LIVE audio best-practices

laird · Post by **laird** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 6:04 pm

whiterabbit: that review sounds like 64-bit sonar runs faster and is more powefu than... 32 bit sonar?l...

but nowhere does it say it sounds better than... well, Live or anthing else.

ground_control · Post by **ground_control** » Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:22 pm

laird wrote:whiterabbit: that review sounds like 64-bit sonar runs faster and is more powefu than... 32 bit sonar?l...

but nowhere does it say it sounds better than... well, Live or anthing else.

Nor does it say anything about the 64-bit mix buss, only the optimizations for x64 computing, which have nothing to do with how a mix sounds.

J

friend_kami · Post by **friend_kami** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:51 am

whiterabbit wrote:
Jaberwookie wrote:I remember Ott (engineer/producer/composer/all-round-audio-badass: www.ottsonic.com) once did a test where he critically compared the internal summing of Live, Logic, Cubase and some other DAW (can't remember)...

his conclusion was something like "fuck knows how, but Live comes out on top"
You ever mixed in Sonar 64-bit?

Some words from Recording Magazine about 64-bit Sonar:

"While being able to mix and produce audio in double precision is a notably advanced capability, the combination with full compatibility with a 64-bit OS represents a force that is unmatchable by any competing DAW product. For the purpose of writing this review I decided to take the plunge and upgrade my OS to XP x64, which takes full advantage of the dual 64-bit cores of the CPU. To say that the results were dramatic would be somewhat of an understatement. In the 64-bit environment, SONAR is capable of accessing the full memory complement of my DAW (in actuality it would be able to access 128 GB of RAM if I had that much) in 64-bit words."

"SONAR is also code optimized to take full advantage of every pipe and nuance of current multi-core CPUs, so even in double-precision SONAR 6 runs more quickly using its 64-bit audio engine in the 64-bit OS than it does using a 32-bit engine in 32-bit XP Pro. I have found that I am able to nearly double my active plug-in count in the 64-bit environment. This latter improvement has been significant enough for me to drastically reduce my dependence on networked co-processing of plug-ins using FX-Teleport

so what youre saying is that sonar is great at utilizing memory and performing fast renders/ues alot of plugs and whatnots?
how does this improve my audio quality is what i would like to know?
no pun intended ofcourse, i just dont know enough about audio engines.

Mr Lager · Post by **Mr Lager** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:41 pm

whiterabbit wrote: -Nobody produces or mixes down in Ableton (their offline rendering sounds like s#$@); and,
-Nobody renders down a mix in Ableton. It comes out sounding thin and muddy.

Whoever stated these know very little patience and very little talent in producing.

laird · Post by **laird** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:05 pm

geez, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

whiterabbit · Post by **whiterabbit** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:22 am

ground_control wrote:
laird wrote:whiterabbit: that review sounds like 64-bit sonar runs faster and is more powefu than... 32 bit sonar?l...

but nowhere does it say it sounds better than... well, Live or anthing else.
Nor does it say anything about the 64-bit mix buss, only the optimizations for x64 computing, which have nothing to do with how a mix sounds.

J

Terry Howard, winner of 3 Grammy Awards in 2005 for his work with Ray Charles discusses the importance of 64-bit audio quality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k2vnrhobws

whiterabbit · Post by **whiterabbit** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:28 am

one more vid on 64 bit audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9EeW9WhNWA

timjenkins · Post by **timjenkins** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:02 am

Very stimulating video!

Using different programs to mix can have just as much to do with the sound as using different consoles. Each program reads the audio differently and uses different mixing algorithms to sum the audio to stereo. Another factor IMO is if the mixdown is done in realtime, or just a quick rendering. Nuendo offers it as an option, Pro Tools has it as the only option, and i don't think sonar allows you to do a realtime mixdown.. In my opinion, it sounds a whole lot better when done in realtime. This might not work with the whole 64 bit thing, but it probably would be better not to in that case, as realtime might be rushing things. I have noticed a lack of depth in live, kinda sounds thin.

I usually sequence in live and then just render seperate tracks, or if its a big deal i'll just save my sequences as midi and my instrument presets and then import that into sonar. Can't do this with operator though

. Operator makes my downstairs go upstairs.

has anyone used rewire into a more tracking focused daw?

TrierMusic · Post by **TrierMusic** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:56 pm

laird wrote:geez, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

Well, NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:44 pm

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:59 pm

this has been discussed before, but i can't imagine why you would think real time rendering (when the chip is under the gun) would be better than offline rendering (when the chip can take all the time it wants).

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:12 pm

With 24bit audio, Henke has confirmed that render is actually technically more accurate than resample. Only applies to 24bit audio, not 16 or 32 FWIW.

Details in one of the dozens of threads previously posted on this topic.

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:21 pm

dj superflat wrote:this has been discussed before, but i can't imagine why you would think real time rendering (when the chip is under the gun) would be better than offline rendering (when the chip can take all the time it wants).

It's a little known fact that some vst fx and instruments perform differently when rendering "off line". I think the idea is to save on cpu in realtime mode. It's a stupid idea because it means that what you hear when producing is not the same as the rendered version.

wether the offline mode sounds better or worse is a matter of opinion. If you buit the track around the realtime mode it's likely that offline mode could sound worse.

a case in point is Ivory Piano, which has unlimited polyphony in offline mode. This can make performances that use a lot of pedal sound thick and muddy compared to what you hear in realtime mode.

not all programs support this feature (i.e. they don't inform the plugin that offline rendering is in progress). Unfortunatlly Ableton Live does support it (last time I checked)

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:24 pm

interesting, thx.

nolus · Post by **nolus** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:28 pm

The only thing I can think of that might make Live sound different to other programs is dithering. But dithering can easily be applied to the rendered audio afterwards.

LIVE audio best-practices

Re: LIVE audio best-practices