What guarantees daw software performance???

[miroslav]

Basically it boils down to this, how do I tell the person (or people) on the other end of the internet connection(s) are not bolted down to a hospital bed, strapped into a protective chair wearing a helmet, and/or are not retarded in general or some way??

.............

That is the problem with reviews and opinions and why I can't understand why some sort of audio standard or method for comparison exists.

Well...everyone on the interwebs is retarded in one way or another......but if you just go and check out a DAW user forum, and simply read/search through the threads/posts, it's not that hard to gauge who is truly retarded VS real users who are discussing real aspects and issues about the app.

If you come and just say..."what software should I buy?"....then you are the retard.

 

[rimisrandma]

Thanks for the input

 

[guitaristic]

I agree no one will guess what DAW something was recorded on...but certainly everyone could appreciate better sound quality VS poor...(not counting the iPod earbud set).

Oh yes, definitely. But I have a sneaking suspicion that if there is poor quality, it's probably going to be one of the 100s of other things that affect sound quality before it's the DAW's ability to record accurately.

 

[miroslav]

Very possible...but the most you can do (if sound quality is of concern) is to maximize your chances of getting the best you can.

So, if there are two DAW apps of similar price and feature set, but one is known to have a much better audio engine = sound quality....
...which would you choose?

The more things one takes an "I don't care what I use" attitude, them more they add to those 100 things that can affect sound quality.

 

[guitaristic]

So, if there are two DAW apps of similar price and feature set, but one is known to have a much better audio engine = sound quality....
...which would you choose?

Well obviously anyone with half a brain would pick the better engine. My point was that I'm not going to sit and nitpick between Cubase and Logic!

 

[Bobbsy]

Miroslav, that forum link you provided quickly descends into a clusterfuck debate about the methodology used--as well it should have.

Yes, once the mix engine is involved there can be slight differences in sound because of different algorithms. However, I stand by what I said earlier, i.e. that the mix engine is not involved at all in the actual recording process. Further, I stand by what I said that, except when you get into destructive editing, you can open and close files on your DAW all you want and the music stored on the HDD stays exactly the same. The only thing that can change the file is opening it, do a destructive process then re-save as the same file name.

Oh, I care about the audio engine I use. For some years I actively preferred Audition because it used 32 bit float rather than 24 bit integer and yes, it did sound better ONCE I STARTED PROCESSING THE AUDIO.

But, at the recording stage, before plug ins and processing start to affect things, it's the interface that determines the quality, not the DAW.

Bob

 

[brother rat]

Rimisrandma - don't make this a bigger issue than it needs to be. Pick a DAW, learn to use it, be happy with the results. I can almost guarantee that if you learn to use any DAW properly, you will never wish you had chosen a different one strictly because of the way the software handles the audio.

 

[Bobbsy]

My debate with Miroslav aside, Brother Rat is giving you good advice. As long as you stick to one of the popular bits of software, they all do a great job. It's the user interface and your own learning curve that make the big difference--not the "sound" of the software.

 

[miroslav]

But, at the recording stage, before plug ins and processing start to affect things, it's the interface that determines the quality, not the DAW.

Go check on the audio engine-recording quality/technology of DAWs at some of the major DAW forums. There are enough discussions about it.

As soon as you start recording, the audio engine IS involved.
If the DAW is not involved, where does the converter put the audio it's converting???
The DAW's audio engine is *processing* the audio the instant you hit RECORD....it has nothing to do with mixing and plug-ins which come into the picture later on, after the audio engine records the audio using it's proprietary math/algorithms.
That's why each DAW has it's own unique "sound".

But feel free to not believe that, and instead assume that all DAWs are equal during basic recording and playback.

 

[miroslav]

Rimisrandma - don't make this a bigger issue than it needs to be. Pick a DAW, learn to use it, be happy with the results. I can almost guarantee that if you learn to use any DAW properly, you will never wish you had chosen a different one strictly because of the way the software handles the audio.

This is a different point...and I agree, for most people, they should just pick something on its features and bells & whistles (because that's what most newbs are looking for) and then go about recording...because odds are that the rest of their recording rig isn't going to be that precise anyway for them to discern small quality difference.
I mean...some of these folks are mixing on their computer speakers...so no need for them to worry about DAW audio engine differences...I agree!

