Thigs That Sound Similiarto Corran Funny

June 19, 2022 Post a Comment

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbbubba ➡️

I am dead serious about what I posted.
I am not speaking tongue-in-cheek.

If all of the big name DAWs sound basically the same then the manufacturers have either collaborated and arrived at the same sound or they have reached the design limits of the technology.

Which is it?

It must be stated again that not all the DAWs nulled. Just a surprisingly large number of them. Whether the differences were enough to make them actually 'sound different' is a matter of debate. Some people felt strongly that this or that (non-nulling) DAW actually did sound better or worse.

Some

felt so strongly that they ditched their DAW and bought the other one!

I can tell you that I was not one of them. I personally listened until my ears bled and then waved the white flag. I made up my mind to use the DAW that worked best for me and let go of the paranoia that something about it might be 'broken' or that I might be using the 'wrong' one.

If you want to buy the CD you can listen for yourself and make up your own mind, I am just stating what I heard, or didn't hear. My purpose in this thread has been to make people aware of the fact that these tests have been conducted, to counter those who dfegad on the scientific method or who claim to hear differences in nulling files.

I think you make an excellent point about the limits of the technology. I just don't look at it as a bad thing. The DAW is a machine used for the storage and playback of numbers. I don't know if they 'collaborate' or not. It could simply be that they all share the goal of making sure that 2 +2 = 4. If they have reached the "limits of technology" in terms of correctly adding numbers together, well isn't that about right?

I think it is a confirmation of the fact that summing is mere addition. There may be a lot of different

ways

to add 2 + 2 but there is only one correct sum = 4. Any attempt to make something sound "better" will only result in an incorrect sum! Such an error will probably only sound 'better' sometimes, and sound 'worse' the rest of the time.

The 'sound' comes from your mics, preamps and converters - and from whatever

deliberate

manipulation of the numbers you choose to introduce. The manipulation is where the frontier is, the plug-ins, which IMO have been getting better and better in recent years.

There may yet be some advantage to be squeezed out of higher sample rates or greater bit depths, but whatever numbers are derived from those factors will still have to be summed in the same old boring way: 2 + 2 = 4

If I want to

manipulate

the sound, I would prefer to have that manipulation under my conscious control (i.e. a plug-in)

The Awesome DAW-SUM was a test only of summing and 'fader damage'.

Plug-ins / automation / delay comp etc. were not tested. But BarbaryApe's tests and others seem to indicate that the same plug with the same settings will give the same results even on different DAWs.

Again, would we really want it some other way? And how much 'better sounding' can

automation

be?

I am a drummer. When bands come in to my studio, and the drummer brings his own kit, I always ask if I can sit in on it for a few minutes. At that point, I usually find myself sounding a little bit like the drummer in question. Not just from the tuning of the heads, but from the way the kit is set up, the height and angles of the toms and cymbals, it encourages or discourages certain types of playing, certain kinds of fills, how I hold the sticks etc.

I look at the differences in DAWs the same way. The GUI and ergonomics and command set and work flow are the reason to love or hate the DAW.

Some DAWs might actually have something like a command that causes the playback to be a dB or two louder than another DAW through the same hardware. I'm just speculating here. So it might "sound better" to the operator, but if the file it outputs is bit-for-bit identical to the other DAW, the operator's subjective impression is just another ergonomic factor.

Lives for gear

Btw, there's lots of published info on this topic.

"The sound that a particular DAW has is due in part to the skills of the programmers who wrote the algorithms that decide how signals are summed, scaled, and otherwise manipulated internally."

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES ➡️

I agree that the PT HD sound may is a little better because of the good AD/DA that is in my ears that subtle that I also have ask myself if it is for real.

Since when does a programm have a AD/DA part? The only thing what the program has is digital I/O calculation. Maxbe the engine or mixer has a better architecture offers higher bit rate and better algorithm so that would make the difference in sound but well I'm not a programmer.... talking about AD DA in a programm is new for me heh

Yesterday I talked about this topic at length with a friend who is quite knowledgeable in audio and quite up to date regarding computers.

