Live 7 improved audio engine?

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:40 pm

Live has sounded good ever since I bought version 3.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:42 pm

nevermind... don't feed the trolls.

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:56 am

the whole "sounds better" thing is just silly, like folk arguing over whether a marshall sounds better than a fender twin or a never deck sounds better than SSL. they may sound different, but better is subjective. (and DAW playback of audio files just won't sound different, but that's a whole nother issue.)

further, digital is often more "accurate" than analog, but in a way that people don't necessarily like the sound of. should DAWs shoot for accurate or better sounding -- that is, distorted in a way pleasant to human ears? if you don't like the sound of something, fix it (that's what all that gear's for, right?).

the other problem is that all the folk with tons of experience, great gear, great ears, who perceive no issues with live's sound qualtiy don't weigh in, because why would you. they generally only respond to those relatively few naysayers who claim to have some issue with sound, but who generally don't have the experience, the gear, or the evidence to be trustworthy.

and, of course, at the end of the day, it's all largely irrelevant. unbelievably good records have been made on crap gear forever. the sound of live isn't holding anyone back, though their talent or lack thereof might be.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:07 am

^exactly.

I think this happens with every hobby that guys get into, they sit around, scratch their balls and bullshit about what the best thing is in ANY area and if you don't have what they have it's not the right gear, or in this case, nothing is good enough and we're better than to use such and such tool. cars, guitars, surfing, computers, clown rape, I've seen it time and again.

polyslax · Post by **polyslax** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:41 am

Robert Henke wrote:Hi Tone Deft,
of course it makes sense to look at numbers, but only if they provide information that helps making decissions. This is exactly my point. While it makes sense to look at the frequency response of a speaker or at the signal to noise ratio of a mic pre-amp, it makes not so much sense IMHO to discuss phenomena that are in a range of the mentioned -130dB. A noisy mic pre amp will make it impossible to record very low level signals, a speaker that has an uneven impulse response will not play back percussive sounds in a satisfying manner. Those effects are clearly audible. Same goes for all subjective components. If someone says EQ A sounds better than EQ B then this is true for this person, because it is like talking about the "right" color of an image. I just have no indication at all that e.g. 64 bit sounds any better then 32 bit.
And this is what the summing discussion was all about. As far as the other improvements are concerned:

Oversampling in EQ 8 - audible in some cases. Would probably do so in master channel.
Compressor - miles ahead the previous ones
New sample rate conversion: it is possible to construct cases where it is audible. might sum up if mixing lots of very critical signals.
Antialiasing in Operator: sure, sounds different in high pitches
Oversampling in Saturator: sure, sounds different in some cases.
(Note that the oversampling cases could be done in L6 allready by using 96k. How many people who complained were using 96k as a first step to make things better?)
64bit summing: no difference to 32 bit summing AFAIK.

Robert

Thanks for your honesty Robert. This, of course, remains in line with your past statements about Live's audio quality. It's amazing how people do react to marketing materials. While I wasn't considering an upgrade to Live 7's super advanced 64 bit summing engine, in a strange reverse psychology sort of way the refreshing honesty of one of the Ableton team is actually the most compelling reason I've seen yet to upgrade (in my circumstances). That's an attitude I'd like to support!

membrain · Post by **membrain** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:15 am

This sound quality discussion is just like the mac vs pc debate and the "the timing of my modern DAW sucks compared to the Atari 1040 ST I used to use" timing debate ( which I'm starting a post on as soon as I post this, please come over).

I find it an excellent way to learn about these concepts.

Timur · Post by **Timur** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:37 am

dj superflat wrote:the whole "sounds better" thing is just silly, like folk arguing over whether a marshall sounds better than a fender twin or a never deck sounds better than SSL. they may sound different, but better is subjective. (and DAW playback of audio files just won't sound different, but that's a whole nother issue.)

further, digital is often more "accurate" than analog, but in a way that people don't necessarily like the sound of. should DAWs shoot for accurate or better sounding -- that is, distorted in a way pleasant to human ears? if you don't like the sound of something, fix it (that's what all that gear's for, right?).

