smartest way to sum 24 tracks to analog without spending my life savings.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter thedude400
  • Start date Start date
This issue of an improved audio engine in Sonar5 has come up on the Cakewalk forum. It seems there are those that can hear a difference from previous versions. It was even stated that Sonar5 and Samplitude compare in this regard now.

Is there anyone in this forum who used an older version of Sonar and upgraded to Sonar5 and noticed a difference?

This is important stuff because its alot cheaper & easier to upgrade your software, in addition to its ease of use rather than try to do what the original poster wanted to do which was try to set up an analog mixing console.

Bob
 
I think I mentioned back a bit in this thread that you should do your upgrade. I can think of many OTHER reasons that are more important, but, if hard pressed, I would say that the same mix rendered in Sonar 5 sounds better than 2.2.

There is a LOT of stuff that was added into Sonar since 2.2, and they are mostly cool things!

Do the upgrade simply because you will gain a lot of cool stuff, and don't worry so much about the "summing" issues. That is discussion for the idle! ;)
 
Oh Poo. Now I'm thinking about getting a DAW. Sort of a compromise. Why can't I make up my mind! The Yamaha O3D looks reasonably priced used. You were right ford van, Setting up an analog console is sooooo expensive. This way I'll still be able to utilize a cool realtime rack and I'll be able to stay digital. I was stubborn at first but the more I compare prices to advantages and disadvantages, the less sense an analog board makes. Sorry to ramble so much on this issue but I wanna make sure I do this right and don't have any regrets before I commit. Thnaks again for the replies .
 
the way i did it:

i started with software, from the moment i had any extra cash i bought new hardware, i earned money, upgraded the hardware and now i'm allmost ready to start mixing analog :)

you don't have to get everything in one time, start with little equipment, not with lots of junk, and when the time is ripe you get yourself a nice vintage compressor or something :D

i came to the point that i'm convinced that hardware sounds better than software IF you choose it right of course, i only use "budget" gear, lots of vintage stuff and my plugins just CAN NOT compete with it !

now i need better converters and more ins&outs
 
I went the opposite way

I started on analog, moved up to full blown 2" analog, George Augsperger rooms the whole deal.

Now I have racks of hardware, GOOD stuff, yet little of it gets used except during the tracking stages

Even if the very best of analog sounded like straight wire with gain ( which it doesnt) and the very best digital sounded like a stretched out, spliced cassette tape that had been sitting on a speaker magnet ( which it doesnt), I'd still be using modest digital

For my job I have to create performances, from mediocre playing, by people who practice in front of a mirror rather than in front of their drums or amps or accordians or whatever. I have to take what they give me, and make it sound like something twenty years ago it wouldnt have had a PRAYER of being.

It has to sound tighter than the tightest performance that ever played in the real world

It has to be more in tune than Bruce Dickinson

There is NO way to do this in the analog world

WORSE! Every single possible setting involved must be instantly recallable, even months or sometimes years down the road. Not just recalled, but recalled to the point where it could null

As technology permits more and more, I try to incorporate the hardware back in, because sometimes its just easier to turn a real knob. But I have to record that hardware as soon as I use it!

Its not always the sound thats so important, but its always the song! Even if its not the one they gave you

These analog vs digital debates do nothing but shift attention away from the work that REALLY needs to be done, like buying the damn band a tuner
 
