Ableton Forum

4/4 wrote:

Tone Deft wrote:totally predictable.

so's your response

it had to be done.

this guy is too much.

BTW - Cubase VST (pre Cubase SX) did have an inferior summing engine, which is why Cubase SX was a rebuild that incorporated Nuendo's audio engine. Which was subsequently upgraded again at Cubase 4/Nuendo 3 It was during the days of Cubase VST that Samplitude users had something to crow about which was valid, but times change.

Hey leedsquietman, how are getting on with the Harrison Mixbus? Is it worth a punt?

diskowipe wrote:One more question for you all. Even if something nulls after rendering does that mean it sounds the same in real-time while inside the DAW? And doesn't the real-time sound determine your mix decisions. these are all factors to take into account for yourself

This would be a great point if it were true, but you provide no evidence just bold claims. I took a bit of time to actually test your hypothesis and found it to fail.

I took a 48-track project I'm working on, turned off reverbs, and rendered at 44/16 no dither. Then I created an audio track, routed the master to it, recorded the project's output. I lined up the rendered and the resampled versions, phase-inverted one, and summed them. There was perfect cancellation except for certain synth sounds that had random elements in them.

Now, to do it proper I would eliminate all random variables and run the test. However, I'd rather not waste my time since I got perfect cancellation on certain tracks with very long complex effects without random elements. Until actual evidence is posted to the contrary I'm calling bullshit on this claim.

And, fwiw, I am very open and interested in the possibility that it may be better to mix in another application. Whatever the facts are is fine with me. I'm not interested in blowhards and I don't think that just because someone is a popular artist that makes than an objective judge of audio quality.

this is awesome, i have to admit this is the first time i've started a heated internet debate. i can now see why you guys do it, it's very entertaining

however you are misunderstanding me. i like ableton live, i am a legit suite 8 owner (some of you probably arent even )

but people need to learn the fact that not all digital is created equal. it's plain and simple no matter what you guys think. audio companies are in competition with each other, there is no standard research paper that tells all the companies how to code their software. this is a fact

ableton is a great tool, but it's a tool for a purpose and like anything else there are weaknesses

and whoever said i was on drugs is absolutely right!!!

ethios4 wrote: And, fwiw, I am very open and interested in the possibility that it may be better to mix in another application. Whatever the facts are is fine with me. I'm not interested in blowhards and I don't think that just because someone is a popular artist that makes than an objective judge of audio quality.

Very good point. Let's see some proof. If there is proof, then we can move on to some sort of solution whatever that may be, but until there is proof, I think it's just placebo.

diskowipe wrote:this is awesome, i have to admit this is the first time i've started a heated internet debate. i can now see why you guys do it, it's very entertaining

however you are misunderstanding me. i like ableton live, i am a legit suite 8 owner (some of you probably arent even )

but people need to learn the fact that not all digital is created equal. it's plain and simple no matter what you guys think. audio companies are in competition with each other, there is no standard research paper that tells all the companies how to code their software. this is a fact

ableton is a great tool, but it's a tool for a purpose and like anything else there are weaknesses

and whoever said i was on drugs is absolutely right!!!

You think this is heated!?!?!?!

You ain't seen shit yet.

I haven't tried Mixbuss yet because I am on PC at home. My home studio is Live 7 Suite, Cubase 5 and occasionally I use Reason 2.5, but not very much. Live is my compositonal/arrangement tool for everything and although i am increasingly mixing in Cubase 5, this is more to do with better dual monitor support and because of some of the new plugins such as Reverence convolution reverb, rather than the fact I dislike Live's rendering sound - I don't, it sounds fine and I still use it sometimes and without hesitation.

I am currently temporarily laid off from work, where we use Macs with Logic 9 and PTHD - when I was last working a few weeks ago, we had no plans to get Mixbuss, this is partially because we have UAD-2 with the Harrison EQ and there are lots of other choices for character compression and saturation already in use from UAD, Waves, McDSP etc.

Null tests are retarded by the way, the ones I've seen anyways.

Phase-cancelling a static sine wave ? Woweee weeWOW!

Anyone spurred on by this thread to do some tests across hosts, could you please make sure you use plenty of automation of faders etc. you know, real-world usage kind of stuff. export the necessary midi CCs to make sure the automation is identical.

danke!

4/4 wrote:Null tests are retarded by the way, the ones I've seen anyways.

Phase-cancelling a static sine wave ? Woweee weeWOW!

Anyone spurred on by this thread to do some tests across hosts, could you please make sure you use plenty of automation of faders etc. you know, real-world usage kind of stuff. export the necessary midi CCs to make sure the automation is identical.

danke!

I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but what else can you use besides a null test? I got into some arguments on Cake's forums where I used a null test to prove a point and the fanboys still thought I was wrong. So what else can you use? What other options are there?

Did you read my post in it's entirety ?

Try reading it one more time.

ethios4 wrote:

diskowipe wrote:One more question for you all. Even if something nulls after rendering does that mean it sounds the same in real-time while inside the DAW? And doesn't the real-time sound determine your mix decisions. these are all factors to take into account for yourself

This would be a great point if it were true, but you provide no evidence just bold claims. I took a bit of time to actually test your hypothesis and found it to fail.

I took a 48-track project I'm working on, turned off reverbs, and rendered at 44/16 no dither. Then I created an audio track, routed the master to it, recorded the project's output. I lined up the rendered and the resampled versions, phase-inverted one, and summed them. There was perfect cancellation except for certain synth sounds that had random elements in them.

Now, to do it proper I would eliminate all random variables and run the test. However, I'd rather not waste my time since I got perfect cancellation on certain tracks with very long complex effects without random elements. Until actual evidence is posted to the contrary I'm calling bullshit on this claim.

And, fwiw, I am very open and interested in the possibility that it may be better to mix in another application. Whatever the facts are is fine with me. I'm not interested in blowhards and I don't think that just because someone is a popular artist that makes than an objective judge of audio quality.

you have to use plugins!! did you read the thread!!!!!??

do a mix with 15 tracks or so and use lots of vst's in ableton (the more tracks and plugs the better) and whatever other DAW you are using. once you have like 20 or so vsts running in each DAW, then LISTEN to how they both sound while you're doing it.

i am done with the thread, im hot here to prove anything to anyone. the information is out there if you care to find it

I read it.

and?

and are there any big words you can't grasp the meaning of ? it's as if you read the first sentence and nothing else.

The argument that I got when I did that (null test with automation using vst effects and instruments) was that each host handles automation differently. So, my question still is, what do you use to prove a point like that other than a null test?

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but there has to be a better mathmatical solution.