|
| |
|
#1
03-30-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ron Kuper - Cakewalk: Can anyone interpret this for me?
This quote comes from long-winded thread over at the Cakewalk forums discussing the perceived quality of Samplitude's audio engine compared to Sonar 3.
Lot's or arguments either way until Ron Kuper from Cakewalk put out some flames of ignorance... Mine included  He then went on to say this - So why does SONAR 3.1.1 sound better to some? One reason I suspect might because S3.1.1 sets track interleaves to stereo in some cases where SONAR 2 might not. When a track is processed in stereo the panning law is different, so the overall volume level of the mix will change. When comparing S3.1.1 mixes to S2.x it's important to verify that all track interleaves are the same. What's a track interleave and how would you adjust it in either 2.2 or 3.0? Huh? Q.
__________________
<insert something witty here> 
|
|
#2
03-30-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
That can ONLY mean one thing.
 And I have no idea what that is. 
__________________
Monitoring at CathouseSound AetherAudio 'Continuum A.D. and TimePiece 'Mini (formerly S.P. Technology
|
|
#3
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
I thought that was how panning was used on mono-tracks vs stereo-tracks. Mono-panning is straight forward, set it to left and it goes to left. Stereo-panning is a different story alltogheter ("I had to beat them do death with their own shoes..."
 ) because a stereotrack is in fact two monotracks panned hard right and hard left...
__________________
Two wrongs don't make a right, but two Wrights once made an airplane...
|
|
#4
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
OK - I understand and agree with that, but the phrase "track interleaves" makes no sense to me.
Are we just saying "panning" with a cool term here? If not, I don't understand the last part about comparing mixes between versions. Q.
__________________
<insert something witty here>
|
|
#5
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
"To arrange data in a noncontiguous way to increase performance. When used to describe disk drives, it refers to the way sectors on a disk are organized. In one-to-one interleaving, the sectors are placed sequentially around each track. In two-to-one interleaving, sectors are staggered so that consecutively numbered sectors are separated by an intervening sector.
The purpose of interleaving is to make the disk drive more efficient. The disk drive can access only one sector at a time, and the disk is constantly spinning beneath the read/write head. This means that by the time the drive is ready to access the next sector, the disk may have already spun beyond it. If a data file spans more than one sector and if the sectors are arranged sequentially, the drive will need to wait a full rotation to access the next chunk of the file. If instead the sectors are staggered, the disk will be perfectly positioned to access sequential sectors. The optimum interleaving factor depends on the speed of the disk drive, the operating system, and the application. The only way to find the best interleaving factor is to experiment with various factors and various applications. " (webopedia) If you write two separate files on the hard drive one for L and one for R, you have to combine/sum them on playback. They also could be sitting in separate sectors on the drive. I believe what Ron is referring to is that they are summing prior to the write so that the stereo field data is written to a single file thus interleave does not become an issue (could be faster on write and playback to the hard drive too). Or, maybe just the opposite is true. Maybe for some reason the older version of Cakewalk was a single file that they now separate into 2 tracks and combine on playback. Regardless of which is true, there may be some audible difference whether adding the two files together for the write or keeping them separate and combing them on playback. This could account for the difference in the two engines sound. Only Ron knows for sure. Last edited by Middleman; 03-31-2004 at 09:50..
|
|
#6
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
That's not the kind of interleaving he's talking about, Middleman. What you describes is part of the way that hard drives work, and is not something that can be adjusted or that would have anything to do with affecting the results of any CPU processing of any kind...
|
|
#7
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
That actually makes sense. I now understand something I never thought I would understand.
|
|
#8
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hey, I'm all about clarity. Your explanation is? Also, the first part of my message is a quote which explains interleaving. I agree, once it is set for a drive, applications cannot change that. . Ok, I have had several restarts here. Interleave itself is not responsible for the sound. This is not what I was trying to say. The way the files are combined and whether they are written separately as L and R or once as a single file would require some type of summing. If separate files than they would have to be summed on playback or as a single file prior to the write. How they are summed could explain the difference in the sound of the engines. Actually there is a third way but let's not get off track. Not sure why Ron included the word interleaving unless he was indicating these two different approaches. These methods i.e. the speed of handling would be affected by interleave, not the sound itself however. He could be talking about some method of internal file handling specific to Cakewalk. There is no way to know unless he clarifies. Last edited by Middleman; 03-31-2004 at 10:31..
|
|
#9
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
i know i personally recorded a track in sonar 2.2 omfed it to samplitude mixed it in both. same volume levels and pretty much same visual eq monitoring. THe files were not bit identical, and there was a difference in low end and high end clarity...samplitude did sound better to my ears. Not by a landslide by any stretch of the imagination
__________________
"...if the opposite of pro is a con lets go beyond this, the opposite of CONgress must be PROgress..." Cage
|
|
#10
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
What you describe is math summing style. The bit information is being added and filtered differently prior to writing the file information.
