Old 01-01-2010, 11:16 PM   #1
DBMusic
Human being with feelings
 
DBMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,203
Default Reaper's Sound

First let me say that apart from thinking of myself as an artist, I'm also grounded in pragmatic scientific logic and believe that 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's no matter how you look at them. However...

With a recent investment in new hardware and software processors in my studio I've been working on remixing/remastering some older projects done various versions of Sonar (currently using 8.3.1). Each time, without fail, I get frustrated with my control over the sound coming out of Sonar (a perception I've frequently had in the past though at the time had little frame of reference). Faders don't feel very responsive, with increased signal processing the sound begins to sound murky, and I find myself spending excessive amounts of time balancing tracks to get the mix just right. Even thought these projects originally were recorded and mixed in Sonar, the last few times I've just given up decided just to render each of the raw tracks individually (without processing or automation) and set them up in Reaper.

Now I know the sound of DAW's has been endlessly debated and, honestly, my logical mind makes me want to question my own perceptions...but when I set up a mixing project in Reaper using these rendered Sonar files, they invariably sound more pristine, distinct, and I spend considerably less time in dialing in the mix that I want.

Maybe it's all in my head as each of these audio engines are doing 64-bit accuracy in calculations...but I swear it sounds clearer, more manageable, and much easier to blend into a pleasing mix. I've worked with Samplitude also but never had this kind of perception. The logical/scientific side is telling me I'm hearing what I want to here...the artist side is saying Reaper just plain sounds better.

Best regards,

DB
__________________
My Stuff
DBMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2010, 11:31 PM   #2
nicholas
Scribe
 
nicholas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Van Diemen's Land
Posts: 12,167
Default

DB, is everything the same apart from the DAW hosts? e.g., same plug-ins, same pan laws, and (if you're listening post rendering) same dithering/noise shaping?
__________________
Learning Manuals and Reaper Books
REAPER Unleashed - ReaMix - REAPER User Guide
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/glazfolk
nicholas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 12:23 AM   #3
JHughes
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Too close to Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,554
Default

There are other posts around here just like yours. Usually pan laws are blamed, because Reaper's defaults are different than most other apps. And you will be told a million times how there should be no difference if everything is set up the same.

I don't care about all that any more, though I would have some years ago. What I can say is, I had exactly the same experience as you coming from Sonar. I started work with a friend who had done several songs in Sonar. I moved them into Reaper, and he couldn't believe how much clearer everything sounded. I don't know why. I do know that I could spend time trying to figure it out, or get on making more music and I choose the latter.
JHughes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 01:16 AM   #4
inthepipeline
Human being with feelings
 
inthepipeline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol, UK. Slowly sinking island next to mainland Europe
Posts: 542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMusic View Post
First let me say that apart from thinking of myself as an artist, I'm also grounded in pragmatic scientific logic and believe that 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's no matter how you look at them. However...


DB
Sure this is true, but (without wishing to open up a tin of worms) what is supposed to happen in theory and what happens in practice in binary terms does vary. That is why so much impotus is put on error correction in digital audio (and everything else in the digital domain). In practice digital calculation at a low level does a lot of approximation to get 'the desired' result. Take for example the number of updates which have been made to Reapers peak drawing abilities.

By nature, all audio engines A/D, D/A convertors and plugins must perform error correction at some level.
__________________
10core Xeon w.128gig RAM, lots of SSD, HDSP9652, MOTU828, Tannoy System 8 NFM.
inthepipeline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 01:32 AM   #5
Nik
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inthepipeline View Post
By nature, all audio engines A/D, D/A convertors and plugins must perform error correction at some level.
Smilies would be really helpful for topics like this.

Else it's hard to be tactful.
__________________
Nik
----------------------------
Reaper Newbie
MIDI Guitar and loops
Nik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 03:55 AM   #6
ARP
Human being with feelings
 
ARP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 347
Default

A "Reaper sound" ??? I wasn't aware it had one ??? What goes in tends to come out here....

Now, Ableton, that's another story...

