Best Recording Software

Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:27 pm

We are moving numbers (data) around in a computer. If they do not move correctly then the thing is broken. There are no timing issues moving digital audio around, its just data. If what you say is correct, the whole computer industry and the devices that depend on it would fall apart.

Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 6:01 pm

That's a great theory Dave, but the simple fact is that programmers and subsequently drivers, move this data around differently. Not necessarily wrong, just different. These difference can make for very interesting changes in the sound. It's not as simple as taking a binary bit stream and handing it to the sound card which converts from D to A. If it were, there would be no reason to buy into higher quality cards, etc. Of course, the conversion itself makes up a good part of that, but how the drivers are implemented and how code is called into play can have a profound impact.

If there were "black and white" in the programming world, a lot of programmers would be out on the street. Programming and "code-calling" is an art as much as it's a science. Picasso couldn't paint worth crap. (There, I said it!) However, Dali was a friggin genious. Neither of them were wrong, I subjectively feel that Dali is better.

Same as in the computer world. Just cuz it's different, doesn't mean it's broken.

J...

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:37 am

Cucco wrote:

Picasso couldn't paint worth crap.

Hmm. Not quite in agreement there. He did have a classical schooling, but choose to do differently. Sort of like a classically trained musician inventing first jazz, then rock, then disco pop and finally settling down doing death metal. He was one of the great inventors as far as styles goes.

Gunnar

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 5:48 am

I give up. White flag is hoisted and oscillating.

Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 11:46 am

ghellquist wrote:

Cucco wrote:

Picasso couldn't paint worth crap.

Hmm. Not quite in agreement there. He did have a classical schooling, but choose to do differently. Sort of like a classically trained musician inventing first jazz, then rock, then disco pop and finally settling down doing death metal. He was one of the great inventors as far as styles goes.

Gunnar

Bear in mind, I was using this as an example. Though I truly don't like any of Picasso's work from any of his progressive periods, I can't say "officially" that he can't paint work a crap. Hell, all I can do is stick figures (anatomically correct ones though) Cool

Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:18 pm

I started with Wavelab and tried Samplitude v6 ( back when they had the fully functional 90-day eval) when I had a project that needed multitrack. Bought a competetive upgrade to Samplitude Producer 24/96 v6, upgraded that to Samplitude Pro v7 and recently purchased Sequoia v7 (with v8 upgrade included) from Sequoia Digital.

I love the object-oriented editing and could never go back to traditional automation. Once you learn how easy it is to split a problem area, apply whatever it needs, and keep moving you may also be convinced. The v6 and v7 manuals were absolutely useless for beginners (which I still am on most levels) so I really hope the rewrite proves worth the wait.

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:11 pm

Not that I personally know or have any experience with any of these products and am not siding one way or the other.

I have to specifically and emphatically state that Cucco, although maybe not even 100% understanding the underlying "true technical" reasons why he is correct, he is however correct.

32 bit Floats are firstly not the largest number possible, although I wont spend time proving my credentials, albeit be assured its not.
I can say this with 100% certainty

That each application can have an affect within the exact same machine on what the results are of a "result".
Saying that summing up two wave files together would guarantee the same result just because they are floats.. Trust me.. your wrong.

Processors have an affect on this(which means even if you could assure this on one machine, you cannot necessarily on another).

The order that the numbers are added/substracted etc also play a huge role.

Not only that.. but I can show you an easy way to generate wave files and guess what. it has nothing to do with 32 bit anything(especally floats), at least not in your simplistic explanation of how you feel it works. I just allocate memory, and I can do this in VB,C++, C, .Net, J++, whatever) and place what I want there, then I can write the data from memory to a binary format that just happens to match the headers/format required to be a wave.. and it will be a wave.. You can find examples like this all over the net..

Since you are actually using memory and pointers, you dont store all of a "wav" file in a 32 bit float, you may store it in a 32 bit address, they are NOT the same thing.

Since an application can easily generate a float, and then modify it to fit into a non float signed or unsigned (called converting), and then moving it back to a 32 bit float, that certainly doesnt mean the end result will be the same.

Will taking 2 files (at least using your explanation) and "adding" them together, produce for sure the same result. The answer is emphatically NO...

