More of my Nuendo/PT observation

[Mondoslug1]

I have A/B'd this to death in my own unscientic way. Using 001 as the mutual
hardware(I know, I know) Recording in Nuendo sounds better than PTLE which is a
drag because I'm faster(and that ain't fast)with PTLE. Better as in larger,
rounder, warmer, more depth. Disclaimer is I could be full of ****
but.............



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[R Krizman]

<< I have A/B'd this to death in my own unscientic way. Using 001 as the mutual
hardware(I know, I know) Recording in Nuendo sounds better than PTLE which is a
drag because I'm faster(and that ain't fast)with PTLE. Better as in larger,
rounder, warmer, more depth. Disclaimer is I could be full of ****
but............. >><BR><BR>

Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are outputted
by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.

-R

[Geoff Duncan]

"R Krizman" > wrote in message
...
> << I have A/B'd this to death in my own unscientic way. Using 001 as the
mutual
> hardware(I know, I know) Recording in Nuendo sounds better than PTLE which
is a
> drag because I'm faster(and that ain't fast)with PTLE. Better as in
larger,
> rounder, warmer, more depth. Disclaimer is I could be full of ****
> but............. >><BR><BR>
>
> Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are
outputted
> by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.
>
> -R

"should" being the operative word. As soon as you process anything - volume,
pan, anything - its down to the software algorithm for processing, wherein
lies the differences between apps...

I defiinetely prefer Sequoia to ProTools, in terms of A/B'd mixes...

YMMV

Geoff

[Vernon Boyce]

: Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are outputted
: by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.

Agreed. Maybe it is the playback environment that is changing? Have you
(OP) tried a side by side playback comparison of the two files you recorded
within the same app? (PT and/or Nuendo)

Regards,
Vernon.

--
Vernon Boyce, Soft Audio, , http://live.softaudio.com
Live recording of acoustic music in Dublin, Ireland

[Mondoslug1]

Vernon wrote:

>Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are
>outputted
>: by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.
>
> Agreed. Maybe it is the playback environment that is changing? Have you
> (OP) tried a side by side playback comparison of the two files you recorded
> within the same app? (PT and/or Nuendo)
>

I've recorded a few seconds of guitar & voice in Nuendo & PT and then I import
the
Broadcast Wave(no bouncing) into either software & listen to both within the
same app. I don't know if this is considered "otherwise" or not. Like I say
maybe my mic placement changes a hair or the strings are now 30 seconds older
or the air is heavier or something, but there's a difference. I don't think I'm
slamming PTLE - it just sounds different.

> Regards,
> Vernon.
>
>--
> Vernon Boyce, Soft Audio, , http://live.softaudio.com
> Live recording of acoustic music in Dublin, Ireland
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Andrew M.]

If I am reading this correctly, you are recording into each program, and
then listening through the mix busses of each program. Have you tried
listening to the files in a program like Wavelab,Peak or any 2 track
player where you can A/B without going through a DAW mix buss?

Maybe there is a more scientific way to do this; recording to a
"neutral" third device, then recording the exact same performance into
each program. I am sure someone here can come up with something. It
would be cool to do a blind test where you could post something and only
you knew which was the ProTools or Nuendo files, and we could pick our
preferences.

I have had my suspicions about ProTools for about a year. I definitely
prefer the sound of my mixes when I mix in Nuendo, but I never would
have thought that ProTools would "color" or otherwise process on the way
in.

I am extremely interested in your experiment. I can't wait to see how
this pans out.


Mondoslug1 wrote:
> Vernon wrote:
>
>
>>Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are
>>outputted
>>: by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.
>>
>> Agreed. Maybe it is the playback environment that is changing? Have you
>> (OP) tried a side by side playback comparison of the two files you recorded
>> within the same app? (PT and/or Nuendo)
>>
>
>
> I've recorded a few seconds of guitar & voice in Nuendo & PT and then I import
> the
> Broadcast Wave(no bouncing) into either software & listen to both within the
> same app. I don't know if this is considered "otherwise" or not. Like I say
> maybe my mic placement changes a hair or the strings are now 30 seconds older
> or the air is heavier or something, but there's a difference. I don't think I'm
> slamming PTLE - it just sounds different.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> Vernon.
>>
>>--
>> Vernon Boyce, Soft Audio, , http://live.softaudio.com
>> Live recording of acoustic music in Dublin, Ireland
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> My tunes at:
> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>
>

[Mondoslug1]

Andrew wrote;

>If I am reading this correctly, you are recording into each program, and
>then listening through the mix busses of each program.

I had been, yes. I'd record in PT & Nuendo with 001 as the common interface and
then import each file into the other & listen.

Have you tried
>listening to the files in a program like Wavelab,Peak or any 2 track
>player where you can A/B without going through a DAW mix buss?

Yes I just now tried it in Sound Edit & Wave Lab but for the record what I had
been doing is just burning the files to CD & listening............not through
the mix buss.
The 2 sound different just with this measley test.
I can't see how anybody wouldn't hear a difference....and this is with the
considered low on the totem pole 001 converters. I'd imagine something gourmet
would be even more pronounced.

Heard some advice, "Don't A/B. Probably good, I'm spending more time listening
to the 2 back & forth instead of recording.

>
>Maybe there is a more scientific way to do this; recording to a
>"neutral" third device, then recording the exact same performance into
>each program. I am sure someone here can come up with something. It
>would be cool to do a blind test where you could post something and only
>you knew which was the ProTools or Nuendo files, and we could pick our
>preferences.
>
>I have had my suspicions about ProTools for about a year. I definitely
>prefer the sound of my mixes when I mix in Nuendo, but I never would
>have thought that ProTools would "color" or otherwise process on the way
>in.
>
>I am extremely interested in your experiment. I can't wait to see how
>this pans out.
>
>
>Mondoslug1 wrote:
>> Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are
>>>outputted
>>>: by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.
>>>
>>> Agreed. Maybe it is the playback environment that is changing? Have you
>>> (OP) tried a side by side playback comparison of the two files you
>recorded
>>> within the same app? (PT and/or Nuendo)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I've recorded a few seconds of guitar & voice in Nuendo & PT and then I
>import
>> the
>> Broadcast Wave(no bouncing) into either software & listen to both within
>the
>> same app. I don't know if this is considered "otherwise" or not. Like I say
>> maybe my mic placement changes a hair or the strings are now 30 seconds
>older
>> or the air is heavier or something, but there's a difference. I don't think
>I'm
>> slamming PTLE - it just sounds different.
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Vernon.
>>>
>>>--
>>> Vernon Boyce, Soft Audio, , http://live.softaudio.com
>>> Live recording of acoustic music in Dublin, Ireland
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My tunes at:
>> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Gary Koliger]

Has anyone tried having someone else do the switching while blindfolded or
otherwise not looking at the screen?

Gary

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Andrew wrote;
>
> >If I am reading this correctly, you are recording into each program, and
> >then listening through the mix busses of each program.
>
> I had been, yes. I'd record in PT & Nuendo with 001 as the common interface and
> then import each file into the other & listen.
>
> Have you tried
> >listening to the files in a program like Wavelab,Peak or any 2 track
> >player where you can A/B without going through a DAW mix buss?
>
> Yes I just now tried it in Sound Edit & Wave Lab but for the record what I had
> been doing is just burning the files to CD & listening............not through
> the mix buss.
> The 2 sound different just with this measley test.
> I can't see how anybody wouldn't hear a difference....and this is with the
> considered low on the totem pole 001 converters. I'd imagine something gourmet
> would be even more pronounced.
>
> Heard some advice, "Don't A/B. Probably good, I'm spending more time listening
> to the 2 back & forth instead of recording.
>
> >
> >Maybe there is a more scientific way to do this; recording to a
> >"neutral" third device, then recording the exact same performance into
> >each program. I am sure someone here can come up with something. It
> >would be cool to do a blind test where you could post something and only
> >you knew which was the ProTools or Nuendo files, and we could pick our
> >preferences.
> >
> >I have had my suspicions about ProTools for about a year. I definitely
> >prefer the sound of my mixes when I mix in Nuendo, but I never would
> >have thought that ProTools would "color" or otherwise process on the way
> >in.
> >
> >I am extremely interested in your experiment. I can't wait to see how
> >this pans out.
> >
> >
> >Mondoslug1 wrote:
> >> Vernon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are
> >>>outputted
> >>>: by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. Maybe it is the playback environment that is changing? Have you
> >>> (OP) tried a side by side playback comparison of the two files you
> >recorded
> >>> within the same app? (PT and/or Nuendo)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I've recorded a few seconds of guitar & voice in Nuendo & PT and then I
> >import
> >> the
> >> Broadcast Wave(no bouncing) into either software & listen to both within
> >the
> >> same app. I don't know if this is considered "otherwise" or not. Like I say
> >> maybe my mic placement changes a hair or the strings are now 30 seconds
> >older
> >> or the air is heavier or something, but there's a difference. I don't think
> >I'm
> >> slamming PTLE - it just sounds different.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Vernon.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>> Vernon Boyce, Soft Audio, , http://live.softaudio.com
> >>> Live recording of acoustic music in Dublin, Ireland
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> My tunes at:
> >> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> My tunes at:
> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[R Krizman]

This has all been discussed to death. Go to 3Daudioinc.com and order Lynn
Fuston's Awesome DAWSUM CD, which takes the same 24 tracks of files and sums
them in most of the leading DAW's and through a few analog consoles as well.

When you listen without knowing what you're hearing you will hear differences.
Then you will discover that you were hearing differences between many files
that are bit-identical. Finally, I can promise you that you won't be able to
consistently distinguish between the Nuendo mix and the Pro Tools mix in a
blind test.

Human p[erception is a funny thing. How about that green flash in Hawaii that
occurs at the instant of sunset?

But by all means, worship at the church or temple of your choice.

-R

[Andrew M.]

summing isn't the point. The point is that it may sound different going IN.

R Krizman wrote:
> This has all been discussed to death. Go to 3Daudioinc.com and order Lynn
> Fuston's Awesome DAWSUM CD, which takes the same 24 tracks of files and sums
> them in most of the leading DAW's and through a few analog consoles as well.
>
> When you listen without knowing what you're hearing you will hear differences.
> Then you will discover that you were hearing differences between many files
> that are bit-identical. Finally, I can promise you that you won't be able to
> consistently distinguish between the Nuendo mix and the Pro Tools mix in a
> blind test.
>
> Human p[erception is a funny thing. How about that green flash in Hawaii that
> occurs at the instant of sunset?
>
> But by all means, worship at the church or temple of your choice.
>
> -R
>

[Andrew M.]

Andrew M. wrote:

> summing isn't the point. The point is that it may sound different going IN.By that I mean that you record to a track, then go into the audio folder
and listen to the resulting file(not through a summing bus). Record this
way in both Nuendo and ProTools and listen with Wavelab or Peak or
whatever. Theoretically the files should sound identical as they are
both getting the audio from the same interface. If they don't sound the
same then one or both of the programs is doing some processing somewhere.


>
> R Krizman wrote:
>
>> This has all been discussed to death. Go to 3Daudioinc.com and order
>> Lynn
>> Fuston's Awesome DAWSUM CD, which takes the same 24 tracks of files
>> and sums
>> them in most of the leading DAW's and through a few analog consoles as
>> well.
>>
>> When you listen without knowing what you're hearing you will hear
>> differences. Then you will discover that you were hearing differences
>> between many files
>> that are bit-identical. Finally, I can promise you that you won't be
>> able to
>> consistently distinguish between the Nuendo mix and the Pro Tools mix
>> in a
>> blind test.
>>
>> Human p[erception is a funny thing. How about that green flash in
>> Hawaii that
>> occurs at the instant of sunset?
>>
>> But by all means, worship at the church or temple of your choice.
>>
>> -R
>>
>

[xy]

protools for the longest time used 24 bit "fixed point" internal
processing rather than 32bit floating point processing.

this means when you start moving faders and combining tracks there is
more distortion than 32bit float. this effect is additive, so
complicated dense mixes will really start to show "strain".

maybe protools le is 24bit fixed. maybe full-tilt protools is still
this way too. using those motorola 56k dsp chips is proving to be
more and more of a dinosaur.

personally, i've never been impressed with protools sound, hardware or
software.

protools became very successful for many reasons. top-quality sound
is not one of them.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Andrew M. > wrote:

> MI my get struck by lightning for saying this but Maybe ProTools isn't
> as good as we are lead to believe...Maybe?
> I mean, they are the Microsoft of DAW's.

