Lives sound engine argument again ...

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
3phase
Posts: 4648
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by 3phase » Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:46 pm

yeah.. but we had the same arguments in the past..and just by the improovements we have now the critics of the past are prooved to have been wright...
or would you like to have your old soundengine back?

However.. as i said.. its possible that by now its just the immage overhang of the past...
I cant do statements before i made a serios listening test myself...but would be interesting to know..
just to get it wright.
mac book 2,16 ghz 4(3)gb ram, Os 10.62, fireface 400,

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

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by leisuremuffin » Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:57 pm

oh please.

yes, i will take live old audio engine and crush a lot of peoples mixes with the new one or any other tool they want to bring. Obv not complaining about making improvements, but will point out that it's the ass in the chair more than it is the shit on the desk.


and no, ableton never "bent the truth" about their software, i don't know what the fuck you're trying to say there.



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

djsynchro
Posts: 7471
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by djsynchro » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:03 pm

Live has a bad name because the standard mode of operating is that every audio loop always gets time stretched,
this is a really convenient way of working but stretching creates artifacts. So Live has a reputation for having a metallic sound.

If you place stuff into the arrangement and switch stretching off, and slice loops instead of stretching them to fit it will sound the same.

Don't defend yourself what are you defending? If people think they're better off using Cubase or Logic let them.
Different strokes for different folks.

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

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by leisuremuffin » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:22 pm

there's also the fact that you can drag audio of any sample rate and bit depth into a project. Nice that you can do it, but leads to dummies converting sample rates without realizing.



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

rarelyseen
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:11 pm
Location: here

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by rarelyseen » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:23 pm

djsynchro wrote:Live has a bad name because the standard mode of operating is that every audio loop always gets time stretched
Nope. Only in complex or complex pro mode. All other warp modes will not affect your loops as long as you don't change the tempo.

3phase wrote:
Doing this phase canceling tests and claiming the results as propper in public was bad, because without propper measuring eqipment such things cant be prooved...
What? Phase cancellation means 100% indentical audio signals. There can't be a better proof. What is "proper measuring equipment"?

3phase wrote: I would say cubase is the refference in the moment .
Aha. Funny thing is that they have the worst audio engine. At least on paper.

slirak wrote:Live's mixing was 32 bit integer prior to L7 as I recall it, while some other DAW's already sported 64 bit summing or 32 bit floating point (allows for less rounding errors when you process audio).
Live was always using a 32-bit floating point audio engine. 64-bit summing has been added with Live 7.

Apple introduced 64-bit summing no earlier than with Logic 8.
ProTools HD uses 48-bit fixed point summing.
Cubase is still using a 32-bit engine only (also on the summing bus).

Hmmm...

slirak wrote: And then there's the lack of high end dithering algorithms for audio export (was there any at all before L7?).
Bollocks. Live offers POW-R dithering algorithms which are considered as the best algorithms available. But you're right, there was no dithering prior Live 7.

If you haven't noticed already, it's impossible to hear a difference between 32 and 64 bit summing and it is almost impossible to hear the difference between a dithered and non-dithered audio file. It's always a funny read when people blame their DAW for a bad mix. Learn some mixing and mastering tricks. That's much more important than a stupid 64-bit summing engine. Who needs 384 dB of headroom anyways?

SubFunk
Posts: 7853
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:41 pm
Location: A Big Toilet Called Berlin
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by SubFunk » Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:26 pm

It's always a funny read when people blame their DAW for a bad mix. Learn some mixing and mastering tricks. That's much more important than a stupid 64-bit summing engine. Who needs 384 dB of headroom anyways?
yes it is funny!
*** Image GAFM ***

slirak
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:03 pm

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by slirak » Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:06 pm

rarelyseen wrote:Live was always using a 32-bit floating point audio engine. 64-bit summing has been added with Live 7.
Are you sure it's floating point? It doesn't say in the Audio fact sheet and usually, when you don't specify floating point it's integer. Outside the DAW world anyway.

Not that it matter much to me, I think Live sounds perfectly fine and I didn't find it inferior to Cubase SX (32 bit floating point) when I switched from it to Live 5 a few years ago.
slirak wrote: And then there's the lack of high end dithering algorithms for audio export (was there any at all before L7?).
rarelyseen wrote:Bollocks. Live offers POW-R dithering algorithms which are considered as the best algorithms available.
I was under the impression that UV22 was considered better. I may well be wrong though, I've never bothered much about dithering. I did some a/b testing a few years ago and though I could hear slight differences in a couple of instances (reverb tails, fades), I was unable to say which was the better...
rarelyseen wrote:Who needs 384 dB of headroom anyways?
I guess it's about pleasing a market that to no small extent consists of people whose recording skills aren't all that great. The extreme headroom means you can be really sloppy and still not hit 0 dB. I like being able to be sloppy too, then I can concentrate on writing songs and playing. When I started to record digitally some twelve years ago, it was all 16 bits, including the converters and you can get good sound from that too, but it does take more care.

