T2 audio quality question.vs other hosts

[AngelicLight]

Hi, there,

Please try to sell me on T2's audio engine quality as compared to Sonar/Cubase, etc. I've gone off the "deep end" and bought too many friggin' hosts which all are too friggin' complex for what I need and too difficult a learning curve.

After I got T2 I was "swooned away" from typical comments about how this, that, and the other hosts are "more professional" because of this, that, and the other.

I don't have the strength mentally to do a "blind a/b" test between T2, Sonar 5 Pro, Cubase SX and would like to simply go back to T2 if I can get enough info - both objecting and subjecting - on the quality of output vs the others...and some help mastering racks for multi-out vsti's like BFD, etc. I've gotten enough plug-ins to cover what T2 doesn't (UAD-1, etc) so that's not limiting.

I'm just SO past the point of reading "yet another manual" before starting to make any music.

"Help me, T2 Forum, you're my only hope..." (A re-written scene from the original Episode IV, the first one in the first trilogy which is really the second trilogy and yes, I do have Spectrasonic's Trilogy, also!)

THe goal is to be able to do just as quality work as S5P or SX3 before going to PT HD for another cut if needed for total high-end production.

Thanks, all, I really appreciate the ability to ask this here,

A/L

[kmonkey]

Dont have T2 but i saw old v1. Still i think that there is no any problem with audio quality on that host. On what kind of problems you think?

T2 is good just as good is man behind. Just as in any host. You are the one who can make it to shine or ...you know.... to be "my host is bad coz i dont have 128 bit summing"

[Lunch Money]

Pick a host because it works for you, not because somebody once upon a time discovered a truncated bit at -98dbu (which incidentally, got fixed), that nobody had noticed before because their files still sounded great.

I'm coming more and more to the realization that I need to worry about finishing songs (which I'm so-so at) than whether host X is better/worse at something than host Y. On the other hand, I'm not that inclined to suddenly stop coming to KvR, which is the main thing I'd need to do to reclaim more song-finishing time.

Tracktion's still the tool for the job for me as a songwriter, and that's why I have very little interest in other hosts. It's certainly not the tool getting in the way-- when I work up the self-discipline to disconnect from the internet and press "record", it's the quickest link between an idea and recorded sound, for me.

Greg

[AD80]

Tracktion's audio quality is EXCELLENT. As good if not better than any other host including PT. No need to worry about that. Use whatever host will let you make music fast and have fun doing it. For me that host is Tracktion.

[rockstar_not]

No audio problems. You just heard Steve Prince's track - did you hear any audio problems there?

It has a 64 bit mixing engine. Don't know about Cubase or Sonar, from that regard.

-Scott

[IIRs]

Tracktions sounds as good as you make it sound, just like all its rivals.

[rpc9943]

as long as you got a nice audio card you wont have much to worry about

RonC

[THUNDER T]

I have used cep2 (adobe audition) cubase, sonar. and absolutely love t2...i believe the first thing you said in your post was "too many...." they all have good points and bad but ease of use alone is one reason im a big t2 fan..but also it does imho put cep2 audio quality to shame..it all comes down to what works for you.

[Otterfan]

People are constantly talking about how one platform or another has better sound quality. Discrepencies in things like noise floor, frequency response, and distortion would be easy to measure objectively. People do it audio hardware all the time.

I've never seen such a comparison among audio hosts. At the same bit depth and sample rate there just isn't a noticable difference. Tracktion's 64-bit mixing is as good as any pro tool.

There are advantages to the more expensive hosts over Tracktion, but audio quality isn't one of them. The easier work flow in Tracktion makes it the right choice for me.

[AngelicLight]

This is a wonderful set of responses - not like I doubted it at all, but - I'll tell you something that I have to say that in my "searching" was one area that I EXTREMELY overlooked - and that's simply being pragmatic or practical.

If I *do* do my job right (as a producer/engineer) then you know what I'm thinking? That the listener shouldn't even be able to notice - if I'm doing things correctly from a production standpoint.

