SAMPLITUDE RULES (DAW Summing)

[Nuisances Sonores]

After ***lenghty*** home made testings on various hosts I'am aiming at sam 8 as well when money allows : faithful playback of files like I'am hitting keys realtime ( and all the times ) + I felt immediately more " fluent " and way more efficient.

[popsych]

Why do people always say "it sounds better"? (just curious). How can one app sound better than another? - surely a 32 bit wav is a 32 bit wav no matter what programme recorded it (in the digital world annyway)?

1st - I did not say anything about single files and if i let that be implied i apologise.
2nd - 32 bit floats, handling is different from processor to processor as well as from implementation of the Machine Code to play with them. I will refer you to http://recording.org/ftopic-24228-days0-orderasc-0.html for more on this and the summing.
3rd - I'm not saying i can code windows in assembly but i have done quite a lot of stuff and although the implementation of floating point throughout processors is not understood by usual high level coding it's more than blatant in assembly.

So why does stuff sound better? I mean I read on another site someone saying SX/Nuendo sound best because they have this "true tape" technology (not sure what that meant either). I just don't see how one app can sound that much better if it's the same sort of wav files - except for if dithering or other treatments are required. I'm always reading that SAWstudio sounds better too. Is this all just bs or people being biased in favour of what they own or is there an objective reason why?

Better implementation of code, different use of summing method, different bussing system. Then there are the human factors : e.g. i work best with Samp cause i can get my faders to exactly the point where i want them, or i have better perception of what's going on. I'm not even going to talk bout dither cause that's a whole big issue

You could jump in here:
http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ultim ... ic&f=19&t= 000017

I did jump in - couldn't be ar*** to read the whole of it but from what i could see there is no nulling test (e.g. inverting phase and adding to see if zero comes out, or comparing the two), so the tests are subjective no matter who does the test and i don't care even if he's Bob katz. Nulling is the only way to see if they have a difference - independently of what's better or not. Also i see that especially samplitude had some difference even if attributed to a "broken mix".

Finally with all the talk about digital being accurate and no difference - why invest in an Apogee BIG-BEN when your live clock is the same . [/list][/quote][/url]

[popsych]

After having tried all of them I will be buying 2 new items for my studio - Adobe Audition 1.5 in place of wavelab, and Samplitude V8 Professional.

If you're getting Sam 8 Pro why Audition as well ?
Seems you're going to get the same features twice, except Sam does so much more.

Samplitude is underrated, or rather, forgotten.
I agree about midi, it is a bit clunky.One thing that constantly amazes me is the Object Editing feature. I can't imagine people not being impressed with this. For mixing and editing it's a god send.

They should really sort out the midi side once and for all, make it transparent ( you get sesoned musos not able to get a VSTi going in Samp.) and it's a winner.

I prefer the audition interface for quickly working with samples, it can load the Waves 5 bundle which Samp unfortunately can't host as VSTs (only DX), and it has some excellent tools and features - e.g. lovely frequency/time view as opposed to samplitude (oops amplitude)/time view and nice denoising plugs for many times less than the equivalent plugins .

Object editing is rully AMAZING - as for the MIDI : if it gets better implemented (i can only dream ) i can happily say that i've found a host to replace Logic for production purposes too (damn you once more LUCIJOBS).

[jens]

Better implementation of code, different use of summing method, different bussing system.

esoteric nonsense - 2+2=4

[popsych]

Better implementation of code, different use of summing method, different bussing system.

esoteric nonsense - 2+2=4

If writing a mixing routine was 2+2=4 i would have my own daw with the same engine as nuendo.

You say esoteric nonsense. I say oversimplification on your behalf.

For example
Daw 1

Sum = A + B + C + D + E +F +G + H

Remember that every adding operation includes a rounding to maximum 24 bits precision.

Daw 2
Sum = ((((((A + B) + C) + D) + E) +F) +G )+ H

Daw 3
Sum = (((A + B) + (C + D)) + ((E +F) +(G + H)))

unless you go to a bigger container (higher precision) data type these give different results for floating point. How do you know what each daw has implemented and which method sounds best

[kp]

Since when is addition non-transitive?

Without loss of generality, let's assume that we have hard limit of 10 for addition (ie. 10+1=10).

(6 + 5) + 1 = (10 + 1) + 1 = 10 + 1 = 10

6 + (5 + 1) = 6 + 6 = (10 + 2) = 10

Exactly what values does this not hold for?

