Old 10-01-2007, 07:27 PM   #1
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default A REAL DAW summing test

Being such a tired and ridiculous topic that seems to come up every 11 minutes or so, I wanted to be able to point to a link where not only would it be proven that this whole summing issue is nonsense, but where you could prove it to YOURSELF!

This actually wasn't as easy as I had imagined it would be, and there are still a few little kinks to work out.

Here are the test files to download, along with the results:

http://pipelineaudio.net/samples/summing%20test.zip

Here is how it works:

For the "Straight Test"

1. Place all three files from the "test files" folder in your project
2. Set project for 44khz
3. Turn dither off if possible
4. Render to 24 bit 44khz wave file





For the "faders down 6 master up 6 Test"

1. Place all three files from the "test files" folder in your project
2. Set project for 44khz
3. Turn all three channel faders down to -6dB
4. Set master to +6dB
5. Turn dither off if possible
6. Render to 24 bit 44khz wave file



Now, assuming that an app isn't BROKEN, every single one of these files should be identical

err wait, some of the tinfoil hat crowd claims some apps have magic pixie dust summing math that makes the sound have more SOAR, so I included the outputs just in case there were sonic differences, and they could claim they abx tested the files and found one "better" than another - yes and Im waiting for a certain Nigerian Ambassador to transfer funds into my bank account, since you know, I sent him the transfer fee.....


So, so far as you shall see, in the unity gain test we have:

REAPER, Podium, Vegas, Pro Tools, Cubase, Nuendo, SAW, Samplitude, SONAR and Logic 8

You already know the answer: Samplitude and SAW have magical supermixer properties that will make hit producing euphonanity over all these other apps right?

Wrong, every one of these is a DEAD, MINUS INFINITY, null

Given the same input, all these apps produce the same output...they sound EXACTLY the same. Unless you can posit a theory of how identical files could sound different, I think its time to start worrying about mic positioning, control room accoustics, or hey, the talent of the "talent", you know, things that might actually matter

But wait, there's more....just in case some of these apps might be doing things a little differently, we did a test of turning down the channel fader by 6dB, turning UP the master fader by 6dB and rendering. I mean, If there IS any magic pixie dust sprinkled in the code somewhere, its gotta show in the level changes, where else could it be?

Unless the app is somehow screwed up, it should still null with the unity gain files right?

well....here's where things got a little interesting

We KNOW 100% that pan laws arent an issue here, or the unity gain renders would not have nulled

so, Vegas, SONAR, REAPER, and Pro Tools nulled with the unity gain files exactly as they should.

SAW did not - what seems to be a slight error in SAW's math resulted in a render which was 0.00451dB too quiet. When this gain was added back in, the file nulled as expected - note to the Shakti Stone arrangers out there, it still didnt make a different sounding file, just a quieter one that sounded exactly the same as the others once the level error was corrected

Logic 8 also, did not render correctly, it resulted in a file which was 0.06dB too loud. Again, turning down the file to the correct level resulted in a file which nulled to -infinity with the rest of the files.

Cubase/Nuendo - here is the weirdest one. These files did not null with the others. The level was correct, we know the pan law was correct, I just dont have an explanation for why these didn't render correctly.

But before you send that check to Sylvia Browne, these nulled to -99dB, HARDLY anything to write home about






Now, it is QUITE possible there was some pilot error involved so I heartily invite you to download the tests yourself, and have at it.

For all practical purposes, I consider this summing nonsense dead and buried.

Thank you VERY much to everyone who participated in making this test possible
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:39 PM   #2
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Thank you. Hopefully that's the end of it.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:41 PM   #3
vocalnick
Human being with feelings
 
vocalnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
For all practical purposes, I consider this summing nonsense dead and buried.
You just redefined "optimism" for me

Oh how I wish you were right...
vocalnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:47 PM   #4
cbenci
Human being with feelings
 
cbenci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In your cupboard with something for you in my hand.
Posts: 279
Default

Yes, but the Protools minus, infinity null sounded more open, 3d and had a more solid low mid range.
__________________
When I had a four track I wrote music ... now I just play with plugins.

www.thoughtbox.com.au - www.trojanband.com.au
cbenci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:50 PM   #5
yep
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,019
Default

I already know the answer to this test, so I'm not going to bother, but pipe, could you put a reference to pan law in your test instructions?

I swear, that accounts for 90% of the "my DAW sounds better" stuff.