I'm just remembering as I write this how many Beatles albums sold on equipment that our own personal studios would seemingly "blow out of the water" as far as quality, and when I bought the Ramones greatest hits recently, the last thing I was thinking was about the audio quality - I was cranking it up and rocking out.

So...I guess when Bruce Springsteen can do a whole album on a Portastudio...kind makes you wonder what psychological dysfunction we (mostly myself and those who are debating over technical details rather than making music) have that are causing us (again, myself mostly) not just to be flat-out grateful at what this stuff can do compared to 10 or even 5 years ago at a price that at that same time would have gotten laughter from all those listening.

Thanks, again, all, as this was a really supportive bunch of replies instead of the "figure it out for yourself" kind or the "XXX host is great because both I AND Stone Cold said so AND Vin Diesel did that cool corvette off the bridge stunt in the first movie."

This is good stuff. I did listen to that one piece through a little PC speaker and it was quality enough to ask this and now I'm going to do so on my Mackie's here.

It's funny...because you can get caught up in a LOT of the "arguments" (notice quotes) that people try to talk themselves into thinking T2 isn't "all this and that because...) this and that, but in the end it's just a tool.

And I'm glad to hear from those here that this tool is quite as capable as all the others available.

Now...ummm...anyone want a copy of Sonar 5 Producer and Cubase SX3?

Just kidding...

Talk to you all later - time to go tune up T2...

A/L

[Lunch Money]

Great!

I'm sure 80% or more of us can relate to the dysfunction you're talking about. Maybe that should be the next collective goal for Tracktioneers... let's just write some songs, dangit!

[flamin-gitaur]

I have only been using T2 for a couple of months. I also have Cubase LE which I never toutch. But I have found that T2 is plenty powerful and has a very nice selection of plugs to use. The learning curve is not bad as all. If you have experience with recording software it will be even easier. The sounds that I have been able to produce sound great. But like anything...it only sounds as good as YOU make it sound. My problems haven't been with T2 in itself, but more with learning how to use the goodies that came with it. Bottom line......its FUN to use.

[rainydays]

I haven't used the engines of Cubase since the studios that had it used hardware digital mixers, so I can't compare it. I have however used Samplitude Studio in my home studio for ages (started when it came for the Amiga), and that's a pretty expensive application. The second thing I noticed (after the ease of use) when I first used Tracktion was the audio quality. It was just tons better than what I was getting in Samplitude Studio. I switched instantly an haven't looked back since.
I do miss some of the advanced features though and there are many places for improvements in Tracktion. But I just can't switch to something else, I know I would miss Tracktion way too much.

[polaris20]

I've used an assload of hosts, and while I think that they're all very close in quality, due to the fact that your hardware signal chain is probably more important, I will say that Tracktion is the easiest to get a good sound out of, since it has the least amount of clutter. Adobe Audition is also easy to get a really good sound out of, due to the pretty accurate meters.

Sonar and Cubase I liked the least, because I had to become more engineer than musician.

[AngelicLight]

Yeah, Polaris,

That pretty much narrows it down. I have a degree in computers and I did not make ANY music with Sonar for 4 months after I had bought it...

With T I was making music the same day but, for some reason, I always felt that somehow I wasn't "doing it right" because I didn't have a big name, big budget, big marketing department host doing the tracking.

Those other hosts "are" absolutely fine...but to us whom the flow of music is as, or more, important than the details of features to the "nth" degree yet still wanting the quality that our music deserves...well, it's sure been a frustrating trip so far, I'll tell you.

I've actually been using T for a "acratch pad" for - you're all going to laugh - all the ideas that were coming that "once I knew them down pat" was going to record in those other hosts that I mentioned.

But now I'm thinking that if I need to to any final convincing after these comments, I'll do a raw guitar track in Tracktion then load up Cubase then SOnar with the same amp settings and see what, if any, differences are. No eq, no anything..just trying to max out the levels...and if that shows not a bit of difference...then all the numbers or "data" doesn't mean anything, then, does it?

Maybe I'll do that sometime over the weekend and post links to the mp3's if it'll help anyone see this point may be "moot" after all...

Thanks, again, all!!

A/L