Mind you, I still agree with your basic sentiment and I hope no one thought otherwise: Live sounds perfectly fine and claims to the contrary are likely more about belief than facts.

aqua_tek
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by aqua_tek » Sat Aug 15, 2009 5:18 pm

That's it... I'm switching to Fruity Loops.

3phase
Posts: 4648
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by 3phase » Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:33 pm

ts.. the same bullshitting as back in live 4 times..

Is there an improvement you can hear between live 4 and 8?

if no... you shouldnt mix anything anyway


if yes... why you havent got that 3 years ago? your ears are better now?...

when there just would have ben fanboy statements there wouldnt have been any improovements..




If its still valid to complain? as i said, i cant say.. its allwright with me by now... but still preffer to dont mix with live... but same applys to other software daws..
cant say if live ist still inferior... i just can state that its no surprise that the rumour is still around...

propper measuring equipment is something like that

http://www2.rohde-schwarz.com/en/produc ... o/UPV.html
mac book 2,16 ghz 4(3)gb ram, Os 10.62, fireface 400,

siddhu
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 10:39 am
Location: surface of the earth
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by siddhu » Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:42 pm

slirak wrote:Live's mixing was 32 bit integer prior to L7 as I recall it, while some other DAW's already sported 64 bit summing or 32 bit floating point (allows for less rounding errors when you process audio). And then there's the lack of high end dithering algorithms for audio export (was there any at all before L7?).

That still wasn't shit and when it comes to dithering, you should only apply that once, so unless you master in Live, it's a moot question.

So maybe that's where rumours like this come from - some minor deficiencies prior to L7?

Like shit? My ass... :P

Live has always been 32 bit floating point (I've been using it since 1.0).

POW-R Dithering is pretty much the industry standard.

3phase
Posts: 4648
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by 3phase » Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:54 pm

and regarding headroom... there was or is an interesting aetikel by lake people regarding the benefits of fixed point arithmetics against floating point...

there they claim that the giant headroom is actually a problem... at least the necessary scalations are... there is also no propper dithering with floating point audio engines...


on a mixbus ther might be actually benefits with 64 bit busses... at least the actual generation of digital yamaha desks featuring 56 bit processing sound much better than the generation before that...

I guess we will see furteher improovements in the sound quality in the future...

just theoretical one digital system should exactly sound like the other, considering the same converters and no filtering...

But in reaity thats not the truth yet.
mac book 2,16 ghz 4(3)gb ram, Os 10.62, fireface 400,

ethios4
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:28 am

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by ethios4 » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:03 pm

What is the point of this thread? Just rehashing the same old shit over and over? This thread has contributed nothing new to the pointless discussion of Live audio quality. People only complain about it because they are looking to place blame for their own lack of talent and/or skills. Why am I even posting this?

3phase
Posts: 4648
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by 3phase » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:16 pm

same old fanboy statement... dj ing with mp´3s is also the best you can do.. the records are sooo noisy... and heavy...

people that complain about mp´3s over 20000 watt systems just show theire lack of skills and talent..

its never the computer..its allways the user ... and the general lack of skill and talent, a global problem...and a bigger one than global warming :-)))
mac book 2,16 ghz 4(3)gb ram, Os 10.62, fireface 400,

slirak
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:03 pm

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by slirak » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:38 pm

siddhu wrote: Live has always been 32 bit floating point (I've been using it since 1.0).
OK. A bit strange that the Audio fact sheet doesn't say so though. Again, I really don't care personally since I have no problems getting good mixes with Live. But an official source would perhaps put an end to some peoples' worries.
siddhu wrote:POW-R Dithering is pretty much the industry standard.
My bad then.

rarelyseen
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 3:11 pm
Location: here

Re: Lives sound engine argument again ...

Post by rarelyseen » Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:39 pm

slirak wrote:
Are you sure it's floating point? It doesn't say in the Audio fact sheet and usually, when you don't specify floating point it's integer. Outside the DAW world anyway.
Uhm...to be honest, I'm not 100% sure if it has been 32-bit float since Live 1, but I know for sure that Live 3 was already 32-bit float. I don't think they have ever changed anything on the engine until Live 7 came out.

slirak wrote: I was under the impression that UV22 was considered better. I may well be wrong though, I've never bothered much about dithering. I did some a/b testing a few years ago and though I could hear slight differences in a couple of instances (reverb tails, fades), I was unable to say which was the better..
UV22 is well respected as is POW-R. I personally adore Weiss mastering devices (http://www.weiss.ch) and they are using POW-R algorithms for wordlength reduction, too. I always found them perfectly fine. Hard to tell a difference, though. Bit truncation is not good anyways. The average musician should not mess around with that. Just export at 32-bit and send that to your mastering studio if they accept data CDs / DVDs. If you burn your own listening copy, use a dithering algorithm of your choice. POW-R 1 is good for heavily compressed dance music. POW-R 3 is good for material with lots of dynamics. POW-R 2 is somewhere inbetween. Good for vocal acapellas, spoken word et cetera.

Post Reply