Page 2 of 7
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:54 am
by darkrezin
Medway - fair point, but even if it's just the plugins making things glassy and flat, what then is the point of mixing on a native mixing engine at all?
Surely the whole point is that you have an unlimited fleet of EQs and compressors instead of having to use a huge analog mixer, lots of expensive outboard processors and miles of cable?
Again, I'll trust my ears, thanks... I've had many pure software guys use my rig and confirm what I hear.
Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:03 am
by garyb
yes, it's no contest.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:13 am
by medway
hifiboom wrote:I somewhat agree with both of your opinions...
From the mathematical view basically all daws should sound the same more or less, because they are digital.
On the other hand, as I am able to code myself quite a bit, I know that there are million ways in digital world to code bugs/faults into a perfect digital system.
As most of the tests fail when comparing summing engines concerning soundquality and that stuff, I decided to trust my ears as a musician and no more rely on that 1+1=2 thing.
And from a musicians point I fully agree with darkezins statement.
Nearly all mixes I did with Cubase alone sound flat or harsh in the top range and misses pressure in the bottom.
And yes I also hear it in some commercial stufff too.
darkrezin wrote: Native mixing sounds flat and glassy to me. Some people may actually prefer this sound (I've heard it on quite a few electronic releases recently) but I hate it personally.
I think I did around 1000 tracks or so in Cubase, but I always missed something.
Now the few tracks I did with scope sound way better.
Surely the scope synths sound fatter by default, but I even use some VSTi mixed via scope and they fit better into my mixes...
Maybe its all imagination, but that really doesn`t matter. It trust my ears and stay with scope, and unless I won`t find something better sounding ( f.e. a scope II ), I won`t go back to any other platform atm.
From a musicians viewing point, it really doesn`t matter if its fixed, float 16 or 64bit , 44,1 or 192khz.
and its not important if its the mixing engine, the atoms behind the fx or the better emulated synths parts that makes the better sound...
What is important is that it just sounds better.
I dont have a problem getting good mixes in Cubase.
Look I have never even heard a test that shows me analog summing sounding better than digital, so how can SCOPE sound better? Sound different yes, but not better. In fact in many of these tests the digital mix comes out with more votes for being better.
I also trust someone like Paul Frindle who has both designed an analog SSL console and the Sony Oxford digital systems and says digital does not lack summing capability compared to analog.
You DAW will not limit your low end. The plugins you use and your technique will though.
Everyone wants to believe their DAW sounds best, especially a niche market like SCOPE. You can go to the Paris or the SAWStudio forums and hear the same thing.
Jesse
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:19 am
by medway
darkrezin wrote:Medway - fair point, but even if it's just the plugins making things glassy and flat, what then is the point of mixing on a native mixing engine at all?
Surely the whole point is that you have an unlimited fleet of EQs and compressors instead of having to use a huge analog mixer, lots of expensive outboard processors and miles of cable?
Again, I'll trust my ears, thanks... I've had many pure software guys use my rig and confirm what I hear.
Use the right plugins. And you can still use SCOPE stuff. I use the SCOPE synths and high quality plugs like the Sony Oxford line.
The delineation here is that there is nothing wrong with the mixing engine itself. If you want to describe the differences in SCOPE verses other platforms thats fine but leave summing out of it.
If SCOPE works for you that's all that matters. I just dont want people to think you can't get a good mix out of other systems. And for someone like the original poster I do not feel his problem is SX.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:21 am
by medway
garyb wrote:yes, it's no contest.
Oh really? So how do you explain all the great mixes being made on other platforms then?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:52 am
by garyb
hey, hate it if you want.
there are a lot of great platforms, but there's nothing under $40,000 that sounds better than scope in my mind. period. that's why my time and money is invested. you don't have to agree, but the film academy in beverly hills thought gladiator sounded pretty good....if something works well for you Medway, use it. even if i don't think it's a good idea. that's how it is. if it looks like poop to me an d a sandwich to you, i will say, "hey, that looks like poop!". if you say "*&%* off, you *&%^^&", i'll let you chew away and enjoy yourself... and stand way over there. --------------------->
i've heard the sequencers and they all sound very different. still there are those deaf people who say bits are bits and all platforms sound the same. i've heard the same type of deaf people tell me the u87 mic emulation in a vs880 makes an sm57 sound exactly like the neuman...
this is getting silly. if you come to a scope message board and see the rabid defense for the card and platform, and the contention and attention from all these obsessors, you can see how good scope is. if you have scope you can hear it.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:35 am
by darkrezin
Well thanks for admitting it sounds *different* Medway... this is all I was saying. Of course it's always going to be subjective if you like/dislike either 'sound'. We both know what we like so I think that's all that matters
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:49 am
by astroman
medway wrote:...I also trust someone like Paul Frindle who has both designed an analog SSL console and the Sony Oxford digital systems and says digital does not lack summing capability compared to analog....
he would be a fool to say anything different in public...
we all have to make our living somehow
an ironic joke, not exactly serious - in fact I almost share your opinion ('almost' because I don't have Cubase myself).
