Samplitude user disses Live as 'shit for mixing in' at GS

[4/4]

My point is you use real-world scenarios, which is automation of faders, VST settings etc.
Then null test that.

It's the static null tests I find laughable. I've seen people put the same audio file in two different hosts, render them, phase cancel them, and then try and convince the world that both hosts handle audio the exact same way.

FAIL.

[ethios4]

you have to use plugins!! did you read the thread!!!!!?

Yes, of course there are tons of plugins. I only turned off the reverbs because they introduce randomness, which will never phase-cancel. There are literally hundreds of vst and ableton effects, several per channel. Many of the synths+effects did cancel too, but not of course ones with unsycned LFO's, reverbs, or with emulations of analog oscillator drift. So, yes, tracks in the mix with long effects chains were canceling perfectly between the rendered and realtime versions of the project.

[ethios4]

My point is you use real-world scenarios, which is automation of faders, VST settings etc.
Then null test that.

But automation is ramped differently in different hosts, which will make it impossible to null test. That's not a matter of good/bad, just different.

[kb420]

My point is you use real-world scenarios, which is automation of faders, VST settings etc.
Then null test that.

But automation is ramped differently in different hosts, which will make it impossible to null test. That's not a matter of good/bad, just different.

That's the exact argument that I ran into. They even went as far as to say each host handles midi files differently, as far as velocity is concerned. So the null test isn't as definitive as people may think.

There has to be a better way to compare audio engines.

[4/4]

My point is you use real-world scenarios, which is automation of faders, VST settings etc.
Then null test that.

But automation is ramped differently in different hosts, which will make it impossible to null test. That's not a matter of good/bad, just different.

'Automation is ramped differently'. elaborate please.

Automation is real world usage...... it's pointless to say two hosts sound the exact same, other than when you use automation.

[leedsquietman]

I have done mixes with 50+ tracks in Live and lots of plugins both vsts and live devices and it sounds fine. Grainy sounds in Live is most often caused by warping artifacts and usually experienced by lesser experienced people. Not every time, I don't want to diss experienced users, but A LOT of the time. Also, where automation is concerned, Live does not have bezier curves unlike some DAWS so that can occasionally be the cause of a slight discrepancy but with some fine tuning, you can draw in some automation which is pretty close to bezier curves.

Typically most people tend to use some native DAW effects, such as EQ8 or Logic or Cubase's channel EQ because they are fine for most bread and butter EQing tasks (esp. subtractive), so to do such a test would require the very same 3rd party vsts/au across all DAWS.

The biggest issue here is that the dog (the user) wags the tail (the DAW and other tools), and not the other way around. If you have the skills, there should not be a problem making a great mix in Live, even if you could theoretically make it better in another mixing environment because of plugins, or being comforted by better mixer GUIS etc.

[ethios4]

The argument that I got when I did that (null test with automation using vst effects and instruments) was that each host handles automation differently. So, my question still is, what do you use to prove a point like.

I think it would be valid to have a controlled blind test of DAWs on identical equipment, using the best ears in the industry, to see if they could even tell them apart, and also to see if any one emerged as the clear champion. It could be done in a scientific way, but probably won't ever.

I wonder how far off from perfect cancellation you get if you null test output from two different apps?

[4/4]

to do such a test would require the very same 3rd party vsts/au across all DAWS.

which should hardly be a problem if it's the same person doing the tests...

[ethios4]

Automation is real world usage...... it's pointless to say two hosts sound the exact same, other than when you use automation.

I read that towards the bottom of the first page of the gearslutz thread that started this thread, by user nopattern. It's a quote from Robert Henke.

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.

[Tone Deft]

it would take critical listening on a good system.

no two DAWs are going to have the same output if you tickle them that much. there's flaws and design differences in them all, you just have to decide if the flaw or design difference is worth worrying about or not. maybe one person likes the sound of Live's results, maybe someone doesn't.

I would think that the DAW user would work with the DAW to make DAW 'x' and DAW 'y' come to the same result of a good sounding song. while the same automation wouldn't sound the same with two DAWs, the user would hopefully be keen enough to still produce a good output.

there's a growing up period with this crap. you start out naive knowing nothing except that you make teh awesome tarnce. then you grow a little and learn about these flaws and freak out about them. you learn about those concepts and grow up knowing there are flaws and you know which to pay attention to and which don't really matter. OK, Live's SRC engine isn't the best* but do I care about distortion at -120dB??

(* leave 'Hi quality SRC' on in Live's preferences and you'll be fine.)


edit - nice find ethios!

[anybody human]

Interesting theory about the plugins/ performance thing, because it ain't the summing engine. From what I've heard digital summing is basically digital summing. Sometimes where there's smoke there's fire so it's interesting to hear a different explanation/theory. It is intriging that so many accomplished audio heads have a problem with mixing down in Live so it's something to consider. You notice they don't say anything about writing or performing in Live. As Leedsquietman points out though, there's a lot that goes into sound quality; A/D converters, master clock, power supply, mic preamps, mics, instruments, skill of player/engineer/mixer...and on and on. Of course these established guys already have the rest of the signal chain coverered so maybe one particular cog is more noticeable. I've always heard to export stems and mix outside is pretty standard, but the reason why is beyond my knowledge level. A lot of people also say they look forward to Live being their only DAW. Obviously personal preference is involved too.
Interesting theory. Trust your ears. Do what you do. No time here for Internet arguments though, trying to learn Omnisphere, Alchemy and Max for Live and my head hurts.

[diskowipe]

The argument that I got when I did that (null test with automation using vst effects and instruments) was that each host handles automation differently. So, my question still is, what do you use to prove a point like.

I think it would be valid to have a controlled blind test of DAWs on identical equipment, using the best ears in the industry, to see if they could even tell them apart, and also to see if any one emerged as the clear champion. It could be done in a scientific way, but probably won't ever.

dude, they all will hear it. reading the fucking gearslutz threads that are posted here and read what some of those people say and look at who they are in real life... there's your "best ears in the industry"

however i dont think it takes the best ears to hear it unfortunately for you

and when did people start needing proof beyond just their ears? that blows me away

[4/4]

@ethios4
Cool. That's what I was thinking.

So folks saying 'every host sounds the same' are wrong. Unless they just load wavs into their hosts, do nothing to them, and render the result.

[ethios4]

I would think that the DAW user would work with the DAW to make DAW 'x' and DAW 'y' come to the same result of a good sounding song. while the same automation wouldn't sound the same with two DAWs, the user would hopefully be keen enough to still produce a good output.

That's it right there, that's what it's all about!

[leedsquietman]

OK. Later I will post a mix done with exactly the same pan law, pan settings, fader settings and 3rd party VST plugins with the same settings mixed in Cubase 5 and Live 7 Suite and we'll see if people can tell the difference. I will leave it up to you to decide which is which. Those who get it right will get a high 5 kudos, those who get it wrong, I'll send Titbag around to kick you in the nuts.

I will include screenshots to prove authenticity after a period of time and a certain number of poster's responses.