Your opinions on fidelity

I'm only speaking for myself of course... I personally don't hear enough of a difference between the two to call one "better" than the other.



I hear things about the first sample that I like, but there are certain things about the second one that I like, too... but I don't think that makes one any "better" than the other - they're just slightly different.

And different isn't always better or worse ... sometimes it means only that: "different".



If my feet were held to the fire, I guess I'd opt for the first sample - there seems to be slightly more presence to the first sample, most noticeably on the HH, ( but which is also more forward in the mix of the first than in the second) but having just said that, I prefer the sound of the kick on the second sample, it sounds "tighter" to me than the first, which sounds a scoodje low-mid "boomy".



But see, now we're entering into the territory of "subjectivity" and personal preference, which could skew the results of the test.



Honestly, Chris, either version is workable. It's not like either one is glaringly bad in fidelity. Can you provide a bit more detail as to what you specifically want us to listen for? For example, I was listening at a fairly modest volume ( around 70 db or so), so if there's "noise" or something, I wasn't able to pick up on it... maybe you could provide us some direction - like for example, what level we should be listening at...?



d.

Chris Perra, post: 433308, member: 48232 wrote: Sometimes I can talk myself into and out of what I think I hear it's just good to get more global opinion as in the end

I know exactly what you are talking about, Chris.



In order be more helpful to you, after many listening's to each, I think I'm going to choose sample 2. As far as why, I like the "tighter" kick in version 2, and while the hi-hat may not be as prevalent in the mix as it is in sample one, I do like the silk that I hear on the hat on the second sample. The first is more forward, but it's also a bit more "brash" as well, and I've always preferred "silk" over "brash".



But ... I have to follow all of that up, and say they were both very close. I'm definitely pickin' at nits between them, pal. So, I don't know if this helps you or not, but I choose the second sample.



IMHO of course.



-d.

I like the second one better because things other than the kick are better represented. It's not really a matter of objective fidelity, more a matter of subjective good sound.



It sounds to me like the mic is placed a foot or three in front of the kick, high enough to get other parts of the kit.

I like the second one better, just more natural to me.. The first one may sound a bit louder but some ringing, from the room or heads just don't appeal to me...

BUT, in a context of a song, it may be totally different..



Are you gonna tell what differ in the technic employed ? was it the overhead positions ?

Too bad you couldn't record a sample simultaneously to both DAWS....or can you?

Can you tell us which DAW's you used?



Also, the conversion code(s) could have something to do with it.

Chris Perra, post: 433352, member: 48232 wrote: I don't want to cause a commotion with Daws haha, some people might get freaked out.

That ship has already sailed. ;)

I like the first sample in both comparisons...they sound slightly crisper in both instances through my monitors.

Level matched, I'm not hearing any difference. Just out of curiosity, have you tried phase/nulling each and comparing the two in each DAW ? That is, importing both identical two mixes into each DAW and then nulling each file...

Just curious.

I bet one of them got resampled.

Well, if they're not nulling out, then either there is a difference in each DAW's audio engine, or the samples aren't precisely lined up, or there's some kind of processing going on... even the slightest difference in EQ or gain could cause them to not phase each other out. They both have to be the exact same file - without any manipulation on either.



And, as Boulder mentioned, perhaps one of them may have inadvertently been re-sampled ( during the render/export/import, maybe?)



As far as aligning the tracks; while I don't know how to exactly position a copy of a track in Cubase, I do know that in Samplitude, you can copy a track and then pull that copy down to another track - in the exact same position as the first - by holding Ctrl/Shift down while at the same time dragging the copied file to a corresponding empty track with the mouse. This will insure that both files are precisely aligned in time. Invert the phase on one of the tracks, and they should null. If they're not, then something has caused a difference between the two files. It doesn't take much for them to not null, Chris ...any effect, any EQ, or any gain differential on either one by even the tiniest amount, and they won't null.



