MuTools

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:34 pm

Please forgive me for this thread if the subject has been done to death elsewhere on KVR or on the interweb in general.

I have always worked alone on my music and got most of my music education from videos and books. I am also new to forums in general but have now seen how useful they can be with exchanging ideas between people of common interests. The MU.LAB forum seems to have a mixed bag of members and many of the thread exchanges have had some very good ideas and thoughts etc.

I have had three questions bugging me for years:

a) When people talk about DAWs they always say that DAW "x" sounds better then DAW "y".

I am a big fan of Sylenth1 VSTi if I load this in MU.LAB and then in another DAW and leave all the mixer sliders at default and have no effects added - Will it sound the same and at what point does a DAW "colour" the sound. As far as I am concerned I have no complaints at all how any of my VST/VSTi "sound" in MU.LAB. Please do not reply with links to other pages just give it to me in a nutshell.

b) To dither or not to dither. Again in a nutshell please.

c) A silly one here. Is it just me, why does a pretty VSTi GUI always sound better than an ugly one?

I thank you in advance. Well if you don't ask you don't get.

OZ

robenestobenz · Post by **robenestobenz** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:45 pm

DAW x vs y is a myth, basically. It has been done to death on KVR, but putting the usual deceptive mix of bluster, bulldung and genuine expertise that makes up a lot of the dialogue on the forum aside, there have been tests. What they show is that things like panning laws aside (which can vary from host to host), given the same input and settings you will get the same output amongst most hosts.

Off the top of my head, here's one: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=13473

Unless the host is explicitly emulating certain effects or analogue artefacts (I think Propellerhead's new one does some of this in the mixer) a host fed identical input to another that produces output which doesn't null in a phase inversion test is, put simply, broken.

Not sure on the dithering point. I know you're supposed to do it when dropping bitdepths, but nothing beyond that.

On the last point, well, I've never actually heard a GUI!

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:05 pm

[robenestobenz] - Many thanks!

Thanks for your response nicely put, indeed a myth.

OK ...

Anyone got the dithering stuff in a nutshell for me?

OZ

bpblog · Post by **bpblog** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:07 pm

TheGuysanIdiot wrote:A silly one here. Is it just me, why does a pretty VSTi GUI always sound better than an ugly one?

i hear ya ;]

anyway, i also was amazed by how easily i ditch ugly looking plugins and how all of my favorite plugins also have to look pretty to satisfy me. i wondered if good looking guis have such a powerful placebo effect on methat they make my ears hear different.

eventually, i was searching for a free vocoder vst, there were quite a few to choose from, and quite surprisingly, i most enjoyed the sound of the ugliest one, called vocal keyboard. boy, was i happy.

Tux · Post by **Tux** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:18 pm

Can't really comment about DAW X Vs DAW Y, but I can say that from my own experience the sound of a DAW can change when upgraded by its author.

When my DAW got upgraded I noticed the the sound it produced was slightly clearer, sharper and tighter.

I'm no programmer, but I understand that music reproduction sofware comes with a 'sound engine' and the way it is coded can affect the overall sound.

But the differences are very subtle and any DAW can sound sharp and bright with the right mastering tools (which themselves can sound good or bad depending on how well they were written. Reverbs are and EQ good case in point.)

But in this day and age I believe that arguing about the sound quality of a DAW is academic. How well your music sounds still depends largely on your own production and engineering skills IMO.

pljones · Post by **pljones** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:30 pm

If you're working with sounds of different bit rates and bit depths and expecting the host to mix them to a common output format, then yes, there will be a number of ways to achieve an acceptable result and changing the "sound engine" could change the result. For example, you could find the lowest bit rate and truncate all your samples to that. Then resample all your inputs to the same rate (based on the lowest), using an aliasing algorithm. Then mix without worrying about clipping. It's almost certainly going to sound rubbish, of course...

Dithering: wasn't this because of a problem with some intel CPUs? Or am I confused?

Gooey GUIs: Humans have sense preferences. Generally we take visual input as our primary source of information, closely followed by auditory. So again, yes, you can be led to believe a pretty GUI sounds better... Hence the phrase "use your ears" (implying "and nothing else!").

robenestobenz · Post by **robenestobenz** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:39 pm

Tux wrote:Can't really comment about DAW X Vs DAW Y, but I can say that from my own experience the sound of a DAW can change when upgraded by its author.

When my DAW got upgraded I noticed the the sound it produced was slightly clearer, sharper and tighter.

Tux wrote:I'm no programmer, but I understand that music reproduction sofware comes with a 'sound engine' and the way it is coded can affect the overall sound.

But the programmers are often the ones most against this whole debate! It's adding numbers together. There is nothing in the summing process that would make things clearer, sharper or tighter. There could have been bugs elsewhere though. When the output of a number of hosts nulls in a phase inversion test it means there is NO difference between the output, no matter what anyone thinks they hear. The only thing left to explain the variation is the user's own perception.