Cheers.
yep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:51 PM   #6
alex zonder
Human being with feelings
 
alex zonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,605
Default

so now people can start to compare the quality of their soundcards...

and here's the freebie to give it a go:

http://audio.rightmark.org/index_new.shtml
alex zonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:53 PM   #7
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

The pan law I used in reaper was zero. I am assuming the pan law was correct in all the apps since the unity null turned out correct.
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:57 PM   #8
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

But what if there were 50 track, 15 buses. Maybe it's a cumulative thing.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:58 PM   #9
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

0 X 3 is the same answer as 0 X 50
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 07:59 PM   #10
stringycheesey
Human being with feelings
 
stringycheesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 341
Default

Wow, I did not even know there was a controversy about this. Lol.
stringycheesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:04 PM   #11
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

3 specks of dust goes unnoticed and doesn't exist, sometimes inspecting the dust cloth is informative.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:13 PM   #12
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Unfortunately.... people will argue this until eternity.

The funny thing is if Pipeline had published the files that did null as blind listening tests people would have heard differences. Just because they think they should.

It never fails.

Reaper has the sweetest silence I've ever heard. Wider and richer somehow...

Last edited by Lawrence; 10-01-2007 at 08:17 PM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:18 PM   #13
Against_Demons
Human being with feelings
 
Against_Demons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: future flood plain
Posts: 115
Default

tried Nuendo. Still waiting if you need it.....
Against_Demons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:18 PM   #14
RokkD
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,152
Default

Yes but, Reaper sounds much better now with the new default gui......quite frankly I think more testing needs to be done.






;-)
--
__________________
Midi is not audio, it just sounds like it.
RokkD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:25 PM   #15
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Id love to get to the bottom of this cubase/nuendo mystery
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:26 PM   #16
xackley
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kitchen table, next to frig
Posts: 1,179
Default

ps: I was just playing devils advocate.
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^
https://soundcloud.com/user-463176271
xackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:48 PM   #17
Against_Demons
Human being with feelings
 
Against_Demons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: future flood plain
Posts: 115
Default

I give Nuendo is crazy. Wow, and to think I had to listen to " this guy uses Nuendo" stuff. Man.....
Against_Demons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 08:55 PM   #18
illacov
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 162
Default Now if only we could figure out.......

What makes guys like me mix on a console (even a budget Yamaha one) with real compressors and effects, instead of mixing with the DAW.

It really astounds me that these tests can prove that summing and all that makes no difference between daws, but that people really can't nail down what makes mixing on a board, mixing on a board versus mixing in the computer. I doubt its the summing so forget about mentioning that.

You know how bad I would love to fully utilize my dual core cpu when i do my mixdowns? But instead everything is locked into real time processing for me.

That would be beyond awesome if you could have all types of hardware effects and still render at non-realtime speeds. Well you can if you bounce all your effected channels and mix ITB, but its not the same.

I mean you're only talking 5 to 6 minutes maximum with realtime mixdowns, but still.

However, I can't complain about the results with mixing on a board.

Ive listened to other urban projects in my region and they sound flat as pancakes. (Mixed ITB) The bass is not there and the drums seem to float away into thin air. You know what's really hogwash to me?
Is how there's supposed to be this Jedi order of engineers who can make in the box mixes shine, because they really know what they are doing and yet a guy like me can make a pretty damn good mix on a console in a few minutes (which is what I hear its like for guys like Chris Lord Alge) with very few pieces of gear.

Ive tried the same principles in Reaper, that Ive tried on a console and its still not quite the same.

Reaper gets choked up, but mind you not as fast as Cubase SX3 and I find myself saying that its just easier on a board.

I have NOT always mixed on consoles though, but I did get my start on em, when I was 16 and first learning hip hop mixing/composition. (Damn its been 14 years?)

I really wish someone would blend the two worlds together into a perfect hybrid.

You wanna talk about tin foil hat mentality. It takes a special engineer to mix ITB? And yet any fool can get a console, some old dbx compressors, a few Speck eqs and make some wicked sounding stuff.

What does that tell you??

Maybe somebody should start looking at a computer based recording solution that was DESIGNED from the ground up to be integrated with a hardware console.

It wouldnt have to be specific to certain brands, only certain specs, like number of channels, busses, aux sends, amount of headroom.

It wouldnt necessarily have to be a digital board, it could be analog if you already had proper AD/DA.

