Does anyone know the truth about Software Sounding Different?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vago
  • Start date Start date
V

Vago

New member
Alot of top Producers in my home town did some side by side tests with different Audio Software and most of them found that the sound of Pro-Tools was so much better than anything else..
I wonder if anyone has an opinion on this?
i've tried cubase, then I used Logic for about 2 years but I was having huge problems getting mixes right, then I tried Nuendo and they sound great and clear..
Weird, why would they sound different, and what is the best?
how well the algorhythms and equasions process the audio?
I must put an end to it!!!!!!!!!!
people I know who use Digi 001 with Protools say that when they heard the Digi with the full on Protools setup with the desk etc they said that made an amazing difference..
anyway what do ya'll think?
Andrew.
 
If you're playing single wave files at a time, all else being equal, all software applications will sound the same. However, once you start mixing multiple files together, the program's mixing algorithms come into play. Some are better than others. I don't have experience with many multitrack programs, but Samplitude has a wide reputation for sounding among the best of any of them.
 
He usado Samplitude, N-Tracks, Vegas y Nuendo.
Nuendo es el mejor. La claridad en el sonido que éste programa logra está por encima de los demás.
No tengo opinión formada acerca de Pro Tools, debido a que nunca lo usé.
Pero dale al Nuendo que vas bien.
 
This subject is pretty hot at Nuendo forum.
Some guy did a lab comarison of similar wave files created with Nuendo and Cubase SX, and found them to be identical. This was regarded as a confirmation that both software use the same core sound engine.
Difference between PT and Nuendo is also widely discussed, but there seems to be no unamity in conclusions. Majority of people seem to lean towards Nuendo, but this is Nuendo users forum...
I am using Nuendo and I like it, moreover it grows together with me and my hardware.
 
As indicated before, it's not the software that makes the difference, it's the algorithms. And different software may very well use different algorithms.

I seriously doubt that its the mixing part of it that makes the difference. That is a pretty simple part of it in a digital mixer (in contrast to analog mixers, where this supposedly is one of the hardest parts to get right). There could be slight differences in the accuracy but it should really only be the least significant bit that is different, and that would probably not be audible.

I would guess it's the filters and the plugins and perhaps the dithering that sound different.
 
Would that fact that some of the better ones like Nuendo work internally at 32bit float make any difference?
 
regebro said:
I seriously doubt that its the mixing part of it that makes the difference. That is a pretty simple part of it in a digital mixer (in contrast to analog mixers, where this supposedly is one of the hardest parts to get right). There could be slight differences in the accuracy but it should really only be the least significant bit that is different, and that would probably not be audible.
Click to expand...

I think that the mixdown algorythm is not simple at all. If fact it may be that part of software that makes final result sounding different.
I think that quality of final mixdown is the most vital for overall quality of the setup.
And I agree with Alchemist: 32-bit floating point is not something other multitrackers can offer, and it should mean something.

In the end: I know that I don't know... I love my Nuendo and I am waiting for version 2, which is expected to top Cubase SX.
 
First, a lot of the differences you describe (e.g. 001 compared to full-blown Pro Tools) are because of hardware, not software.

Second, hardware and listening environments are extremely important. A great monitoring system with great converters and crappy software will most likely sound better than awesome software with cheap converters and a poor monitoring system.

I've heard good things about the Nuendo/Cubase SX engine. I've heard good things about almost every engine out there. Paris, Cubase, SX/Nuendo, Sonar, Logic, Pro Tools, N-Track, you name it. In fact, I remember a time when Logic had one of the poorest mixers out there (it had a resolution of around 256 steps for the mixer) and people still swore up and down that it was the best audio engine they had ever heard.

Bottom line is:
  • If you are a good engineer, there's nothing in any of these systems that's going to prevent you from making great mixes.
  • If you're a great engineer, you can probably produce a radio-ready mix with a Soundblaster and $100 worth of software.
  • If you're a beginner/average/starting out engineer, your mixes are not going to compete with the mixes of the greats, even if you mix them in a million dollar studio with an SSL and all the external gear you can handle.
 
Originally posted by webstop

I think that the mixdown algorythm is not simple at all.

