sonar/protools sound different

[jmorris]

I have been recording with sonar for years but recently got an mbox2 for the hell of it. It may be in my head but it "sounds" to me like the kick and toms sound better mixing via the mbox. Could the mbox2 converters be better than the motu2408mk3 I use with sonar? Handle lower freqs. better? Also, I know of course with protools you have to use digi hardware but I assume I could use an external apogee a/d converter and clock with protools and mbox?

 

[altitude909]

pan law, you have to understand it if you are a/b something with pro tools

 

[jmorris]

pan law, you have to understand it if you are a/b something with pro tools

pan law? "splane" I just know it seems to sound different.....whats to know??

 

[altitude909]

There is a lot to know and it is very important.

Google is your friend

(not trying to be a smart ass, just not in a essay mood)

 

[pezking]

The pan law is almost certainly not what is making it sound so different.

I would put money on it being a superior mix bus within Pro Tools. I have certainly noticed that when working in Pro Tools versus Cubase/Nuendo, that Pro Tools wins in sound quality every time.

I used to think that all DAWs sound the same, but I'm no longer of this opinion.

It's possible the converters in the Mbox 2 are better but what interface are you using with Sonar? Try using the Mbox with Sonar and see if you experience a better sound.

 

[jmorris]

The pan law is almost certainly not what is making it sound so different.

I would put money on it being a superior mix bus within Pro Tools. I have certainly noticed that when working in Pro Tools versus Cubase/Nuendo, that Pro Tools wins in sound quality every time.

I used to think that all DAWs sound the same, but I'm no longer of this opinion.

It's possible the converters in the Mbox 2 are better but what interface are you using with Sonar? Try using the Mbox with Sonar and see if you experience a better sound.

Yeah, the converter thing is what I have thought of. Funny as I have read most people think Nuendo sounds best of all the DAWS. I tries before to run sonar through mbox but could not get it to work, I'll try it again.

 

[altitude909]

The pan law is almost certainly not what is making it sound so different.

I would put money on it being a superior mix bus within Pro Tools. I have certainly noticed that when working in Pro Tools versus Cubase/Nuendo, that Pro Tools wins in sound quality every time.

I used to think that all DAWs sound the same, but I'm no longer of this opinion.

It's possible the converters in the Mbox 2 are better but what interface are you using with Sonar? Try using the Mbox with Sonar and see if you experience a better sound.

That is fanboi garbage. There has been endless discussion and testing done (I'll happily provide links if you want) that once the pan law is set the same, mixes in any 2 DAWs will null to themselves when phase inverted. Converters in the mbox are NOT better than the motu, the budget digi stuff is identical to the maudio line (i.e. delta 1010) and is far from superior.

jmorris, find the pan law settings for sonar and PT, set them the same, then run your tests again making them as objective as possible (i.e. try a reference source wav recorded elsewhere). There are so many factors and variables that go into recording so a true A/B comparison is not trivial.
A "superior" mix engine is NOT one of them

 

[pezking]

That is fanboi garbage. There has been endless discussion and testing done (I'll happily provide links if you want) that once the pan law is set the same, mixes in any 2 DAWs will null to themselves when phase inverted. Converters in the mbox are NOT better than the motu, the budget digi stuff is identical to the maudio line (i.e. delta 1010) and is far from superior.

jmorris, find the pan law settings for sonar and PT, set them the same, then run your tests again making them as objective as possible (i.e. try a reference source wav recorded elsewhere). There are so many factors and variables that go into recording so a true A/B comparison is not trivial.
A "superior" mix engine is NOT one of them

With the utmost respect get off your high horse and piss off.

"Fanboi garbage" seriously dude, I have used cubase, nuendo and pro tools as well as many other DAWs and I have noticed a definite improvement in sound between the Pro Tools mix and Cubase mix. As with any posting on a forum, that is MY OPINION. I'm still a massive fan of cubase for its ease of use.

Go back and read my post again. I did not realise that he was using the Motu unit, I must have missed that part. Hence suggesting the converters could be better (cos I didn't know what he was using with Sonar). I have no recent experience with the motu so I couldn't possibly tell you the converters are better or worse.

Yes please provide me with links proving that the Pan law is what is making my mix sound better in Pro Tools. Please bare in mind I'm talking about a mono mix... and it still sounds better.

What leads you to believe that the converters in the Mbox 2 and the 1010 are identical? I've never heard that before...

 

[altitude909]

To start:

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=13473

If you have any questions, PM pipeline he posts here also.

Another thread describing almost the exact same issue you are having(this is a very common question, and the answer is almost always, the difference in pan laws between DAWS)

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/380486-cubase-no-match-pt-level-playing-field.html

 

[jmorris]

Thanks for everyones input(no pum intended) I will check pan laws as suggested. Good info here from everyone. I do find all this very interesting. I am a big fan of Sonar.I find it the simpliest for me to use of all the DAWS. I just want what sounds the best. Maybe be they are all the same ( I kind of think that) but I'll do some checking of setting and see.