I would just love it if your DAW could have some sort of relationship almost with its hardware counterpart. Not in a Pro Tools kind of way, but just in the sense of there being a merger between both worlds and that having an effect on the core of the program.

Maybe there's already something out there like this?

Radar, Paris, Fairchild???

On another note. Im loving my new PM1000s and after noticing how sick my recordings are sounding, Im going to be buying 4 channels of ART MPA Gold tube preamps, instead of getting a firewire interface.

Im still searching for a good console to integrate into my setup, as my Yamaha board got put into the live rig where its purring happily beside my tri amp set up.

I'm on the fence about going in the old school Tascam direction (like M1600 or M2600 mk2) or getting a Mackie live board, like a 24 channel or even possibly a 24 or 32 channel Soundtracs board, if Im really lucky.

I just saw a Tascam M600 (32 or 40 channel??) board on ebay go for 600 dollars. Even if I took a year to refurbish it, a group of 8 channels at a time, that board would have sounded amazing.

But the hunt continues.

Peace
Illumination
illacov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 09:04 PM   #19
magicchord
Human being with feelings
 
magicchord's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A. Cahleefornia
Posts: 305
Default

I have some thoughts about this issue that I'm just gonna keep to myself.

I WILL say that REAPER does a stellar job of in-the-box summing, and when I do an ITB mix, I happily use it.
magicchord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 09:50 PM   #20
Tallisman
Human being with feelings
 
Tallisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the middle of the icecube.
Posts: 7,403
Default

you should stashbox and post links to the rendered files...
so that we can compary the renders from various apps and see the Nulls for ourselves...

hehe

.t
__________________
.t

_____________________________
http://jomei.bandcamp.com <--My Middle Son.

http://tallisman.bandcamp.com <--Me.

"Excuse me. Could you please point me in the direction of the self-help section?"
Tallisman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 10:03 PM   #21
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

this?

http://pipelineaudio.net/samples/summing%20test.zip
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 10:12 PM   #22
mysteryman
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 98
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by magicchord View Post
I have some thoughts about this issue that I'm just gonna keep to myself.

I WILL say that REAPER does a stellar job of in-the-box summing, and when I do an ITB mix, I happily use it.
Ditto, Ditto, Ditto,
But my *.* costs me $xxxxxxxx therefore.......
mysteryman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 10:20 PM   #23
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

Apparently Im not alone, and it actually is that Nuendo is broken waste of time all day banging my head against the wall trying to figure out what I was doing wrong lol

http://forum.nuendo.com/phpbb2/viewt...umming&start=0

Thanks to UntamedSpirit for that link
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 10:45 PM   #24
Art Evans
Mortal
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,654
Default

Have you tried the maths test I suggested in another thread - doing the summing with a single click of known value and simply seeing whether a sample of 1000 added to itself equals 2000? I don't know whether that would throw any light on exactly how/why some of the other apps are non-standard in their summing.

In connection with http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12557 Justin PM'd me with an account of why at that time Reaper differed from Audition under the particular circumstances that I'd identified. As it was a PM rather than a forum post I'll not quote him, but suffice it to say that not all considerations in these matters are quite as straightforward as one might think - although I personally take the view that 1 + 1 = 2 should be the rule, under certain conditions it would appear that 1 + 1 = 2.000001 or 1.9999999 might arguably be advantageous. On due consideration Justin fixed that "problem" so that Reaper sums as one might expect under the particular conditions that I identified.

I'm merely mentioning that lest we get too hyped up over why some of the other apps don't appear to sum normally - it could be for arguable design reasons rather than for reasons of bugginess.

But like I said in another thread, give me accurate results and I'll decide for myself whether to then tweak the result to sound, to me, "better".
Art Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2007, 11:04 PM   #25
pipelineaudio
Mortal
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickenburg, Arizona
Posts: 14,047
Default

I will ponder this, though Im not too sure I understand it nor am I too worried. If it really is a denormalization noise issue, it isnt much concern...I will try and test it though
pipelineaudio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 12:38 AM   #26
Shan
Human being with feelings
 
Shan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
...For all practical purposes, I consider this summing nonsense dead and buried...

I consider the summing nonsense dead, buried...and nulled.


Shane
__________________
"Music should be performed by the musician not by the engineer."

Michael Wagener 25th July 2005, 02:59 PM
Shan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 01:11 AM   #27
Alex Stone
Human being with feelings
 
Alex Stone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reaper Fine Arts Department
Posts: 1,607
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shan View Post
I consider the summing nonsense dead, buried...and nulled.


