Krafty Kuts thinks "The Glue" plug-in beats the Glue in Live

[login]

Love the audio world, one guys comes out "feeling" like it sounds different and people takes that seriously.

That's why there so much snake oil around, the kids are so easy to trick with marketing hype they fall like all those people who believe in astrology.

Companies like Black Lion audio know how to profit from people who believes this kind of BS.

This another case of "This DAW sounds better than your DAW" ignorance at its fullest, only people who don't understand maths fall for this.

[miyaru]

@Login: not completely true I think. They can sound different - but be carefull: doesn't mean worse or better though.

In the end it is what you make, not with what did you make it. And personaaly I don't care what an artist uses, as long as I like his or her's work!

I worked with Cubase for over 20 yrs or so, and was seduced by the Push 2. Otherwhise I stayed with Cubase I guess. All in all, I like the workflow better in LIve right now, but with Cubase I would still make music, and would it sound differently?

I don't care if a famous artist uses Live, as long as I like it, I use it. Do I care for the sonics? Sure. I tried Harrisson Mixbus 4 because it would sound better. It sounded different, but better? I dunno......

Like you said, in the end it is math, but some engines in DAW's have other structures.

[Stromkraft]

But thats not what he said. He says he's pushing for it and hopes to see it.

As I said, that's what I hear. Thusly this is my interpretation. I certainly feel Ableton seem to ignore Andy's suggestions on filter implementation in both EQ8 and the Live synths. Which is why I said "trend".

We can all decide what we all think this means of course, but that was my interpretation. Yours may be even better, but I feel this may be valid for Glue only.

As for Glue differences those that may be there are probably minute.

[Stromkraft]

Love the audio world, one guys comes out "feeling" like it sounds different and people takes that seriously.

I wasn't suggesting we should take it seriously. I was just wondering if I had missed something. I have no idea who this bloke is. He was just in the pages of CM.

[login]

Love the audio world, one guys comes out "feeling" like it sounds different and people takes that seriously.

I wasn't suggesting we should take it seriously. I was just wondering if I had missed something. I have no idea who this bloke is. He was just in the pages of CM.

It would have been interesting if he had provided some evidence: same settings, same audio source and a null test.

The fact it is printed, to me, just speaks volumes of how marketing in this industry works and how naive so many artists are.

This all goes to feed one thing: the insecurity many producers have about their tools, the marketing in this industry is build around that. "I don't sound as good as X artist because I don't have the correct tools" and consumption ensues, quite similar to the makeup industry.

We have seen artists and even famous engineers before making claims like "X DAW sounds better, I just feel it" I can't stop laughing at the double fallacy: trying to put an argument from authority forward and then presenting 0 evidence for such a bold claim.

I know the competition is hard but lying so blatantly is quite low.

[Stromkraft]

Love the audio world, one guys comes out "feeling" like it sounds different and people takes that seriously.

I wasn't suggesting we should take it seriously. I was just wondering if I had missed something. I have no idea who this bloke is. He was just in the pages of CM.

It would have been interesting if he had provided some evidence: same settings, same audio source and a null test.

The fact it is printed, to me, just speaks volumes of how marketing in this industry works and how naive so many artists are.

This all goes to feed one thing: the insecurity many producers have about their tools, the marketing in this industry is build around that. "I don't sound as good as X artist because I don't have the correct tools" and consumption ensues, quite similar to the makeup industry.

We have seen artists and even famous engineers before making claims like "X DAW sounds better, I just feel it" I can't stop laughing at the double fallacy: trying to put an argument from authority forward and then presenting 0 evidence for such a bold claim.

I see what you're saying but I have myself held beliefs against apparently better judgement only to later be able to make tests and prove (to myself anyway) I was right. The difference there of course being I made the tests. Not all are of that inclination, but are rather content with telling it like they see it (hear it).

I mean, if producer X thinks Live sounds inferior because he/she don't understand how to make good use of warping, then how does it matter if DAWs don't have a specific sound? They heard right and came to the wrong conclusion. The latter doesn't change the sound they had.

