Ableton vs Logic engine

[leisuremuffin]

mikb, do you think that you can pick out different DAWs in a blind listening test?
I don't believe that you, or anyone else can.

That's the very definition of making a straw man argument as I haven't even hinted something like that. On the contrary I'm talking about subjectivity and practical actual work. You are talking about objectivity as that was the most interesting. It's not.

What sounds better (as apart from just "different") is indeed subjective and one interesting thing is actually why people prefer different DAWs based on how they perceive their "sound"  — as in what sounds they can achieve rather than specific a DAW sound — and other important factors. There are many such factors, most of them subjective, that can affect what DAW a producer may prefer.

In my case, I slowly abandoned Logic when Live 8 arrived as I found it more possible to achieve the sound I was after in Live. That's not to say it should have been impossible to achieve basically the same thing in Logic, but in practice Live takes me there faster, even as I had used Logic for a very long time (for other types of music though).

So what I'm saying is that my music would sound different in Logic because of how I interact with these two DAWs.

Yes, different people prefer different software. Yes, different DAWs have different workflow. But I don't believe that different DAWs have a different sonic imprint simply on the merits of how their "audio engine" is programmed. It is not a straw dog to suggest that you can't hear the difference in a blind taste test. It is pointing out the stupidity of arguing that any DAW has a significantly different "audio engine."

[mikb]

Am I trying to justify the need for a new computer?... Probably

Well, I know that feeling.

[mikb]

It is not a straw dog to suggest that you can't hear the difference in a blind taste test. It is pointing out the stupidity of arguing that any DAW has a significantly different "audio engine."

Oh yes, it is a straw man argument as what you suggest isn't the real focal point here. We're debating somewhat different things.

I have never suggested that different DAWs have a "signature sound". At least not beyond presets (in native effects and instruments which for some reason do influence at least some people to make music in the specific styles of those presets).

However, things like that influence how people perceive different sound processors, soft instruments and collections of those (like in a DAW) and so on.

I know some people that feel everything sounds good, that every track is as good as the next one. I'm not one of those people. I know what I like and I'm not afraid of making it so as far as I can achieve it (obviously sometimes you need to ask for help).

[mikb]

that any DAW has a significantly different "audio engine."

What about different quality instrument and effects real time playback abilities?

[Tone Deft]

you're off topic and just looking to argue. whatever point you were trying to make you fumbled all over yourself while bumping a thread that doesn't need to be around.

[mikb]

Well I find Live 9 to be a huge CPU hog. Within a few tracks of audio & effects I'm hitting 60% and there's audio dropouts galore. I have a fairly high specced Macbook (i7 2.66ghz with 8gb RAM & SSD).

Do you find Live 9 to use more CPU than Live 8? So far I haven't, but I have noticed Live 9 can't really be a sync slave (Up to 2.800% CPU usage according to Live itself and massive audio cracks) when Live 8 can (with some difficulty)

When you have CPU issues that may of course affect playback sound. But if rendered first it may still sound great.

[trevox]

Think you can trust your ears?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

An interesting watch! I kinda sit on the fence with the whole argument and just use whatever I feel I can trust these days. I have said in the past that Live seems a bit "deader" than say Logic and whether it is perception rather than reality is up for debate. I'm not really arsed debating any more - I choose what I use and get on with it. Some of the stuff shown in that video was ridiculous!

Interestingly, I started using the Waves NLS plugins and while I did not notice the difference with the NLS plugin on a single track (I did similar tests as in the video with my eyes closed and guessed wrong a lot), I did tests where I sent 8 tracks summed in an NLS bus and the same 8 tracks with no NLS plugins and I really did notice the difference - or at least when I opened my eyes, I had guessed right which one I was listening to every time! Even though these plugins are incredibly subtle, I find all tracks sitting better in the mix even before I start doing any serious EQing, dynamics etc. Is it my imagination? Well I did the blind test thing and the fact I got it right pretty much every time gives me confidence in the fact it does actually make a difference for the better!

[Sage]

Think you can trust your ears?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

An interesting watch! I kinda sit on the fence with the whole argument and just use whatever I feel I can trust these days. I have said in the past that Live seems a bit "deader" than say Logic and whether it is perception rather than reality is up for debate. I'm not really arsed debating any more - I choose what I use and get on with it. Some of the stuff shown in that video was ridiculous!

Interestingly, I started using the Waves NLS plugins and while I did not notice the difference with the NLS plugin on a single track (I did similar tests as in the video with my eyes closed and guessed wrong a lot), I did tests where I sent 8 tracks summed in an NLS bus and the same 8 tracks with no NLS plugins and I really did notice the difference - or at least when I opened my eyes, I had guessed right which one I was listening to every time! Even though these plugins are incredibly subtle, I find all tracks sitting better in the mix even before I start doing any serious EQing, dynamics etc. Is it my imagination? Well I did the blind test thing and the fact I got it right pretty much every time gives me confidence in the fact it does actually make a difference for the better!

Waves NLS is meant to emulate distortion from analogue summing. Very different to summing in DAWs normally. If you weren't able to tell the difference, wouldn't be worth using!
A DAW's sound comes from it's plugins and not much else, I have been able to guess what DAW was used for songs on occasion by the distinction sounds of certain stock plugins. That said, if people rate Logic as sounding better than Live because the plugins are better, got to wonder what they are listening to.

[eyeknow]

I don't have access to this board and equipment



I'll have to do with live and it's harsh cold digital sound

[3dot...]