And maybe the quality of the final result depends more on the skills of
the recordist and the quality of the music and sound going in. At this
point in time I hear stuff done on lots of different formats, DAW's,
etc., and if the music and the operator were both good the final result
is almost always good. When it all sucks the first hing to get blamed is
the system used to record it. Very often that's the last place to look.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Dudleys100]

OK everyone I got some interesting info on this subject I recently
learned. First of all I am going to avoid the whole mix quality
stuff, as I don't know who has a better engine and what not. However
I will relate a story about my experience as to why Nuendo "sounds
better" going in. I was using Sonar for a long time. When I had a
chance to use Nuendo I jumped and loved it. It has many more features
(however they miss some I like from Sonar), and for some reason even
when I would import a regular wave file from a mastered CD it just
sounded better in Nuendo. All the hype I heard was true, " WOW this
is the best program EVER!!!!! Well even though I could hear a
difference I never really understood why. I had heard that Nuendo had
a better mixing engine being 32 bit floating point and this was great
but since it sounded better even just as a player without even mixing
anything I couldn't figure it out. Well about a week ago I ran across
a thread in another site that explained it for me. I feel like
kicking myself now but at least I know. If you got to:
FILE->PREFERENCES->VST you will see a little spot called the "Stereo
Pan Law". Now from what was related to me it seems that every other
software out there has a default of "0" and from what I can see most
of them don't have an option to adjust the pan law. If you look at
Nuendo's stereo pan law, it is set as a default to "-3" You can
either drop it to -6 or go up to 0. When placed at zero (like the
other apps) I cannot tell a difference from Sonar or Pro Tools in
listening to the same track. Now maybe the mixing buss is better or
what not, but when it comes to "Nuendo just sounds better" it seems to
me that it is due to a built in stereo imager that widens the stereo
field. Hence the reason Nuendo seems to have more width and space
than other apps but also has less punch. If you listen to something
while changing the number from -3 to 0 in Nuendo you can hear the
stereo field get wide and thin, and also go from punchy to less
punchy. I like this feature and Nuendo is smart to make it a default
because it has done them well. The nice thing is that when mixing I
will add more punch to compensate in the meantime still keeping the
wide field, giving my mix more depth than usual without having to use
the Waves Stereo Imager. Ta Da!!!!!!I love Nuendo and do not want
this to seem like I am trying to make them seem manipulative but it
makes me laugh now to hear so many comments about "Nuendo's Sound" now
that I have learned where it comes from. Enjoy

[R Krizman]

<< Andrew M. wrote:

> summing isn't the point. The point is that it may sound different going IN.By
that I mean that you record to a track, then go into the audio folder
and listen to the resulting file(not through a summing bus). Record this
way in both Nuendo and ProTools and listen with Wavelab or Peak or
whatever. Theoretically the files should sound identical as they are
both getting the audio from the same interface. If they don't sound the
same then one or both of the programs is doing some processing somewhere.


> >><BR><BR>

They will be identical. If they don't "sound" identical then I suggest you
find some sort of voodoo to practice that can align your perception with
reality.

I don't mean that to be as insulting as it might sound, but really, let's get a
grip on all this. If there's some sort of error in documenting the bits to
hard drive, the resulting distortion won't be subtle.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< MI my get struck by lightning for saying this but Maybe ProTools isn't
as good as we are lead to believe...Maybe?
I mean, they are the Microsoft of DA >><BR><BR>

Coming a bit late to the party are you?

Exactly who has led you (or us all?) to believe that Pro Tools is so great?

Believe me, nobody is going to chastize you for criticizing Pro Tools. It's a
very popular, if not downright trendy, position to take, and opens the doors to
all sorts of new science. Do a little deja-viewing, put on your fez, and get
ready to settle down for days of great reading.

But ultimately you can decide for yourself, with your own ears, and vote with
your wallet.

-R

[Mondoslug1]

Rick wrote:

><< Andrew M. wrote:
>
>> summing isn't the point. The point is that it may sound different going
>IN.By
>that I mean that you record to a track, then go into the audio folder
>and listen to the resulting file(not through a summing bus). Record this
>way in both Nuendo and ProTools and listen with Wavelab or Peak or
>whatever. Theoretically the files should sound identical as they are
>both getting the audio from the same interface. If they don't sound the
>same then one or both of the programs is doing some processing somewhere.
>
>
>> >>
>
>They will be identical. If they don't "sound" identical then I suggest
>youfind some sort of voodoo to practice that can align your perception
>withreality.I don't mean that to be as insulting as it might sound, but
>really, let's get agrip on all this. If there's some sort of error in
>documenting the bits tohard drive, the resulting distortion won't be
>subtle.-R
>

Voodoo in voodoo out......they do not sound the same.





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Andrew M.]

Why is everyone getting so defensive? Is ANYONE (besides the person that
started this thread) willing to even humor the idea that MAYBE
ProTools (or Nuendo for that matter) is doing some kind of processing to
files before they go to the hard drive? I sure haven't seen any source
code to know for a fact that nothing is changing before hard disk. I
believe that the point of this thread was to observe the differences (if
any) between these two workstations ability to get the straight bits to
hard disk. Anything not about this belongs in another thread in my opinion.

As far as the stereo panning law in Nuendo, I do not believe that Nuendo
has a "stereo imaging" process included in their mix buss. If I am not
mistaken, analog consoles are down 3-6 at the center of a pan pot. Isn't
this just a fact of panning on an analog console? I am sure there are
others here that can explain this better than I. I think Nuendo is just
trying to emulate what we are used to using in the analog world by
implementing stereo pan law.

As far as "maybe the quality of the final result depends more on the
skills of the recordist", I disagree to an extent. We are talking about
the ability of two DAW's to take digital audio from the interface and
get it to hard drive and which sound better, if any. This has little or
nothing to do with the quality of performance or microphones etc... If
both workstations are presented with the same data at their input and
the resulting audio files don't sound the same then one of the DAWs (or
both) have some kind of processing happening before they record files to
disk.

I personally really want to know what the deal is because maybe I should
be booking Nuendo studios instead of ProTools for tracking. Maybe I
should do away with ProTools all together. I want to know what is the
best. I think there are others here that agree with me.

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> Andrew M. > wrote:
>
>
>>MI my get struck by lightning for saying this but Maybe ProTools isn't
>>as good as we are lead to believe...Maybe?
>>I mean, they are the Microsoft of DAW's.
>
>
> And maybe the quality of the final result depends more on the skills of
> the recordist and the quality of the music and sound going in. At this
> point in time I hear stuff done on lots of different formats, DAW's,
> etc., and if the music and the operator were both good the final result
> is almost always good. When it all sucks the first hing to get blamed is
> the system used to record it. Very often that's the last place to look.
>
> --
> hank alrich * secret mountain
> audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
> "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[NeilH011]

>Is ANYONE (besides the person that
>> started this thread) willing to even humor the idea that MAYBE
>>ProTools (or Nuendo for that matter) is doing some kind of processing to
>>files before they go to the hard drive?
>
>I don't quite understand it either. Wasn't looking to start a PT/Paris type
>war. I'm just hear to tell ya that I absolutely hear a difference.

Well, this seems to be fairly simple to me (but then again, maybe I'm just
simple); I mean, think about it, even if you're recording & playing back the
same instrument through the same convertors with the same signal chain, unless
every single line of code in both PT's & Nuendo's recording & playback sections
is identical, there's a pretty darn good chance that they'll sound different.
Whether you like one better then the other is another matter, but I don't see
how they could possibly sound identical to each another.

NeilH

[Mondoslug1]

Andrew wrote:

>Is anyone out there from Steinberg or Digidesign that may be able to
>shed some light on this issue? I know you are out there. Please help.
>
>I wish I had both software packages available on the same puter so I
>could do a test and post some files so that we could get past the
>misunderstandings of the intentions of this thread and get on to both
>programs recording sound.
>


I would do it but I'm a freaking deadline & just moved & don't have cable or
dsl yet, blah blah blah.
>
>
>
>NeilH011 wrote:
>>>Is ANYONE (besides the person that
>>>
>>>> started this thread) willing to even humor the idea that MAYBE
>>>>ProTools (or Nuendo for that matter) is doing some kind of processing to
>>>>files before they go to the hard drive?
>>>
>>>I don't quite understand it either. Wasn't looking to start a PT/Paris type
>>>war. I'm just hear to tell ya that I absolutely hear a difference.
>>
>>
>> Well, this seems to be fairly simple to me (but then again, maybe I'm just
>> simple); I mean, think about it, even if you're recording & playing back
>the
>> same instrument through the same convertors with the same signal chain,
>unless
>> every single line of code in both PT's & Nuendo's recording & playback
>sections
>> is identical, there's a pretty darn good chance that they'll sound
>different.
>> Whether you like one better then the other is another matter, but I don't
>see
>> how they could possibly sound identical to each another.
>>
>> NeilH
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[R Krizman]

<< If
both workstations are presented with the same data at their input and
the resulting audio files don't sound the same then one of the DAWs (or
both) have some kind of processing happening before they record files to
disk. >>

And did you conlude that by listening to the file before playback? (I know,
it's another r.a.p. koan)

Most likely, the listener is in error. And if you're going to take the stance
of "Hey, I know what I'm hearing", fine. End of discussion. No need to
continue this thread. Go buy the one that sounds the best.

But really, what kind of boneheaded thinking would lead a DAW to alter the data
on input. The whole raison d'etre for DAWs is NON-DESTRUCTIVE editing.

-R

[Kevin_Darbro]

I heard Peter Frampton talking on "Bob and Tom" the other day about
recording his new album, and they asked him if he manned the controls
in Pro Tools and could handle the technical side of it.

Frampton replied that he didn't use ProTools, but was using the "new
hotness", Nuendo.

I've never used either product, as I'm a PC Logic user on XP Pro, but
I'm curious about this whole Nuendo thing.

First, how is it pronounced? Is it phonetically "in-you-end-oh" or
"nwendoh"?

[Andrew M.]

Kevin_Darbro wrote:
> I heard Peter Frampton talking on "Bob and Tom" the other day about
> recording his new album, and they asked him if he manned the controls
> in Pro Tools and could handle the technical side of it.
>
> Frampton replied that he didn't use ProTools, but was using the "new
> hotness", Nuendo.
>
> I've never used either product, as I'm a PC Logic user on XP Pro, but
> I'm curious about this whole Nuendo thing.
>
> First, how is it pronounced? Is it phonetically "in-you-end-oh" or
> "nwendoh"?

I believe it's pronounced "NEW END OH".

[Mondoslug1]

>Mondoslug1 > wrote:
>
>> Voodoo in voodoo out......they do not sound the same.
>
>You realize that without controlled ABX testing you cannot make such a
>statement credibly?

I realize that and I suppose I won't be taken credibly here but I'm just saying
I hear it. I don't know what else to say. It really sounds obvious to me also.
It might be skewed because I'm looking at what I'm hearing but I dunno.
Somebody's going to have to convince me otherwise - other than a PT user who
just says there's no difference because.