He pointed out that no matter what the null tests say, there is NO WAY that the different processors used in computer platforms produce the exact same results as each other. He cited a few examples, but it was over my head.
In other words, it isn't ALWAYS 2 + 2 = 4. It can easily be 2 + 2 - 4.00011124253 or something close, but not exactly the same with each processor.

Besides...
The is no check sum that says the summed mix is proper.

The tiny differences that you hear in null tests DO MATTER!!!!
These are the things that some of us don't like about the sound of mixing a DAW.

You know... the problems that most of us have with the sound of a DAW are rather small and nit-picky.
Things like panning and DEPTH OF FIELD.
I am not sure that these would really show up on a null test.

Besides... a null test IS NOT a final and definitive test.

Gear Addict

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbbubba ➡️

Yesterday I talked about this topic at length with a friend who is quite knowledgeable in audio and quite up to date regarding computers.

Besides...
The is no check sum that says the summed mix is proper.

The tiny differences that you hear in null tests DO MATTER!!!!
These are the things that some of us don't like about the sound of mixing a DAW.

Besides... a null test IS NOT a final and definitive test.

Your friend is wrong unless you've completely changed what he said on accident (I'm not trying to be offensive here, so sorry if that's a bit harsh). So, by your logic any accounting software that deals with floating point numbers would give you different results if you are running it on a different platform? Can you give me a more specific example?

-Dean

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean7 ➡️

-Dean

He's right. CPU's have errors. It has to do with how they are manufactured. Doping mostly. Two CPU's made on the same day even of the same lot on the same wafer can have small differences. Although very very small differences they do occur. This is not a secret. Companies like Intel have long acknowledged this. No two cpu's are even close to being identical. Then add in DRAM errors? They are made the same way CPU's are made. The device list goes on......

The industry is getting better with new technologies like cold implants and better incident angle while implanting ions into the silicon. It's not usually issues with photo mask and/or reticles. It has more to do materials science not at all the cpu logic itself. In theory the logic design is perfect since they test that. But then again its tested with a computer isn't it? So who knows? The computer is not perfect.

It all comes down to what is an acceptable number of errors. If CPU's were made 100% to spec things like overclocking would not be possible. CPU manufacturers really have know idea what will be the yield of a given lot of wafers before they are made. In some industries they may test 1 of 100 pieces or whatever for QA. Most fabs test EVERY cpu since it is hit or miss in many cases.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allencollins ➡️

You people are living in a fantasyland. You are dreaming up 'reasons' to hear the differences that are gradually being proven to not exist. It's funny to see how everyone has suddenly gained such "expertise" in computer science.

If such errors existed the odds against an entire song ever nulling to infinity would be zero.
That's 5 minutes of 24 bit numbers being added 44,100 times a second. Come on.

yet such nulls occur 100% of the time within the same platform. Any platform, and if they didn't, then that software would be crap and no one would buy it. Every time you printed a mix it would COME OUT DIFFERENT. Is this the software you want to use for your professional studio?

The reality is that on pro software, you can mix a song 100 times and get 100 files that null. Null completely. 100%. To infinity. Try it on your rig right now. That 2.6 million arithmetic operations a minute. Where did the 'errors' go?

As proven by Lynn Fuston's tests, you can sometimes even mix a song on another DAW and get a file that nulls.

I agree in principle with dbbubba that the tiny differences in the null tests may indeed create a difference that some people will find audible and significant. Some DAWs did not null 100%. Sincere congratulations to you and your ears if you are one of those people. I have no problem with such a claim. The human ear is quite sensitive to the smallest changes.

But many of these files

nulled completely.

Between several platforms there WERE no "tiny differences"! None at all. Can you grasp the concept of 100% cancellation?

it flies in the face of reality to say that a null is not a null, that a null doesn't prove anything.

A null proves

everything

it proves that it is possible to achieve the

exact same result

on the two platforms. Once you have shown that, you can no longer complain about your DAW holding you back. If you want to cling to the tiny differences loophole, you should order the CD and see if your DAW is one of those, or if it falls within a group of DAWs that null with each other.