Think you can trust your ears?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

An interesting watch! I kinda sit on the fence with the whole argument and just use whatever I feel I can trust these days. I have said in the past that Live seems a bit "deader" than say Logic and whether it is perception rather than reality is up for debate. I'm not really arsed debating any more - I choose what I use and get on with it. Some of the stuff shown in that video was ridiculous!

Interestingly, I started using the Waves NLS plugins and while I did not notice the difference with the NLS plugin on a single track (I did similar tests as in the video with my eyes closed and guessed wrong a lot), I did tests where I sent 8 tracks summed in an NLS bus and the same 8 tracks with no NLS plugins and I really did notice the difference - or at least when I opened my eyes, I had guessed right which one I was listening to every time! Even though these plugins are incredibly subtle, I find all tracks sitting better in the mix even before I start doing any serious EQing, dynamics etc. Is it my imagination? Well I did the blind test thing and the fact I got it right pretty much every time gives me confidence in the fact it does actually make a difference for the better!

love NLS..
but..first.. contrary to belief.. NLS does not do actual summing
only emulates the gain stage freq response for many different channels + the master bus sampled off some famous desks..
adding that layer (only a taste really) of analog nonlinearity voodoo

second.. I agree with Sage.. it's not really a good comparison..
NLS is meant to make you sound closer to outside the box.. the OP wants a comparison for DAW sound.. which is not meant to color..
basically he's talking about the "engine" that handles volume.. panning timing ...latency and summing (adding)..
(and now I understand.. we're comparing stock fx plugins too?)
the whole shebang

third.. when you did the blind test.. did you remember to set the gains to be exactly the same in both subjects?
because the way we perceive (even slight) volume boost can give us the illusion that something sounds "better".. when actually it's slightly louder..

fourth..what is your monitoring environment like? do you think it's adequate to perceive the difference between "better"/"worse" "DAW sound"?
is anyone really equipped to answer that question..
the best I've seen so far is graphs comparing sample rate conversion between DAW
and I've seen me some DAW comparisons.. and participated in elaborate blind tests

maybe a better term would be Logic vs. Live "DAW character"?
but then.. why aren't we throwing ProTools Cubendo Reaper Studio One etc. into the comparison?

if you ask me .. once again..
it's all about personal workflow.. the rest is hype..
most of the elements in this ting aren't really comparable.. and if they are...
then the differences are marginal at best..

[Sage]

(and now I understand.. we're comparing stock fx plugins too?)

No. I'm just saying its the only way to hear a difference between DAWs.

I've yet to hear a convincing and logical argument about how DAWs can sound different when summing. 2 plus 2 always equals 4 regardless of the brand of calculator you use for example.

[Tone Deft]

No. I'm just saying its the only way to hear a difference between DAWs.

I've yet to hear a convincing and logical argument about how DAWs can sound different when summing. 2 plus 2 always equals 4 regardless of the brand of calculator you use for example.

agreed but would say that this is where things diverge. simple things like panning laws come into effect. Live also has 60+dB of headroom on tracks while others might not.

my take on this angle is that if you do the exact same operations on two DAWs they can sound different. if any operation causes the audio to sound bad, don't do that! it's basically the work flow angle that's been mentioned many times in this thread.

is this horse ever going to die?

[Tarekith]

For years I was the guy arguing that (everything being equal) all DAWs sounded the same, or the differences were beyond the range of our playback equipment and hearing. Every test I've run or tried has shown the same thing, people can't accurately hear the differences.

Then I became a full-time mastering engineer and spent a LOT of time talking to other musicians about how things SOUND. And I realized that everyone hears things differently, none of us hears things exactly the same way. Over and over I've been amazed at how different people focus on different areas of music, in how they approach conveying and describing it to others. In how they internalize and interpret what reaches their ears.

I've met people who could hear the tiniest changes to the most background parts in a song, but miss the fact that they had muted the vocal track in one section accidentally. Or people who swore two identical copies of the exact same song sounded completely different. Usually the differences are more subtle, but I've been surprised at what the human brain can honestly believe it is hearing.

Now, I'm not so sure all DAWs sound the same to people.

Personally, I think everyone uses a lot of other external sensory inputs when determining how things sound. Maybe one DAW is slightly brighter in it's color palette, and for some reason that triggers something where that person hears things as slightly brighter. I don't know, I have no idea how it works or what is happening. But I do think that for whatever reason, people can legitimately hear differences where others can not.

The question of are those differences really there in the first place is the thorny bit though, and for that I still turn to the cold hard science of digital audio. Maybe one day we'll have a better way of describing and measuring sound.

Ultimately though, it's a dumb fucking thing to argue about no matter what. If you can't make a great professional sounding track in ANY modern DAW, it's not the tool's fault.

[fishmonkey]

when it comes to auditory perception, there is still a hell of a lot that we don't know, that is for sure...

[mikb]

I realized that everyone hears things differently, none of us hears things exactly the same way. If you can't make a great professional sounding track in ANY modern DAW, it's not the tool's fault.

Yet music is made for people. Also if they hear things differently great productions that different people can agree on actually are great (also if you don't like the music) are made even though people do hear things differently. So I fail to see your point here. Is there a deeper meaning hidden within that statement?

Your last claim I'm not sure what you mean exactly. If you mean that if you can't make a great professional sounding track in [neither of all the existing] modern DAWs then I'd agree with you.

Unless you actually mean one should be able to make a great professional sounding track in the DAW you happen to work with — and perhaps didn't actively choose — no matter which one it is, then I'd disagree. Clearly, the more skilled you are as a producer the more versatile you are going to be in different DAWs no matter which one you end up with. But some people just perform better when the choices and limitations in a specific DAW fit their work style.