Live`s inferior audio engine, urban myth ?

rikhyray · Post by **rikhyray** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:34 am

I see these statements every now and then "Live is Ok but it`s audio engine is inferior", is it another urban myth or reality? Are we all stupid wasting our money first then time using something that is not really professional ? Am I cheating my self abandoning Cubase out of laziness ignoring inferior sound, just because of workspeed ?
Or Steinberg and Logic commandos spread these since they cannot come up with competitive solutions.
I learned that there are some weak points like for example reverb, nothing exciting and heavy on CPU, so I dont use it ( by the Adam`s test TC made 10% difference). Can it be that the "inferior" impression comes through the user ?
What you know, what you think ?

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:40 am

i think its INFERIOR users who dont know how to use the warp tools correctly. so then they hear artifacts, and say "it must be the program", couldnt possibly be the users fault, right?

FaX-01 · Post by **FaX-01** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:48 am

Seriuosly Rikhyray either my ears are shot through or Live sounds seriously good this end.
Easily as good as anything I've done in hardware land that's for sure.
The warp tools are great when tweeked right also.
Can't complain here I think it's the best thing since sliced bread myself.
Then again I've always been an advocate of the "it aint what you use it's the way you use it" school of production.
Can't speak for other people but vibe is more important than anything else and Live has infinately superior sound quality to anything recorded over 30 years ago and that doesn't stop any of htose tunes from still sounding awesome IMHO of course.

the ar · Post by **the ar** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:02 pm

It just needs tweaking, like everything else.

rikhyray · Post by **rikhyray** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:07 pm

That`s how I look at it, I do not consider myself stupid and without sounding arrogant I can hear very well, or went through very strict musical training so I dare to say I can hear lots ( in the sense that graphic designer can see more colours then I do). I am not geek but I can hear, for example - since 20 years that minidisc sounds like shit and irritating though Sony`s specialists may have lots of evidence how wrong I am, 128 mp3 are annoying to my ears. Honestly I did not notice anything moving files between SX2 and Live.
Still if there is some truth about that "engine" myth I would like to know more, just to get the best out of Live.
I never really planed to replace Cubase with Live but in everyday praxis that is what happened.

robert_philp · Post by **robert_philp** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:17 pm

This subject of the quality of a hosts audio engine has been brought up endless times on various forums.

The conclusion that most people (including me) have come to is that most hosts don't have any differences in audio quality, its what you put into it that makes the difference.

Form the perspective of a programmer, the truth is that most audio engines are basically taking bytes from one buffer, processing them with DSP FX etc, then chucking them into another buffer.

In other words, its the DSP processing that colours the sound and not the host itself. Sadly i think some people aren't willing to accept that it may be their own mixing ability that lets them down.

I know thats the case with me!

muthafunka · Post by **muthafunka** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:29 pm

Blah blah blah...no offense to you in particular rikhyray, but how many times to do we have to hear this? IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU DO WITH IT!!! The demands made on the cpu and the sacrifices made in the name of REAL-TIME (do not forget this!!) time-stretching/compression produce A/ the cpu stress we see and B/ the sound-quality associated with who knows...2? 10? 20? loops etc that are all being time stretched simultaneously with varying degrees of SKILL and thence success. 'Skill' here means not only how you use warp markers and the diff. stretching algorithms but also the loops you choose to use and the tempo/warp settings YOU (the user) choose to use. A bunch of loops of wildly differing tempos warped/stretched using unsuitable settings will sound like crap in ANY software. There are plenty of people making heinous-sounding music in Logic, Pro-Tools, Cubase....you name it.
Granted Live appears to use some kind of compression on the master bus when the signal's overdriven, but otherwise where's the difference? Try lining up some unwarped tracks in the arrange page and mix them down at unity, do the same in a 'reputable' DAW and compare them.
Are we all wasting our money? Even if there were/are some sonic 'differences', which would you rather use, an app that inspired your creativity and enhanced your productivity and enjoyment of music-making but required a little more effort in the final mix or one that sounds fantastic but just gives a creative hard-off every time you fire the thing up and trudge around it's murky depths? I know which one sounds like wasted money to me.
Similar to the ridiculous Mac/PC 'debate'....use whatever helps YOU get the job done how YOU want in a way YOU like. I love using Live and often get asked by peers how I get the great sound (at least to their ears) I do. The answer is I know my software, plugs and system and have picked up a few things about audio engineering over the past few years...there is of course still a long way to go

