Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Faightlight Core II: Dream System
| Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76088] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 08:14  |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Dedric
>>>>
>>>>"LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:458c14c0$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> Dedric good post..
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I have PT-M-Powered/M-audio 410 interface for my laptop and
>it
>>>
>>>>> has
>>>>> that same sound (no eq, zero fader) that HD does. I know their use
the
>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76092 is a reply to message #76090] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 08:42  |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>>>>at least a theoretical difference in how it affects audio
>>>>>>in certain cases, but not necessarily in the result for calculating
>gain
>>>>> in
>>>>>>either for the same audio file. Where any differences might show up
>is
>>>>>
>>>>>>complicated, and I believe only appear at levels below 24-bit (or in
>>>>>>headroom with tracks pushed beyond 0dBFS), or when/if
>>>>>>there areany differences in where each amplitude level is quantized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously there can be differences if the DAW has to use varying bit
>>>>>>depths
>>>>>
>>>>>>throughout a single summing path to accomodate hardware
>>>>>>as well as software summing, since there may be truncation or rounding
>>>
>>>>>>along
>>>>>
>>>>>>the way, but that impacts the lowest bit
>>>>>>level, and hence - spacial reproduction, reverb tails perhaps, and
>>>>>>"depth",
>>>>>
>>>>>>not the levels most music so the differences are most
>>>>>>often more subtle than not. But most modern DAWs have eliminated those
>>>>>
>>>>>>"r
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76095 is a reply to message #76093] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 08:53 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>in data structure as well, and this just verifies that. There was
a
>
>>>>>>time
>>>>>
>>>>>>that supposedly Logic (v3, v4?) was partly 24-bit, or so the rumor
went,
>>>>>>but it's 32-bit float all the way through now just as Sonar,
>>>>>>Nuendo/Cubase,
>>>>>
>>>>>>Samplitude/Sequoia, DP, Audition (I presume at least).
>>>>>>I don't know what Acid or Live use. Saw promotes a fixed point engine,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>I don't know if it is still 24-bit, or now 48 bit.
>>>>>>That was an intentional choice by the developer, but he's the only
one
>>> I
>>>>>
>>>>>>know of that stuck with 24-bit for summing
>>>>>>intentionally, esp. after the Digi Mix system mixer incident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Long answer, but to sum up, it is certainly physically *possible* for
>>> a
>>>>>
>>>>>>developer to code something differently intentionally, but not
>>>>>>in reality likely since it would be breaking some basic fixed point
>or
>>>>>>floating point math rules. Where the differences really
>>>>>>showed up in the past is with PT Mix systems where the limitation was
>>>
>>>>>>really
>>>>>
>>>>>>significant - e.g. 24 bit with truncation at several stages.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That really isn't such an issue anymore. Given the differences in
>>>>>>workflow,
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System; AES 2006 Core LinksII [message #76096 is a reply to message #76088] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 09:16 |
LAMont[3]
Messages: 5
Registered: August 2006
|
Junior Member |
|
|
/>
>>>>>
>>>>>>missing something in workflow or layout differences
>>>>>>is easy enough to do (e.g. Sonar doesn't have group and busses the
way
>>>>>>Nuendo does, as it's outputs are actually driver outputs,
>>>>>>not software busses, so in Sonar, busses are actually outputs, and
sub
>>>>>>busses are actually busses in Nuendo. There are no,
>>>>>>or at least I haven't found the equivalent of a Nuendo group in Sonar
>>> -
>>>>> that
>>>>>>affects the results of some tests (though not basic
>>>>>>summing) if not taken into account, but when taken into account, they
>>> work
>>>>>
>>>>>>exactly the same way).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So at least when talking about apps with 32-bit float all the way
>>>>>>through,
>>>>>
>>>>>>it's safe to say (since it
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76102 is a reply to message #76101] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 11:52 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
quot;manual". It'll take you at least a half-
> hour & I got it wrong because at least a couple of the module
> names don't match what the software calls them, so it's
> confusing & you have to take a guess... I guessed wrong.
>
> Or maybe Deej could send you a copy of one of HIS allkeys files
> from his Pro Cards & you could see if it works on yours! lol
>
> Me, I'm going to be taking the Pulsar Project card out of my
> Cubase rig today & installing it in my Paris PC to see if I can
> get it to clock properly at 88.2k if it's in a different PC
> than my RME cards, and then run some summing tests (that Lamont
> can scorn for being "rigged" LOL!) to see if summing 4x stereo
> sumbixes out of my Multifaces via lightpipe will make any kind
> of difference vs. summing in Paris with the same # of sumbmixes
> via analog outs into the Paris 8-in module. Of course, my two
> current lightpipe "cables" are not long enough to reach, so
> I'll need to go down to my local Guitar Center & see if they
> have anything long enough (and if they do, am I going to have to
> toss out 30 bucks per cable for the Monster lightpipe ones they
> seem to favor - GEE, WONDER WHY? - or if they have something
> more reasonably-priced... oh well). And then the question
> becomes: can I run the Pulsar stuff as a stand-alone app on
> that PC, or will I have to install the CubaseLE software that
> I got with a Lexicon Alpha interface, which I bought solely for
> the Lexicon Pantheon reverb that came bundled with it? And if I
> DO need to install that, will it work on WinME (which is what
> my Paris PC is running)?
