Tracktion vs. Ableton

Spacerboy · Post by **Spacerboy** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:34 am

any idea if tracktion "sounds" better than ableton. some people argue that the algorithm in tracktion is from better "quality"...
any comments?

thx, spacy

ColdPack · Post by **ColdPack** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 1:41 pm

Not sure about that but... they're such different applications.

Tracktion is a DAW as in Cubase, Sonar, Logic... albeit, a different "breed" of DAW from those others. LIVE, too, is a different "breed" of DAW, but it's nothing like Tracktion.

Frankly, I think LIVE is unique and to compare it to other more traditional DAWs isn't really wise. However, Tracktion AND Live might be a decent comination (and cost-effective... moreso than Live and Cubase, or Live and Logic, or Live and DP).

Catch my drift?

cp

MarkH · Post by **MarkH** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:32 pm

Some people feel certain sequencers have a better quality audio engine than Live. What I've found is that its all about using EQ and Compression on your tracks in Live. For example, go to Audio Effects > Audio Effect Groups > and select Analog Warmth. This is a signal chain that I use all the time as it really adds life and character to a track by using Saturator, EQ, and Compression, which is something that you should be doing anyway.

Give it a whirl.

krank · Post by **krank** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:37 pm

MarkH wrote:Some people feel certain sequencers have a better quality audio engine than Live. What I've found is that its all about using EQ and Compression on your tracks in Live. For example, go to Audio Effects > Audio Effect Groups > and select Analog Warmth. This is a signal chain that I use all the time as it really adds life and character to a track by using Saturator, EQ, and Compression, which is something that you should be doing anyway.

Give it a whirl.

That definately ought not to be necessary.

ColdPack · Post by **ColdPack** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 2:55 pm

krank wrote:
That definately ought not to be necessary.

Well, in fact, it's necessary, no matter what software you use. EQ and compression are simply realities.

krank · Post by **krank** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:01 pm

ColdPack wrote:
krank wrote:
That definately ought not to be necessary.
Well, in fact, it's necessary, no matter what software you use. EQ and compression are simply realities.

I don't hink you get what I'm saying. Please read the post I replied to.

ColdPack · Post by **ColdPack** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:08 pm

I did and stand by what I said. I'm not sure how I should be reading that post you responded to. I'm not trying to start anything... but whether someone finds the audio quality in Live is subpar compared to others isn't the point. Compression, EQ, etc. are part of the equation when producing a track... in Live or Tracktion or Cubase, what have you.

It's cool if y'all disagree.

cp

krank · Post by **krank** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:12 pm

ColdPack wrote:I did and stand by what I said. I'm not sure how I should be reading that post you responded to. I'm not trying to start anything... but whether someone finds the audio quality in Live is subpar compared to others isn't the point. Compression, EQ, etc. are part of the equation when producing a track... in Live or Tracktion or Cubase, what have you.

It's cool if y'all disagree.

cp

EQ and compression to make Live sound as good as other sequencers?

MrYellow · Post by **MrYellow** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:34 pm

Seeing that tracktion is a toy for kids to mix their mp3s.... My guess is that
it has a "bass boost" or something. Probably said combination of EQ
compression etc.... As default.

If it sounds different, then it's not a flat frequency response like every
other DAW. If they are serious bout the software then I doubt there is really
any difference.

-Ben

ILTK · Post by **ILTK** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:39 pm

Why don't you download the demo and find out and save yourself and everyone else another pointless "program1 vs. program2" argument?

krank · Post by **krank** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:42 pm

MrYellow wrote:Seeing that tracktion is a toy for kids to mix their mp3s.... My guess is that
it has a "bass boost" or something. Probably said combination of EQ
compression etc.... As default.

If it sounds different, then it's not a flat frequency response like every
other DAW. If they are serious bout the software then I doubt there is really
any difference.

-Ben

Where do you get this from?

Spacerboy · Post by **Spacerboy** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:51 pm

ILTK wrote:Why don't you download the demo and find out and save yourself and everyone else another pointless "program1 vs. program2" argument?

if you think its useless to post it, why do you look at it then? there are so many useless entries. but i think its important to know about sound quality since i´m not interested in a cheap software that sounds cheap.

ILTK · Post by **ILTK** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:58 pm

Spacerboy wrote:
ILTK wrote:Why don't you download the demo and find out and save yourself and everyone else another pointless "program1 vs. program2" argument?
if you think its useless to post it, why do you look at it then? there are so many useless entries. but i think its important to know about sound quality since i´m not interested in a cheap software that sounds cheap.

And what would be the best way to find out?

Spacerboy · Post by **Spacerboy** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 6:54 pm

asking people that compared already both of the programs?

DJ VAKIS · Post by **DJ VAKIS** » Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:20 pm

If you can hear the diferences then buy a DAW that sounds beter.