[jestermgee]

Love the audio world, one guys comes out "feeling" like it sounds different and people takes that seriously.

That's why there so much snake oil around, the kids are so easy to trick with marketing hype they fall like all those people who believe in astrology.

Companies like Black Lion audio know how to profit from people who believes this kind of BS.

This another case of "This DAW sounds better than your DAW" ignorance at its fullest, only people who don't understand maths fall for this.

Yeah I hear what you are saying. So much focus these days on the little things and "null tests" to prove that this version does indeed have an audible difference of 0.00001dB compared to that version.

Gone are the days you could just record audio to something and be happy to hear it played back. To see just how bad this mentality is, hang out on any "DJ" forum like Serato to hear know it alls explain why brand X amps are far better than brand Y because the THD is a poofteenth of the value of the other.

Sometimes having a good understanding of something can actually be detrimental to productivity because it can cause one to focus on the small details rather than the overall picture. I think many of us are guilty of that to some degree.

[Tarekith]

It took me a LONG time to learn that just because something is better in theory, doesn't mean it's better in art.

[login]

Sometimes having a good understanding of something can actually be detrimental to productivity because it can cause one to focus on the small details rather than the overall picture. I think many of us are guilty of that to some degree.

I think the simple stuff people fail to understand these days is: Tools currently are so good and so cheap, compared to 20 years ago that it is futile to chase something better.

The converters, preamps and mics for example you get in a cheap interface bumdle from focusrite or steinberg are so good compared to what was avaible in many ways, signal to noise ratio, headroom, distortion, etc. Yeah you can notice differences with more expensive mics and it might even be night and day but the stuff is more than enough to produce music with quality.

Then in software we have incredible effects for next to nothing, instruments so versatile and powerfull that makes the past look like a Jose. And in the past they made excellent music with much more limited set ups than costed many times over what we pay for Live alone.

People lack perspective and thing a 0.000001 difference is going to make a difference. Converters are the worst offenders.

[Stromkraft]

I think the simple stuff people fail to understand these days is: Tools currently are so good and so cheap, compared to 20 years ago that it is futile to chase something better.

The converters, preamps and mics for example you get in a cheap interface bumdle from focusrite or steinberg are so good compared to what was avaible in many ways, signal to noise ratio, headroom, distortion, etc. Yeah you can notice differences with more expensive mics and it might even be night and day but the stuff is more than enough to produce music with quality.

Then in software we have incredible effects for next to nothing, instruments so versatile and powerfull that makes the past look like a Jose. And in the past they made excellent music with much more limited set ups than costed many times over what we pay for Live alone.

I disagree that this is very relevant even if true. Even with some much improved tools available, this doesn't change the fact that some other tools are inferior in some ways that a given producer may need. That's one valid reason to why there are so many products. At least some of them are built with different ideas and different ideals in the making. Not all critical of course.

I do agree there are many good converters available, of course, but even if one audio interface is as good as another in theory, one of them may be more prone to certain malfunctions resulting in lesser sound. Micro dropouts is one thing that shouldn't happen, yet does happen in practice more often with some interfaces, especially with Live. Theory is one thing and in practice is reality.

Hopefully you agree with me that content, the music itself, is where the real quality lives. The more talent of the artist and the producer the less may the actual technology affect the end result. On the other hand skilled musicians and producers typically choose the tools that serve them.

People will always look for something better. That's how evolution works.

[login]

I think the simple stuff people fail to understand these days is: Tools currently are so good and so cheap, compared to 20 years ago that it is futile to chase something better.

The converters, preamps and mics for example you get in a cheap interface bumdle from focusrite or steinberg are so good compared to what was avaible in many ways, signal to noise ratio, headroom, distortion, etc. Yeah you can notice differences with more expensive mics and it might even be night and day but the stuff is more than enough to produce music with quality.

Then in software we have incredible effects for next to nothing, instruments so versatile and powerfull that makes the past look like a Jose. And in the past they made excellent music with much more limited set ups than costed many times over what we pay for Live alone.

