Ableton Forum

The real question is will bitwig have the same sound problem

HeadrickProductions wrote:The real question is will bitwig have the same sound problem

Of course because they are good at copying.

levimoniz wrote:
why are we using the compact disc's limitations as a standard when that medium is on its way out? I can't remember the last time I even touched a cd.

compact discs aren't really on the way out. down in sales maybe, but they're not going anywhere. i remember when vinyl was on it's way out

True, I forgot how behind the times things can be when you don't live in a metropolis.

I imagine cd sales at Walmart are kicking ass in the bible belt for example.

Vinyl is superior, so it's not a fair comparison

heh, just was reading 5 mins ago how cds are on the way out, how the only hardcopy format to survive will be vinyl because it lasts and so many poeple are nostalgic for that sound, and scratching.... no one is gettin all warm n fuzzy about cds....time will tell

dbfs wrote:And honestly, I could give a fuck if I get banned.

could you? and here was me thinking you didn't care

yeah, that's right. grammar police. sue me.

(btw, i'm aware i don't use capitals. MUCH.)

where did you read that, simmerdown?

hey shadx312 - i don't live in a bustling metropolis any more

i have to order compact discs and vinyl from the internet.

is getting cds a necessity or preference? just curious.

I could go for living in a little cabin out in BFE; looks uninviting on the outside but looks like a futurisitc space pod on the inside:) (At least lots of LED lights and vegetation and everything is controlled by my ipod)

shadx312 wrote:is getting cds a necessity or preference? just curious.

if something i want isn't on vinyl i'll get it on cd. if on the rare occasion it's download only then i have no problem with that - i'll get the download.
just my preferences.

i am working on my space pod and have cultivated a not undeserved reputation as local oddball that keeps people (apart from the nice ones) away from my house,
giving me time to study, experiment and work

Wow, this thread will probably keep going until we've drifted off to every audio-related topic imaginable. And possibly every non-audio-related topic too.

Oh, by the way: I've been making productions for multimedia with Live for some years now, for a living. I mix stuff in Live and render it down to 48 kHz/16 bit. No-one gives a feck what tool I used and no-one complains about the sound qualities.
And sure, Live behaves a bit different sound-wise than other DAWs (e.g. Logic, which I use when I need comping or much RAM), but mostly because I use different EQs, compressors, reverbs etc. there.

This Bitwig Studio looks nice. Signed up for the Beta, but maybe Ableton will surprise us even before that. Funny thing is I don't even need anything new though, and probably most of us don't, especially the ones bitching and complaining over everything. Goes to show you don't know your tools enough. I'm not one of the analog veterans, but I hear back in the day it was day-to-day life for audio guys to find workarounds. When I did my first internship in a software studio complex (that primarly worked with Logic), I found out that it's just the same nowadays.

If you're looking for the perfect solution, a technical workspace without flaws or the infamous it just works, good luck! Tell us when you've found it.

24/48 is not recommended in my eyes. The change to 24/88 is much more reliable.

A *.wav is a big step in the music portal industry at all.

But I think that the material itself should be quality. so the main information is even cought at 320 cbr *.mp3.

So just bouce 32bit/44kHz in live and render with lame. your ear will thank you.

I heared a big difference between 16/44 and 32/44 Wav --> Mp3 with 320 CBR and lame 3.99.2 compiled for a 64bit machine.

A whole industry has to move if 24/88 will be capable. no mobile device, no car radio, no standard or high end hifi and even no mobile apple product can play at this format. So they will sell us maybe in 10 years a new revolution: 24/88.

NF wrote:A whole industry has to move if 24/88 will be capable. no mobile device, no car radio, no standard or high end hifi and even no mobile apple product can play at this format. So they will sell us maybe in 10 years a new revolution: 24/88.

That's about 5 Megabyte per second in uncompressed stereo PCM... and, needless to say, rendering to 24-bit only makes sense if you're actually working in 24-bit.
Before the market will move there, I reckon it will accept a better compression standard than MPEG like Ogg Vorbis, or - even better - FLAC/ALAC.

A whole industry has to move if 24/88 will be capable. no mobile device, no car radio, no standard or high end hifi and even no mobile apple product can play at this format.

Any DVD player can. (DVD-Audio)
Well, they play 88.2 kHz audio - I guess that's what you meant, since it's the double of the current 44.1 kHz standard?
(...opposed to the 48 kHz standard used by most video editor guys.)

This drifting off-topic seems to be contagious.

MPGK wrote:

NF wrote:A whole industry has to move if 24/88 will be capable. no mobile device, no car radio, no standard or high end hifi and even no mobile apple product can play at this format. So they will sell us maybe in 10 years a new revolution: 24/88.

That's about 5 Megabyte per second in uncompressed stereo PCM... and, needless to say, rendering to 24-bit only makes sense if you're actually working in 24-bit.
Before the market will move there, I reckon it will accept a better compression standard than MPEG like Ogg Vorbis, or - even better - FLAC/ALAC.

