Live Sound quality

FaX-01 · Post by **FaX-01** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:48 am

Metallic is not a word I'd use to describe it at all.
Some of you people must have shitty mixing technique or something

........
If anything LIVE sounds the most like HighQuality Analog Tape to my ears.
Really nice tape saturation sound/feel to it.
May I suggest you people do this instead.
Open a set in Live arrange /mix etc then Play it through a decent mixer and record the analog out results from souncard to mixer to recording device ( DAT / MD / Reel2Reel / CDRAudioRecorder etc etc ).
Then do the same with FANBOY'S tool of choice ie: Cubase and see what difference there is .
Oh yeah and like U know Who up above produces anything on par with any of Mr.Henkes output - which BTW is uniformly excellent.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:02 am

FaX-01 wrote: If anything LIVE sounds the most like HighQuality Analog Tape to my ears.
Really nice tape saturation sound/feel to it.

i'll have to agree with the Henke Fanboy here

Amberience · Post by **Amberience** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:05 am

sweetjesus wrote: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?

Personally I'm off the philosophy that you use any tool you like as long as it does the job in the way in which you want.

For example, some people prefer to master inside of a sequencer. Others prefer to do it in a sound editor with just a stereo track.

Now forgetting all the "conventions" and comments on "the way its supposed to be done" ... what does it hurt if one person does it a different way, if it makes them happy and helps them accomplish a goal??

The answer is that it doesn't hurt. PC or Mac, Cubase or Live, Absynth or Crystal, Sampletank or a Triton .... why give a shit what other people use as long as what you're using suits your own needs ???

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:13 am

Amberience wrote:
sweetjesus wrote: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?
Personally I'm off the philosophy that you use any tool you like as long as it does the job in the way in which you want.

For example, some people prefer to master inside of a sequencer. Others prefer to do it in a sound editor with just a stereo track.

Now forgetting all the "conventions" and comments on "the way its supposed to be done" ... what does it hurt if one person does it a different way, if it makes them happy and helps them accomplish a goal??

The answer is that it doesn't hurt. PC or Mac, Cubase or Live, Absynth or Crystal, Sampletank or a Triton .... why give a shit what other people use as long as what you're using suits your own needs ???

I think many people need validation over what they spent money on.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:34 am

sweetjesus wrote: I think many people need validation over what they spent money on.

**cough** apple **cough**

huh?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:37 am

yeah pretty much

but still the design of the machines along with OSX make apple the attractive option for most.

if OSX were an option on the PC platform id drop winblows in a second.

my main reason for windows is microsoft reasons. i can write code using MS Active x technologies and what's more I can use that to manipulate programs like Live etc... i cant be arsed learning apple code.

on a nerdy note there is Real Basic for MAC which lets you do some nifty things and compiles cross platform...

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:05 am

I have no clue what you are talking about
I just coughed.

FaX-01 · Post by **FaX-01** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:10 am

AdamJay wrote:
sweetjesus wrote: I think many people need validation over what they spent money on.
**cough** apple **cough**

huh?

Oh an Athalon 64 Fanboy then

.

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:12 am

ooooh, its cuz i coughed up an Apple!!
i knew i should have had an Orange instead.

A DJ · Post by **A DJ** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:44 pm

AdamJay wrote:
FaX-01 wrote: If anything LIVE sounds the most like HighQuality Analog Tape to my ears.
Really nice tape saturation sound/feel to it.
i'll have to agree with the Henke Fanboy here

Hey Adam, i watched and heared u play at Integrate couple of weeks ago.

What was ur oppinion on the sound quality there?

did u check the sound in the main room coz i thought it was really poor.

not clear sounding beats, more woomph than oomph if you know what i mean.

lots off bass....

as an aspiring ableton DJ wanna be i am pretty concerned about that sound quality.

could u give me any clues on why it sounded like it did/

is it "your typical sound" or was the sound system not good?

later when Marco played i found it sounding better.

i mean no disrespect of course

and could u tell me more about setups that were used.....

coz all of u three used laptops

btw did u check the other room?

i all off my life playing at parties and goin to parties i nvr evr experienced such loud volumes

it was ear wrecking

AdamJay · Post by **AdamJay** » Tue Jan 11, 2005 11:54 pm

sound was kinda wierd..
i heard it an hour before the doors opened and it was beautiful. Loud but clear and it did not hurt your ears.
It should have been re-EQ'd once people started to fill in (bodies affect frequencies), but wasn't re-EQ'd until 4am i'm told.
the monitors could have been much better, but i've played with far worse as well so i won't complain there.

gear wise i was using Live 4, a UC-33, MPC2000XL, two 1200's and a pioneer mixer.

didn't check the 2nd room, took a nap after my set as jet lag was kicking my ass.

that set was harder than my usual. The promoter and stage manager said it was impossible to play "too hard", i think i should have sought a third opinion

A DJ · Post by **A DJ** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:30 am

gotcha

tnx for ur reply

lanquarem · Post by **lanquarem** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 9:52 am

A simple question... When you compare the sound of "the audio engines" of different software, compared to the sound of Ableton, are you comparing comparable things ?

I mean : If you add tracks to Live and then drag and drop samples from your hard drive, you'll end up with a collection of stretched sounds... Of course, there is a noticeable difference when a sound is stretched, and eventually the whole thing can become sort of "metallic"...
(In this respect, I admit that I sometimes prefer the way Acid stretches sounds, and I use both softwares alternatively).

On the other side, when just recording sounds from an external source, I notice no difference between different "audio engines" (if such a thing exists), and I dont understand why there should be any difference anyway... I'm not a specialist, but I've always thought that the difference when recording comes from your sound card' converters and drivers.

Am I wrong ?

Fred
www.lanquarem.com

beatmaster · Post by **beatmaster** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 11:41 am

lanquarem wrote:
I mean : If you add tracks to Live and then drag and drop samples from your hard drive, you'll end up with a collection of stretched sounds... Of course, there is a noticeable difference when a sound is stretched, and eventually the whole thing can become sort of "metallic"...
(In this respect, I admit that I sometimes prefer the way Acid stretches sounds, and I use both softwares alternatively).

On the other side, when just recording sounds from an external source, I notice no difference between different "audio engines" (if such a thing exists), and I dont understand why there should be any difference anyway

you got exactly my point
having used Acid since 1.0, Acid does a better job in sound quality (strechted) and summing tracks

the weakest point of Live is soundwise the summing tracks/bus problem: the more tracks you have, the worse your sound gets (streched or not)

but workflow/midi integration wise Live has dramatically surpassed Acid but that not the topic here.

audioengine wise the Nuendo engine is still unsurpassed imo.

listen to the same track/vstis in SX3 and in Live, Live will always sound flat in comparision. Like Vinyl (SX) versus CassetteTapedeck (Live)

duncjam · Post by **duncjam** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 12:53 pm

Can't compare SX with Vinyl as I don't have SX, but I have used many cassette decks, both stereo and multi-track, and I can assure you that Live sounds a lot better than any of them.

dunc

Live Sound quality

Live = Cassette deck? No way!