I have always been uncomfortable with digital mixs. But I am a slow one to upgrade software. I knew my hardware was clean but my mixes were never as vibrant as I'd like.
Well I recently upgraded to Windows XP and a WDM driver after using Windows 98SE all these years and I heard the change immediately. The mixs improved from a 2D soundstage to a more open soundstage as soon as I played back a mix in Windows XP, the very latest version of which.
It was easy to hear the improvement. So, one of my problems was the old Windows 98SE and MME driver weren't capable of delivering the most accurate soundstage possible. I'm much happier with the mixs now.
Being a home rec'r, I would never consider alot of costly outboard gear. Its just much more convienent + easier to mix in the box and apply your EQ and compression there. Even input compression/limiting at track time is not really needed as there is so much headroom in 24 bit it can added later. You just don't have to push input levels to the point where limiting is req'd anymore. Recording low for dynamic stuff then normalizeing works just fine.
I was surprised at the improvement in the mix/soundstage with the OS upgrade but I also expect to upgrade to Sonar 5 which states it has an improved mix engine as well and some have commented on hearing the improvement.
For me, the problem of the lack of life in digital mixing is over. My advice to home rec'rs who are fustrated with there digital mixes, be sure your software across the board is the latest and greatest, have decent eq and compression plugs and really learn how to use them in the mix.

Bob
 
Bob's Mods said:
I have always been uncomfortable with digital mixs. But I am a slow one to upgrade software. I knew my hardware was clean but my mixes were never as vibrant as I'd like.
Well I recently upgraded to Windows XP and a WDM driver after using Windows 98SE all these years and I heard the change immediately. The mixs improved from a 2D soundstage to a more open soundstage as soon as I played back a mix in Windows XP, the very latest version of which.
It was easy to hear the improvement. So, one of my problems was the old Windows 98SE and MME driver weren't capable of delivering the most accurate soundstage possible. I'm much happier with the mixs now.
Being a home rec'r, I would never consider alot of costly outboard gear. Its just much more convienent + easier to mix in the box and apply your EQ and compression there. Even input compression/limiting at track time is not really needed as there is so much headroom in 24 bit it can added later. You just don't have to push input levels to the point where limiting is req'd anymore. Recording low for dynamic stuff then normalizeing works just fine.
I was surprised at the improvement in the mix/soundstage with the OS upgrade but I also expect to upgrade to Sonar 5 which states it has an improved mix engine as well and some have commented on hearing the improvement.
For me, the problem of the lack of life in digital mixing is over. My advice to home rec'rs who are fustrated with there digital mixes, be sure your software across the board is the latest and greatest, have decent eq and compression plugs and really learn how to use them in the mix.

Bob
Click to expand...

I don't think your OS upgrade, NOR the different driver attested to the improvement in your mixes! You have almost no way to qualify that statement!

I CAN say that upgrading to Sonar 5 from a previous version of Sonar could explain why.

But the OS and driver? No way! I don't mean to make a huge deal about this. But, there are a LOT of people who wouldn't know any better, and would assume that a simple upgrade of their OS is going to somehow account for a mixing improvement, and then follows the gazillion posts as to who to somehow "tweak" it to get the extra good mixing magic to happen! ;)

I really haven't noticed much of an improvement from Sonar 4 to 5, but 3 to 5 would be obvious! 3 to 4 sounded very different to my ears!
 
Ford Van said:
I don't think your OS upgrade, NOR the different driver attested to the improvement in your mixes! You have almost no way to qualify that statement!

I CAN say that upgrading to Sonar 5 from a previous version of Sonar could explain why.

But the OS and driver? No way! I don't mean to make a huge deal about this. But, there are a LOT of people who wouldn't know any better, and would assume that a simple upgrade of their OS is going to somehow account for a mixing improvement, and then follows the gazillion posts as to who to somehow "tweak" it to get the extra good mixing magic to happen! ;)

I really haven't noticed much of an improvement from Sonar 4 to 5, but 3 to 5 would be obvious! 3 to 4 sounded very different to my ears!
Click to expand...

Ford,

I'd like to make this clear that my previous mixes sound improved over how they sounded in Win98SE so something has happened. My ears are telling me there has been an improvement. My ears and ears alone. Everyones gear is different. Different motherboards as well. Maybe my motherboard likes Win XP and the WDM driver better. Maybe the plugs are being rendered more efficiently because of the true 32 bit data path. Win98SE was a kluge of 16 and 32 data processes.

There is just an endless supply of gear and computer and software combinations out there and its a matter of luck and persistance to get the right combination that maximizes your recording experience.
I still stand by my earlier statement that soundstage has made a noticeable improvement in Win XP with the WDM driver. Its a noticeable improvement, but not a way huge in your face night and day observation. Someone elses MMV.

