Ableton Forum

interesting debate - but you can go round in circles with such subjective
descriptions as 'more open', 'deeper', 'wider sound' etc.

I think its more than just what your ears are hearing - I think it could also be psychological...

I've been DJing since the late 80's - and I don't care what I use although CD's are my least favourite cos a few years back they used to glitch or stick a lot with CD-R's... I now DJ exclusively with Live - not because of its pristine sound (its obviously not going to have the analog depth of vinyl - nothing digital has), but because it enables me to play loads of tracks at once with loops, fx all going off, etc, etc. For that I'm willing to sacrifice a little definition in sound... are you really telling me you can't get into a Blaze tune played in Live? I could get off on a Blaze tune played on a shitty radio but seriously... Live is an amazingly creative DJ tool.... instead of worrying about the subtle nuances why not use the plugs to zone in on the vocal frequencies of the Blaze track - change the master tempo up to 134 - loop up the drum sections of an Underground Resistance classic like Galaxy to Galaxy - add some of your own percussive loops - filter them and pan delay the Blaze vocal over the top, ETC, ETC, ETC...

skiptracer wrote:Robert, if you record to another computer, make sure you leave the audio in the digital domain because i'm quite sure that each time you convert from D to A, that there will be differences with the same file; small artifacts and clock jitter and cable noise and all that stuff.

Sure i will do this. And then i post my results and stay quiet.
This discussion is getting a bit to religious for me now. I have a whole bookshelf dedicated to digital and analog audio. If we start talking about the exact calculation of coefficients of different types of digital filters and their frequency and phase response or about the influence of transfer curves of transisotors as a function of temperature and their sonic implications when used in analog compressors in comparison to optocupplers... well, then i am back. But if people here realy seriously think the summing algorithm of brand A sounds better then brand B then i am out of it.

As part of Ableton i meet developpers from other audio companies, we talk and drink together when staying at the same hotel during conferences. And i can tell you we are sometimes very surprised by what people think we are doing when writing software. Almost every audio technology is written down on publically available papers. There is really not so much secret knowledge out there. And unlike in the analog world where the simple placement of parts on a printboard could change the sound in the digital domain it is
100% predictable. Put state X into the machine and you`ll get state Y out of it.

So, if we want to have a serious discussion here lets go into details.
I am willing to explain what excactly goes on in which part of our software and why it has which influence on the sound...

And after all, i am not the only one on this planet who can set up test systems which really show the differences of different audio applications.
Providing serious examples which are reproduceable is the way to go.

There are differences and you can clearly hear them. But if you looking on the way the two signals are added ( A + B = C) together you are looking pretty much into the wrong direction in comparison to much more important differences when it comes to eq-ing, compression, etc.

Robert

To be brutally honets this thread lost me on the first paqe.
I mean is the original poster some genetically engineered DOG/BAT hybrid
He's recording vinyl with a frequency bandwidth of approximately 32 khz (get over it batboy it's a fact) !!!!
Then recording these @ 24bit ,96khz in Soundforge.
I would refute the 'my ears can pick the difference between' comment any day of the week when someone is talking about audio cycles in the 48khz and UP range anyday of the week.
A well engineered 24/48 recording will sound everybit as good as a 24/96 and with great D/A converters you'd have a nanosquats chance of picking the 16/44.1 recording also.
So yeah like get over it and thank the Lord for your superior frequency sonic spectrum or something

Hi again,

My friend just left. I checked it again with him and asked for his opinion (he is a music producer). He listened to the song on Live for about a minute and commented that it sounded nice, then we swtiched to Sound Forge. He immidiatly said the song sounded better (even "much better") on Sound Forge.

The difference was so apparent that I didn't even feel the need to do another blind test (after all I already did one a couple of days ago).

gaspode:

I followed all your instructions, one by one. Indeed, the 'high quality' wasn't set on. However, it hasn't changed the picture. Sound Forge still sounded brighter and more open. I didn't have the time to check how much of a difference the High Quality thing made on the sound within Live.

Another thing I haven't tried yet, but will do when I can, is record the song into Live, rather than into Sound Forge.. I wonder if it will make a difference.

steve-o:

I see your point about the subconcious effect I might have on the party. I'm not ruling out that this might have an effect as well. However I can only say that after 12 years of examining every single night I played out (I always try to understand the reasons for everything that happends in the club), I feel confident that this is not the main influence here. I see the same effect when it's not me playing but another DJ and I'm on the floor, listening to the music and observing the crowd.

Hey, of course people can play CDs and still have the crow go nuts, I never said it's not possible. But why not have the best conditions possible, and make them enjoy it even more? (and that's what I'm trying to figure out here: what are the best *possible* conditions in digital)

Somebody mentioned good monitoring. I forgot to talk about this, and this could be very important when doing these sound tests. I use a pair of Dynaudio BM15A Active Nearfield studio monitors (which I dearly love).

Guesto:

Good to read you again. I see all your points. But remember: Different strokes for different folks. As I said, for me these subtleties are of main importance in my enjoyment of music, and I believe that they also make a difference when I play.

I just realised another reason why I'm so convinced the small details count on the club PA. Since I've been buying and playing vinyl 12"s for many years now, I am very sensitive to the small differences in production, mastering *and* pressing sound. The pressing has a huge effect on the way the vinyl sounds. I had many occasions when I bought a great song that sounded good but was lacking a tiny bit in a certaing area: for example - deepness, warmth, highs, mids, separation, whatever. Sometimes these problems are really small, most people won't conciously hear it unless I would point it out for them. However, in most cases, I could see how these imperfections had an effect on the crowd in the club.