Gear Maniac

So you are saying that the equipment that nulls completely is all on equal footing?

Then this implies that the technology is complete.
The recording and summing/mixing cannot be improved upon if you are using the best equipment.

Digital recording is at the very end of the technology curve?

Don't apply for a job at a manufacturing firm of ANY kind.

Maybe it only says that these devices sound alike.

It doesn't prove that they sound as good as it possibly can.
It doesn't even prove that they sound good!

Maybe it means that they all sound like crap!

If the BIBLE was written on a word processor the world would be a better place!

Lives for gear

This DOESN'T mean that digital technology is finished! If you did a recording simultaneously on two platforms, one at 44/16 and one at 192/24, they probably sound different. THAT is an increase in sound quality. The DAW is only for MANIPULATING the raw files that are made based on your other gear. So perhaps DSD is an increase in fidelity over PCM, who knows, but either way they don't have any connection to the DAW, the DAW just USES them. So we will continue to improve digital, but I think the DAW will change just to use different formats or be able to record at a higher fidelity. It will also continue to improve in terms of functionality, plugins, etc.

It's silly to say that if all DAWs null, then nothing can be improved. That's why I can still use older versions of a DAW and get similar results, summing-wise, as newer versions. The new versions just improve other things. This is why analog summing is so popular, because those boxes DO affect the sound, hopefully in a positive way.

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dean7 ➡️

So, by your logic any accounting software that deals with floating point numbers would give you different results if you are running it on a different platform?

This actually does happen, in some cases the same fractional number will be stored differently by the same computer and same platform. Accounting packages worth their salt will not allow this to happen as its very trivial to prevent.

IEEE 754-1985 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Using the float Datatype Technote: Mobile Enterprise, Database Management - Sybase Inc

computers can be a bit like potato chips. sometimes its better to not know and just enjoy the snack

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbbubba ➡️

So you are saying that the equipment that nulls completely is all on equal footing?

Then this implies that the technology is complete.

The recording and summing/mixing cannot be improved upon if you are using the best equipment.

equipment

software

? How much "better" can software be at adding up a series of 1's and 0's?

"summing" or "mixing"?

if it nulls, then the

summing

is the same. period.

I never really understood where this idea came from - that "summing" was the source of the "sound" of something. And somehow by extension the be-all and end-all. Summing is just adding. Maybe in the early days of low powered computers there was some 'cheating' or 'bottlenecks' going on. There are a couple of schemes for handling the decimal point or rounding things off or whatever, but once you make a rule, you follow that rule and the answer is always the same. And any other manufacturer who follows that rule also gets the same answer. How many different rules can there be for rounding off, and how much room for advancement is there?

"mixing" on the other hand is what engineers do with their skill. On whatever tools they have.

as far as the end of technology:

The places where analog HITS digital have a long way to go. The technology of conversion is probably far from complete. And what about manipulating the numbers? The technology of plug-ins is just in its infancy. My god, the stuff that is starting to come out now is actually

usable

. But if the summing is the same, I can buy the same plug-in as you and your DAW is no better than mine.

Tough pill to swallow? Why?

Maybe there will be "summing modeling" that introduces a Fudge Factor into your mixer so it behaves more like an SSL. Maybe people used to get a little something 'extra' from analog summing and when that something is defined, it can be modeled. I don't know.

Some think DSD holds promise, maybe software will come out that allows DSD to be mixed and edited natively without converting back and forth to PCM.

The topic of the thread is the

sonic

differences between DAWS, and there may be some, but are they the result of "superior technology"? What else do they do, besides sum? Pan? The rest is GUI and plug-ins. The sound of a DAW is still mainly what you put into it. If you want mojo, you buy a hardware box.

We can throw bigger numbers into them for the diminishing benefit of increased "resolution" But I ask again: how much BETTER at addition can we expect our computers to get?

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeq ➡️

If such errors existed the odds against an entire song ever nulling to infinity would be zero.
That's 5 minutes of 24 bit numbers being added 44,100 times a second. Come on.