ARP
ARP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 04:14 AM   #7
Klemperer
Human being with feelings
 
Klemperer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hamburg and Heidelberg
Posts: 670
Default

I have to say that human perception is such a wonderfully subjective thing, that I don't think it right to just bash people who, well, make the mistake to think Sonar audio sounds - with everything similar otherwise - different to Cube-ace or Reaper.
There's a nice little story. A man always got rather angry about these, admittedly a wee bit stupid discussions about audio quality and sounds of hosts. Then smartelectronix released an "anechoic room simulator" or something with a similar name. The same man who discussed in length how stupid someone would be to say Cubase was better sounding etc etc.... used the plugin and would swear it would work wonders on his tracks.... Then the developer came and told all that the plugin was an april's fool joke - it didn't do ANYTHING. It was just - nothing, a dll doing nothing (so maybe something for postmodern philosophers to debate, "ooh it inscenes itself new" or whatever, lol - but it didn't change the sound. Objectively.)
This is the lovely way to tell things, in my opinion . I would for sure, after only a few bottles of beer, be persuaded that this plugin changed my sound - for good or worse, whatever ;-))).
My brother loves most expensive red wine. After a bit of drinking I made a blind test, and he thought, slightly drunk, the 1,49 Euro Sangiovese from the supermarket was "better" than a most expensive french weeezlediwooo praised wine . Apart from that I cannot understand why he doesn't give his nice money to me for spending on lovely instruments instead of investing in wine that gets dusty in a dark cellar room - I completely like this. Life can be funny, you know .
But I admit if you spend your life as a mastering engineer, and after just a few bottles of alcohol someone thinks the distorted radio-crap-mix would be better than your refined one - that would be another story.
Klemperer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 06:42 AM   #8
NAS
Human being with feelings
 
NAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: In church, burning it down
Posts: 1,345
Default

Reaper just sounds sooooooo sooooooo soooooo analogue
I mean it sounds phatter than tape
It records more energy than a live performance
It turns 16 bit soundcards into 24 bit 96khz cards

All of the above and better than Sonar

Wow it just doesn't get much better than this


NAS
__________________
Not Gods or Saints but HUMAN be
NAS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 08:39 AM   #9
off&on
Human being with feelings
 
off&on's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 117
Default No integer legacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMusic View Post
... when I set up a mixing project in Reaper using these rendered Sonar files, they invariably sound more pristine, distinct, and I spend considerably less time in dialing in the mix that I want.
You're not alone in this, DB. With Sonar (3 through 7) I'd usually switch to WaveLab for mastering or even for "delicate" final mixing; Reaper hardly ever gives me the urge to.

How could it be? Don't "all DAWs sound the same"? Here's my (long, pet) speculation.

Back in the '80s Consumer Report argued that "all CD players sound the same". Today we know better about transient intermods, jitter and other nastyness that is really hard to measure at -90dB or in the picoseconds range.

Same holds for DAWs. Tiny DSP bugs may pass unnoticed in module tests, but combine with other (tiny) bugs to create artifacts in the -90dB range. These may be hard to spot in a tracking studio but easy to hear on a good, quiet mastering setup.

16-bit DAWs "buried" such bugs below their resolution floor. Now could it be that some legacy 16-bit DSP code was never discarded, just gradually upgraded to 64-bit? Voila! legacy bugs, hardly audible at the mixing console -- and hence lacking financial incentive to fix -- could very well be what you hear today.

On the other hand, Reaper never used integer or single-precision code in its signal path (I could be wrong here, but even stand-alone JesuSonic sounded outstandingly clean in pre-Reaper days). Going 64-bit from day one was a visionary decision indeed: on modern CPUs it is almost as cheap as integer arithmetics.

In many ways, this is water below the bridge now. Reaper sounds clean; spending time to speculate why other DAWs didn't is probably not such a good investment

Last edited by off&on; 01-02-2010 at 10:20 AM. Reason: Conclusion
off&on is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 08:54 AM   #10
Tedwood
Human being with feelings
 
Tedwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast UK
Posts: 14,303
Default

I started out with a demo of Samplitude and it sounded really pristine, but was a bit heavy on cpu.