>
> OMIGOD, I just scared the shit out of myself... that looks
> EXACTLY like somethng Deej would post!
>
> lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System: Uses the Scope DSP Platform for Plugins..WOW!! [message #76117 is a reply to message #76114] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 17:50 |
Nappy
Messages: 198
Registered: September 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
to:IUOIU@OIU.com" target="_blank">IUOIU@OIU.com> wrote in message news:458d6332$1@linux...
>
> "DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>>>am I going to have to
>>toss out 30 bucks per cable for the Monster lightpipe ones they
>>seem to favor - GEE, WONDER WHY? <
>>
>>Radio Schuck may have RCA-F>BNC-M adapters. If you've got a s/pdif cable
>
>>that is long enough, this will do the job.
>>
>>voice of experience
>
> No, Deej, I'm ging to send the audio out through Lightpipe - 4
> channels per Multiface (2 stereo submixes out of each
> Multiface's lightpipe "out", into each of the two
> lightpipe "in's" on the Pulsar card).
>
> Rat Shack's here are carrying Monster digilight cables now,
> too... profit margin must be just a LITTLE bit bigger on a $30
> cable than on a $5 one :D may as well go to Guitar Center
> & see if they have anything else at a lower price point (plus,
> check & see if they got anything new in stock that my gear
> sluttery just can't resist LOL!)
>
> Neil"DJ" <nowayjose@dude.net> wrote:
>Ohhhhhh!!!!! Sorry. I was thinking WC. I have used the cheapo HOSA cables
>with mine. They actually were more secure because they didn't have that
big
>adapter on the end that overlaps the brackets on the PCI slots.
>
>worked just fine.
Just got back from G.C. - got the "Live Wires" ones, which were
still 30 bucks for the length I needed, but are a little more
robust than the flimsy ones for not all that much less $.
NeilGot it..But, I can remember Edmund and Steve saying that Summing was a top
priority..
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Hi Lamont,
>
>I've posted this several times in the past, but here's the scoop. Edmund
>did not write the summing code. It's deep within the DSP code running on
>the ESP2 chips. It was written by some very talented guys at Ensoniq. I
>really dig everything that Edmund and Stephen did, but the summing just
isn't
>part of it.
>
>The stuff I posted is not really a theory. The PARIS mix engine source
code
>is freely available for download. Anyone with a little time, patience and
>the ESP2 patent can clearly see what is going on. It's only a couple hundred
>lines of code.
>
>Chuck
>
>"Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>I can't tell you why you hear ProTools differently than Nuendo using a
>>single file.
>>There isn't any voodoo in the software, or hidden character enhancing dsp.
>
>>I'll see if
>>I can round up an M-Powered system to compare with next month.
>>
>>For referenc
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System: Uses the Scope DSP Platform for Plugins..WOW!! [message #76118 is a reply to message #76116] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 17:54 |
|
|
e, everytime I open Sequoia I think I might hear a broader,
>
>>clean,
>>and almost flat (spectrum, not depth) sound, but I don't - it's the same
>as
>>Nuendo, fwiw.
>>Also I don't think what I was referring to was a theory from Chuck - I
>
>>believe that was what he
>>discovered in the code.
>>
>>Digital mixers all have different preamps and converters. Unless you are
>
>>bypassing every
>>EQ and converter and going digital in and out to the same converter when
>
>>comparing, it would be hard
>>to say the mix engine itself sounds different than another mixer, but taken
>
>>as a whole, then
>>certainly they may very well sound different. In addition, hardware digital
>>mixers may use a variety of different paths between the I/O, channel
>>processing, and summing,
>>though most are pretty much software mixers on a single
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76120 is a reply to message #76090] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 17:24 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>them the edge. Their end of digital audio isn't about recreating the past,
>
>>but improving upon it.
>>As we've discussed and agreed before, the obsession with recreating
>>"vintage" technology is as much
>>fad as it is a valuable creative asset. There is no reason we shouldn't
>
>>have far superior hardware and software EQs and comps
>>than 20, 30 or 40 years ago. No reason at all, other than market demand,
>
>>but the majority of software, and new
>>hardware gear on the market has a vintage marketing tagline with it.
>>Companies will sell any bill of
>>goods if customers will buy it.
>>
>>There's nothing unique about the summing in Nuendo, Cubase, Sequoia/Samp,
>>or Sonar, and it's pretty safe to include Logic and DP in that list as
well.
>
>>One of the reasons I test
>>these things is to be sure my DAW isn't doing something wrong, or something
>
>>I don't know about.
