Ableton Forum

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:05 am**

kenspocket wrote:your not hearing what iv said .

i said,

less volume will mean less clarity or resolution , digital recordings as well as analog recordings still "sound better" , clearest & bright ,
close to the edge
snake said :-
Bit depth only defines the potential dynamic range of the recording. It has nothing to do with "clarity".
If you record digitally in 24 bit at lower level, the only difference is a higher noisefloor. But with 24 bit or more there is not really any need to record signals close to 0 on the meters because there is more than enough headroom and the noise will probably not be in the audible range anyway.
your talking crap , once you audio goes via dac to amp , or burn to cd audio 16 bit , your sound will have less resolution , & half the volume will be less also .

wiki bit depth , all the info is out there .
Each sample of audio contains data that, when converted into an analog signal, provides the necessary information to reproduce the sound wave as accurately as possible with details such as dynamic range and different frequencies. As one would expect, the lower the bit depth, the lower the overall quality of the recording
its a basic fact , do it with a drum loop , record a drum loop

tune it down .

here the sound .

,

record a second drum loop , with the drums de-tuned & the drummer playing slower .

this sound will have more detail than the first method , but will be an approximate of the de-tuned slowed down version above .

,
what im saying is youl have a recording that uses all the bits of data to produce the same sound .

i.e clearer with more resolution .

hi kenspocket,

nobody denies that live or any other audio app will degrade the audio if things like timestretching are applied.

but the whole jist of your initial post on the thread felt more along the lines of saying that untreated audio as in, not detuned or not timestretched will sound different in the two daw's especially at mixdown.

while we can all agree on the degredation of audio using timestretching etc, i think so far the 'scientific' testing has showed that the unaltered singal paths and mixing enines of most DAW's including Live, are the same apart from panning laws etc..

i think we all agree here just we're debating what points we agree on.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:24 am**

as i said before also ,

if the audio has passed via a software mixing route , it will be changed to a degree ,esp one as complex as lives warpng methoeds ,
only a digital pass through , Digital output via spdif /or tos optical like Dolby digital AC3 will it remain exactly the same as the source.
anyway ......

the reply was :- ,

you sir, are talking in vague hyperbole.

nothing you have said means anything. it is sound and fury signifying nothing.

& this led me to say ,

maybe its something to do with the way live drives the audio on the master or track faders ,

if over 0 db or clipped , headroom maybe more or less than Pt or cubase ,

& then on to defend it with ,

the sound still must get clearer at a higher volume , even if there is not a analog style drive near the point of clip .

&

less volume will mean less clarity or resolution , digital recordings as well as analog recordings still "sound better" , clearest & bright ,
close to the edge "the art of noise "

& , from wiki

Each sample of audio contains data that, when converted into an analog signal, provides the necessary information to reproduce the sound wave as accurately as possible with details such as dynamic range and different frequencies. As one would expect, the lower the bit depth, the lower the overall quality of the recording

i also said

Whever Live is better or worse than other similar programs is debatable , but i can 100% guarantee it will be different on any system , other than a direct pass thru to the amps DAC , at ear or scope levels.. There will be differences .

but , this is only a guess that the mixing routines are different to some degree,
your not going to hear it on a unaltered sound , or one track of untouched audio
, but maybe on a full mix 16 tracks or more mixed , ware faders are used to push the mix also ,
a difference between daw could be detected , for better or worse is subjective to the listener .

ever listed to music one day & everything sounds bad , horrid, yuk (''), .....
next day , you get a buzz out of playing the same record on the same speakers , same room , same amp , etc , ('')

sound & experience are weird things u knoe.

i feel like im repeating myself lol .

http://www.cdbaby.com/kenspocket

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:43 pm**

kenspocket wrote:your not hearing what iv said .

your talking crap , once you audio goes via dac to amp , or burn to cd audio 16 bit , your sound will have less resolution , & half the volume will be less also .

