|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 3, 2014 15:54:07 GMT -6
If your mixing on an analog console and using a DAW like a digital tape machine , would all DAWs sound exactly the same ?
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 3, 2014 16:57:21 GMT -6
Yes
No
Maybe
Depends
Why?
Expand the question a little, and you will get a better answer I plumb reckon
8)
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 3, 2014 17:59:34 GMT -6
I could ask it this way :
The only difference between DAWs , is the way they SUM the tracks together ?
You could get Pro Tools , Reaper , Harrison Mix Bus.......import the same audio tracks , but mix on an analog console ( send every audio track out to its own channel on the analog console) you would not hear a difference between the different DAWs ? All the foating point , 32 bit...(stuff I don't understand)..wouldn't even matter ?
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 3, 2014 18:33:59 GMT -6
I could ask it this way : The only difference between DAWs , is the way they SUM the tracks together ? You could get Pro Tools , Reaper , Harrison Mix Bus.......import the same audio tracks , but mix on an analog console ( send every audio track out to its own channel on the analog console) you would not hear a difference between the different DAWs ? All the foating point , 32 bit...(stuff I don't understand)..wouldn't even matter ? No one major difference could be PAN LAW. Depends on how you do your summing. Hard Left Right or some , stereo sums. Also, who knows what is in the path? Are you seeking a particular thing from a DAW when you do your summing? What is it you are concerned with, or is it just a general knowledge question. I guess I am still (and I apologise for it) missing the point of the question, what does the outcome mean to you? cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 3, 2014 20:37:06 GMT -6
I figure that you'd hear some amount of difference, but the amount is probably small enough to not worry about. There are websites that have measurements of the audio engines and their effects on the audio streams.. I can't seem to find it, but the results are not really all that astoundingly different and certainly don't translate into drastic performance differences.
|
|
|
|
Post by levon on Jun 4, 2014 0:40:38 GMT -6
Using various tape machines as source will probably sound more different than various DAWs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 4, 2014 6:20:40 GMT -6
If you are doing any signal processing in the DAW including the tiniest gain change, all bets are off. This is because developers have choices in exactly how numbers get rounded, dithered and truncated. Only a file copy clone will ever be non-destructive. This is why gain structure is also important in the digital world.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jun 4, 2014 8:40:56 GMT -6
That's my experience. Anytime data is manipulated, it changes, for the worse. Straight record/play files avoid that change that I call "digititus". Do that and all gain/frequency manipulation is done in the analog domain those changes are avoided, but it causes most DAW AE's to flip out not knowing how to do those things in the analog domain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 4, 2014 10:49:40 GMT -6
"Digititus" is the crunchy sound of the truncation distortion caused by lack of dither. You can think of it as a chattering noise gate. Dither makes it chatter so fast that it sounds like hiss. The hiss actually retains low level information. Then there's aliasing which covers up midrange detail. I've heard the aliasing in a converter make the brushes on a snare drum go completely away!
Unfortunately the MIDI crowd won the DAW market based the ability to do anything at all using cheap computer hardware. Things have improved a great deal but I still can't count on digital being properly coded and not screwing something up if I'm not very careful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jun 4, 2014 11:37:03 GMT -6
Try this. Play some midi piano or drums and make a consistent file for reference. Just 30 seconds worth of programming and burn them down in different daw's using the exact same midi program. I had a friend who has the latest poortools and ez drummer. I too have ez drummer via my Cubase daw, so that is what I chose to make the test with. I was astounded at how much better Cubase 7 sounded with this simple test and so was he. We were able to listen to the comparison in one of the best mastering houses in Nashville. He sold his rig the next week and has been a Mac based Cubase guy ever since.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 4, 2014 11:39:00 GMT -6
^^ Thia. And the cheapness (and yes, lack of expense) with digital audio is RUINING audio. If pro audio systems were built to truly replicate the advancements of the pinnacle of analog technology at its zenith and then go beyond that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And HOW I wish they were then priced accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 4, 2014 13:50:45 GMT -6
Very interesting info guys !
I think you just helped me figure out something that has puzzled me for a LONG time .
I kept coming across people saying that when they ditched their dedicated recorders , HD24 , ADATs , RADAR and switched to DAWs their sound suffered . They could not get things to sound as good as when they were using dedicated digital recorders . So they started blaming the DAW and saying that dedicated recorders must handle the audio better than a computer with a DAW .
BUT!! I don't think thats the case . After reading what you guys said , I believe since the dedicated recorders are so limited and can just play back audio , they don't allow you to screw anything up . Whereas with the DAW theres a MILLION ways to screw things up because every tweak , even gain adjustment degrades the digital audio .
So if I didn't do ANYTHING , no gain or fader changes in the DAW , just played back audio and mixed on an analog console , the digital audio should be the same quality with any DAW , or dedicated digital recorder like Radar ?
