Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > REAPER General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-09-2010, 04:00 AM   #81
willowhaus
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 503
Default

The whole premise of this thread implies that there is something wrong with the way your music sounds.



Is there?




If there is, then I guess you need to figure out what's wrong and why. Seriously, though - we've pretty much reached the point of diminishing return with digital capture/playback technology, so it's not very likely that any DAW is going to come up with an audio engine that sounds significantly better than the rest. IMHO it's all about efficiency of the processes and workflow.
willowhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 04:43 AM   #82
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

Well, "sounds significantly better" implies that it would sound different than the rest. If it did, it'd be broken, plain and simple, as broken as a calculator that wouldn't return "4" as an answer for "2+2".
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 12:26 PM   #83
Megagoth1702
Human being with feelings
 
Megagoth1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 258
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Mixing up workflow with how it actually sounds is really not a good idea.

It's all psychological. In practice, they all null.
Someday we will have one say that the bits and bytes coming out of some other DAW are "better" zeroes and ones...


1001011101011010101110 2 ARHTHGHGTT!!!

With my new shiny plugin pack even shareware REAPER makes my songs sound awesome!
Megagoth1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 12:30 PM   #84
gwok
Human being with feelings
 
gwok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nelson, BC
Posts: 3,313
Default

I think reaper sounds much better than studio one

less syllables, it just rolls off the tongue easier,
__________________
MacPro Xeon, 10.9.5
Reaper 5
gwok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 12:55 PM   #85
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megagoth1702 View Post
Someday we will have one say that the bits and bytes coming out of some other DAW are "better" zeroes and ones...
Well, some claim that brand X of CDr's sound better than others, I've had a guy here in my studio claiming one brand of solder sounded way better than another, then there's endless discussion about the "sound" of speaker cables and some even sell power cable for your amp with "better sonic characteristic". What can you do, people like to believe in nonsensical things.
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 01:01 PM   #86
JamesMK
Human being with feelings
 
JamesMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 306
Default

^ Reminds me of some mastering guy who claims to be able to hear which brand of harddrive a .wav file is played from... His name escapes me at the moment unfortunately.
JamesMK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 01:19 PM   #87
SEA
Human being with feelings
 
SEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: By The Sea
Posts: 2,126
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by willowhaus View Post
The whole premise of this thread implies that there is something wrong with the way your music sounds.



Is there?




If there is, then I guess you need to figure out what's wrong and why. Seriously, though - we've pretty much reached the point of diminishing return with digital capture/playback technology, so it's not very likely that any DAW is going to come up with an audio engine that sounds significantly better than the rest. IMHO it's all about efficiency of the processes and workflow.
As stated earlier... the whole premise of this thread was to clarify what one individual told me which is he believed Studio One sounded better than Reaper as well as some "pros" thought Studio One sounded better as well. Since I am new to Reaper and Studio One I asked the question on this forum to see if others could tell a difference between the two daws and if they agreed with this individuals statement. Nothing more.
__________________
JamieSEA

http://www.facebook.com/jamieseamusic
SEA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 01:25 PM   #88
70srocker
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 245
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwok View Post
I think reaper sounds much better than studio one

less syllables, it just rolls off the tongue easier,
Now that is clever.
70srocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 04:11 PM   #89
timlloyd
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark View Post
Well, some claim that brand X of CDr's sound better than others, I've had a guy here in my studio claiming one brand of solder sounded way better than another, then there's endless discussion about the "sound" of speaker cables and some even sell power cable for your amp with "better sonic characteristic". What can you do, people like to believe in nonsensical things.
Well, CDrs are a different kettle of fish to the "sound of solder", or the "sound of power cables". Cheaper CDrs can result in more burn errors than properly manufactured CDrs, and because of how CD players function, uncorrectable errors (ie E32, not BLER or BURST) are often "glossed over" on-the-fly with some kind of algorithm so that you get continuous sound rather than potential glitches. Every time an error is auto-corrected in real-time, what the player spits out isn't exactly what was meant to be on the CD in the first place. So technically speaking, it's true that certain CDrs could provide better sound quality than others, some older players will flat-out refuse to play a CD that contains too many errors, and certain CDrs will degrade more quickly over time. Similar things apply to CD-burners and players as well.

