• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Different programs different sounds?

J

jesserr17

Jul 5, 2003
13
0
40
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
www.catalystband.com
#1
In terms of the wave file that gets recorded when recording r they all technicaly the same???? it seems to me i notice a distinct sound difference from each other when i use Cakewalk Sonar or Logic Audio ... not just the effects and stuff , jus the raw tracks recorded into the program..

what do u think ???

I find cakewalk easyer to use caue it's what i learned on .. But i like the sound from logic better.... :eek: :confused: :D
 
#4
On another forum, I heard a comparison between a Logic and a Sonar mix, no effects, faders untouched, just some tracks mixed down to a stereo 16-bit wave file. The difference seemed quite significant at first, the Logic mix was MUCH more punchy and articulate. However, it was revealed that the Logic output had about 3 dB more gain in it, so raising the sound level on the Sonar mix to match the Logic one, there was not much of a difference anymore. At least I (and the guy who did the test, among others) couldn't hear it.

In theory there will be differences since every program uses different algorithms, and in theory every sound processing algorithm degrades sound quality to an extent. The question is by how much. And will it be noticeable? In most situations and for the vast majority of listeners, I think not.
 
#6
There are many variable to consider. For one every program has a different default recording mode, inside the .wav category are hundreds of different types of encoding created by different company's and labs, if you multiply that by the different bitrates and sample rates u get thousands of combinations that all have a slightly different sound. I am not sure but the different drivers may have an effect too like MME Vs. Asio.
 
#7
In theory there will be differences since every program uses different algorithms, and in theory every sound processing algorithm degrades sound quality to an extent. The question is by how much. And will it be noticeable? In most situations and for the vast majority of listeners, I think not.
Click to expand...

Once it's normalized no one can hear the difference anyway!

Invalid Link Removed
Treena
 
#10
No.
Normalization and compression are useful tools, if used properly.

Normalization only raises the volume level so that the peaks(!) reach a certain threshold (typically 0 dB). It does NOT affect dynamics.

Good compressors improve/enhance the sound without audibly affecting dynamics. Even if they do, it still can sound more "punchy".
 
#11
I thought the algorithms used would determine HOW the sound gets recorded, not WHAT gets recorded. I bet if you hear a difference you'll eventually ahve the same experience as Oysterman, and find a setting that was different.
 
#12
Originally posted by JMX
No.
Normalization and compression are useful tools, if used properly.

Normalization only raises the volume level so that the peaks(!) reach a certain threshold (typically 0 dB). It does NOT affect dynamics.

Good compressors improve/enhance the sound without audibly affecting dynamics. Even if they do, it still can sound more "punchy".
Click to expand...

I know how they work.

Yes, normalization is not as bad as compression. But I much prefer to have everything all planned out in advance. So, no eq /compression, normalization would be needed.

Loudness is not everything. I rather to maintain the dynamic at its fullest, than to lessen it, in order to make the music plays louder. Or to sound more even by masking bad techniques, and production.

That's why I can't stand listening to most radio and tv broadcasts.

That's just my personal preferences.
 
#13
Originally posted by 12notes


I know how they work.

Yes, normalization is not as bad as compression. But I much prefer to have everything all planned out in advance. So, no eq /compression, normalization would be needed.

Loudness is not everything. I rather to maintain the dynamic at its fullest, than to lessen it, in order to make the music plays louder. Or to sound more even by masking bad techniques, and production.

That's why I can't stand listening to most radio and tv broadcasts.

That's just my personal preferences.
Click to expand...

Normalization does not equal a super loud mix. Saying normalzation is not as bad as compression is like saying eq is not as bad as a "puncher" effect. As JMX said, neither normalization nor compressoin need kill dynamics AT ALL. Of course, any tool can be used badly. ;)
 
#14
Originally posted by Blisshead


Normalization does not equal a super loud mix. Saying normalzation is not as bad as compression is like saying eq is not as bad as a "puncher" effect. As JMX said, neither normalization nor compressoin need kill dynamics AT ALL. Of course, any tool can be used badly. ;)
Click to expand...

I know some people can utilise compression and normalization without killing much of the music. It's all personal tastes and preferences.

But I see no reason why music needed to be at similar loudness level?

In a way. I sometimes use compression too. But not with a compressor, but just get the needed compression effects from the output tubes in the power amps. Other than that, I don't use compression at all.

On my own recordings, the contrasts in the music are very important part of the feels, the moods, the emotions of the music. My music will sounds dead without the big dynamic range. And not intended for radio, or low-fi play back. The vu meter jumps between -50 dB (lowest marking before infinite on my CD recorder) to about -0.5dB all the time. No limiter or eq either. Yes, it's very tricky to set the level, but well worth the extra effords.

But then again. I don't play metal or dance music either. I can see that dead metal and so on will need lots of compression and normalization though.
 
#16
I believe the disconnect here is over the difference between song-by-song normalization (peaking each song to 0dBFS), and album-as-a-whole normalization (keeping the relationship between the songs the same, but adjusting the whole album up to 0dBFS peak).
 
#17
(I'm probably on thin ice with this, as I have no expert knowledge myself, though I've done quite a bit of reading of what so called experts have said...)

The usable dynamic range of a 16-bit recording (i.e. a music CD) isn't as wide as one could guess. Listening to a -30 dBFS signal and a 0 dBFS signal at the same volume would most likely reveal a lower sonic quality in the lower level signal. If you have one wild peak in a song that drastically lowers the RMS level of the song, the overall quality of the audio may suffer because of it!

In most cases this won't be an issue, but in some situations you have those wild peaks, and naturally normalization can't do anything about them. There may be transients that are quick enough to not really be noticeable, and then their only contribution would be to lower the overall level and therefore the sonic quality of the song! For these situations, a LIMITER could do wonders. Compressors aren't much good because their response would be too slow.

One should also keep in mind that there's a difference between PERCEIVED dynamics and ACTUAL dynamics. The two don't necessarily always walk hand in hand. 12notes, I don't think your recordings would suffer from a bit of gentle mastering. On the contrary, I would think it would be difficult for most people to listen to your work since they don't have the necessary listening environments or equipment! There would be a psychological factor too - since most people are used to mastered music, I would think there's a risk that your recordings could sound "odd" to them. But hey, it's your music, your call.

One thing is for sure, though - too many mastering engineers got carried away at work in recent years. No one's a winner in a loudness war.
 
#18
)
Originally posted by geshel
I believe the disconnect here is over the difference between song-by-song normalization (peaking each song to 0dBFS), and album-as-a-whole normalization (keeping the relationship between the songs the same, but adjusting the whole album up to 0dBFS peak).
Click to expand...

thanks for being the articulate oerson that I'm not. ;) You are correct.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back