Live sound quality
-
crbn
Live sound quality
Some Live users have had problems with sound quality and are suggesting mixing down in other apps via Rewire or exporting individual tracks. Im using Live to mixdown from Reason via Rewire and the sound quality seems fine. Is the problem with Lives mixdowns a problem with Live's own audio looping or the actual mixdown process?
-
Guest
Live is an amzing piece of software but sadly the mix buss has much to be desired. I dont know why its stereo buss sounds so poor, but compared to other apps out there its really quite bad. It reminds me very much of Reasons mix buss.
They both have the same problem. The more tracks that are added the smaller the sound gets (sadly). Actually all DAWS suffer from this, but some handle the track load better than others.
Its a great shame because Live is so intuitive and is brilliant to work with. However, it does mean that I cant do finished tracks in the studio with it and I definitely would like to.
The again it is called 'Live' adn for the moment it does seem to be its main purpose so I guess the bussing isnt as important in a Live situation.
The pity is that its delays are the best around (IMO) but are pretty difficult to hear when there is a lot going on.
It would be interesting if someone knew a bit more of the Techy Specs Live has. Stuff like:
Headroom
Whats happening when it renders to disk. (no dithering I notice)
32 bit floating point mixing???
I cant see any of that kind of info on the site
They both have the same problem. The more tracks that are added the smaller the sound gets (sadly). Actually all DAWS suffer from this, but some handle the track load better than others.
Its a great shame because Live is so intuitive and is brilliant to work with. However, it does mean that I cant do finished tracks in the studio with it and I definitely would like to.
The again it is called 'Live' adn for the moment it does seem to be its main purpose so I guess the bussing isnt as important in a Live situation.
The pity is that its delays are the best around (IMO) but are pretty difficult to hear when there is a lot going on.
It would be interesting if someone knew a bit more of the Techy Specs Live has. Stuff like:
Headroom
Whats happening when it renders to disk. (no dithering I notice)
32 bit floating point mixing???
I cant see any of that kind of info on the site
how?
did you A/B compare it?
Live or Cubase or Reason it sounds the same when you just playback a CD-track.
how did you find out about this?
Live or Cubase or Reason it sounds the same when you just playback a CD-track.
how did you find out about this?
-
Guest
Live is an amzing piece of software but sadly the mix buss has much to be desired. I dont know why its stereo buss sounds so poor, but compared to other apps out there its really quite bad. It reminds me very much of Reasons mix buss.
They both have the same problem. The more tracks that are added the smaller the sound gets (sadly). Actually all DAWS suffer from this, but some handle the track load better than others.
Its a great shame because Live is so intuitive and is brilliant to work with. However, it does mean that I cant do finished tracks in the studio with it and I definitely would like to.
The again it is called 'Live' adn for the moment it does seem to be its main purpose so I guess the bussing isnt as important in a Live situation.
The pity is that its delays are the best around (IMO) but are pretty difficult to hear when there is a lot going on.
It would be interesting if someone knew a bit more of the Techy Specs Live has. Stuff like:
Headroom
Whats happening when it renders to disk. (no dithering I notice)
32 bit floating point mixing???
I cant see any of that kind of info on the site
They both have the same problem. The more tracks that are added the smaller the sound gets (sadly). Actually all DAWS suffer from this, but some handle the track load better than others.
Its a great shame because Live is so intuitive and is brilliant to work with. However, it does mean that I cant do finished tracks in the studio with it and I definitely would like to.
The again it is called 'Live' adn for the moment it does seem to be its main purpose so I guess the bussing isnt as important in a Live situation.
The pity is that its delays are the best around (IMO) but are pretty difficult to hear when there is a lot going on.
It would be interesting if someone knew a bit more of the Techy Specs Live has. Stuff like:
Headroom
Whats happening when it renders to disk. (no dithering I notice)
32 bit floating point mixing???
I cant see any of that kind of info on the site
still don't understand
how did you compare Live ? did you import tracks from Cubase for example?
-
mm00x
im pretty sure all this 'cubase mixer sounds better' talk
is plain nonsense..(given you dont talk about plugins/eqs/etc.,
but just plain mixing/adding channels)
live mixes in 32bit as well of course..