Whether it's perceptible without careful AB-listening might be debatable, but it's not "snake oil". Look up CD E32 errors for more info. Also, this only applies to the "Red Book" standard, "Yellow Book" (ie Data disc) CDrs either contain and transfer the data 100% or they don't work.
timlloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 04:29 PM   #90
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

But then you would say "I don't use brand X because it gives out too many error"...

For example, I use Taiyo Yuden, I prefer that brand because on my own in-house unscientific testing they seem to last longer, give less error on burns and are more consistent from batch to batch. But to say they "sound better" would be...stupid, really, no other word I can find.
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 05:09 PM   #91
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark View Post
But then you would say "I don't use brand X because it gives out too many error"...

For example, I use Taiyo Yuden, I prefer that brand because on my own in-house unscientific testing they seem to last longer, give less error on burns and are more consistent from batch to batch. But to say they "sound better" would be...stupid, really, no other word I can find.
Just burn one, rip it and null it with the original WAV (I did). I can tell you they probably won't null... However, the difference is way down there and and the difference is low enough to fall under Ethan Winers BS Audio Myths video that everyone here raves about.

Actually, I have an example of that test in this forum somewhere and the offer went unchallenged as to which was the rip and which was the original.


Karbo
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 05:53 PM   #92
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

If it was burned without error, why would it not cancel? Not doubting your word, and haven't done the test, just trying to understand the why of it.
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 06:03 PM   #93
timlloyd
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
Default

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that one will sound different to another, just that it's possible. If a CDr contained a huge amount of errors, and you played it on a player with very good error correction, it wouldn't sound exactly like a properly burned master disc would it? Am I missing something? I might be.
timlloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 06:37 PM   #94
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark View Post
If it was burned without error, why would it not cancel? Not doubting your word, and haven't done the test, just trying to understand the why of it.
Possibly getting a perfect write and perfect rip/read? Can't remember; Jhughes knows the CD stuff pretty good. And I wouldn't know it was an errorless burn either. Part of my test was what happens if I simply burn as I always do and rip as I always do.

Karbo
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 06:51 PM   #95
Lawrence
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,415
Default

Reaper sounds 12% better. Results of detailed scientific analysis here.
__________________
"I, Bozo The Clown, do solemly swear to uphold the Consti.. consti... uh, how do you pronounce that again?".
Lawrence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 07:06 PM   #96
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Possibly getting a perfect write and perfect rip/read? Can't remember; Jhughes knows the CD stuff pretty good. And I wouldn't know it was an errorless burn either. Part of my test was what happens if I simply burn as I always do and rip as I always do.

Karbo
Most burning software have some kind of check burn option where they would read the CD or DVD and check against the original for error. I think it would be important to establish before making a test, since burn error can have a number of sources, from the software to the CD burner itself to the actual media.

I thought you were alluding to music CD format being different than regular wav at the fundamental level, and that would account for the reason of the non null thingy...
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 07:11 PM   #97
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawrence View Post
Reaper sounds 12% better. Results of detailed scientific analysis here.
Riiight, like *I* will click on this; well, after you're done clicking on Lawrence link(it is from lawrence...oink oink) you can go and click on this one
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 07:35 PM   #98
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark View Post
Most burning software have some kind of check burn option where they would read the CD or DVD and check against the original for error. I think it would be important to establish before making a test, since burn error can have a number of sources, from the software to the CD burner itself to the actual media.

I thought you were alluding to music CD format being different than regular wav at the fundamental level, and that would account for the reason of the non null thingy...
I urge you to try it. I'd bet the burn check would have given the all clear anyway. Try it, seriously, it can't take more than 15 minutes and it'll give us even more info. I'm not saying it won't null, mine didn't but I did the test as if most people might. If it does, were even better off.