Half the volume will be less also? what does that mean?
It will not have less "resolution" it will have less bits. When you dither a 24 or 32 bit recording to 16 bits, the result is a higher noisefloor, not less clarity or less detail (although theoretically, some low level detail is lost into the raised noisefloor, but this is generally not audible anyway)

wiki bit depth , all the info is out there , read the last few words carefully !
Each sample of audio contains data that, when converted into an analog signal, provides the necessary information to reproduce the sound wave as accurately as possible with details such as dynamic range and different frequencies. As one would expect, the lower the bit depth, the lower the overall quality of the recording

it depends on what is meant by "quality". That quote seems to be misleading. Bit depth does not have anything to do with the ability to capture detail in sound, only dynamics. Higher bit depth means the ability to capture lower level details. A lower bit depth recording will have a higher noise floor but other than that there is not less "detail" or "clarity".

its a basic fact , do it with a drum loop , record a drum loop
tune it down .
here the sound .
,
record a second drum loop , with the drums de-tuned & the drummer playing slower .

this sound will have more detail than the first method , but will be an approximate of the de-tuned slowed down version above .

what im saying is youl have a recording that uses all the bits of data to produce the same sound. i.e clearer with more resolution .

I don't know why you keep using this example. Doing intensive processing like timestretching on a piece of digital audio is ALWAYS gonna lead to degredation in quality. It has absolutely nothing to do with bit depth.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 7:39 pm**

zobomix wrote:Wow. Maybe this thread is going out of hand?

Anyway, I wanted to post one more time to report on further testing I have done. I bounced a stereo loop from a library in PT and Live (warp engine off). Result, no sound difference.

Another test was applying the same plugin (UAD-1 Cambridge EQ) with same eq curve on both the Live and PT session. Again, no difference in sound.

The difference did show up when I enabled the warp engine in Live, which is also what lead me to the conclusion I mentioned in the first post. So, I'll have to watch out for that and go with something else for time-stretching as I used to do (pitch'n time, melodyne, speed) although that requires a bit more jumping between DAWs.

Peace.

PS: I used PTLE for the test

Huzzah!

yes, warping will effect audio quality.

however, at exact orig. tempo, only complex warp mode is unsafe. All others do nothing to the sound until warp markers have been added and moved (look out for auto warp, not a good idea) or the tempo has been changed.

forgive me for the morons comment previously, it's just that this sort of stuff gets said a lot and is simply untrue. The problem is that many people believe these sorts of comments without investigating on their own.

.lm.

Posted: **Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:37 pm**

err , quality means quality , i.e how good it sounds....... like fighting cats & pavoroti ?? no not like that ......

& surely & dont call me shirlie , a high noise floor means, when you crack the amp to compensate worse sound . ssssssss lol

although i am pre-amped & that makes no difference to me anyhow . -72 db well maybe 54 ishhh.
--------------------------

bits and hz & rates n 01's Wwarpin shomorpinN.

who cares , its all much of a muchness these days.

any one have any good , tried tested method's for a great full sounding & balanced final mix sound .?

comp setting's , eq settings etc within live using lives tools .. .

our mixes are sounding crap right now , & my ears are dead . lol

i was never that greata audio engineer or fred , dont say anything ,
& over 15 years experience haven't helped much lol .
were great at getting one thing to sound good ,
but how to mix up 10 without the mash & mud ??

id like to learn something constructive that takes us forward out of all these ideas now... ('8)')

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:07 am**

kenspocket wrote:err , quality means quality , i.e how good it sounds....... like fighting cats & pavoroti ?? no not like that ......

& surely & dont call me shirlie , a high noise floor means, when you crack the amp to compensate worse sound . ssssssss lol

although i am pre-amped & that makes no difference to me anyhow . -72 db well maybe 54 ishhh.
--------------------------

bits and hz & rates n 01's Wwarpin shomorpinN.

who cares , its all much of a muchness these days.

any one have any good , tried tested method's for a great full sounding & balanced final mix sound .?

comp setting's , eq settings etc within live using lives tools .. .

our mixes are sounding crap right now , & my ears are dead . lol

i was never that greata audio engineer or fred , dont say anything ,
& over 15 years experience haven't helped much lol .
were great at getting one thing to sound good ,
but how to mix up 10 without the mash & mud ??

id like to learn something constructive that takes us forward out of all these ideas now... ('8)')

Stop blaming your tools, pal. There is nothing wrong with doing finished mixes in Live6. End of story.

