DAW Audio Quality does vary... and Live 7 sneak peak!

[Chris Walton]

As long as the Ableton-guys haven't done their tests this way (and I doubt they have) they aren't scientific and we can savely disregard the results, audible or not.

Yeah,

if their tests aren't "scientific" we can safely disregard those test results, audible or not.




Shogger

I bet you aren't aware of how stupid this post makes you look...

I bet you aren't aware of how stupid your post makes you look

[shogger]

As long as the Ableton-guys haven't done their tests this way (and I doubt they have) they aren't scientific and we can savely disregard the results, audible or not.

Yeah,

if their tests aren't "scientific" we can safely disregard those test results, audible or not.




Shogger

I bet you aren't aware of how stupid this post makes you look...

Oh really Jens,

I think that your post simply shows that you seem to haven't got my point. In case I wasn't clear enough: You know that you shouldn't trust any tests that you didn't fake for yourself, right? So it doesn't matter if you think that those tests are theoretically "right" "Scientificallly correct" or what ever. Every company tells you what they want to. They know which buttons to press so that you will react in a certain way. It's always your decision if you think that they are right enough for you to believe it for the reasons that you choose.

So basically your first comment was hot air, and I simply thought that was kinda sad/funny. Strange to me is that you even seem to think that your comment was great? My comment wasn't very serious so if I offended you I appologize.

Shogger

[jens]

You know that you shouldn't trust any tests that you didn't fake for yourself, right?

that's a joke you shouldn't take out of context - Joe Normal has not idea of what can and what can not be achieved by using statistic/stochastic methods.

However Joe Normal has no problem with a) quoting any study which supports his opinion, how valid/scientific or not it may ever be and b.) using that phrase you just used if he doesn't like its findings, how valid/scientific or not it may ever be. That's because Joe Normal simply can not tell a valid from an invalid result even though he heard that there are invalid results being spread.

So the main problem is Joe Normal who can't tell a 'faked' from a valid study - and that's what the scientist you just quoted (even if you aren't aware of it actually being a quote) meant when he said: 'I don't trust any result I didn't fake myself.

It's quite a popular quote amongst professors who teach statistics b.t.w. - I think I first heard it in university myself.

[disturb]

kvr just reached a whole new level, ppl are now arguing about some shit you physically can't even hear !

oh well...

[Meffy]

Heavens, no -- people have been arguing over such stuff for a long time, here as elsewhere.

[shogger]

You know that you shouldn't trust any tests that you didn't fake for yourself, right?

that's a joke you shouldn't take out of context - Joe Normal has not idea of what can and what can not be achieved by using statistic/stochastic methods.

I didn't take that joke too much out of context. It works quite well here.

However Joe Normal has no problem with a) quoting any study which supports his opinion, how valid/scientific or not it may ever be and b.) using that phrase you just used if he doesn't like its findings, how valid/scientific or not it may ever be. That's because Joe Normal simply can not tell a valid from an invalid result even though he heard that there are invalid results being spread.

My point is about hearing a difference and not about making a "valid" test. The test that is valid to me is: Can I hear it? If yes, does it matter? If no, then subject is closed. 17 years ago when I was at the beginning of my audio engineer education I made myself look like a plain beginner by asking if the guy who just told me that they've exchanged all EQs in the whole mixing console for better ones if he really could hear a difference. He was nice and friendly simply said YES!
In short: theory is grey and what I do hear matters. But lots of people love to "hear" more via nice looking GUIs (anybody listened to the new Antress eq?), the fact that they use "the right stuff" (Yoh mamah, I've got 7 UAD cards in ma laptop!), it was expensive enough (Don't you know it's name is PRO Tools?) or even that a certain test to prove one point was scientifically valid enough. Wow.

So the main problem is Joe Normal who can't tell a 'faked' from a valid study - and that's what the scientist you just quoted (even if you aren't aware of it actually being a quote) meant when he said: 'I don't trust any result I didn't fake myself.

