps.

One file is different, it is the reason one, only because of the sampling configuration of the soft (NNsomewhat). No need to tell for the others as they are 100% equals

2.
http://www.espace-cubase.org/page.php?page=appaudiosp1

The other test, made on a very reliable site by a sound enginer, shows that there is no difference between apps, unless you put effects or whatever on your sound apart mixing it...

I guess you could find such tests done in english.

Robert Randolph · Post by **Robert Randolph** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:58 am

Tests not done correctly, they obviously will provide equivalent results. There is a threshold up to where no (or very little) error will exist.

It is "fishing" for a problem, as I've said it's a minor portion, but it is there.

And posting my results of a test dont mean jack Ive done it (and constantly find new ways to do it). Go try it yourself.

-R

bert

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:00 am

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.

you know with about each new release of FL, we're getting similar remarks. "the new FL sounds better, looks like they improved their audio engine". Usually it's because the installation reset their output device to ASIO or DirectSound, one of them being louder. Or it's just because we bundled better-sounding demo songs. There can be many reasons.

But some won't even bother fairly comparing their hosts, will test one with a 48khz output, the other at 44khz, will notice some differences, & will conclude one is better. But who cares, soon or later there will be an asshole to sell them some 'audio enhancer' that won't do anything, & for big bucks

BlahBlah · Post by **BlahBlah** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:17 am

Robert Randolph wrote:Tests not done correctly, they obviously will provide equivalent results. There is a threshold up to where no (or very little) error will exist.

It is "fishing" for a problem, as I've said it's a minor portion, but it is there.

And posting my results of a test dont mean jack Ive done it (and constantly find new ways to do it). Go try it yourself.

-R bert

So, in short, this is what you've just said "I'm blowing steam and really can't prove anything"

Cool. I was just going to say it myself, but a little baiting and I got you to say it instead.

Good day.

Jeremy_NSL · Post by **Jeremy_NSL** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:24 am

who cares if hosts dont sound the same on 128 tracks of white noise??

Mr. Slater's Parrot · Post by **Mr. Slater's Parrot** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:06 am

who cares if hosts dont sound the same on 128 tracks of white noise??

Not me -- especially if files that show differences in the bits can't even be produced to verify it.

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:44 am

all the hosts use different dither

If the files are NOT different they havent used the host very sensibly (or the test)

Ie if you set out to make things the same they are - but hosts are set out to make things different - ie new super doopah dither, track eq etc etc

dj terror · Post by **dj terror** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:50 am

gol wrote:
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.
you know with about each new release of FL, we're getting similar remarks. "the new FL sounds better, looks like they improved their audio engine". Usually it's because the installation reset their output device to ASIO or DirectSound, one of them being louder. Or it's just because we bundled better-sounding demo songs. There can be many reasons.

But some won't even bother fairly comparing their hosts, will test one with a 48khz output, the other at 44khz, will notice some differences, & will conclude one is better. But who cares, soon or later there will be an asshole to sell them some 'audio enhancer' that won't do anything, & for big bucks

imo fruityloops has sounded the same since version one evrytime i look in the fruity loops what new all excitedly i always notice one thing nothing about any change to the audio engine and its statring tojust get plain disapointing though i love fruity loops ive yettohear fromone person that theve changed the audio engine .why are they so stubborn change is good .

inginer · Post by **inginer** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 7:59 am

dumbest thread ever

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:04 am

imo fruityloops has sounded the same since version one evrytime i look in the fruity loops what new all excitedly i always notice one thing nothing about any change to the audio engine and its statring tojust get plain disapointing though i love fruity loops ive yettohear fromone person that theve changed the audio engine .why are they so stubborn change is good

lol

note to self: write 'improvements in audio engine' in the next release's whatsnew.doc

Wait, I'll turn it into a more professional response: how would you expect (other than 'better') the audio engine in the next release to be? If you can formulate your request for improvements in the audio engine without using the word 'better', we will consider the request.

Mr. Slater's Parrot · Post by **Mr. Slater's Parrot** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:05 am

all the hosts use different dither

If the files are NOT different they havent used the host very sensibly (or the test)

I think that's pushing it. You can certainly compose, record, and mix in one host and then output to another application for premastering, dithering, etc., for example. I think it's fair to say that you can very easily use a host "sensibly" without using its built-in dithering capability.

Besides, if dithering is the only difference, then one should just say that different dithering algorithms produce different audio results instead of saying that different hosts have different sound qualities because of their "audio engines" and their "mixing algorithms".

Mr. Slater's Parrot · Post by **Mr. Slater's Parrot** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:09 am

note to self: write 'improvements in audio engine' in the next release's whatsnew.doc

Good one!

dj terror · Post by **dj terror** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:11 am

James Althoff wrote:
note to self: write 'improvements in audio engine' in the next release's whatsnew.doc
Good one!

haha .

dj terror · Post by **dj terror** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:21 am

gol wrote:
imo fruityloops has sounded the same since version one evrytime i look in the fruity loops what new all excitedly i always notice one thing nothing about any change to the audio engine and its statring tojust get plain disapointing though i love fruity loops ive yettohear fromone person that theve changed the audio engine .why are they so stubborn change is good
lol

note to self: write 'improvements in audio engine' in the next release's whatsnew.doc

Wait, I'll turn it into a more professional response: how would you expect (other than 'better') the audio engine in the next release to be? If you can formulate your request for improvements in the audio engine without using the word 'better', we will consider the request.

so your the man they call gol eh in all seriousness gol theres two things that i think would make fruity the shit 1 a preset style scroling like orion you know now where the preset name is scrollable above the synth instead of the information window halfway across the screen thats the number one feeature i pray for in every new version of fl studio and 2 an improvement in the audio engine would be awsome i think those 2 things fruity is missing keeps fruity in competions with an other sequncer i wont mention names but you know your bigest competion gol .i know im just one person gol but i think my ideas are very impottant . please consider them .and id be very interested to know what you think .

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 8:26 am

a preset style scroling like orion you know now where the preset name is scrollable above the synth

that's legitimate. I have my own reasons to avoid doing that (btw the name is shown as a hint in FL), but at least it's a valid request.

2 an improvement in the audio engine would be awsome

i know im just one person gol but i think my ideas are very impottant

I'm afraid that 'improvement in the audio engine' is still not a valid request nor an idea. WHAT should be improved in the audio engine exactly?

Audio Engine?