Well, I'm open to arguments to what would be complicated with it?

And I agree with Alchemist: 32-bit floating point is not something other multitrackers can offer, and it should mean something.

Sure, the more bits the better.
 
webstop said:


I think that the mixdown algorythm is not simple at all. If fact it may be that part of software that makes final result sounding different.
I think that quality of final mixdown is the most vital for overall quality of the setup.
And I agree with Alchemist: 32-bit floating point is not something other multitrackers can offer, and it should mean something.

In the end: I know that I don't know... I love my Nuendo and I am waiting for version 2, which is expected to top Cubase SX.
Click to expand...

what software doesn't do that?
ACID, Logic, Sonar, Cubase, Nuendo, Samplitude..all operate @ 32 bit floatin internally
 
Teacher said:


what software doesn't do that?
ACID, Logic, Sonar, Cubase, Nuendo, Samplitude..all operate @ 32 bit floatin internally
Click to expand...


I thought PT LE are at 24 fixed...
 
regebro said:
Originally posted by webstop

I think that the mixdown algorythm is not simple at all.

Well, I'm open to arguments to what would be complicated with it?
Click to expand...

I am not an engineer, so this is just my understanding.
When you are recording a wav, it is the quality of hardware (converters) that matters most. At this point the software simply transfers ones and zeros from the converters onto HDD.
Mixdown is processing operation which involves math calculations. Algorythm of processing can be implemented differently, and therefore results can be different.
Nuendo manual claims that the mixdown will sound exactly as the mix itself, including all plugins, automation and all that. Well, its not. Its not hard to hear the difference. Sometimes its worse, sometimes its just different. This indicates to me that there is a lot of processing going on under the hood.
 
This kind of comparison between programs is rather difficult because there is so much involved other than the software. I bet that if we could all go to this same room, take the same computer and record the same thing on all the different programs out there, and then play back the music through the exact same system in the exact room, no one would be able to say, oh yeah, Cubase or Nuendo or whatever sounded better than the others... it is not just the software, it's a combination of the software and all the other pieces of the sound chain.
 
ok here is the biggest diffrence of all a/d converters thats right folks a/d converters and cross talk the better the converter the better the sound and the 3 that have the best so far is motu 001 and advark q10 out side of nundo apogee set up and the new pro tools 192k converters and to be honest id take the apogees over the 192k pro tools hd
 
as a software architect, i can tell you that all software is not created equally. some programmers are better than others. they can do the same amount of work in less lines of code. I've been able to get exponential increases in performance by debugging the code of junior programmers.

there are algorithms that run in N, N**2, and N**M time. there are also algorithms that run in log2N time. A good programmer tries to get his code to run in log2N as much as humanly possible. so the software does matter a great deal.

having said that, the middleware is still more important than the software. the middleware is the API (application programming interface) that the software uses to communicate with the hardware. In Sonar's case, that middleware is the DirectX API which connects to WDM drivers.

finally, once you get through the N-tier software logic (including the middleware) you've got the hardware.

Just like TCP/IP each layer builds upon the previous so the order of importance flows in that same direction like an inverse pyramid.

Hardware --> Middleware --> Software

if your hardware is sound, you can build strong middleware drivers to access that hardware. if the middleware efficiently accesses strong hardware, you can build efficient software to utilize that middleware.
 
webstop said:


I am not an engineer, so this is just my understanding.
When you are recording a wav, it is the quality of hardware (converters) that matters most. At this point the software simply transfers ones and zeros from the converters onto HDD.
Mixdown is processing operation which involves math calculations. Algorythm of processing can be implemented differently, and therefore results can be different.
Nuendo manual claims that the mixdown will sound exactly as the mix itself, including all plugins, automation and all that. Well, its not. Its not hard to hear the difference. Sometimes its worse, sometimes its just different. This indicates to me that there is a lot of processing going on under the hood.
Click to expand...

Oh, now I see what you mean. When I'm talking about the mix processing, I'm talking about adding the different tracks together. That is a very easy thing to do, as compared with making a filter, or creating a reverb. Thats what I mean with that the mxing is probably not what makes the difference in sound, it is the plugins and filters.