If your eyes can tell your ears what you're
>listening to there is little or no human ability to make realiable
>distinctions around sonic issues of subtlety.
>
>MInd you, I am not saying there are not differences. I haven't been
>there and done that. But unless the diferences were gross I would not
>trust myself with the testing. I have many times adjusted a control and
>appreciated the changes made by my actions, only to discover shortly
>thereafter that the unit was in bypass mode. (Rarely will you hear
>something as transparent as an RNC in bypass mode.)
>
>--
>ha
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:

> I realize that and I suppose I won't be taken credibly here but I'm just
> Isaying hear it. I don't know what else to say. It really sounds obvious
> Ito me also. t might be skewed because I'm looking at what I'm hearing but
> II dunno.

To be clear, I am not saying you do not hear what you say you hear.
Maybe there are huge differences in playback, and maybe not. But
controlled listening that eliminates sources of error, both in
reproduction and of perception, is necessary to insure that one is
hearing what one thinks one hears.

And further, there is no harm at all in deciding what you prefer _on any
basis you choose_, and then purchasing accordingly. We all like what we
like and prefer to use what we like. No biggie there.

> Somebody's going to have to convince me otherwise - other than a PT user who
> just says there's no difference because.

You can probably convince or unconvince yourself with ABX testing
properly configured. Every link in the chain must remain the same if
we're listening for sonically biased bits <g>, and all intermediate
steps to make listening possible from completely different platforms,
such as burning a CD from each, must be eliminated. We'd have to be
working from the files as they sit on the drive, played back at matched
volume levels via the apps under review, in a situation where we have no
idea which we are hearing. We make our little hash marks and then turn
on the lights to see how we did, so to speak.

Understand, too, that some of the "PT users" have access to all the
stuff out there, have used it all to make their own decisions, and would
jump ship in a moment if they thought they'd get what they considered to
be better sound from a different DAW application.

Someone who spends thirty grand on a piano to put in a room they spent
that much on to send sound down a wire through tens of thousands of
dollars worth of signal chain, and who has demonstrated that at the end
of a day's work they can deliver outstanding sound quality isn't likely
to balk at dropping under $2K to get better sound from a DAW. So one
might well proceed on the basis of the questions such a person might ask
in the face of claims of different sound from the same bits.

Some of these folks, to my own knowledge, have been investigating this
issue for several _years_ now. They are intelligent people. I'd expect
they've learned something and that from them I might also learn
something. What they point at are the multitudes of variables so many
folks allow between point A and point B when doing these sorts of
comparisons, and the known shortcomings of sighted testing when it comes
to listening. Those constitute sources of error and must be dealt with
to arrive at the most objective results from subjective testing.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[R Krizman]

<< Some of these folks, to my own knowledge, have been investigating this
issue for several _years_ now. They are intelligent people. I'd expect
they've learned something and that from them I might also learn
something. What they point at are the multitudes of variables so many
folks allow between point A and point B when doing these sorts of
comparisons, and the known shortcomings of sighted testing when it comes
to listening. Those constitute sources of error and must be dealt with
to arrive at the most objective results from subjective testing. >>

My goodness, Hank, even after my week in China I could never match your tone of
overarching civility. I want some of that tea you're sipping.

I guess that leaves me free to be the bad cop, so let me just say that whoever
thinks there's a big obvious difference in the sound of Nuendo versus Protools
should find out what he's doing wrong before trying to make recordings that the
rest of us are forced to listen to.

And please don't take my word for it

-R

[Mondoslug1]

RKrizman wrote:

><< Some of these folks, to my own knowledge, have been investigating this
>issue for several _years_ now. They are intelligent people. I'd expect
>they've learned something and that from them I might also learn
>something. What they point at are the multitudes of variables so many
>folks allow between point A and point B when doing these sorts of
>comparisons, and the known shortcomings of sighted testing when it comes
>to listening. Those constitute sources of error and must be dealt with
>to arrive at the most objective results from subjective testing. >>
>
>My goodness, Hank, even after my week in China I could never match your tone
>of
>overarching civility. I want some of that tea you're sipping.
>
>I guess that leaves me free to be the bad cop, so let me just say that
>whoever
>thinks there's a big obvious difference in the sound of Nuendo versus
>Protools

All I'm saying is that to me I like the sound of Nuendo vs. PTLE using 001 as
the front end. What can I say.

>should find out what he's doing wrong

I'm working on it. By the way you mentioned something had been proved about
this issue already........where is that? You shouldn't take it personally guy
before trying to make recordings that
>the
>rest of us are forced to listen to.
>
>And please don't take my word for it
>
>-R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[NeilH011]

>Please suggest another way of testing. I am open to anything.

Well, if you're jsut trying to determine which one you like better, or sounds
better to your ears, without them being prejudiced by knowing which source is
which, then a blind a/b test usually works: have someone besides yourself burn
the two tracks onto a CD & listen to both... see which one you like better,
then have them tell you which one it is, the PT or Nuendo version.

If what you mean is that you want a test that will tell you WHY they sound
different, then I myself don't know of one.

NeilH

[LeBaron & Alrich]

NeilH011 > wrote:

> >Please suggest another way of testing. I am open to anything.

> Well, if you're jsut trying to determine which one you like better, or sounds
> better to your ears, without them being prejudiced by knowing which source is
> which, then a blind a/b test usually works: have someone besides yourself burn
> the two tracks onto a CD & listen to both... see which one you like better,
> then have them tell you which one it is, the PT or Nuendo version.

> If what you mean is that you want a test that will tell you WHY they sound
> different, then I myself don't know of one.

Can one have both apps up and running on the same machine? Then
_somebody else_ hits play "randomly", keeping track of which app is
delivering the file from the HD, and the listener notes what they think
is playing the file, and then the parties to the investigation compare
notes.

This is somewhat like the way that Nousaine guy disabuses audiphiles of
their cable "knowledge".

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Steve Rhodes]

I've made this test already last year.

I had a big PT rig.
Both mix busses from the PC (Nuendo/Sonar) and ProTools run through a
CraneSong HEDD to the monitors.
Sonar sounded WAY better than ProTools. Nuendo was the best of all.
ProTools sounded flat, the bass not very defined. The PC was wider, deeper,
everything that you could ask for, but not as good as an analogue desk.
Sold ProTools a long time ago after being a user for ten years.

Steve
RME London
"Gary Koliger" > wrote in message
...
> Has anyone tried having someone else do the switching while blindfolded or
> otherwise not looking at the screen?
>
> Gary
>
> Mondoslug1 wrote:
>
> > Andrew wrote;
> >
> > >If I am reading this correctly, you are recording into each program,
and
> > >then listening through the mix busses of each program.
> >
> > I had been, yes. I'd record in PT & Nuendo with 001 as the common
interface and
> > then import each file into the other & listen.
> >
> > Have you tried
> > >listening to the files in a program like Wavelab,Peak or any 2 track
> > >player where you can A/B without going through a DAW mix buss?
> >
> > Yes I just now tried it in Sound Edit & Wave Lab but for the record what
I had
> > been doing is just burning the files to CD & listening............not
through
> > the mix buss.
> > The 2 sound different just with this measley test.
> > I can't see how anybody wouldn't hear a difference....and this is with
the
> > considered low on the totem pole 001 converters. I'd imagine something
gourmet
> > would be even more pronounced.
> >
> > Heard some advice, "Don't A/B. Probably good, I'm spending more time
listening
> > to the 2 back & forth instead of recording.
> >
> > >
> > >Maybe there is a more scientific way to do this; recording to a
> > >"neutral" third device, then recording the exact same performance into
> > >each program. I am sure someone here can come up with something. It
> > >would be cool to do a blind test where you could post something and
only
> > >you knew which was the ProTools or Nuendo files, and we could pick our
> > >preferences.
> > >
> > >I have had my suspicions about ProTools for about a year. I definitely
> > >prefer the sound of my mixes when I mix in Nuendo, but I never would
> > >have thought that ProTools would "color" or otherwise process on the
way
> > >in.
> > >
> > >I am extremely interested in your experiment. I can't wait to see how
> > >this pans out.
> > >
> > >
> > >Mondoslug1 wrote:
> > >> Vernon wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Both platforms should simply and accurately record the bits that are
> > >>>outputted
> > >>>: by the converter. No one has ever demonstrated otherwise.
> > >>>
> > >>> Agreed. Maybe it is the playback environment that is changing? Have
you
> > >>> (OP) tried a side by side playback comparison of the two files you
> > >recorded
> > >>> within the same app? (PT and/or Nuendo)
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I've recorded a few seconds of guitar & voice in Nuendo & PT and then
I
> > >import
> > >> the
> > >> Broadcast Wave(no bouncing) into either software & listen to both
within
> > >the
> > >> same app. I don't know if this is considered "otherwise" or not. Like
I say
> > >> maybe my mic placement changes a hair or the strings are now 30
seconds
> > >older
> > >> or the air is heavier or something, but there's a difference. I don't
think
> > >I'm
> > >> slamming PTLE - it just sounds different.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Vernon.
> > >>>
> > >>>--
> > >>> Vernon Boyce, Soft Audio, ,
http://live.softaudio.com
> > >>> Live recording of acoustic music in Dublin, Ireland
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> My tunes at:
> > >> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My tunes at:
> > http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Mondoslug1 > wrote:

> This is about having a mutual software & hardware playback a file that was
> recorded in each.

Recorded simultaneously from scratch, or loaded from a burnt CD?

--
ha

[Steve Rhodes]

Just for your information:
I recorded all tracks with ProTools. Then exported all tracks to .wav for
the PC.

Playback was trough CranSong HEDD on both plattforms. All tracks were mixed
down to 2-buss. No plug-ins used. I recorded all the plugins from ProTools
with the tracks.
Everything was identical. Only the summing algorithms (audio engines) were
different.
Even the cheap Cakewalk Sonar 2XL platform sounded way better.
It was hard to hear a difference between Sonar and Nuendo, but between
ProTools and the rest it was staggering.

ProTools had no depth and clarity compared to the PC apps.
I don't owe a PC/ProTools anymore after 10 years of using it. I'm more than
a year 'ProTools free' and never for a single second regreted it.

Steve




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Andrew M.]

Is it possible, that DAW manufacturers are adding color on purpose? Just
as a radio station may have a signature sound.

The most important part of this discussion is to determine if one is
OBJECTIVELY better sounding than the other. We want to avoid all number
crunching by recording straight in with no processing, grab the file or
files from the audio folder and listen to them with NO processing. We
aren't comparing Mix busses or EQ's or whatever.

I prefer Nuendo as well, but I still want to know what these programs
are doing. In fact I would like to do the same test with ALL DAW's.





WillStG wrote:
> << (R Krizman) >>
> << Most likely, the listener is in error. And if you're going to take the
> stance
> of "Hey, I know what I'm hearing", fine. End of discussion. No need to
> continue this thread. Go buy the one that sounds the best.
>
> But really, what kind of boneheaded thinking would lead a DAW to alter the data
> on input. The whole raison d'etre for DAWs is NON-DESTRUCTIVE editing. >>
>
> Rick, I asked the original poster what exactly what he was trying to
> measure because all things being nominal yeah, the files should sound the same
> when you use the same hardware for playback, it's when you start crunching
> numbers and summing signals that obvious differences emerge. But unless the
> guy is experienced enough to know exactly how to set up both programs so they
> do not start number crunching the original files, if he has his faders is an
> other than "nominal" position or if he is adding just a touch of the same
> reverb in both programs, there are differences being introduced.
>
> Noticable with just 2 tracks of comparison? Then we're into art as much I
> science I suspect. I personally can tell the difference between say, a 44.1
> and a 48k session played back on a 16 bit Sony 3348, but not by only listening
> to two tracks, I need play back of about 20 or so tracks to be able to tell.
> And I personally have found I like Nuendo better than Protools, but I haven't
> required an empirical A/B/X method to determine that. I do think it sounds
> better though, and I like the user interface and features a lot.
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Fox And Friends/Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
>
>
>

[Andrew M.]