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 5, 2014 15:55:26 GMT -6
Very interesting info guys ! I think you just helped me figure out something that has puzzled me for a LONG time . I kept coming across people saying that when they ditched their dedicated recorders , HD24 , ADATs , RADAR and switched to DAWs their sound suffered . They could not get things to sound as good as when they were using dedicated digital recorders . So they started blaming the DAW and saying that dedicated recorders must handle the audio better than a computer with a DAW . BUT!! I don't think thats the case . After reading what you guys said , I believe since the dedicated recorders are so limited and can just play back audio , they don't allow you to screw anything up . Whereas with the DAW theres a MILLION ways to screw things up because every tweak , even gain adjustment degrades the digital audio . So if I didn't do ANYTHING , no gain or fader changes in the DAW , just played back audio and mixed on an analog console , the digital audio should be the same quality with any DAW , or dedicated digital recorder like Radar ? No. Radar, and standalone digital recorders have their A/D and D/A incorporated. They are a homogenous system. DAWS are software. You could have a DAW running on a PC or Mac using its inbuilt sound card, don't expect it to sound like RADAR. This is why I wanted clarification on your question and where you were heading. You can't make generalisations like that I don't think. Its a bit like valve mics are better than solid state, tape better than digital, et etc There are dedicated digital recording systems that sound like crap . Ones that sound fanastic. There are dedicated digital recording systems that have great functionality (operating system) and those that don't. But don't think that because its standalone, that its any better than a DAW running on a computer. I don't think thats a good way to think of it. Why you would run a DAW as a recording capture play back device, and to do it for sonic improvement reasons could be as simple as...... You want to do analog summing. You don't want to manipulate your audio within the software realm for a number of reasons. I can also see the point, if you want to say purchase a computer, put daw software on it and AD-DA, and then leave it alone till it explodes in failure, then just replace it. Essentially using it just as a tape machine. This last idea I reckon is not a bad one at all. (My gosh, I had to edit this a zillion times because of some weird auto bloody correct thing going on!) cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 5, 2014 16:23:29 GMT -6
Very interesting info guys ! I think you just helped me figure out something that has puzzled me for a LONG time . I kept coming across people saying that when they ditched their dedicated recorders , HD24 , ADATs , RADAR and switched to DAWs their sound suffered . They could not get things to sound as good as when they were using dedicated digital recorders . So they started blaming the DAW and saying that dedicated recorders must handle the audio better than a computer with a DAW . BUT!! I don't think thats the case . After reading what you guys said , I believe since the dedicated recorders are so limited and can just play back audio , they don't allow you to screw anything up . Whereas with the DAW theres a MILLION ways to screw things up because every tweak , even gain adjustment degrades the digital audio . So if I didn't do ANYTHING , no gain or fader changes in the DAW , just played back audio and mixed on an analog console , the digital audio should be the same quality with any DAW , or dedicated digital recorder like Radar ? No. Radar, and standalone digital recorders have their A/D and D/A incorporated. They are a homogenous system. DAWS are software. You could have a DAW running on a PC or Mac using its inbuilt sound card, don't expect it to sound like RADAR. Yeah converters are a WHOLE separate discussion on their own . I guess I don't clarify enough , ha ! When I said "the digital audio should be the same quality with any DAW , or dedicated digital recorder like Radar ?" I'm not talking about converters , I'm talking about just the digital audio play back devices all sounding the same . Thats all I was wondering . If you do EVERYTHING in the analog world , does it even matter what digital playback device you use ? Will you get the same results with all DAWs and dedicated recorders ? |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 5, 2014 16:54:42 GMT -6
But converters are CENTRAL to the discussion and should be considered as part of the DAW system, as much or more as the computer is...since we are talking about the 'sound' of them here.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 5, 2014 16:57:45 GMT -6
I agree you can't have one without the other...
unless, the only way to do this, would be to bounce internally the song, in different DAWS with LCR panning and faders at unity for everything, and then compare each of the bounces on the same playback system.
but, I think its more a workflow thing, that you would base your decision on for either a DAW or Dedicated recording system.
8)
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 5, 2014 17:31:58 GMT -6
BUT......and thats a big hairy "butt" with pimples on it ......
A recording chain is :
Mic - Mic Pre - Converter - DAW/Digital recorder .
If you keep everything the same EXCEPT change the DAW....do you change your sound ? So it should be considered as its own element in the chain .
Now the whole point of me even starting this thread was to find out if just playing back audio from different DAWs (without doing any adjustments in the DAW !!) and also now including dedicated digital recorders , would it yield different audio quality .