>>
>>Vegas - I use it for video conversions and have never done any critical
>
>>listening tests with it. What I have heard
>>briefly didn't sound any different. It certainly looks plain vanilla
>>though. What you are describing is exactly
>>what I would say about the GUIs of each of those apps, not that it means
>
>>anything. Just interesting.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76121 is a reply to message #76095] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 17:25 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>>
>>That's one reason I listen eyes closed and double check with phase
>>cancellation tests and FFTs - I am
>>influenced creatively by the GUI to some degree. I actually like Cubase
>4's
>>GUI better than Nuendo 3.2,
>>though there are only slight visual differences (some workflow differences
>
>>are a definite improvement for me though).
>>
>>ProTools' GUI always made me want to write one dimensional soundtracks
in
>
>>mono for public utilities, accounting offices
>>or the IRS while reading my discreet systems analysis textbook - it was
>also
>>grey. ;-)
>>
>>Regards,
>>Dedric
>>
>>"LaMont" <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:458c82fd$1@linux...
>>>
>>> Dedric, my simple test is simple..
>>> Using the same audio interface, with the same stereo file..null-ed to
>
>>> zero..No
>>> eq, for fx. Master fader on zero..
>>>
>>> Nuendo, Pro-Tools -Mpowered(native)... yields a sonic difference that
>I
>>> have
>>> referenced before.. The sound coming from PT-M has a nice top end , where
>>> as Neundo has a nice flatter sound quality.
>>> Same audio interface. M-audio 410..Using Mackies & Blue-Sky pro monitors..
>>>
>>> Same test at the big room..PT-HD & Neundo Logic Audio(macG5-Dual) Using
>
>>> the
>>> 192 interface.
>>> Same results..But adding Logic audio's sound ..(Broad, thick)
>>>
>>> Somethings going on.
>>>
>>> Chucks post about how paris handles audio is a theory..Only Edmund can
>
>>> truly
>>> give us the goods on what's really what..
>>>
>>> I disagree that manufactuers don;t set out o put a sonic print on their
>
>>> products.
>>> I think they do.
>>>
>>> I have been fortunate to work on some digital mixers and I can tell you
>
>>> that
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76122 is a reply to message #76102] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 19:01 |
duncan
Messages: 123
Registered: November 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
r />
>>> each one has their own sound. The Sony Dmx-100 was modeled after SSL
4000g
>>> (like it's Big Brother).And you what? That board (Dmx-100) sound very
>warm
>>> and it's eq tries to behave and sound just like an SSL.. Unlike he Yamaha
>>> Dm2000(version 1.x) which has a very Clean, neutral sound..However, some
>>> complained that it was tooo Vanila and thus, Yamaha add a version 2.0
>
>>> which
>>> added Vintage type Eq's, modeled analog input gain saturation fx too
give
>>> the user a choice Btw Clean and Neutral vs sonic Character.
>>>
>>> So, if digital conoles can be given a sonic character, why not a software
>>> mixer?
>>> The truth is, there are some folks who want a neutral mixer and then
there
>>> are others who want a sonic footprint imparted. and these can be coded
>in
>>> the digital realm.
>>> The apllies with the manufactuers. They too have their vision on what
>They
>>> think and want their product to sound.
>>>
>>> I love reading on gearslutz the posts from Plugin developers and their
>
>>> interpretations
>>> and opinions about what makes their Neve 1073 Eq better and what goes
>into
>>> making their version sound like it does.. Each Developer has a different
>>> vision as to what the Neve 1073 should sound like. And yet they all sound
>>> good , but slightly different.
>>>
>>> You stated that you use Vegas. Well as you know, Vegas has a very generic
>>> sound..Just plain and simple. But, i bet you can tell the difference
>on
>>> your system when you play that same file in Neundo (No, fx, eq,
>>> null-edzerro)..
>>> ???
>>>
>>>
>>> "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>>>Lamont - what is the output chain you are using for each app when
>>>>comparing
>>>
>>>>the file in Nuendo
>>>>vs ProTools? On the same PC, I presume (and is this PT HD or M-Powered?)?
>>>>Since these can't use the same output driver, you would have to depend
>on
>>>
>>>>the D/A being
>>>>the same, but clocking will be different unless you have a master clock,
>>> and
>>>>both interfaces
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System: Uses the Scope DSP Platform for Plugins..WOW!! [message #76123 is a reply to message #76117] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 20:34 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>>>>are locking with the same accuracy. This was one of the issues that
came
>>> up
>>>>at Lynn Fuston's
>>>>D/A converter shootout - when do you lock to external clock and incur
>the
>>>
>>>>resulting jitter,
>>>>and when do you trust the internal clock - and if you do lock externally,
>>>
>>>>how good is the PLL
>>>>in the slave device? These issues can cause audible changes in the top
>>> end
>>>>that have nothing to do
>>>>with the software itself. If you say that PTHD through the same converter
>>>
>>>>output as Nuendo (via? RME?
>>>>Lynx?) using the same master clock, sounds different playing a single
>
>>>>audio
>>>
>>>>file, then I take your word
>>>>for it. I can't tell you why that is happening - only that an audible
>>>>difference really shouldn't happen due
>>>>to the software alone - not with a single audio file, esp. since I've
>
>>>>heard
>>>
>>>>and seen PTHD audio cancel with
>>>>native DAWs. Just passing a single 16 or 24 bit track down the buss
>to
>>> the
>>>>output driver should
>>>>be, and usually is, completely transparent, bit for bit.