Tried Vegas for a while because it was easy to use (like Reaper), but it didn't sound as good.

Then I used Cakewalk, Sonar etc because of the instruments and midi stuff but it didn't sound any better than Vegas.

Next on the box was Cubendo which always sounded better than Sonar but not as good as Samplitude but had weird midi latency issues ans kept crashing just when I was getting somewhere - Bah!

Then I tried lots of other forgettable Daws like Tracktion etc that may have sounded better than Vegas/Sonar, but not as good as Cubendo.

Eventually I tried REAPER and liked how easy it was to route stuff and was easy to learn (like Vegas), didn't crash, and sounded as good as Cubendo - or Samplitude.

Then I read some threads on the REAPER forum and discovered they all sound the same - apparently.

__________________
The grass is greener where it rains
Tedwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 09:13 AM   #11
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,184
Default

As some may recall I posted along these lines a while ago and got absolutely clobbered by the "null sayers"

Turns out what we had was a flakey driver -- fair enough -- case closed.

However before and after that post in this and many other forums I keep seeing posts like this.

Most likely a lot can be attributed to psycho-acoustic factors, but maybe not all.

The null file test often put forward as a proof has one potential and possibly important flaw -- it is non-realtime.

Lately I've been thinking we need a two pass version of the null test that works in real time to see if anything is going on here -- there are just too many folks hearing this stuff.

True double blind listening tests might also help if they were in any way supportive of one position or another.

my 2c
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 09:28 AM   #12
DBMusic
Human being with feelings
 
DBMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nicholas View Post
DB, is everything the same apart from the DAW hosts? e.g., same plug-ins, same pan laws, and (if you're listening post rendering) same dithering/noise shaping?
nicholas, I can't profess to investing a lot of effort in setting up things to test or prove the point. Pan laws are the same (+0.0), Sonar playback dithering is triangular, listening is pre-rendering in that I'm mixing the tracks and have not yet rendered the entire mix), recorded files are all 24/44.1 The pattern has been to open the project up in Sonar, spend some time remixing with old and new plugins intact, get annoyed with the sound quality (which as I previously stated has been a perception I've had in Sonar before I ever started experimenting with other DAW's), disable all project plugins, set all faders to 0, render each track individually, load all tracks into Reaper, and start mixing again from the beginning.

The result is that immediately upon listening to the premixed files in Reaper is that there is an increased clarity. Upon adding plugins and various processing, I end up dialing in the right mix with much less effort. This perceptive experience has been repeated identically over the last 3 projects.

Now I know bringing this subject up invites considerable sarcasm and naysayers, and as I said the rational side of me wants to dismiss it. But I am intrigued because this process has repeated itself now with the same perception...that Reaper's sound is much clearer both pre and post processing and I end up spending less time and effort in getting to a mix that pleases me.

Regards,

DB
__________________
My Stuff
DBMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 09:33 AM   #13
Tedwood
Human being with feelings
 
Tedwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast UK
Posts: 14,303
Default

How does one account for the wide variance of differences different people hear though?

Interesting to note I thought Vegas and Cakewalk sounded "grainier" while Cubendo sounded smoother - which was by coincidence exactly how I thought they looked!

Different people hear different things. If there was a real difference people with good hearing would always hear the same thing - surely?
__________________
The grass is greener where it rains
Tedwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 09:36 AM   #14
beatbybit
Human being with feelings
 
beatbybit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hungary
Posts: 3,129
Default

__________________
panda in the desert
beatbybit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 10:06 AM   #15
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,184
Default

http://www.milbert.com/tstxt.htm

A good proportion of the AES (Audio Engineering Society) was ready to burn this guy at the stake for suggesting such witchcraft in 1972.

I was a professional working musician at the time, fairly into electronics, and the bunch I was hangin' with went "Duh!!" as it was so obvious to our young clean ears -- wish I still had 'em

Anyway, that material was finally accepted and as a result transistor technology improved immensely.

So maybe we're just not measuring the right stuff yet to uncover what lots of people are hearing.

Just sayin'
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 10:42 AM   #16
PAPT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,082
Default

I don't really care why they sound different.
If they sound different, they sound different.

