So. I have been reading about people saying that tracks mixed in vdat or scope sound better than when its mixed in cubase.
anybody willing to put up two audiofiles? one mixed in cubase, and one mixed with sfp?
(when i say mixed, i mean summed)
and lets have a contest/poll, and see what people like the most. and when its done, let the author reveal which is which
we can see the truth= is sfp better than cubase??
thanks!!
Mixing sound better inside cubase or sfp or vdat?
-
the19thbear
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Re: Mixing sound better inside cubase or sfp or vdat?
Or vice versathe19thbear wrote: we can see the truth= is sfp better than cubase??
thanks!!
Best wishes in this
I won`t do such a test. It makes no sense, you can chancel the stuff out to a degree where you just have some rest of noise.
For me scope is cleaner in sound due to the processing inside the chips, as the sharcs simply have a higher precision than any other current DAW or other dsps.
It works at 32bit fixed point and it may be even higher internally through its accumulation registers.... depends on how the additons are done internally.
Not only that it is superior in mixing quality but also in the fx processing the sharc calculation precision renders down to a better quality.
that just my opinion.
For me scope is cleaner in sound due to the processing inside the chips, as the sharcs simply have a higher precision than any other current DAW or other dsps.
It works at 32bit fixed point and it may be even higher internally through its accumulation registers.... depends on how the additons are done internally.
Not only that it is superior in mixing quality but also in the fx processing the sharc calculation precision renders down to a better quality.
that just my opinion.
-
the19thbear
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
I think you cannot test precision at all.
or how would you test it?
a chancel-test ?
where the difference will likely be a bit of noise?
or a subjective test, doing two mixes, one in scope and one in cubase and then blind test with many test-people to rate which is which with an empirical test that gives maybe significant results?
or how would you test it?
a chancel-test ?
where the difference will likely be a bit of noise?
or a subjective test, doing two mixes, one in scope and one in cubase and then blind test with many test-people to rate which is which with an empirical test that gives maybe significant results?
In a real-world scenario such a test is useless. There have been "DAW-sum" tests done for years and it has been proven that even summing done in SAW (highly regarded for its sound) cancel out to any other hosts summing.
As for SAW I belive there might be a difference to other DAWs in how it communicates with the audio card which could impact on monitoring, enabling you to do better mixes; very important point (!).
SAWs built-in EQ and dynamic processors are also very nice sounding; an obvious important point when you are building your mixes.
In contrast, Cubase's built-in EQ isn't exactly the bomb.
As for SFP, it features some very nice sounding effects, and yes, the 32-bit integer mixing does offer benefits over 32-bit floating point. However I believe this is dwarfed by hosts that feature 64-bit floating point mixers, like REAPER and Tracktion. I would have no second thoughts doing mixes with REAPER, especially how it integrates so well with SFP, either via standard mode or XTC-mode.
It is also a big point for be that I can automate the mixer without doing boring midi-CC setups; real workflow killer IMO.
REAPER also helps keeping things sample accurate. While analog phasing might sound, well.. analog. Digital phasing is not that pleasing to the ear IMO. This becomes obvious when doing parallel compression.
Anyway, to sum up (pun not intended). Why don't you start building a mix inside SFP for a change and see how you feel it turns out? You might be surpriced.
As for SAW I belive there might be a difference to other DAWs in how it communicates with the audio card which could impact on monitoring, enabling you to do better mixes; very important point (!).
SAWs built-in EQ and dynamic processors are also very nice sounding; an obvious important point when you are building your mixes.
In contrast, Cubase's built-in EQ isn't exactly the bomb.
As for SFP, it features some very nice sounding effects, and yes, the 32-bit integer mixing does offer benefits over 32-bit floating point. However I believe this is dwarfed by hosts that feature 64-bit floating point mixers, like REAPER and Tracktion. I would have no second thoughts doing mixes with REAPER, especially how it integrates so well with SFP, either via standard mode or XTC-mode.
It is also a big point for be that I can automate the mixer without doing boring midi-CC setups; real workflow killer IMO.