>>>>
>>>>The same audio file played through the same converters should only sound
>>>
>>>>different if something in
>>>>the chain is different - be it clocking, gain or some degree of
>>>>unintended,
>>>
>>>>errant dsp processing. Every DAW should
>>>>pass a single audio file without altering a single bit. That's a basic
>
>>>>level
>>>
>>>>of accuracy we should always
>>>>expect of any DAW. If that accuracy isn't there, you can be sure a heavy
>>>
>>>>mix will be altered in ways you
>>>>didn't intend, even though you would end up mixing with that factor in
>
>>>>place
>>>
>>>>(e.g. you still mix for what
>>>>you want to hear regardless of what the platform does to each audio track
>>> or
>>>>channel).
>>>>
>>>>In fact you should be able to send a stereo audio track out SPDIF or
>>>>lightpipe to another DAW, record it
>>>>bring the recorded file back in, line them up to the first bit, and have
>>>
>>>>them cancel on and inverted phase
>>>>test. I did this with Nuendo and Cubase 4 on separate machines just
to
>>> be
>>>>sure my master clocking and
>>>>slave sync was accurate - it worked perfectly.
>>>>
>>>>Also be sure there isn't a variation in the gain even by 0.1 dB between
>>> the
>>>>two. There shouldn't
>>>>and I wouldn't expect there to be one. Also could PT be set for a
>>>>different
>>>
>>>>pan law? Shouldn't make a
>>>>difference even if comparing two mono panned files to their stereo
>>>>interleaved equivalent, but for sake
>>>>of completeness it's worth checking as well. A variation in the output
>>>
>>>>chain, be it drivers, audio card
>>>>card, or converters would be the most likely culprit here.
>>>>
>>>>The reason DAW manufacturers wouldn't add any sonic "character"
>>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System: Uses the Scope DSP Platform for Plugins..WOW!! [message #76124 is a reply to message #76118] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 20:37 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;intentionally is that the
>>>>ultimate goal from day one with recording has been to accurately reproduce
>>>
>>>>what we hear.
>>>>We developed a musical penchant for sonic character because the hardware
>>>
>>>>just wasn't accurate,
>>>>and what it did often sent us down new creative paths - even if by force
>>> -
>>>>and we decided it was
>>>>preferred that way.
>>>>
>>>>Your point about what goes into the feature presets to sell synths is
>
>>>>right
>>>
>>>>for sure, but synths are about
>>>>character and getting that "perfect piano" or crystal clear bell pad,
>or
>>> fat
>>>>punchy bass without spending
>>>>a mint on development, adding 50G onboard sample libraries, or costing
>
>>>>$15k,
>>>
>>>>so what they
>>>>lack in actual synthesis capabilities, they make up with EQ and effects
>>> on
>>>>the output. That's been the case
>>>>for years, at least since we had effects on synths at least. But even
>
>>>>with
>>>
>>>>modern synths such as the Fantom,
>>>>Tritons, etc, which are great synths all around, of course the coolest,
>>>
>>>>widest and biggest patches
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System: Uses the Scope DSP Platform for Plugins..WOW!! [message #76125 is a reply to message #76119] |
Fri, 17 November 2006 20:41 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
/>
>>>>will make the biggest impression - so in come the EQs, limiters, comps,
>>>
>>>>reverbs, chorus, etc. The best
>>>>way to find out if a synth is really good is to bypass all effects and
>see
>>>
>>>>what happens. Most are pretty
>>>>good these days, but about half the time, there are presets that fall
>>>>completely flat in fx bypass.
>>>>
>>>>DAWs aren't designed to put a sonic fingerprint on a sound the way synths
>>>
>>>>are - they are designed
>>>>to *not* add anything - to pass through what we create as users, with
>no
>>>
>>>>alteration (or as little as possible)
>>>>beyond what we add with intentional processing (EQ, comps, etc).
>>>>Developers
>>>
>>>>would find no pride
>>>>in hearing that their DAW sounds anything different than whatever is
being
>>>
>>>>played back in it,
>>>>and the concept is contrary to what AES and IEEE proceedings on the issue
>>>
>>>>propose in general
>>>>digital audio discussions, white papers, et
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76129 is a reply to message #76126] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 07:05 |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
kai's MPC 1000, 2500, Roland's Fantom.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, why would'nt a DAW manufactuer code in an extra (ooommf) to make
>
>>>>> their
>>>>> DAW sound better. Especially, given the "I hate Digtal Summing" crowd?
>>>
>>>>> And,
>>>>> If I'm a DAW manufactuer, what would give my product a sonic edge over
>>> the
>>>>> competition?