Bob
 
Was the OS the ONLY thing you upgraded?

You mentioned that you upgraded Sonar to ver 5. I think THAT is more responsible.

I would be interested in hearing two mixes, one summed with the same software/settings in Win 98, and the same software/settings summed in Win XP. No nothing else changed (ok, you can used a different soundcard driver!)

The OS just isn't going to provide any difference in how the mixing app performs it's calculations in a way that will effect the SOUND. Peformance on the CPU? Sure. But Sonar will add 1+1 exactly the same on 98 as it will on XP. And the soundcard driver has NOTHING to do with how the mixing app calculates.

Again, if you can post a .wav file of the same exact mix, where the ONLY difference is the OS for me and others to review, and a consensus agrees that the OS somehow made a difference in sound, then please excuse my skeptisism. But, I seriously doubt that consensus would be reached!

Now, I can agree that possibly, a different driver would make the mix sound different ON YOUR SOUNDCARD, but it will have NO direct effect on the mix you output. When you "render" or "export audio" on your computer, your soundcard driver has NOTHING to do with the resulting .wav file that is created UNLESS you pass the audio through that soundcard to another device to capture the mix. So, possibly, the driver effects what you hear, and to your ears, it sounds better, that doesn't change the processes going on inside your application. But, I am STILL kind of dubious about the soundcard driver effecting what you hear. The application and how it sums audio? Sure!!! But the soundcard driver? I don't think so.

Win 98 would handle all Sonar processes at 32 bit as it should. Sure, there were probably some left over 16 bit processes in Win 98 to keep things working with older applications that used 16 bit processes, but Sonar was designed to be I am sure purely 32 bit!
 
just a wildass theory, but in win98 (and early versions of 2000 and XP) he possibly could have been dealing with the "denormal bug" in sections of audio that used a plugin, and because very very quiet at certain parts

I doubt it
 
Ahhh..I just caught that you "expect to upgrade to Sonar 5".

Ok.

Still, I will need to hear a rendered mix from each OS with NO other differences in software settings.

One other thing that I can think of. Your soundcard will come with a application that handles it's "mixer". Indeed, THAT can effect what you hear, and no doubt that a newer version of the mixer could provide a "better sound stage" even though you technically aren't doing any "mixing" on the soundcards "mixer".

Also, possibly, the software mixer for the card might have improved or ADDED dithering which could effect the sound (minor).

But again, the OS itself isn't really responsible for this, and the soundcard driver I don't think has ANYTHING to do with the "sound" of your soundcard. The soundcards mixing app sure could effect things though!

I have used the MME driver for my Lynx card, as well as the ASIO driver (the WDM driver just plain sucks and doesn't work properly). I have not heard a difference between the drivers in anything SOUND related, mainly, just in how stable playback and recording is in the app.

I am looking back over 5 years of driver upgrades and the "fixes/changes" in them for my Lynx One card, and don't see a single reference to anything having to do with how the "sound" of the soundcard is effected. Mostly, it was fixes having to do with how the application is able to access soundcard features.
 
pipelineaudio said:
just a wildass theory, but in win98 (and early versions of 2000 and XP) he possibly could have been dealing with the "denormal bug" in sections of audio that used a plugin, and because very very quiet at certain parts

I doubt it
Click to expand...

As I recall, the "denormal bug" only had to do with CPU usage when the file ends. That would seem like a long shot! If that was an issue, you would see a cpu performance hit. I can't possibly see how that would effect the audio "quality" in any way. If you run out of cpu, the app stops! So, I suppose in one of my songs, the audio would go from "suck" to "relieved silence". :)
 
Maybe I need to clarify, my mixing experience hasn't improved. My playback is what is sounding better. Win98SE was somehow deficient in a way that it made the "playback" of mixs sound more 2D. The very same mixs sound more open now. The playback experience has been improved. Mixing is same as it ever was however.
It was easy to draw the conclusion the culprit was somehow related to digital mixing when using Win98SE. I had no other frame of reference. The stuff I worked on in Win98SE now has better soundstage when played back in XP.
Win98SE was tricking me into thinking the problem was digital mixing. Now I know it was more related to a problem with the old operating system than with in the box mixing per say.
Plus some of my plugs were written for XP and not Win98SE. Although they worked, that may have played a role as well.
Does that help clarify things abit? Understanding this can help make sense of it. I understand how you must be scratching your head.