Shane


hmmm, Shan. Are you sure?

__________________
www.openoctave.org
Alex Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 01:15 AM   #28
mbuzz
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 449
Default

Pipe just for your info Bob Lentini ( the developer of SAW ) agrees with you !!! Saw is no more special or different sounding than other software !!!!

LAter
Buzz

PS: this has been beat to death over at the Saw forum also BUT there are still believers ??? HOWEVER the SAW native EQ and Comp's ROCK IMO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with no real hit on the CPU load maxed out !!
__________________
Why does it hurt when I turn that KNOB ????
mbuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 02:12 AM   #29
Dog Boots
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 253
Default

I'm in the skeptic/pessimist camp on this one - meaning I think the talk about differences in ITB summing is mostly bull...

...but, like I've suggested before, does it have to be that way? Isn't it plausible, there could be a brand new field to be explored in plug-in summing? A DAW with a tweakable, non-linear summing system? I mean, yes, a DAW that doesn't null with the others can be said to be "broken", but what if "broken" could sound good? After all, we are (or at least I am) not trying to make music sound "real" - I'm trying to make it sound good.
Dog Boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 03:21 AM   #30
jens
Human being with feelings
 
jens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basel, Switzerland
Posts: 4,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xackley View Post
3 specks of dust goes unnoticed and doesn't exist, sometimes inspecting the dust cloth is informative.

that's nonsense - zero means zero
jens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 03:23 AM   #31
jens
Human being with feelings
 
jens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Basel, Switzerland
Posts: 4,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipelineaudio View Post
Id love to get to the bottom of this cubase/nuendo mystery
Did you check the pan law?

Quote:
The pan law I used in reaper was zero. I am assuming the pan law was correct in all the apps since the unity null turned out correct.
jens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 05:43 AM   #32
alex zonder
Human being with feelings
 
alex zonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,605
Default

so what about some cable tests? Some serious money to be gained with that

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/calling-b...ter-305549.php

alex zonder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 06:01 AM   #33
kneelherring
Human being with feelings
 
kneelherring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 221
Default

Some wise words pipeline, thanks a lot for the info.
kneelherring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 06:08 AM   #34
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

If you can do a great mix, you can do a great daw mix in any daw. Don't we know that by now? Reaper's digital summing is as good as any.

The fact that it's only $40 sure makes it a great deal.

I think whatever may be 'broken' in Nuendo (if that's the case) in this case is pretty much irrelevant to what comes out of it in use. There are certainly flaws with any daw application. I cannot afford it nor justify the cost of it so I have no vested interest in defending it.

With that said it's my opinion that Nuendo is one of the greatest daws ever created. YMMV. Reaper also. YMMV on that too.

Can we just take a final vote on "Is Reaper capable of world class recording and mixing?" and move on? I vote an unresounding YES! It sounds GREAT! 10++ Olympic Gold.

Now can we put an end to the repeated "Mine sounds better than everyone else's?" nonsense and focus on the really important things like functionality, workflow and compatibility?

Those are really the only areas where daws actually differ in a way that would be relevant to using them. They all "sound" good.

Last edited by Lawrence; 10-02-2007 at 06:30 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 07:22 AM   #35
Justin
Administrator
 
Justin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 15,721
Default

We've actually been doing tests to determine when 32 bit floating point ends up with a loss of precision for 24 bit output. Turns out (from our tests), if you do 4 or more full range 24 bit inputs, you're going to run into loss of 1 or 2 bits at the bottom of the 24 bit output. This applies if you apply common gain reduction to all of the inputs, or if you do hard clipping. Using 64 bit floating point does a lot better.

Now, granted, 1 or 2 bits in 24 bit audio isnt a big deal, since it's probably below the noise floor of your converters (or room for that matter), but it's interesting to see how the errors happen.

So I'd suggest for the next test of this, using 4 or 8 tracks or more

I'll post the theoretical test app once we finish adding tests to it.

-Justin
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 07:35 AM   #36
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
We've actually been doing tests to determine when 32 bit floating point ends up with a loss of precision for 24 bit output. Turns out (from our tests), if you do 4 or more full range 24 bit inputs, you're going to run into loss of 1 or 2 bits at the bottom of the 24 bit output. This applies if you apply common gain reduction to all of the inputs, or if you do hard clipping. Using 64 bit floating point does a lot better.