>>>>>
>>>>> We live in the "louder is better" audio world these days, so a DAW
that
>>>
>>>>> can
>>>>> catch my attention 'sonically" will probaly will get the sell. That's
>>> what
>>>>> happend to me back in 1997 when I heard Paris. I was floored!!! Still
>>> to
>>>>> this day, nothing has floored me like that "Road House Blues Demo"
I
>
>>>>> heard
>>>>> on Paris.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was it the hardware ? was it the software. I remember talking with
>>>>> Edmund
>>>>> at the 2000 winter Namm, and told me that he & Steve set out to
>>>>> reproduce
>>>>> the sonics of big buck analog board (eq's) and all.. And, summing was
>>> a
>>>>> big
>>>>> big issue for them because they (ID) thought that nobody has gotten
>>>>> it(summing)
>>>>> right. And by right, they meant, behaved like a console with a wide
>lane
>>>>> for all of those tracks..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76132 is a reply to message #76126] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 07:21 |
|
|
br />
>>>>>>What Digi did in recoding their summing engine was try to recover some
>>>>>>of the damage done by the 24-bit buss in Mix systems. Motorola 56k
dsps
>>>>> are
>>>>>>24-bit fixed point chips and I think
>>>>>>the new generation (321?) still is, but they use double words now for
>>>>>>48-bits). And though plugins could process at 48-bit by
>>>>>>doubling up and using upper and lower 24-bit words for 48-bit outputs,
>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>>buss
>>>>>>between chips was 24-bits, so they had to dither to 24-bits after every
>>>>>
>>>>>>plugin. The mixer (if I recall correctly) also
>>>>>>had a 24-bit buss, so what Digi did is to add a dither stage to the
>
>>>>>>mixer
>>>>> to
>>>>>>prevent this
>>>>>>constant truncation of data. 24-bits isn't enough to cover summing
>for
>>>>> more
>>>>>>than a few tracks without
>>>>>>losing information in the 16-bit world, and in the 24-bit world some
>>>>>>information will be lost, at least at the lowest levels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Adding a dither stage (though I think they did more than that - perhaps
>>>>>
>>>>>>implement a 48-bit double word stage as well),
>>>>>>simply smoothed over the truncation that was happening, but it didn't
>>>
>>>>>>solve
>>>>>
>>>>>>the problem, so with HD
>>>>>>they went to a double-word path - throughout I believe, including the
>>> path
>>>>>
>>>>>>between chips. I believe the chips
>>>>>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76133 is a reply to message #76129] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 07:38 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>are still 24-bit, but by doubling up the processing (yes at a cost
of
>>>
>>>>>>twice
>>>>>
>>>>>>the overhead), they get a 48-bit engine.
>>>>>>This not only provided better headroom, but greater resolution. Higher
>>>>> bit
>>>>>>depths subdivide the amplitude with greater resolution, and that's
>>>>>>really where we get the definition of dynamic range - by lowering the
>>>
>>>>>>signal
>>>>>
>>>>>>to quantization noise ratio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>With DAWs that use 32-bit floating point math all the way through,
the
>>>
>>>>>>only
>>>>>
>>>>>>reason for altering the summing
>>>>>>is by error, and that's an error that would actually be hard to make
>and
>>>>> get
>>>>>>past a very basic alpha stage of testing.
>>>>>>There is a small difference in fixed point math and floating point
math,
>>>>> or
>>>>>>at least a theoretical difference in how it affects audio
>>>>>>in certain cases, but not necessarily in the result for calculating
>gain
>>>>> in
>>>>>>either for the same audio file. Where any differences might show up
>is
>>>>>
>>>>>>complicated, and I believe only appear at levels below 24-bit (or in
>>>>>>headroom with tracks pushed beyond 0dBFS), or when/if
>>>>>>there areany differences in where each amplitude level is quantized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously there can be differences if the DAW has to use varying bit
>>>>>>depths
>>>>>
>>>>>>throughout a single summing path to accomodate hardware
>>>>>>as well as software summing, since there may be truncation or rounding
>>>
>>>>>>along
>>>>>
>>>>>>the way, but that impacts the lowest bit
>>>>>>level, and hence - spacial reproduct
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76134 is a reply to message #76132] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 07:40 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ion, reverb tails perhaps, and
>>>>>>"depth",
>>>>>
>>>>>>not the levels most music so the differences are most
>>>>>>often more subtle than not. But most modern DAWs have eliminated those
>>>>>
>>>>>>"rough edges" in the math by increasing the bit depth to accomodate
>
>>>>>>normal
>>>>>
>>>>>>summing required for mixing audio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So with Lynn's unity gain summing test (A files on the CD I believe),
>>> DAWs
>>>>>
>>>>>>were never asked to sum beyond 24-bits,
>>>>>>at least not on the upper end of the dynamic range, so everything that
>>>
>>>>>>could
>>>>>
>>>>>>represent 24-bits accurately would cancel. The only ones
>>>>>>that didn't were ones that had a different bit depth and/or gain
>>>>>>structure
>>>>>
>>>>>>whether hybrid or native
>>>>>>(e.g. Paris' subtracting 20dB from tracks and adding it to the buss).