The reality is that on pro software, you can mix a song 100 times and get 100 files that null. Null completely. 100%. To infinity. Try it on your rig right now. Where did the 'errors' go?

As proven by Lynn Fuston's tests, you can sometimes even mix a song on another DAW and get a file that nulls.

But many of these files

nulled completely.

Between several platforms there WERE no "tiny differences"! None at all. Can you grasp the concept of 100% cancellation?

it flies in the face of reality to say that a null is not a null, that a null doesn't prove anything.

A null proves

everything

it proves that it is possible to achieve the

exact same result

The null test doesn't prove anything. Were talking about recording an entire song with one DAW and then record the same song with another DAW and listen to the difference. Sure this can't be as scientific as your 'null' test but it will proves daw's sound different from a texture standpoint. This is what most of us are saying. GET IT NOW? jeezlouise

I don't live in a fantasyland. This null test isn't even relevant to what half of us are saying. The null test doesn't mean anything your source file is the same.

Record the same song or whatever 2 separate times with 2 daws then tell me they don't sound different.

This null test DOES NOT APPLY. like all of lyns tests and cd's they ARE USELESS

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by allencollins ➡️

I don't live in a fantasyland. This null test isn't even relevant to what half of us are saying. The null test doesn't mean anything your source file is the same.

Record the same song or whatever 2 separate times with 2 daws then tell me they don't sound different.

This null test DOES NOT APPLY. like of of lyns tests and cd's they ARE USELESS

Wow, okay, so what, they sound different, but if by some act of God the players played EXACTLY the same thing in EXACTLY the same spot in front of the mic and the engineer did EXACTLY the same mixing, well then guess what?

It would probably null.

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corran ➡️

It would probably null.

dunno. But I do know I switched from Nuendo 3.22 back to 1.6 since it sounded bigger more open to me. But lets assume you are right.

I guess I'll just consider Nuendo 1.6 kinda like my 'rabbits foot' or my good luck charm if you will, if you please?

Because according to u guys it's in my imagination they sound different but I guess since I think one sounds better and it really doesn't we'll just call it my 'luck charm' and call it a day cuz it makes me play better and mix better. Though it's only in my mind. Maybe it's the color scheme that tricks my eyes into tricking my ears?

Quote:

Originally Posted by allencollins ➡️

I don't live in a fantasyland. This null test isn't even relevant to what half of us are saying. The null test doesn't mean anything your source file is the same.

Record the same song or whatever 2 separate times with 2 daws then tell me they don't sound different.

If the source file is

not

the same, it is because of the room, the mic, the preamp and the converters. The DAW has nothing whatsoever to do with making the

source file

any different. Hooked up to the same converter, two DAWs will be receiving the

same exact set of numbers.

Test it for yourself if you wish.

What can any DAW do except write these numbers down? Do your really think some DAW is going to do a "better job" of writing down an incoming series of numbers? What kind of magical thinking is that?

You are claiming a difference between DAWs, yet all things you are talking about come from something OTHER THAN the DAW. You are not only failing to make your case, you are helping to prove the opposite.

you are right, you are not living in a fantasyland. Even fantasies have some kind of internal logic.

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by allencollins ➡️

dunno. But I do know I switched from Nuendo 3.22 back to 1.6 since it sounded bigger more open to me. But lets assume you are right.

I guess I'll just consider Nuendo 1.6 kinda like my 'rabbits foot' or my good luck charm if you will, if you please?

That's fine, doesn't bother me, same as I'll keep using Sonar for my own reasons. Whatever gets the job done, right?

Lives for gear

The null tests are a step in the right direction - factual information related to the physical signal. Accusing someone of hearing things that are not physically there should not be taken as an insult. Everybody does it all the time. Check out music psychologist Diana Deutsch's work - her CD called "Sonic illusions and Musical Paradoxes" is a classic. Also, Josef Alber's book "Interactions of color" is good for the visual side of things. Yes - the color scheme and gui of your DAW can affect the way you hear the sound. Yes - you may hear difference in the same file played twice. This does not mean you are dumb or living in a fantasyland - just human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhizomeman ➡️

Yes - you may hear difference in the same file played twice. This does not mean you are dumb or living in a fantasyland - just human.

