Hey Dachay!

Qwerty

Qwerty

New member
Do you remember going around and around the mulberry bush when they released Sonar v4? I said it sounded better, you pointed out that different didn't necessarily equal better.

Well, a new version of Sonar is released and it seems another audio engine is being spruiked as sounding sooper-dooper-excellenter than previous releases.

This thread on the Cakewalk forum has been doing laps on this issue -

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=702782

After five pages of spin and mis-information, Ron Kuper - CTO @ Cakewalk, just weighed in with this example.

In the light of our previous conversations I found it ironic how history was repeating itself... Anyway, the CTO agrees with you!

Ciao!

:) Q.

I imported a 44.1kHz/24-bit mono test tone (sine wave @ 1kHz) into SONAR. I then cloned it 31 more times, creating a 32 track project. I set the first track's gain to 0dB, the second's to -1dB, the third's to -2dB, and so on. So in the end I was summing 32 tracks, from 0dB to -32dB in gain.

(Let's pause a second here. Maybe that's a contrived set up. But I didn't think so when I started. I figured a typical mix will have 32+ tracks, and probably have volumes spread out more or less the way I did it.)

All these tracks were bussed into a main which (obviously) was now overloaded. So I set the master gain to something like -7dB to compensate.

I then exported the mix to stereo 24-bit, using both the 32-bit engine and then the 64-bit double precision engines. (By the way all dithering was turned off in SONAR.)

I then loaded these two mixes into Sound Forge and subtracted one from the other, doing a nulling (A-B) test. If the 2 engines yield the same mix, then (A-B) should have resulted in a flat line signal, they should have nulled out.

The resulting (A-B) signal was not a flat line. Not even close.

Sound Forge's statistics said the minimum sample value in the (A-B) was -2 and the maximum sample value in (A-B) was 276. In other words, there were 9 bits of error introduced! Even with real world physics, noise, etc, this is a sonically significant amount of error.

Does this mean the 64-bit engine sounds "better"? That is subjective, it's up to you. But does it sound different, actually sound different in ways that discerning ears can tell? Yes, without a doubt.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Kuper said:
Sound Forge's statistics said the minimum sample value in the (A-B) was -2 and the maximum sample value in (A-B) was 276. In other words, there were 9 bits of error introduced! Even with real world physics, noise, etc, this is a sonically significant amount of error.
Click to expand...
Wow! :cool:
 
Yep - the argument itself is a little esoteric and pointless, (ie. just record something, dammit), but I thought this quote from Ron was quite ironic in light of previous conversations.

Does this mean the 64-bit engine sounds "better"? That is subjective, it's up to you. But does it sound different, actually sound different in ways that discerning ears can tell? Yes, without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Ciao,

Q.
 
Q -

My point all along is that your "audience" will not be listening to your mix in Sonar. So... whether it sounds better (or even different) in Sonar is a pretty moot point.

HOWEVER, if sounding better in Sonar allows you to work the mix such that it sounds better when reduced to 16 bit, 44.1 stereo file, burned to a CD, and played on various different systems, then it becomes very important.

Intellectually, sounding better in Sonar could actually make you render a poorer mix.

To my point, for years the Yamaha NS10s were touted as most studios choice for mixing monitors. And it is pretty much agreed they sounded like piss. However, if you were able to get a mix to sound good on them, there was a decent chance it would sound good everywhere else.

A reverse example, my mixes sound great (to me) on headphones. But I don't use them to mix.

I'm not knocking the new Sonar engine (in fact, I haven't even heard it). Just stating that I don't think the goal is for it to sound better. The goal is for it to "translate" better. If it does that, where do I send my check. :D :D
 
dachay2tnr said:
P.S. I always wanted a thread with my name on it.
Take that, moskus. :D :D :D
Click to expand...
"My thread" has more posts! :p

Anyhow, Ron Kuper exported the mix from Sonar, so he wasn't comparing in Sonar. ;)
 
So there I was in the early 70's part exchanging my battered valve amp for a solid state "new" amp because of the fresh sounds, lack of distortion, overdrive etc.

And now, to get the same amp. I would have to spend a small fortune :confused:

So, question is "better" or "different?"

Answers on a postcard only please :)
 
The pursuit of happiness seems like a bore now... :rolleyes:

Wait... that was +1

(Now we switch to +1 instead of 2 cents... that's different... does it feel better on you? :D )

;)
Jaymz
 
Hey come on... click it baby... come on...

What? No reply...? That's okay... just read it...

No read? Well, that's fine... then just view it...

26000 more views to go... :eek:

;)
Jaymz
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top