Better Audio Engine

[kenspocket]

, the sound still must get clearer at a higher volume , even if there is not a analog style drive near the point of clip .

the DAC outputs on the computer or the inputs DAC on the amp , will be only 24bit or 16 bit in most cases .

less volume will mean less clarity or resolution , digital recordings as well as analog recordings still "sound better" , clearest & bright ,
close to the edge "the art of noise " ,
top , just before point of clip or distortion. , its the point of highest resolution .
The most amount of data is being used to store playback the sound waveform.

your using all the bits provided at the highest volume , more data = more definition ,
if the volume is less there are wasted bits all set to 0 ,

there must be a loss some ware in the mixing as you cant mix all the bits of one recording to another in the same amount of data area , without loss .

if you put a 24 bit full bandwidth sound down a 16 bit output , it will have lost some of its clarity / data .

if you put two 24 bit fbw sounds down a 24 bit out put it would have lost half of the clarity .

if you put two 24bit fbw sounds down a 32bit pipe , then out a 24bit output you still lose half the clarity.

it does depend on the coding as to what bits are dropped in the route to the DAC
or the quality of the DAC .

[snowtires]

i agree that protools sounds better than live, it's a lot brighter

[snakedogman]

, the sound still must get clearer at a higher volume , even if there is not a analog style drive near the point of clip .

less volume will mean less clarity or resolution , digital recordings as well as analog recordings still "sound better" , clearest & bright ,
close to the edge "the art of noise " ,
top , just before point of clip or distortion. , its the point of highest resolution .
The most amount of data is being used to store playback the sound waveform.

Bit depth only defines the potential dynamic range of the recording. It has nothing to do with "clarity".
If you record digitally in 24 bit at lower level, the only difference is a higher noisefloor. But with 24 bit or more there is not really any need to record signals close to 0 on the meters because there is more than enough headroom and the noise will probably not be in the audible range anyway.

your using all the bits provided at the highest volume , more data = more definition ,
if the volume is less there are wasted bits all set to 0

it does not mean more definition it means at most a lower noisefloor.

there must be a loss some ware in the mixing as you cant mix all the bits of one recording to another in the same amount of data area , without loss .

???
Mixing two pieces of digital sound together doesn't mean you suddenly need twice as many bits to represent the resulting sound.

if you put a 24 bit full bandwidth sound down a 16 bit output , it will have lost some of its clarity / data .

it will not have lost clarity as long as it's properly dithered. It will have slightly higher noisefloor.

if you put two 24 bit fbw sounds down a 24 bit out put it would have lost half of the clarity .

now you're not making any sense at all. It sounds to me you have no idea what you're talking about.

[leisuremuffin]

i agree that protools sounds better than live, it's a lot brighter

prove it. post some comparative files for us to hear.


So many people talking about live's sound quality, but not even one of them has ever posted a file to back up their claims.




.lm.

[hoffman2k]

I bet you're going bald Muffin...
I started loosing my hair around mid 2004

[leisuremuffin]

lol, no not yet, but the grey is starting to set in. only a few spots in the beard though.

i might develop a heart problem from this shit though. got to stop reading these threads.




.lm.

[sweetjesus]

pt hd has a 64 bit internal architecture no? wouldnt that allow for more headroom?

i havent used Alshihad in a few years but live sounds rockin man ... i wish my cubase mixes sounded so good.

[kenspocket]

someone wrote

Bit depth only defines the potential dynamic range of the recording. It has nothing to do with "clarity".
If you record digitally in 24 bit at lower level, the only difference is a higher noisefloor. But with 24 bit or more there is not really any need to record signals close to 0 on the meters because there is more than enough headroom and the noise will probably not be in the audible range anyway.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
nonsense ,

if you zoom in to a file the sound will be degraded , as i stated , above in my post .
If you dont agree you must b daft .

this is most audible if you use fast sounds slowed down to a much slower BPM or sample rate , this is why analog synths sound fuller than digital's , i have both in my setup . as they have infinite resolution to the AMP & no conversion .

the ear has its own resolution too , some people have better ears than others.

in real life the sound becomes slow but with full definition , i.e a piano or a whale , in the sample world , it becomes grainy & dull .

for this reason & others , Multi samples are used on pro samplers .
as pitch shifting to a slower speed , will produce a dull grainy sound.

full stop .