>>> In
>>>>>
>>>>>>this case, PTHD cancelled (when I tested it) with
>>>>>>Nuendo, Samplitude, Logic, etc because the impact of the 48-bit fixed
>>> vs.
>>>>>
>>>>>>32-bit float wasn't a factor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When trying other tests, even when adding and subtracting gain, Nuendo,
>>>>>
>>>>>>Sequoia and Sonar cancel - both audibly and
>>>>>>visually at inaudible levels, which only proves that one isn't making
>>> an
>>>>>
>>>>>>error when calculating basic gain. Since a dB is well defined,
>>>>>>and the math to add gain is simple, they shouldn't. The fact that
they
>>>>> all
>>>>>>use 32-bit float all the way through eliminates a difference
>>>>>>in data structure as well, and this just verifies that. There was
a
>
>>>>>>time
>>>>>
>>>>>>that supposedly Logic (v3, v4?) was partly 24-bit, or so the rumor
went,
>>>>>>but it's 32-bit float all the way through now just as Sonar,
>>>>>>Nuendo/Cubase,
>>>&
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76139 is a reply to message #76138] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 12:05 |
Dimitrios
Messages: 1056
Registered: August 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
>>>>>>>>you may hear, and will see that easily,
>>>>>>>>and the higher the bit in the dynamic range (higher order) the more
>>>>>>>>audible
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>the difference.
>>>>>>>>Since each bit is 6dB of dynamic range, you can extrapolate how "loud"
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>bit's impact will be
>>>>>>>>if there is a variation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Now, obviously if we are talking about 1 sample in a 44.1k rate song,
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>it simply be a
>>>>>>>>click (only audible if it's a high enough order bit) instead of an
>>>>>>>>obvious
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>musical difference, but that should never
>>>>>>>>happen in a phase cancellation test between identical files higher
>
>>>>>>>>than
>>>>>>> bit
>>>>>>>>24, unless there are clock sync problems,
>>>>>>>>driver issues, or the DAW is an early alpha version. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>By definition of what DAWs do during playback and record, every audio
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>stream
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>has the same point in time (judged by the timeline)
>>>>>>>>played back sample accurately, one word at a time, at whatever sample
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>rate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>we are using. A phase cancellation test uses that
>>>>>>>>fact to compare two audio files word for word (and hence bit for
bit
>>>
>>>>>>>>since
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>each bit of a 24-bit word would
>>>>>>>>be at the same bit slot in each 24-bit word). Assuming they are
>>>>>>>>aligned
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>the same start point, sample
>>>>>>>>accurately, and both are the same set of sample words at each sample
>>>>>>>>point,
>>>>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76142 is a reply to message #76140] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 12:37 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;> I'm not necessarily talking about just the first bit or the
>>>>>>>>>> last bit, but also everything in between... what happens on bit
>>>>>>>>>> #12, for example? Everything on bit #12 should be audible, but
>>>>>>>>>> in an a/b test what if thre are differences in what bits #8
>>>>>>>>>> through #12 sound like, but the amplutide is stll the same on
>>>>>>>>>> both files at that point, you'll get a null, right? Extrapolate
>>>>>>>>>> that out somewhat & let's say there are differences in bits #8
>>>>>>>>>> through #12 on sample points 3, 17, 1,000, 4,523, 7,560, etc,
>>>>>>>>>> etc through 43,972... Now this is breaking things down well
>>>>>>>>>> beyond what I think can be measured, if I'm not mistaken (I
>>>>>>>>>> dn't know of any way we could extract JUST that information
>>>>>>>>>> from each file & play it back for an a/b test; but would not
>>>>>>>>>> that be enough to have to "null-able" files that do actually
>>>>>>>>>> sound somewhat different?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I guess what I'm saying is that since each sample in a musical
>>>>>>>>>> track or full song file doesn't represent a pure, simple set of
>>>>>>>>>> content like a sample of a sine wave would - there's a whole
>>>>>>>>>> world of harmonic structure in each sample of a song file, and
>>>>>>>>>> I think (although I'll admit - I can't "prove") that there is
>>>>>>>>>> plenty of room for some variables between the first bit & the
>>>>>>>>>> last bit while still allowing for a null test to be successful.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No? Am I wacked out of my mind?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>&
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76144 is a reply to message #76130] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 13:56 |
Martin Harrington
Messages: 560
Registered: September 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
it's not doing anything.
Most native plugs these days only take resources when they have something
to do. I'm quite sure I could use two 14 DSP cards without trying too hard.
Again, it will just involve a little time learning to manage the workflow
and I'm willing to do that for synths and f/x this good.
Paired up with a UAD card it's a damned impressive system. I might spring
for another one of each, using the UAD for vintage type f/x and the CW for
mixing and synths. I gotta say, it's a pretty enjoyable, creative combination.
Now that I like it, we'll see CW out of business soon.
TCBBut, Fredo explains that Steinberg's way of coding a 32 bit audio engine is
different than say Cakewalk..And explained the trade-offs and decisions that
are made to achieve what a developer thinks is good audio.