The real placebo effect may be that your theories blind you to perceptual reality.

It's like that link that was posted to the transistor article.
People were laughing at and mocking anyone who said transistors sound different than tubes.

Now everyone hears the difference and mocks people that think transistors sound like tubes, even though transistors are starting to sound very much like tubes.

People will allow theory to blind them to reality.
Theories can be wrong or wrongly applied.

Even when the theory is right it still may not fully apply to the practical application.
PAPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 11:09 AM   #17
Nik
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 54
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
As some may recall I posted along these lines a while ago and got absolutely clobbered by the "null sayers"

Turns out what we had was a flakey driver -- fair enough -- case closed.

However before and after that post in this and many other forums I keep seeing posts like this.

Most likely a lot can be attributed to psycho-acoustic factors, but maybe not all.

The null file test often put forward as a proof has one potential and possibly important flaw -- it is non-realtime.

Lately I've been thinking we need a two pass version of the null test that works in real time to see if anything is going on here -- there are just too many folks hearing this stuff.

True double blind listening tests might also help if they were in any way supportive of one position or another.

my 2c
Well, many top, golden-eared pro musicians and producers reckon that gold-coloured CRDs sound better than silver coloured CDRs.

Go figure.
__________________
Nik
----------------------------
Reaper Newbie
MIDI Guitar and loops
Nik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 11:35 AM   #18
Anomaly
Human being with feelings
 
Anomaly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
The null file test often put forward as a proof has one potential and possibly important flaw -- it is non-realtime.
When there was a daw sound quality discussion going on last time, I offered digitally real time recorded mixes of Reaper, Samplitude and SAW, but unfortunately gained zero interest.

Another typical "flaw" (IMO) in the null tests is that they are composed of just one or couple of tracks - when you should do it with many more. If there is difference, it is most likely to come perceivable with multitude of tracks as a product of summing. Of course if you want to test daw & soundcard driver communication it should be real time also.

cheers, (and peace..)
Anomaly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 11:35 AM   #19
Kundalinguist
Human being with feelings
 
Kundalinguist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,630
Default

I've said it before and I'll say it again, topics like this are meant to keep us from completing our music projects while the OP runs off with all of our potential music buying customers.

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya.

[running naked into the street, sirens in background.]
__________________
Success is just one more plugin away! And happiness is as close as your next upgrade. (On the interweb: www.rolandk.ca / www.auroraskypublishing.com)
Kundalinguist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 12:31 PM   #20
DBMusic
Human being with feelings
 
DBMusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,203
Default

I only bring the subject up because I've always been in the 1's and 0's camp...that any differences we hear are ultimately subjective. But for whatever reason, the difference was repeatedly perceptive across projects.

I supposed it's all really a moot point anyway. If you think Reaper sounds better and you sonically get to where you want to be with less effort, then it's all good.

Regardless of perceptive reality though, it is an interesting subject...

Regards,

DB
__________________
My Stuff
DBMusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 02:07 PM   #21
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,184
Default

I'm always interested in these discussions because I've been passionate about audio quality for almost 50 years -- Yikes

Without the input and investigations of good listeners we wouldn't have found out about:

Transistors vs tubes
Transient intermodulation distortion
Detrimental efffects of too much negative feedback in dynamic systems
Time alignment for loudspeaker drivers
Adding low level noise to digital signals to avoid quantization distortion

and about a zillion other things that weren't obvious at first.

The quest continues, to me anyway, it's important and fun.
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 02:14 PM   #22
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,551
Default

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We ("DAWs are the same if you set them properly") have done our part numerous times, there's plenty of evidence, and it all supports our hypothesis.

Until those on the "DAWs sound different" side of the argument bring some proof - note, here, that anecdotes and gut feelings do not constitute proof - to the table, there is no issue worth discussing.

