Live Sound quality

duncjam · Post by **duncjam** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:34 pm

Hi

I've read these threads about sound quality before, and no-one has ever been able to explain to me exactly what I should be listening out for.

I'm prepared to admit my ear may not be educated after years of cheap 4-track recorders, minidisc, mp3 etc, and my ears may in fact have been damaged by rock concerts, clubbing, and frequent visits to Formula 1 and the Le Mans 24 Hours, but I would still genuinely like to know what the difference sounds like. Should I be listening for distortion? Does it sound a bit like a low pass filter? Or a phasing/flanging effect? Because playing a WAV in Live (without warping) sounds to me exactly the same as playing it in Sound Forge... What am I missing here??

dunc

Komplex · Post by **Komplex** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:10 pm

Some of you people are very spoilt

Spoilt brats or just major geeks.

Be glad you have some awesome tools at your disposal for such cheap money. People even 10 years ago didn't have this luxury...

The music's content is a lot more important than slight variations in the sound of audio...

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:11 pm

Komplex wrote: The music's content is a lot more important than slight variations in the sound of audio...

amen.

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri Jan 07, 2005 8:14 pm

yes, but this is not 10 years ago and we wouldnt be here now if it werent for the equivelant to us whinging and moaning people who existed back then.

i say there's nothing wrong with trying to exploit current technology to it's fullest potential. .. im sure even the caveman wanted the best bone he could find to beat is wooly mammoth carcass

Chris J · Post by **Chris J** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 12:21 pm

A simple test : record a drum kit with 5 mics in live and do the same in SX, if you don't hear that the sound in live is much more metallic, then I have to find what i'm doing wrong

Chris J · Post by **Chris J** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 1:03 pm

I forgot to say: import the five tracks recorded in live in SX, do another take this time in cubase and compare the the two takes.

duncjam · Post by **duncjam** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:27 pm

Simple test? SIMPLE TEST??!!

Simple if you have 5 mics, a drum kit and SX I suppose, but what if you're like me and have none of these things?

Should I be listening for a metallic sound then? Does Sound Forge have a metallic sound too, because as I said, a wav file in Live sounds the same to me as it does in Sound Forge...

Upshot of all this is I'm still confused/not convinced...

dunc

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Sun Jan 09, 2005 3:15 pm

i'm not so concerned with Live sounding different than one or another program. i like the way it sounds, and prefer it to other apps. this is why i use it.

moneyclip · Post by **moneyclip** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 1:39 am

regarding vst instruments i have found the sound to be different. I take for instance the fm7 and make a bassline. just a few bars. dry no effects. i save the patch and midi file and close ableton. I open cubase and load the patch in fm7 and import midi file. to me it sounds different. i've done this with entire midi songs, exported all midi data and load in live with save vst instruments and effects. to me one is more pleasing to my ears. what makes this difference i couldn't tell you.

beatmaster · Post by **beatmaster** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:22 pm

all blabla:

you can talk around it as much as you want (even fantastic Professor Monolake): the Live audio engine doesnt sound up to date compared to SX, L7 or SAM8.

The more tracks you add, the more metallic it sounds.

The way it sounds right now, you can only use Live as a scratchboard, a great one thats for shure but not enough to go final (if it doesnt have to sound like monolake

)

People that dont hear this are or deaf or blinded fanboys, or use Live only in a PA environment.

duncjam · Post by **duncjam** » Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:48 pm

I don't have SX, I don't want to spend that sort of money on a single piece of software. I own Cubasis VST, and if SX is similar to use, then I'd probably throw my laptop against the wall in frustration before I even recorded a note anyway.

Saying I can't personally hear what the problem is with Live's sound quality doesn't make me a Live fanboy, it just makes me someone who is using the tools I have. Live may sound different from SX, in the same way as a Roland synth may sound different from a Korg or Yamaha.

dunc

supster · Post by **supster** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:35 am

beatmaster wrote: The more tracks you add, the more metallic it sounds.

The way it sounds right now, you can only use Live as a scratchboard, a great one thats for shure but not enough to go final (if it doesnt have to sound like monolake )

So, you are saying that you - personally - do not like the sound quality of the monolake stuff?

Funny - I've heard some amazing stuff on those records.

dpel · Post by **dpel** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:54 am

i heard the Beatles White Album was recorded with Live
and Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon.

sounds good to me.

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:14 am

heh.. beatmaster sounds like a Cubase fanboy to me. Talk about hypocrite!!

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:39 am

to be honest, there is some truth in all DAW's have their own sound.

Pro Tools and logic sound quite similar, Cubase SX sounds better than Cubase VST and Ableton live.. well it sounds like ableton live, but that doesnt mean you cannot change your sound treatments to compensate (which is what I do)

Admittedly I have some mixing issues I'm trying to get on top of (really high end stuff) but I can do it with any tool provided to me. Still, if I happen to find something that will sound better, there's no reason why I shouldnt try it.

We spend all this money on different synths and effects etc to get different sounds, why shouldnt DAW's have the same mentality?

Live Sound quality

What is the difference?

5 mics and a drum kit