All Recording Software Alike?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rick Shepherd
  • Start date Start date
R

Rick Shepherd

New member
Hi,

Obviously all recording software are not all alike, but I do have one question. Do different software give different recording qualities, like different mics and preamps? I am referring to the raw recording, without any effects or anything.
 
Rick Shepherd said:
Hi,

Obviously all recording software are not all alike, but I do have one question. Do different software give different recording qualities, like different mics and preamps? I am referring to the raw recording, without any effects or anything.
Click to expand...
In short, no.

Workflows are different, as are included plug-ins and features, but it is your hardware that determines recording quality. Once digitized, digits are digits.
 
dachay2tnr said:
In short, no.

Workflows are different, as are included plug-ins and features, but it is your hardware that determines recording quality. Once digitized, digits are digits.
Click to expand...
I agree with what was stated above, but would add that there is still considerable dissention as to the equality of their summing engines. That said, if there are differences between the engines of the major players, they are subtle.
 
Rick Shepherd said:
The Cubasis VST software that comes with my E-MU 1212m card versus the Sonar 4 producer version for instance?
Click to expand...
Which part of "no difference" didn't you understand??
 
Which part of "no difference" didn't you understand??
Click to expand...

Someone gave me a negative rep point for that comment (anonymously, of course).

OK, maybe the comment was a little harsh, but I really get tired of people asking a question, getting an answer, and then asking the same figgin' question all over again.

If someone tells you there is no difference in recording quality between different software, what would then prompt you to ask if there's a difference between A and B software?

Kinda stupid if you ask me (which, of course, you didn't :) ).

fraserhutch's comment about differences in summing is a different issue. That is not "recording quality." Yes, it can affect the end product - just as your choice of dither can, the quality of your plugins, and/or your own abilities as an engineer. However, the question was "recording quality," and I still say digits are digits once they're digitized.
 
I agree wholeheartedly Mike. Recording at a particular sample rate is the same from machine to machine, engine to engine. Just like in saving a text file from any word processing porogram out there. The manipulation of the data and playback of the audio after conversion from digital is where I see a difference. My question is; "Did you notice a difference in the playback quality of the audio engine from Sonar 2 to Sonar 3?"
 
Toki987 said:
My question is; "Did you notice a difference in the playback quality of the audio engine from Sonar 2 to Sonar 3?"
Click to expand...
Personally, I did not.

It seems that every time a new version of Sonar is released, everyone is touting how much better it sounds. So far, it has always sounded the same to me (although I haven't gone to 4.0 yet). My tin ears could be the reason, however. :)

Did you hear a difference?
 
dachay2tnr said:
Personally, I did not.

It seems that every time a new version of Sonar is released, everyone is touting how much better it sounds. So far, it has always sounded the same to me (although I haven't gone to 4.0 yet). My tin ears could be the reason, however. :)

Did you hear a difference?
Click to expand...

I think (wonder) if I hear a bit more clarity in 4 but I'm not really sure. It could be just "new" influences my thinking. In fact I liked my layout in 2.2 better due to familiarity, less eye candy, and the basic color scheme. It has taken a lot of work to get 4 to feel as comfortable although it has tremendous routing and drag-drop options.
 
Rick Shepherd said:
The Cubasis VST software that comes with my E-MU 1212m card versus the Sonar 4 producer version for instance?
Click to expand...

No, apparently the audio engine in SX3 is purportedly much superior to VST. Not a valid comparision.

I was talking SX3 vrs Sonar 4 vrs Saw Sawstudio, etc
 
dachay2tnr said:
Which part of "no difference" didn't you understand??
Click to expand...

Actually, I have heard in a number of places that the audio engine in SX3 is improved over VST, so Rick's is a valid question.

Summing is NOT a no-brainer.
 
fraserhutch said:
Summing is NOT a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
But it also doesn't affect the RECORDING quality. It affects the playback quality, no?
 
dachay2tnr said:
But it also doesn't affect the RECORDING quality. It affects the playback quality, no?
Click to expand...

I am purely talking about playback (summing), yes. Recording digital bits as they come in is trivial, all tge work has already been done by the convertors. Summing is where to work starts.
 
I think that software has progressed to the point where your skills and hardware are the major factors in the finished product.
IMHO these software debates are just splitting hairs.
You should pick the software for the workflow,how easy it is for you to use it.
 
fraserhutch said:
I am purely talking about playback (summing), yes. Recording digital bits as they come in is trivial, all tge work has already been done by the convertors. Summing is where to work starts.
Click to expand...

But the question was about RECORDING quality.

Do different software give different recording qualities, like different mics and preamps?
Click to expand...
 
dachay2tnr said:
But the question was about RECORDING quality.
Click to expand...
I think only a dog could hear the difference.
This seems to be more a matter of opinion than fact.
 
dachay2tnr said:
But the question was about RECORDING quality.
Click to expand...

I beelieve the OP was referring to "recording software" as a generic term for the likes of Cuabse, PT, Sobnar et al. I do not believe he was referring to JUST recording recording tracks and omiiting mixing. I may be wrong, but that's how I read it.
 
just (re)reading the Bob Katz book on mastering and he spends quite a bit of time explaining the subtle and not so subtle differences found in digital realm tools - DAW, plugsin, outboard equip etc... and I think I agree with the premise that the tools implement various parts in different ways and that implementation could make a difference: dithering and word length and calculations all come to mind.

One would assume that the data from the A/D to the hard disk via the DAW must have some things done to it during the recording phase so its very probable that the selection of the tool matters.

As far as SONAR "sounding better" with each version is probably both the improvements to the mix and plugin selections and possible also the "record" processing as well.
 
gullfo said:
One would assume that the data from the A/D to the hard disk via the DAW must have some things done to it during the recording phase so its very probable that the selection of the tool matters.
Click to expand...

I woulde *hope* that is not the case - what comes in from the A/D is the digital bits representing the stream. Barring the introduction of processing and effects on the tracks, I would hope the only thing done to the wave when scaling to the fader levels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top