Live audio quality?

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
Robert Henke
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Berlin

Post by Robert Henke » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:11 am

Michael-SW wrote:Mixing desks sound different because they use different hardware. DAWs sound exactly the same because they are all using the same mathematical algorithms.

(...)
This is not really true, there are surprisingly many ways to do the same thing. The differences are just not where you would expect them if you have no expert knowledge, and they are all in a range way below of what I personally believe is audible.

Of course summing two or more tracks in every DAW is output = a+b+c+d, where a = signal of track a * volume of track a . So it is impossible to introduce here compression or any change in frequency response, and the dynmanic range if you do this with normal floating point mathematics is allready super big, not talking about the headroom if you do it with 64bit resolution.

But there are other details: if you draw a volume automation curve and this curve has a sharp edge theory says that this edge introduces nonlinear distortions to the signal. A good example for this is what is called "zipper noise" when moving a MIDI fader on a cheap audio processor.MIDI resolution is 128 steps. If you move a fader assigned to volume and you do no further smoothing you will get a bit of noise every time a new value comes in. In order to avoid this you have to create a smooth ramp instead of a sharp edge. This is known and every DAW manufacturer of course does some kind of ramping. But this is nothing where you can look up the one perfect way to do it in some research paper and every company does it like that. Instead it is always a compromise between reaction speed, cpu usage, and resulting quality. Some of our competitors are quite conservative here, they do very long ramps. This minimizes distortion but also makes all automation a bit floppy. Others prefer punchy automation, and as a result are more likely to introduce more distortion. Unless they use a more intelligent alogortihm. Which east more CPU or introduces latency... and so on.

This is just one example. There are probably a dozend places in a DAW where there is a potential differerence. So, yes, they all do sound different. But it is important to understand that this is a very very accademic way to look at it, because as mentoned before, the effects are in a range of -120db if things are really bad and maybe -160dB typically. Every active speaker introduces a noise floor way above this, every microphone has less dynamic range, not talking about a typical recording environment.

I personally would judge a DAW by all kinds of things but certainly not buy its meassured sound quality. Much more important is: do i like the way the EQs works, am i fine with the compressor, can i use my favourite plug ins with it and so on. This is what will shape the sound of my productions and not the ramping algorithm.

Robert

Tarekith
Posts: 19121
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:26 am

Robert would it be fair to say that even though most of the errors you talk about might be -120dBFS in a worst case scenario, it's still something people might need to be interested in as these errors are cumulative?

I'd agree that distortion that low is likely inaudible, but when you start summing many tracks that contain this, or doing multiple processes that add add additional distortion, then it becomes more of any issue, no? Dither for instance is nothing but noise that resides in this portion of the dynamic range, but it's well known that you want to use dither once, and last, to avoid cumulatively adding dither noise to a file, and thus making it more easily audible. Is noise generated by a DAW different in this regard?

Not disagreeing, just looking for some insight.

mkelly
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Belfast

Post by mkelly » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:31 am

forge wrote:I'm getting a feeling of deja vu
Apologies if I was duplicating the +site tip - I know there was a thread on the forum search recently, but I didn't see that tip mentioned when I was reading it then.

forge
Posts: 17422
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:47 am
Location: Queensland, AU
Contact:

Post by forge » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:43 am

mkelly wrote:
forge wrote:I'm getting a feeling of deja vu
Apologies if I was duplicating the +site tip - I know there was a thread on the forum search recently, but I didn't see that tip mentioned when I was reading it then.
he he..no I meant the thread topic

I think Tone Deft might have made a comment the other day about putting the top 10 recurring questions somewhere

An FAQ section isn't a bad idea really - in fact it was added to "the great ABleton to-do list" about 50 million years ago and will probably never happen :wink:

so for now the tips and tricks sticky and the WIKIs are good places to direct people as most of these things have been put there at some point

but as you have just witnessed, it is not always beneficial to be that anal as every now and then someone like Robert might feel like chiming in with some solid hardcore science! 8)

rikhyray
Posts: 3644
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:13 pm
Contact:

Post by rikhyray » Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:21 pm

Kriss had lots of warped clips so that is rather obvious why he heard the difference. Why being rude? Few posts only, that obvious enough he does not have to know all that what might seem obvious. I guess he is more interested that his music sounds the best it could, pseudo scientific experiments with cancellations wont help. I guess once he changes some from beat to tone or rerecord, and leaves unwarped, will hear that it is not all that bad.
The whole thing of being pro is not about some higher caste or superiority. It is simply for people who pay their bills working as musicians, delivering, all what counts is the endresult and achieving it as quickly and well as possible, specially that most of us are underpaid (or feel they are underpaid). I personally wouldnt advice anyone to become pro musician, barrister or medical doctor are definitely better for anyones future and position in a society
Whatever it takes, if Robert would write that keeping a glass of bier,beer or a bear next to my computer would help to get better sound I would surely try to do that, and not try to vivisect the bear or drink that beer ( at least not before the final mixdown). Anyway as vegetarian, the idea of vivisecting a bear is not very appealing to me.

Robert Henke
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 10:38 am
Location: Berlin

Post by Robert Henke » Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:31 pm

Tarekith wrote:Robert would it be fair to say that even though most of the errors you talk about might be -120dBFS in a worst case scenario, it's still something people might need to be interested in as these errors are cumulative?