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 5, 2014 17:33:54 GMT -6
unless, the only way to do this, would be to bounce internally the song, in different DAWS with LCR panning and faders at unity for everything, and then compare each of the bounces on the same playback system. 8) cheers Wiz Almost got it . What if you did a test through an analog console so there is no bounce to disk , just audio playback .....what would the result be between the daws ? |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 5, 2014 18:11:53 GMT -6
unless, the only way to do this, would be to bounce internally the song, in different DAWS with LCR panning and faders at unity for everything, and then compare each of the bounces on the same playback system. 8) cheers Wiz Almost got it . What if you did a test through an analog console so there is no bounce to disk , just audio playback .....what would the result be between the daws ? 8) You can't avoid the conversion. Dedicated digital recorders have their own conversion. Unless you went out of something like ADAT I/O of the digital recorder to a standalone D-A , and then went out of the Computers converter via ADAT to the standalone converter and then into the board. But, its still not apples to apples, in the white coated blind test sort of way. The DAW should be considered more about its functionality and stability to your workflow and how it integrates with your operating system and hardware of choice, than the difference in sound when its going to be used in an outboard summing fashion. Way more important that any (perceived or real) sonic difference that might be attributal. You got wayyyyyyy more important things to worry about. Even, if we took your analogy, one thing that immediately springs to mind is PAN LAW. There are others. Its an academic question that whilst perhaps interesting to consider, I think isn't something I would concern myself with, unless you have a specific scenario in which case we could address that. cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 5, 2014 18:16:13 GMT -6
I guess you could run both daws on the same computer/converter out into a analog board.
Pan everything Center, and set the peak level out of the converter so it hits the same point for each DAW
e.g. you have LOGIC and PRO TOOLS and CUBASE etc running on the same system
Put all your tracks at UNITY panned centre.
Check the peak levels when you play the song are exactly the same monitoring that at the converter.
Then capture that via another recording system and align the two in a DAW sample accurate (by recording a sample tick at the beginning of the song) and then do a null test.
But even if there was a difference, it would be subjective as to whether its different or better or worse.
Then you could import the tracks into the standalone digital recorder and then do the same thing with null tests against the different daws.
But it will only tell you if there is a difference, but not if its better.
See what I mean?
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Jun 5, 2014 19:34:58 GMT -6
I guess you could run both daws on the same computer/converter out into a analog board. Pan everything Center, and set the peak level out of the converter so it hits the same point for each DAW e.g. you have LOGIC and PRO TOOLS and CUBASE etc running on the same system Put all your tracks at UNITY panned centre. Check the peak levels when you play the song are exactly the same monitoring that at the converter. Then capture that via another recording system and align the two in a DAW sample accurate (by recording a sample tick at the beginning of the song) and then do a null test. But even if there was a difference, it would be subjective as to whether its different or better or worse. Then you could import the tracks into the standalone digital recorder and then do the same thing with null tests against the different daws. But it will only tell you if there is a difference, but not if its better. See what I mean? cheers Wiz By Jove! I think he's got it !!! Yes , its an anal , obsessive test , which I feel pity for anyone that actually does it . I've done tests like this and you can drive yourself crazy getting solid conclusions of what you actually hear . Thats why I'm asking on the internet because sometimes theres crazy guys out there that obsess over these things , do all the work and post the results . I'm thinking of going all analog with a mixer and outboard and use the computer & DAW only as a tape machine . Mainly to see what results I would get with this setup verses all ITB like I am now . So thats where the question came from . Am I limiting myself using a particular DAW for audio play back , |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jun 5, 2014 19:50:22 GMT -6
Okay my final answer .... 8)
" Am i limiting myself to using a particular DAW for audio play back?"
No
8)
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jun 6, 2014 7:16:57 GMT -6
That is why I mentioned burning down identical midi files with different software and hearing the engine, sans converters.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 6, 2014 9:21:53 GMT -6
I can offer an experience I had around 1997. We did a comparison between Pro Tools and Sonic Solutions using the same D to A converter. With no signal processing, they were indistinguishable. With a 2 dB. reduction in level Pro Tools sounded surprisingly worse than the Sonic. With the same 2 dB. reduction done in Pro Tools only using a Waves Renaissance equalizer gain control, it left the Sonic in the dust, a night and day difference. We then tried a .2 dB. change in each with the exact same results. Simply put, everybody does not use the same signal processing math. Thankfully Pro Tools has improved a great deal since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 6, 2014 9:23:24 GMT -6
You can then put the results of all mixdowns in a DAW and compare 'differences' but creating a file that will spit out an actual audio file of the differences. I've done this mixing. One version goes ITB, the other goes through a Focusrite Red 2 and Red 3 into a Tascam 1000HD and then pop that mix into PT and examine the sonic differences between the two. The ITB mix always seems narrower and shallower.
|
|
