Live Sound quality

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
Vercengetorex
Posts: 826
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:38 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NYC

Post by Vercengetorex » Tue Jun 08, 2004 8:36 pm

ETHIOS4
is this jitter problem only a problem at the monitoring level or does it carry over to rendered files also? If its a problem with D/A convertors wouldn't the problem be limited to any particular listening environment and not to the actual rendered audio?
I am truly sorry for inappropriately bringing up this trivial jitter discussion in a forum regarding Lives sound quality. The discussion Rappie and I was having is only regarding the actual effect your sound card has on the audio data as it leaves the computer to be presented to your ears. Jitter does not effect the rendering process in Live, nor can it effect the internal rerecording process in Live...
I am truly sorry for any confusion that my have cropped up because of my drunk ass.
I cant think of a sig

ethios4
Posts: 5377
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:28 am

thanks....

Post by ethios4 » Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:42 pm

ahh yes...thanks for clearing that up. I've wondered in the past if different soundcards produced a different sound in a rendered file, all other factors being equal. From this i would gather that, no, all soundcards will sound the same when rendering audio, all other factors being equal. Personally i have no problem with the sound Live produces. In fact i love it! :)
i figure many of the "problems" people experience with the sound of different softwares comes from user error and inexperience with producing good quality audio with that software.
once again, its so good to learn about the finer points of audio production from people who know what they're talking about. :)

Guest

Post by Guest » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:11 am

Robert, thank you for the interesting discussions. Your technical knowledge of vinyl gives me a clue as to why Live's vinyl plug sounds so good!

I have a question about your comment dimissing dither. Isn't it a standard accepted practice now to dither at each stage that the sample rate changes? And assuming that Live's plugins and summing bus do their calculations at a higher bit rate wouldn't it be a good idea to dither at these stages? Actually, what kind of bit rate does Live use for summing and plugins out of curiosity? Most programs advertise 32 bit floating or whatever but I don't recall seeing what Live uses.

Thanks for the insight.

Guest

Post by Guest » Wed Jun 09, 2004 1:21 am

Hey -

off topic -

Regarding RME police -

Ask Mytek, Cranesong, Lavry, Weiss, Prism, Apogee, SLAM (w/quantams), Lucid, and Benchmark users think of RME.

Fletcher from Mercenary audio uses the anachronism "Really Mediocre Engineering"

I have a multiface and love it, also have a 9652 system running Rosetta 800s clocked by the Big Ben. I'm as RME as it gets, but the Rosetta buries the sound of the multiface. And the Rosetta is budget for high end converters, many people feel it can't hold a candle to Weiss Prism Lavry etc.

Its stupid to get snobby about converters, but its really stupid for anyone to claim that RME are the best.

I sound stupid too so I'll shut up now.

Thank you Robert for such a great post.

bensuthers
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:51 am

Post by bensuthers » Wed Jun 09, 2004 2:44 am

you should dither when changing down a bitrate.

there should be no need to dither between plugins or other processing internally if math is all 32bit float. just at the last stage when outputting 24 or 16 bit.

whos

Post by whos » Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:31 am

> the pleasure of vinyls

oh, yeah.

> owning vinyl cutting plant

Same here. I want a rich friend who can invest in one or I could if I win lotto.

Audio Engine

Post by Audio Engine » Wed Jun 09, 2004 3:57 pm

A few people have mentioned the audio engine bashers. Whooooa Hold on a sec there buddies.

1. Do you think all programmers program their summing busses the same?

2. Do you think its possible that some programmers have a certain talent over an issue like that and some dont??

3. Does Pro Tools sound the same as Cubase SX....Definitely NOT. Thats not an opinion, its a fact as a user of mix and HD systems. My preference is Cubase SX....which of course no one believes fro some strange reason.

SOme have noticed the difference in Ableton sound compared to other DAWs.....correct

Some like it for its warmth...I agree it is definitely warmer than Pro Tools and Logic. SOme want it even dirtier....Yep.....But I personally can make a track sound Lo Fi.....but with a definite hint of class in CubaseSX. Dirty....but also clean....Massive Attack style *for eg

No one mentioned headroom........ As usual the music scientists love to quote their facts and figures and tests etc etc etc blah blah blah. Done them all, been there, seen it, heard it all. Why cant you guys simply make comments of you either hear a difference or none at all. Or dont comment at all?