A whole industry has to move if 24/88 will be capable. no mobile device, no car radio, no standard or high end hifi and even no mobile apple product can play at this format.

Any DVD player can. (DVD-Audio)
Well, they play 88.2 kHz audio - I guess that's what you meant, since it's the double of the current 44.1 kHz standard?
(...opposed to the 48 kHz standard used by most video editor guys.)

This drifting off-topic seems to be contagious.

One thing I've often wondered about - in terms of sound quality, at what point does PCM audio overtake lossy compressed audio for the same target file size?

eg 128 Kb/S in PCM terms would be 4 bit at 32KHz mono or perhaps 8 bit at 8Khz stereo - just about adequate for a phone conversation. clearly the compressed file surpasses the PCM.

at 320 Kb/S the comparison might be 8 bit 20KHz PCM - just about AM radio qualty but in stereo

the bigger the bit rate the less the perceived difference between compressed and uncompressed audio - but at what point to they converge?

@MPGK

That's about 5 Megabyte per second in uncompressed stereo PCM... and, needless to say, rendering to 24-bit only makes sense if you're actually working in 24-bit.

In the near future diskspace won't be an issue. And yes, it makes a difference when you want to convert a *.wav to any other (compressed) format when you use 16bit or 24bit. That 32bit is more accurate, as in the live manual is written, is clear.

Before the market will move there, I reckon it will accept a better compression standard than MPEG like Ogg Vorbis, or - even better - FLAC/ALAC.

right. you explain a step between, so the industry can make more money untill space is cheap enough. There will be people who want to hear lossless (& compressed as Flac, if the mediaplayer of the futura can handle this, e.g. as encoder in hardware) and ones who get it for mobile devices, compressed.

Any DVD player can. (DVD-Audio)

Does your car, mobile, mp3 palyer can? the near future will blend "hard mediums" out. so it's your av-receiver that have to handle with it. but even they can, right.

Well, they play 88.2 kHz audio - I guess that's what you meant, since it's the double of the current 44.1 kHz standard?
(...opposed to the 48 kHz standard used by most video editor guys.)

48kHz is in my eyes a marketing gag. "we are movie and you are sound..." okay, it's technically doable but the difference is not that big im compartment to 88,1. it was a argument to sell more new DVDs/-players. And a DVD will die using 24/88,1 +Movie.

at least one have to look to the downwardcompatibility. some stuff was and is processed in 44Khz. so the SRC to 88,1 is much better then 96 or 192.

This drifting off-topic seems to be contagious.

I think not. audio standards and formats are also part of the sound quality. so workflow is important to not screw the sound quality down.

@crumhorn

the bigger the bit rate the less the perceived difference between compressed and uncompressed audio - but at what point to they converge?

this is a psychoacoustical "problem". it depens on the listener and the usage. E.g. a very good processed 320cbr/mp3 can sound on a function one as good as the file in *.wav. You may hear big differences in mp3s even bought on beatport or elsewhere. it's all about processing as I said.

*edit*
You may can imagine why the 44100Hz/16bit standard was invented? It was not only the state of the art technology at it'S time. It was also a psyhoacoustical term. better always goes, but you always have to get a balance between terms. Here it is audio quality/ filesize/ medium. everything is a compromise- even in real live .

So I do not understand such noob debates about "which DAW is/ sounds better". many live in their moonshine-tower. the result and the workflow counts. a good production is a productin when you are not able to hear which DAW was used.

people who are talking about this stuff with a personal opinion, and this is mostly the case in this forum, speak with very very dangerous half knowledge- and this is my opinion.
Keep it rational and with facts! As Mr. Henke said:" there are many possible ways to add a signal".

my 2 cents.
*/edit*

NF wrote: 48kHz is in my eyes a marketing gag. "we are movie and you are sound..."

You're off with your guess there. The historical/technical reason is a bit complicated, let me try to explain. Video guys initially chose 48 kHz because of the better compatibility with FM radio: it's bandwidth is 15 kHz and was sampled with 32 kHz (following the law the samplerate should be twice the highest frequency producible). Because it's easier to convert 32 to 48 by multiplying with 1.5, they chose 48 kHz. And most editors stuck with it ever since and still request this format when working with sound design and music studios.

This drifting off-topic seems to be contagious.

I think not. audio standards and formats are also part of the sound quality. so workflow is important to not screw the sound quality down.

Wasn't this topic originally about differences in audio quality in DAWs? I might be mistaken.

On another note: sound quality also depends a lot on what sort of music we're talking about. It is far more likely to hear the difference in sampling frequency and bit rate in dynamic music and sounds like meticulously recorded classical or jazz concerts, most sound design, etc. than in most of the over-compressed everloud pop and electronica music or the latest Metallica album.
It is hard to state this without making it sound like I'm mad about this fact, but consumers nowadays are pretty used to digital distortion and low dynamics. I don't want to say audio quality has become less of an issue for us musicians and producers, but - sad as it is - it has indeed become less of an issue for most consumers.