is it possible for one software program to record a signal better than another?

[rats]

I'm just talking about the initial signal before any type of processing has taken place. A friend claims that the signal sounds better recorded in the newer version of Cubase than the older version. I say he's full of shit. I say a digital signal is a digital signal, the only difference would be if he was using a different sound card or his recording quality settings were different, bitrate, etc.

He's going to prove it to me by recording a signal on one program then on the other without changing any settings. This is scheduled to take place over the weekend, but I doubt anything will be proven except that he's whack.

Comments?

 

[Slackmaster2K]

No...unless the old program was just broke or something.

However, the only way to listen back to a track is to play it, and certainly mixing and various other processing that people take for granted will sound different from program to program.

Slackmaster 2000

 

[Track Rat]

With the difference of bit depth and higher sampling rates that one program may support and another one won't withstanding, it's my opinion that the soundcard (A/D converters) would be a much bigger factor. Now summing buss differences platform to platform is another issue altogether.

 

[VOXVENDOR]

What about this thing that Mixerman says Otari Radar24 Sounds better than Pro Tools....

I have never heard Radar24 with my own ears, but I definately have a hard time with the Idea that it is "better" sounding than Pro Tools....

"Sounds the same as Pro Tools".. Now thats a statement I can believe... but not "Better"

I could be wrong, and I really have no formed opinion... I'm just going off of my own guessing, having never heard Radar myself.

What do you guys think?

 

[Slackmaster2K]

Radar and Protools are totally different hardware...there's no way they would sound the same. They also both use proprietary software which means proprietary summing, dithering, EQ, etc.

Slackmaster 2000

 

[Track Rat]

Vox, I believe the differences again would be hardware, specificly the A/D converters and system clock and not so much the software. I'm refering to recording and not mixing as the summing thing rears its ugly head.

 

[Slackmaster2K]

Right, straight recording via the same soundcard into two different software programs should result in the same exact numbers (in hypothetical world where everything happens the same way every time of course, hehe).

Slackmaster 2000

 

[pipelineaudio]

youre friend may be talking about the 32 bit float option in cube-endo. This shouldnt change the sound as it supposedly only packs an extra 8 zeros to the file, but who knows

 

[Slackmaster2K]

Lots of software is starting to support 32bit waves, but it's really only useful for storing processed files / mixdowns. You're right in that it wouldn't change the sound of any incoming audio...zeros would be added. I suppose instead of zero's the could add noise instead, but that would be a pretty hit & miss situation...ugh.

Slackmaster 2000

 

[VOXVENDOR]

Vox, I believe the differences again would be hardware, specificly the A/D converters and system clock and not so much the software. I'm refering to recording and not mixing as the summing thing rears its ugly head.

Ok... Cool..

So if a studio has Pro Tools and R24... and a stack of clocks and Converters, and used the same clocks and converters.... would the 2 systems sound the same?

 

[Slackmaster2K]

If you used an outboard converter and ran resulting digital signal into two different systems...yes, unless something is broken you will end up with the same thing on both systems. If you then played back via the same outboard D/A converter, you would technically hear the same thing from both systems as well.

But don't underestimate the difference that the DSP of a system makes. Protools and Radar still wouldn't sound the same using external converters if you were actually working on a project.

Slackmaster 2000

 

[charger]

Radar and Pro Tools woudl sound the same in the follwoing instance. Go in through digital inputs using the same exact clock source and the same exact preamp and converter, at the same bit rate and bit depth. Then the track must be played back without making any fader moves at all.

The people who rave about the way Radar sounds generally like the converters, and the Radar stock converters are very nice. In addition, think about the way Radar is used as compared to Pro Tools. Generally, people track to it and use it as if it's tape, mixing the results through a console that costs upwards of a quarter of a million dollars. On the Pro Tools side, many people mix inside the software. However, if you run through the same converters and mix on the same desk without making any fader moves or using any summing busses in Pro Tools or Radar, they wil sound the same. Pro Tools only becomes "Alsihad" when peopel start mixing on it.

Though it's simple and a wonderful tool to mix with if you don't have any other options, any fool would take the quarter of a million+ dollar mix bus over the seven thousand dollar mix bus if given the option. And believe me, no one's using Radar to mix, it's just functioning as a virtual tape machine.

PS-to answer the initial question, there is a place where software does change the sound of what's recorded. That's in Cubase, using the "true-tape" feature. But don't fool yourselves that this makes Cubase sound any better. It's an effect, using some subtle compression and eq to simulate the effect that tape has on recorded tracks. To my ears, it sounds like dogshit. I would much rather hear the truth of my signal and attack it later with whatever processing is necessary than have it pre-processed by my software.

 

[rats]

PS-to answer the initial question, there is a place where software does change the sound of what's recorded. That's in Cubase, using the "true-tape" feature. But don't fool yourselves that this makes Cubase sound any better. It's an effect, using some subtle compression and eq to simulate the effect that tape has on recorded tracks. To my ears, it sounds like dogshit. I would much rather hear the truth of my signal and attack it later with whatever processing is necessary than have it pre-processed by my software.

That's still processing though so it doesn't count!

 

[TexRoadkill]

I think Charger and Slack summed it up well.

In regards to Radar it is the Nyquist 96khz and Snyquist 192khz convertors that get all the raves. The Classics aren't bad but it is the newer ones that Mixerman and Fletcher always talk about. When you consider that you get 24ch of I/O for $4000 that's a pretty smokin' deal. The Radar does not do any summing or mixing. It will do gain adjustments though and it does indeed rock.

 

[gdoubleyou]

Theoreticaly they all SHOULD sound the same.

But I have noticed differences in the sound of playback between different apps, when using the same audio tracks.

Cubase 5 sounded better (more open, defined) than Cubase4. There are also subtle differences between the sound of Logic and DP.

 

[Slackmaster2K]

It's hard to know what kind of DSP is happening when you playback in a given program. Just because you haven't specificly told it to do this or that, doesn't mean it isn't!

Slackmaster 2000

 

[camn]

better, no.

Different, Yes.

xoxo

 

[Scott Tansley]

The 32bit option is definately better for mixing. Thats why its there. I use this option in cooledit pro.
Even though I record with 24 bit. Once cooledit converts a track to 32bit, it will still sound exactly the same. You don't do this to make a single track sound better.
32bit does two things:-
1. Gives your whole mix much higher maths to calculate a better mixdown.
2. Also does help on single tracks when applying effects that you want to save into the wav file.

It is not uncomon to have plugins that work at 64bit. Even on a 24bit file.
So no matter whether you record 16bit, 24bit etc, having 32bit mixing and 64bit effects is good.

Scott Tansley
www.feel-rock.com

 

[rats]

This thread has some gone out of fucking control.

Where's my damn pneumatic oscillator?

 

[Teacher]

With the difference of bit depth and higher sampling rates that one program may support and another one won't withstanding, it's my opinion that the soundcard (A/D converters) would be a much bigger factor. Now summing buss differences platform to platform is another issue altogether.

i have seen MM , fletcher and others say that when the audio is inside the computer that Alsihad fucks it up more then other software specifically Nuendo and Logic. Meaning volume changing, panning, summing etc. is it true? *shrug...all i know is when i recorded at an Alsihad studio i wasn't impressed w/the sound...