Better Audio Engine

kenspocket · Post by **kenspocket** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:27 pm

if the audio has passed via a software mixing route , it will be changed to a degree ,esp one as complex as lives warpng methoeds ,
only a digital pass through , Digital output via spdif /or tos optical like Dolby digital AC3 will it remain exactly the same as the source.
anyway ......

What id like to see in live is real time 5.1 , 7.1 AC3 encoding / dolby digital or DTS ..
Less bugs ,no lag , better auto beat matching , & adjustable audio quantize .

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 2:37 am

you sir, are talking in vague hyperbole.

nothing you have said means anything. it is sound and fury signifying nothing.

.lm.

Brainstormer · Post by **Brainstormer** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:32 am

When I first purchased Ableton, before I'd read any of this, I mentioned to a friend about Ableton sounding muddy compared to Cubase, I said It lacks depth in comparison, and doesn't have the sparkle Cubase or Logic have. After reading this stuff, it just confirms my initial thoughts.

I hope it gets sorted out soon!

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:53 am

Brainstormer wrote:When I first purchased Ableton, before I'd read any of this, I mentioned to a friend about Ableton sounding muddy compared to Cubase, I said It lacks depth in comparison, and doesn't have the sparkle Cubase or Logic have. After reading this stuff, it just confirms my initial thoughts.

I hope it gets sorted out soon!

warping on or warping off.

without this info your thoughts are meaningless

90% of people 'initially' encounter the default warping as they drag audio files in and declare live 'muddy'

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:36 pm

what confirms your thoughts? a couple of guys saying it's so and bandying about a bunch of audio buzzwords?

how about the threads that angstrom linked?

.lm.

Brainstormer · Post by **Brainstormer** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:39 pm

it confirms my thoughts since I thought it sounded muddy when I first installed it, (before reading anything about it) then I later see heaps of reports about the same thing that my ears were telling me.

Nothing to do with buzzwords or anything like that, since when I first mentioned this to a friend, I had not read anything about it. Read what I wrote carefully, and try to grasp the concept of chronology, rather than jumping in trying to defend the software with paper-thin comments.

Just to add. I was not using any warp on the samples, I had already switched it off because it sounded rough. I simply used the same samples I had previously used in Cubase, which had much better results from my 18 years experience in the recording industry.

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:44 pm

BZZZZzzzttttt. wrong answer.

this topic has been brought up and debunked on a regular basis. Read the thread comparing the mix bus that angstrom linked in this thread.

I'm not the one who's arguments are paper thin. I'm only posting because of how tiresome it is that a couple of people pop off unsupported statements and people just believe it. What about all of the evidence to the contrary?

BTW, if you're talking about warped audio being muddy, of course it is, in any software in existance if you change time wihtout changing pitch things are going to sound different.

if you're talking about plug ins, of course they sound different, i 'm not going to say better or worse, but of course they're different.

but pcm audio files? you mean a bunch of 0s and 1s? How on earth do you think that one program is going to magically play it back differently?

whatever.

.lm.

Brainstormer · Post by **Brainstormer** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:53 pm

leisuremuffin wrote:BZZZZzzzttttt. wrong answer.

Just because it works with your ears, that's fine. You might have read what I wrote, but it's not sinking in properly. Go back, READ & DIGEST what I have written.

"I was not using any warp on the samples"

"I was not using any warp on the samples"

"I was not using any warp on the samples"

"I was not using any warp on the samples"

"I was not using any warp on the samples"

People like you will prevent this software from vital under the hood improvements because you're too busy defending a problem that is clearly evident.

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:57 pm

right on cue, here comes the "x years of experience in the industry"

good for you bro. Nobody cares that i've not only worked in the industry, but have also taught recording and mixing techniques. Since i know they don't care, I don't go around telling people that they should believe me because of my 12 years of experience.

I can tell you one thing for certain, i've heard a lot of engineers make claims about what they could hear that turn out to be complete bullshit when they are put to a blind test...

.lm.

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 3:58 pm

you are a complete tool. you haven't read what i wrote either. It's already been discussed at length and debunked.

.lm.

Brainstormer · Post by **Brainstormer** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:28 pm

leisuremuffin wrote:you are a complete tool.

So you resort to futile name calling. How long did you say you were in the industry? 12 years, I never knew of anyone that started their recording career at the age of 2!

Why are you so defensive anyway? Anyone would have thought you programmed the audio engine which you are so precious about.

leisuremuffin · Post by **leisuremuffin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:31 pm

i'll post no more until you actually back up your stqatements with something, or at least bother to read the previous discussions of the topic.

post an audio file if it's so obvious.

I called you a name because of how you were behaving. Don't act like a fool and you won't be called one.

.lm.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:57 pm

my theory: people are so used to the notion that some things sound better than others for music-making purposes -- mics, decks, boards, etc. -- that they have trouble realizing where that concept doesn't apply in certain aspects of the digital realm. i love the notion that the same set of 0s and 1s somehow sounds different if played through the "audio engine" of one DAW vs. another. if you're not manipulating, but just playing back, you telling me those 0s and 1s somehow change? so my digital fotos look different when viewed on mac vs. PC or via one program or another? i also love the "i trust my ears over phase cancellation tests." um, yeah, that makes you seem really reliable. i wish folks would get over their precious ears (cause they aren't so precious, or you'd be making thousands a day to master other folks stuff, rather than wasting time on a message bd).

kenspocket · Post by **kenspocket** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:07 pm

maybe its something to do with the way live drives the audio on the master or track faders ,

if over 0 db or clipped , headroom maybe more or less than Pt or cubase ,

the master fader may sound differently when there are many tracks being sent to it in a mix for instance, the audio engine must handle it differently in any case , unless the output fader is pure digital sum mixing , with no analog style drive / head room algorithm applied to it to prevent clipping .

Witch Live does have or it would simply click when hitting 0 db or max sample amplitude . , like a old dat recorder will clip .

driving any track can make it sound clearer & have more energy/ sparkle , just before it distorts on the fader .

or it could be just the mood a person is in at a given time . ,

ever listed to music one day & everything sounds bad , horrid, yuk ('

'), .....
next day , you get a buzz out of playing the same record on the same speakers , same room , same amp , etc , (':D')

sound & experience are weird things u knoe.

another factor could be the bundled EQ & tools, , or audio buffer settings ,headroom settings , sample rate , DAC's on I/O ...

kp

snakedogman · Post by **snakedogman** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:26 pm

kenspocket wrote:maybe its something to do with the way live drives the audio on the master or track faders ,

if over 0 db or clipped , headroom maybe more or less than Pt or cubase ,

the master fader may sound differently when there are many tracks being sent to it in a mix for instance, the audio engine must handle it differently in any case , unless the output fader is pure digital sum mixing , with no analog style drive / head room algorithm applied to it to prevent clipping .

Witch Live does have or it would simply click when hitting 0 db or max sample amplitude . , like a old dat recorder will clip .

driving any track can make it sound clearer & have more energy/ sparkle , just before it distorts on the fader .

there is no "just before it distorts on the fader" in a digital environment. This is not an analog mixing console! It either clips or it doesn't. I'm sure the master output doesn't have "analog style drive" either, the reason it doesn't clip as long as you stay in Live, is because of the 32 bit mixing engine. (don't ask me why this is so, I've been told this by people who actually know what they are talking about

).

Better Audio Engine

digital audio .

sound geeks.

Re: sound geeks.