I'd agree that distortion that low is likely inaudible, but when you start summing many tracks that contain this, or doing multiple processes that add add additional distortion, then it becomes more of any issue, no? Dither for instance is nothing but noise that resides in this portion of the dynamic range, but it's well known that you want to use dither once, and last, to avoid cumulatively adding dither noise to a file, and thus making it more easily audible. Is noise generated by a DAW different in this regard?

Not disagreeing, just looking for some insight.
I will skip the dithering answer, since it would mean i spend two hours explaining ;-), but for the rest:

Honestly, i don't know if there is a realistic chance that those effects under very special circumstances become audible. But since working with a DAW is an iterative process, I would assume that a user who is capeable to hear such things will also automatically change the mix in a way that the effect is not a problem.
What is music and what is distortion? This is the very first question. Everything appart from a pure sinewave can be regarded as a distorted signal. So, if the DAW adds a specific character, you either like it, or you notch it out by filtering a bit differently without even noticing. I would go one step further: Good sounding effects will even more introduce nonlinearities in the future. What confuses users of DAWs is the lack of warmth, the lack of nonlinearity. They sound too clean in comparison to an analog desk / tape recorder.

Robert

Michael-SW
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:05 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Post by Michael-SW » Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:38 pm

Robert Henke wrote:
Michael-SW wrote:Mixing desks sound different because they use different hardware. DAWs sound exactly the same because they are all using the same mathematical algorithms.

(...)
This is not really true, there are surprisingly many ways to do the same thing. The differences are just not where you would expect them if you have no expert knowledge, and they are all in a range way below of what I personally believe is audible.

Of course summing two or more tracks in every DAW is output = a+b+c+d, where a = signal of track a * volume of track a . So it is impossible to introduce here compression or any change in frequency response, and the dynmanic range if you do this with normal floating point mathematics is allready super big, not talking about the headroom if you do it with 64bit resolution.

(...)

Robert
I was referring to the straight summing/mixing, as the original comparison was to analog mixing desks. Automation, the default plugin suite and a host of other things might of course introduce a sonic character of its own.

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey

Post by leisuremuffin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:14 pm

Ahhhhh, and here comes rikhy, who along with josh von douchepickle actually said in the face of a phase cancellation test proving that an unwarped file and the same file warped but at orig tempo (under the vast majority of circumstances) were identical ----> "you just can't hear the difference because you aren't pro enough."


what a load of horseshit.


admit you are wrong and move on.




The reason i get so pissy about this issue is that a bunch of morons are out there repeating incorrect information over and over again and convincing people that it is true based upon their great level of experience as "pros". It sucks. There are people who are actually dumb enough to just believe what ever is repeated over and over again, so we end up with this rash of people who think that live's audio isn't on par with "pro" applications. it's fucking horseshit.



.lm.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

Igor L
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:34 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Igor L » Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:55 pm

leisuremuffin wrote:The reason i get so pissy about this issue is that a bunch of morons are out there repeating incorrect information over and over again and convincing people that it is true based upon their great level of experience as "pros". It sucks. There are people who are actually dumb enough to just believe what ever is repeated over and over again, so we end up with this rash of people who think that live's audio isn't on par with "pro" applications. it's fucking horseshit.
I just look at the list of Live users and figure that if the audio quality of Live is good enough for Darren Price, Steve Stoll, Richie Hawtin, Kaskade, DJ Krush, Coldcut, etc....well then it must be good enough for me.

90's child
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 4:13 pm

Post by 90's child » Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:25 pm

Yes there IS an issue with Ableton's Live's audio quality when you warp. Many people have talked about this in magazines from the music tech magazine Ableton Live 6 reviewer right through to the producers Plaid. I have also noticed it.

BUT nobody on this forum accepts it.

There is no difference between DAWS if you don't use the audio warping. I used to use drum loops for my drum tracks but had to stop because when you warp them the bottom end starts to granulate and it sounds rubbish. It’s the same when warping whole tracks for making mix CD's, even complex mode granulates the bottom end.

Having said all that for speed, inspiration, amazingly warm FX, the saturator plug which is the most usable distortion/overdrive plug I've ever used and the excellent browser, it’s the DAW for me.

I write everything in ableton and export the individual tracks as 32 bit WAVS and then mix in Pro Tools at my mate's studio.

LIVE is my favourite DAW just don't bother with the warp function.

leisuremuffin
Posts: 4721
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:45 am
Location: New Jersey

Post by leisuremuffin » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:05 pm

yeah man, of course warping a file changes the way it sounds. Expecting it to work otherwise is foolish.


but some people also claim degredation occurs even when just having warp on, even when the file being played at orig tempo with no warp markers in it. This is simply untrue.



.lm.
TimeableFloat ???S?e?n?d?I?n?f?o

evernaut
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Jorvik
Contact:

Post by evernaut » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:15 pm

90's child wrote: BUT nobody on this forum accepts it.
.
I think you'll find that nearly everyone here accepts it.

Igor L
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:34 am
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by Igor L » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:39 pm

90's child wrote:Yes there IS an issue with Ableton's Live's audio quality when you warp.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't timestretching degrade ANY audio in ANY host?

evernaut
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:55 am
Location: Jorvik
Contact:

Post by evernaut » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:46 pm

Igor L wrote:
90's child wrote:Yes there IS an issue with Ableton's Live's audio quality when you warp.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't timestretching degrade ANY audio in ANY host?
Yip.

Tarekith
Posts: 19121
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:46 pm
Contact:

Post by Tarekith » Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:50 pm

That's what most people don't understand. :)

Post Reply