Again, Im not taking sides, im merely explaining.. Especially since you did in fact jump on Cucco for no reason that I could read..

jump on me if u want Smile

difference is. i actually know what im talking about code wise.

Btw the compiler itself. has a huge affect. We have literally hundreds of variations of the C++ compiler(although we only sell "per say RTM bits", and each variation can easily affect the outcome of the same "mathematical" equation, even if the code didnt change.(happens all the time.. you should try debugging it).

Any Hoo i like the threar.. and I wont get in a back and forth over what I know is or isnt true. I was looking at just using cubase, but since i need my stuff for vocals mostly.. maybe I should look at other stuff as well.

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:34 pm

Excellent stuff here Tenor2B. Of course I won't take it personally that you imply I have no idea what I'm talking about. Wink

Your explanation is dead on, and it's appreciated. You're right, I'm not an extensive programmer - I do program, but it's only one type of application and that's it. You obviously have a far more extensive background.

Welcome to the forum.

J...

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:42 pm

Lol sorry cucco i actually and honestly didnt mean to make it sound like you didnt know what you were talking about at all Wink

.

Please dont be offended it wasnt meant to me Smile

and thanks!!

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:56 pm

I've found the best sounding software to be SAWStudio.
www.sawstudio.com - their support is also the best I've come across.

cheers

omaru

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 9:57 pm

Tenor2B wrote:

Lol sorry cucco i actually and honestly didnt mean to make it sound like you didnt know what you were talking about at all Wink

.

Please dont be offended it wasnt meant to me Smile

and thanks!!

Don't worry, none taken. I know my limitations and freely admit them. We're lucky to have people with your knowledge and skillset on the site.

BTW...Omaru, tell us more about SAWStudio. I've seen stuff about it, and I believe it's good, but I think their website is awful - there's way too much info on the page and it's hard for people with ADD like myself to follow anything.

Please, share what you like about SAW.

Thanks!

Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 11:58 pm

I'm a newcomer to Samplitude, and I bought it because my ears told me it sounded better when I downloaded the demo . That is a conclusion I came to on my own, before I had heard anyone else's opinion so I'm not jumping on the Samplitude bandwagon.

When using an audio engine, you are not just adding numbers together. A lot more goes on in the audio engine than that. You start off with a parallel streams of 24-bit integers. If you were to simply add up the numbers, the waves that are being added together would have to be of a lower resolution than the final target wave. Suppose you have several tracks, and at a particular point they all have a number nearing the highest possible 24-bit integer. You could not add them up to form another 24-bit number, as the result would be a number higher than the highest possible number of this type; they must summed using a number format of a higher resolution. When all of the samples are added together, it is then necessary to decrease the precision again to 24-bit before being output.

There are many ways to approach processing and this has to have an effect on the sound.

Anyone who thinks digital sound quality is just simple arithmetic should read up about the way the Benchmark DAC-1 works (and I'm not talking about jitter). If all fully functional audio engines should sound the same, then it would follow that the DAC-1 is a con.

John

PS this is purely supposition on my part as I've never built an audio engine, but I can't see any way that you can sum numbers without increasing the resolution in the process. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong Wink

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 12:45 am

Reading my previous post, I realise that the remarks about the DAC-1 might come across as argumentative, or aimed at particular posters. I've read through this thread and others, but I can't remember who has a DAC-1 and who has not. I just mention it as it does its own thing with the numbers, and by all accounts it's one great piece of equipment. It's nice to see a product hyped by its users and not just by its manufacturer!

John

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:20 am

Oh boy, there is so much to counter here, preparing response now. Stand by.

Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:53 am

Tenor2B wrote:

I have to specifically and emphatically state that Cucco, although maybe not even 100% understanding the underlying "true technical" reasons why he is correct, he is however correct.

Right. Gotcha. Very convincing.

Quote:

32 bit Floats are firstly not the largest number possible, although I wont spend time proving my credentials, albeit be assured its not. I can say this with 100% certainty

I am glad that you are certain, but of what? Are you talking about big big numbers on Cray supercomputers? Lets talk PC's, IEEE 32 bit float is the biggest most accurate number available in modern OO compilers used by the DAW companies.