And, Why would I(if I were a DAW devloper) want my audio engine to sound
like my competitors? I would not..This is where the trade-off decisions come
from.
However, it was interesting to rad wen he stated that 'all whill be fixed
(aka: no trade-offs) when Seinberg goes native 64bit.
That says to me that they (Steinberg) knows that their 32bit audio engine
is not wide enough to handle loads of audio, with vstis, plugins, without
introducing or trading-off sound quality..Interesting.
"Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote:
>
>I was part of that thread (kdm) and did those tests - I actually took them
>a step further than Jake or Fredo. As you can see I incorrectly thought
>there was something in the group summing process, but it was just my boneheaded
>interpretation of output data (using a small sample section for FFT rather
>than the full file mainly). :-((
>
>What Fredo is talking about is when you go over 0dBFS what happens to the
>"over" data, and the references to truncation are in that case, which isn't
>normal for mixing. This is the same decision every native DAW developer
>has to make.
>
>We were actually discussing what happens when you sum to a group vs. summing
>to the main bus, without overs. I did my test with all files summing to
>-20dB, so there was no cha
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76152 is a reply to message #76139] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 20:53 |
DJ
Messages: 1124
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
to what the Neve 1073 should sound like. And yet they all
sound
>>>> good , but slightly different.
>>>>
>>>> You stated that you use Vegas. Well as you know, Vegas has a very generic
>>>> sound..Just plain and simple. But, i bet you can tell the difference
>>on
>>>> your system when you play that same file in Neundo (No, fx, eq,
>>>> null-edzerro)..
>>>> ???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>>>>Lamont - what is the output chain you are using for each app when
>>>>>comparing
>>>>
>>>>>the file in Nuendo
>>>>>vs ProTools? On the same PC, I presume (and is this PT HD or M-Powered?)?
>>>>>Since these can't use the same output driver, you would have to depend
>>on
>>>>
>>>>>the D/A being
>>>>>the same, but clocking will be different unless you have a master clock,
>>>> and
>>>>>both interfaces
>>>>>are locking with the same accuracy. This was one of the issues that
>came
>>>> up
>>>>>at Lynn Fuston's
>>>>>D/A converter shootout - when do you lock to external clock and incur
>>the
>>>>
>>>>>resulting jitter,
>>>>>and when do you trust the internal clock - and if you do lock externally,
>>>>
>>>>>how good is the PLL
>>>>>in the slave device? These issues can cause audible changes in the
top
>>>> end
>>>>>that have nothing to do
>>>>>with the software itself. If you say that PTHD through the same converter
>>>>
>>>>>output as Nuendo (via? RME?
>>>>>Lynx?) using the same master clock, sounds different playing a single
>>
>>>>>audio
>>>>
>>>>>file, then I take your word
>>>>>for it. I can't tell you why that is happening - only that an audible
>>>>>difference really shouldn't happen due
>>>>>to the software alone - not with a single audio file, esp. since I've
>>
>>>>>heard
>>>>
>>>>>and seen PTHD audio cancel with
>>>>>native DAWs. Just passing a single 16 or 24 bit track down the buss
>>to
>>>> the
>>>>>output driver should
>>>>>be, and usually is, completely transparent, bit for bit.
>>>>>
>>>>>The same audio file played through the same converters should only sound
>>>>
>>>>>different if something in
>>>>>the chain is different - be it clocking, gain or some degree of
>>>>>unintended,
>>>>
>>>>>errant dsp processing. Every DAW should
>>>>>pass a single audio file without altering a single bit. That's a basic
>>
>>>>>level
>>>>
>>>>>of accuracy we should always
>>>>>expect of any DAW. If that accuracy isn't there, you can be sure a
heavy
>&g
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76153 is a reply to message #76126] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 22:24 |
|
|
t;>>
>>>>>mix will be altered in ways you
>>>>>didn't intend, even though you would end up mixing with that factor
in
>>
>>>>>place
>>>>
>>>>>(e.g. you still mix for what
>>>>>you want to hear regardless of what the platform does to each audio
track
>>>> or
>>>>>channel).
>>>>>
>>>>>In fact you should be able to send a stereo audio track out SPDIF or
>>>>>lightpipe to another DAW, record it
>>>>>bring the recorded file back in, line them up to the first bit, and
have
>>>>
>>>>>them cancel on and inverted phase
>>>>>test. I did this with Nuendo and Cubase 4 on separate machines just
>to
>>>> be
>>>>>sure my master clocking and
>>>>>slave sync was accurate - it worked perfectly.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also be sure there isn't a variation in the gain even by 0.1 dB between
>>>> the
>>>>>two. There shouldn't
>>>>>and I wouldn't expect there to be one. Also could PT be set for a
>>>>>different
>>>>
>>>>>pan law? Shouldn't make a
>>>>>difference even if comparing two mono panned files to their stereo
>>>>>interleaved equivalent, but for sake
>>>>>of completeness it's worth checking as well. A variation in the output
>>>>
>>>>>chain, be it drivers, audio card
>>>>>card, or converters would be the most likely culprit here.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason DAW manufacturers wouldn't add any sonic "character"
>>>>>intentionally is that the
>>>>>ultimate goal from day one with recording has been to accurately reproduce
>>>>
>>>>>what we hear.
