Is there a sound problem on mixdown with FL Studio or not?

[jsp1979]

Ok people, to sum all discussion, here, everything condensed:

1 - All DAWs are the same but there are differences between them.
2 - They don't do any coloration to the sound and all sound the same, but some have a better sound then the others because they have the best algorithm.

Actually that isn't a condensed version of the thread. It's important to point out that:

--The first half of those two statements were made by those who have the requisite understanding of the issue being discussed.
--The second half of those two statements were opinions expressed by others.

It is of course an obvious point that not every DAW is identical in all ways. We're talking about whether FL Studio audio engine colors the sound. Can you get the same quality in an export FL Studio file that you get in other DAWs (w/o any coloration)? Every test ever done on this board has been "yes."

This horse has been beaten to death many, many times over. It always ends the same way.

[mauseoleum]

Not my bussiness, but IMO the issue is:

1) Is FL Studio coloring the sound - or -
2) Is Mu-Lab coloring the sound
3) If neither is coloring the sound - then WHO/WHAT IS coloring

[sorohanro]

Every test ever done on this board has been "yes."

Sorry, mine didn't.
And also when nucleon tested with VSTi instead of wav files he discovered that have different volumes.

Please read my posts and try to see my tests.

[mauseoleum]

And also when nucleon tested with VSTi instead of wav files he discovered that have different volumes.

I won't search for it, but I remember a post/thread (?) on gearslutz where some Samplitude user claimed that VSTIs sound better in Samplitude compared to Cubase (iirc it was Cubase compared to).

Now in past I used Samplitude for some time (it was v6 then) and KNOW that I was getting MUCH smoother results out of it when mixing compared to Cubase.

When I started using FL Studio in 2004 (for the "speed" of getting results), I noticed yet another difference.

I think that it's perfectly logical that different hosts will have different implementations of their (whatever) engines, so it is IMO much more important for the individual user to adapt and find his/hers own workflow that works.

BUT, OTOH, for the technically minded, posts/threads like this are a fine read.





Again I'll say that ReaPlugs sound damn fine in my Fruity. Gotta love them.
Mind you, you get the Reaper attitude within the Fruity!

[jupiter8]

There is no mythical "audio engine". It's addition and multiplication. Third grade maths. And VSTs are given 2 buffers,one with the audio to process and one to fill with the result. There aren't that many ways to do that differently.
So the host has absolutely no bearing on how a VST sounds.

True there can be differences in latency compensation and such but that is besides the point and can be compensated for manually. It doesn't make the host that doesn't use it worse sounding,just a PITA to deal with.

And of course SRC is going to sound different. I don't get why people even make that point. It's like saying two different plugins sound different. Well duh.

However given the same audio files and the same plugins all hosts sounds the same,end of story,there's no ifs or buts,no opinion,no but i can hear it,no science can't explain everything,no two files that nulls can still sound different,no nothing. They all sound the same,period.

[jsp1979]

Every test ever done on this board has been "yes."

Sorry, mine didn't.
And also when nucleon tested with VSTi instead of wav files he discovered that have different volumes.

Please read my posts and try to see my tests.

I've read them all...but thanks for the tip.

The only remaining "mystery" here is the differing volume levels. Even if FL Studio makes slightly quieter exports, I don't consider that a significant difference between it and other DAWs. It could conceivably be something as simple as a different panning law being used (for instance). This is not some weird flaw in the audio engine. Send a note to the listener to slightly turn up the volume.

We're not trying to give you a hard time, but honestly, this is probably the 20th thread about this subject this board has seen in the time I've been a member. And there's always someone that is convinced that THEY really can hear the difference...and (once all the settings are finally identical on both DAWS), the exported files always cancel out.

Sometimes the person is convinced....other times, they continue to believe.

[nucleon]

@ Nucleon

Are you playing back the sax with the MuLabs sampler or as an audio track btw?

In both programs the trumpet loop was played by sampler. I tried my best to keep same approach and make the project as similar as I can.

Thanks.

Seems its sampler dosnt output at the same level as the FL sampler or audio clips.

Along with the output level of different vst plugins being slightly different between apps, and not all by the same amount, it effectivly means the songs end up differently mixed at default.

Tho that dosnt mean you cant set the same mix levels or better in either app.

There are no spectral changes, its just the ballance between the different instrument parts.

Audio tracks/clips play back at exactly the same level in FL, MuLab, Reaper and Live as in my first test.

If your using 'delay compensation' in the FL rendering settings that may explain why the MuLab version is 64 samples late.

[Penis Arcade]

This thread highlights a problem with internet discussions in general: even if an educated person with the ability and time to debunk nonsensical opinions exists, he is far outweighed by the vast numbers of people with uninformed opinions.

There is already an existing model for handling such problems - i don't think, for example, that various accomplished scientists feel obligated to address attacks on established theories by people who don't posess the required credentials to warrant attention. Afterall we don't want to occupy the limited and valuable time of learned individuals by endlessly and fruitlessly chewing down their knowledge for the consumption of never-ending stream of countless ingorants.

There are already many books and other sources of information out there, and one can educate themselves if they so choose.

Not that this will forever halt the gushing hose of "opinions" - but it would be great if we stopped dumbing down the internets by widely publicizing the following concept: chances are, if you don't know anything in depth about the subject, you should accept that you are likely devoid of valuable information to contribute.

No matter how loudly your gut insists on shouting your particular revelation, unless it is backed by solid foundation of knowledge - ignore it, it isn't very smart.