What you are referring to as mixdown involves all the plugin, and all the filters, and the whole shebang.

No, the process of mixdown, and the process of mixing (which you also split into two) should include exactly the same calculations. There really should be no difference, excpet one:

If you record everything in 24/96 and mix it in 24/96 when you mix down you probably mix down to 16/44.1, right? Then at the end, after all the 24/96 calculations, a process called "dithering" is used to convert the 24/96 sound to a 16/44.1 sound.

That process is complicated and involves some magick to make it sound good. Especially doing the 96 to 44.1 conversion is tricky.
 
if your that worried about it why not use an outside burner? just set your mix up to a stero buss add mastering processing and shoot it to a stand alone burner and compare the mixed version via softwear to the direct burn via stero buss i think you will be suprised that they are very similar in fact i know i was and id say the 001 has steller mixdown results as well as the mouto system
 
I think we can extrapolate from the above comments that although in theory there may be tiny differences between various software packages they are too insignificant to be noticed by the vast majority of people. Differences in hardware are far more significant.
 
doulos said:
ok here is the biggest diffrence of all a/d converters thats right folks a/d converters and cross talk the better the converter the better the sound and the 3 that have the best so far is motu 001 and advark q10 out side of nundo apogee set up and the new pro tools 192k converters and to be honest id take the apogees over the 192k pro tools hd
Click to expand...

how about the Lucid, Mytek, Cranesong HEDD?!?!...i know these are out of most people range but still these are prolly the best (including the apogee) dedicated A/D D/A converter

and I've heard great things about the RME and Lynx2 which supposedly blow the aardvark and motu out the water...not sure abou tthe 192 PTHD but i would be surprised cuz the lynx2 also does 192
 
Magical Ears.

I got so sick of thinking about this problem that I went and set up a test for myself the other day..
I ran Logic Cubase SX Nuendo and all the others on a G4
then I did the same on my PC
A friend who runs mac suggested that the problems I was having with Logic may have been because it was desinged for Mac, or somthing.. I'm not too sure,
but the tests I ran for Mac came out relitivley the same as PC,
I think Signal Chain and really Good Monitors are a MAJOR factor as we all know but I was really shocked at the differences,
Heres what I found,
Logic PC (Logic Mac was fairly the same)- Sounds ok, but kind of like a toy, when you have a few tracks like 3 or four it sounds fine, like piano and vocals or somthing, but as soon as you are getting up over the 15 track mark or even before it starts to sound really muddy, even with a small track count I feel like i'm fighting to make a crappy sounding mix sound like a pro mix, this is also where balancing becomes a problem, I found that my mixes in logic would sound nice when I muted instruments like bass guitar that were taking up the low freq, but as soon as I tried to put them in, no matter how much I did no matter how much I EQued it just muddied the whole mix up and wouldn't come foward, Now I think the rule of thumb when mixing and recording should be that when attempting a project you should be able to record all the tracks you want and then balance them to a clear Mix and have it sound awesome without plugins and if you can get it to this stage then I think the plugs will only make it sound even more amazing..
easier said then done...
But NOT SO!
I imported the same song into Nuendo and all of a sudden it came alive, it was crystal clear and the bass just sat perfectly in the mix, the tracks sounded like they had been recorded in a pro studio and the whole mix just had that pro quality, it was unbelievable
I tried with cubase as well and the results were similar..
Pro Tools was very good also however I did find that it sounds a little more compressed, Nuendo and Cubase Sx have a real kind of Analog feel..
Having said that,
I then did a recording test and I also found some funny differences, Logic tends to sound pretty much as you hear it when you record but Nuendo sounds a bit hollow for some reason..But I still admit that although hollow the Nuendo recordings sound more Pro, the Logic ones sound Lesser quality.
Anyway Having said all that.. I'm still not sure what I'm believing, i've been a musician and a home producer and session player for 9 years now and it's so been my experience that 65 percent of the population wouldn't be able to hear the difference anyway, witch is fine... but as producers ourselves who can hear the diff we should be striving to make our mixes and recordings sound as damn good as we can !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top