I disagree that this is very relevant even if true. Even with some much improved tools available, this doesn't change the fact that some other tools are inferior in some ways that a given producer may need. That's one valid reason to why there are so many products. At least some of them are built with different ideas and different ideals in the making. Not all critical of course.

I do agree there are many good converters available, of course, but even if one audio interface is as good as another in theory, one of them may be more prone to certain malfunctions resulting in lesser sound. Micro dropouts is one thing that shouldn't happen, yet does happen in practice more often with some interfaces, especially with Live. Theory is one thing and in practice is reality.

Hopefully you agree with me that content, the music itself, is where the real quality lives. The more talent of the artist and the producer the less may the actual technology affect the end result. On the other hand skilled musicians and producers typically choose the tools that serve them.

People will always look for something better. That's how evolution works.

Yeah, I agree with that premise, there are better tools for sure and the improvement in quality and support benefits professionals who have demanding deadlines. But for example RME is a top brand (it is a good example of "you get what you pay for" with top quality and it's put down by many users of other more expensive brands (Apogee, UAD, Antelope) which IMHO are not even on par with the quality of the software and support RME offers, the difference in sound (DA conversion) is not even 1% better. And it is a brand you see a lot on demanding environments like orchestra recording.

Nevertheless I find important to call out BS in marketing which just want to convince people to fork money for something better that is either false, insignificant or probably not really needed for the user goals.

Artists claiming they "feel" a difference between two software products which use the same DSP code feeds that BS.

[aschneider]

When I deliver guitar takes to my coworkers the only thing that they ask about is the tonal center. That’s how good musicians those guys are. They choose the digital chains most of the time without knowing it but that does not mean that I don’t care about the technical process. It is because I care way too much that they can count on me all round.

Leaving aside sidechain, there are phase treatment and over sampling differences in the Glues but a 1 Khz null test will tell you nothing. This is a mathematical model of a physical phenomenon; input data is key for the solver to do its thing so you have to provide your work as input data and null to see how big or small are this nimble differences in performance and in render times and make your mind about their importance.

I trust Ableton, however I hope Andy will help them find a better spot where quality is at the top via a High Definition render mode. I also worry about third party Live devices: I am under the impression that they don’t receive the same updates as their counterparts over time.

[aschneider]

Tests revised: at 96 Khz The Glue with Oversampling off + Up/Dn Intermediate Phase is equivalent to Glue with Oversampling off and The Glue with X2 Oversampling + Up/Dn Linear Phase is equivalent to Glue with Oversampling on.

Glue does not null against The Glue with X4+ Oversampling. Glue behaves differently on the top end where is IMO the ‘awesome’ of the low end (kicks and stuff). If one increases the X factor in The Glue and depending on the content, the difference becomes more evident so it could be that. The CPU impact of The Glue at X4+ is quite high, indeed.

[Stromkraft]

Tests revised: at 96 Khz The Glue with Oversampling off + Up/Dn Intermediate Phase is equivalent to Glue with Oversampling off and The Glue with X2 Oversampling + Up/Dn Linear Phase is equivalent to Glue with Oversampling on.

Glue does not null against The Glue with X4+ Oversampling. Glue behaves differently on the top end where is IMO the ‘awesome’ of the low end (kicks and stuff). If one increases the X factor in The Glue and depending on the content, the difference becomes more evident so it could be that. The CPU impact of The Glue at X4+ is quite high, indeed.

Did you attempt to null at 44.1kHz?

[aschneider]

Did you attempt to null at 44.1kHz?

At 48 Khz or less it just doesn’t apply. Visually explained:

http://www.ryanschwabe.com/blog/96k

Glue and The Glue are 1:1 below 192 Khz. Then again, I strongly agree with login’s position; sorting out technical biases is part of the process of being a creative professional. Glue is fucking gold and IMHO Andy just wanted to guarantee the theoretical best quality possible (The Glue goes up to 384 Khz!).

As a side note, one of my mentors (never to be named) once told me he used to pick the right piece of gear, tech or feature and trash it in front of the right people in order to build up mystique around his work. He was all about that kind of BS.

Alright then.