Karbo
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 12-09-2010 at 07:52 PM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 07:55 PM   #99
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

He, why not; was supposed to pick up my guitar from the Luthier tonight, but I'm completely snowed in so couldn't go. I'll give it a shot.
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 08:09 PM   #100
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark View Post
He, why not; was supposed to pick up my guitar from the Luthier tonight, but I'm completely snowed in so couldn't go. I'll give it a shot.
Let me know because you got my interest and I just repeated the test in a different fashion and this time it is a 100% null. notta, nuttin -inf even with the tracks at +18db. Nothing fancy, no verification. Just a burn with ImgBurn and an a CD import via Reaper.

So the other post I remember from awhile back now stands as to my original point and your's now. It's entirely possible to burn and rip an identically nullable copy without anything fancy.

Thanks Bullshark.


Karbo
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 09:13 PM   #101
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

Ok, first I ripped a track from a CD using two different software and checked if those nulled; they did, down to -150 dB(didn't see the point in going lower). Figured that was reliable.

Then I burned two CD's, again using two different software.

Extracted those, loaded them and checked if they nulled against each other and against the previously ripped tracks. They all did(well, the track I burned using WMP did have shorter silences, don't know why but once sample synched it nulled also).

So, I'm satisfied that using a recent drive with low wear and tear to burn on quality blank will produce identical result.
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2010, 09:14 PM   #102
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bullshark View Post
Ok, first I ripped a track from a CD using two different software and checked if those nulled; they did, down to -150 dB(didn't see the point in going lower). Figured that was reliable.

Then I burned two CD's, again using two different software.

Extracted those, loaded them and checked if they nulled against each other and against the previously ripped tracks. They all did.

So, I'm satisfied that using a recent drive with low wear and tear to burn on quality blank will produce identical result.
Mee too!
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 12:45 AM   #103
JamesMK
Human being with feelings
 
JamesMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 306
Default

Digital audio on a CD is of course not in any way different than anything else digital on a CD. Surely lots of people here have occasionally downloaded and burned ISO images (Linux installers for example) and then used a checksum program to verify that the burned image is bit-by-bit identical to the original file on the harddrive.

Every time I've done this, the checksum has been correct, and I'm pretty sure I've used at least 10 different brands of CD-Rs over the years. If a burned disc passes verification, then the data on it is a correct copy. The disc and the CD-reading device doesn't freaking care if the CD contains an audio file, a zip file or a bunch of executables - a bit-by-bit correct copy is identical to the original, dammit.

You can always trust some audiophile to inject a massively unhealthy dose of superstition into anything these days... Almost makes astrologists and ghost whisperers seem perfectly sane in comparison.

Case in point, finally found this guy I mentioned earlier in this thread - lots of weirdness going on there.

Here's a highlight:

Quote:
- - - Maxell 700 mb Music CDRS (80 minute gold) - for a solid and balanced high-to-mid-to-bottom and wide sparkle • Maxell 80 Minute Pro (blue) for robust low end, detail and clean immediacy - - -
I mean, seriously... One type of Maxell CDR gives a "wide sparkle" and another type gives you a "robust low end"? Yeah... I swear, Officer, it really happened exactly like that! But please go ahead and read the whole thing here -> http://www.johnvestman.com/digital_myth.htm
JamesMK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 01:21 AM   #104
Marah Mag
Human being with feelings
 
Marah Mag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 3,000
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMK View Post

Every time I've done this, the checksum has been correct, and I'm pretty sure I've used at least 10 different brands of CD-Rs over the years. If a burned disc passes verification, then the data on it is a correct copy. The disc and the CD-reading device doesn't freaking care if the CD contains an audio file, a zip file or a bunch of executables - a bit-by-bit correct copy is identical to the original, dammit.
That's always been how I've seen it. Digital is digital. A copy is an original. Is that not true? It's true enough for me. And it's so much easier to not have to worry about all that.

