What interface are you using?

The audio engine in Sonar 8.5 is more than sufficient, and I wonder if it's a hardware issue and not a software issue?
I've used XP/Vista/7 with Cubase/Nuendo, and most of my problems (excluding Vista) were related to hardware/drivers.

Just as a totally non-scientific guess - it's probably not Win7, because that's what I use. I use a PreSonus Firepod and Cubase with Win7-64bit and have no such issue at all.

Try a real time export and see what happens. I use Win 7 and Sonar 8.5. No issues....with exception to my own ability to produce something decent. My exports are generally what I mix.

soapfloats, post: 358078 wrote: What interface are you using?

The audio engine in Sonar 8.5 is more than sufficient, and I wonder if it's a hardware issue and not a software issue?
I've used XP/Vista/7 with Cubase/Nuendo, and most of my problems (excluding Vista) were related to hardware/drivers.

I'm using a RME FireFace 400. It's great also. I'm pretty sure Sonar is not the culprit here, i'm thinking it's more of a Windows 7 issue.

hueseph, post: 358091 wrote: Try a real time export and see what happens. I use Win 7 and Sonar 8.5. No issues....with exception to my own ability to produce something decent. My exports are generally what I mix.

Thanks Huseph. I did try a real time export, still the audio was somewhat diminished. My problem could be that when I mixdown, I’m looking for an "exact replica" of the audio being mixed. When A/B ing the original and the mixdown, I’m looking for it to match in terms of volume and fidelity. I had it with XP, I just think i'm not using the right settings in Win 7.

JohnTodd, post: 358084 wrote: Just as a totally non-scientific guess - it's probably not Win7, because that's what I use. I use a PreSonus Firepod and Cubase with Win7-64bit and have no such issue at all.

I hear what you're saying if that's what you used to mixdown your "Choir of Angels" entry. Nice

Thanks. That's exactly what I used. Win7-64bit with Cubase 4.x, a PreSonus Firepod and my new Nady RSM-4 that my lovely girlfriend bought me for early Christmas.

I don't think it's a Windows 7 or interface problem. It's operator error. Really. Digital audio is digital audio is digital audio. What it sounds like during the mix it should sound like when it's mixed down. Otherwise, you have set something incorrectly. I'm not sure why working ITB you need to bounce anything? We're not talking about analog multitrack here. So when you bounce, you're probably transcoding things up and down, willy-nilly. That's why things don't sound like they're supposed to. You may also have some kind of dithering feature that is being added every time you bounce and/or mix down. You know it's operator error when everybody else is not having the same problem. It's not equipment. It's not the operating system and it ain't the software. It's operator error.

Stop bouncing! Or, I'll stop the car!
Mx. Remy Ann David

I'm with Remy.

A few things to check however: when you render are you using the same project samplerate? And how do you listen to the results? Winamp? iTunes?

JohnTodd, post: 358109 wrote: Thanks. That's exactly what I used. Win7-64bit with Cubase 4.x, a PreSonus Firepod and my new Nady RSM-4 that my lovely girlfriend bought me for early Christmas.

You used the Nady on vox? Sweet. Seems to suit your voice.
Looks like you've got your work cut out for you in trying to top that gift.

RemyRAD, post: 358113 wrote: I don't think it's a Windows 7 or interface problem. It's operator error. Really. Digital audio is digital audio is digital audio. What it sounds like during the mix it should sound like when it's mixed down. Otherwise, you have set something incorrectly.

+1. Normally the finished 2-track sounds indistinguishable from the audio I hear when working on the mix in the multi-track project.

RemyRAD, post: 358113 wrote: I'm not sure why working ITB you need to bounce anything? We're not talking about analog multitrack here. So when you bounce, you're probably transcoding things up and down, willy-nilly. That's why things don't sound like they're supposed to. You may also have some kind of dithering feature that is being added every time you bounce and/or mix down. You know it's operator error when everybody else is not having the same problem. It's not equipment. It's not the operating system and it ain't the software. It's operator error.

Stop bouncing! Or, I'll stop the car!
Mx. Remy Ann David

"Bounce" in many DAWs is the same as "render" in Vegas or "export" in some other software. It just means to mix down the multi-track to a stereo file.

True, but for some they may also be dithering down to 16 bit which would sound different to a 24bit file. I'd double check the bit/sample rate on the bounce settings. That would definitely explain the difference.

For a Win 7 optimization (which I also don't think is the culprit), check the sticky in my computer forum. Additionally, do you have the very latest RME drivers? Up until recently, it was recommended to use the Windows legacy firewire driver. In the current driver version this is not a concern.

RemyRAD, post: 358113 wrote: I don't think it's a Windows 7 or interface problem. It's operator error. Really. Digital audio is digital audio is digital audio. What it sounds like during the mix it should sound like when it's mixed down. Otherwise, you have set something incorrectly. I'm not sure why working ITB you need to bounce anything? We're not talking about analog multitrack here. So when you bounce, you're probably transcoding things up and down, willy-nilly. That's why things don't sound like they're supposed to. You may also have some kind of dithering feature that is being added every time you bounce and/or mix down. You know it's operator error when everybody else is not having the same problem. It's not equipment. It's not the operating system and it ain't the software. It's operator error.

