Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:33 pm
troll. troll.Ableton Forum
Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Page 3 of 7
troll.Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:37 pm
fisto wrote:Dont shout at me, test it out for yourself!
Go back to the Cockos forums, Fisto!
that isn't even what the discussion is about here. nobody's talking about CPU usage of anything.
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:40 pm
fisto wrote:well guys, it actually is true. The Ableton sound-engine is really bad.
Long time i didn't want it to be true, but then i tried it for myself.
I've tested Live vs Reaper3. I've routed live to reaper via rearoute(a reaper thing, with which you can route things between audio-programms), no exporting, and it really sounded clearer, not that typical abby-mudyness.
And that only through the summing in reaper, cause the tracks were played from live.
2nd test i did:
Ten 5-min-wave-files, all with the same instance of a very good eq. Reaper had about 20% CPU-consumption and Live had 80%and was starting to hang and get quite un-responsive for working fluidly. At that moment I thought: "Thats it, Im switching for mixing".
Also load Kore2 in Live and load it in Reaper. See the difference in loading time and in the CPU-use.
Test it out. you can try it for free, cause there is an uncrippled version on the website (only 4MB). And the price is also very cool: 60 dollars for the non-commercial license which means, if you earn less than 200.000 dollars per year with music, you can get it for that 60 bucks.
Love to see that there are people who just like to write great apps and don't cash for software which really doesn't work as it should. Don't get me wrong i love Live, but it's NOT FOR MIXING. It's an instrument and a writing tool.
Of course a lot won't admit that live actually sounds not so good as other daws, because they don't want to learn a real daw.
Dont shout at me, test it out for yourself!
Yes budy, ur so right. but some idiots around here, of course the loosers dont get it. haha
their music must sound like shit!Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:43 pm
^ why are you even here?
let's hear your music.
i must be a "looser". but at least i know how to spell LOSER! and BUDDY!
let's hear your music.
i must be a "looser". but at least i know how to spell LOSER! and BUDDY!
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:45 pm
I have Reaper and it's rendering and summing engine is no better than Live at all. You are obviously a noob who is doing something wrong, or have warping on, or possibly, both. I did a test where I had 10 audio tracks, 3 VST tracks (instances of Arturia JP8V and Prophet V) at the same volume and panning (and pan laws), using only Sonalksis SV517 and DDMF Colour EQ (no native EQ or processing) and SOnalksis SV315 and Bootsy's Density mkII compressors and the TC M30 free reverb and rendered it all to 24 bit 44.1 Khz, and then using Soundforge used an instance of Elephant limiter on the same settings and with the same dither algorithm and not one person could tell the difference in a blind test of all the DAWS rendering, which included Cubase 5, Reaper 3.11, Logic Pro 9, and Live 7 Suite. Not one.
CPU usage - yes, but that is a different and more complex issue. Can you play live with Reaper dragging and dropping files on the fly without the audio engine choking during a live set, or pretty much autobeat matching clips on the fly for you? No. Therein lies the difference.
CPU usage - yes, but that is a different and more complex issue. Can you play live with Reaper dragging and dropping files on the fly without the audio engine choking during a live set, or pretty much autobeat matching clips on the fly for you? No. Therein lies the difference.
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:49 pm
I am looking forward to hearing some 'looser' music.
And those trolling and taking swipes - either put up the scientific evidence, or post some music links, or both, otherwise get off the pot (in more ways than one)
And those trolling and taking swipes - either put up the scientific evidence, or post some music links, or both, otherwise get off the pot (in more ways than one)
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:52 pm
"They sound different but you can only tell in a high-end studio with high-end gear and excellent acoustics" << even if that were true, who freaking cares at that point???
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:04 pm
by all respect, but a scientific approach / proof in audio discussions is the same utter bullshit to me as the claim ableton vs. XXXX is blah blah blah...leedsquietman wrote:"...either put up the scientific evidence..."
science in that particular topic (and many other audio related issues) proves shit.
but hey carry on...
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:10 pm
^ how about some mathematical evidence, then!?!?
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:14 pm
in your hands yes.SubFunk wrote:by all respect, but a scientific approach / proof in audio discussions is the same utter bullshit to me as the claim ableton vs. XXXX is blah blah blah...leedsquietman wrote:"...either put up the scientific evidence..."
science in that particular topic (and many other audio related issues) proves shit.
but hey carry on...
DAWs are not designed by ear. how are you going to measure the noise floor of two DAWs? how are you going to measure the THD by ear? our ears are very poor instruments for qualifying audio. it's the final customer and you have to listen to shit you design but leaving out science altogether is a really dumb statement to make.
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:16 pm
to be honest, i really don't want to get involved into this discussion, because i think it's pointless from A-Z,
but answer is no. all it proves is that 1 +1 is 2 and 1 - 1 is 0, now what? does 2 or 0 sound better?
but prove what you want.
or go and make music.
but answer is no. all it proves is that 1 +1 is 2 and 1 - 1 is 0, now what? does 2 or 0 sound better?
but prove what you want.
or go and make music.
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:19 pm
seriously? a lower noise floor is better, lower THD is better, higher dynamic range is better. how are you going to design those kinds of features without science? you don't know any science so you dismiss it.SubFunk wrote:to be honest, i really don't want to get involved into this discussion, because i think it's pointless from A-Z,
but answer is no. all it proves is that 1 +1 is 2 and 1 - 1 is 0, now what? does 2 or 0 sound better?
but prove what you want.
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:20 pm
I like the way most of the haters probably make 8 bit chiptunes and then argue the toss about audio quality and summing engines.
Post some of your music for me to laugh at
Post some of your music for me to laugh at
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:22 pm
Didn't we have this discussion yesterday already?
Re: Charlie May from Spooky bags the Ableton Sound Engine
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:23 pm
when?Tarekith wrote:Didn't we have this discussion yesterday already?
ah just kidding.