So, either you've discovered that there is a difference between the two DAW platforms, or something else is amiss.

I read panning behaviour is different in Samplitude...

pcrecord, post: 433366, member: 46460 wrote: I read panning behaviour is different in Samplitude...

It is in its numeral measurement, but it still works the same as any other pan pot does,( depending on what pan law setting you are using, of course) and, like any other popular DAW, you also have a choice as to which pan law you globally want to work with as well.

I'm pretty sure that in Samp, I have it set for a Odb PL, ( I think that might also the default) although I have altered that setting from time to time. And truthfully, the only time the pan law even matters is if you have something moving within the mix.



Keep in mind that when working with stereo VSTi's, the pan will only shift the entire stereo file in a direction; for more detailed panning you'd want to get into the pan parameters of whatever VSTi you're using.

For example, if I'm using a stereo piano file from the Independence Library ( a sample library that comes with all Pro X Suite versions) and I wanted to alter the stereo image of the sample, I'd first go to the piano sample's settings menu to do that.

Although, more recent versions off Samp - like the Pro X versions - do give the user the ability to right-click on any pan pot, and it will bring up a "pan settings" menu for that track; from which you can narrow ( or widen) the stereo image, on that track... it's not a global thing.



I like the rotary style pan pots better - maybe it's just nostalgia, harking back to when I worked on consoles, ( and those pan laws varied widely depending on the desk, from -3 to even -6; while SSL was at 4.5, IIRC) but I find the rotary GUI more "natural".

I never cared too much for the "slider" style pan function that Sonar used ( or that at least was being used at the time of PE 8).

I think we should hear them with you though tom mics muted or pan to the center, also concerning is that much of a level difference. I could understand some nuances "a few db" is a substantial amount of difference.

What I'm thinking is that, if it's a Mac, one of the DAWs may have received a resampled version due to Aggregate Device or the like. And, yes, some DAWs can resample if they are receiving digital streams from multiple devices that aren't clocked together.

Chris Perra, post: 433375, member: 48232 wrote: They haven't been re sampled as they entered and left at 44.1 both at 32 bit.

Aggregate Device resamples to accommodate different clocks, not to change the sample rate. The result is a pair of files that have the same sample rate but still don't line up.

Chris Perra, post: 433377, member: 48232 wrote: What would be the 2 devices that would cause this?

Well, in this case it would be two DAWs instead. I'm speculating, but in systems where the converter responds to the DAW's sample rate settings (you don't have to set the hardware to match the DAW, it just does it automatically) perhaps sending the audio to two DAWs forces one of them (or Aggregate Device or ??) to resample one digital stream.

Chris Perra, post: 433380, member: 48232 wrote: I dunno, they are all at 44.1 I don't know where they would need to resample,. I also found the same thing when recording them separately as well.

I'm talking about 44.1kHz to 44.1kHz conversion to deal with clocking issues. That's what Aggregate Device on Mac does. That's what some DAWs can do. I'm speculating that one DAW has control of the hardware's sample rate setting and the other DAW, without that control, may be resampling. The fact that they're all 44.1 doesn't preclude resampling.

Are you using a precedence based pan control in one DAW?

I'm finding if I line up one drum hit other hits are off. And I can't get anything to null consistently, over time or across the spectrum. At first I thought it was drift but that's not it. It just sounds vaguely out of phase no matter how I line them up. If I accept that the kick nulls that suggests different panning behavior in the two DAWs as a likely cause, and since I'm seeing timing differences between the two versions I'm led to precedence effect panning as the specific difference.

This is where Dante/Ethernet audio is gonna kill. It can digitally mult tracks to avoid these types of complications. It can also carry different different sample and bit rates simultaneously.



The volume discrepancy is disturbing because in digital -18 (or whatever) is supposed to be the same across the board. Something else is going on I think. I wouldn't expect them to null exactly perfectly just due to differences in code for each Daw. I'm puzzled by this.