It's quite a popular quote amongst professors who teach statistics b.t.w. - I think I first heard it in university myself.

There is no problem with Joe normal. The problem is with people who think because their university degree qualifies them above "Joe Normal level" that Joe Normals decision can't be right because he based his decision on the wrong test! Yeah. No matter if audible or not. <joke> And if it doesn't sound like a Virus I don't give a cent for the stochastics<\joke>:lol:

Shogger

[dusted william]

All I know is that Live has missed it's annual upgrade this year. Usually the beta starts in summer and the thing is for sale around Fall. I've been patiently waiting for the next Live for a long while.

If you have a bunch of tracks with slight noise or errors say 15-30 they add up. Also what might not be heard at low volumes might be audible once you compress and limit the hell out of it.

Either way, I seriously think Live is going to surprise us with it's next release.



dw

[shogger]

If you have a bunch of tracks with slight noise or errors say 15-30 they add up. Also what might not be heard at low volumes might be audible once you compress and limit the hell out of it.

Either way, I seriously think Live is going to surprise us with it's next release.



dw

That feels right, hm? 30 tracks plus compression beyond gravity?

Listen to this: noise test

I was a little bored so I did this: This is noise from one input of my audio cards, the noise from there was attenuated so that the technical level of the noise was -128dB. I made 64 tracks of this by simply copying the one file. On the master bus I put 4 compressors with threshold to -120dB and infinite ratio. I call that extreme compression. I added 24 db boost at the output of every compressor. On top I added an extra 24 dB boost with the master fader. I put this resulting file into my audio file player and crancked the volume to max which would be ear destroying with normal music. And what did I hear? Check it out.
Scientific test? Dunno and don't care. But it works for me.

Shogger

[dusted william]

I can't download it, you have to sign up or something.

Is that the only way to download it?

dw

[shogger]

Checking out something different ... Gimme a few moments.

Shogger

[shogger]

Link works directly now, right click and save as.

Shogger

[hibidy]

btw, there is a very nice article about "summing" in the musictech issue this (er, or I guess in some parts last) month. The beginning is analog summing but there are some interesting explanations.

Regardless of what you believe, it's really a good read if you can get a hold of it.

[dusted william]

just listening on my laptop, it's pretty quiet that's for sure.

dw

[hibidy]

I want to add something else to stir the fires, check this link to a post I made last week.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=

frankly, I can't believe it but it's actually about the most obvious difference there could be. I have no idea why, but I just really think that there are many odd differences that are not necessarily explainable.

The only way we would be able to "prove" it would be to be in the same room together.

[jens]

lots of stuff

you know, mate - the funny thing is:

I only critizized the way the results were presented as being valid - in no way did I ever say that they would be significant even if they were valid.


I have always been one of those guys who shouted the loudest 'placebo' if someone said he can hear differences between different hosts.


And yet you feel the need to attack me (without being really able to sensibly criticize what I wrote) only because you apparently failed to really comprehend what I actually said - perhaps because you were to lazy to thoroughly read my initial post before you quoted it.

You reply to me as if I would have said that any difference matters whther it is inaudible or not - although I would never say that because that would be nonsense. So you reply to something I never said instead of replying to what I actually wrote which was something totally different.

I absolutely agree with you that a difference in audio-files which is inaudible is insignificant. Further on I'm rather sure that no-one can hear a difference which is below -120db or so.

All I did was critizing the result, which was presented by Robert Henke as being a valid one, in a way which goes beyond merely saying 'if it's inaudble then it doesn't matter' - I said something akin to 'it is not even proven that there is an inaudible difference between the summing engines of different hosts'.

So in order to properly cirticize what I said you would need to prove that there is in fact a difference between the summing engines of different hosts even if it is inadible.

Can you prove this?

And why would you do it, even if you could, if you say yourself that this difference doesn't matter anyway?

Really: try to understand what people say before you start an attack.