REAPER also helps keeping things sample accurate. While analog phasing might sound, well.. analog. Digital phasing is not that pleasing to the ear IMO. This becomes obvious when doing parallel compression.
Anyway, to sum up (pun not intended). Why don't you start building a mix inside SFP for a change and see how you feel it turns out? You might be surpriced.
But since you are so interested you can do it! If you think that you can benefit from this then do it. Why you are trying to convince someone else to do it instead of you?Do it and at first we will tell you did you do it right(i mean is test without common flaws ie, different panning method etc.)and then we will waste some time arguing what is betterthe19thbear wrote:wel... ok. if its that easy, then why dont we do it?
maybe i'll just do the test if nobody else is interested..
At the end you will leave this topic, you wont get your answers, just right until someone else come to this board and ask same question. Then we can do it again and again and again..Superb!
http://www.analog.com/processors/sharc/ ... _size.html
some good infos over there.
especially chapter 5,6,7 are interesting. talking about recursive filters (almost every filter is recursive), rounding errors and quantization.
keep in mind that 32bit fixed point is better for audio than float 32bit.
-> it has the higher precision.
its not just the summing, but also the fx you use during mixing.
And the scope fx just is nice.
and this has also some nice summed up infos:
http://mixonline.com/recording/applicat ... uter_math/
some good infos over there.
especially chapter 5,6,7 are interesting. talking about recursive filters (almost every filter is recursive), rounding errors and quantization.
keep in mind that 32bit fixed point is better for audio than float 32bit.
-> it has the higher precision.
its not just the summing, but also the fx you use during mixing.
And the scope fx just is nice.
and this has also some nice summed up infos:
http://mixonline.com/recording/applicat ... uter_math/
-
the19thbear
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
I was thinking about recording stuff in cubase, with no processing at all ( except volume and panning), mix down the result and listen.
Then i would do the exact same thing in sfp, with the same values, mix it down and listen.
that would be it.
i was never thinking about a cancellation test.
that would be stupid i think.
and thanks hifiboom for your links.
the only reason i wanted someone else to do this for me was that people might spend more time in the studio than i do.
but i'll just do this at home some day when i have the time..
thanks everyone
Then i would do the exact same thing in sfp, with the same values, mix it down and listen.
that would be it.
i was never thinking about a cancellation test.
that would be stupid i think.
and thanks hifiboom for your links.
the only reason i wanted someone else to do this for me was that people might spend more time in the studio than i do.
but i'll just do this at home some day when i have the time..
thanks everyone
Last edited by the19thbear on Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
you do yourself a favour, I`m pretty sure....
you either think you can hear a difference (like me) and mix in scope, or you don`t and the you can mix your stuff in every other system.
I trust in the superiority of the sharcs regarding audio processing, and what I`ve read about it tells me the same what my ears tell me.
I think I did roughly ~ 500 mixes in cubase and every single mix i did with scope since I own it tell me it sounds cleaner and better.
I simply trust my ears in this case.
you either think you can hear a difference (like me) and mix in scope, or you don`t and the you can mix your stuff in every other system.
I trust in the superiority of the sharcs regarding audio processing, and what I`ve read about it tells me the same what my ears tell me.
I think I did roughly ~ 500 mixes in cubase and every single mix i did with scope since I own it tell me it sounds cleaner and better.
I simply trust my ears in this case.
-
the19thbear
- Posts: 1499
- Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
thanks mr. bear,
but the best stuff is still on my disk.
I spent much time on finding a reason why scope sounds better and so I read through many papers regarding dsp stuff, also to learn some other stuff.
here is a nother nice resource.
http://www.dspguide.com/ch28/4.htm
comparison between fix and float point from a person that seems to know what he is talking about.
at the end you still need good algos...
but the best stuff is still on my disk.