YOu are lucky. My clients still prefer ProTools because they know the
name. It's like trying to convince someone to record on a PC when they
only know MAC.

Steve Rhodes wrote:

> Just for your information:
> I recorded all tracks with ProTools. Then exported all tracks to .wav for
> the PC.
>
> Playback was trough CranSong HEDD on both plattforms. All tracks were mixed
> down to 2-buss. No plug-ins used. I recorded all the plugins from ProTools
> with the tracks.
> Everything was identical. Only the summing algorithms (audio engines) were
> different.
> Even the cheap Cakewalk Sonar 2XL platform sounded way better.
> It was hard to hear a difference between Sonar and Nuendo, but between
> ProTools and the rest it was staggering.
>
> ProTools had no depth and clarity compared to the PC apps.
> I don't owe a PC/ProTools anymore after 10 years of using it. I'm more than
> a year 'ProTools free' and never for a single second regreted it.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Jeff]

It should be very easy to determine whether or not the files being
recorded are the same. You shouldn't have to touch anything, from the
mic to the mixer to the soundcard you're using to get the sound into
the program. The only thing you should be doing is loading one program
instead of another. Fader positions, reverbs, etc don't matter, none
of this affects recording. The only thing that would need to be set in
each program would be sampling rate, etc. If you record the files in
two different programs and open them in Wavelab or Soundforge, they
should be identical; Wavelab has a "compare" function to compare two
audio files. In fact, I would imagine you could use a file comparison
program to compare the two and they should be all the same bits.

The only way I can conceive of there being a difference is if you're
using something like Steinberg's TrueTape function, that essentially
applies their Magneto plugin to the sound as it's being recorded. If
this were on by default, that might explain the difference.

[Andrew M.]

I am talking about straight playback in a program like peak or wavelab
with no processing. You can't check them inside of themselves.


Chris Smalt wrote:
> Will wrote:
>
>
>> Andrew, were all your channel and master faders set to 0 during
>>playback, in both programs?
>
>
>
> Don't forget pan. Maybe the non-number crunching position is fully L or
> R, maybe it's center, who is to say?
>
>
> Chris
>
>

[R Krizman]

<< Everything was identical. Only the summing algorithms (audio engines) were
different.
Even the cheap Cakewalk Sonar 2XL platform sounded way better.
It was hard to hear a difference between Sonar and Nuendo, but between
ProTools and the rest it was staggering. >><BR><BR>

If the diffferences were staggering you were definitely doing something wrong,
or else you're just having us all on here.

-R

[Andrew M.]

YOu are doing the test wrong to begin with. You can't check out how
sonar versus pro tools sounds by playing pro tools files in sonar or
vice versa. Record the files into each program then check them with
something else like Peak or Wavelab. In Wavelab you can set up an audio
montage to A/B the two (or more) files.

I repeat, THE MIX BUSS has nothing to do with this test. geez.

R Krizman wrote:

> << Everything was identical. Only the summing algorithms (audio engines) were
> different.
> Even the cheap Cakewalk Sonar 2XL platform sounded way better.
> It was hard to hear a difference between Sonar and Nuendo, but between
> ProTools and the rest it was staggering. >><BR><BR>
>
> If the diffferences were staggering you were definitely doing something wrong,
> or else you're just having us all on here.
>
> -R

[Mondoslug1]

Jumping back in here for a sec. I can see people got alittle too tweaked but
anbody who flat out just says it ain't so really should think about
it......really good chance you're wrong.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Andrew M. wrote:

> YOu are doing the test wrong to begin with.

I doubt you have clue one about Mr. Krizman's testing acuity. At least
there's humor here.

--
ha

[Bob Cain]

Chris Smalt wrote:
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > I am talking about straight playback in a program like peak or wavelab
> > with no processing.
>
> These programs also have a playback engine with a sound of its own.

What do these playback engines do to the samples sent them
that gives them a characteristic sound?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[R Krizman]

<< Chris Smalt wrote:
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > I am talking about straight playback in a program like peak or wavelab
> > with no processing.
>
> These programs also have a playback engine with a sound of its own.

What do these playback engines do to the samples sent them
that gives them a characteristic sound?


Bob >><BR><BR>

Nothing. They all generate the same string of numbers to a converter.

Except of course for Pro Tools, which uses a secretl algorithm to make
everything sound thin and collapse the stereo image.

Carry on.

-R

[Chris Smalt]

>> What do these playback engines do to the samples sent them
>> that gives them a characteristic sound?

> Nothing. They all generate the same string of numbers to a converter.


That's one way they might do it. Some have a playback volume slider.
Is that processing disabled when set to 0? Is dither being applied all
the time? Never? Or only when the fader isn't at 0? Or does the user
have to specify whether dither is on or off? Is the user aware of this?
And the list goes on.


Chris

[Jeff Maher]

<snip>

> Human p[erception is a funny thing. How about that green flash in Hawaii
that
> occurs at the instant of sunset?
>
> But by all means, worship at the church or temple of your choice.
>
> -R

Don't know about Pro Tools vs. Nuendo (still mixing analog here), but that
green flash is real! It's got nothing to do with Hawaii, though. I saw it
many times at sea in the Navy, and occasionally from the beach in San Diego.

Jeff Maher
Garage Mahal Recording
Austin, Texas

[R Krizman]

<< That's one way they might do it. Some have a playback volume slider.
Is that processing disabled when set to 0? Is dither being applied all
the time? Never? Or only when the fader isn't at 0? Or does the user
have to specify whether dither is on or off? Is the user aware of this?
And the list goes on. >>

The list of what? Things that may or may not be going on in a DAW? Well you
can imagine anything you want and postulate any number of things. But get
real, if you're not changing the amplitude of a signal why would there be any
processing? What on earth would it be? Multiplying by 1? It's not like
you're running through analog electronics that will color the sound whether
you're using them or not.

And we're not talking about using faders or adding dither anyway. The question
pertains to whether a given DAW just can't accurately record and spit back a
string of numbers. I'm a longtime user of Protools and have tested and
discussed this to death and know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Pro Tools
will accurately spit back the bits that it records. If someone's Nuendo system
can't, then I'm guessing it's broken.

You know, this is pretty much the basic skill set for any DAW.

-R

[WillStG]

<< (R Krizman) >>
<<<< someone said >>but that
green flash is real! It's got nothing to do with Hawaii, though. I saw it
many times at sea in the Navy, and occasionally from the beach in San Diego. >>

<<I saw it too, and it was obvious to me what caused it. >>

And that subject's being covered a couple of threads away...



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Andrew M.]

R Krizman wrote:
> << That's one way they might do it. Some have a playback volume slider.
> Is that processing disabled when set to 0? Is dither being applied all
> the time? Never? Or only when the fader isn't at 0? Or does the user
> have to specify whether dither is on or off? Is the user aware of this?
> And the list goes on. >>
>
> The list of what? Things that may or may not be going on in a DAW? Well you
> can imagine anything you want and postulate any number of things. But get
> real, if you're not changing the amplitude of a signal why would there be any
> processing? What on earth would it be? Multiplying by 1? It's not like
> you're running through analog electronics that will color the sound whether
> you're using them or not.
>
> And we're not talking about using faders or adding dither anyway. The question
> pertains to whether a given DAW just can't accurately record and spit back a
> string of numbers. I'm a longtime user of Protools and have tested and
> discussed this to death and know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Pro Tools
> will accurately spit back the bits that it records. If someone's Nuendo system
> can't, then I'm guessing it's broken.

I thought the question was whether ProTools can record to a file without
coloring the sound. (or Nuendo but the question "was why does nuendo
sound better" at the beginning of this thread?

If you find this thread boring or annoying then why not move on to
another one?
>
> You know, this is pretty much the basic skill set for any DAW.
>
> -R
>
>

[Mondoslug1]

RickK wrote:

><< That's one way they might do it. Some have a playback volume slider.
>Is that processing disabled when set to 0? Is dither being applied all
>the time? Never? Or only when the fader isn't at 0? Or does the user
>have to specify whether dither is on or off? Is the user aware of this?
>And the list goes on. >>
>
>The list of what? Things that may or may not be going on in a DAW? Well you
>can imagine anything you want and postulate any number of things. But get
>real, if you're not changing the amplitude of a signal why would there be any
>processing? What on earth would it be? Multiplying by 1? It's not like
>you're running through analog electronics that will color the sound whether
>you're using them or not.
>
>And we're not talking about using faders or adding dither anyway. The
>question
>pertains to whether a given DAW just can't accurately record and spit back a
>string of numbers. I'm a longtime user of Protools and have tested and
>discussed this to death and know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Pro Tools
>will accurately spit back the bits that it records. If someone's Nuendo
>system
>can't, then I'm guessing it's broken.
>
>You know, this is pretty much the basic skill set for any DAW.
>
>-R
>
>

I just transferred all this stuff to an HD rig to mix & I think you got
blinders on dewd. I know which files were tracked in PT and which with Nuendo.
I like 'em both but I could tell they were'nt the same & just because you claim
it ain't so....it ain't so.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[R Krizman]

<< I thought the question was whether ProTools can record to a file without
coloring the sound. (or Nuendo but the question "was why does nuendo
sound better" at the beginning of this thread?

If you find this thread boring or annoying then why not move on to
another one? >><BR><BR>

Every A/D converter outputs its own version of the truth. But once the
converter translates audio into a string of numbers, Pro Tools will record
those numbers accurately--that is, without adding any coloration. If you prefer
the sound of one platform over another, it's for other reasons.

If that's not true it should be very easy to demonstrate. Probably in less
time than it would take to type some ill-informed response.

-R

[R Krizman]

mondoslug wrote:

<<
just because you claim
it ain't so....it ain't so. >><BR><BR>

Hey, if I claim it ain't so it is too so.

-R

[Mondoslug1]

RK wrote:

>mondoslug wrote:
>
><<
>just because you claim
>it ain't so....it ain't so. >>
>
>Hey, if I claim it ain't so it is too so.-R
>
>
>
>

aah, It's becoming more clear now.





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> I saw it too, and it was obvious to me what caused it.

Were you on Maui?

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> << <<I saw it too, and it was obvious to me what caused it. >>

> And that subject's being covered a couple of threads away...
> >>

> And what thread is that?

The one where Paul Stamler is off the coast of Maui in a copy of Thor
Heyerdahl's raft, waving his shirt of many threads?

Or is it the one where Al Franken (and who is he, anyway?) is trying to
out-fox the news? Or it it fox-out?

--
ha

[WillStG]

R Krizman wrote:

> << <<I saw it too, and it was obvious to me what caused it. >>

> And that subject's being covered a couple of threads away...
> >>

> And what thread is that? >>

The one one about the guy who used to make flashy green glass bongs of
course.... <g>




Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[R Krizman]

<< > And what thread is that? >>

The one one about the guy who used to make flashy green glass bongs of
course.... <g> >>

I'm not reading the Tommy Chong thread. Am I missing more ignorant political
diatribes?

-R

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> I'm not reading the Tommy Chong thread. Am I missing more ignorant political
> diatribes?

No, it's all about PeeTea and Nwendoh.

--
ha

[Andrew M.]

LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> Andrew M. wrote:
>
>
>>If you find this thread boring or annoying then why not move on to
>>another one?
>
>
> Because every once in a while on this forum somebody who has been
> somewhere often and done something seriously doesn't want ignorance
> spread among those who could be reading but have little basis for
> comparison. Mythology is fun unless it starts screwing up people's
> understanding of how things work.
>
> --
> ha

I still want to know if ProTools or Nuendo is doing something to files
as they are recorded to disk. It's important for me to know for my
business. Just as knowing that a Studer 2" sounds different than an
Otari 2" and that Neve and SSL consoles sound different,etc. Is this
mythology?

I am not understanding your position that ignorance is being spread.

[NeilH011]

>I am not understanding your position that ignorance is being spread.

I'm not understanding that, either. Another way of looking at it might be: "How
can two DAW's NOT sound different from each other?" Maybe it's my (admitted)
ignorance of software programming, but if you've got even a few lines of code
that handle the instructions for recording the waveform (or playing it back,
for that matter - but IIRC this thread was originally about the recording part
of it), I can't imagine that two completely different companies would have
identical code in their software - that difference could/would/should make a
difference in how each one sounds, yes? Might be a small difference, might be a
large one.

Does that make sense or am I off in thinking in this manner?

NeilH

[WillStG]

(NeilH011)
>Might be a small difference, might be a
>large one.

Is it possible the ASIO driver for the 001 and the Digi DAE might actually
affect the data stream coming from hardware to software?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[R Krizman]

<< I still want to know if ProTools or Nuendo is doing something to files
as they are recorded to disk. It's important for me to know for my
business. Just as knowing that a Studer 2" sounds different than an
Otari 2" and that Neve and SSL consoles sound different,etc. Is this
mythology?

I am not understanding your position that ignorance is being spread.
>>

So I'm telling you, since you need to know for your business, that Protools is
not "doing something" to the files as they are recorded. What would it do?
Add 2 and 2 and change the answer to 5? Your analog analogies are completely
irrelevant and the fact that you would bring those up tells me, with all due
respect, that you need to deepen your technical understanding of the whole DAW
thing before anything I could say to you would count as an explanation. I
recommend you go to recpit.prosoundweb.com and look for Nika's forum and spend
several days reading around in there and asking questions. Also go to
3Daudioinc.com and purchase Lynn Fuston's Awesome DAW-SUM CD, which compares
workstations. It doesn't address your specific question, but it's good fuel
for discussion and will further your understanding of all this by a quantum
leap.

There are a million reasons why one thing may sound different from another.
You need to weed out all the variables to reach an informed conclusion.

Or you can just continue to believe what you believe and base your actions
accordingly. Absolutely no skin off my nose.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< Is it possible the ASIO driver for the 001 and the Digi DAE might
actually
affect the data stream coming from hardware to software? >>

In what way? At what point? After it's already a stream of numbers, or
earlier, when the little bytes are still being hatched from monkey eggs?

-R

[Mondoslug1]

RickK wrote:

><< I'm not understanding that, either. Another way of looking at it might be:
>"How
>can two DAW's NOT sound different from each other?" Maybe it's my (admitted)
>ignorance of software programming, but if you've got even a few lines of code
>that handle the instructions for recording the waveform (or playing it back,
>for that matter - but IIRC this thread was originally about the recording
>part
>of it), I can't imagine that two completely different companies would have
>identical code in their software - that difference could/would/should make a
>difference in how each one sounds, yes? >>
>
>No.
>
>You can use a pencil, a calculator, or an abacus and 2 plus 2 will still come
>out as 4. It's really not brain surgery. It's just simple mathematical
>calculations, which is the one thing computers do quite well by design. As
>long as they are powerful enough and calculate out to a fine enough
>resolution,
>there is no reason to think that the results would be different.
>
>I've mentioned before the Awesome-DAWSUM CD at the 3daudioinc.com site, which
>I
>helped to create. We imported the same audio files into dozens of different
>DAWs and mixed them in an identical fashion, along with some analog
>platforms.
>The results are too complex to summarized here, but it might be astonishing
>to
>you that many of the DAW's, by different manufacturers, yielded bit-identical
>results.
>
>-R
>
>
Say what you will, believe what you will - the bottomline(according to me) is
that Nuendo & PTLE using 001 as the front end.....sound different.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[R Krizman]

<< You are TELLING me that it
just is(that the bits from the converter go niceley to disk) >>


Yup. That's what I'm telling you. You can believe me or go research it
yourself.

If you find anything out in your search, let us know.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< Say what you will, believe what you will - the bottomline(according to me)
is
that Nuendo & PTLE using 001 as the front end.....sound different. >>


Then I would pick the one that sounds best and go with that.

-R

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> I've mentioned before the Awesome-DAWSUM CD at the 3daudioinc.com site,
> which I helped to create. We imported the same audio files into dozens of
> different DAWs and mixed them in an identical fashion, along with some
> analog platforms. The results are too complex to summarized here, but it
> might be astonishing to you that many of the DAW's, by different
> manufacturers, yielded bit-identical results.

Seems to me that anybody wishing to learn more about this subject,
anybody curious about how these types of tests are done, anybody wishing
to review the results of these folks' labor, should get that
Awesome_DAWSUM CD thing from Lyyn Fuston's site and get into studying.

If, thereafter, one has cogent queries, bring 'em on.

But don't do that if you wish to maintain uninformed prejudices based on
non-rigorous subjective testing that has nothing to do with science.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Andrew M.]

The DAWSUM CD specifically deals with DAW's mix buses according to the
web site. That is a different discussion.


LeBaron & Alrich wrote:

> R Krizman wrote:
>
>
>>I've mentioned before the Awesome-DAWSUM CD at the 3daudioinc.com site,
>>which I helped to create. We imported the same audio files into dozens of
>>different DAWs and mixed them in an identical fashion, along with some
>>analog platforms. The results are too complex to summarized here, but it
>>might be astonishing to you that many of the DAW's, by different
>>manufacturers, yielded bit-identical results.
>
>
> Seems to me that anybody wishing to learn more about this subject,
> anybody curious about how these types of tests are done, anybody wishing
> to review the results of these folks' labor, should get that
> Awesome_DAWSUM CD thing from Lyyn Fuston's site and get into studying.
>
> If, thereafter, one has cogent queries, bring 'em on.
>
> But don't do that if you wish to maintain uninformed prejudices based on
> non-rigorous subjective testing that has nothing to do with science.
>
> --
> hank alrich * secret mountain
> audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
> "If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[Mondoslug1]

Hank wrote:

>R Krizman wrote:
>
>> I've mentioned before the Awesome-DAWSUM CD at the 3daudioinc.com site,
>> which I helped to create. We imported the same audio files into dozens of
>> different DAWs and mixed them in an identical fashion, along with some
>> analog platforms. The results are too complex to summarized here, but it
>> might be astonishing to you that many of the DAW's, by different
>> manufacturers, yielded bit-identical results.
>
>Seems to me that anybody wishing to learn more about this subject,
>anybody curious about how these types of tests are done, anybody wishing
>to review the results of these folks' labor, should get that
>Awesome_DAWSUM CD thing from Lyyn Fuston's site and get into studying.
>
>If, thereafter, one has cogent queries, bring 'em on.
>
>But don't do that if you wish to maintain uninformed prejudices based on
>non-rigorous subjective testing that has nothing to do with science.
>

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not but this thread did not start
about the summing argument...that's another issue altogether. I have no
prejudices one way or the other about either Nuendo or PTLE. It was just an
observation by me about the differences in sound between Nuendo & PTLE using a
common front end ........that I feel is ABSOLUTELY true.......to my ears.

>--
> hank alrich * secret mountain
> audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
>"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[NeilH011]

> Is it possible the ASIO driver for the 001 and the Digi DAE might actually
>affect the data stream coming from hardware to software?

That I couldn't say, but I guess it's possible... if you think about it,
there's got to be different variations of the sets of instructions that tell
the software what to do with the incoming signal... could be in the driver,
could be in the software itself. One set of instructions might be translated
(in a very simple manner, of course) as: "Take this signal and do THIS with
it", another DAW's set of instructions might translate to: "Take this signal
and do THAT with it"; and the difference between the 'this' & the 'that' may be
all it takes to alter the sound.

Someone who knows programming must know this stuff for sure... aren't there at
least couple of codeheads on this NG? I wonder if they could shed some light
on this.

NeilH

[Les Cargill]

NeilH011 wrote:
>
> > Is it possible the ASIO driver for the 001 and the Digi DAE might actually
> >affect the data stream coming from hardware to software?
>
> That I couldn't say, but I guess it's possible... if you think about it,
> there's got to be different variations of the sets of instructions that tell
> the software what to do with the incoming signal... could be in the driver,
> could be in the software itself. One set of instructions might be translated
> (in a very simple manner, of course) as: "Take this signal and do THIS with
> it", another DAW's set of instructions might translate to: "Take this signal
> and do THAT with it"; and the difference between the 'this' & the 'that' may be
> all it takes to alter the sound.
>

No.

Software can affect sound negatively if and only if some sort of math error
is coded into things. These errors are well-known and easily
avoidable.

Won't matter. The register interface on a soundcard expects a stream of
X sample rate, Ybit depth, on time and under budget. Anything different
simply won't work. That is all* a driver does - shuttle buffers.

*And set settings, but that's not germane.

> Someone who knows programming must know this stuff for sure... aren't there at
> least couple of codeheads on this NG? I wonder if they could shed some light
> on this.

Nope. The only thing that'll make things sound differently are bugs. I'd
be extremely curious to see exactly what's up with Andy's system(s), but I
can't see 'em from here :)

>
> NeilH


--
Les Cargill

[NeilH011]

>You can use a pencil, a calculator, or an abacus and 2 plus 2 will still come
>out as 4. It's really not brain surgery. It's just simple mathematical
>calculations

Yes, but you can write that "4" in various styles of handwriting & fonts - ever
think of that? Doesn't make the math wrong if you do so, just looks different
to your eye.

>The results are too complex to summarized here, but it might be astonishing
>to
>you that many of the DAW's, by different manufacturers, yielded bit-identical
>results.

Bits are one thing, samples are another... did they yield sample-identical
results, too? Or are you referring to bitrates per sample, and you measured
each & every sample to determine the results?

I dunno, but it seems to me that saying that something yielded bit-identical
results as something else, and therefore they must sound identical, is somewhat
akin to saying that two analog waveforms that yield amplitude-identical
results will sound exactly the same, is it not?

Clearly there's a difference in sound between various DAW's, otherwise many
people from amateurs to pros are suffering from auditory hallucinations.

So, Rick, tell me why every digital playback system sounds the same - when I
can play back the same stereo mixdown file on the same PC through Soundforge,
or Windows Media Player, or imported back into CubaseSX, through the same
convertors, & monitors, and to me they each sound a little bit different? Am I
insane?

They're all just playing back the same 1's & 0's, right?

NeilH

[Bob Cain]

NeilH011 wrote:
>
> Someone who knows programming must know this stuff for sure... aren't there at
> least couple of codeheads on this NG? I wonder if they could shed some light
> on this.

I guess I qualify as a codehead. The relevant instruction
is "move" (maybe broken into a "load/store" pair). There
may be a lot of variation in the code surrounding that
operation but the work will eventually be done by that
operation. There aren't any signifigant variation on that
operation.

If you start mixing and applying gain you can begin to run
into variation but in any reasonably designed DAW the
variations should not be anything as obvious as people are
reporting unless the DAW is seriously broken. The effects
of the numerical operations involved are relatively simple
and very well understood. It would take work to screw it
up.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Les Cargill]

NeilH011 wrote:
>
> >You can use a pencil, a calculator, or an abacus and 2 plus 2 will still come
> >out as 4. It's really not brain surgery. It's just simple mathematical
> >calculations
>
> Yes, but you can write that "4" in various styles of handwriting & fonts - ever
> think of that? Doesn't make the math wrong if you do so, just looks different
> to your eye.
>

Style doesn't matter here. All that matters is the "4".

> >The results are too complex to summarized here, but it might be astonishing
> >to
> >you that many of the DAW's, by different manufacturers, yielded bit-identical
> >results.
>
> Bits are one thing, samples are another... did they yield sample-identical
> results, too? Or are you referring to bitrates per sample, and you measured
> each & every sample to determine the results?
>

If you get the same file from two different systems, they'll bit-for-bit
compare - fc /b in a DOS box...

> I dunno, but it seems to me that saying that something yielded bit-identical
> results as something else, and therefore they must sound identical, is somewhat
> akin to saying that two analog waveforms that yield amplitude-identical
> results will sound exactly the same, is it not?
>
> Clearly there's a difference in sound between various DAW's, otherwise many
> people from amateurs to pros are suffering from auditory hallucinations.
>

These might actually be auditory hallucinations, of a gentle sort. Ever
put a mix down, thinking it rawked, then listen back 24 hours later and
it was awful? <insert story about defeated EQ improving
sound here>

You have to take ABX type steps to control all the variables.

> So, Rick, tell me why every digital playback system sounds the same

But not every playback sounds the same - that's a different sort of subject.


> - when I
> can play back the same stereo mixdown file on the same PC through Soundforge,
> or Windows Media Player, or imported back into CubaseSX, through the same
> convertors, & monitors, and to me they each sound a little bit different? Am I
> insane?

If you hit the same converts with the same input, you'll get the same
waveform, within the limits of the D/A conversion chain.

Is it possibel that various software is mucking with things? Yup. Is that
goofy? Extremely.

Capture the results of these outputs using S/PDIF and see if there
really are differences.

>
> They're all just playing back the same 1's & 0's, right?
>
> NeilH


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Les Cargill wrote:
>
> NeilH011 wrote:
> >

> > So, Rick, tell me why every digital playback system sounds the same
>
> But not every playback sounds the same - that's a different sort of subject.
>

I meant "not every *converter* in playback".

<snip>


--
Les Cargill

[NeilH011]

>> > So, Rick, tell me why every digital playback system sounds the same
>>
>> But not every playback sounds the same - that's a different sort of
>subject.
>>
>I meant "not every *converter* in playback".

OK, and I wasn't referring to different convertors... otherwise I'd be bringing
up differences in the various other DAW's I've used, all of which happened to
be with different types of convertors; but that would be irrelevant, I think it
would be hard to find someone who wouldn't agree that different convertors will
impart different characteristics to the sound. I was referring, in that
instance, only to playing back the same file on three different applications on
the same PC through the same convertors, etc.

In that type of comparison, I can hear a small difference between them... I
can't say that's it's an enormous difference, or a difference that I could, in
a blind test, say: "That's the Cubase one!", or even that any one of them
sucks, it's just that there's some slightly different characteristics to each.

NeilH

[Les Cargill]

NeilH011 wrote:
>
> >> > So, Rick, tell me why every digital playback system sounds the same
> >>
> >> But not every playback sounds the same - that's a different sort of
> >subject.
> >>
> >I meant "not every *converter* in playback".
>
> OK, and I wasn't referring to different convertors... otherwise I'd be bringing
> up differences in the various other DAW's I've used, all of which happened to
> be with different types of convertors; but that would be irrelevant, I think it
> would be hard to find someone who wouldn't agree that different convertors will
> impart different characteristics to the sound. I was referring, in that
> instance, only to playing back the same file on three different applications on
> the same PC through the same convertors, etc.
>
> In that type of comparison, I can hear a small difference between them... I
> can't say that's it's an enormous difference, or a difference that I could, in
> a blind test, say: "That's the Cubase one!", or even that any one of them
> sucks, it's just that there's some slightly different characteristics to each.
>
> NeilH

Can you capture the output via s/pdif and compare the files? You'll
have to get the levels really close... if a single track at nominal
in both packges shows a difference, yer onto something. Getting two
mixes thae close might not be all that possible, although...

Set a single-sample transient at the start to slate 'em by.

FWIW, I've done this 'tween N-track and Cool96. No diff.

--
Les Cargill

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Say what you will, believe what you will - the bottomline(according to me) is
> that Nuendo & PTLE using 001 as the front end.....sound different.

I would think that you, of all people in this thread, would beat it to
Lynn Fuston's site and order that product and try your "test" again in
the light of stuff you might learn if your mind were open and your eyes
were shut.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> << You are TELLING me that it
> just is(that the bits from the converter go niceley to disk) >>

> Yup. That's what I'm telling you. You can believe me or go research it
> yourself.

> If you find anything out in your search, let us know.

And that about sums it up, folks.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Bob Cain wrote:

> It would take work to screw it up.

And Murphy's assistant is a workaholic, I'm told.

--
ha

[Mondoslug1]

Hank wrote:

>Mondoslug1 wrote:
>
>> Say what you will, believe what you will - the bottomline(according to me)
>is
>> that Nuendo & PTLE using 001 as the front end.....sound different.
>
>I would think that you, of all people in this thread, would beat it to
>Lynn Fuston's site and order that product and try your "test" again in
>the light of stuff you might learn if your mind were open and your eyes
>were shut.

Well I should do that but isn't that CD about "summing"? Which repeating
myself, is not the topic at hand.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Andrew M.]

Your "sums it up" joke confirms that you aren't understanding what this
thread is talking about. Take some time and get down off of your high
horse. THe CD you referred me to (DAWSUM) has NOTHING to do with the
original intent of this thread. Your comments (all of them on this
thread) have offered nothing constructive. Your insult to me was
unnecessary. Be sure and pull your head out of your ass before insulting
someone. THe BS you smell may be your own.

Problem: Why do two workstations sharing the same front end (literally)
record different sounding files? (the summing bus, EQ or other
processing in the program has NOTHING to do with this so don't even
bring it up)



LeBaron & Alrich wrote:
> R Krizman wrote:
>
>
>><< You are TELLING me that it
>>just is(that the bits from the converter go niceley to disk) >>
>
>
>>Yup. That's what I'm telling you. You can believe me or go research it
>>yourself.
>
>
>>If you find anything out in your search, let us know.
>
>
> And that about sums it up, folks.
>
> --
> ha

[NeilH011]

>Can you capture the output via s/pdif and compare the files?

I can try it & see. I'd have to borrow or otherwise get ahold of some other
device with a spdif in, as I don't have anything besides this particular PC/DAW
setup at the moment that has one.

>You'll
>have to get the levels really close... if a single track at nominal
>in both packges shows a difference, yer onto something. Getting two
>mixes thae close might not be all that possible, although...

Well, I'm talking about the same mix played back through different apps.
Nothing fancy, standard stereo mixdown file @ 16/44.1, mixed to disk in
CubaseSX.

NeilH

[Mark Plancke]

Les Cargill > wrote:

>Software can affect sound negatively if and only if some sort of math error
>is coded into things. These errors are well-known and easily
>avoidable.
>
>Won't matter. The register interface on a soundcard expects a stream of
>X sample rate, Ybit depth, on time and under budget. Anything different
>simply won't work. That is all* a driver does - shuttle buffers.

Well, I have personally experienced a *huge* difference in sound when
choosing between ASIO, MME, WDM drivers in Samplitude using an RME
9652 card. I used the extact same clock and D/A converters with the
only difference being the driver model chosen.

The ASIO driver was the best sounding by far, not even close.

Mark
http://SoundtechRecording.com

"Putting the lion's share of your attention and investment out in front
of the microphones pays off every time." -- Bob Olhsson

[NeilH011]

>>Won't matter. The register interface on a soundcard expects a stream of
>>X sample rate, Ybit depth, on time and under budget. Anything different
>>simply won't work. That is all* a driver does - shuttle buffers.
>
>Well, I have personally experienced a *huge* difference in sound when
>choosing between ASIO, MME, WDM drivers in Samplitude using an RME
>9652 card. I used the extact same clock and D/A converters with the
>only difference being the driver model chosen.
>
>The ASIO driver was the best sounding by far, not even close.

No, Mark, we're all just hallucinating... you get rid of your Samplitude, and
I'll sell my CubaseSX, and we'll all go out & buy Cakewalk & pocket the
difference.

I mean, if all DAW's sound the same, why not buy the cheapest one & save some
dough?

On a serious note, the driver thing you mention is interesting - I wonder if
Will might have been onto something when he mentioned that possibility earlier
in this thread. I'm going to see if I can load a different driver for my SX
(IIRC, I originally had it working with some Microsoft driver, before I
selected the ASIO driver for the Audiolink interface), and see if I can hear
any kind of difference. Won't be a perfect a/b test, as I'll have to
stop/reload/playback, but could be interesting, nonetheless.

NeilH

[Vladan]

Excuse me for joining this late, but what's going on? You seam to
claim that either PT or Nuendo, or both (only different to each
other), change data on the "way" from converter to disk, right?

Can you confirm the following:

1 - Same source.

2 - Same capturing device/ method.

3 - Same A/D converter.

4 - Both recording applications set in neutral mode.

5 - Both applications recording at once (this automaticaly takes care
of 1,2 and 3). If not possible, analog circuit imperfections will
have influence.

If all of above is fullfiled, you should end with 2 identical files,
which can be proved by DATA comparator of a kind. Hope you don't argue
2 identical DATA files can not differ in sound (if 6 and 7, see
below). If files are not identical and you still care to listen, than
you have to follow the following:

6 - No further processing done

7 - Both files played through same playbeck engine, set EXACTLY the
same at all times (Kruger's ABX comparator does the trick).

Can you hear the difference?

Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm

[Vladan]

Also, I forgot, and saw it already mentioned here, driver can take the
part. For instance, my WDM drivers play at preset atenuation of -5.5.
There may be something in recording too, but I have no proof.
Therefore same drivers should be used in both applications.

Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm

[WillStG]

<< Mark Plancke >>
<< Well, I have personally experienced a *huge* difference in sound when
choosing between ASIO, MME, WDM drivers in Samplitude using an RME 9652 card. I
used the extact same clock and D/A converters with the only difference being
the driver model chosen.

The ASIO driver was the best sounding by far, not even close. >>

So I can stop calling myself stupid for wondering aloud if the
difference between using an 011's converters with ASIO drivers (Nuendo) and DAE
(PT LE) might be a possible source for the perceived differences in recordings?

<<Vladan <A </A> wrote>>

<<Also, I forgot, and saw it already mentioned here, driver can take the
part. For instance, my WDM drivers play at preset atenuation of -5.5.
There may be something in recording too, but I have no proof.
Therefore same drivers should be used in both applications. >>

Unfortunately there's no way to test Protools with ASIO drivers, but one
could compare say Nuendo and Logic driving an 001 with ASIO. But then, why
would you WANT to? Bad converters and bad micpres, the 001 is kind of, well,
ugh...Better to spend time testing a device people might actually WANT to use.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[R Krizman]

<< It was just an
observation by me about the differences in sound between Nuendo & PTLE using a
common front end ........that I feel is ABSOLUTELY true.......to my ears.
>>

I think we all get that by now. So again, pick the one you like and have at
it.

-R

[Mondoslug1]

Rick wrote:

><< It was just an
>observation by me about the differences in sound between Nuendo & PTLE using
>a
>common front end ........that I feel is ABSOLUTELY true.......to my ears.
> >>
>
>I think we all get that by now. So again, pick the one you like and have at
>it.
>
>-R
>

I agree I am giving it a rest. I respond here & there it's just folks keep
bringing up the summing CD for some reason.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

>On 19 Sep 2003 13:15:08 GMT, (NeilH011) wrote:
>
>>On a serious note, the driver thing you mention is interesting - I wonder if
>>Will might have been onto something when he mentioned that possibility
>earlier
>>in this thread. I'm going to see if I can load a different driver for my SX
>>(IIRC, I originally had it working with some Microsoft driver, before I
>>selected the ASIO driver for the Audiolink interface), and see if I can hear
>>any kind of difference. Won't be a perfect a/b test, as I'll have to
>>stop/reload/playback, but could be interesting, nonetheless.
>
>Atleast one version of Terratec WDM drivers were set to playback at
>max -5.5dB FS, while ASIO drivers played normaly, up to 0dBFS.
>However, that's on playback, while the main discussion here is about
>the recording.
>


Well this might have something to do with it..........i do have Digi's Asio
Control Panel at +4 & PTLE's 001 Control Pnael at +4 input & the files recorded
in Nuendo are hotter............checked the peaks. Not talking playback...the
actual recorded file before anything else is done, but besides the extra gain,
it's the quality of sound is still different. hahah I know hey I/m having fun,
too bad it's true.
>Another thing, Cubase (Nuendo?) has optional "recording buffers go
>direct to disk". Does PT have something like that. If either of the
>two is set different, or they re set different from each other, thus
>at least one passing the data through itself AND OS!!! before going to
>disk, there may be some noticeable difference.
>Vladan
> www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
> www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
>
> www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Mondoslug1]

Rick wrote:

><< Problem: Why do two workstations sharing the same front end (literally)
>record different sounding files? (the summing bus, EQ or other
>processing in the program has NOTHING to do with this so don't even
>bring it up) >>
>
>Quite simply, we're not buying your premise. Just the fact that somebody
>thought he heard a difference, and I don't doubt his sincerity, doesn't mean
>that it has anything to do with what you're describing. Could be a number of
>things that would account for his perception. No details have been provided
>except "I know what I heard". So, since I wasn't there, all I can say is
>great, go with the one that sounds best, for whatever reason.
>

Definitley, I know I can't prove it with data........but let's get back to the
real world. If I have my choice of 2 different files to use while
mixing........as you say I go with the one I think sounds best & that's the
bottomline.