You precisely say that your opinion is
only about the program's summing, nothing else.
Hardly anyone will restrict the use of Cubase to the summing engine, and if you'd do it just for an a/b test with Scope or whatever it may be tricky to even set up all levels to equal and comparable values.
Since the results of the last big
'all analog summing shootout versus one digital reference, I'm cured from proofs in form of audio files.
The 'test' is a while back, but was either done by complete idiots or it was an intended fraud, as it fooled listeners into believing a specific device was outstanding - in other words paid advertisement.
I won't listen to that (example-proof-sh*t) again, but since the name was mentioned and for the sake of balanced opinions, I just can't resist to quote a dude from the gearslutz forum
...you all know those SSL consoles weren't used for their specific 'sound' in the first place, but for their routing capabilities... 
cheers, Tom
ps: added 'specific sound', as the original statement wasn't about audio quality, but about that 'famous SSL sound' which according to the poster's opinion wasn't a concern at all.
I just liked the irony - I have no idea about the thing at all - except for the old vinyls on the shelf
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:28 am
by Immanuel
"Spike" Stent has made some really nice records with an SSL console - not only for tracking.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:46 am
by medway
garyb wrote:hey, hate it if you want.
there are a lot of great platforms, but there's nothing under $40,000 that sounds better than scope in my mind. period. that's why my time and money is invested. you don't have to agree, but the film academy in beverly hills thought gladiator sounded pretty good....if something works well for you Medway, use it. even if i don't think it's a good idea. that's how it is. if it looks like poop to me an d a sandwich to you, i will say, "hey, that looks like poop!". if you say "*&%* off, you *&%^^&", i'll let you chew away and enjoy yourself... and stand way over there. --------------------->
i've heard the sequencers and they all sound very different. still there are those deaf people who say bits are bits and all platforms sound the same. i've heard the same type of deaf people tell me the u87 mic emulation in a vs880 makes an sm57 sound exactly like the neuman...
this is getting silly. if you come to a scope message board and see the rabid defense for the card and platform, and the contention and attention from all these obsessors, you can see how good scope is. if you have scope you can hear it.
I have SCOPE that's my point. Your mic emulation analogy doesnt really apply here either. I'm sure Gladiator did sound good, but that doesn't prove anything. There's other soundtracks that I bet sound just as goodf if not better. Anyone who thinks they need a certain platform to perform is missing the boat. Whats silly is people "rabidly" defending any platform. If the outcome of your mix depends on a platform then there's a problem.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:55 am
by medway
darkrezin wrote:Well thanks for admitting it sounds *different* Medway... this is all I was saying. Of course it's always going to be subjective if you like/dislike either 'sound'. We both know what we like so I think that's all that matters
Note though that I was referring to analog vs digital mixers by that "different" comment.
The original poster was talking about SCOPE vs Cubase and this is where I disagree he will get a pro sound out of SCOPE yet not SX. With DAW summing I have never heard a test (including many of my own) that shows one DAW to sound different from another. And trust me I have even wanted to prove one better than the other in the case of SAW, Paris, and even SCOPE verses the usual SX/Logic/PT etc... to justify my purchase. Eventually I realized buying a DAW (or in SCOPE's case a mixing engine) for a better sound was fruitless.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:04 am
by medway
astroman wrote:medway wrote:...I also trust someone like Paul Frindle who has both designed an analog SSL console and the Sony Oxford digital systems and says digital does not lack summing capability compared to analog....
he would be a fool to say anything different in public...
we all have to make our living somehow
an ironic joke, not exactly serious - in fact I almost share your opinion ('almost' because I don't have Cubase myself).
You precisely say that your opinion is
only about the program's summing, nothing else.
Hardly anyone will restrict the use of Cubase to the summing engine, and if you'd do it just for an a/b test with Scope or whatever it may be tricky to even set up all levels to equal and comparable values.
Since the results of the last big
'all analog summing shootout versus one digital reference, I'm cured from proofs in form of audio files.
The 'test' is a while back, but was either done by complete idiots or it was an intended fraud, as it fooled listeners into believing a specific device was outstanding - in other words paid advertisement.
I won't listen to that (example-proof-sh*t) again, but since the name was mentioned and for the sake of balanced opinions, I just can't resist to quote a dude from the gearslutz forum
...you all know those SSL consoles weren't used for their specific 'sound' in the first place, but for their routing capabilities...
cheers, Tom
ps: added 'specific sound', as the original statement wasn't about audio quality, but about that 'famous SSL sound' which according to the poster's opinion wasn't a concern at all.