BUT GUESS WHAT

My ears dont lie..... I do notice a difference

You cannot simply say I played a stereo track in Cubase and Live and they both sounded the same. YES sure they will I have done this myself. But the problem is when we sum all the parts to the stereo master....Just like on a console. The better the headroom and signal path to the master bus the better the quality is maintained. Now, obviously software is not hardware. With hardware consoles it would be a matter of simply adding better components through the signal path...thats why you get expensive and cheap consoles. Software is completely different. There is no standard manual on how to program a signal path and summing bus.


I didnt want this thread to get technical or any of the other bullshit that has been written. I merely wondered if others have noticed the same......slight degredation of the sound quality. I repeat....this is not a criticism of Ableton. If some of you guys think its perfect then thats fine. I however dont and I feel over time it could be improved.

All this is subjective anyway. It depends a lot on the style of music you are doing. For me I use Ableton mainly for Techno stuff so the most impressive quality is not so important......But I still like my Techno tracks to sound Large....wide.....but also dirty and this is do find a little difficult to achieve within live.

I am now having to resort to rewiring through Cubase SX. Not that I mind I quite like the mixing environment.

For those that believe there is no difference in Daw audio engines then you are totally wrong. I say this from a lot of experience and anyway it stands to reason that NOT ALL ENGINES ARE PROGRAMMED THE SAME....


Logically speaking of course

:roll:

robbmasters
Posts: 1107
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 7:37 pm
Location: London, UK.

Post by robbmasters » Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:13 pm

Audio Engine wrote:NOT ALL ENGINES ARE PROGRAMMED THE SAME....
True. But does that affect the results?

If both applications use the same resolution of audio (e.g. 24-bit) and have the same headroom (e.g. 32-bit) then (as long as you're not clipping - i.e. summing to a result that can't be represented in 32 bits) adding signals together should give EXACTLY the same result in any application (however it's programmed). Unlike in the analogue domain, it's just simple maths.

I'm not saying you can't hear a difference, I'm just saying I'm not convinced it's down the the "audio engine" let alone how it's programmed.

Are you sure you're not going above 0db in total, and one system is handling clipping better than another? That's something that can (and does) vary between applications.

noisetonepause
Posts: 4938
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Sticks and stones

Post by noisetonepause » Wed Jun 09, 2004 5:01 pm

Digital Summing. Any of you frequent the SoundOnSound forums?

It's an ongoing discussion there... he's a few threads:

http://sound-on-sound2.infopop.net/2/Op ... 051596&p=1

http://sound-on-sound2.infopop.net/2/Op ... 9#38710339

http://sound-on-sound2.infopop.net/2/Op ... #987108621

And more...

-Paws
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.

raapie
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:13 am
Location: The Hague, Netherlands
Contact:

..

Post by raapie » Wed Jun 09, 2004 6:12 pm

Using the same DA-convertor, every DAW sound sound the same at the same level/gain. If you don't touch the gain, the DAW is just purely sending the track from disk directly to the soundcard. Summing, means: 1+1.

I remember that Steinberg said that they changed the audio engine of Nuendo 2 and some users said it sounded better. I think the marketing guys are happy that these kind of people exist :lol:
Marco Raaphorst

music, sound & story maker

https://melodiefabriek.com

noisetonepause
Posts: 4938
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Sticks and stones

Re: ..

Post by noisetonepause » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:36 pm

raapie wrote:Using the same DA-convertor, every DAW sound sound the same at the same level/gain. If you don't touch the gain, the DAW is just purely sending the track from disk directly to the soundcard. Summing, means: 1+1.
That's the theory... in reality, some say it ain't true. How that can be is beyond me (I'm a guitar player, not a computer wiz), but I urge you to do a bit of reading.

Besides, the inaccuracies of analogue are musically desirable, but that's a different kettle of fish.

-Paws
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.

raapie
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:13 am
Location: The Hague, Netherlands
Contact:

..

Post by raapie » Wed Jun 09, 2004 9:44 pm

just found out that there's a small issue in Live. check the other soundquality thread.
Marco Raaphorst

music, sound & story maker

https://melodiefabriek.com

yon

Re: Sound Issues

Post by yon » Wed Jun 09, 2004 10:21 pm

Very helpful comments from Robert here.

I just wanted to address a great point he raised, which is that each DAW playing back a 44.1k sound file in a 44.1k session, with no pitch shifting, will sound the same, period (modulo D/A conversion, amplification, etc). [I can think of only one way that this could go wrong (basically, if you interpolate in this case, which you should not), and I'm reasonably hopeful that no major DAWs are making this mistake, including Live.]