>I am curious about one thing. How was this setup so that 2 different
>workstations recorded the same signal from the same converter? Did you split
>the digital stream after conversion? If so, how? And then did you import
>the
>files to a 3rd workstation to compare them, so that playback couldn't be the
>culprit? And if so, how do you know an error didn't occur later in this
>process.
>
>Since this is an issue for you, you should research it further. if there's a
>well known DAW out there that can't accurately record the bitstream from a
>converter, I'm sure the entire industry would love to know about it. It
>should
>be very easy to demonstrate.
>
>I won't be doing this test because I don't, for a moment, believe this is an
>issue. But if you do, you should investigate further. If you think Hank has
>his head up his ass, go ahead and prove it or admit you can't hear through
>your
>own butt cheeks.
>
>-R
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Steve Rhodes]

> So I'm telling you, since you need to know for your business, that
Protools is
> not "doing something" to the files as they are recorded. What would it
do?

The moment you change levels and sum a couple of track together on one
output it actually does quite a lot.

Mix 40 channels together on 2-bus with ProTools and then try the same with
Nuendo. (using the same converters)
Your jaw is going to hit the floor when you hear the difference.

Most people make the mistake and think having the most expensive DAW will
get them the best sounding one. I can tell you: Don't get mislead! Check it
out for yourself.

Steve




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Mondoslug1]

RK wrote:

>>I am curious about one thing. How was this setup so that 2 different
>>workstations recorded the same signal from the same converter?

Easy, 001 does it..........switch back & forth between the 2 softwares, of
course closing the other one not in use first.


Did you
>split
>>the digital stream after conversion? If so, how? And then did you import
>>the
>>files to a 3rd workstation to compare them, so that playback couldn't be the
>>culprit? And if so, how do you know an error didn't occur later in this
>>process.

I did play through a 3rd workstation but actually I just grabbed each file form
the respective softwares "Audio Folder" and burned to disc & listened.

>>
>>Since this is an issue for you, you should research it further. if there's
>a
>>well known DAW out there that can't accurately record the bitstream from a
>>converter, I'm sure the entire industry would love to know about it. It
>>should
>>be very easy to demonstrate.
>>
>>I won't be doing this test because I don't, for a moment, believe this is an
>>issue. But if you do, you should investigate further. If you think Hank
>has
>>his head up his ass, go ahead and prove it or admit you can't hear through
>>your
>>own butt cheeks.
>>
>>-R
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>My tunes at:
>http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Andrew M.]

Who is this "we" that isn't buying the premise? And why don't you
respond to my question?

Problem: Why do two workstations sharing the same front end (literally)
> record different sounding files? (the summing bus, EQ or other
> processing in the program has NOTHING to do with this so don't even
> bring it up) ?

You obviously don't think this is worthwhile so why are you even
bothering to respond to it? If you have nothing constructive to offer
then stay out of it. Why would you want to stop this information from
being discussed? I really don't understand your opposition to the topic.


R Krizman wrote:
> << Problem: Why do two workstations sharing the same front end (literally)
> record different sounding files? (the summing bus, EQ or other
> processing in the program has NOTHING to do with this so don't even
> bring it up) >>
>
> Quite simply, we're not buying your premise. Just the fact that somebody
> thought he heard a difference, and I don't doubt his sincerity, doesn't mean
> that it has anything to do with what you're describing. Could be a number of
> things that would account for his perception. No details have been provided
> except "I know what I heard". So, since I wasn't there, all I can say is
> great, go with the one that sounds best, for whatever reason.
>
> I am curious about one thing. How was this setup so that 2 different
> workstations recorded the same signal from the same converter? Did you split
> the digital stream after conversion? If so, how? And then did you import the
> files to a 3rd workstation to compare them, so that playback couldn't be the
> culprit? And if so, how do you know an error didn't occur later in this
> process.
>
> Since this is an issue for you, you should research it further. if there's a
> well known DAW out there that can't accurately record the bitstream from a
> converter, I'm sure the entire industry would love to know about it. It should
> be very easy to demonstrate.
>
> I won't be doing this test because I don't, for a moment, believe this is an
> issue. But if you do, you should investigate further. If you think Hank has
> his head up his ass, go ahead and prove it or admit you can't hear through your
> own butt cheeks.
>
> -R
>
>
>

[Les Cargill]

Mark Plancke wrote:
>
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
> >Software can affect sound negatively if and only if some sort of math error
> >is coded into things. These errors are well-known and easily
> >avoidable.
> >
> >Won't matter. The register interface on a soundcard expects a stream of
> >X sample rate, Ybit depth, on time and under budget. Anything different
> >simply won't work. That is all* a driver does - shuttle buffers.
>
> Well, I have personally experienced a *huge* difference in sound when
> choosing between ASIO, MME, WDM drivers in Samplitude using an RME
> 9652 card. I used the extact same clock and D/A converters with the
> only difference being the driver model chosen.
>
> The ASIO driver was the best sounding by far, not even close.
>

Maybe I'm missing something, but the driver *should* be totally
transparent to the sound. I get exactly the same signals with
MME or ASIO - this with a Lightpipe to a remote D/A-A/D, but
still...

> Mark
> http://SoundtechRecording.com
>
> "Putting the lion's share of your attention and investment out in front
> of the microphones pays off every time." -- Bob Olhsson


--
Les Cargill

[R Krizman]

<< Yes, but you can write that "4" in various styles of handwriting & fonts -
ever
think of that? Doesn't make the math wrong if you do so, just looks different
to your eye. >>

Right, which is why it will sound different out of different speakers,
converters, etc.

<< Bits are one thing, samples are another... did they yield sample-identical
results, too? >>

The samples are represented by a string of ones and zeros--actually, in most
cases, a "word" that consists of 24 ones or zeroes in a certain order which the
computer outputs in a sequence. These are then stored on a hard drive. It's
the most basic thing a computer can do. Those numbers are then spit back in
the same order to a converter that extrapolates them into electrical waveforms.
If two files have the exact same stream of numbers, in the same order, they
are "bit-identical" and will sound the same.

<< Clearly there's a difference in sound between various DAW's >>

Of course there are, but not for the reasons stated here.

<< when I
can play back the same stereo mixdown file on the same PC through Soundforge,
or Windows Media Player, or imported back into CubaseSX, through the same
convertors, & monitors, and to me they each sound a little bit different? >>

I can't speak for these programs. Windows Media Player? They could be running
at different bitrates or sample rates. Maybe when you recorded the data your
DAWs were set at different sample rates or bit depths. Any number of things
might be going on in the playback engine. Why are you insisting that each
platform inexplicably alters the data when it inputs it?

<< They're all just playing back the same 1's & 0's, right? >>

Who knows? Anything might be ****ed up at this point. You should do some
trouble shooting. You can continue to maintain that the different platforms
are altering your data on input, but then you'll never find out what's really
happening and the likelihood that your recordings will suck will be a bit
higher.

Brighter minds than yours have been the victim of systematic errors.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< RK wrote:

>>I am curious about one thing. How was this setup so that 2 different
>>workstations recorded the same signal from the same converter?

Easy, 001 does it..........switch back & forth between the 2 softwares, of
course closing the other one not in use first. >>

You mean you had Nuendo and Pro Tools both running at the same time on the same
computer. Okay, but I gather they didn't record the same thing at the same
time. What exactly were you recording? Presumably something from tape, not a
live performance. Well, keep in mind that if you are recording on 2 different
passes, the slight analog variations will mean that you won't be able to flip
phase and null out your tracks. There will be a slight difference between
them, because there is a slight difference in every analog playback.

My guess is that you didn't have the inputs of the 2 softwares set in an
identical fashion. I once did a session in Proo Tools using 24 bit converters
and wondered after awhile why everything sounded like ****. Turns out the
program had defaulted to 16 bits, so all my data was being truncated.

I reiterate. If you have everything set correctly, there should be no
difference in those files. I'd investigate further if I were you.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< You obviously don't think this is worthwhile so why are you even
bothering to respond to it? If you have nothing constructive to offer
then stay out of it. Why would you want to stop this information from
being discussed? I really don't understand your opposition to the topic.
>>

I'm one of the few people who has actually had anything constructive to say
about this. Hey discuss away. What would you like to add?

<< Problem: Why do two workstations sharing the same front end (literally)
> record different sounding files? (the summing bus, EQ or other
> processing in the program has NOTHING to do with this so don't even
> bring it up) ? >>

Probably because the user didn't read the manual and ****ed up some input
settings. (sometimes answers are just answers, and not glamorous new insights)

So what's your explanation, hotshot?

-R

[R Krizman]

<< the
actual recorded file before anything else is done, but besides the extra gain,
it's the quality of sound is still different. hahah I know hey I/m having fun,
too bad it's true. >>

The mind boggles.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< Mix 40 channels together on 2-bus with ProTools and then try the same with
Nuendo. (using the same converters)
Your jaw is going to hit the floor when you hear the difference. >>

It's been done with 24 tracks, in a very scientific manner in a very public
forum, and believe me, nobody's jaw hit the ground. Perhaps 40 is the magic
number?

This is all valid stuff for discussion, but you guys need to get a little more
current. There's lots of interesting stuff going on, but it's way more complex
that the simple, and for the most part wrong, generalizations in this thread.

Don't take my word for it. Look around.

-R

[Neil Henderson]

>I can't speak for these programs. Windows Media Player? They could be
>running
>at different bitrates or sample rates.

How can they be running at different bitrates or sample rates if I'm taking the
same stereo file & playing it back through each of these apps? Is that
possible? Not being sarcastic here, but is it possible for a 16-bit digital
file to be played back at 15 bits (assuming I am not somehow purposely altering
the playback properties of said app)? I know it's possible to play back a file
at adifferent sample rate, but is it conceiveable that oneof these apps would
play back at a sample rate that's "off" enough to give me a perception of a
different sound, but not "off" enough that I wouldn't detect a shift in pitch?
I'm thinking that's pretty unlikely - to use the old medical school analogy,
I'm looking for horses here, not zebras.


>Maybe when you recorded the data your
>DAWs were set at different sample rates or bit depths.

No, that's not the case... maybe I wasn't clear in my description - I was
referring to playing back the exact same file through different applications. I
know the thread was orginally about recording ONLY, but it had also gotten into
playback mechanisms being (theoretically) totally clean & uncolored (and
thereore should sound identical), assuming they were all set at "neutral"
(which I would assume to mean "zero" on levels, no EQ-ing, no nuthin' else).

> Why are you insisting that each
>platform inexplicably alters the data when it inputs it?

I'm not necessarily "insisting". I am asking if it is conceiveable that two
different companies would have the exact same code instructions as to how to
handle an input signal, and if not, could that affect a change in the sound of
what gets recorded with respect to different platforms? That was a query, not a
position.