Investigation is always great, and I wholeheartedly support any efforts to find these supposed differences, but I have yet to see any actual effort being made.
__________________
I'm no longer using Reaper or working on scripts for it. Sorry. :(
Default 5.0 Nitpicky Edition / GUI library for Lua scripts / Theory Helper / Radial Menu / Donate
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 02:26 PM   #23
Jim Roseberry
Human being with feelings
 
Jim Roseberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DBMusic View Post
I only bring the subject up because I've always been in the 1's and 0's camp...that any differences we hear are ultimately subjective. But for whatever reason, the difference was repeatedly perceptive across projects.

I supposed it's all really a moot point anyway. If you think Reaper sounds better and you sonically get to where you want to be with less effort, then it's all good.

Regardless of perceptive reality though, it is an interesting subject...

Regards,

DB
I was just going to refer to your previous post.
If you get the desired result quicker, it really doesn't matter if it's psychological... or a real/tangeable difference you're hearing. ;-)

I'd tend to think it's psychological... as both audio engines are 64Bit Float... (which greatly diminishes rounding-error)
Keep in mind that Sonar's Triangular dither isn't one of the best algorithms.
In fact, you should turn it off (unless you're bouncing and reducting bit-depth).

If you want to use dither in Sonar, I'd use Pow-r algorithm 1.
Pow-r 2 and 3 are noise-shaped, but the dither irritates my ears for some reason. To my ears, Pow-r 1 and UV22-HR produce very similar results.



Jim Roseberry
www.studiocat.com
jim@studiocat.com
Jim Roseberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 02:42 PM   #24
shakey.oberon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 996
Default

if all you audio files are 32bit float then you dont need to dither at all
shakey.oberon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 03:16 PM   #25
JHughes
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Too close to Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,554
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna View Post
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: We ("DAWs are the same if you set them properly") have done our part numerous times, there's plenty of evidence, and it all supports our hypothesis.

Until those on the "DAWs sound different" side of the argument bring some proof - note, here, that anecdotes and gut feelings do not constitute proof - to the table, there is no issue worth discussing.

Investigation is always great, and I wholeheartedly support any efforts to find these supposed differences, but I have yet to see any actual effort being made.
See the post directly above yours. The ears are what guides the listener, the "proof" comes later. If the issue isn't worth discussing, then why are you in this thread? If investigation is great, then realize that this is how it starts, with discussing what should be investigated.
JHughes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 04:43 PM   #26
Kundalinguist
Human being with feelings
 
Kundalinguist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHughes View Post
...If the issue isn't worth discussing, then why are you in this thread?....
IMO this is more about being right and staying right, whichever side of right one is on. People compete over nothing. At least this has some intellectual substance behind it, even if it comes out like every election in that no one on the extremes ever changes their mind, just the uncertain ones in the middle.
__________________
Success is just one more plugin away! And happiness is as close as your next upgrade. (On the interweb: www.rolandk.ca / www.auroraskypublishing.com)
Kundalinguist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 04:52 PM   #27
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHughes View Post
See the post directly above yours. The ears are what guides the listener, the "proof" comes later.
My problem is that, in every thread on this topic that I've seen, the investigation ends there.

1. Billy thinks he hears a difference between two DAWs.

2. Having read a number of threads explaining why, in fact, there is no difference, Billy starts a new thread about how he still just can't get away from the feeling that there's more to it. For instance, the idea that it's something happening in real-time and therefore two renders nulling won't help.

3. Billy doesn't do any sort of investigation along this line of thought, yet expects his alternative theory to be taken seriously.

I'm not trying to pick on anyone specifically. The sheer number of threads claiming to hear a difference and never offering a shred of evidence just irks me, and that post was my attempt to head off yet another futile argument before it began.

I don't consider the issue worth discussing because all of the existing evidence has BEEN discussed. People can do their own comparisons all they want, with whatever setup, but nothing of any further value is being added to the hundreds of existing tests until someone produces results that don't follow the established pattern.

To the original poster - how about this:

- Render a mix in Sonar

- Import your .wav into Reaper, and render it again

- Null-test the original and the Reaper-rendered one in whatever DAW you like

Now, there may or may not be things going in rendering that would invalidate this for a null-test - I don't know enough about digital audio to say. However, this test seems like it would confirm/reject your hypothesis, no?

