Ableton vs Logic engine

[Tarekith]

I think it's interesting the direction this thread took compared to when this same question was brought up just a couple years ago.

Guess I spoke too soon...

[mikb]

Seriously man, you should have done a search. All hell is about to break loose in this thread now!

Yes I know, I love both programs and Im using them in different ways to make different things and I would love to hear what other thinks about the sound engines. Thats all, no fighting, no war, just peace and love and great sounding music

Spjuver, what do you make of the responses you've got so far? Have they helped you analyze your situation? Are you at all interested in why you found your sound improved using Logic? Have you been convinced that it may have all been in your head? Have you proved or disproved this to yourself and how, if so?

I'm also interested in knowing what the process you referred to as "rewiring to Logic" actually means in step by step. Could you please describe these in more detail with focus on how you moved audio and what formats were involved?

What versions of Logic and Live were you using? What third party plugins, if any? Did you have the same third party plug-ins set up in both DAWs?

Did you do further processing of any kind in Logic before you regarded your mix as ready?

If you could put some light on these details, then this discussion could actually become more useful for people that happen to believe they are at the same spot as you found yourself.

There's no shortage of knowledgeable people in this thread, but we need to refocus on what this issue is actually about, if we're going to get anywhere.

[3dot...]

I think everything that could have been said about this topic has already been said...

[zigzag]

You're just reiterating a point already made multiple times and adding nothing new. I use multiple DAWs personally and I think people would be hard pushed to recognise what ones have been used. Actually, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNUGEJ4GFqQ - Tell me what DAW this was mixed and mastered in and how you can recognise that DAW.

its mixed with Live, right?

[Sage]

its mixed with Live, right?

Nope.

[leisuremuffin]

Seriously man, you should have done a search. All hell is about to break loose in this thread now!

Yes I know, I love both programs and Im using them in different ways to make different things and I would love to hear what other thinks about the sound engines. Thats all, no fighting, no war, just peace and love and great sounding music

Spjuver, what do you make of the responses you've got so far? Have they helped you analyze your situation? Are you at all interested in why you found your sound improved using Logic? Have you been convinced that it may have all been in your head? Have you proved or disproved this to yourself and how, if so?

I'm also interested in knowing what the process you referred to as "rewiring to Logic" actually means in step by step. Could you please describe these in more detail with focus on how you moved audio and what formats were involved?

What versions of Logic and Live were you using? What third party plugins, if any? Did you have the same third party plug-ins set up in both DAWs?

Did you do further processing of any kind in Logic before you regarded your mix as ready?

If you could put some light on these details, then this discussion could actually become more useful for people that happen to believe they are at the same spot as you found yourself.

There's no shortage of knowledgeable people in this thread, but we need to refocus on what this issue is actually about, if we're going to get anywhere.

Maybe you should take a look at the date on the OP. spjuver has probably moved on by now. I doubt that s/he has seen this thread since it was necro bumped.

[mikb]

Actually, it is pretty clear you haven't followed this thread at all.
No one has ever argued that plugins, workflow etc will yield different results, which a number of people, including myself have already stated. In fact, if you were to repeat a song in the same DAW a number of times, you'd get different results each time as you'd make different decisions.

I know I might have come off as seeking conflict here, but really I'm not. I just can't can't take a load of nonsense statements, deliberate misinterpretations and (recent) derogatory "ironic" comments when people simply want to discuss opinions (possible troll-bait or not). I apologize for the tone in previous posts of mine, but I will not apologize for my point of view in this issue.

You are confusing me disagreeing with the premise, which made the subject more narrow than what it really was already at the outset, with me not having read every word of this discussion (Well, to be fair I read every word but not the meta data, missing the start date). I disapprove of the premise even if I do understand it and have read every word. I'm open for other interpretations than what I've made myself, but the notion there is only one possible conclusion of the issues the OP addressed is simply false.

I have only restated my case on the real world elements — some of those that you correctly restated now —  affecting the outcome as you and a few others have tried to attribute me with statements I never have written. It's silly to argue on facts that we're all agreeing on.

Yet, as plugins, workflow etc are within any real world situation you must acknowledge those if you want to address the issues of the OP and anyone finding themselves under the same potentially false perception. The latter which is what I want to do anyway, What do you want?

[mikb]

Maybe you should take a look at the date on the OP. spjuver has probably moved on by now. I doubt that s/he has seen this thread since it was necro bumped.

You're right, I should have. It's a pity though no-one asked those questions from the get go.
Thanks!

[Sage]

Actually, it is pretty clear you haven't followed this thread at all.
No one has ever argued that plugins, workflow etc will yield different results, which a number of people, including myself have already stated. In fact, if you were to repeat a song in the same DAW a number of times, you'd get different results each time as you'd make different decisions.

I know I might have come off as seeking conflict here, but really I'm not. I just can't can't take a load of nonsense statements, deliberate misinterpretations and derogatory "ironic" comments when people ask for opinions (possible troll-bait or not). I apologize for the tone in previous posts of mine, but I will not apologize for my point of view in this issue.

You are confusing me disagreeing with the premise, which made the subject more narrow than what it really was already at the outset, with me not having read every word of this discussion. I disapprove of the premise even if I do understand it and have read every word. I'm open for other interpretations than what I've made myself, but the notion there is only one possible conclusion of the issues the OP addressed is simply false.