Now, granted, 1 or 2 bits in 24 bit audio isnt a big deal, since it's probably below the noise floor of your converters (or room for that matter), but it's interesting to see how the errors happen.

So I'd suggest for the next test of this, using 4 or 8 tracks or more

I'll post the theoretical test app once we finish adding tests to it.

-Justin

so working with (more) headroom is suggested? sounds like the k-metering is a good solution ...
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 08:08 AM   #37
Billoon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arse end of the earth.
Posts: 2,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
We've actually been doing tests to determine when 32 bit floating point ends up with a loss of precision for 24 bit output. Turns out (from our tests), if you do 4 or more full range 24 bit inputs, you're going to run into loss of 1 or 2 bits at the bottom of the 24 bit output.
Check this out....Ron K(ex Cake) suggests 32bits aint enough for accurate summing.

http://www.cakewalk.com/Events/AES_2005/Ron_Video_2.wmv

...which is what this test is about, accurate summing...not whether or not any DAW is capable of producing a good mix.

I think its obvious that anyone with talent could produce a good mix on any DAW,...The Beatles produced good mixes on 4 tracks, so that IMO is a moot point and not relevant here.

Last edited by Billoon; 10-02-2007 at 08:12 AM.
Billoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 08:13 AM   #38
Tallisman
Human being with feelings
 
Tallisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: in the middle of the icecube.
Posts: 7,403
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jens View Post
Did you check the pan law?
Confirmed. the Pan Law I used in Cubase SX3 and in Cubase 4 was in deed 0. Zero. And the results are congruent with that Pipelineaudio has noted here in this thread.

I repeated the test many times, each time building the project from the bottom and checking and double checking the pan law settings befor importing any audio. No audio was converted on import.

Today I will redo these tests with Cubases set to 44.1/32 bit as opposed to 44.1/24 bit just to see.

.t
__________________
.t

_____________________________
http://jomei.bandcamp.com <--My Middle Son.

http://tallisman.bandcamp.com <--Me.

"Excuse me. Could you please point me in the direction of the self-help section?"
Tallisman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 09:53 AM   #39
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billoon View Post
Check this out....Ron K(ex Cake) suggests 32bits aint enough for accurate summing.

http://www.cakewalk.com/Events/AES_2005/Ron_Video_2.wmv

...which is what this test is about, accurate summing...not whether or not any DAW is capable of producing a good mix.

I think its obvious that anyone with talent could produce a good mix on any DAW,...The Beatles produced good mixes on 4 tracks, so that IMO is a moot point and not relevant here.
It's relevant since nobody can really hear differences that small. They are (or should be) so far below the dynamic range and/or noise floor of 24-bit digital that it simply doesn't matter as Justin says above.

Somebody (somewhere) recording through a preamp with a best case 65db S/N ratio will argue on the Internet about digital errors that happen at -85db. It makes no sense. You'll never hear any of it.

It's like trying to hear (not null but hear) the difference between 24-bits being truncated to 16-bits or being dithered to 16-bits. Not only can most people not hear the differences (and there is a mathematical difference in the output) they don't own speakers or monitoring chains capable of even making those differences audible if they could.

It amazes me why people, short of those writing a scholastic paper or something, continue discussions about things like this.

Stuff like this is in my view, in the midst of the millions of other variables that change the sound of your summed audio during a real world mix, which you can hear, are really irrelevant beyond theoretical dissusion and very best case listening and monitoring.

A prosumer preamp or a 5-10 degree angle difference towards a mic can have a much more dramatic effect on your overall audio than a -99.db summing difference or the small mathematical differences your can't hear anyway. Or another 2db of compression, or an eq or whatever.

Honestly, there are mathematical levels of things in digital, for me, where it becomes irrelevant beyond just justifying a choice to make an owner feel better about a choice. I also don't think Cakewalk was saying the above until after they made a 64-bit daw. I could be wrong.

But back to the point... the point is what comes out of the speakers. That's the one and only point in recording and mixing music, once you choose what to use to do that.

You can do it with any of them and anybody who says they can consistently tell the difference between songs done on most any modern daw by a pro would be dishonest.

Last edited by Lawrence; 10-02-2007 at 10:13 AM.
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2007, 10:12 AM   #40
Dstruct
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
It amazes me why people, short of those writing a scholastic paper or something, continue discussions about things like this.
why don't you stop with it? http://www.cockos.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13294
Dstruct is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.