KVR Audio

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:01 pm

Meffy wrote:I think "Nine Out of Ten Doctors" would be a great name for a band.

hehe, especially if it was med school students.

keyman_sam · Post by **keyman_sam** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:46 am

lol!

yo guyz, i've not been here lately....so, this is the latest topic or what?

my 2 cents : i have Cubase SX3 and Sonar 3. Sonar rocks. Cubase does, but i havent learnt it yet.

stevejay · Post by **stevejay** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:53 am

SJ_Digriz wrote:
I have no idea why this is or what system the Steinberg method is based on.

Hi SJ_Digriz,

From a mathematician's point of view, the approach used by Steinberg (among others) is a correct reflection of the relationship between the absolute peak and RMS level of a sine wave. I'll let Bob Katz explain:

"Let me be blunt, and tell this to Steinberg and Wavelab: The "convention" that Steinberg uses is only for digital geeks who have spent their entire life in theory and digital design and who never used an analog peak meter in their life. All the analog peak meters for over 60 years now, the ones that are marked in dBu or dBm, are calibrated with a sine wave whose RMS level is 0 dBu, even if the meter is peak responding!

AES-17 was not developed in a vacuum!

All they keep thinking is that since the RMS voltage of a peak is 0.707 X the peak, then the decibels should also be reduced by 3 dB. But they FORGET the entire principle of RELATIVE DECIBELS and references. The REFERENCE 0 dB for peak level is determined with a sine wave whose RMS is 0 dB... this has been the practice for over 60 years!"

(The thread on the PSW that this quote is taken from is here.)

Bye,
Steve

Dimuthu_DeeJay · Post by **Dimuthu_DeeJay** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:45 am

Hi SJ_Digriz,

From a mathematician's point of view, the approach used by Steinberg (among others) is a correct reflection of the relationship between the absolute peak and RMS level of a sine wave. I'll let Bob Katz explain:

Hi steveJ, Happy to meet you again since I didn't visit the cakewalk forum for a long time.
I posted exacly this same question 1 or 2 months ago. Because people are arguing about cubase vs sonar. Finally I decided to remain on Sonar because It gives what I need. I can shake peoples body using sonar, FL Studio and reason.

Cabinfever · Post by **Cabinfever** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:45 am

i prefer those smooth-cut potato chips rather than the crinkley ones. and i think pepsi has more sugar in it than coke - i like coke better. i prefer a darker sort of crimson color rather than bright red.

this is part of my analysis to prove that the sonar "sound" is a less crinkley, darker red, not so sugary audio compared with sx.

Dimuthu_DeeJay · Post by **Dimuthu_DeeJay** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:03 am

Wow, I'm trying to compare them with pizza and coke. Let me try!!!

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:10 am

I just exported the same track from Sonar and Cubase, and it was 8% worse than Logic.

Cabinfever · Post by **Cabinfever** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:07 am

agree 100%. logic has a sort of greenish ripple

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:55 pm

stevejay wrote: "Let me be blunt, and tell this to Steinberg and Wavelab: The "convention" that Steinberg uses is only for digital geeks who have spent their entire life in theory and digital design and who never used an analog peak meter in their life. All the analog peak meters for over 60 years now, the ones that are marked in dBu or dBm, are calibrated with a sine wave whose RMS level is 0 dBu, even if the meter is peak responding!

AES-17 was not developed in a vacuum!

All they keep thinking is that since the RMS voltage of a peak is 0.707 X the peak, then the decibels should also be reduced by 3 dB. But they FORGET the entire principle of RELATIVE DECIBELS and references. The REFERENCE 0 dB for peak level is determined with a sine wave whose RMS is 0 dB... this has been the practice for over 60 years!"

DUDE!! Thanks a million. I've read that stuff a zillion times, but always in scan mode. I missed this killer piece of info. In reality it doesn't matter, you just need to use the meters to a known reference level on your monitors. But, it sure would be nice if they followed the ages old standard.

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:05 pm

Sonar is better than kittens.

Cubase is better than puppies.

Nuendo is better than Baby Snakes (late at night is when they come out). Baby Snakes (sure you know what I'm talkin' about).

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:14 pm

10% of all files rendered in cubase are 20% better than 13% of files rendered in sonar. Luckily , you can normalize this ratio when you take in to account that 70% of all sonar users eat fish, and that 33% of the fish is tuna. Compare that to Cubase, where only 55% of the users eat fish, and that fish mostly comprises of flounder, cat fish and alligator gars. If you are lucky about 18.9 % of the protools users out there are clinicly insane and cannot even use a protools system. Also take into account that you can usually only understand about 37% of what xoxos rants about, with meffys propensity for playing with baby snakes, you can only draw one conclusion from it all-

Songs written for fish in both cubase and sonar sound exactly the same..

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:18 pm

No no no -- I play with kittens, not snakes. (How to tell: I usually have lacerations on my paws instead of punctures.) That's Frank Zappa up there. People often mistake me for him, it's true, but we aren't the same person.

Other than that you're entirely right.

SJ_Digriz · Post by **SJ_Digriz** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:30 pm

Meffy wrote: Nuendo is better than Baby Snakes

NO WAY!!! Baby Snakes > All

Stupid American Pig · Post by **Stupid American Pig** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:37 pm

Meffy wrote:No no no -- I play with kittens, not snakes. (How to tell: I usually have lacerations on my paws instead of punctures.) That's Frank Zappa up there. People often mistake me for him, it's true, but we aren't the same person.

Other than that you're entirely right.

Thanks for clearing up what appears to be a popular misconception. I was kinda worried about you myself..

momus · Post by **momus** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:34 pm

S_A_P® wrote:10% of all files rendered in cubase are 20% better than 13% of files rendered in sonar. Luckily , you can normalize this ratio when you take in to account that 70% of all sonar users eat fish, and that 33% of the fish is tuna. Compare that to Cubase, where only 55% of the users eat fish, and that fish mostly comprises of flounder, cat fish and alligator gars. If you are lucky about 18.9 % of the protools users out there are clinicly insane and cannot even use a protools system. Also take into account that you can usually only understand about 37% of what xoxos rants about, with meffys propensity for playing with baby snakes, you can only draw one conclusion from it all-

Songs written for fish in both cubase and sonar sound exactly the same..

can someone explain that better,
100% agree

Sound quality in Cubase vs Sonar