Page 2 of 23

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:43 pm
by Nilus
Can someone please define "better sounding" for me?

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:46 pm
by 3dot...
Angstrom wrote:erm. Ever heard of self-deprecating humor? I thought not. Anyways ... good to see you are still rocking the weak insults.
Try this joke, see if you can "get" it.


- Knock knock!

- who's there?

- This doorbell is summing not as well as my yamaha dmc 1000 which can apply 100 channels of doorbell all at the same time with no detectable loss of quality AS IS to be expected by a pro door access mechanism in this day and age on 192 k recordings you might see some stuff above 50 k you really dont like to feet your mix engine with.. ermmm... wrong. Actually, it's the lower sampling rates that cause high-freq (higher than audible) noise to distort your audio in the audible range, it's called aliasing. doorbell fanboy!! If nobody else can noticve that they cannot get into the door then they are not as pro as me. That is ....

(continues)
once again...epic...
:lol:

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:07 pm
by dbfs
When the track count gets high, Ableton turns to shit. Been this way for years. Doesn't matter what version you're on.

If people are going to be talking "science", then I want to see some fuckin scientific shit posted. But that never seems to happen. People just regurgitate some bullshit they read some other dude write, just so they can be apart of the "cool kids" crowd and post face-palm images to show how much more superior they are then you because you think Live sounds like shit. It's all talk by the same 'ol people. We're just suppose to have faith like were worshiping the Baby Jesus.

There are a lot of unexplainable phenomenon in this universe. Lets take Black holes, for example. NO ONE knows what the deal is with them. We can speculate and theory craft, but the undeniable truth is - We have no idea what is at the center and what purpose they serve. All known rules of physics breakdown at the event horizon. But wait! Were humans, we know everything about everything! :roll: Science turns out to be wrong almost everyday. Literally. They are constantly changing the rules about what we understood about the universe. Hell, we can barely travel outside of our own solar system in our own galaxy. And were just one galaxy out of a gajillion galaxies.. And someohow we know it all and science is on our side at all times. :roll:

What's my point? Maybe there are phenomenons here at play that we just don't understand and take into account. Humans are foolish, at best. They think they know everything about everything. Until they are proven wrong and new data arrives. They adjust to the new findings and then they are back to knowing everything about everything again.

Step off your nulling soap boxes for a just a minute and ponder the thought. It isn't coincidence that people are hearing a difference between host software. Theres just too many people noticing it to be a coincidence. And honestly, a lot of them don't care. They still want to use Ableton, but they also want to know why. So its not a bias to one particular piece of software.

Queue all the so called "scientists" now - They will be here shortly posting... no science... just words, like me. :lol:

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:21 pm
by simmerdown
i wonder which daw breeds the most discontent, we need a study

(congrats on getting baby jesus and black holes in the same post, i been trying for years)

what do you mean by nulling?

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:23 pm
by simpli.cissimus
jlgrimes wrote:Ableton don't sound any different than any other DAWs as far as audio/VST playback and mixing.
That is not true and you can test this by yourself if you like.
I know it for sure and can't let you get away with that statement.

Make two identical projects, use only third part VST-Synth and effects and export.
Do that in two or three DAW's for reference.

If you can't hear a difference, then go and open an editor and you see it at least.

I uploaded already a test-project in the monolake thread, and you can use that one.

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:35 pm
by dbfs
Nilus wrote:Can someone please define "better sounding" for me?
More pleasing to the ear

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:43 pm
by Nilus
dbfs wrote:
Nilus wrote:Can someone please define "better sounding" for me?
More pleasing to the ear
You probably will not care, but these are subjective terms. Apparently the folks at Ableton believe they have a "better sounding" product becuase it is more pleasing to their ears. I would have to agree.

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:44 pm
by 3dot...
aliasing has been done to death...
what's all this concern about "purity" anyways...
I'll never side with the purists..
I like aliasing...it's digital "vintage"
8)

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:52 pm
by dbfs
Nilus wrote:
dbfs wrote:
Nilus wrote:Can someone please define "better sounding" for me?
More pleasing to the ear
You probably will not care, but these are subjective terms. Apparently the folks at Ableton believe they have a "better sounding" product becuase it is more pleasing to their ears. I would have to agree.
You asked for a definition, didn't you? Of course it was a loaded question so you could look "cool" when you responded to it. :roll:

Hey BTW, toss down your science degree for us so we know you are qualified to argue this. Otherwise.. :arrow:

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:05 pm
by dbfs
I think this quote from an article sums it up nicely!

"Take a deep breath: Believe it or not, scientists are not always right. We really put them up on a pedestal, though, don't we? We quote scientists as experts, buy things if they're "scientifically proven" to work better … but scientists are human, too. It's just not fair to expect perfection out of them, is it? But come on, can't we at least ask for a reasonable level of competency?"

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:10 pm
by simmerdown
(this is sure to end well :cry: )

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:18 pm
by mholloway
Gotta quote our own Angstrom here, from one of the other threads on this endless fight, because it's simply the best response I've ever seen to this hilariously tired issue, and should probably show up in every such thread from here on out ---
Angstrom wrote: some examples of transference
"Live has bad sound quality " = I worry that my own music is meaningless and worthless
"An Authority figure asserts Live is bad" = I lack confidence in myself and my decisions and look frantically to others for validation
"why is Live not capable of doing X" = why can't I do X ?
"when will the new version arrive" = when will I arrive

...etc
simple internet psychology!
:twisted:

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:23 pm
by dbfs
simmerdown wrote:(this is sure to end well :cry: )
Hey, post up your qualifications, hot shot. You got your little attitude crackin off already, but you haven't actually proved anything other then the fact that your "cooler" because you believe in something else.

Next :arrow:

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:25 pm
by Nilus
dbfs wrote:
You asked for a definition, didn't you? Of course it was a loaded question so you could look "cool" when you responded to it. :roll:

Hey BTW, toss down your science degree for us so we know you are qualified to argue this. Otherwise.. :arrow:
You win!

Re: All this about sound quality

Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:27 pm
by simmerdown
i 'believe' you need a nap

but, what is your goal here exactly?