I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

mustgroove · Post by **mustgroove** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:51 pm

It's all about defaults... when you install Live from scratch, warping (Beats mode) is enabled by default... so whatever audio people drop into a project (loops, full tracks, etc. etc.) are playing back warped from the get go...

This is a whole different paradigm from Logic/Cubase/Whatever, where dropping audio onto a track is not warped by default - to get that stuff happening you have to enable it somewhere... audio is played back "as is", and any effect/trick has to be enabled manually by the user.

The intended purpose of warping by default (surely) is to get your average person up & running right away with Ableton's killer feature - warping - without having to delve into menus or settings... and for "DJs" this is quite effective I'm sure

The unintended side effect: for "producer" types who want to write and "mix down" tracks and who work with a lot of loops (which accounts for a lot of newbie producers) or drop their one-shot drums manually on the arrange page (which some people do I'm sure), they're approaching Ableton like they would Logic/Cubase and therefore aren't expecting things to be warped... so what they're hearing is actually warping artefacts, but because they don't expect things to be warped by default (and they probably don't even realise), they chalk it up to "sound engine" inferiority

All they would have to do is turn off warping for all their audio, or at least set it to resample, and they would realise it sounds the same as everything else... but once that first impression gets made, it's hard to undo the perception of sound engine inferiority, even though it's entirely caused by misunderstanding the program's default state...

If Ableton's default state was warping disabled, hi-q resampling turned off, I think this whole meme would never have arisen. The entire phenomenon has come about because Ableton's default state - warping clips, with fades enabled - is contrary to what people instinctively expect from dropping audio onto a DAW track

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:53 pm

This is a common theory. It makes sense for new users, but there are established producers like Villalobos that make big claims about Live's sound quality that surely know how to change warp settings, set preferences etc.

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:58 pm

i often have the feeling that it is a reflection of the unsympathetic mixer section (GUI & lack of certain functions) that makes a lot of people claim that they have to import it somewhere else in order to get a good result.

???

mustgroove · Post by **mustgroove** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:58 pm

ethios4 wrote:This is a common theory. It makes sense for new users, but there are established producers like Villalobos that make big claims about Live's sound quality that surely know how to change warp settings, set preferences etc.

Your average person would think the Freemasons, or someone of their stature, would know what they're talking about too, and judging from my other thread they clearly don't... The inner workings of DAWs are clearly complicated enough that even established acts are n00bs...

And Villalobos is such a crackhead, maybe he's even more clueless/crazy than the Freemasons

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:01 pm

mustgroove wrote:Your average person would think the Freemasons, or someone of their stature, would know better too, and judging from my other thread they clearly don't... The inner workings of DAWs are clearly complicated enough that even established acts are n00bs...

And Villalobos is such a crackhead, maybe he's even more clueless/crazy than the Freemasons

+1 on villalobos, all you english speakers be thankful that you don't understand a word of the shite that is coming out of his mouth, it's pure junk talk.

don't know about the freemasons... can't judge it.

mustgroove · Post by **mustgroove** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:03 pm

SubFunk wrote:i often have the feeling that it is a reflection of the unsympathetic mixer section (GUI & lack of certain functions) that makes a lot of people claim that they have to import it somewhere else in order to get a good result.

???

perhaps... Microsoft did a study a while back, they sat people down with a "new & updated" version of Windows to "get some feedback" on it... everyone thought it was awesome. Turns out it was just Vista, and the gist of their marketing around it was "see, Vista's not bad after all, it's just got a bad rep, the O/S itself is fine"

If Ableton did the same exact thing with Live, but all they did was turn off warping by default, I'm willing to bet money people would respond "wow, you really have fixed the sound engine on this"

ethios4 · Post by **ethios4** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:03 pm

mustgroove wrote:Your average person would think the Freemasons, or someone of their stature, would know what they're talking about too, and judging from my other thread they clearly don't... The inner workings of DAWs are clearly complicated enough that even established acts are n00bs...

Hahaha, true! Analogue summing engine, wat???

mustgroove · Post by **mustgroove** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:05 pm

SubFunk wrote:don't know about the freemasons... can't judge it.

not sure if you saw the thread: http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php? ... 48&start=0

Basically one of the Freemasons did an interview in Sound On Sound where he discusses how Ableton sounds different to everything else because it uses fixed-point processing... which is entirely wrong.

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:08 pm

mustgroove wrote:
SubFunk wrote:don't know about the freemasons... can't judge it.
not sure if you saw the thread: http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php? ... 48&start=0

Basically one of the Freemasons did an interview in Sound On Sound where he discusses how Ableton sounds different to everything else because it uses fixed-point processing... which is entirely wrong.

yeah, this i saw... i mean i can't judge if the freemasons are fit and knowledgeable guys in general... (cause i tend to agree with UKRuss's comment)

mustgroove · Post by **mustgroove** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:10 pm

Fixed point, floating point, I challenge that Freemasons dude to actually explain (a) what these terms mean, and (b) their implications for DAW design and use... I'll eat my hat if he can answer either question.

These terms have real meanings but end up bastardised as marketing slogans... real understanding of the technical underpinnings of DAWs requires university-level education in a lot of heavy scientific fields... there's a reason why EQ algorithms (among other stuff people like us use in the studio every day) are first elucidated in PhD theses...

For those looking to learn more about this stuff, check out this book: http://www.cadenzarecording.com/

kb420 · Post by **kb420** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:11 pm

When these artists make these ridiculously uninformed claims, it should be up to the Abes to do damage control, not us as users. So my thing is, let them say whatever they want to say. Until the Abes start challenging all the bullshit, this negative publicity will flourish. As for me, the user, I know better and will stick with Live, that is, once they fix all the bugs!!!!

necho · Post by **necho** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:44 pm

kb420 wrote:When these artists make these ridiculously uninformed claims, it should be up to the Abes to do damage control, not us as users. So my thing is, let them say whatever they want to say. Until the Abes start challenging all the bullshit, this negative publicity will flourish. As for me, the user, I know better and will stick with Live, that is, once they fix all the bugs!!!!

Why would a company want to challenge famous people who use their software? Doesn't matter how retarded they are.... all publicity is good publicity...

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:48 pm

necho wrote:
kb420 wrote:When these artists make these ridiculously uninformed claims, it should be up to the Abes to do damage control, not us as users. So my thing is, let them say whatever they want to say. Until the Abes start challenging all the bullshit, this negative publicity will flourish. As for me, the user, I know better and will stick with Live, that is, once they fix all the bugs!!!!
Why would a company want to challenge famous people who use their software? Doesn't matter how retarded they are.... all publicity is good
publicity...

i don't even want to know how many of those are endorsed.

welcome to reality.

beats me · Post by **beats me** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:56 pm

Everybody is overthinking this. Guys are visual. Live looks like poop and "not professional" to some people.

I'll admit when I'm farting around in Logic that it looks and feels more professional by comparison and therefor ticks something in my head that it must sound better....like I care or am anywhere at that level where I should care.

DAWs aren't glory holes and what you are looking at makes a difference.

necho · Post by **necho** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 4:59 pm

beats me wrote:
DAWs aren't glory holes and what you are looking at makes a difference.

LOL!

I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad

Re: I have a theory why people think the "sound engine" is bad