Whever Live is better or worse than other similar programs is debatable , but i can 100% guarantee it will be different on any system , other than i a direct pass thru to the amps DAC , at ear or scope levels.. There will be differences .

[dj superflat]

this dude is nuts (that's some pretty impressive technical analysis there (cough)). i love the analog synth's sound better because it's a slowed down fast sound. ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . what??

[Angstrom]

[kenspocket]

this dude is nuts (that's some pretty impressive technical analysis there (cough)). i love the analog synth's sound better because it's a slowed down fast sound. ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . . . what??

this is most audible if you use fast sounds slowed down to a much slower BPM or sample rate , this is why analog synths sound fuller than digital's , i have both in my setup . as they have infinite resolution to the AMP & no conversion .

analogs use control voltage to alter filters & sound etc , it sounds , infinite compared with a digital .
an analog sounds better than a digital even more so at a slower rate!
" your ears get time to hear the detail "

so you think digital sounds are better or as high resolution as analog or natral sounds then ?

-------------------------------------------------------------

what i mean is that , for the layman anyway.

if you have a sample of a sound at 24bits , 44.1 khz , the sound will sound ok .

if you slow it down it will sound dull grainy .

If you record the sound slowed down in the first place I.e a low note .
with the same 24bit 44.1 rate , it will sound better .

I.e when you play back slower you lose quality ,as the sample rate falls .

you also loose quality with less volume , it is the same principle .

basic sampling knowledge !

[dj superflat]

yeah, that explains it all, and particularly explains why live has such obviously deficient sound quality. or not at all.

[zobomix]

Wow. Maybe this thread is going out of hand?

Anyway, I wanted to post one more time to report on further testing I have done. I bounced a stereo loop from a library in PT and Live (warp engine off). Result, no sound difference.

Another test was applying the same plugin (UAD-1 Cambridge EQ) with same eq curve on both the Live and PT session. Again, no difference in sound.

The difference did show up when I enabled the warp engine in Live, which is also what lead me to the conclusion I mentioned in the first post. So, I'll have to watch out for that and go with something else for time-stretching as I used to do (pitch'n time, melodyne, speed) although that requires a bit more jumping between DAWs.

Peace.

PS: I used PTLE for the test

[pulsoc]

what i mean is that , for the layman anyway.

if you have a sample of a sound at 24bits , 44.1 khz , the sound will sound ok .

if you slow it down it will sound dull grainy .

If you record the sound slowed down in the first place I.e a low note .
with the same 24bit 44.1 rate , it will sound better .

I.e when you play back slower you lose quality ,as the sample rate falls .

basic sampling knowledge !

????

If I sample a sine wave at 24/44.1, then slow it down, it will sound grainy? What a strange idea.

[kenspocket]

your not hearing what iv said .

i said,

less volume will mean less clarity or resolution , digital recordings as well as analog recordings still "sound better" , clearest & bright ,
close to the edge

snake said :-

Bit depth only defines the potential dynamic range of the recording. It has nothing to do with "clarity".
If you record digitally in 24 bit at lower level, the only difference is a higher noisefloor. But with 24 bit or more there is not really any need to record signals close to 0 on the meters because there is more than enough headroom and the noise will probably not be in the audible range anyway.

your talking crap , once you audio goes via dac to amp , or burn to cd audio 16 bit , your sound will have less resolution , & half the volume will be less also .

wiki bit depth , all the info is out there , read the last few words carefully !

Each sample of audio contains data that, when converted into an analog signal, provides the necessary information to reproduce the sound wave as accurately as possible with details such as dynamic range and different frequencies. As one would expect, the lower the bit depth, the lower the overall quality of the recording

its a basic fact , do it with a drum loop , record a drum loop

tune it down .

here the sound .

,

record a second drum loop , with the drums de-tuned & the drummer playing slower .

this sound will have more detail than the first method , but will be an approximate of the de-tuned slowed down version above .

,
what im saying is youl have a recording that uses all the bits of data to produce the same sound .

i.e clearer with more resolution .