I would just like to clarify - since I am the one who introduced the term fantasyland, that I am NOT making a connection between someone's hearing and the fantasy. I am not criticizing anyones ears.

My reference to fantasy is the fantasy of not understanding what a Null is, not understanding what arithmetic is.

Lives for gear

My ears haven't fooled me yet.
'

Gear Addict

Quote:

Originally Posted by vernier ➡️

My ears haven't fooled me yet.
'

really?...you've never tweaked an eq setting in bypass, thought the change was good, but then realized you had actually done nothing to the sound?...or anything along those lines?
_

Allencollins, if you have both Nuendo 3 and 1 then you can run a little test of your own and see for yourself. If your tests don't null, then yes, the math is different, and you are hearing differences, and your ears are doing a good job. If you do the test and you find they "sound" the same (like my experience), and they null, then again your ears are doing their job. IF you find the files null and you still think there are differences,...well rhizo said it best, see his post a few above mine here. Your ears are probably still fine, but your mind may be playing tricks on you. We've all had it happen to us, but it's just damn humbling hard to have to admit it.

I used to have both Nuendo 2 and ProTools LE 5.x here, and originally I thought there was differences, until I took the same audio files from a 24 track project and mixed them in both platforms using identical settings. After making a stereo mixdown and comparing them blindly, I couldn't accurately pick them apart from each other, nearly drove myself nuts, because like you, I used to believe there were differences, and I was determined to hear it, but in the end I had to admit I couldn't tell. Afterwards I did a null test, which revealed they were identical. That was the day I stopped caring about what DAW I was using and just chose the one that had the features and functions and ergonomics and price I liked.
_

Just for clarity, what aspects of computer recording do people think the DAW is responsible for?....cause I get the feeling that perhaps there might be some misunderstanding about those details,...no?

The title of this thread is describing the sound of a DAW and I still don't believe DAWs have a sound, they just move sound around, like wires do.
It's just voltages. When you start running stuff through transformers etc, then you gets changes and potential real debates about which people prefer. On the digital side it's eq's and plug-ins which contain their own math, not the DAW's fault.

One should look into the math of summing, panning laws, gain changes and routing within a DAW. Then compare the complexity of that math to other things like eqs, verbs, sample rate conversion, etc. That might shed some light on things.

I'm not sure I understand the comments about DAWs having reached their maximum sonic potential, because that statement leads me to believe the poster doesn't understand the math of the digital signal path. If your converter feeds the computer 0001001011, then your audio file stored on your computer better be 0001001011, otherwise it won't sound anything like the original, nevermind the "subtle differences" that people claim to hear after travelling through a DAW untouched by any other software(plugins) math. If the audio file isn't 0001001011 at the end, it will be corrupted,...same as when your tape gets eaten and munched by a bad tape machine, ain't nothin bringing it back.

db's friend talked about rounding errors and he's right to a point. Of course in a perfect world the amount of numbers after the decimal point would be infinite, always yielding the exact resulting number for a "perfect" audio file having undergone any changes on the way through the DAW. But one should research the relevance of rounding errors and if or how much they effect the final number after all the equations, no matter who's math (DAW) you decide to use. (I can't speak on this, because it's too technical, but I've researched it and understand the conclusion.)

Lives for gear

Quote:

I'm not understanding some things. Like, if a program fades or normalizes ..isn't it done differently in the different programs?
'

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeq ➡️

The DAW has nothing whatsoever to do with making the

source file

any different.

How do you know?
there are 100's of ways to read an store .wav file in memory.
It's up to the programmer

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeq ➡️

Hooked up to the same converter, two DAWs will be receiving the

same exact set of numbers.

Test it for yourself if you wish.