(everything else wouldnt make sense in my opinion)
and the process behind mixing signals
digitally isnt that magic, after all...
(this all assumes you compare the two without any stretching
going on in live)
.!k
is plain nonsense..(given you dont talk about plugins/eqs/etc.,
but just plain mixing/adding channels)
live mixes in 32bit as well of course..
(everything else wouldnt make sense in my opinion)
and the process behind mixing signals
digitally isnt that magic, after all...
(this all assumes you compare the two without any stretching
going on in live)
.!k
yes
I agree. a simple test would be to make two tracks: 2 tracks with mono sound, the second track is a phase-reversed version. If those two tracks cancel each other out, those are 100% identical.
you can only compare Cubase with Live 2, since version 2 offer non-timestreched sound. In my opinion it sounds fantastic. Even the timetretching is much better than Cubase!
you can only compare Cubase with Live 2, since version 2 offer non-timestreched sound. In my opinion it sounds fantastic. Even the timetretching is much better than Cubase!
a lot of the point of this discussion in the other thread was about the summing of multiple tracks (mixdowns).
I usually have 8-12 tracks when I'm done. The more tracks you add, the more dynamic range seems to be lost in the overall mix. I have found that this can be overcome by mixing down with an external mixer. This is not BS, try it! I also mix down to Nuendo tracks with similar results. Someday I will post example files.
I usually have 8-12 tracks when I'm done. The more tracks you add, the more dynamic range seems to be lost in the overall mix. I have found that this can be overcome by mixing down with an external mixer. This is not BS, try it! I also mix down to Nuendo tracks with similar results. Someday I will post example files.
The world is sound.
you're right
yes, I tried the phase test: no canceling.
Mmm, maybe Nuendo 2.0 will be a cool tool ... I have to check it out when it comes out.
Mmm, maybe Nuendo 2.0 will be a cool tool ... I have to check it out when it comes out.
testing
Raapie - Perhaps I'm missing your point. This summing issue can not be issolated using a single mono file. My problem is that testing is has too many variables.... When you add 8 tracks together in seperate mixdown environments (Live/Nuendo/analog mixer), the levels of each track require a little tweaking. How can I cancel out a series of tracks, who's levels are different in each mixdown?
What have you heard about Nuendo 2?
What have you heard about Nuendo 2?
The world is sound.
summing
Hi,
well, if you take two mono signal and one of the is reversed phased, they will cancel each other out. this means, they are 100% the same. this means there's a perfect mix. you can't better this situation, this will be the best summed buss possible.
No I have heard that Nuendo 2.0 will be fine. It might be possible for me to test it. I would love to do that. I hope the fx are better than the sucky SX' fx.
well, if you take two mono signal and one of the is reversed phased, they will cancel each other out. this means, they are 100% the same. this means there's a perfect mix. you can't better this situation, this will be the best summed buss possible.
No I have heard that Nuendo 2.0 will be fine. It might be possible for me to test it. I would love to do that. I hope the fx are better than the sucky SX' fx.
-
Guest
While I dont dispute phase cancellation tests lend a big hand towarda "All Digital Busses Sound Exactly The Same"......It doesnt however seem like that in real life.
Lets have a look at the various choices. We have 01V versus 02R, sound the same? Not in my experience. 02R ever time. 02R Vs Mackie 8Buss. Sound the same?. Definitely NO. I actually preferred the 02R. Sony Oxford Vs 02R and The Mackie. Guaranteed Sony Oxford...
So I'm thinkin if every digital mixer sounds the same, then why dont we all just use one of them,And why the difference in price....especially the Oxford.
Now, when we get to software versions it seems to some that there couldnt even remotely be any difference between any of the DAW's out there when it comes to summing. ............But why all the debat then??. More importantly how come I CAN HEAR a difference quite easily.
On paper its all meant to be the same. However, my ears tell me its not. I think because of the type of work I do I will trust my ears. I mean why not...I have done quite well so far by doing so.