[Nokenoku]

@demzer

Oh .. my english is not perfect. Now this is really important in this discussion.
Anyways, I think it's still good enough to be understandable.

You seem to know nothing about digital audio processing and DAWs, so again:
Just stfu about things, you have no clue about. It's as ridiculous as your ongoing insults.



@sorohanro

Sorry for contributing nothing concrete to the solution of your problems, but I still think correcting idiots, who keep spreading bullshit is important and has nothing to do with kindergardens.
I probably did it in a very bad way though.

I think that it's perfectly logical that different hosts will have different implementations of their (whatever) engines, so it is IMO much more important for the individual user to adapt and find his/hers own workflow that works.

Actually it's perfectly logical, that those "audio-engines" do not influence the sound at all.
They're just doing certain calculations, which are absolutely defined and leave no room for differences.
Addition will always stay addition and multiplication will always stay multiplication.
And the only thing done with VST-plugins is "throw an audiostream in" and "get an audiostream out".

Since we are talking about digital data here, this data can be transfered and processed without any unwanted alterations. The only important thing is the resolution, and all sequencers are using a resolution, which is high enough to push every errors out of audibility.

[sorohanro]

I will try my test again and this time without delay compensation.
If the results null themselves when one have inverted phase, even if the cancellation is less then 100% I will consider that a positive test to the "all DAWs sound the same" theory.

As for people who say "all hosts sounds the same,end of story" I ask again, please see my tests, take the midi, render through those plugins or others and then speak again.
If someone say "all hosts sounds the same,end of story" just because he read that in a programing book doesn't really bring anything positive. Really.

[trimph1]

I wonder sometimes if the soundcard one uses might not be coloring the impression a mite. Just where in the DAW are these spectral strips coming from? Input? Output?

I am just curious about how these things occur is all

[mauseoleum]

As for people who say "all hosts sounds the same,end of story"

Err.. but, on occasion, the end results slightly differ.

[sorohanro]

I wonder sometimes if the soundcard one uses might not be coloring the impression a mite. Just where in the DAW are these spectral strips coming from? Input? Output?

I am just curious about how these things occur is all

Probably it does but I can't hear for now the difference. Well, I have one soundcard at the time, so I can't compare "live".
My previous soundcard was a Creative Audigy. Now I use a M-Audio Audiophile 192.

[nucleon]

I will try my test again and this time without delay compensation.
If the results null themselves when one have inverted phase, even if the cancellation is less then 100% I will consider that a positive test to the "all DAWs sound the same" theory.

It will depend on the plugin volume settings I mention eariler.

With audio tracks, the results do null, as my first test.

This shows the mixing in different apps is the same when given the same audio signals set to the same levels.

[rifftrax]

Thankfully, jupiter8 is completely and utterly right.

Let's recap:

Summing Engine - adds the little waveform points together, if you had enough time - it would actually be possible to do with with a calculator and knowledge of how to add things together. Not that hard and certainly near 1/2 (or likely more) people using a type of DAW in this world have no clue that a "summing engine" is not some form of hocus pocus magic.

VST - they always ALWAYS sound the same because they only thing they interact with is note and controller data (MIDI), and audio in for FX. MIDI data will often have varying levels of accuracy, depending on something known as the PPQN (pulses per quarter note) resolution supported by your DAW. Anything beyond 768 is going to be a moot point and certainly undetectable in any sense with tempos over 70 bpm. Audio IN is either going to be limited by the resolution you are using being supported, or not supported. End of story. The problem is obviously not with VSTs in any sense whatsoever

PDC - plugin delay compensation. Different DAWs offer varying ways of handling this. Certain (many) plugins create a delay of the audio it's processing that is necessary to handle the calculation within the DSP realm. DAWs that offer "automatic PDC" will delay every other track not being processed by a specific plugin causing latency the exact same amount (in samples) as the track causing latency. Essentially, whichever plugin you are running with the most latency determines the maximum sample latency will be added to each other track. Your tracks will not null if everything is not sample-accurate in terms of alingment but this isn't exactly going to change "the sound" of your mix if automatic PDC is disabled. Can you imagine saying this "hey Jimbo, I think the brass/horns track needs to be shifted 96 samples backwards and the piano track is lagging like, right around 1028 samples" Yeah, neither could I.

Time-stretch Algos - Duh, it's a built in processing feature. Of course it can sound different. Fruity chorus sounds different than the chorus included in Project 5. Very good class, that's why people use different DAWs on occasion.

SRC - sample-rate conversion. Well, I can't remember the last time I actually 'heard' the difference between 44.1khz and 96khz and was like "wow, that's different!" anymore than I can hear the difference between 24bit and 16bit. Honestly. Human hearing is toast over 19khz, this is uh - pretty old news that people understood in the 40's. It's now 2010. If you were a dog making music it might matter but you're not. I suppose even then, the issue of what to do with extra samples (ones that define a level of resolution it's impossible to detect) 'could' make a slight difference in really really extreme cases but I'm not betting the farm on it.

Levels - some DAWs might show a percentage of (0 - 100, sometimes more depending on the control) and some DAWs might show an actual fader looking thing with db levels. You'll notice in FL Studio, it still shows correspondent db markings in the top left "tool tip" area as you grab a control if it's a volume level. If you are somehow importing the same clip into two different DAWs, exporting without touching a single button and then the levels are different between the two clips - you are doing something wrong (including not changing the default FL Studio template you are opening - if you haven't done so already, go change it right now to "Empty").

That's really it. This whole pretend "argument" should be dead. It should be a question of "which feature do you think makes DAW X more attractive?"