Really? how do you know? In fact you don't know since most DAW's don't hook up to a converter. The converter hooks up to an AES or some other interface which uses a 3rd party driver to connect to the DAW like ASIO or a directX driver? What if two DAW's implement ASIO differently ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeq ➡️

You've obviously never written code. Yes its possible for one DAW
"to do a better job" as you have suggested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeq ➡️

You missed my point. I realize recording a song two separate times with different DAW's would be far from scientific. My point assumes you record the song twice with some level of consistency in the playing and you are only interested in the OVERALL differences in SOUND since you would use the same EXACT gear.

It would be similar to doing a test with 2 different preamps. You are only concerned with the overall texture you would have to overlook the fact there would be small differences in performance. No shit they are not going to be exactly the same. But assuming the person doing the test is not a total moron and the person listening to the result
is not a complete moron you could hear differences if any.

Since you having are hard time comprehending this, just PRETEND you are comparing analog tape decks instead of daws just for a moment. While utilizing your irrelevant null test you would record a 2 track file two both analog decks. Flip the phase on 1 deck and play both deck back at the same time. granted in real life there would be flutter but for the sake of Fantasy Land just ignore that. Any way your null test is foolish. It does not prove anything!

What I'm saying is record a song TWO different times to TWO different recording devices (in this case DAW's) and listen for the OVERALL difference in sound TRYING to ignore the subtle performance differences. and YES this test can be done with some level of accuracy. We do it with pres and mics and A/D all the time and everyone is happy?

Everyone knows a MCI JH24 has a different sonic texture than an MX80. An API pre has a different sonic texture than Amek9098. A UA 2192 has a different immediately noticeably different texture than an RME converter.
And I believe certain DAW's have noticeably different texture too.

capiche?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeq ➡️

you are right, you are not living in a fantasyland. Even fantasies have some kind of internal logic.

Do you need autotune or melodyne to determine that something is out of tune? Or can you just HEAR the difference ?
If you have a singer double his vocals assuming for the sake of fantasy land he has perfect pitch and perfect timing. Would you need a null test to determine if he was out of tune on a note?

Is this enough logic for you?

Gear Addict

Quote:

Originally Posted by allencollins ➡️

How do you know?
there are 100's of ways to read an store .wav file in memory.
It's up to the programmer

You've obviously never written code. Yes its possible for one DAW
"to do a better job" as you have suggested.

capiche?

Is this enough logic for you?

Allen & joeq you need to separate the discussion between the source digital audio file which has to be and always must identical no matter what, otherwise any error will make the file either corrupted and unreadable, or it will sound blatantly bad, there will be no subtlies AND the computing of the audio file as its signal "travels" through the DAW, uneffected by 3rd party computations. So far it seems both concepts are being lumped together, thus both sides of the arguement are correct at the same time.

No one in photography is gonna argue that their jpg file looks different when opening in different photo viewing/editing software programs, why can't us audio guys get that concept through our heads??? This has to do with numbers which are exact, always unless your file gets corrupted, just like any other computer file (office file, etc) might get corrupted, and if that happens, your audio file likely won't be even playable.

Now let's talk about those exact always-identical audio files (I believe the DAWs call it indestructable editing for a reason) and what happens to them when they are being read by any DAW.

Any audio file travelling through a DAW uneffected by any gain staging, panning, or plugins will be identical at the stereo bus output. You can try this yourself, it is painfully easy. Your audio file will sound identical at the end as it did before entering your DAW. Try it.

It is also provable that gain changes do not alter the sound.
(reasonable gain changes equivalent to what would happen in the analog world,...obviously both analog and digital can't take gain extreme changes without suffering severe audio quality loss, hope that concept is a no-brainer.)

Different panning laws from one DAW to another WILL sound different, but identical panning laws should not, if the DAW has been programed properly, and yes all the respected and even the not so respected ones are. This is simple math programming (for programmers,..go find out,) THAT's why all DAWs sound the same, and (to address the sonic quality issue brought up) because they are in essence "perfect" they will never sound "better" because a DAW is meant to just move the audio around, not "improve" it or alter it in anyway,...until you start reaching for that 3rd party math (plugins etc.)

Yes, null tests in the digital realm with the same clock can tell you something. If two audio files are identical, if they begin at the same sample, with one audio file polarity flipped, played at the same time, they will null to infinity, your stereo output meters reading

∞ always. This is a fun test to do because while the track meters dance away, the stereo meters remain silent,..and so is the audio.