And we know how unreliable that can be, and increasingly so as the differences between two stimuli decrease. On the very point of nice looking VST GUIs, there's been loads of experiments done on how packaging affects a consumer's taste of the product. I remember one where people consistently rated the same drink as sweeter when it was in a bottle with bright, colourful packaging than in a drab container. The drink does seem sweeter to the drinker. But does it mean the drink is actually any sweeter? No.

Dithering is for reducing audio errors when quantizing to a lower bitdepth... I don't understand the techy aspects of it beyond that to be honest. It's similar across the spheres of digital audio and graphics, which I found helped me understand it a little bit better. Wiki-wild-wild-dither

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:02 pm

One more thing…

You always read in magazines that sound engineers have "Golden Ears". Where can I buy these from as I would like to replace the rubbish ears I was born with.

OZ

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:49 pm

Back to the dither stuff maybe one for Jo.

Here is one hypothetical scenario:

a) I have four tracks with a VSTi on each and they play MIDI sequences. (The sample rate is set at 44100 in MU.LAB)

b) I now mixdown these four tracks creating a 5th track "audio track" of my whole song. (Track bouncing so I have not left MU.LAB).

c) I now mute the four MIDI tracks and they take no further part in my processing.

d) I now put in my usual mastering EQ and Limiter in the Master rack slots.

e) I now raise the song a few db and tweak the EQ.

f) The song is now finished.

g) As it will go to CD 44100/16bit I choose mixdown again but this time select "Consumer Quality (16bit)" and export it out of MU.LAB.

Does MU.LAB automatically dither in this case?

Do I need to worry about dither in the above scenario?

OZ

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:18 pm

TheGuysanIdiot wrote:I am a big fan of Sylenth1 VSTi if I load this in MU.LAB and then in another DAW and leave all the mixer sliders at default and have no effects added - Will it sound the same and at what point does a DAW "colour" the sound. As far as I am concerned I have no complaints at all how any of my VST/VSTi "sound" in MU.LAB. Please do not reply with links to other pages just give it to me in a nutshell.

MU.LAB simply gives you the sound of Sylenth just "as is".

No coloring, no special treatments under the hood. Just plain output

I think most host work the same way regarding this, though i did do a deep research about this.

b) To dither or not to dither. Again in a nutshell please.

As far as i know, dithering is only interesting when rendering audio to a low(er) bit-depth, e.g. when outputting to 16 bit. Then dithering may slightly improve the sound quality; but i think the benefits are sometimes exagerated. But that's my simple thought about it.

c) A silly one here. Is it just me, why does a pretty VSTi GUI always sound better than an ugly one?

The pleasure on your eyes radiates to other parts of your brain, e.g. the hearing part.

It's as simple as that, i think.

liquidsound · Post by **liquidsound** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:28 pm

I did this several times with different listeners with Sytrus and Sylenth1:
MuLab, FL, Live = Same
EnergyXt = was on the brighter side.
Many times, blind tests, several people = 100% same result. Try it yourself. Go figure.

About the GUI, when the instruments are designed in Synthedit they also have the GUI done with it (As in the original GUI for Sylenth one, while the engine was in C I think) and it mat be a factor in sound/visual quality association.
I am not an expert but things designed in Synthedit have a different sound character and so the GUI is associated with this...

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:30 pm

Jo,

"No coloring, no special treatments under the hood. Just plain output"

What a great answer and coming from you and all your audio/programming experience. For me I consider the matter closed.

Thanks.

OZ

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:34 pm

OK

[To sum it all up then]

I managed to track down some golden ears on eBay and while I was there I ordered some rose tinted glasses.

I will now look for some ugly plugins.

I shall not bother with dither for two reasons I still cannot understand it and it sounds like it will not make that much difference.

Using MU.LAB the DAW that sounds as good as all the good DAWs no better sounding no worse sounding than any other DAW.

I will attach my golden ears and put on my rose tinted glasses and load my ugly plugins.

Just picture the day when I am DJ at my local club playing my tracks to the public. Imagine what I will feel like if someone comes up to me and says what fantastic music, you are really talented but your dithering is a bit crap.

Thanks to all that have helped guide me on this path.

(On a serious note a genuine thank you to you all).

OZ

MuTools · Post by **MuTools** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:11 pm

TheGuysanIdiot wrote:Does MU.LAB automatically dither in this case?

No.

Do I need to worry about dither in the above scenario?

I leave this queston up to you or to others.

Personally, when making music, i never worried about dithering.

But IF you want to dither, then export as 32 bit, then import the wave file in a capable audio editor and then apply dithering while reducing the bit depth to 16 bits.

TheGuysanIdiot · Post by **TheGuysanIdiot** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:59 pm

Jo,

I exported out of MU.LAB as 32bit. Audacity audio editor has bit converters with dithering. Did a quick test and the file loaded in Audacity and it converted with dither. I will let my ears be the judge.

Either way MU.LAB does not need to dither as you say this can be done in an external audio editor. I will probably dither my stuff anyway as it is easy to do in an application such as Audacity even if I do not understand the whole technical process. So to dither or not, might as well as it is easy to do.

Thanks again.

OZ

MuTools

KVR Audio

3 questions that bug me - Help!