Your recording software sounds like crap

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyanJaguar
  • Start date Start date
C

CyanJaguar

New member
if you're using cubase that is. Any version of cubase.

In blind tests btw cubase and cooledit, cool edit always sounded better than cubase.

My question is, to those who have used different software programs, which one, in your personal opinion, is the best sounding.?

I think it is digital performer , but I am not going to go out and buy a mac.
'precc.
 
I don't beleive that. They all sound the same to me, and I've tried them all. It's the features/flexibility/stability/hardware support that differentiate software multitrackers. Now, a really cheapo program may handle the data differently, and be audible. But the popular, mainstream multitrackers are developed in conjuntion with the commen semi-pro soundcard market. I'd be interested in reading the results/test method for this test, link please.

What sounds best.. no idea. I've used Cubase for quite awhile but recently switched to Nuendo, which sounds the same but offers some other features.
 
I personally like Cool Edit. It's easy to use, pretty flexible, has all the features I need. I like it more than Sound Forge.
 
Huh?The programs are likely all 32 bit internal pathways.Assuming you record all at 44,100 stereo,the soundcard is where the "rubber meets the road",not the software.
If I play for you, in a blind listening test, a group of wave files all recorded at the same resolution and the same set of gear with the only difference the recording software;are you saying you could hear the difference?
Supposedly Eric Johnson hears the tonal difference between the slight voltage variations of 9 volt battery brands.Most of us mere humans would be hard pressed to duplicate such heroic sensativity as you and Eric have.
Tom
 
Mac

Am I am the only person using a Mac???
( MOTU 2408 w/ a 450MHZ G3 )
 
Emeric,
Can you please tell me more about Nuendo? I am interested in comparing the suround sound panning and edit features,(well the whole thing really) to Minnetonka MX5.1.
Is just the software $1,200? What soundcard are you using it with? Thanks.
 
Well, most of what I could tell you can be found here:

http://www.nuendo.com

As for comparing Minnetonka MX5.1 to Nuendo, I can't help you much there. I hadn't heard of this software until your post. I couldn't find the software companies website either, just a short article on prorec.com. From the screenshot it appears more geared towards surround sound. This is a feature I don't use in Nuendo. Editing is very good in Nuendo, but it depends what you need. What are you planning to use either of these software packages for? I'm using it with an M-Audio Delta 1010. Yes, $1200 does not include the soundcard, software only. Add another $1000 for their hammerfall card.
 
Tom Hicks said:
Huh?The programs are likely all 32 bit internal pathways.Assuming you record all at 44,100 stereo,the soundcard is where the "rubber meets the road",not the software.
If I play for you, in a blind listening test, a group of wave files all recorded at the same resolution and the same set of gear with the only difference the recording software;are you saying you could hear the difference?
Supposedly Eric Johnson hears the tonal difference between the slight voltage variations of 9 volt battery brands.Most of us mere humans would be hard pressed to duplicate such heroic sensativity as you and Eric have.
Tom
Click to expand...

true, but when you start getting into changing volumes, and panning and applying effects, and dithering, then you start to notice that some sounds better than others.

I have vegas pro and cubasis. When you record in 16bits dry, vegas sounds better than cubasis. THis is not saying much though cos I got the cubasis free on a cd that came with a magazine from walmart.

Finally, you might not be able to hear the differences until you start getting into 20 or so tracks, but you will definitely hear it.

I must say though, that I hear the difference in Vegas when you downsample from 96khz to 44.1 . This might not sound bad on one or two tracks, but when you get into the tens, then you start noticing stuff.
 
Resampling algorhythms....

That is about the only thing that can explain any software from sounding different from each other.

Quite possibly what is happening is that when you route any recorded track to the main out on the mixer of recording/mixing software, it is getting resampled. The quality of the resampling algorhythm is probably what you are actually hearing as a difference. Also, it is possible that a dithering algorhythm is being applied too. That can make a difference in what you hear too.

As to which has the best algorhythms? Well, I don't use mixing software, so I wouldn't know. I do know that I can record with Goldwave, Wavelab, Windows Recorder, and the Lynx recording software they supplied me, and they all sound exactly the same. I have played back tracks in Vegas Pro and Cakewalk, and they don't sound any different then playing the same track back on Media Player.

I take back the Cakewalk not sounding different. It actually does. Very subtle, but definately a bit different. A brashier high end for some reason.

Oh well, welcome folks to the big bad world of computer recording.

Ed
 
An afterthought.....

Also, if you even do so much as change the gain by + or - .1dB on the recorded sound in mixing software, or using your windows mixer, you will either have a redithered or truncated sound at your D/A converters.

Don't trust that redithering algorhythms are all the same, or that they were coded very well. Truncating is obvious to many.

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top