However, that doesn't change the question/point about how DAW engines process audio during recording and that there in fact are differences from DAW to DAW.


Those are two different discusisons...so let's not negate one discussion because the second discussion takes a position of "not caring" about the results/answers of the first discussion.

 

[miroslav]

Oh...and even if we get past the audio-engine-during-basic-recording-playback debate...you are still left with audio engine summing if you are working ITB, and that's unavoidable. This is before you actually mix/edit/process.
Then when you do add mixing and plug-ins (not even considering the actual plugin and the processing it does), your audio engine has to handle the plugin's input/output, latency compensation and whatever busses you are using and their implementation.

You can't/don't work directly with just the audio file that came from the converter....you have the use a DAW application, and each one does all those tasks mentioned above...differently, based on the algorithm programming.

 

[guitaristic]

Oh...and even if we get past the audio-engine-during-basic-recording-playback debate...you are still left with audio engine summing if you are working ITB, and that's unavoidable. This is before you actually mix/edit/process.
Then when you do add mixing and plug-ins (not even considering the actual plugin and the processing it does), your audio engine has to handle the plugin's input/output, latency compensation and whatever busses you are using and their implementation.

You can't/don't work directly with just the audio file that came from the converter....you have the use a DAW application, and each one does all those tasks mentioned above...differently, based on the algorithm programming.

That's very nice

 

[miroslav]

That's very nice

Like I said...those people who simply "don't care" and/or don't wish to get in too deep with these considerations...no problem.
Use whatever you want and be as blissfully ignorant of small details as suits your recording needs. It's good to sometimes ignore technology and just focus on creativity.



Also, if you notice, I have not once mentioned which DAW I thought was "better" or "worse", and I have no agenda to talk anyone into using any specific DAW app.

 

[guitaristic]

Like I said...those people who simply "don't care" and/or don't wish to get in too deep with these considerations...no problem.
Use whatever you want and be as blissfully ignorant of small details as suits your recording needs. It's good to sometimes ignore technology and just focus on creativity.



Also, if you notice, I have not once mentioned which DAW I thought was "better" or "worse", and I have no agenda to talk anyone into using any specific DAW app.

No no no. "That's very nice" is what I say when people blow my mind with what they say.

I think it's cool that you're into all that. Somebody has to know all that stuff!

 

[miroslav]

Oh....

To tell the truth...there are many times I wish I could totally ignore the technology and just focus on being creative, as it can be a burden to have to consider too many technical issues every time you want to record...
...but I'm not really into it THAT deep.
There are some audio guys that could bring you to tears with their focus/depth on technical concerns!

I try to keep my eyes (ears) on the state of the art, but I certainly fall short on many occasions, though I like to at least try and squeeze out the best/most that I can with what I got and what I know.

I find that audio improvement initially happens in huge steps as we get past the beginner/novice stages...but once you are into it pretty deep, improvements happen in very small steps, and often you need to take/make a LOT of small steps to really hear the sum improvement...and that can be discouraging and a turn-off for a lot of people, so they simply ignore the very small steps.

But it's all good if you are happy with your results....

 

[Bobbsy]

Go check on the audio engine-recording quality/technology of DAWs at some of the major DAW forums. There are enough discussions about it.

As soon as you start recording, the audio engine IS involved.
If the DAW is not involved, where does the converter put the audio it's converting???
The DAW's audio engine is *processing* the audio the instant you hit RECORD....it has nothing to do with mixing and plug-ins which come into the picture later on, after the audio engine records the audio using it's proprietary math/algorithms.
That's why each DAW has it's own unique "sound".

But feel free to not believe that, and instead assume that all DAWs are equal during basic recording and playback.

Just to let you know, I haven't forgotten about this but I'm trying to get a definitive answer from one of the software developers working on Audition--I'll let you know when I get a "horses mouth" answer. Obviously this'll be Audition-specific but I doubt other software does things very differently.

Obviously you're right when you say that even basic playback does go through the audio engine and I'm happy to acknowledge that this can/does affect what you hear. However, I'd also say these effects are subtle in the extreme--your monitors and room acoustics will affect what you hear to a far greater extent. Adding effects plugins, on the other hand, can result in huge differences.

