KVR Audio

randygo · Post by **randygo** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:56 pm

headquest wrote:I will certainly be avoiding .NET as long as possible here.

Well, .NET Framework 2.0 will be a core part of Windows Vista, so your won't be able to avoid it for too long (a few more years?).

Cheers,

Randy

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:59 pm

If it's a core part then hopefully it will work without compromising the system and causing freezes. But tbh I have no plans to upgrade to Vista based on reports so far... (until I have to, which I suppose in a few years we all will!)

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:33 am

mmanotjje wrote: maybe people that start using other hosts after spending many time with one could tell me what they think about this, if its the same..
thank you.

For me, there is no difference in sound quality. Yes of course the new 64 bit engine in Sonar 5 and Tracktion make a difference when you listen to it, but in the end you can't use this bit rate in burning audio CD for example, you need to dither to 16bit in the end and as I read there is not that difference when dithering from 64 >> 16 and 24 >> 16. And I wonder how many are using the 64bit engine? I personally use 24bit, but Sonar has 32bit engine internal (and most of the modern and new hosts do).
I agree with SonicBreeze in this topic. So why I choose host A and not host B, it is about stability, work flow and additional features. Also personal taste and need are playing a rule. I never read that a mastering engineer said "Well, you know this is a Cubase mix while the other clearly is done in Sonar. I think I prefer the mix that the other guy did in Pro tools". And how about the Operating Systems?! Is Mac sounds better than Windows and Linux?! Or even processor type? Does Intel sounds better than AMD?!
My conclusion after searching and reading a good deal about this 'difference' is "Damn, why i wasted my time in this?! I could finish a song instead!"
BTW I like energyXT also. It is a wonderful piece of software and very nice skins especially the SonicBreeze_NDXT_0110

I'm waiting for V2.
You can find here the discussion about sound difference in different hosts.

I've tried them all and nothing beats Vegas for stability and multitrack editing workflow

I don't know about Vegas really, but I'm sure that SoundForge is an excellent choice too (I remember the SoundForge 7 demo and it was excellent). I read many positive reviews and opinions about it. The only thing bothered me is installing .Net and SQL server desktop. Ok, for .Net maybe I can swallow it, but SQL server desktop?! it is the same as SQL server but without a graphical front. Why there is no option to not install it?! For example we can check Media manager which says it requires this server to be installed. It is really a strange choice! I just don't know why they didn't make it like cakewalk! Sonar is also coded in .Net but i think they used what is called managed C++ option (or something like this) which can compile the code to native which means it doesn't need the .Net runtime environment or whatever it is called.
Anyway, tomorrow I have an interview with software company here in Montevideo. They use .Net as their work frame, I did some .Net programming with C# and VB.Net but for about 2 years I switched to Java, I hope I will not be obliged to return to .Net after 6 months of unemployment it is hard to say "no, I prefer Java!" Damn why here .Net is 90% dominated! So if everything goes well, I will install the Visual Studio .Net and of course the SQL server with it, and in that case Sony demos will add nothing!

I have no plans to upgrade to Vista

Me too!

SonicBreeze · Post by **SonicBreeze** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:21 am

EnGee wrote: BTW I like energyXT also. It is a wonderful piece of software and very nice skins especially the SonicBreeze_NDXT_0110

I am blushing

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:50 am

I just changed a little bit the colors of the piano roll to lighter ones. After your permission of course and renamed the file to EnGee_SonicBreeze_NDXT_0110.gui

SonicBreeze · Post by **SonicBreeze** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:54 am

Tweak it as you please

deaf dunderkwac · Post by **deaf dunderkwac** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 2:58 am

32 bit and 64 bit (in audio terms) determine how many 'audio' channels you can mix and process.
Really, a 64 bit application can mix more channels of 24 bit audio then you would possibly need, whereas 32 bit algos would be limiting the number of tracks you can use. (unless all your tracks are at 32bit, then you could mix *1* track)
you need extra bits to do the math.
If you're using audio tracks at anything higher then 24 bits, you're just wasting bandwidth, imho.

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 3:40 am

SonicBreeze wrote:Tweak it as you please

Thanks

32 bit and 64 bit (in audio terms) determine how many 'audio' channels you can mix and process.
Really, a 64 bit application can mix more channels of 24 bit audio then you would possibly need, whereas 32 bit algos would be limiting the number of tracks you can use. (unless all your tracks are at 32bit, then you could mix *1* track)
you need extra bits to do the math.
If you're using audio tracks at anything higher then 24 bits, you're just wasting bandwidth, imho.

Thanks dunder for this info.
Now I have another question

I hope it is related to this thread.
I have 24bit/96khz sound card. Sonar has 32bit inernal rate, so how my sound card handle this? Ok, I read that Sonar always dither from 32bit to 24bit (suppose my song setup is 24bit/44khz) so what exactly I'm hearing? 24bit dithered from 32bit?
If I want to open these audio tracks in Audition (for example) what the difference if I export the files first then open them AND if I do nothing, just open them as they are from the Sonar project? I'm getting confused about this. What I had in my mind is to do all the composing and tracking in Sonar then open these files (without dithering) in Audition, so I mix them then master the final mix and then dither to 16bit and burn.
If Sonar will dither the files from 32bit to 24bit, does that affect the whole process when finally dither to 16bit. Damn I'm getting

C00kie · Post by **C00kie** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:08 am

Firstly, I think you should try to mix in Sonar also. Unless you're more familiar with Audition ofcourse, but then why not also record in Audition??

There is little to no difference between 24bits and 32bits WAV files. The main difference is how it's technically stored, how the bits are organised. 24bits are oftenly integers (numbers between -8,388,607 and +8,388,608) and 32bits are oftenly floats (between -1.000,000 and +1.000,000 but you can go over the maximum without clipping.)

Remember this: 32bits can be converted to 24bits safely without losing any significant precision or resolution.

Fact: most 24bits formats use 4 bytes (thats 8*4=32bits) for each sample! The ease of storing prevails the extra space needed on your harddisk.

As long as you're using over 16bits, nothing significant is really lost.

Most soundcards have a dynamic range that can be captured completely in 20bits. You want those extra four, but anything more is luxury.

dunder wrote:Really, a 64 bit application can mix more channels of 24 bit audio then you would possibly need, whereas 32 bit algos would be limiting the number of tracks you can use. (unless all your tracks are at 32bit, then you could mix *1* track)
you need extra bits to do the math.

In my humble opinion: this is bullshit. You can do good mixes on over 24 tracks (even when they are 32bits) with a 32bits engine. Mathematically you do loose some precision, but more of that would be lost anyway when finally rendering to 16bits. The difference is neglectable, especially after dithering.

Now stop hurting your brain, and start making music.

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:22 pm

Thanks C00kie.
It's healthy to hurt our brains sometimes

But I stop here.

monkeysan · Post by **monkeysan** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:43 pm

No, don't use dithering in Sonar. I wouldn't dither (or do sample rate conversions, etc) in any sequencer. As a general rule good audio editing software will do this task better (as has been demonstrated in independant tests, etc).

Why wouldn't one want to do dithering in Sonar. Sonar uses pow-r dithering, which according to most of the sources I've read is maybe the best available right now--better than UV22, etc.

It seems silly to avoid using a DAW with a top-notch dithering engine simply because of some prejudice toward audio editors that may no longer be valid.

I've used Pow-R in Samp and for me it works better than good.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:53 pm

monkeysan wrote:
No, don't use dithering in Sonar. I wouldn't dither (or do sample rate conversions, etc) in any sequencer. As a general rule good audio editing software will do this task better (as has been demonstrated in independant tests, etc).
Why wouldn't one want to do dithering in Sonar. Sonar uses pow-r dithering, which according to most of the sources I've read is maybe the best available right now--better than UV22, etc.

It seems silly to avoid using a DAW with a top-notch dithering engine simply because of some prejudice toward audio editors that may no longer be valid.

I've used Pow-R in Samp and for me it works better than good.

You're absolutely correct that the dithering option in Sonar is top-drawer.

But... if you plan to do further work on the audio file it makes sense to do so at the best resolution possible and THEN dither down.

I hope that answers the "why".

EnGee · Post by **EnGee** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:08 am

headquest wrote: But... if you plan to do further work on the audio file ...

This was my idea. But if the idea of mixing inside Sonar is better, then Audition will be the audio editor that I invoke within Sonar. I will test how practical is this and if I only use Sonar for everything!
I found this about dithering in the Sonar form and I think it is very nice and detailed one.
Enjoy

Host for mixing and mastering