 

[noisewreck]

The pan law is almost certainly not what is making it sound so different.

I would put money on it being a superior mix bus within Pro Tools.

And I would bet my left nut that it's not the "superior mix bus within Pro Tools" either.

Question #1: What audio interface did you use before the MBox?

Question #2: Can you use the MBox with Sonar? (I don't know if this is possible that's why I am asking).

Question #3: If the answer to Question #2 is "Yes", then try to record the same exact thing through the same interface into both Sonar and PT and see if there is a difference.

 

[NL5]

To start:

http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=13473

If you have any questions, PM pipeline he posts here also.

Another thread describing almost the exact same issue you are having(this is a very common question, and the answer is almost always, the difference in pan laws between DAWS)

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/380486-cubase-no-match-pt-level-playing-field.html

What a bunch of crap! Just because two digital sound files null 100% does NOT mean they sound the same. Do you realize how foolish you sound by making such an assertion. The sound quality of the two files is completely subjective......

LOL.

 

[xstatic]

I think there is one big thing here that has been overlooked. Music and peoples opinions of it is very subjective. We are talking about trying to compare two things here that were in different audio platforms, on different days, through who knows what other different equipment, if the tracks are the same etc. I can think of tons of reasons why things would sound different that have nothing to do with pan laws or converters or mix busses. Maybe one set of tracks just is better? Maybe one was just mixed better than the other? In fact, maybe when you listen to the files next week, you will think the exact opposite.

 

[jmorris]

xstatic
1) same recorded tracks imported to protool and sonar
2) mbox2 as interface for protools ( of course)
3) motu 2408 mk 3 for sonar.
4) ran mix of drums for both in respective daws and just kick, then just toms for both. No plugsin for either

 

[altitude909]

What a bunch of crap! Just because two digital sound files null 100% does NOT mean they sound the same. Do you realize how foolish you sound by making such an assertion. The sound quality of the two files is completely subjective......

LOL.

Yes it does. Do your realize that if two audio files null that means THEY ARE COMPLETELY IDENTICAL. If they were different, the result would be the difference. Nothing subjective about that. Maybe you should do some reading before spouting off on subjects you have absolutely no understanding of

 

[NL5]

Yes it does. Do your realize that if two audio files null that means THEY ARE COMPLETELY IDENTICAL. If they were different, the result would be the difference. Nothing subjective about that. Maybe you should do some reading before spouting off on subjects you have absolutely no understanding of

I think you need to change the batteries in your sarcasm meter......

 

[altitude909]

I think you need to change the batteries in your sarcasm meter......

you got me

been hanging around on GS too much.. average IQ is a little lower there..

 

[noisewreck]

xstatic

2) mbox2 as interface for protools ( of course)
3) motu 2408 mk 3 for sonar.

Congratulations! You can hear the differences between two different DA converters

 

[jmorris]

noisewreck,
Its hard to believe the converters of an Mbox2 are better than a motu. Maybe?Its just the lower freqs. that I really seem to notice. Kick for example it seems with protools I can get a pretty good sound right off the bat, sonar ,I have to play with it a bit to get the kick not mushy.

 

[xstatic]

Its quite possible that what you are hearing is a difference in converters. Until you get the sonar tracks outputting through the Mbox it will be hard to say. As far as which one is higher quality, I would say the MOTU would get my vote, but that does not mean that for you or someone else as well that they don't prefer the sound of the Mbox. Its possible that those things that the MOTU converters do that are generally accepted as "higher end" than the Mbox is also something that you don't care for or that the Mbox does something to the sound that you like.

Basically, say you have a mix that sounds good to you, and then you swtich D/A converters to a better set. If suddenly you start hearing things that you want or need to change in the same mix, then maybe its because the "better" converters have finally revealed those things. Thats why I don't care for using the Presonus Central Station for example as a converter. It has a smoothing effect that tends to make things sound good when run through it. The problem is that what it is losing from my mix sounds good when played back through the Presonus, but the problems that it hides are still there on my actual export. Because of this, it makes the Presonus a bad converter for me to be monitoring through. I could however see doing a D/A of a mix through it so that the effect of that converter is applied to the whole mix in order to obtain that sound permanently on my mix. When tracking and mixing however I prefer a converter that is less flattering and more honest so that I can address issues at the time they are happening and not just trying to cover them up later. So is the presonus a good converter or a bad one? For me it would fall in to the bad camp, but that may not hold true for the next guy and his opinion.

As for the quality of digidesign and MOTU converters? Well, even the high end digidesign converters are not really held in very high regard in most professional circles which is why I would lean towards the MOTU, but that is just an extension of basic logic and does not account for a lot of factors, 1 of which is the fact that I don't have much experience with the latest generation of each of the two, so it is purely an assumption.