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

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............. BRBR

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

-R

"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............. BRBR

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

: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 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

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.

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"

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

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.


BRBR

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

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 BRBR

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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"?

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 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

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"

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

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

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

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"

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 =---

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

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 =---

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

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 =---

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.

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

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. BRBR

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

-R

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. BRBR

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

-R

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

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