Have you ever done a null test?

Gear Addict

Quote:

Originally Posted by vernier ➡️

I'm not understanding some things. Like, if a program fades or normalizes ..isn't it done differently in the different programs?
'

no, it's simple math.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allencollins ➡️

How do you know?
there are 100's of ways to read an store .wav file in memory.
It's up to the programmer

however many "ways" there are to store a .wav file, the file in question is nothing more than a set of numbers. Any "way" that stores or outputs a set of numbers

different

from the actual numbers of the file in question is

incorrect

. Most manufacturers are concerned with getting this 100% right.

You are quite mistaken if you think this is an extremely difficult task with many "subtle" variations on how well it is executed. It is NOT like an analog tape deck. Anyway, it is quite easy to test.

Quote:

you are confusing me with another poster

I am not the one suggesting you try to find performers with unrealistic consistency. My suggestion was to take any performance you like, send it to a converter, split the bitstream from that converter and send it to several different DAWs at the same time and record the result. This is not a hypothetical thought experiment, where the "results" are a matter of opinion, but a test that can actually be performed. It will ISOLATE the DAW's "capture" abilities from the converter's "texture".

What do you think the results are going to be? Hint: The digits going from the converter to the DAWs are exactly the same. If the DAWs capture those digits correctly, the DAWs will sound exactly the same. Do you really think this is such a difficult task - writing down a stream of 1's an 0's- that some professional programs are going to FAIL at it?

On the other hand is there any way possible to do

better

than an exactly correct rendition of the numbers in question? No, there is only correct or incorrect.

The converter has your "sound". the converter is engaged in

subtleties

at the boundary where the analog signal is turned into ones and zeros. Different converters have different textures. Given the same analog input, they will output slightly different ones and zeros. The DAW is just

writing down

that bunch of ones and zeros that the converter spits out. It can do it perfectly or it can f*ck it up. Most DAWs do it perfectly.

Your proposal for taking an "overall" impression of how the DAW records is

totally subjective,

and totally unnecessary. It completely overlooks this very simple method of removing the influence of the converter, the listener's preconceptions, susceptibility to colors, and other 'rabbit's foot' phenomena from the equation.

There will be no need to 'ignore subtle performance differences' because

there won't be any.

Of course I am starting to suspect that such a test would make someone like YOU uncomfortable, because it will leave no wiggle room- no space for you to inject your personal prejudices onto the results.

That is the point of the scientific method and, as I am beginning to understand, probably the source of your opposition to it.

I on the other hand would welcome the split converter test, and would gladly admit that some DAWs 'sound different' IF such a test produced non-nulling files. That's because I am humbly interested in learning as much as I can about the tools I use for audio, not just in confirming my preconceptions of what is "best" or making unsupportable claims about my golden ears.

Quote:

Any way your null test is foolish. It does not prove anything!

It is quite pathetic that you keep saying that. You know very well what a null test proves and your ego trip as someone who can 'hear the difference' between DAWs is threatened by it. The summing of DAWs that null is identical and will sound identical when summing the same audio, no matter what color is displayed on the screen.

If the split converter test

also

produces a null, as I am confident it will, what will that leave for the DAW? panning?

Quote:

And I believe certain DAW's have noticeably different texture too.

Perhaps yours does. Not every DAW nulled in the summing tests. That may have been operator error in administering the test, or it may well be that the DAW sums differently. I freely admit that you

may

have chosen one of the non-nulling DAWs and that it

may

sum better.

My suggestion is that you to stop reading anything about these null tests

now

, lest you find out that yours is one of the ones that nulled, and your bubble is burst. tutt

Quote:

Is this enough logic for you?

it is no logic at all.

when you talk about tuning and vocal doubling you are talking about musical performances, not the operation of a machine. The subtle differences you speak of are

real

in case of musical performance.

writing down

the number:
010100100110110010110010 or

adding

it the number:
010010010010010001010010

has no subtlety, only a correct answer.