Please NAME the compiler that you refer to that gives more accurate number math in a PC. Name? Manufacturer? DAW company who uses it? Wavelab, as stated and explained carefully by its author on the WL forum uses the MS C++ Compiler and the IEEE 32 bit number representation to do its math. The Sequoia website indicates the same. Some examples of what you are referring to would help me be convinced by your statements.

Quote:

That each application can have an affect within the exact same machine on what the results are of a "result".

Huh?

Quote:

Saying that summing up two wave files together would guarantee the same result just because they are floats.. Trust me.. your wrong.

Why? Explanation please?

Quote:

Processors have an affect on this(which means even if you could assure this on one machine, you cannot necessarily on another).

Really??? So you are saying that an Excel spreadsheet gives different answers on different processors? This is puzzling.

Quote:

The order that the numbers are added/substracted etc also play a huge role.

Already granted, but not HUGE! Affects very low level waveforms only. Most mixing in a DAW is with very healthy signal levels.

Quote:

Not only that.. but I can show you an easy way to generate wave files and guess what. it has nothing to do with 32 bit anything(especally floats), at least not in your simplistic explanation of how you feel it works. I just allocate memory, and I can do this in VB,C++, C, .Net, J++, whatever) and place what I want there, then I can write the data from memory to a binary format that just happens to match the headers/format required to be a wave.. and it will be a wave.. You can find examples like this all over the net..

Huh?

Quote:

Since you are actually using memory and pointers, you dont store all of a "wav" file in a 32 bit float, you may store it in a 32 bit address, they are NOT the same thing.

I am talking about a digital audio 32 bit word representing the amplitude of one sample, I am not sure what you are talking about?

Quote:

Since an application can easily generate a float, and then modify it to fit into a non float signed or unsigned (called converting), and then moving it back to a 32 bit float, that certainly doesnt mean the end result will be the same.

True, then the program and the programmer is broken.

Quote:

Will taking 2 files (at least using your explanation) and "adding" them together, produce for sure the same result. The answer is emphatically NO...

Why? 1+1=2 on any computer, on any OS, on any CPU.

Quote:

Again, Im not taking sides, im merely explaining..

I cannot see many good explanations, plenty of statements.

Quote:

Especially since you did in fact jump on Cucco for no reason that I could read..

jump on me if u want Smile

difference is. i actually know what im talking about code wise.

Not convinced I'm afraid. Where are the clear reasons for your statements?

Quote:

Btw the compiler itself. has a huge affect. We have literally hundreds of variations of the C++ compiler(although we only sell "per say RTM bits", and each variation can easily affect the outcome of the same "mathematical" equation, even if the code didnt change.(happens all the time.. you should try debugging it).

We are talking math and a floating point representation of a number defined by the IEEE. This has nothing to do with computers, its pure math. If different results are obtained then something is broken.

Quote:

When using an audio engine, you are not just adding numbers together. A lot more goes on in the audio engine than that. You start off with a parallel streams of 24-bit integers. If you were to simply add up the numbers, the waves that are being added together would have to be of a lower resolution than the final target wave.

If you have two 24bit ints, these are immediately shoved into 32bit floats and then added or subtracted or multiplied to get a 32bit float result, no precision is lost. All DAW's do this, except PT in the early days when they used int math, silly fellas. I believe they now use float math as well.

Quote:

There are many ways to approach processing and this has to have an effect on the sound.

What are these many approaches? Names?

Quote:

Anyone who thinks digital sound quality is just simple arithmetic should read up about the way the Benchmark DAC-1 works (and I'm not talking about jitter). If all fully functional audio engines should sound the same, then it would follow that the DAC-1 is a con.

I have one and do all my testing with it. It upsamples, thats all. If I feed the same WAV data to the DAC-1, one thousand times, I will get the IDENTICAL upsampled WAV file out one thousand times, EXACTLY the same down to the last little tiny bit, just before the D/A stage.

Also I am not saying that "digital sound quality" is "simple arithmatic", I am saying that a DAW is a number calculator. As all calculators should do, it adds subtracts multiplies using consistent floating point rep of numbers. These rules will give EXACTLY the same answers, every time, ad infinitum, when fed the same inputs. The same answers equals the same WAV file output and therefore the same sound. If this not occur, planes would fall out of the sky.

This topic sponsored by: