Jeff Wexler Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 The ideal test would be recording the identical signal on both systems simultaneously and then doing playback from each with a blind listening test, then playing back each file on the other system with another blind listening test, then compiling the results. Perhaps in my free time. <g> No, the ideal test would be some methodology that allowed you to take an identical signal and feed it through the same HARDWARE on its way to the Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) software. You say that "The SADiE system was using its proprietary hardware" and the ProTools system was using MOTU hardware. As Tom has stated, here is where the difference is. The SADiE hardware may be superior to the MOTU hardware in some significant way, producing a sound that you feel is "better" than that achieved by the MOTU hardware. I would venture to say that if you could use the SADiE hardware as the front end for ProTools, you would hear things just as you do now with the SADiE system --- and conversely, of course, if you could use MOTU hardware into SADiE, it would sound just like ProTools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zack Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 We're going to be doing the Dave C test in no time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsnd Posted January 14, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 If you hear a difference in sound quality It would be a result of the d/a converter/amp. nothing else. with the same digital audio, the same stream of 1s and 0s flow through the system. PT doesn't sound better than logic, SADiE doesn't sound better than PT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Sjostrom Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I agree with John. Although I haven't heard sadie at all, I myself think that nuendo sounds better on the same hardware than pro tools. However, nuendo unlike pro tools, does have built in eq on all tracks. If all parameters are closed (no eqing) on the nuendo eq one would argue that there would indeed be no difference in sound. But there is! I am not the first or the last to make this distinction. I have heard plenty more testimonials than this one... Now if I may venture a guess, this is because of the hardware dependency of pro tools. I mean that even if a pro tools hardware device is "transparent", it's still playing through something, both hardware and software that's built for THAT system. Now. If I play back the same signal through digidesign hardware but nuendo software, there is indeed a difference in sound quality to the level of, as John states, "I'm not imagining". That probably has to do with the hardware independency of nuendo. Is Sadie hardware independent? Let me elaborate; the software in nuendo is probably "flatter" in frequency than pro tools software because pro tools knows exactly what hardware is being used. Speakers play a part too, yes, but not entirely... Nuendo doesn't know the hardware and therefore has no clue of where and when to make up for frequency dips or raises.. (ehm, language.. Not sure of terminology here.. I hope you get the general idea). That's my guess, half drunk on an iPhone at 1130 pm . G'night! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg sextro Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 There are algorithms involved in how pt/sadie/nuendo sum their signals. This is where people report differences in each system's "sound". I suppose it's a bit like comparing a neve console and an ssl. Though probably far less dramatic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 There are algorithms involved in how pt/sadie/nuendo sum their signals. This is where people report differences in each system's "sound". Digidesign (now Avid) has disputed this for years, with this white paper report on their internal bus mixer (which is technical 48-bit). My experience is that this is all voodoo, but I concede there are people who prefer to do final mixes in analog. To me, it doesn't matter how you get there as long as it sounds good. I've heard all kinds of projects mixed "in the box" that sounded completely fine. Reportedly, Pro Tools 10 improves on the internal bus mixer, and Pro Tools 11 will be a completely new design from scratch. We'll see if this changes the opinion of people who prefer to use outboard bus mixers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 Just to clearify, I'm not saying that Pro Tools doesn't sound good and I'm certainly not disparaging it (except for its absurdly dismal file management). After all, I switched to PT for film post and have been quite impressed by many of its features, especially the massive number of tracks and plugins it can handle natively. I am saying that I could hear a difference between it and SADiE. A number of other people with stellar sonic reputations have made the same claim. Perhaps it's group hypnosis. <g> Certainly, there is likely to be some difference between the A/D and D/A processes. I never denied that and never laid claim as to exactly where the difference lies. I understand the statements about the absolute values of 1s and 0s, and, if you don't affect or change the data stream at all, that should be the case. However, gain changes, summing busses, routing busses, etc. use mathematical computations. For instance, you might think that all digital compressors using the same compression ratio, the same treshold, the same transfer characteristics -- i.e. all the same parameters -- should sound identical. But, they don't. Plug-in developers work hard into the night -- and in some cases, years -- to tweak their algorithms to get just the unique sound character they're after. I consider the "it's digital so it can't sound different" argument to be akin to the "straight wire with gain" concept. However, DAWs in actual practice are not the digital equivalent of a straight wire -- there's lots of math under that hood. If you never changed any of the bits, then, yes, it's obvious it should always sound the same. However, that's just not realistic within a DAW if you're actually mixing, routing, summing, gain-changing, and performing the myraid other functions that take place within a modern DAW, even if one never applies E.Q., compression, or any other processing whose purpose it is to alter the sonic character. And this doesn't even get into the esoteric world of time constants and phase relationships as the DAW strives to maintain Automatic Delay