Every manufacturer can chose to alter the bits, its all in the algorithms.
|
|
#11
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Ok, I was right and wrong. From the Digital Performer website:
"This soundbite actually refers to two sound files, because Digital Performer uses split stereo files instead of one interleaved file. Split stereo means that your stereo mix is split into a pair of mono files, with '.L' (left) and '.R' (right) suffixes. Most other software likes to see interleaved stereo files, in which the individual sample numbers for the left and right channels are interleaved. "
|
|
#13
03-31-2004
|
|||
|
|||
|
Panning law is different for a mono track v a stereo track. Mono tracks are cut in centre because the same signal using 2 speakers would be louder than the signal panned hard left which would only be using the left speaker. When panned across from hard left to hard right, the sound should seem to have a constant volume compared to the static sounds in the mix.
Different designs use slightly different amounts of centre cut, but it's usually around 4db. I believe amounts between 3 and 6db have been used. Stereo tracks don't need this same centre cut as they don't normally have the common signal left and right that a mono track, by definition has. A stereo track can have a centre cut, to compensate for an increase in level when played over mono equipment (you're mixing 2 channels together which must boost the level as much as 3db) which would alter the mix compared to a mono sound panned hard either way, but it is less than for a mono track. Strictly speaking, Stereo has a Balance control, you cannot pan a Stereo Track. A balance control simply cuts the opposite side you are "panning" to. So if you want a stereo piano all on the left, you will simply throw away its right channel! I can see how having a different amount of panning law centre cut will change the sound of a mix. Why they would change it I don't know. Broadcast people have a different spec for panning law because they can expect to be heard over mono equipment. Logic Audio has the option to select the Panning Law, I don't think Sonar has. I don't recognise this as "interleave" though. In stereo files, it's simply the way left and right channels are ordered in the file. Playback with a different interleave will at best reverse left and right channels, again making a mix sound a bit different. I've always assumed the left channel sample is stored first in a .wav, alternating with a right channel sample. As far as I know, Sonar saves tracks as standard .wav files, so the interleave should not be different.
__________________
As one door closes, another one slams in my face.
|
|
#14
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well all, another fine example of the knowledge held in this group! Thanks a lot!
What abput this line from the quote - When comparing S3.1.1 mixes to S2.x it's important to verify that all track interleaves are the same. I agree with Jim, I don't know anyway to modify the application of pan law, so how would you do this? Q.
__________________
<insert something witty here>
|
|
#15
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"...if the opposite of pro is a con lets go beyond this, the opposite of CONgress must be PROgress..." Cage
|
|
#16
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If you want better sound, then play your files back through your stereo system. What you want is "truer" sound - i.e., sound that is less colored. I agree that there is a slight difference in the sound from S2.2. I can't tell you if it is truer. In fact, it might be more colored for all I know. I just know it is different (and just slightly so). To me it is the same issue as your monitor speakers. Ultimately you have to "learn" the sound. I can (and did) learn S2.2 as easily as S3 - so what's all the fuss about? The only issue for me is if it allows you to make better mixes. So far, I can't say it has done anything for me. But that could be due to my way of working. My mixes are always tweaked in Wavelab after they are exported from Sonar. So in reality, I rely on Wavelab for the "final sound." However, what S3 does or doesn't do for me is not the issue either. What does it do for you??? If you feel that you can make better sounding mixes in S3 than in S2.2 - go for it!!
|
|
#17
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
smeared hi's and lopped off lows isn't truer to my stuff i'm mixing maybe yours...
__________________
"...if the opposite of pro is a con lets go beyond this, the opposite of CONgress must be PROgress..." Cage
|
|
#18
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Teacher, you're freaking me out man..
I finally got a sub to hear the lows, I bought the best preamp I could affort to get clarity and warmth, I popped for a UAD1 to get the magic of high end compression, I am in the process of getting the Lynx 2 for ADDA conversion, the Soundelux is in my sights, now your telling me I gotta dump my software to step up? Sometimes I want to go back to my old tascam board and 4 track reel to reel when life was simple. Not saying your not right, just saying don't tell me anymore scary stories. Last edited by Middleman; 03-31-2004 at 19:05..
|
|
#19
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, I don't have a sub. So lows are a guess for me, anyway. However, I find no problem with the high end.
|
|
#20
03-31-2004
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I demo'd S3, and decided that although it did sound a bit crisper to me, 2.2 does what I need and more. I think I'm gonna get a new mixer instead!! ed
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![10/30 - [video] Demo Roland TD-20SX](http://en.audiofanzine.com/img/videos/audiofanet_en/sm_th/
/
/
<a target= "10/30 - [video] Demo Roland TD-20SX")
Linear Mode
