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

[sorohanro]

@nfx
Well, as a musician I'm not into testing and comparing programs. As strange as might seem, I'm into making music.
If, as a musician, I notice differences between same file rendered through different DAWs, I notice first by ear, not by mathematical equations.
If by ear I notice a difference and several people keep saying "there is no difference" I might start a test (as I did).


I can not know a result of a test before making it. I apologize for this.
If you know a method of knowing things before finding them out, please share.

[tony tony chopper]

If a musician is feeling that something is wrong, as a developer, you should probably fix that somehow. After all, this is your client, not other developers that might say "no... this guy is crazy, don't listen to him" while they develop a concurrent product.
If most of musicians with less mixing experience are fooled by "louder=better, then you should put a normalizing output option.

I don't think you realize the seriousness of what you're asking. You're basically saying that the loudness war should apply to sequencers, because musicians would be dumb to the point of not being able to realize what makes something sound good.

Well, as a musician I'm not into testing and comparing programs. As strange as might seem, I'm into making music

..but maybe this is where the problem is afterall, musicians now have the technical capacity of producing their own final renders of their songs, basically wearing another hat, the one of the audio engineer. But the thing is, if you wanna be your own audio engineer, you have to learn the job.

Also, what you're asking is already in FL, the default template comes with a huge post-gain before a limiter. You can't possibly be asking for a -hidden- loudness maximizer, this would be crazy, and would only start an era of hosts that WOULD sound different, while the whole point of digital audio is to be "perfect". A host, or any software, should only do what you tell it to do IMHO. If someone wants compression, he uses a compressor.

I can not know a result of a test before making it. I apologize for this.

It's not dumb to think that plugins could produce different results in different hosts anyway, it could have been the case that plugins were DSP-assisted by hosts, but it's not.
However people generally talk about difference in "summing engines", this is where the idiotic debate is, a summing engine being just.. basic summing.. that thing we all learn a few years after birth. Yet, you keep hearing that a host sums better than another. Which was possibly true with analog audio, because summing was not just summing, there was possible coloration/saturation/degradation. And that's the whole point of digital audio. You can copy a wav file 100x, it's still exactly the same wav file, it's not like a tape you'd copy 100x.
One may even like how an analog mixer does summing, but again, a host should only do what it's told to, and if someone wants that kind of processing, he tells the host/uses plugins. It shouldn't be black magic behind the user's back.

Oh and yes, resampling, that's something a host has to do, and that can indeed sound different (but has a theorical perfection), of course a host should provide good resampling.
Stretching is something else, it's a "fuzzy logic" effect, there's no theorical perfection, it's subjective in quality, and can be very different in different hosts. Stretching might be the only thing discussed here that could be voted better/worse purely by polling listeners.

[demzer]

Oh .. my english is not perfect. Now this is really important in this discussion.

Possibly the first time you have told the truth here- yes, it is important to the discussion otherwise I don't know what you are saying. My english isn't perfect either, incidently. It's my second language.

You seem to know ntohing 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.

I'm sorry, but I'm clearly more knowledgeable than you are. I am saying that the summing engines of all the DAWs is essentially identical, but that other aspects of how the DAWs work do impact on the sound. Gol has said that with time stretch algorithims that is the case, although I think there are other examples- for instance, why does Cubase f**k up MIDI timing more so than Logic, when using the same interface..?

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.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

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.

Difference is that we can choose what chorus we use. I can't change the timestretching algo in Cubase, or in Logic, or in Fruity, or in Abelton... And if I was going to use lots of timestretching, I would get different results in the different apps. That is: they would sound different.

SRC - sample-rate conversion.

Very clever, I'm so glad you figured that out! Full marks for you!

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.

I'm really sorry, I really am.... but if you can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit then you have no right to join in this or any other discussion relating to sound quality.

[tony tony chopper]

I can't change the timestretching algo in Cubase, or in Logic, or in Fruity, or in Abelton...

It's still not what people are comparing when comparing "sounds from different hosts", otherwise that would mean you wouldn't be able to compare the sound of a sequencer that doesn't feature timestretching, with a sequencer that does. Besides you can also use plugins to do timestretching.
It's just that there's this old myth about hosts having different sound colors that's still going on. For various reasons, like
-the reputation/price, "there's a reason it's more expensive, summing must be better"
-the fact that hosts & their features lead you to do one thing or another, depending on what you can achieve the most quickly/easily in them
-old myths entertained by audio engineers, rules that did apply to the analog world but don't apply to the digital world
-the easiness of the host, thus the technical level of its average user
-blaming his tools in general, like in order to know that dithering [replace by any other marginal feature or black magic term like summing engine] isn't the reason one's tracks sound horrible, one has to try dithering, and thus if a host doesn't feature it, then dithering becomes the reason one's tracks sound horrible.

I'm really sorry, I really am.... but if you can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit then you have no right to join in this or any other discussion relating to sound quality.

I'm pretty sure you can't hear the difference either. Pretty easy to test but I know I won't bother (again).

[demzer]

I can't change the timestretching algo in Cubase, or in Logic, or in Fruity, or in Abelton...

It's still not what people are comparing when comparing "sounds from different hosts"... <snip>

My point is that the summing engine is not the only aspect of a DAW that contributes to it's sound. You yourself have said there is a difference between algorithims with time stretch operations, and with sample rate conversion... These are all operations that are commonly done within a host. Therefore, if you are using them a lot, there will be a difference. I never said one was better than the other or that it's going to make a persons music good, just that there is a difference.

I'm really sorry, I really am.... but if you can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit then you have no right to join in this or any other discussion relating to sound quality.

I'm pretty sure you can't hear the difference either. Pretty easy to test but I know I won't bother (again).