Compensation. With any differences we're talking about -- no matter what their source -- the amount and type of difference will vary depending upon the program material and various other criteria. In a perfect world, there would be no difference between the sound of different DAWs. But, one thing I've learned over the years is, we don't live in a perfect world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Fleischman Posted January 15, 2012 Report Share Posted January 15, 2012 John, that is all true, and once you begin to compare summing busses and signal processing it becomes apples and oranges. Now if you are talking about the quality of the bounces made on two machines, you have a point. But I understood your post to mean that when playing back the same track on two different machines they sounded different. There should be no summing or signal processing going on when you are merely playing a track that has already been mixed (outside of the D/A conversion). Or did I read you wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Liston Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 The A/D and D/A converters are where the big comparisons should be made first, not software. Unless you use the same I/O to compare each DAW. I use RMEs exclusively after doing some shootouts for cost/performance. The MOTU will never be an option for the same reason. That, plus the fact that their drivers are problimatic. The really fun thing to do it compare these systems at different sample rates. Radar systems have won every shoot out at 44.1, but get mixed results at 96K and higher. The Digi "HD" interfaces sound radically different at higher sample rates. The summing bus tests are different. And yes, analog summing will sound better, until you start messing with the summing on the computer. The Harrison "Mixbus" program has won every blind test that I have conducted. But there is no way I would use that for post, even if I could. The whole running out to analog is just a big PITA (unless you are sitting on a nice well-maintained SSL or whatnot), and techniques to get the desired sound without that is what I spend my spare time figuring out. So what was this thread about? Oh yeah, realtime bouncing in PT. The bouncing to a track is the way to go, and it will sound better as the busses have a higher priority in PT than the bounce handler. However, you want to be on PT 10 with the CPTK or a TDM based user. Without the "I" button to preview the track, and to A/B, the workflow can really bog you down. Fun thread! John, that is all true, and once you begin to compare summing busses and signal processing it becomes apples and oranges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 John, that is all true, and once you begin to compare summing busses and signal processing it becomes apples and oranges. Now if you are talking about the quality of the bounces made on two machines, you have a point. But I understood your post to mean that when playing back the same track on two different machines they sounded different. There should be no summing or signal processing going on when you are merely playing a track that has already been mixed (outside of the D/A conversion). Or did I read you wrong? It's probably more likely that I stated my experiences in a convoluted manner. I was basing my "sounds better" comment both on information gleaned over the years on the SADiE forum and my own, albeit brief, experiences. The opinions I paid attention to were those made by people with experience who had used both SADiE and Pro Tools. My personal comparison was totally unscientific, but was borne out of how surprised I was to notice such a substantial difference. As I mentioned in an earlier post, on the possibility that the difference was due to the AD/DA, I switched from the MOTU box to an RME. However, immediately after installing the RME I started post on a feature and never took the time to do further comparisons. The work took precedence over my curiousity. One of the points I was trying to make as the discussion progressed, was that summing, gain changes, and all the myraid things mentioned earlier are an essential part of sound mixing in a DAW and that without doing any processing whose purpose is to alter the sound character, there's still a lot of math involved that could result in different systems having different sonic characteristics. Side note: I never had any issues with the MOTU drivers nor have I with the RME drivers. It's nice when things work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickreich Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 While I've been told by several mixers whose opinions I trust that mixing down to a track 'just sounds better' than Bouncing for some reason, I have myself experienced problems bouncing mixes with Convolution Reverbs (TLSpace) where automation has been applied to the plug-in. On a couple of occasions it clearly hasn't changed snapshots as automated, on others it didn't seem to follow other parameter automation. As I use it on pretty much every project, I switched to the mix-to-track method, and find it only takes a few seconds longer (to export the file if required) for the peace of mind that I can see the auto moves happening as it mixes. I'm on PT9 with CPTK so don't have the Input buttons, but don't find that an issue at all - my sessions are structured so I'm not monitoring through the mix track(s) all the time. As for ADAs - I use MOTU and RME (and Apogee, Digi, Audient...) ADAs constantly, and you can certainly hear differences between them. Which is not to say either is bad - just different. nick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 I used to be in the "all digital sounds the same" camp, but about 10 years ago, I switched from the old 888 Digidesign interface to the newer HD interface, and convinced myself it had less distortion and more headroom. Spec-wise, the HD was "supposed" to be better, but only by a few dB. I think in this case, I was hearing subtle differences in the analog outs. This stuff is hashed out on a daily basis on the Digidesign User Conference. Already, many users are upset that Avid is dumping the support of all the old hardware in favor of new hardware -- not too dissimilar from Apple moving away from the Motorola chips to Intel a few years ago. The good news is that the new hardware sounds better, is much more powerful, and costs less; the bad news is for people who invested many thousands of dollars in the old hardware. Things change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 "The good news is that the new hardware sounds better, is much more powerful, and costs less; the bad news is for people who invested many thousands of dollars in the old hardware." This is the same scenario that applies in almost everything in the computer/tech world --- the new item that replaces the old is better, faster and less expensive. It is also true that those who paid a lot for the older gear and are happy to keep on using it, are often left out in the cold with no support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted January 20, 2012 Report Share Posted January 20, 2012 Oh, man, you should see the screaming messages on the Avid/Digidesign forum... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Fleischman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 "The good news is that the new hardware sounds better, is much more powerful, and costs less; the bad news is for people who invested many thousands of dollars in the old hardware." This is the same scenario that applies in almost everything in the computer/tech world --- the new item that replaces the old is better, faster and less expensive. It is also true that those who paid a lot for the older gear and are happy to keep on using it, are often left out in the cold with no support. A certain editor I know is still cutting on a LightWorks, despite the pleas of all involved. She just refuses to budge off of it, doesn't want to have to learn a new system. It hasn't dampened her success one bit. It just creates headaches for the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 ... It hasn't dampened her success one bit. ... Her three Oscars speak pretty loudly. <g> Is she working with a beta of the newer open source version or is she still rocking an original installation? I watched "Hanna" tonight which was cut on Lightworks as was "The King's Speech." (different editors) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Fleischman Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Is she working with a beta of the newer open source version or is she still rocking an original installation? Beta...I think...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Lightworks... wow! I couldn't have even imagined that a fully functioning Lightworks system was still around. Does it still require the additional "crash screen" to keep track of all the significant operational difficulties it used to have? I spent a lot of time with many of the early DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) in the 1980's when it seemed like everyone was presenting something to the sound community for post work. Synclavier Post Pro, Sonic Solutions, Studer Dyaxis, DAWN, Waveframe, Audiophile, and of course Sound Tools from Menlo Park that evolved into ProTools, the only real survivor here today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 The response I often give in discussions about non-real-time bounce vs real time (esp when being told by ProTools users that they would never do an NRT bounce because they wanted to be sure the recording was being made) is that in all these bounces you are still only listening to the monitor mix. Unlike, say, a 744T, there is no way to actually listen to the recording back off the target drive as you make the recording. So if you really want to QC your bounced mix, you have to play it back in any case. The other point is that NRT bounce is very useful for tasks that come up while editing a project other than making final deliverables. phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Tell that to the BBC, who, the last time I checked, had about a thousand SADiE systems in use. I think he meant of the systems he mentioned.... phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I think he meant of the systems he mentioned.... phil p Right, Phil, thank you. I was outlining the systems that I had personally worked with in the very distant past. I think SADiE (Studio Audio Disk Editor) even got a fairly late start, around the beginning of 1992, utilizing one of the company's first products, the XS digital audio processing card, to develop a non-linear editing system. In another thread there was mention of the Lightworks picture editing system that used, I believe, some of the technology and processing cards that SADiE used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Right, Phil, thank you. I was outlining the systems that I had personally worked with in the very distant past. I stand corrected. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip Perkins Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm no fan of ProTools, but I think it should be recalled that even as expensive (and limited) as it was back then it was way cheaper than those other now-departed systems. That's kind of how they got established. (And why it is remarkable that Avid missed the same thing happening to them when FCP came out.) phil p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 I'm also very impressed how much the pricetag on Pro Tools has come down in the last few years. They're still having business problems at Avid (lots of layoffs), but I think in light of what's happening in the industry, I think both Pro Tools and the Avid Media Composer will do OK. And at least now, you can get Pro Tools Native for peanuts -- I've told students to get it just so they can get a foot in the door of the industry, and I think the educational version is like $295 now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Actualsizeaudio Posted January 24, 2012 Report Share Posted January 24, 2012 Reportedly, Pro Tools 10 improves on the internal bus mixer, and Pro Tools 11 will be a completely new design from scratch. We'll see if this changes the opinion of people who prefer to use outboard bus mixers. I've been mixing both in and out of the box for years. I swear the PTmix systems and PTHD systems' bussing sounded different to me, but supposedly it was all in my head. When I mix out of the box it is through a Manley 16x2 tube mixer. There's no mystery what I'm doing when I do that;' I'm looking for a less linear mix buss that adds a bit of distortion. People hear the difference and find it pleasing. One of the advantages of Pro Tools 11 going 64 bit and getting rid of the TDM architecture is that it will be able (finally) to do a non-realtime bounce. We shall see..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.279748a58a2b862b7aa5f3b84126e232.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.