The only thing stopping you from getting a decent mix is yourself..I know it sometimes seems like an impossible task, but just stick with it - you'll get great results in the end..

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:46 am**

ahhhh, don't shit on this guy.

he likes to make music. that is ok, i guess.

if you want mixing tips ken, its not about specific settings for effects or rules. It's about understanding the parameters of the effects you are working with and just listening.

compression and eq have been discussed at great length here and in from many different approaches. but in the end what matters is knowing your material and knowing what the basic building blocks actually do.

have a search or two of the forum, it really is a wealth of information. If you have specific questions after that, go ahead and post, we won't bite too hard. Or you're more than welcome to pm me or any of the other regulars here. we like to share. (when we're not busy passing judgements)

.lm.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:39 pm**

is that your idea of a constructive statement ? Chum?
uhm . (':oops:')

im asking for good settings using Lives tools or tips ? , i can make it sound good sure , just like the other 100000000 DJ's & producers ..

im talking about NEXT LEVEL audio engineering , getting the sound to a polished level in a full mix , above just a simple stereo mix .

were mixing our album in 2 track digital ,but with prologic encoding & getting the mix to sound good is very hard to say the least .

we plan to go 5.1 once we have that mix taken care of ... that should be easier of course as we will have much more bandwidth & room for the mix ..

also there is no dispute wever or not lives tools are good enough .
so calm down , it doesn't suit you . ('8)') marrow bone matey .
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Foolish man give wife grand piano, wise man give wife upright organ.

Posted: **Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:46 pm**

hey no ones ever called me ken before , lol .

http://www.cdbaby.com/kenspocket

but you can call me , ..... the artist formally know as kenspocket ?

la de dee lar dar dar

Posted: **Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:27 pm**

Hmm, i was trying to help you out there.

whatever.

--ok fellas, you can go back to shitting all over this guy. he's an ass alright.

.lm.

Posted: **Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:27 pm**

ok, ken, i listened to some of your tunes. where exactly would you care if audio quality were somewhat degraded? i mean this seriously -- if you've got (e.g.) acoustic guitars and vox, sure, you might notice. but not with distorted electronic sounds, filter sweeps, etc. it's like minor threat complaining that inner ear didn't sound as smooth as abbey road, it wouldn't have fit the aesthetic regardless, the charm of early 80s hardcore is the raggedy sound.

(ignoring the obvious point that, if you don't like what you claim live does to your mixes, isn't that something you could fix with some eq or compresssion? that is, people have dealt for years with moving from SSL to neve and back, you just adjust, so why isn't it the same with DAWs? all of which suggests to me it's a crutch/the placebo (or panning/summing) effect of PT/logic/whatever.)

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:14 am**

just wrote a really big email , & browser quit .

lol
i iv got to get some sleep but first ..

Read the fucking posts again , i never said Live made our mix sound crap .
Thats just what you want to hear , pun intended.
so you can run a witch hunt & run to the rescue of the buggy & laggy v6??

does anyone have anything interesting to say ??
or any useful settings ?

or is this forum like most others ?
full of idiots that latch on to others like them & have no real understanding
& suck the well known... know-it all geeks virtual cock . :-p lol .

garay gary garyy ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

my names is michele btw.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:57 am**

leisuremuffin wrote:ahhhh, don't shit on this girl.

she likes to make music. that is ok, i guess.

if you want mixing tips, sweet tits, its not about specific settings for effects or rules. It's about understanding the parameters of the effects you are working with and just listening.

compression and eq have been discussed at great length here and in from many different approaches. but in the end what matters is knowing your material and knowing what the basic building blocks actually do.

have a search or two of the forum, it really is a wealth of information. If you have specific questions after that, go ahead and post, we won't bite too hard. Or you're more than welcome to pm me or any of the other regulars here. we like to share. (when we're not busy passing judgements)

.lm.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:25 am**

Now thats better . lol

Ableton Forum

Better Audio Engine

Re: sound geeks.

yep

Re: sound geeks.

mixes .

Re: mixes .

like i said.

ken

shit , bring it .