Ableton Forum

I did some critical listening to how plugins sound in Live vs other DAWs. As a power user, I don't know how it got past me, but there is significantly less audio quality being output from Live compared to ProTools. Live seems to muddy the sound and destroy the sonic quality get from ProTools. At first I thought my ears were wrong. But I did a test, and I left a link for you to hear difference.

I chose a very rich Arpeggio from the Nexus 2 plugin and recorded the same 8 bar loop in Live and ProTools. I carefully made sure that every setting was identical between the two (volumes, buffer, sample rate, bit depth, etc). I use ProTools HD, but to be sure, I also created the same file in ProTools M-Powered. All wav files are 44.1KHz, 24bit, stereo. Listen to the examples and vote on the poll. PLEASE LISTEN CAREFULLY A COUPLE TIMES.

http://public.me.com/jonebarker

[edit ] I realised I was only comparing the two protools files, there was a third file which I did not hear. Although it makes no difference because it turns out the whole "problem" was a mistake.
due to presets. As you will see if you continue reading this trainwreck[/edit]

well, I'm listening on headphones (beyerdynamic dt250) so that's no real benchmark. But I hear no difference.

I'll listen again tomorrow on monitors when it's not the middle of the night.

so far : no difference

There is a mid frequency scale playing in the arpeggio. The ProTools version has a much great resonance. You can hear high frequencies in it. While you can hear the other highs in the ableton file, you cannot hear the "glassyness" of the lower pitched scale. I hear the differences clearly. Even before purposely testing. The two ProTools files sound a like however.

I think your Live recording is missing a layer or something, because the only real difference I hear is that the Live arp lacks the attack.

um, I just downloaded the zip file.
it only had two waves in there.
you seem to be talking about three files?

edit- I just noticed the third file

all files are named and identifiable.
therefore the test is null and void.

everybody - DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME

It sounds to me you have two completely different sound-sources in there. There is clearly more filter modulation happening from the arp patch in the PT files. That synth patch has some randomness/evolution programmed in it that isn't the same in any of the three files.

How can we compare it if it's not the same sound?


<edit> oh SNAP!!

They are the same exact patch! I double checked. I also made sure everything was the same. Please check the second folder with the raw files (NOT THE ZIP FILE).

I named the files based on where I bounced them from. Some of you hear the difference, and some don't.

Checked both, they're the same, in both the Live audio is different.

JBlongz wrote:They are the same exact patch!

Yes, but the patch has modulation in it, doesn't it? The filter settings are completely different in all three takes.

At first I thought is was 2 different takes, but compare the last bar of the two PT takes - different filter cutoff/rez.

Takes are 8 bars @ 120 btw

OK PROBLEM SOLVED. My engineer made a template for the plugin in Live that had a different default setting. Whew. Before posting I was losing my mind for over an hour. I wish I could delete this post to hide my embarrassment. Sorry guys...thanks for working with me.

JBlongz wrote: I named the files based on where I bounced them from.

If people have a preconception that Protools sounds better, and the file they open says "ProtoolsHD", then they will be predisposed to say that is better.

this is a well documented psychological trait. In fact a previous test like this where two handheld recorders were compared (Sony versus Zoom) 90% of testers claimed the more expensive Sony sounded clearly superior. It was only later that it was noticed that both files were actually the same, and they had been mistakenly labeled. The hype of the more expensive recorder had skewed the results. In fact both waves were from the Zoom. link to flawed test

Zoom H4 is not even worth talking about; to describe this is that its lost in somewhere in space !! Now, I can see why Sony is expensive.

once again: these were the exact same files he was listening to, bit for bit, and from the Zoom.

This is why you never name files in an identifiable way in an A/B test.

call them fileA.wav and fileb.wav , not ableton.wav, protoolHD.wav.
that just undermines the whole thing.

step your game up

Angstrom wrote:

JBlongz wrote: I named the files based on where I bounced them from.

If people have a preconception that Protools sounds better, and the file they open says "ProtoolsHD", then they will be predisposed to say that is better.

this is a well documented psychological trait. In fact a previous test like this where two handheld recorders were compared (Sony versus Zoom) 90% of testers claimed the more expensive Sony sounded clearly superior. It was only later that it was noticed that both files were actually the same, and they had been mistakenly labeled. The hype of the more expensive recorder had skewed the results. In fact both waves were from the Zoom. link to flawed test

Zoom H4 is not even worth talking about; to describe this is that its lost in somewhere in space !! Now, I can see why Sony is expensive.

once again: these were the exact same files he was listening to, bit for bit, and from the Zoom.

This is why you never name files in an identifiable way in an A/B test.

call them fileA.wav and fileb.wav , not ableton.wav, protoolHD.wav.
that just undermines the whole thing.

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

sorry angstrom.. i just listened to them on my laptops speakers and for me they sound different.. i get more transients from the protools files and more highs.. i reffering here to second 4-6

again an illusion? how do you know that the files are the same? do you have a bit scope?

just see that you havent listened to the files as all and reffering to the zoom stuff..
true that names can interfear... but i had enough shit with earklie protools systems that needed listening teststs to be pretty unemotional about big names.

i belong to the people that actually belife in the famous ablton muffle bus., at least in its exsitance in earlier times. something like the yeti..in the middle of the snowstorm you get the impression your daw muffles the sound... but no one belifes you the next day...

but this difference is too drastical.. there must be some other mistakes involved.

to the op..
do you had warp engine off? dont sounds like actually...

anyway. the sound question pops up again and again.. how ca this be? cant we engage the myth busters to solve it?

I really would wish that the ableton mistery would be solved... its somehow strange

it has a perfect 32 bit engine.. all 32 bit engines sound the same.. all artefacts are well below -120 db..
all the improovements other daw are advertizing are just advertizing lies.. the people get fooled to experiance a better sound but it just sounds the same..just different pan laws create the illusion...

sofar a short sum up of official ableton and ableton employer statements..

But the advertizing lies of the others seem to work.. many experiance a better sound ..with other 32 bit daw..s and especially 48 fixed point daw´s or with digital ssl mixing desks..
which just cant be.. because no one can hear the artefacts that make the difference between a 400 euro daw and a 250000 mixing desk...

it must be an illusion.. once its digital the sound quality is perfect.. it dont gets any better ..and it dont gets any worse anymore.. you can mix 20 files..its just an addition.. the result is the same on the 400 euro daw and the 250000 euro mixing desk...

Is it really? i belong to the fools that think they hear a difference.. i also hear a diference beteen capaciator types .. but i refuse to hear a difference between power chords.. even when i ve sadly to admit.. theese ferrit shielded HF reducing cables with quarter inch earth wire.. psst.. i heard a difference... but i dont like to..
ther must be better ways to keep HF from your sytme.. and i havent seen HF in the oszi... there was none ! at least none below 20 MHZ..... its better to dont get into sound differences.. i ve seen smart people getting lost buying a single powercable for 400 euro.. .. thats a critical state.. theese people have to much money.. and theese sound differences dont make any schranz track a more sophisticated piece of music..

but back to topic.. is ableton live sounding the same or bette than other daw´s?

When i am in other studios with protools hd systems i allways enjoy the feeled better sound quality.. but sure.. might be only the other speakers and acoustics that let you hear more background detail..
but than... why does this transfer to the final product you download as mp3 ?

Is this really just related to the better plugs that lead to a better mix, as somebody stated here?.

That is indeed a possebilty,, but if this is the case we have something to improove here...


hard to decide in whom i should trust here.. my ears? my collegs. i actually know many people that have biased preassumptions when it comes to abletons audio quality.. too many actually.. but the sound was as good as now in the past, regarding forum statements from people that know.. dsp experts....
so its not just a hard dieing immage from failure of the past.. its a phenomen.

i am defently negativly biased from the past.. i had times where i clearly experianced the ableton sound as strange..it was changing when loading the same song under os 9 or os x... drastical changing...but that was the earlie times of os x..

but than i experianced the ableton live sound improoving from version to version..
not so long ago i could clearly here a degeneration when the crossfader was assigned.. but thats gone now..
but no change log..so its probably either not gone or ableton life again has shown is psychodelic abilitys..
It´s a pretty unique daw in this regards. and i ve worked with many over the years...

there are no improovements in the ableton sound in the last years.. because ableton people stated clearly that there was no improovements and the sound engine one can hear.. it´s a perfect 32 bit float since the early years and that the minor changes to the program only work in a -120 db range no one can hear ..

equals there was no improovements and i am haluzinating.. :-/

but also the rme drivers went better... and the core audio system in itself...
lots of possebilitys for a phenomen one cant hear because whatever is causing it is below the -120 db border..


we have the ableton fact sheet about digital audio.. there is nothing more to know. they lead the market since 10 years.. and they always tell the truth.. so no reason to question anything thats written there..

Ableton live sound just the same as any other daw or digital audiomedia... and this of cause applies to the mixing aswell.. its just an addition of very high resolution signals in a perfectly timed process.

is it a perfectly timed process? or is it maybe elastic audio? the listening experiance seems to be somehow elastic...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ < interesting listen[/quote]

this guy basically tells us that there is no relvant difference between an sounblaster mp3 production with 128 k and a highend studer dolby sr( ssl production?

no he is not saying that.. he is just implieng it .. a charlartan quite similar to the guys that want to improove your sound with wooden knobs on the amp...

he is using the same tactics to fight that.. but you shouldnt take it too serious.. as you shouldnt take the high end audio victims too serious..


however.. different systems and different resolution formats sound clearly different... if one trys to proove the opposite with nintendo soundtracks I call that manipulativ fraud...


but he is defently wright that your sound blaster shoulnt stop you from doing music.. it well suits your behringer monitors..



come on guys.. you all know that a sound blaster dont sounds as good as an rme or even an apogee or alike?

you must have tomatos on the ears to dont get that...


however a tip here.. in the moment there are many high end broadcast AD and DA stereo converters on the market from the early to mid 90´s--

all this stuff that is not ready for 96 k and 24 bit.. usually they are 20 bit 44/48..

but highend converters never the less.. for a sound blaster price...