I didnt post the initial reply to bash 'Live'. Its a fantastic program, and I iwll get many hours of use from the software. But I certainly wouldnt kid myself on that it sounds as good as my other software (which I wont name). All I'm saying is I can hear a difference between the various DAW applications. On paper its all meant to be the same. Because I dont know the programmimg language I have to call it Buss Summing issues. But who knows, it may be the way the software is written that can change how a DAW sounds. Its either that or theres an awful of successfull producers out there that are deluded in some way.
Lets have a look at the various choices. We have 01V versus 02R, sound the same? Not in my experience. 02R ever time. 02R Vs Mackie 8Buss. Sound the same?. Definitely NO. I actually preferred the 02R. Sony Oxford Vs 02R and The Mackie. Guaranteed Sony Oxford...
So I'm thinkin if every digital mixer sounds the same, then why dont we all just use one of them,And why the difference in price....especially the Oxford.
Now, when we get to software versions it seems to some that there couldnt even remotely be any difference between any of the DAW's out there when it comes to summing. ............But why all the debat then??. More importantly how come I CAN HEAR a difference quite easily.
On paper its all meant to be the same. However, my ears tell me its not. I think because of the type of work I do I will trust my ears. I mean why not...I have done quite well so far by doing so.
I didnt post the initial reply to bash 'Live'. Its a fantastic program, and I iwll get many hours of use from the software. But I certainly wouldnt kid myself on that it sounds as good as my other software (which I wont name). All I'm saying is I can hear a difference between the various DAW applications. On paper its all meant to be the same. Because I dont know the programmimg language I have to call it Buss Summing issues. But who knows, it may be the way the software is written that can change how a DAW sounds. Its either that or theres an awful of successfull producers out there that are deluded in some way.
I agree
maybe we can do a listening test. would love to do that with a bunch of people. I am in Holland ;-(
but yes, you're so right: forget the specs, trust your ears is always the best thing to do!
but yes, you're so right: forget the specs, trust your ears is always the best thing to do!
mixing down
I don't think there's anything wrong with comparing (or mentioning) different software here. I would like to think that, if anything, Ableton and the music community here would all grow from careful analysis of what is going on in the field of technology & music. Also, Live is damm good software! No, more than good, it's frickin brilliant! I really LOVE it! As an artist it has opened me up to so much more! Cubase really held me back! The problem is I still have to use other software to achieve the quality of tone that today's producers are discovering. I would love Live to be the only tool I need! With all this in mind, I will conduct a thorough experiment. (As soon as I get Nuendo running again – this morning I discovered that the dongle's connection is so worn from constant abrasion that it no longer works, rendering Nuendo useless until I jerry-rig it or send it in – another credit to Ableton's registration process!)
Until then I will speculate:
1. Not all mix downs / 'summings' in software are created equal. In fact, it is the core code of any audio engine. I remember when Cubase 5 came out, the biggest marketing push was centered around the upgraded sound quality. 32 bit has *something* to do with it, but rest assured, the mix-down algorithms are all about efficiency vs. quality. This means small amounts of elegant, efficient code is crucial. Furthermore, there can't be that many variations of code that sound good and can be pulled off on current machines. Any tweaks to these functions must be quite hush hush if they turn out to create a competitive advantage. (yikes!) Of course this is good news for our dear friend, Music, who deserves only the best in tight, code snippets.
2. Software-based mix downs will never sound just like analog mix downs. I've heard this argument before, and hold my ground on one thing: The physical phenomenon of electricity being added together and controlled via impedance of signal flow is unique to the analog domain. The countless number of immediate electronic reactions that take place when 2 signals are added are precise down to the electrons they stimulate and have reactions that are chaotic and resonate with the pattern integrity of the hardware. The quality of wire, the audio patch, the circuitry and the mix are all working together based upon the empirical laws of nature.