You can really test what I can hear? Over the internet? I won't ask you to bother doing it "again" but if you would like to show me where you have done it before that would be great.

Incidently, why did you choose to give the user the option of choosing the bit depth when exporting from Fruity Loops, if no one can hear the difference?

[pough]

I'm really sorry, I really am.... but if you can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit then you have no right to join in this or any other discussion relating to sound quality.

I can tell the difference just by looking. I don't even need to hear anything.

[crimsonwarlock]

My point is that the summing engine is not the only aspect of a DAW that contributes to it's sound.

The summing engine doesn't contribute ANYTHING to the sound. It just sums !!!!!!!

Incidently, why did you choose to give the user the option of choosing the bit depth when exporting from Fruity Loops, if no one can hear the difference?

Your ignorance is showing, but I'll enlighten you: export to 16 bit is used for final renders, listening to higher bit-rates doesn't do anything for the listener (i.e. you can't hear it). Exporting to higher bit-rates is used if any post-processing is going to be done on the renders (e.g. pro-mastering OUTSIDE of your DAW); having higher resolution will yield better results when processing the exported render.

[demzer]

My point is that the summing engine is not the only aspect of a DAW that contributes to it's sound.

The summing engine doesn't contribute ANYTHING to the sound. It just sums !!!!!!!

Are you a parrot? That has been said countless times in this thread and everywhere else on the internet- I have said it myself.

Incidently, why did you choose to give the user the option of choosing the bit depth when exporting from Fruity Loops, if no one can hear the difference?

Your ignorance is showing, but I'll enlighten you: export to 16 bit is used for final renders, listening to higher bit-rates doesn't do anything for the listener (i.e. you can't hear it). Exporting to higher bit-rates is used if any post-processing is going to be done on the renders (e.g. pro-mastering OUTSIDE of your DAW); having higher resolution will yield better results when processing the exported render.

And your stupidity is showing, but instead of just insulting you like you are doing to me, I think i'll be gracious- here's a wonderful link for you to educate yourself with:

http://kimlajoie.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/bit-depth/

This very nicely and succintly points out the difference between recording in 24 and 16 bit, and it's well written enough that even someone like you may be able to understand it. The pertinent point it makes for me is this:

"When recording at 16 bit, any audio below 48dB (such as the decay of notes or subtle detail in the sound) is actually captured with less than 8 bits"

So, I would suggest that most people could hear the difference between something recorded in 16bit and something recorded in 24bit.

Also, I would like to say that I don't need you to tell me what I should or should not render my audio files as, but thank you all the same.

[edit- spelling]

[Burillo]

Guys, i think you're talking different things here.

Presonus said about 64-bit processing - that is ENTIRELY different from 16/24/whatever-bit recording and then again it's ENTIRELY different from 16/24/whatever-bit mixdown.

Anyone (even your mom) can hear the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recorded material, but hardly anyone would tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit mixdown. Hell, one can make a simple test - take any modern recording (CD, that is), rip it to 16-bit wave file (CDs are 16-bit, right?) and then use a bit-reduction plugin - sometimes you can go as low as 12-bit and not hearing any audible differences (of course i'm not talking about some highly dynamic material but rather something along the lines of Nickelback).

As for the original topic - i would say that it's not the tools you use, it's how you use them. I agree that different DAWs have different things that may (or may not) affect the overall sound (such as different pan laws, different levels, resampling and whatnot), but it is certainly not it's summing engine.

[demzer]

<snip>

*shrug*

I didn't make any reference to Presonus. Rifftrax said he couldn't tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit and then someone who makes a computer toy called FLStudio said he had a test to show that I couldn't either.

I'm still waiting for this magic trick.

[Totolitoto]

the reputation/price, "there's a reason it's more expensive, summing must be better"

As a FL studio owner I suggest you raise it's price to 2000$
It should stop all those "FL sounds crap" threads once and for all

[Burillo]

I didn't make any reference to Presonus.

yes but you did confuse 24-bit recording and 24-bit mixdown.

Rifftrax said he couldn't tell the difference between 16 and 24 bit and then someone who makes a computer toy called FLStudio said he had a test to show that I couldn't either.

I'm still waiting for this magic trick.

The tests FL developer was probably referring to are the double-blind tests and other non-blind tests, in particularly the one i described earlier (using bit reduction). So technically you and Rifftrax/Tony are right, you are just talking about different things (you are referring to 24-bit recording while they refer to 24-bit mixdown).

As for FL studio being a toy - i myself was using FL studio but now i use REAPER and never looked back. However, i wouldn't consider FL a toy - it's just that it was (and still is) limiting my workflow, in other words - wrong tool for me (since i don't do hip-hop or anything remotely electronic). I have numerous gripes with FL e.g. multi-channel audio and MIDI, lack of sane audio editing and overall gearing towards hip-hop et al but these are valid reasons that i can stand by without going as low as calling FL a toy.

[Nokenoku]

My english isn't perfect either, incidently. It's my second language.

Which is the reason you haven't understood me.

I'm really sorry, I really am.... but if you can't hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit then you have no right to join in this or any other discussion relating to sound quality.

And there again you just proved your incompetence.

[trimph1]

Even if there is a difference in sound, which I strongly doubt, it is only that ---a DIFFERENCE!! Not all this --I say that 'X' is 'better' than 'Y' stuff. There is no such thing as a 'better-o-meter' that you can toss in here that says so.

The only thing we can say is that "I work better with 'X' than with 'Y'"

[mauseoleum]

Also, I would like to say that I don't need you to tell me what I should or should not render my audio files as, but thank you all the same.

YOU MUST NOT RENDER YOUR FILES!
THAT'S AN ORDER.