Stop bouncing! Or, I'll stop the car!
Mx. Remy Ann David

Thanks for responding Remy. I’m sure at least 60% of all request for help here is the result of operator error, probably this one included. Bouncing within Sonar is basically a mouse click (yes a window appears with quite a few options but I’ve got that covered). This was a feature I’ve gotten used to over the years. It was convenient having the ability to mixdown all tracks & effects in a project into a faithfully-reproduced stereo wave file. As mentioned I do have a work around, I master directly to the Fostex CR500 with great results btw (I have stopped bouncing, no need to stop the car, lol) but the problem just nags me.
I'll get to the bottom of it I’m sure, as you stated no one else seems to be having this problem so this one's on me. It's cool, I'm up for the challenge. Once I do i'll post it just in case some other poor slob encounters this issue.

FidelityHigh, post: 358239 wrote: It was convenient having the ability to mixdown all tracks & effects in a project into a faithfully-reproduced stereo wave file.

Isn't there an option to mixdown with, or without, effects, etc? (Been awhile since I've used Sonar.) Might you be missing something there?

Kapt.Krunch

We will all just be guessing until we have more details about the exact nature of the problem. In what way is the rendered audio degraded? Is there distortion? Clicks and pops? A drop in volume? Or are there specific parts (eg: a certain synth or effect) that do not render properly?

Also you need to confirm that you are rendering at the project samplerate to avoid samplerate conversion issues, and preferably to a 24 bit file to eliminate dithering / truncating issues.

Thanks! It was my first real "outing" with that mic. Can't wait for the warranty to expire so I can do the mods on it.

"
You used the Nady on vox? Sweet. Seems to suit your voice.
Looks like you've got your work cut out for you in trying to top that gift."

Well, here's the conclusion but first i'd like to thank everyone who stopped by & shared their thoughts and expertise. Turns out the culprit was the lack of due diligence on my part (You could call it operator error).
My PC is a beefed-up Falcon NW Talon. The first thing I did after installing the RME Fireface 400 was disable the on-board soundcard. Turns out I didn't go far enough. My video card has a sound card (well two in cross-fire). I discounted it since there was no sound from the HDMI connection. Apparently not having sound doesn’t mean it's not using resources. When I did disable the video soundcard(s) the bounce came back the way it should. All the volume was there with 95% fidelity, the missing 5% is what I call "air". That airy top-end. Mind you this is very subjective since it’s so minute (not trying to start a new thread here...ha). Two of my friends could not hear the difference. For me this is where the real tweaking comes in, trying to get that 5%. That would encompass getting the latest drivers, power dithering, defrag, other optimizations.
Anyway that's how it was with XP.
Thanks again guys. I'll try to pay it forward.

Hmm. You realise that, from the point of view of the DAW there is basically no difference between playing back and rendering? Blocks of samples are calculated, then either send to a soundcard buffer or written to an audio file... it shouldn't make any difference which.

Obviously, software can have bugs. But the chances are a bug will result in totally garbled output or no outut at all: a slight loss of 'air' is highly unlikely.

I suggest that your bounced files are now identical to playback, and there is some other reason for the percieved difference. This could be an EQ or volume setting in your media player software for example, or even just the psychological effect of no longer seeing the mixer on-screen.

Or of course, it could be the result of samplerate conversion while rendering. What samplerate is your interface set to? Are you rendering at the same samplerate?

FidelityHigh, post: 358277 wrote: Two of my friends could not hear the difference.

I suggest a blind ABX test: that's the only way to be sure your ears are not fooling you.

[quote=IIRs, post: 358289]Hmm. You realise that, from the point of view of the DAW there is basically no difference between playing back and rendering? Blocks of samples are calculated, then either send to a soundcard buffer or written to an audio file... it shouldn't make any difference which.

Obviously, software can have bugs. But the chances are a bug will result in totally garbled output or no outut at all: a slight loss of 'air' is highly unlikely.

Hmm...How does one end a thread on a good note I wonder. The differernce is not enough to quibble over. There is a difference however. Critical listening is something I enjoy. Anyway, there's no going back to bouncing for any serious work. Mixing down to my Fostex is flawless.

You still havent answered my samplerate question!

Here's a suggestion: mix down to the fostex, then render the same mix, and post both files up here.

Are you using the correct Firewire driver version ?

W7 has 3 of them.

Should be 1394 OHCI Compliant Host Controller (Legacy)

HaHallur, post: 358396 wrote: Are you using the correct Firewire driver version ?

W7 has 3 of them.

Should be 1394 OHCI Compliant Host Controller (Legacy)

This is no longer true for RME products. It may be true still for other manufacturers.