I spent much time on finding a reason why scope sounds better and so I read through many papers regarding dsp stuff, also to learn some other stuff.
here is a nother nice resource.
http://www.dspguide.com/ch28/4.htm
comparison between fix and float point from a person that seems to know what he is talking about.
for sure the resolution is not everything, but at the end the weakest part of a structure defines its overall quality.Before leaving this topic, we should reemphasize that floating point and fixed point usually use 32 bits and 16 bits, respectively, but not always. For instance, the SHARC family can represent numbers in 32-bit fixed point, a mode that is common in digital audio applications. This makes the 232 quantization levels spaced uniformly over a relatively small range, say, between -1 and 1. In comparison, floating point notation places the 232 quantization levels logarithmically over a huge range, typically ±3.4×1038. This gives 32-bit fixed point better precision, that is, the quantization error on any one sample will be lower. However, 32-bit floating point has a higher dynamic range, meaning there is a greater difference between the largest number and the smallest number that can be represented.
at the end you still need good algos...
I like the quality that VDAT has. So much I have decided to use it in a live venue.
Cubase is a really fast way for me to do a MIDI track. With it's numerous undo levels and quantinization options, I can use it trigger high quality drum libraries in Gigastudio to record into VDAT.
By having a sidestick intro used prior to the playback of the track it can give players an intro which then allows the drums to be followed instead of a click track in an ear monitor.
This allows me to use VDAT instead of a sequencer, and w/ XITE-1, I believe I can record vocal back up tracks and play them back @ 96k for really pristine quality. I could even record the lead vocals and retain the option to mute or solo them in case the singer has a sore throat.
Sure, this is just a little live group which will be composed of Guitar, Bass, Vocals and keyboards. But it will be a very high quality sound as all of the instruments will be going through an XITE-1 which can be controlled since the drum tracks will be totally controllable in any scenario.
I have had trouble w/ mixes as most drummers cannot play dynamically when the volume must be controllable.
High energy tracks can now be performed at lower volumes w/o losing the energy required.
I will be pissing off many of my drummer buddies, but the vocalists and musicians are going to appreciate their steady and larger rate of pay as the variety of gigs will go from high dollar restaraunts to clubs to Casino lounges.
As I have played live gigs for decades now, I always have the need to keep myself excited by having the best sound possible, and new synths and textures are also vital.
VDAT's flexibilty with mute/solo options and it's extreme pristine quality can only be enjoyed inside of Scope, so that's where it will stay. And so will I.
I actually cringed on my last demo I did, as it was destroyed during the conversion to WAV, then mp3. It was to provide an audio track which demonstrated the synths capability as an analog replacement, I believe I was sucessful, but VDAT's beautiful sound is lost during the conversion, which is a crime I will not allow to be commited as long as I can use VDAT live.
1 x Happy VDAT user.
Cubase is a really fast way for me to do a MIDI track. With it's numerous undo levels and quantinization options, I can use it trigger high quality drum libraries in Gigastudio to record into VDAT.
By having a sidestick intro used prior to the playback of the track it can give players an intro which then allows the drums to be followed instead of a click track in an ear monitor.
This allows me to use VDAT instead of a sequencer, and w/ XITE-1, I believe I can record vocal back up tracks and play them back @ 96k for really pristine quality. I could even record the lead vocals and retain the option to mute or solo them in case the singer has a sore throat.
Sure, this is just a little live group which will be composed of Guitar, Bass, Vocals and keyboards. But it will be a very high quality sound as all of the instruments will be going through an XITE-1 which can be controlled since the drum tracks will be totally controllable in any scenario.
I have had trouble w/ mixes as most drummers cannot play dynamically when the volume must be controllable.
High energy tracks can now be performed at lower volumes w/o losing the energy required.
I will be pissing off many of my drummer buddies, but the vocalists and musicians are going to appreciate their steady and larger rate of pay as the variety of gigs will go from high dollar restaraunts to clubs to Casino lounges.
As I have played live gigs for decades now, I always have the need to keep myself excited by having the best sound possible, and new synths and textures are also vital.
VDAT's flexibilty with mute/solo options and it's extreme pristine quality can only be enjoyed inside of Scope, so that's where it will stay. And so will I.
I actually cringed on my last demo I did, as it was destroyed during the conversion to WAV, then mp3. It was to provide an audio track which demonstrated the synths capability as an analog replacement, I believe I was sucessful, but VDAT's beautiful sound is lost during the conversion, which is a crime I will not allow to be commited as long as I can use VDAT live.
1 x Happy VDAT user.
Cubase is the msot advanced midi sequecer around. nothing can beat it when you work with midi, slice parts, quantization, controll information and the easy work with piano roll editor.
cubase for midi
scope for audio
but if SC will bring someday a cubase replacement that fully integrates scope DSP hardware (something like protools) with a good piano roll and controller (midi cc) handling and automation. I would jump off.....
cubase for midi
scope for audio
but if SC will bring someday a cubase replacement that fully integrates scope DSP hardware (something like protools) with a good piano roll and controller (midi cc) handling and automation. I would jump off.....
Dont' do that !! 
You know that is Soniccore's secret weapon.
They will release it if sales do not hit the intended targets during '08.
This is purely speculation, but an ongoing topic that Creamware started with their first advertisements.................An All In One Studio Enviroment....remember?
Scope die hards like us cannot be swayed.
When threatened by the thousands of generic VST's shot at us like a giant volley of arrows, that could block out the sun, we simply chose to fight in the shade !!
BTW, How could I send demos on VDAT to fellow Scope users so they may take an entire mix and add their tracks to it? Export the vtp file perhaps?
You know that is Soniccore's secret weapon.
They will release it if sales do not hit the intended targets during '08.
This is purely speculation, but an ongoing topic that Creamware started with their first advertisements.................An All In One Studio Enviroment....remember?
Scope die hards like us cannot be swayed.
When threatened by the thousands of generic VST's shot at us like a giant volley of arrows, that could block out the sun, we simply chose to fight in the shade !!
BTW, How could I send demos on VDAT to fellow Scope users so they may take an entire mix and add their tracks to it? Export the vtp file perhaps?
you need to wavs as well. make a folder for each song, it can have all and any projects, tapes, etc for that song. then, just copy the folder in order to pass the data to someone else.
be aware that if a vdat tape is moved, the .vtp file will need to be edited in a text editor to contain the new file path for the associated .wav files.
be aware that if a vdat tape is moved, the .vtp file will need to be edited in a text editor to contain the new file path for the associated .wav files.
gary, how cool would that be if SC would have a sequencer also included in SFP.
And if all would be embedded into one system.
So if you move to an other studio, you just bring the XITE-1 , install a software pack, load your porject.
DONE.
Thats one of the main things that I love about scope.
When doing a fresh system install with VST, you need to run various installers to bring your system back.
With scope its just one install, then maybe a copy of the old Scope4.5 folder over the new one.
And if all would be embedded into one system.
So if you move to an other studio, you just bring the XITE-1 , install a software pack, load your porject.
DONE.
Thats one of the main things that I love about scope.
When doing a fresh system install with VST, you need to run various installers to bring your system back.
With scope its just one install, then maybe a copy of the old Scope4.5 folder over the new one.
Agree about cubase and midi. I especially liked Midex but my gone dead and they drop support for midex year ago ;( But i have FL Studio here too. You must check it. It really grow nicely within years. Yes i am speaking about midi editing. Though approach is a bit different but these days i am using it more and more as i can lay down ideas more quickly. I am using it for midi only just to control scope. Scope is heart of studio nowhifiboom wrote:Cubase is the msot advanced midi sequecer around. nothing can beat it when you work with midi, slice parts, quantization, controll information and the easy work with piano roll editor.
cubase for midi
scope for audio
but if SC will bring someday a cubase replacement that fully integrates scope DSP hardware (something like protools) with a good piano roll and controller (midi cc) handling and automation. I would jump off.....
When you have some time just try it Regarding SonicCore DAW i will just add that in my opinion it would be better for them to stick with what they do best and focus just on that. There is a lot of choice today s we can pick what suit us best..