Regarding the concept of real-time differences and all that:

What would be wrong with setting up a second computer and taking a direct signal from your DAW's line out? Import a .wave to Sonar (or whatever), record it through the patch cable to the other PC, and then repeat the process for Reaper.

I've also heard the idea that it's not just real-time, it's actually something happening in your room. Honestly. It's come up - as a serious suggestion - in at least two threads I've seen. However, the idea that a different DAW will interact with your recording space differently is, as far as I'm concerned, grounds to have someone committed.
__________________
I'm no longer using Reaper or working on scripts for it. Sorry. :(
Default 5.0 Nitpicky Edition / GUI library for Lua scripts / Theory Helper / Radial Menu / Donate

Last edited by Lokasenna; 01-02-2010 at 05:09 PM.
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 05:33 PM   #28
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
My problem is that, in every thread on this topic that I've seen, the investigation ends there
That's because nobody has figured out how to proceed, that is, so far.


Quote:
The sheer number of threads claiming to hear a difference and never offering a shred of evidence just irks me
Hey man, I feel your frustration at times too !!

But this kind of stuff isn't solved in a day, or it already would be, and nobody would be discussing the topic.

As I posted earlier I've been down this road too many times to count -- sometimes what was heard was bogus, or so subtle that it turned out to be relatively unimportant, like the ability of some listeners (not me) to determine absolute phase, especially around 1000Hz.

Every so often though, one of these clues leads to a real breakthrough, and the audio quality gets improved -- that's what makes my day.

Quote:
and that post was my attempt to head off yet another futile argument before it began
No here's where I see things entirely differently -- not in a confrontational way -- to me this is not a futile argument but rather an ongoing investigation -- which may or may not yield meaningful results -- to me the lack of guaranteed outcome is no reason to stop the investigation.

Quote:
I don't consider the issue worth discussing because all of the existing evidence has BEEN discussed. People can do their own comparisons all they want, with whatever setup, but nothing of any further value is being added to the hundreds of existing tests until someone produces results that don't follow the established pattern.
Exactly !! Thats why the investigation contiinues.


Quote:
I've also heard the idea that it's not just real-time, it's actually something happening in your room. Honestly. It's come up - as a serious suggestion - in at least two threads I've seen. However, the idea that a different DAW will interact with your recording space differently is, as far as I'm concerned, grounds to have someone committed
Pretty far fetched, but if you take into account ALL the factors (AC line power, heat due to one app using more resources, etc., etc., etc.) one can never tell.

Anyway, I'm sorry that this stuff gets you pissed, and I know this sounds hokey, but I dervive great joy from the journey of investigation and the thought that things can be improved, and I ain't ever gonna' stop searchin'

Maybe a better path for you is to just ignore us crazy freaks until we have something real to demonstrate, call us nuts, ignore us, whatever -- it sure isn't worth you raising your blood to a boil, stress ain't no good for nobody.

Peace
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 06:20 PM   #29
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,551
Default

Oh, don't worry, I'm about as stress-free as you can get while having a pulse.

When the idea of real-time effects has been around this long (six months, at least, since I first saw it), and with the amount of discussion I've seen, yet nobody seems to have tested it... to me, that suggests a lack of effort.

The concept seems like it should be relatively simple to test, as I described above. Plenty of audio/studio types have multiple computers and multiple DAWs to work with, so I don't think we have an inability to perform the tests.

Thus we get a bunch of threads discussing it but making no progress. I would submit that this does not, in the end, constitute investigating anything.
__________________
I'm no longer using Reaper or working on scripts for it. Sorry. :(
Default 5.0 Nitpicky Edition / GUI library for Lua scripts / Theory Helper / Radial Menu / Donate
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 06:36 PM   #30
Kundalinguist
Human being with feelings
 
Kundalinguist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,630
Default

Only Stephen Colbert can "feel" the difference and the truth of this in his gut.
__________________
Success is just one more plugin away! And happiness is as close as your next upgrade. (On the interweb: www.rolandk.ca / www.auroraskypublishing.com)
Kundalinguist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 07:15 PM   #31
Diogenes
Human being with feelings
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
Default

Somebody poke me in the left eye if I'm wrong here... But all else being equal, say... 24/44.1 audio, no dither, no noise shaping... the only difference between "real-time" and rendered to disk is the I/O driver and D/A converter. No?