HaHallur, post: 358396 wrote: Are you using the correct Firewire driver version ?

W7 has 3 of them.

Should be 1394 OHCI Compliant Host Controller (Legacy)

I'll be looking into that. I'm using Win 7 Pro 64bit. Not really having a problem now though, smooth sailing...

IIRs, post: 358368 wrote: You still havent answered my samplerate question!

Here's a suggestion: mix down to the fostex, then render the same mix, and post both files up here.

Normally 96kHz at either 24 or 16bit.

Perhaps i'll do that with my ADL 600 entry.

FidelityHigh, post: 358402 wrote: I'll be looking into that. I'm using Win 7 Pro 64bit. Not really having a problem now though, smooth sailing...

I'm using Win7-64 and it was all smooth - never a thought about any drivers once my Firepod driver was installed.

Kapt.Krunch, post: 358248 wrote: Isn't there an option to mixdown with, or without, effects, etc? (Been awhile since I've used Sonar.) Might you be missing something there?

Kapt.Krunch

Yes, there are options galore. They call it "bounce to tracks" now (I believe it was called mixdown in earlier versions of Sonar. Once you hit edit>bounce to tracks, you have many options to enable & disable.

FidelityHigh, post: 358403 wrote: Normally 96kHz at either 24 or 16bit.

Perhaps i'll do that with my ADL 600 entry.

The question was: are you rendering at the same samplerate at which you mixed? ie: you mix at 96k, then render a 96K file?

Built-in samplerate conversion is often pretty ropy, so this could be the difference you are hearing.

IIRs, post: 358428 wrote: The question was: are you rendering at the same samplerate at which you mixed? ie: you mix at 96k, then render a 96K file?

Built-in samplerate conversion is often pretty ropy, so this could be the difference you are hearing.

THIS IS FOR SONAR USERS:
If you click Options> Global> Audio Data: There you will find the File Bit Depths for recording & rendering. The default setting for Sonar, 16 bit for recording, 32 bit for rendering. That would be the settings I’ve been using.

Even with XP I had to tweak the computer & software settings because I noticed a slight difference in sound quality when bouncing. I followed some of the suggested optimization guides (along with a friends help) obtained a pristine bounce.

For me this is where the real tweaking comes in, trying to get that 5%. That would encompass getting the latest drivers, power dithering, defrag, other optimizations.
Anyway that's how it was with XP.

This could be where we optimized the settings. I’m going with 24 bit for recording (which is the setting used by the RME FF400) open for suggestions for rendering...

I said SAMPLERATE, not bit depth!!

Here is something that has not really been discussed. Sure, people want higher resolution which comes with sample rate not bit depth. And if you are releasing for CD and/or MP3 download, etc., it really doesn't make much sense to record at 96 kHz when you have to dummy down to 44.1. That's a huge compromise right there. Mathematically it doesn't quite work and leaves its own artifacts. So best to record at 88.2 kHz then sample rate conversion works properly. I won't even suggest 192 kHz. The bit depth is more important to your postprocessing. So why not trying 16 bit at 88.2 kHz? It makes life simple as long as you watch your levels. Processing can still be accomplished without clipping if you are professional in your manipulations. Nobody needs more than 96 DB of signal-to-noise and/or dynamic range. 24-bit just makes it easier to be sloppy. And you don't want to be a sloppy engineer now do you? No. Of course not. Besides you really don't need high-resolution. High resolution of what? 96 DB is 100% adequate at 44.1 kHz. Sure you can hear the difference but you can't after it's down converted & transcoded. Then it's homogenized just like everything else. So why not just work in 16 bit 44.1 kHz throughout. You'll end up with a better product if you don't have to mash the math. Just KISS it.

No not me! KISS yourself.
Mx. Remy Ann David

IIRs, post: 358458 wrote: I said SAMPLERATE, not bit depth!!

Sonar renders the project samplerate which is and always has been 96kHz.

FidelityHigh, post: 358503 wrote: Sonar renders the project samplerate which is and always has been 96kHz.

And what samplerate file are you rendering to? (I can't quite believe how many times I have asked that question without getting an answer!)

IIRs, post: 358529 wrote: And what samplerate file are you rendering to? (I can't quite believe how many times I have asked that question without getting an answer!)

I think what he is saying is that Sonar renders to the current sample rate unless you specifically set it to downsample.

IIRs, post: 358529 wrote: And what samplerate file are you rendering to? (I can't quite believe how many times I have asked that question without getting an answer!)

I see the problem. Originally there were two questions. You did not re-state the original questions.

What samplerate is your interface set to? Are you rendering at the same samplerate?

]When several post go by without a direct reply, sometimes, if you’re still curious, you have to repeat the same question (or questions) to avoid confusion. Alluding to it can lead to statements like “I can't quite believe how many times I have asked that question without getting an answer!”

What samplerate is your interface set to? Answer: 96kHz
Are you rendering at the same samplerate? Answer: Yes 96kHz

My bad for not going back to where the questions were posted.