I have only restated my case on the real world elements — some of those that you correctly restated now —  affecting the outcome as you and a few others have tried to attribute me with statements I never have written. It's silly is to argue on facts that we're all agreeing on.

Yet, as plugins, workflow etc are within any real world situation you must acknowledge those if you want to address the issues of the OP. The latter which is what I want to do anyway, What do you want?

The thread is about the audio engine of DAWs, this is separate to plugins and workflow.

Real world and non-scientific scenarios are irrelevant to this thread. If the threadstarter stated they used Logic for mixing because the plugins and workflow was better for them to achieve the sound they wanted, that is fair enough. But comparing audio engines requires more scientific approaches.

Nice little read: http://www.image-line.com/support/FLHel ... _audio.htm

[eyeknow]

lolzes to this thread.

[beats me]

The thread is about the audio engine of DAWs, this is separate to plugins and workflow.

Real world and non-scientific scenarios are irrelevant to this thread. If the threadstarter stated they used Logic for mixing because the plugins and workflow was better for them to achieve the sound they wanted, that is fair enough. But comparing audio engines requires more scientific approaches.

Alright but absolutely nobody is going to be mixing audio without processing it through EQ and effects. It would be great if it was just that easy.

This is like arguing 2 different cars get the same gas mileage while sitting parked.

[Sage]

The thread is about the audio engine of DAWs, this is separate to plugins and workflow.

Real world and non-scientific scenarios are irrelevant to this thread. If the threadstarter stated they used Logic for mixing because the plugins and workflow was better for them to achieve the sound they wanted, that is fair enough. But comparing audio engines requires more scientific approaches.

Alright but absolutely nobody is going to be mixing audio without processing it through EQ and effects. It would be great if it was just that easy.

This is like arguing 2 different cars get the same gas mileage while sitting parked.

Who says you have to use software for EQ and effects or even stick with stock plugins in a DAW? Plenty of hardware options out there, also it is typical of a high-end studio to combine a PTHD system with an analogue console.
Comparing audio engines is more like comparing the tape deck rather than the mixing console to draw a comparison to analogue. With a well rehearsed band with experienced engineers with the right hardware, the amount of mixing and processing required can be extremely minimal and pretty much just hit record.

Why do we have to keep going around in circles? This is stupid now.


If you wanted to compare compressors for example, would you compare them on different source material in a mix? Whilst that is a real world use of the devices, it tells you nothing about how they compare. How difficult is this for people to understand?
If you wanted to compare MPG of a car, you'd put them through the exact same test, not take a different route for an hour, one to visit your mum and the other for weekly shopping and base your conclusions from that. Both are real world scenarios, but not conclusive or comparable.

[beats me]

Why do we have to keep going around in circles? This is stupid now.

And what percentage of home producers do you think are using all outboard gear and/or third party plug-ins for production?

With the limited information the OP provided you are assuming that they are simply using Logic as a line mixer and I’m assuming they are probably using effects in Logic in the process.

[mikb]

The thread is about the audio engine of DAWs, this is separate to plugins and workflow.

Nice little read: http://www.image-line.com/support/FLHel ... _audio.htm

Thanks for the link. Useful reading of course.

I thought it was clear "audio engine" was not an exact enough term here? To me Live and other DAWs just play back audio from different formats. The only real difference being there's real time conversion happening in some. How is the "audio engine" relevant only for pure audio content?

Let's make my issue with this clearer with a simple example as I want to understand how you're thinking here.

Say you have made a pure MIDI-instrument song only using third party instrument plug-ins on a number of tracks as well as a handful of processing tools. All third party, OK? Nothing native.
Further say you have a vocal recording made with a simple click track around which you wrote the pieces for this song arrangement, OK? In 24bit 96 khz.

So we have, let's say 16 MIDI tracks, 1 vocal audio track and 3 processors (maybe comp, EQ and reverb).

We standardize all volumes, instrument settings and sends (as far as this is possible) as well as returns and do this in 2 DAWs for sound comparison reasons by mastering to 24bit and do a double blind listening test with 20 people. We compare both DAW playback of the material as well as the mastered files. So 4 different sources.

Now please explain to me why this project would be invalid for comparing the subjective perception of the "audio engine" in different DAWs? Is some part part of this project set up valid, and if so why?

If this listening test is not involving the "audio engine" to any relevant extent, then what does it involve?

Granted this would not render bit level identical files, but that is not very interesting I think.

[Sage]

Now please explain to me why this project would be invalid for comparing the subjective perception of the "audio engine" in different DAWs? Is some part part of this project set up valid, and if so why?

One example stated in the link I gave was free running oscillators with vst synths, plus any non-tempo synced modulation will create something that will be slightly different every time you bounce it, even in the same DAW.
While the experiment is totally possible, there'd just be too many factors that could possibly invalidate any findings and the whole point of any scientific experiment is to remove factors that can have an impact on the results.

Perhaps your experiment can be conducted in stages. First stage would be the various audio with the levels mixed a bit. Second stage would be to add 3rd party plugins for mixing. 3rd stage could be to use the various DAWs' plugins set to the same settings. Before the third stage, I'd hypothesise that there'd be no difference and a simple null test would prove as such and after the 3rd, the audio from Live would be cleaner compared to Logic.
Could even possibly have a fourth stage, if you were going to go down the MIDI route, use simple and repeatable sounds from synths and exchange them with the synths included with the DAWs being tested.

Actually, I might give this a go myself. Might be interesting to see how the sound between DAWs varies as one goes further into the production process.