I'm not a blind Ableton disciple, there are certainly aspects I'd like 'improved' in a way of my own liking, but as it is I get fired up firing it up (!) and to be honest it's got me excited about making music all over again, and I've been at it quite a long time. I use Logic too, but more for the quality of it's fx and the precision it offers in the mixdown/edit rather than in helping to let my 'thang' do it's 'thang'. That's what Live's for.

Sorry for the rant, not directed at anybody in particular...put it down to a little too much green tea in the workplace today!!

Mbazzy · Post by **Mbazzy** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 1:52 pm

... and me spending too much time here to be good ... you as well could have found this thread : http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... highlight=

rikhyray · Post by **rikhyray** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:19 pm

Mbazzy wrote:... and me spending too much time here to be good ... you as well could have found this thread : http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... highlight=

Thanks , excellent link, and other links, even overdosis. Lots of good information for me.
What`s up Tokyo ?, can`t I ask other question then "is my mac superior " or "is Bush the instrument of Jesus". Sorry for being concerned about such insignificant subject-sound.
Anyway Italian espresso tastes better then japanese green tea, durex condoms make.........................................

djadonis206 · Post by **djadonis206** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:22 pm

I've done my own comparisons in Logic and Live and they sound exactly the same - but that's to me - I'm listening thru a digi001 on a mac so...sounds great to me

mcconaghy · Post by **mcconaghy** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:52 pm

I've been comparing Logic and Live, and I'm not hearing anything inferior in the way Live sounds. It sounds different, but mainly that's because Live isn't doing the "32-bit floating point" thang in the background.
They do sound different, but only a little. I found Logic a bit more open, but Live had more punch, more "ooomph" (Yes, that's a scientific expression!), which I actually prefer.

Hypomixolydian · Post by **Hypomixolydian** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 4:34 pm

I have run Amplitube(guitar amp modelling software) through both Logic and Ableton. I must say that for some reason it sounds significantly better when running it through Logic. A much crisper sound. I am not knocking Ableton though. It's a great program, but it's audio engine in my opinion is not as "crisp" as Logics.

MarkH · Post by **MarkH** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:20 pm

Rikhyray - I think the "issue" with quality is only on warped audio, not standard audio files. Warping audio, especially guitar, vocals, or pads, requires you to edit the parameters in the clip properties. There are plenty of ways to adjust the audio to sound natural when warped. It's not as plug-and-play as some people would like, but that's just laziness.

epilacs · Post by **epilacs** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:27 pm

first, admittedly i cannot speak to the actual mathematics and
code involved in the technical aspect of this discussion...

i think that ableton can be considered from
several different angles. live performance tool, sequencer/composition,
multitrack mixer, midi host, etc. i think that each of these functions
should be discussed separately, and blanket statements about the whole of
the program dont really further the discussioon.
how does the app compare to other apps in each regard?
of course it is mostly based on subjective opinions...

i agree with previous comments about "its not what but how, etc"
"know your software, etc"
the most important thing i think is to decide what works for you.
some people might render/mixdown a track with acid, some in protools,
ableton, etc...maybe you think that some freeware reverb sounds
better than waves, this mixing desk, that compressor, this guitar, this
soft synth, this
and that and this and that.

i have been one to criticize the ableton rendering results, so just thought
i should throw my opinion into the mix.

best,
wm

alvinbalenia · Post by **alvinbalenia** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 6:37 pm

Don't get me wrong, live 4 is definitely my fav.
but it is true It's audio engine does sound inferior.
It doesn't suck, its actually very good.

but just run certain plugs and you can tell the difference
like trilogy.

Live`s inferior audio engine, urban myth ?

Live`s inferior audio engine, urban myth ?

Thanx to this forum's wonderful searchfunction ...

Re: Thanx to this forum's wonderful searchfunction ...

Re: Live`s inferior audio engine, urban myth ?