D
Diogenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 07:22 PM   #32
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lokasenna
When the idea of real-time effects has been around this long (six months, at least, since I first saw it), and with the amount of discussion I've seen, yet nobody seems to have tested it... to me, that suggests a lack of effort.

The concept seems like it should be relatively simple to test, as I described above. Plenty of audio/studio types have multiple computers and multiple DAWs to work with, so I don't think we have an inability to perform the tests.

Thus we get a bunch of threads discussing it but making no progress. I would submit that this does not, in the end, constitute investigating anything
Testing and investigation are not the same thing.

Investigation includes discussion that hopefully leads to a determination of what test to perform.

Quote:
Regarding the concept of real-time differences and all that:

What would be wrong with setting up a second computer and taking a direct signal from your DAW's line out? Import a .wave to Sonar (or whatever), record it through the patch cable to the other PC, and then repeat the process for Reaper
There would be nothing wrong with doing that at all, but if you read the posts from the OP it includes statements like

Quote:
The pattern has been to open the project up in Sonar, spend some time remixing with old and new plugins intact, get annoyed with the sound quality (which as I previously stated has been a perception I've had in Sonar before I ever started experimenting with other DAW's), disable all project plugins, set all faders to 0, render each track individually, load all tracks into Reaper, and start mixing again from the beginning
I think everyone would agree that with that many variables we wouldn't be testing much that would help us come to a conclusion.

OK so let's see if we can describe a test that would work along the lines of what you suggest.

1. Make 2 multi-track mixes, one in each DAW (probably no FX just raw tracks, but more than a couple, say 8-12), that sound as close to each other as possible, same computer and audio I/O, monitors, etc.

2. See if the renderings null.

3. If they do, perform a true double blind test to see if listeners can reliably pick one over the other, when the original multi track mixes are played in realtime, NOT the stereo rendered mixdowns.

4. If the rendered files null AND listeners can tell a difference between the two, try to think of a way to capture these 2 playbacks to something, another DAW, tape, whatever.

5. Compare the captures to see if they null.

I would say in my experience the chances of getting all the preceding to work out are very close to zero.

So that's why the discussion is important -- we have to try to isolate what's important so that a test can be devised.
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 07:36 PM   #33
Geoff Waddington
Human being with feelings
 
Geoff Waddington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Posts: 11,184
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes
Somebody poke me in the left eye if I'm wrong here... But all else being equal, say... 24/44.1 audio, no dither, no noise shaping... the only difference between "real-time" and rendered to disk is the I/O driver and D/A converter. No?
Yup, which includes things like differences in bus servicing speed with disk IO interrupts, power supply sag, AC line sag due to the audio power amp load, and an incredible number of other subtle factors.

That's the point.

If there is a difference it's in the subtle stuff.

That's why it may / may not exist and why it's so damn hard to find.

To anyone who has not done this I would suggest they take a look at their computer power supply with an oscilloscope -- what a mess.

Add to that the fact that the thermal duty cycling on modern processors is such that it's amazing they last a second without catastrophic failure, let alone years.

Just take a look on the scope at a so called 2.4 GHz "square wave" -- it ain't so square.

All this stems from the fact that a computer is actually an RF analog device that approximates a digital device.
Geoff Waddington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 07:55 PM   #34
l0calh05t
Human being with feelings
 
l0calh05t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darmstadt, Germany
Posts: 673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
Just take a look on the scope at a so called 2.4 GHz "square wave" -- it ain't so square.
You have a 12GHz oscilloscope? I would be quite surprised if you did, and even then that would only be enough for the first two harmonics of that square wave.
l0calh05t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 07:59 PM   #35
PAPT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,082
Default

"I'd tend to think it's psychological... as both audio engines are 64Bit Float... (which greatly diminishes rounding-error)
Keep in mind that Sonar's Triangular dither isn't one of the best algorithms.
In fact, you should turn it off (unless you're bouncing and reducting bit-depth)."