Lives for gear

But, as example, adjusting eq ..its different from program to program. Or compression, they work differently, with different controls. And all the different plug-ins, the choices of processing is numerous. That'd make every DAW different.

The only ones that could ever be the same, or similar, would be two identical computers, running identical programs, set up up the same way, with everything being the same. That is highly unlikekly.

For the null talkin' guys here...I have no idea what you are claiming.

Does anyone else?

Gear Addict

Quote:

Originally Posted by vernier ➡️

The only ones that could ever be the same, or similar, would be two identical computers, running identical programs, set up up the same way, with everything being the same. That is highly unlikekly.

For the null talkin' guys here...I have no idea what you are claiming.

Does anyone else?

RE: Null test.

Vernier, I believe you mentioned a ways back in this thread that although you love your analog, you have a DAW(s)? If so, you can do a null test with any audio file in the digital realm.

Simply open a new session in favourite DAW. Import an audio file of your choice, mono, stereo, whatever. Once you've imported into your session and have it on a track, copy it on to a new track/channel, so that it starts at the same point as the original does on its channel.

Now, make sure the copied audio file begins at the exact same sample as the original audio file. Make sure tracks are at unity or zero gain. Flip the polarity on one channel and hit play!

Fun stuff will happen. Voltages will added and subtracted with utmost accuracy. Keep an eye on the stereo bus meter, and clear your peak hold just before you hit play.

Tell us what your individual tracks meters read.
Tell us what your stereo master track meters read.
Tell us what you hear.

Try it and let us know what happens.

time for bed

Lives for gear

Quote:

Originally Posted by vernier ➡️

The only ones that could ever be the same, or similar, would be two identical computers, running identical programs, set up up the same way, with everything being the same. That is highly unlikekly.

For the null talkin' guys here...I have no idea what you are claiming.

Does anyone else?

It's amazing to me, that there can still be confusion about what a null test is, after pages and pages of debate. Look, if you split a mic signal (not with a transformer!) and it's identical between two signals, and plug it into two different preamps, at which point you plug it into two different tape decks, when you record off of each one, of course the sound will be different. You are running through two completely different pieces of analog gear. Now let's say we have one of those USB mics, and we can record the same signal coming in from that mic to two DAWs. The converter is in the mic, as is the preamp, so what's coming down the line (USB) is the same going into each DAW. These two recordings will sound the same. It's math and that's it. And you can use the null test, by putting the files right next to each other and flipping one's phase, to test it. I know you understand phase/polarity, or you certainly should if you are doing any real recording, which I assume you do by your earlier posts (despite the ridiculous bias against digital!).

Quote:

Originally Posted by allencollins

I think this gets to the crux of the matter. Yes everyone knows one pre or deck sounds different from the other. However that's a no-brainer, because each unit has completely different components and such. And yes, DAWs have different "components" if you will, in terms of EQ and built in plugins, whatever. But the DAW, first and foremost, is a modifier of digital files. To get the analog sound into a digital file, we employ the converter, which as noted by joeq can color the sound. But at that point, the DAW takes this bitstream and stores it on the computer, without touching it, as a .wav file. At this point, all modern DAWs should be the same. That .wav file should be 010101110 no matter what DAW stored it on the harddrive. If you disagree with that, then fine, but this is the only thing that I would want the DAW to do. Not color or change it or whatever. I will do that later. Now if you want to cling to the matter, have fun, I know I'm probably not going to convince you.

Lives for gear

Our 3 studios all have the same units ( Roland DAW) our neighbors also have Rolands ....the subtle sound difference, to my ears, is only from the a/d converters & the pre/ post gear ..the units are pretty much from the factory stock RDAC > we never go beyond 44.1/ 24. One reason we chose the Roland VS system ~~uniformity & ease of a all in one. We also all burn to a Masterlink.

ligginsasubtend.blogspot.com

Source: https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/202484-how-can-you-describe-daws-sound-6.html

Liggins Asubtend

Thigs That Sound Similiarto Corran Funny

Post a Comment for "Thigs That Sound Similiarto Corran Funny"