Better program, better quality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Flame
  • Start date Start date
T

The Flame

New member
Hey guys, i am using the firepod with cubase le. If i upgrade to another program, sonar, or cubase sx or something, will I get better quality. I happen to like cubase le, but people that review the firepod say that its not good enough for the firepod. I also heard that sonar has like 64 bit something. DOES YOUR PROGRAM AFFECT YOUR SOUND QUALITY AT ALL?

I am also thinking about M-audio bx5a's. They are for semi-professional use, i have just started to recordi metal bands.

Thanks for the help!
Flame
 
IMO, the software itself has a very minimal impact on your overall sound and should probably be the last thing you would need to upgrade. First and foremost is the quality of talent you are recording, followed by the acoustical properties of the space you are recording/mixing in, and the quality of your monitoring chain. Next in line are microphones, preamps, and converters. If you have top notch stuff for all of those things, then look at software. However, looking at the equipment list in your sig, you have much room for improvement before you would ever need to think about software. Start with improving the acoustics of your room and get some better mics.

I have the older model BX5 monitors. They are ok and will allow you to make decent mixes, but they are not professional quality monitors. YMMV.
 
Software doesn't effect your sound quality.

44.1/16-bit on Cubase is the same as 44.1/16-bit on Audacity, or any other program.

Some software may have better plugins which will effect sound quality if you choose to use them, but as far as effecting the quality of your recorded tracks, they don't.
 
Actually, there is a difference between sequencers, but it is extremely marginal.
 
Only difference I've ever noticed in recording programs is Cubase/Audition vs Windows Sound Recorder lol. That thing is horrible. Mind you I've never tried using it for music production :p
 
Just wondering, can Cubase LE support 8 tracks simulataneously, yes? If not maybe try SE or SX if ya want more 'live' tracks.
 
I sometimes have 30+ tracks running simulataneously. As far as tracking goes, since i am using the firepod, i record 8 tracks at once.
 
Yeah I'm confused, I was pretty sure LE can only handle 4 in at once to different tracks. Think SE can do the 8 though.
 
I'm pretty sure the early versions of LE did 4 simultaneous tracks of recording. However, they changed it to 8 for newer versions bundled with the firepod.
 
scrubs said:
I'm pretty sure the early versions of LE did 4 simultaneous tracks of recording. However, they changed it to 8 for newer versions bundled with the firepod.
Click to expand...


Ah thatd make sense.
 
The Flame said:
I sometimes have 30+ tracks running simulataneously. As far as tracking goes, since i am using the firepod, i record 8 tracks at once.
Click to expand...

hey dude can I ask what your computers like? In terms of Ram and processing? I have my eyes on the Firepod.
 
Hey man i am sure le can do 8 at once with the firepod, i do it everyday! I actually have a dell inspiron 6000. It's not a babd comp, and it can handle big projetcs like that. Right now, at the moment, i am running out of memory becuase i had all my stuff backed up on there. So everything is running smooth now. I think i have like 1.5ghz and 512 shared ram.
 
The Flame said:
Hey man i am sure le can do 8 at once with the firepod, i do it everyday! I actually have a dell inspiron 6000. It's not a babd comp, and it can handle big projetcs like that. Right now, at the moment, i am running out of memory becuase i had all my stuff backed up on there. So everything is running smooth now. I think i have like 1.5ghz and 512 shared ram.
Click to expand...

Yeah seems later versions of LE support 8 tracks simultaneouly. Thats pretty impressive that you can do that with 512 ill have to look into it thanks man.
 
solo.guitar said:
Software doesn't effect your sound quality.

44.1/16-bit on Cubase is the same as 44.1/16-bit on Audacity, or any other program.

Some software may have better plugins which will effect sound quality if you choose to use them, but as far as effecting the quality of your recorded tracks, they don't.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with that statement... I mix in a SX3 system.Through a Folcrom.. I track on our PT Mix plus system.. The audio engine and summing is different between SX and PT's... SX is more open and punchier PT more cloudy..

Now the HD system's have newer engines and sound closer to SX.. But it's not just 1's and 0's and that's that.. There is other factors in the math like the summing of parts in the engine. Plus of course the sound of the A/D and D/A converters as well.

But to answer the first post...I wouldn't think SL is the trouble.. I'd look at other factors as everyone has mentioned.
 
faderjockey said:
I don't agree with that statement... I mix in a SX3 system.Through a Folcrom.. I track on our PT Mix plus system.. The audio engine and summing is different between SX and PT's... SX is more open and punchier PT more cloudy..

Now the HD system's have newer engines and sound closer to SX.. But it's not just 1's and 0's and that's that.. There is other factors in the math like the summing of parts in the engine. Plus of course the sound of the A/D and D/A converters as well.

But to answer the first post...I wouldn't think SL is the trouble.. I'd look at other factors as everyone has mentioned.
Click to expand...

Well, coming from someone who writes software, I can guarentee you sound going into the computer will sound the same no matter what program receives it and writes it to disk. :rolleyes:

Unless for some reason the software does some kind of processing on the incoming signal, which I would assume most don't, and if they do, I wouldn't want to use it.

Now as far as processing the audio: effects, normalization, dithering, etc., that's when software will have an effect on the sound.

Plus of course the sound of the A/D and D/A converters as well.
Click to expand...

A/D/A converters are hardware. There are no software A/D converters. Software can not read an analog signal. The interface is what provides A/D conversion, or your dedicated A/D converter.
 
Grilled_Cheese said:
A/D/A converters are hardware. There are no software A/D converters. Software can not read an analog signal. The interface is what provides A/D conversion, or your dedicated A/D converter.
Click to expand...

that's not entirely true... in fact it's just plain wrong... once you get past the analog portion which is minimal and primarily for conditioning the level...(scaling it down to a level thats on a par with Vref for the chip) it's all software... suggest you check out the papers written by dan lavery... there are plent of opposing thoughts to his but it's a good start if ya really want to understand...
 
dementedchord said:
that's not entirely true... in fact it's just plain wrong... once you get past the analog portion which is minimal and primarily for conditioning the level...(scaling it down to a level thats on a par with Vref for the chip) it's all software... suggest you check out the papers written by dan lavery... there are plent of opposing thoughts to his but it's a good start if ya really want to understand...
Click to expand...

Recording software doesn't have A/D converters. When you find one that does, let me know!

The software doesn't receive the audio signal until it goes through the interface. The interface converts the signal to digital. You know, takes samples of the waveform, depending on the sample rate.

Computers work with audio in digital. When you can find one that can record in analog like a tape deck, please let me know. I'd love to be able to record some analog audio without a reel-to-reel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top