Anyhow, an interesting discussion. I'll report back if/when I hear from the developers.

 

[miroslav]

However, I'd also say these effects are subtle in the extreme--your monitors and room acoustics will affect what you hear to a far greater extent. Adding effects plugins, on the other hand, can result in huge differences.

I agree with and made similar points earlier myself. Most people can move on and not worry about this stuff...
...but just from a point of knowledge, it's something to be aware of...that not all DAWs are created equal.

If you are after the most you can get out of your setup, it helps to remove even the smallest warts, though if you choose to step back far enough, the warts won't be as obvious.

 

[Bobbsy]

LOL...it occurs that one person's "warts" are another's "analogue warmth" but that's another debate!

 

[miroslav]

Well yeah...there are good warts too.

I'm talking more about the process required to "lift" your audio quality up a few notches. Sometimes you have fix a lot of little things either simultaneously and/or cumulatively before you notice any "lift".
That's why you hear a lot of newbs complain that they upgraded their XYZ...and they don't here any dramatic improvement....'cuz the rest of the rig is still that same and all those warts are still there.

 

[Bobbsy]

Okay, a couple of definitive replies from the guys who actually write the software for Adobe Audition. Both have been in the game for a long time...they made the move from Syntrillium to Adobe when the buyout happened.

The first wrote:

Our goal has always been hands-off the raw data. You have an input source feeding into your audio device, which spits bits at Audition. Provided all the sample rates match and you're recording at the highest possible bit rates using an ASIO driver, the bits Audition writes to disk should be identical to that coming down the pipe.

As Steve mentions, there are circumstances beyond Auditions control that could affect those bits. If you choose to record an input at a lower bit rate, then by default some portion of that data is tossed out. If you are using an MME audio driver, or have turned on a bunch of special effects in your audio control panel - notably the horrible 3-D and spatial effects included with most Creative devices, then Audition faithfully records only what comes out the other end of that chain, but has no control over what's going on between the source and itself.

Otherwise, Audition does nothing to "color" the recording, and frankly any DAW that does without notice so should be uninstalled immediately. The purpose of audio production is to make your recordings sound like YOU want them to, not how a bunch of geeks up in Seattle think you should sound. If anyone can provide definitive proof that Audition is modifying the input stream in this way, please send it to me ASAP so I can write some bugs and chew someone out.

Then a second developer chimed in to say:

Everything Durin said about Audition is correct. But your friend's assertion may not be entirely baseless. A while back I used a DAW whose name I won't mention here, but they had a technology that you could enable in the preferences that allowed your recordings to come in with some coloring added. It was a selectable option in the preferences, near where you would select the sample rate and bit depth. You could choose something like "tape emulation", which was supposed to simulate the response that a magnetic tape deck would have when you pegged the VU meters in the red. To me, adding anything irreversibly during the recording stage seems a bit mental...but then again there are analog fetishists that are willing to pay x-thousand extra for a piece of gear with an inconsequential tube inserted anywhere in the signal path - in the pursuit of that (insert pleasant adjective here) tone.
It sounds like your friend may have swallowed a marketing pill somewhere along the way. Every audio hardware/software manufacturer would have you believe that their electrons, or ones and zeros are special. (Maybe we should say that our install DVDs are specially coated with a chemical that imparts "warmth"?) Faithfulness to the incoming signal would seem to me to be a more desirable attribute for a DAW.

So it seems pretty definitive that any well-written DAW software should NOT in anyway affect the sound of the digital stream it records. If I record a WAVE file in Audition and send it to you to playback in Cubase, the original recording should be absolutely identical.

Now, clearly it goes a bit farther than that. As soon as you load the file into Audition or Cubase and hit play, then the audio engine does come into play. Either bit of software will be loading the file via it's audio engine (for example, I have mine set to work in 32 bit floating point format) so that might result in minutely subtle differences in how the sound is perceived. However, until I actually do some kind of destructive process and re-save the file, the original is not being changed in any way.

I also note the second developer's comments about an un-named "other" DAW that allows you to mess up your sounds during the recording process. That strikes me as a bad way of working (I'm also anti using EQ, reverb or compression at the time of recording) but that's a bit different than adding "uncommanded" changes that the user doesn't know about.

Bob