At 24 bits x 44,100 sample rate, that's over a million variables per second,
right? That's a helluva lotta variables, and is it not conceivable that two
DAW's, using the same convertors, could indeed interpret things differently?
What about things like rounding errors, and how each DAW handles them? I think
that could affect a difference in the sound of each recorded signal... am I the
only one that thinks this might be possible? Not saying it's a sure thing,
because I don't know how you would test it, but maybe POSSIBLE? Hey, perhaps
I'm wrong, but then again, pehaps you are too, considering that you're relying
on test equipment rather than your ears to make these determinations.

> the likelihood that your recordings will suck will be a bit higher.

Well, there's the condescension that's the unmistakeable hallmark of this
newsgroup... darn, I had missed that, as I actually hadn't seen it in some
time. Thanks for reminding me where I am: rec-audio-closedmindedindividuals. So
I take it that means you've heard all my recordings & determined that they all
suck?

NeilH

[Neil Henderson]

>Well, just for the record, you're shifting the discussion to something else.
>The original issue was that the same source recorded (not imported) into
>different workstations via the same converter sounded different when played
>back through the same DAW.

Right, but someone else (wasn't it you?) had mentioned something about playback
between DAW's sounding identical if both/all were set to "neutral" positions
(no gain changes or other types of processing applied), so that's what my above
stament was addressing.

NeilH

[Mondoslug1]

Neil wrote:
>>Okay, you believe what you believe, but what you are hearing is the
>>differences
>>in your performances and mic placement. That's HUGE--much greater than any
>>subtle difference between DAWs, real or imagined, that people have asserted.
>>
>>Do yourself a favor. Record a guitar pass to tape. Then record that tape
>>into
>>Pro Tools and Nuendo. Compare. At least then you have a fighting chance of
>>isolating the variable you're seeking to understand.
>
>That's a good recommendation... Andy, if you're still reading this thread,
>you
>ought to try that.
>
>NeilH
>
>

I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a pass.then
what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each? I mean somebody will say I
moved an inch and that caused the difference. Hey beoieve me, I wanna know that
LE sounds as good............it's easier to use for me.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[Neil Henderson]

> I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a pass.then
>what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each?

No, record from the line out of the tape deck into the line-in's on the
convertors.

I mean somebody will say I
>moved an inch and that caused the difference.

If you go line-to-line, you could swing the tape machine over your head & they
can't say squat lol

Neil

[Mondoslug1]

Neil wrote:

>> I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a pass.then
>>what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each?
>
>No, record from the line out of the tape deck into the line-in's on the
>convertors.
>

Well I have a guitar with a Joe Mills mini condensor in it & I plugged that
straight into the front end of the 001 and recorded into both P & N. There's
not many variables there to screw it up.The mic doesn't move & I can play the
same part consistently. I do admit it was very hard to tell. Not totally
convinced yet but it was hard to tell a difference.


> I mean somebody will say I
>>moved an inch and that caused the difference.
>
>If you go line-to-line, you could swing the tape machine over your head &
>they
>can't say squat lol
>
>Neil
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Mondoslug1 wrote:

> Not exactly only it's me with an acoustic trying not to move much........I've
> done it a zillion times, there's a constant t'thing' going on regardless of
> whether I moved an inch or two.

No, there is not a constant thing going on in the situation you posit,
not even close to constant.

Right there you have deprived yourself of data that could be meaningful
in the context of this discussion. I'll go further and say that you must
not have spent a lot of time placing microohones, because if you had and
were paying close attention to the changes in sound from fairly
miniscule alterations of microphone posiiton you would never make claims
of grand differences in sonics from DAWs without using _identical_
information at input.

Your task now should be to get back to work and figure out how to
achieve direct storage to disk in the relevant DAW's from the same
source _recorded simultaneously_ into both systems.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Neil Henderson wrote:

> If you go line-to-line, you could swing the tape machine over your head & they
> can't say squat lol

Don't try this without a helmet, and don't try it with a Studer, Ampex,
Otari, or... wait a minute... If you can swing the tape deck over your
head it is probably not sutiable for this testing. Well, maybe some
Nagras would be okay.

--
ha

[Mondoslug1]

Hank wrote:

>Mondoslug1 wrote:
>
>> Not exactly only it's me with an acoustic trying not to move
>much........I've
>> done it a zillion times, there's a constant t'thing' going on regardless of
>> whether I moved an inch or two.
>
>No, there is not a constant thing going on in the situation you posit,
>not even close to constant.
>
>Right there you have deprived yourself of data that could be meaningful
>in the context of this discussion. I'll go further and say that you must
>not have spent a lot of time placing microohones, because if you had and
>were paying close attention to the changes in sound from fairly
>miniscule alterations of microphone posiiton you would never make claims
>of grand differences in sonics from DAWs without using _identical_
>information at input.
>
>Your task now should be to get back to work and figure out how to
>achieve direct storage to disk in the relevant DAW's from the same
>source _recorded simultaneously_ into both systems.
>
>--

Getting right on it.

> hank alrich * secret mountain
> audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
>"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"
>
>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[WillStG]

Sorry, I misidedntified the original poster as Neil, but it was actually Andy I
think.

<< (WillStG) >>

<< << (R Krizman) >>
<< That's why I've been directing people to the Awesome DAWSUM comparison CD.
You'll be hearing those same sorts of differences between files that are
bit-identical. Try it. You'll learn a lot about the nature of your own
perception. >>

Rick you have to admit though, Neil is isolating one particular thing
that isn't usually the focus of concern for people interested in comparing
DAWs. We usually concern ourselves with summing busses and processing arcana,
but Neil wants to know if different DAWs encode the incoming audio stream
differently as the files are recorded. He's playing the files back from a 3rd
piece of software for comparitive listening. Maybe he needs a more scientific
method, fine, but if he feels they sound different that's probably motive
enough to persue a bit of scientific inquiry, no? That's how people learn.

Wouldn't if be funny if he stumbled upon something not widely
considered, that there is more to encoding a stream of digital audio in a lot
of popular software then just straight recording of the output of a digital
converter? That would be signifigant, so why not help him to check that
hypothesis with a more scientific approach? Stranger things have turned out
to be true...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits >>



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Fox And Friends/Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Neil Henderson]

>Sorry, I misidedntified the original poster as Neil, but it was actually Andy
>I
>think.

Yeah, it was Andy, but I threw in some postulations early on, as I'm interested
in this as well. One thing I didn't know, was that Andy had indeed used two
different passes to record with (albiet with identical signal chains), and I'll
freely admit that could be the difference he's hearing - I had interpreted
(apparently MISinterpreted) his post to mean that he had both apps running at
the same time, recording the same pass. I'm curious to see what he comes up
with once he records the take to another source (tape?), then records that same
take into both apps & compares from there.

Having said all that; Will, you mentioned something about the drivers possibly
affecting the sound, and so did someone else, so I'm going to see if I can load
that other driver into CubaseSX today compare that one with the ASIO driver &
see if I hear any difference. If I can (or "think" I can) hear a difference,
maybe I'll post a short 30-second segment of a mix through each driver so
anyone here who wants to compare can do so. If so, I'll do it in 16/44.1 .wav,
not mp3, and I'll keep it short enough so it's not going to be a pain to
download if someone's on dial-up.

That won't address the recording issue with various apps, or even with various
drivers, but it could start to address whether or not a driver can affect the
sound at all, so it's still germane to some of the things we've discussed on
the thread.

NeilH

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Neil Henderson wrote:

> One thing I didn't know, was that Andy had indeed used two different
> passes to record with (albiet with identical signal chains), and I'll
> freely admit that could be the difference he's hearing

Certainly he must eliminate that source of potential error. One may
appreciate that placement of an internal guitar mic won't vary
significantly for the purpose of auditioning takes. But no matter how
consistent are one's back-to-back performances, the chances of
delivering bit identical _performances_ probably make Las Vegas adds
look really good.

--
ha

[R Krizman]

<< Wouldn't if be funny if he stumbled upon something not widely
considered, that there is more to encoding a stream of digital audio in a lot
of popular software then just straight recording of the output of a digital
converter? That would be signifigant, so why not help him to check that
>><BR><BR>

I could spend all day checking every logically possible error that a DAW could
be committing. My understanding of "how it all works", which I didn't come to
with just idle speculation, tells me that there's no issue here. If somebody
else thinks there is, by all means, demonstrate it. I'm always willing to be
enlightened.

As they say in Missouri, "Show me".

-R

[R Krizman]

<< I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a pass.then
what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each? I mean somebody will say I
moved an inch and that caused the difference. >><BR><BR>

No, dude, just go line in into your converter.

Hello!!!!

-R

[Mondoslug1]

><< I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a
>pass.then
>what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each? I mean somebody will say I
>moved an inch and that caused the difference. >>
>
>No, dude, just go line in into your converter.Hello!!!!-R
>

dewd, I did & I posted about it.



My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> << I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a pass.then
> what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each? I mean somebody will say I
> moved an inch and that caused the difference. >>

> No, dude, just go line in into your converter.

<j>

And don't wiggle the wire while the transfer is in progress or you'll
induce analomagnelectronetical jitteristical anomalies in your test
signal.

</j>

> Hello!!!!

Gotcha. Will do.

--
ha

[Musikboy]

In article >, Mondoslug1
> wrote:

> ><< I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a
> >pass.then
> >what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each? I mean somebody will say I
> >moved an inch and that caused the difference. >>
> >
> >No, dude, just go line in into your converter.Hello!!!!-R
> >
>
> dewd, I did & I posted about it.
>
>
>
> My tunes at:
> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>
>
Ok I can't freakin take it anymore!!!!!!!!!! Let's settle it. Ok Pro
Tools sucks, sounds like crap and thats why its used on 95% of all
records and if you own it you can charge around $50 or more per hour
just for an editing rig in your living room.

Nuendo is the best, sounds like platinum andthsts why only hobbiests
use it and if you own you can charge $.50 and hour people still wont
hire the rig even in a million dollar facility.

Why does everyone use pro tools? because while they were sleeping digi
embeded small DSPS instructional into the 50 top engineer mixers in the
country and they receive electrical jolts if they even thnk about using
any other platform other than pro tools.

Ok you happy? Now rick and I will get back to making music in a format
that is used by 95% of the world and you use your toy that is used by
>1% of the world.

[Mondoslug1]

>
>In article >, Mondoslug1
> wrote:
>
>> ><< I'm going to keep after this but not sure what is meant..record a
>> >pass.then
>> >what hold a speaker of it up to a mic into each? I mean somebody will say
>I
>> >moved an inch and that caused the difference. >>
>> >
>> >No, dude, just go line in into your converter.Hello!!!!-R
>> >
>>
>> dewd, I did & I posted about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> My tunes at:
>> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm
>>
>>
>Ok I can't freakin take it anymore!!!!!!!!!! Let's settle it. Ok Pro
>Tools sucks, sounds like crap and thats why its used on 95% of all
>records and if you own it you can charge around $50 or more per hour
>just for an editing rig in your living room.
>
>Nuendo is the best, sounds like platinum andthsts why only hobbiests
>use it and if you own you can charge $.50 and hour people still wont
>hire the rig even in a million dollar facility.
>
>Why does everyone use pro tools? because while they were sleeping digi
>embeded small DSPS instructional into the 50 top engineer mixers in the
>country and they receive electrical jolts if they even thnk about using
>any other platform other than pro tools.
>
>Ok you happy? Now rick and I will get back to making music in a format
>that is used by 95% of the world and you use your toy that is used by
>>1% of the world.
>

hahaha. easyturbo. I was just curious about the differences if any in sound. I
guess it was proven to me that there aren't any. It all sounds the same.
Just for the record there is an elite 5 percent using other DAWs though.


>
>
>
>
>





My tunes at:
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/5/andymostmusic.htm