I have to say it.

If you can hear dither it's most likely psychological.
PAPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 08:04 PM   #36
PAPT
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,082
Default

Whether the difference in sound is caused by subtle things or by different pan laws or this or that or whatever has been mentioned in this thread...

it remains that if the difference can be heard then it is there, irregardless of how it is there. Maybe it isn't caused by the sound engine, but you use daw 1 or daw 2 and they sound different, for whatever reason.

What's the argument about?
PAPT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 09:30 PM   #37
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff Waddington View Post
OK so let's see if we can describe a test that would work along the lines of what you suggest.

1. Make 2 multi-track mixes, one in each DAW (probably no FX just raw tracks, but more than a couple, say 8-12), that sound as close to each other as possible, same computer and audio I/O, monitors, etc.

2. See if the renderings null.

3. If they do, perform a true double blind test to see if listeners can reliably pick one over the other, when the original multi track mixes are played in realtime, NOT the stereo rendered mixdowns.

4. If the rendered files null AND listeners can tell a difference between the two, try to think of a way to capture these 2 playbacks to something, another DAW, tape, whatever.

5. Compare the captures to see if they null.
Seems like a pretty reasonable experimental setup to me. Hopefully you can understand my skepticism toward this topic when I say that this is the first post I've seen in sixth months that actually proposed any sort of test.

If anyone ever puts this together, I'll quite happily take a front row seat.
__________________
I'm no longer using Reaper or working on scripts for it. Sorry. :(
Default 5.0 Nitpicky Edition / GUI library for Lua scripts / Theory Helper / Radial Menu / Donate
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 10:32 PM   #38
Diogenes
Human being with feelings
 
Diogenes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: A place that allows me to protect myself...
Posts: 8,245
Default

Step 3 is where the wheels fall off...

You have introduced the human element. If you have a hundred test subjects, you are liable to get a hundred different responses. If your question is merely "Which sounds better? A or B?" the logical NEXT step MUST BE to ask them WHY! If you don't ask why then your experiment is flawed. Gordian knot... What have you learned? A hundred people each hear things a little bit differently? Waste of time and effort. BTW, if you 'load' the experiment by using subjects other than average John and Jane Doe, you have a flawed experiment because John and Jane are the ones who purchase your product... not Ethan Winer or Bob Katz.

Hundreds of guys STILL hate digital. "Analog is the only way man... digital <insert derogatory comment here>." On the other hand, you have guys like me that say analog sucks. Same issues... subjective experiences.

D
Diogenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 10:53 PM   #39
Jim Roseberry
Human being with feelings
 
Jim Roseberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PAPT View Post

I have to say it.

If you can hear dither it's most likely psychological.
If you do a dither "shoot-out", where you take say a snare drum hit running thru a reverb (to create a nice long decay), you can most definitely hear a diffence between different dither algorithms.

I did a shootout a good while back (Pow-r, UV22HR, IDR, etc).
Some algorithms are quieter than others.
Some algorithms produce smoother results than others.
Some algorithms produced dither noise that irritated my ears.
In short, there was actually a lot of difference between the algorithms.
Granted, I was zero'ing in on the above decay... where it was isolated and the gain was cranked... but you could definitely hear a marked difference between most algorithms.

In the end, I liked the results of using Pow-r 1 and UV22HR the best.
The dither was quiet... the resultant decay was really smooth... and no irritating frequencies caused by noise-shaping.



Jim Roseberry
www.studiocat.com
jim@studiocat.com

Last edited by Jim Roseberry; 01-02-2010 at 10:58 PM.
Jim Roseberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2010, 10:58 PM   #40
plush2
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Saskatoon, Canada
Posts: 2,110
Default

Yes! We've hit the trifecta, daw summing, dither and analog vs. digital. We win a free pie for this thread.

ABX the DAWs/mixes/speakers/plugins/beers. Everything else (UI and ease of use aside) is just politics and price differential.

*this is not directed at Jim, I'm pretty sure he has done this...we just typed these at the same time.
plush2 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 11:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.