Data doesn't care.
Marah Mag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 02:45 AM   #105
stupeT
Human being with feelings
 
stupeT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: frankonia
Posts: 1,996
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesMK View Post
I mean, seriously... One type of Maxell CDR gives a "wide sparkle" and another type gives you a "robust low end"? Yeah... I swear, Officer, it really happened exactly like that! But please go ahead and read the whole thing here -> http://www.johnvestman.com/digital_myth.htm
OMG!

That reminds of those analog HiFi days where sombody told me it makes a BIG difference in sound of an amplifier when you reverse the power plug. All about polarity and such stuff... and they are REALLY hearing those things. And then in double blind tests they cannot because such a test gives "way too artificial" listening experiences.
__________________
------------------------------------------
Don't read this sentence to it's end, please.
stupeT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 03:15 AM   #106
Sibben
Human being with feelings
 
Sibben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden.
Posts: 1,064
Default

Psycho-acoustics FTW!

On the OT. I have never tried Studio One much so I wouldn't know. But if like in Reason there's some kind of mastering suite activated by default I could see how *some* people might get the impression it has a fuller or brighter sound or whatever.
Sibben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 03:16 AM   #107
JamesMK
Human being with feelings
 
JamesMK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stupeT View Post
And then in double blind tests they cannot because such a test gives "way too artificial" listening experiences.
Hehe, exactly. And the funny thing is that you never get any clips to listen to from guys that make these kinds of claims. I mean, if I found some surprising difference in some context by making a seemingly meaningless change to some component, I would obviously want to share some audio snippets so others could hear it too, right? Unless, of course, I know somewhere deep inside that I'm just imagining things... then it would probably be wise to skip the whole idea of "the burden of proof".
JamesMK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 04:15 AM   #108
timlloyd
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marah Mag View Post
That's always been how I've seen it. Digital is digital. A copy is an original. Is that not true? It's true enough for me. And it's so much easier to not have to worry about all that.

Data doesn't care.
Data may not, but a Red Book CD isn't "Data" in the way data is stored on a hard drive or on a Yellow Book CD; it's linear pcm, partial corruption is possible.

I'm not sure why I'm still discussing, I'm not one of those people who worries about these things ........just enjoy a discussion I guess.
timlloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2010, 04:35 AM   #109
pixeltarian
Human being with feelings
 
pixeltarian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Minneaplis
Posts: 3,307
Default

i wish I could hide this thread and not see it pop up to the top of "new posts" 8 times a day...

I agree "studio one" sounds better than "reaper"
but only because I'm not a death metal head. cause then "reaper" would sound kick ass.

on the other hand... I think there was a cheesy portrait studio called "studio one" so it's kind of a dumb name as well.
pixeltarian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 10:30 AM   #110
zappa
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 427
Default

This question seems to come up again and again because when people's recordings/mixes/finals don't sound freakin' amazing they inevitably want to find things to blame other than themselves - their lack of budget, equipment, knowledge and skill. A cheap shareware unprofessional <insert your own here> DAW fits perfectly because it is the "virtual studio" (thanks steinberg) - the host for everything. The choice of DAW is perceived like do you mix on a Neve or a Behringer.

As to the question of "industry standard", my thoughts on that here.

z.
__________________
http://www.droppingknowledge.org
"There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers" - anon.

Please check my (recently reopened) Normalisation bugrep and confirm, thanks!
zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 10:38 AM   #111
shawnguess
Human being with feelings
 
shawnguess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 379
Default

yeah, its definitely the blame game. if your mix sucks, it must be the gear. for anyone who falls into this trap, listen to Animals As Leaders or Periphery. presonus firepod, superior drums' built in effects for for the kit mix, axe-fx, and lots of free plugins mixed on nuendo. great mixes as far as im concerned, and done with much less than most of us use. 'tis the carpenter, not the tools.
shawnguess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2010, 10:43 AM   #112
bullshark
Human being with feelings
 
bullshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: traîne mes guêtres en Québec...
Posts: 5,390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shawnguess View Post
yeah, its definitely the blame game. if your mix sucks, it must be the gear.
I would claim the whole VST industry is based on this premise alone. "My vocal suck, let's buy this new compressor everybody's talking about, it will make them sound better I'm sure".
bullshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.