Don't let Live resample your audio!

lunabass · Post by **lunabass** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:42 am

yeah from memory the ableton passband results resembled the waveburner 1.2 results.

anyway, after reading the help i now understand what the graphs mean:

the passband graph shows attenuation of signals in the audible range during conversion.

the transition graph shows attenuation of signal components near the Nyquist frequency over the entire range (down to -84db)

it's all very interesting but to be honest i dont feel that any of this is much of a concern for myself...i think i need to concentrate on more important things like microphone placement and techniques etc

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:46 am

Angstrom wrote:yet I can guarantee you that someone will recount this thread as providing proof that Ableton is inferior. Just wait.

the nerd brigade is here to deal with them.

anyone who doesn't know their DAW or won't challenge it with these questions is a fool and a tool.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:50 am

lunabass wrote:anyway, after reading the help i now understand what the graphs mean:

the passband graph shows attenuation of signals in the audible range during conversion.

the transition graph shows attenuation of signal components near the Nyquist frequency over the entire range (down to -84db)

which site's plots? I'm looking at
http://src.infinitewave.ca/
they didn't make sense at first but do now, very cool when looking at them in terms of aliasing. I took a few dsp classes back in the day but have been out of the real nuts and bolts ever since, good shit.

lunabass · Post by **lunabass** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:54 am

Angstrom wrote: yet I can guarantee you that someone will recount this thread as providing proof that Ableton is inferior. Just wait.

i agree angstrom that it's only a matter of time. in saying that though i still enjoy these type of threads...they actually reconfirm my choice of live as my main daw. plus it cant hurt to put live under the microscope from time to time.

unfortunately live will probably never shake the "sound inferiority" tag due to many people (even audio magazine reviewers) not understanding that their audio is being warped...

lunabass · Post by **lunabass** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:55 am

Tone Deft wrote: which site's plots? I'm looking at
http://src.infinitewave.ca/

yep, they're the ones i mean. i agree, very interesting

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:08 am

ah, the lower drop down box.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:48 am

Thanks for posting this Funkstar, very provocative and informative. But if I want to skirt this (inferiority)issue with Live I should just render at the project's native sample rate(and bit depth) then, when I import it into Wavelab(5), I usually use it's Apogee HR dithering and resampling algorhythm, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

Funkstar De Luxe · Post by **Funkstar De Luxe** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:24 am

lunabass wrote:
Angstrom wrote: yet I can guarantee you that someone will recount this thread as providing proof that Ableton is inferior. Just wait.
i agree angstrom that it's only a matter of time. in saying that though i still enjoy these type of threads...they actually reconfirm my choice of live as my main daw. plus it cant hurt to put live under the microscope from time to time.

unfortunately live will probably never shake the "sound inferiority" tag due to many people (even audio magazine reviewers) not understanding that their audio is being warped...

Sigh, who cares. Really, it's a DAW. It works for you. You have no need to uphold it's reputation.

Funkstar De Luxe · Post by **Funkstar De Luxe** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:25 am

Anubis wrote:Thanks for posting this Funkstar, very provocative and informative. But if I want to skirt this (inferiority)issue with Live I should just render at the project's native sample rate(and bit depth) then, when I import it into Wavelab(5), I usually use it's Apogee HR dithering and resampling algorhythm, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere.

I've never used the Apogee plugin, but you can test it yourself if you have wavelab handy.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:26 am

Excuse my ignorance here, but...

Isn't music about what it sounds like, not what it looks like? I mean, the colorful patterns on the graphs are pretty, but I don't see those when I'm listening to music.

Funkstar De Luxe · Post by **Funkstar De Luxe** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:35 am

hambone1 wrote:Excuse my ignorance here, but...

Isn't music about what it sounds like, not what it looks like? I mean, the colorful patterns on the graphs are pretty, but I don't see those when I'm listening to music.

Yes indeed it is. But here's the problem. You work on you music, you have it sounding EXACTLY the way you want it to. Now you render at a different sampling rate. You music now sounds different - and not in a pleasing way.

Tarekith · Post by **Tarekith** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:56 am

From an artistic perspective, all that matters is how it sounds. From an engineering perspective, it's always good to know exactly what's happening to your audio. Some people use DAWs to troubleshoot annoying issues they run into while working, and if you don't know how your DAW is affecting your digital signals, it's hard to make any type of conclusive judgements.

So yeah, if you're just a musician, then this is all really minor stuff that can best be ignored. But if you're approaching it from an engineering standpoint, these type of posts are excellent source of information.

Sadly I have to agree that in the long run this thread will likely be dug up and taken in the wrong context by people who don't truly understand the concepts being discussed, but what can you do?

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:12 pm

Funkstar De Luxe wrote:
hambone1 wrote:Excuse my ignorance here, but...

Isn't music about what it sounds like, not what it looks like? I mean, the colorful patterns on the graphs are pretty, but I don't see those when I'm listening to music.
Yes indeed it is. But here's the problem. You work on you music, you have it sounding EXACTLY the way you want it to. Now you render at a different sampling rate. You music now sounds different - and not in a pleasing way.

It's good to know simply that "Don't trust any old app to re-sample your audio" holds true across the board.

A looong time ago I recorded an album at 48khz , took it to a small (cheap) mastering studio and they 'prepared' it for me by downsampling to 44.1 before I got there. Sure enough the resulting album sounds like crap compared to the original masters. If I had known then what I know now I could have pulled them up on it and avoided the nasty aliasing that plagued that disc

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:31 pm

Erm.... maybe I'm an idiot... but why not just work at the same sample rate throughout the whole process, ie: 44.1khz.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

it is ideal of course, but sometimes not possible.
Or perhaps people wouldn't think it was a problem until reading a thread like this