Bob
 
Ford Van said:
Win 98 would handle all Sonar processes at 32 bit as it should. Sure, there were probably some left over 16 bit processes in Win 98 to keep things working with older applications that used 16 bit processes, but Sonar was designed to be I am sure purely 32 bit!
Click to expand...

It has been my understanding that Win98SE is a mix of both 16 and 32 processess with more 16 bit processes going on then you may think even if Cake is all 32 bit.
I have seen a 10% reduction in processor usage as well between the two. Cetainly XP is more stable and efficient.

Bob
 
Sonar has NO 16 bit functions that I know of. There is NO WAY a 16 bit OS can even run 32 bit processes. So, 98 was working with Sonar truely in 32 bit only!

Your drivers should all be 32 bit if they are even remotely modern.

The 16 bit processes in 98 were there to make it backwards capatible with older applications that ran 16 bit.

So, forget the whole process bit depth stuff. It wasn't a factor.

As far as cpu usage down, well, welcome to more EFFICIENT code to do the same functions. Still, nothing that is going to effect sound quality except to allow you more processing POTENTIAL.

Read CAREFULLY AGAIN. The OS has pretty much NOTHING to do with how your software worked with audio. Your hardware driver deals with access to and/from software/hardware. Your soundcard has a SOFTWARE MIXER that is independent of the recording/mixing application (Sonar) that you are using. THAT mixer may have a better mix engine to it. But again, that is NOT the OS or the device driver!

So, to recap, really, the only possibilty to account for "improved sound stage" on playback would be the soundcards mixing application. The OS and driver have NOTHING to do with the "quality" of the sound you hear.

Tell me, how do you adjust the volume of your monitors when you playback?
 
I have two sets, a smaller one and a larger one that I switch back forth on.
In terms of playback quality, something has to account for the change. After six years of using Win98SE then switching to XP, I heard it right away, unless I tricked myself, which I don't think so. There is a more open sound to it for some reason.
Cakewalk operates in 32 bit internally. There could be dlls in Win98 that run in 16 bit outside of Cakewalk.

Bob
 
I think the mixer with your new driver is to "blame".

I seriously doubt that Sonar is using ANY 16 bit processes.
 
I would still like to know how you control your volume to your monitors. How do you turn up and down the music you listen to on the computer?
 
I have two chains, the larger monitors feed off of a dbx Quantum that is connected thru a S/PDIF to my sound card. My smaller monitors are connected diriectly to the sound cards analog output thru a small desktop mixer. I control the volumes on the dbx using the left and right volume controls on the Quantum. The vol for the smaller monitors is controlled using the desktop mixer. My soundcard is an Ego-sys Waveterminal 2496 which is about six years old and no longer sold. They have their own version of WDM driver that I am currently using. I've got an Asus A7N8X-X with N-Force chip set and an Athlon 3000+ processor and 512M of ram. This combination was probably optimized for Win XP in the original design. Keep in mind there is alot of black box stuff going in software we probably don't understand. I suppose the easiest answer is the improved efficiency of the software pipeline. Its probably not worth pulling out your hair to try and understand.

Bob
 
Well, first off, using a software mixer to adjust your volume IS a big deal, and will most likely account for the difference you hear!

I would NEVER use a software volume control to control the volume of my monitors. EVER!!! That is bad thing to do rule no.1!!!! You are applying DSP to accomplish the volume change! OF COURSE a newer software mixer will sound better than an older one!

You have your culprit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top