However, there is a substantial difference if you have material sampled at a different sampling frequency played back in Live or any other DAW. The sample rate conversion will in general produce distortions, which can be exaggerated by other FX applied to your signal chain to the point of being very easily noticed. You can hear the exaggerated version of this effect by switching between Hi-Q and non Hi-Q settings in Live. All of these sample rate conversions will produce some artifact (perhaps inaudible, but certainly sometimes audible), and its not unreasonable to assume that a company as large as Digidesign has invested more time in sorting this issue out.

My impression is that without FX applied, it is difficult to notice artifacts which occur in warping with Live. With FX applied (or large sample rate differences/pitch shifts), the effect could become noticable. If you're hearing dirty mixes, this would be one place to look. An alternative might be to use a high-quality offline sample rate converter to preprocess your source material, etc.

Yon

Disco_Doctor
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 9:06 am

Post by Disco_Doctor » Fri Jul 23, 2004 7:59 pm

Robert Henke wrote:Dithering: dithering is a techique which shifts the spectral energy of quantisation errors once a file is put out into a digital analog converter.
I'd like to debate you on this.

The above statement is incorrect. Dither does not "shift spectral energy". It functions the same way bias works on an analogue tape machine. Dither randomizes low level quantization errors, thereby decorrelating the quantization error from the audio signal. However, noise shaping, which is a technique of "EQing the dither" (in simple terms), does shift the spectral energy of the resulting dither noise so that it is less audible by moving the energy of the dither into a higher frequency range where the human ear is less sensitive.
It is never recommended to add dither as long as you stay in the digital domain and are not creating a finished product which will not go thru any mastering process including changing the level even by a very smal amount. Dithering should be applied at the mastering studio as the very last step by someone who knows what to do.
False. Within the context of a DAW (ie-any software that mixes multiple digital signals, changes levels, etc), dither is *absolutely essential* for preserving sound quality and decorrelating quantization error. The cumulative effects of quantization error in any digital audio software are plainly apparent to a reasonably trained ear. Dither is always the best solution whenever the bit depth is reduced in a DAW -- which it always is - because anytime you change the gain on an audio signal, the math performed on the signal produces fractions which must then generate rounding errors due to the bit depth limitations of the system.
Unless you are doing music with _very_ quited parts you will not hear
the difference anyway. We are talking aobut the range of -80 dB and below....
False -- and true. If you are talking about adding dither to just a few tracks, then yes, the benefits may be negligible. But if you are talking about a large production within a digital audio workstation -- ie - 60 tracks of audio in Pro Tools, then the cumulative effects of quantization error are rather easily heard.
These are the facts. I have a history in professional mastering and vinly cutting and i am willing to discuss this topic in depth if needed. I can also point to literature.
Experienced analog mastering engineers are not always the best source of information regarding digital audio. No offense.
I know how much psychological factors determine our perception
and as i said at the beginnig, i am perfectly fine with what ever one
believes as long as it leads to good results,
I agree with that 100%...
but i am getting upset by this discussion about "sound quality of an audio engine". This is DIGITAL, not analog.
That statement is meaningless. "This is digital" implies what, exactly? There are in fact significant differences between implemenations of digital audio mixers, the precision of the math depending on the architecture of the system, the implementation (or not) of dither, etc. The word "digital" does NOT in and of itself imply that all things are equal in all software. That is totally false.
My old ENSONIQ ASR-10 sounds great beacause the digital to ANALOG converters do funny things.
True -- but that's a completely different point. There's two separate discussions here: there is the debate over what "sounds good", which is subjective, and then there is the debate about precision -- and how best to preserve the integrity of a signal throughout the various gain/pan/FX/processing stages of a digital mixer. When a user questions the "audio engine" they are talking about the cumulative effect of the sound of their audio as a result of all the methods implemented in the software to process their audio -- gain changes, panning, accuracy of the automation, precision of the math used to do all the calculations etc -- and in REAL WORLD USE -- all things are not equal and different digital audio mixers sound different.

I will be happy to refer you to a massive number of resources and discussion threads on the internet where you can delve into this subject more deeply if you are interested.

Jim S.

Post by Jim S. » Fri Jul 23, 2004 10:44 pm

Disco Doctor makes some great points that I was thinking when I read Robert's post. I've seen this subject in every DAW's forum I've been to. ProTools forum (the DUC) has an insane amount of info on this topic, and I'm very happy with my ProTools HD3 system's sound (which I will continue to use for mixing).

I'm starting to use Live for other purposes than "highest fidelity possible" stuff.

I've stopped worrying about these types of issues as much.

I'm glad other people do worry about them!

-Jim S.

Post Reply