You might say I'm crazy and that it's all psychological, and there's nothing I can say that will totally proove my point here. But have in mind that when somebody works with a dancing crowd for so many years, you really learn to observe the people in a deep level, you can see even tiny changes in the energy and vibe of the crowd. This is something that took me years to develop but now I can feel it with just a glance to the dancefloor.

So what I was trying to say is that my experience has lead me to believe that even tiny differences make a real difference.

But then again.. I could be wrong.. People were once pretty convinced that the world is flat, no?

Robert:

I really thank you for your knowledgable input. I'm not sure what you mean about adding (A+B=C). Honestly, I can't even begin to argue my point on a theoretical level. But if however, you maintain that what I'm saying is not possible, then I could only wish that you were here with me in my studio to listen to what I'm hearing and solve this once and for all..

Hi purple

once again, have you checked to make sure that Live is not set to 44.1?

regards

porpy

UknowWho,

DOG/BAT hybrid?

I wish!

Well, I don't know how great you consider my RME A/D/A to be, but it's supposed to be of really good quality, unless you are talking about a much higher price range.

I can only tell you what I hear. There is a *big* difference between the 16bit and the 24bit files. Again, big to my ears.

There is a much smaller difference between the 44.1kHz and the 96kHz, but I could still tell the difference. I picked the 96kHz as my favorite take every time, when I didn't know which soundfile was playing.

So - call my a bat, or even call me a liar if you want, but that's the simple deal..

Porpy,

Yes, I have checked.

I did everything that you guys asked me to check, as far as I can recall. The difference was still there.

I just wish someone would do the same test as I did and come out and say that they hear it too!

Because the way I see it there is just two possibilities: Either something is still wrong with my settings, or there is really a difference. (I ruled out the possibility that I'm going insane after I double checked with my producer friend and my - very musical if I might add - girlfriend )

Purple-

I read your post and I just wanted to check some things

First of all, how you created the test file, or even which test file you use probably doesn't matter as long as you are opening exaclty the same file in Live and Soundforge.

So let me get this straight. Your running Live and Soundforge on the same computer, using the same ASIO Driver for both programs, and using the same RME interface for output (and after this the same audiopath for monitoring)?

If so, please check the version numbers of the ASIO drivers. I'm on a Mac, and I can have multiple versions of ASIO drivers on my machine, different ones for different applications. This might really affect what you hear if you have different drivers for Live and Soundforge. What's might be worse is if you are using (and I'm not the PC audio expert here) ASIO for Live and MME or some other Windows driver for Soundforge.

Dr. Hencke has claimed that output of all of these apps should be pretty much the same if you haven't processed the data through warping or filtering, and this is what I've always thought. The differences in sound of final mixes usually come from these. But your test should have just straight audio going through.

But don't forget we still have one more step before we go analog, and that's in the output D/A conversion. We don't have to debate which interface is better as long as you use the same one. That's got nothing to do with Live or Soundforge, except for what you tell them to use as output. Make sure you are really comparing apples and apples.

I know you've checked this stuff, but in my experience (debugging software, ground loops, gain stages, drivers, settings, settings buried in places I didn't even know existed, settings that over-rode other settings, corrupted preferences, system weirdness, poor disk performance, odd RAM thingies, etc.) in many cases what seems like a real thing is just something you overlooked.

Actually now that I think about it, I should trade it all in for a good cello.

John K

Anonymous wrote:I think I know what he is talking about... I think even though it's the same file the levels can be different... soundforge automatically plays a sound file 'at unity'... in Live you've got the master volume fader and the track volume fader... Little changes in those could affect a tracks 'punch' which will be audibly apparent.

I think guest is right. Here's a test for you, Purple: put your wave file in live, and make sure all of the settings are correct. Then re-render the file from live to a new wave file and open it in sound forge. Does the new file sound different than the old file?

Even better, put the two different files (the original and the Ableton re-rendered version) on two tracks and invert the polarity of one track. If the files are identical then the sound will cancel out completely. If you can hear anything then there's a difference.

has anyone read my comments? I am hearing a pitch shift when rendering in Live compared to the original or a Nuendo rendered version.

a minor pitch shift I should add. but using some electronics loops and using my Pyramid Triple-P speaker, it was revealed. didn't expect this to happen, but have to admit: it seems that Live's engine has a small flaw.

raapie wrote:a minor pitch shift I should add. but using some electronics loops and using my Pyramid Triple-P speaker, it was revealed. didn't expect this to happen, but have to admit: it seems that Live's engine has a small flaw.

raapie, i am not sure what you mean with pitch shift in this context. what exactly did you do to hear it ?

if something is really wrong there must be a way to sort it out in a reproducable scenario with some test files. so if you could elaborate a bit what you do and what comes out this could be of great help.

robert

UknowWho wrote:To be brutally honets this thread lost me on the first paqe.
I mean is the original poster some genetically engineered DOG/BAT hybrid
He's recording vinyl with a frequency bandwidth of approximately 32 khz (get over it batboy it's a fact) !!!!

No, UknowWho, this is entirely wrong. In fact there is no upper limit of the frequencies on vinyl at all. As i explained in another thread the playback creates a complex series of harmonics and while these harmonics are getting lower and lower when descending you could easily messure them up to 200 kHz if you have a turntable equipped with a good tone arm and cartrige. It is another question if it makes a difference or not if parts of the spectrum above 25 kHz are present or not, but at least they are there.


robert

with pitch shift I mean that the file rendered is sounding higher than the original one. it's a small difference, but you can hear it. my source was a electro drumloop.