I just liked the irony - I have no idea about the thing at all - except for the old vinyls on the shelf
Or maybe Paul says that because its true? There doesn't have to be any other ulterior motive for it. I've been obsessed with this summing debate since it began, 6-7 years at least. Try as I might I have never found a particular system to be superior.
I bought SCOPE for the synths. But I've also tried doing mixes on it. I didn't gain anything by doing this over what I could already acheive in SX or other DAW's.
My point here is put the power in the hands of your engineering skill. This is getting back to the point of the original posters question. It is doing him a diservice to think that he can buy a SCOPE system to then achieve a "Pro" sound as if its a necessity. I'll repeat, SX is not the problem in his case.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 2:25 am
by King of Snake
There are always people who will claim to hear differences between audio that when phase inverted will actually cancel itself out completely.
Trusting your ears is all well and good, but don't forget your ears can be very easily deceived (for example: louder always sounds "better" at first), not to mention your perception of sound is coloured by your thoughts as well (if you're brain is telling you "I just spent a lot of money on this system, so it must sound good/better than others" this could easily influence what your ears hear.
Personally I don't hear any significant difference between Cubase or Scope mixing, although I haven't really tested it specifically. I tend to agree with the point of view that the plugins and your mixing skills matter a whole lot more than which platform you're mixing on.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 4:59 am
by hubird
King of Snake wrote: I tend to agree with the point of view that the plugins and your mixing skills matter a whole lot more than which platform you're mixing on.
same here
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:10 am
by astroman
medway wrote:...Or maybe Paul says that because its true? There doesn't have to be any other ulterior motive for it. ...
of course that's well possible - and even likely (at least I cannot tell my Pulsar digitized vinyls from their 'analog' originals
This is getting back to the point of the original posters question. It is doing him a diservice to think that he can buy a SCOPE system to then achieve a "Pro" sound as if its a necessity. I'll repeat, SX is not the problem in his case.
maybe the Scope system will help him on his way with all the stuff that comes along with the mixing-engine...
strictly speaking you're correct of course
cheers, Tom
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:15 am
by garyb
there's no point trying to look intelligent here.
i'm the first to say, "it's like the old saying 'don't watch the tool, watch the man that's behind it.'".
obviously, just having a hammer, doesn't mean that you can build a house. buying another hammer, won't nessessarily help, if you don't know how to use the first.
this thread was asking an opinion. the question was, "do you think scope plus cubase sounds better than cubase alone?". yes or no. some say "yes", others say "no", which cracks me up! especially when card owners themselves say not.
i'm not into synthetic music, nessessarily, though i like synths. i use scope for the audio tools. believe me, cubase and scope is much better than cubase alone, for audio work. it's night and day, a no brainer.
is scope the only path to good sound? of course not! could a good engineer get good results with just cubase? YES! will scope make a bad engineer sound good? only with hard work, dilligent study, and practice.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:09 pm
by astroman
well, here's the original question
yish313 wrote:... But is there really a difference in the mix/sound quality done in a cubase mixer vs a scope dsp mixer. ...
it may be an unfortunate formulation, but the question is about one specific part of the sequencer only - not about an all-Cubase-VST-production, but just about summing.
I lack the experience (and Cubase) and can only say that Scope sounds perfect to me (and I find it's mixer more pleasing and easier to handle than any native piece of software I've tried). That includes even respected software like SAW Studio, but that may as well be due to my own humble handling (of the demo).
According to Medway the summing can be made to sound identical given the operator is sophisticated enough and you feed identical sources into the Sequencer and Scope.
This has nothingt to do with the flat and harsh sound of a lot of VSTIs and audio processors also mentioned in the first post of the thread.
cheers, Tom
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:41 pm
by garyb
Medway is wrong(imho), and the more tracks that are involved, the bigger the difference.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:08 pm
by yish313
Well I propose a test, of say 30 music tracks, I'll provide the tracks. as well as a mix from Cubase of the tracks.
Now here are the parameters.
1. I will mix the tracks in Cubase as usual, no effects no stereo files just stereo splits. I will then provide one to one waves to who ever is interested.
2. Again using the scope platform, no effects just a stereo bounce.
Any body interested or perhaps have a better set of parameters let me know.
The tracks will be zip up and put on rapidshare
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:33 pm
by garyb
what exactly do you wish to study?
if it's summing alone, then there better be no gain changes made.
no two sequencers sound the same, either. the test won't really prove much as far as whether you'll get a better finished product, this much i agree with Medway. that'll be dependant on your skills and how you use them. the plugins themselves make a huge difference, what mixer shall be used? shroomz's tube warmer model? the stm series? bigmixer(what a difference in sound from big mixer to stm2448)? the new spacef mixer(fat bastard)? i'm glad to run the tracks through scope using cubase or vdat or logic or sonar or whatever. there sure seem to be a lot of variables........