[Alan]

http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ultim ... ic&f=19&t= 000017

I did jump in - couldn't be ar*** to read the whole of it but from what i could see there is no nulling test (e.g.

I guess maybe you should have the read the whole of it,better yet,buy the CD and hear the results for yourself.

[mauseoleum]

xactly what values does this not hold for?

rounding residues that are left out of equation due diff summing methods.

achhhhhhhhhhh - ease-o-terrricccca

[am999]

Mixing audio means not simply adding the channels, but more calculating an average. And this can be done in different ways and with different results if you get an overflow for one of the additions:
(A + B + C + D) / 4
(((A + B) / 2) + ((C + D) / 2)) / 2
A/4 + B/4 + C/4 + D/4

Since when is addition non-transitive?

I suppose that kp meant 'non-commutative'. And this is in case a point, where you can get different results, because floating-point addition was never commutative. I'll try to explain here, what mausoleum already said:
Let's assume we are using floating-point values that use only one digit for the mantissa. If now two numbers with different exponents are added, the smaller one will simply be lost: 1.0 + 0.9 = 1.0
If adding more than 2 numbers, the result may be dependent on the order of the additions:
(1.0 + 0.5) + 0.5 = 1.0 + 0.5 = 1.0
1.0 + (0.5 + 0.5) = 1.0 + 1.0 = 2.0

Alexander

[bmanic]

the 3D audio daw summing test is a bit silly IMHO. They did it very weirdly. They left all faders at unity gain which of course will have no difference in daws. The REAL difference comes when you start using the level faders. Bob Katz explains it quite well in his Mastering Audio and says you should always use the plugin/channel fader with the highest bit depth so in FL Studio, in stead of moving the faders I usually adjust the levels trough voxengo or sonalksis plugins which are 64 bit internal precision. There really IS a difference in sound when having a lot of level variations and such but I guess the difference is so small that it's debatable if one really can hear it and if it makes any real difference.

A more funny topic was the gearslutz analogue summing vs PT HD summing. Guess what? Everybody thought that the analogue mix was the PT mixdown and it does sound more 'radio ready' than the analogue version. We had a similar blind test on analgoue tape recording + mix vs pro tools recording + mix. Guess what? Again most people thought the PT mix was the analogue one. I in this case I personally guessed correct and also thought the analogue one sounded better. It was more rough and much smoother and punchier somehow but the PT mix was definately much more Kiss FM / Energy, aka Radio mix which is why most people thought it sounded better (coz it sounded familiar which is usually confused as 'better').

Cheers!
bManic

[egbert]

It was more rough and much smoother and punchier.

Hmm ... (furrows brow) ... I'm trying to work with you here - What was smooth and what was rough?

Interesting stuff about the preference for the PT mix BTW.

Regards,
Eg

[bmanic]

The drums in the tape recording + analogue mix sounded much punchier but also smoother (it IS possible! ) on the tape recording. Punchy meaning impact/transients and smoothnes the frequency/tonal balance. Roughnes again is the slight 'gritty' saturation that occured after most fills when the drummer gets really excited to hit the first beat. I guess the kick + crash slightly distorted on the tape.
The protools mix was much more "in-your-face", very much sounding like the current new metal music on radio. It is of course very difficult to precisely match and make two identical mixes so what I prefered might just have been elements of different choises of the mixer. The test was basically hardware vs software, aka out of the box vs in the box mix.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

Here's the link to the gearslutz analogue summing vs pro tools summing.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/showthre ... genumber=1

Cheers!
bManic

[stefancrs]

Seriously, there's no audible difference in the audio engines in different hosts. If you think there is, you're just fooling yourselves and others.

[popsych]

http://www.3daudioinc.com/cgi-bin/ultim ... ic&f=19&t= 000017

I did jump in - couldn't be ar*** to read the whole of it but from what i could see there is no nulling test (e.g.

I guess maybe you should have the read the whole of it,better yet,buy the CD and hear the results for yourself.

There is no nulling test for all daws and the one person that tried to still found differences in some Mixes - they didn't cancel out exactly

Seriously, there's no audible difference in the audio engines in different hosts. If you think there is, you're just fooling yourselves and others.

And i love the way you elaborate to prove your point.
Have you considered becoming a lawyer or a philosofer