-neuronaut
Until then I will speculate:
1. Not all mix downs / 'summings' in software are created equal. In fact, it is the core code of any audio engine. I remember when Cubase 5 came out, the biggest marketing push was centered around the upgraded sound quality. 32 bit has *something* to do with it, but rest assured, the mix-down algorithms are all about efficiency vs. quality. This means small amounts of elegant, efficient code is crucial. Furthermore, there can't be that many variations of code that sound good and can be pulled off on current machines. Any tweaks to these functions must be quite hush hush if they turn out to create a competitive advantage. (yikes!) Of course this is good news for our dear friend, Music, who deserves only the best in tight, code snippets.
2. Software-based mix downs will never sound just like analog mix downs. I've heard this argument before, and hold my ground on one thing: The physical phenomenon of electricity being added together and controlled via impedance of signal flow is unique to the analog domain. The countless number of immediate electronic reactions that take place when 2 signals are added are precise down to the electrons they stimulate and have reactions that are chaotic and resonate with the pattern integrity of the hardware. The quality of wire, the audio patch, the circuitry and the mix are all working together based upon the empirical laws of nature.
-neuronaut
The world is sound.
-
Guest
With all due respect for those that wish to do a test. I would say lets not drag Live in to this arena. All the others have been tested side by side blah blah blah and nothing has been achieved.
Many say the tests are flawed, and I I do tend to agree slightly. Many say in a real life situation every track is different and a test would only prove that each app can accurately play back a numbver of 24 bit 44.1 khz files.
Again I tend to agree with this.
A test where there is no EQ, pan positions, FX, all faders at 0db is quite useless imo. Do any of us ever mix a track with faders at 0db, no fx, no pannning, no eq....I dont think so.
When i load a sound file into any of my apps they all sound the same to my ears. But its when I start mixing, adding stuff etc that it becomes plainly obvious that not all DAWs sound the same. Again I dont know why this is.
Anyway, I would be wary of pitching Live against some of th eothers for the moment. I mean the very fact that Live allows you to play back at reduced SR it seems apparent to me that LIve is intented for LIve work and it does this superbly we mustnt forget.
I got in to Live not knowing what the Mix buss would sound like. It didnt actually come a s shock to me to hear it in operation when I had 10+ tracks going. Its not the best, not the worst, but there is room for improvement in my opinion
For the moment Live is what it is, but is totally brilliant at it. If I intended to fully write and mix my tracks in Live then I would be much more concerned regarding the sound quality. For the moment I'm not. I suggest we dont drag Live into the 'Sound Quality' arena just yet. It will happen, but Live is a very new program and I beleive it would be a little unfair to Ableton and Live to do this now. Let it develop at its own pace and I suspect the developers of Live will improve the audio engine in time.
And when they do this along comes the real 'Audiophile junkies' hmmmm then we really are in for some trouble
Many say the tests are flawed, and I I do tend to agree slightly. Many say in a real life situation every track is different and a test would only prove that each app can accurately play back a numbver of 24 bit 44.1 khz files.
Again I tend to agree with this.
A test where there is no EQ, pan positions, FX, all faders at 0db is quite useless imo. Do any of us ever mix a track with faders at 0db, no fx, no pannning, no eq....I dont think so.
When i load a sound file into any of my apps they all sound the same to my ears. But its when I start mixing, adding stuff etc that it becomes plainly obvious that not all DAWs sound the same. Again I dont know why this is.
Anyway, I would be wary of pitching Live against some of th eothers for the moment. I mean the very fact that Live allows you to play back at reduced SR it seems apparent to me that LIve is intented for LIve work and it does this superbly we mustnt forget.
I got in to Live not knowing what the Mix buss would sound like. It didnt actually come a s shock to me to hear it in operation when I had 10+ tracks going. Its not the best, not the worst, but there is room for improvement in my opinion
For the moment Live is what it is, but is totally brilliant at it. If I intended to fully write and mix my tracks in Live then I would be much more concerned regarding the sound quality. For the moment I'm not. I suggest we dont drag Live into the 'Sound Quality' arena just yet. It will happen, but Live is a very new program and I beleive it would be a little unfair to Ableton and Live to do this now. Let it develop at its own pace and I suspect the developers of Live will improve the audio engine in time.
And when they do this along comes the real 'Audiophile junkies' hmmmm then we really are in for some trouble