I have to disagree to a certain point. Most people writing "sounds better" or "accurate" when talking about digital audio mean that it "sounds more" like analog audio, which means: less digital quantisation noise and especially less aliasing (!). Digital can be more accurate, but it needs effort and corresponding algorithms with enough bit-depth to archive that for continous signals with lots of measuring points. You may want and like the sound of digital artefacts, but that's something usually not being discussed in "audio-quality" threads.

and, of course, at the end of the day, it's all largely irrelevant. unbelievably good records have been made on crap gear forever. the sound of live isn't holding anyone back, though their talent or lack thereof might be.

That would remain a point to be discussed. Yes, it is true that lots of good records have been made on crap gear, but most of the records that you are can buy have been mastered on top of the line (or at least very adequate) gear afterwards and thus alot of the crap gear's crap has been "corrected".

Moody · Post by **Moody** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:13 pm

That would remain a point to be discussed. Yes, it is true that lots of good records have been made on crap gear, but most of the records that you are can buy have been mastered on top of the line (or at least very adequate) gear afterwards and thus alot of the crap gear's crap has been "corrected".

I would have to disagree with this. Without a strong foundation it is difficult to make something sound better.

Timur · Post by **Timur** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:19 pm

I just found this old thread of mine called "Why does Ableton include a 64-bit audio-engine in Live7?"

http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic. ... highlight=

dj superflat · Post by **dj superflat** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:25 pm

dude, many of the seminal recording of various times were mastered on crap gear, if they were mastered at all (that is, the "mastering" was often just done by whoever was pressing it, where they'd ride the level down some, maybe eq, but generally not, cause they didn't care). and, as pointed out, mastering can't fix the sound of a crap tascam 4 track, but sometimes that sounds soooooo right. (the best drums sounds i ever got, despite months at bearsville, sony's nyc studios, etc., were from 2 pzms attached to the walls of a buddy's attic "recording space" with all instruments live in the room (seriously).)

this is like the silly debate over mics. yes, you can get sweet sounds out of old u's in good shape with a great mic pre, but many of the favorite vocals of recent vintage were just a dynamic mic in the control room, with bleed from the track. i mean, really, you don't need more than a shure sm 57 and 58 to make great music. don't get me wrong, high end gear can be great, but to claim it's necessary, that live's former eqs just wont do the trick is silly, particularly where all your music's listened to via mp3 on headfones (great sound there).

stop making excuses for why things aren't sounding great, and either (i) use other gear or (ii) turn whatever limitations you perceive into strengths (distorted guitar was considered a bud, now it's a feature, etc.).

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:30 pm

Weird Al Yankovich, like him or not, made a shitload of money and launched a long career in a bathroom at Cal Poly with just a tape recorder and an accordian to record "Another One Rides The Bus."

...

still in awe over '-130dB'.

diachrona · Post by **diachrona** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:26 am

ok guys..to wrap up this discussion

don't really mind the composition, it's just a few random sounds with all kinds of frequencies..
but tell me which loop sounds more nice to you, and why ?
try to be more preciese aside "better"..

http://www.sendspace.com/file/cg6a21

one of the loops is live7, the other one is pre-live7

diachrona · Post by **diachrona** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:28 am

..oh and the one who guesses where that atmo synth sample is from towards the end of the loops will win a free blowjob

ps. robert h is not allowed to enter this contest, he might actually remember this one

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:47 am

my GUESS is that 3 is Live 7, looking at the waveform the dynamics are better, 4 is more compressed. they are different files though. also looks like 4 has an offset. 4 also looks like it was low pass filtered. I'm listening at work with Sony MD600 headphones and just psyching myself out over which sounds better.

edit - whoops I was visually comparing the two with one inverted, dunno about the offset remark.

Nogi · Post by **Nogi** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:08 am

diachrona wrote:ok guys..to wrap up this discussion
but tell me which loop sounds more nice to you, and why ?
try to be more preciese aside "better"..

File '3.wav' sounds much better to me. Crisper, clearer top end - better definition in upper mids, better 'spit' on the hats.

Live 7 improved audio engine?

What is the reason for these discussions