>>>>>We developed a musical penchant for sonic character because the hardware
>>>>
>>>>>just wasn't accurate,
>>>>>and what it did often sent us down new creative paths - even if by force
>>>> -
>>>>>and we decided it was
>>>>>preferred that way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your point about what goes into the feature presets to sell synths is
>>
>>>>>right
>>>>
>>>>>for sure, but synths are about
>>>>>character and getting that "perfect piano" or crystal clear bell pad,
>>or
>>>> fat
>>>>>punchy bass without spending
>>>>>a mint on development, adding 50G onboard sample libraries,
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76155 is a reply to message #76153] |
Sat, 18 November 2006 23:33 |
Jamie K
Messages: 1115
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>>>The onboard effects were also a step up from anything out there, so
the
>>>> demo
>>>>>did sound good.
>>>>>I don't recall which, but one of the demos, imho, wasn't so good (some
>>>>>sloppy production and
>>>>>vocals in spots, IIRC), so I only listened to it once. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>Coupled with the gain drop and buss makeup, this all gave it a "headroom"
>>>> no
>>>>>one else had. With very nice
>>>>>onboard effects, Paris jumped ahead of anything else out there easily,
>>and
>>>>
>>>>>still respectably holds its' own today
>>>>>in that department.
>>>>>
>>>>>Most demos I hear (when I listen to them) vary in quality, usually not
>>so
>>>>
>>>>>great in some area. But if a demo does
>>>>>sound great, then it at least says that the product is capable of at
>>
>>>>>least
>>>>
>>>>>that level of performance, and it can
>>>>>only help improve a prospective buyer's impression of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>Dedric
>>>>>
>>>>>"LaMont " <jjdpro@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:458c14c0$1@linux...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dedric good post..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I have PT-M-Powered/M-audio 410 interface for my laptop and
>>it
>>>>
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> that same sound (no eq, zero fader) that HD does. I know their use
>the
>>>>
>>>>>> same
>>>>>> 48 bit fix mixer. I load up the same file in Nuendo (no eq, zero
>>>>>> fader)..results.
>>>>>> different sonic character.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PT having a top end touch..Nuendo, nice smooth(flat) sound. And I'm
>>just
>>>>>> taking about a stereo wav file nulled with no eq..nothing
>>>>>> ..zilch..nada..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, there are devices (keyboards, dum machines) on the market today
>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> have a Master Buss Compressor and EQ set to on with the top end notched
>>>>
>>>>>> up.
>>>>>> Why? because it gives their product an competitive advantageover the
>>>>>> competition..
>>>>>> Ex: Yahama's Motif ES, Akai's MPC 1000, 2500, Roland's Fantom.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, why would'nt a DAW manufactuer code in an extra (ooommf) to make
>>
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> DAW sound better. Especially, given the "I hate Digtal Summing" crowd?
>>>>
>>>>>> And,
>>>>>> If I'm a DAW manufactuer, what would give my product a sonic edge
over
>>>> the
>>>>>> competition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We live in the "louder is better" audio world these days, so a DAW
>that
>>>>
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> catch my attention 'sonically"
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76159 is a reply to message #76153] |
Sun, 19 November 2006 06:41 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>>>
>>>>>>>Obviously there can be differences if the DAW has to use varying bit
>>>>>>>depths
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>throughout a single summing path to accomodate hardware
>>>>>>>as well as software summing, since there may be truncation or rounding
>>>>
>>>>>>>along
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the way, but that impacts the lowest bit
>>>>>>>level, and hence - spacial reproduction, reverb tails perhaps, and
>>>>>>>"depth",
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>not the levels most music so the differences are most
>>>>>>>often more subtle than not. But most modern DAWs have eliminated
those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"rough edges" in the math by increasing the bit depth to accomodate
>>
>>>>>>>normal
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>summing required for mixing audio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So with Lynn's unity gain summing test (A files on the CD I believe),
>>>> DAWs
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>were never asked to sum beyond 24-bits,
>>>>>>>at least not on the upper end of the dynamic range, so everything
that
>>>>
>>>>>>>could
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>represent 24-bits accurately would cancel. The only ones
>>>>>>>that didn't were ones that had a different bit depth and/or gain
>>>>>>>structure
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>whether hybrid or native
>>>>>>>(e.g. Paris' subtracting 20dB from tracks and adding it to the buss).
>>>> In
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this case, PTHD cancelled (when I tested it) with
>>>>>>>Nuendo, Samplitude, Logic, etc because the impact of the 48-bit fixed
>>>> vs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>32-bit float wasn't a factor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>When trying other tests, even when adding and subtracting gain, Nuendo,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sequoia and Sonar cancel - both audibly and
>>>>>>>visually at inaudible levels, which only proves that one isn't making
>>>> an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>error when calculating basic gain. Since a dB is well defined,
>>>>>>>and the math to add gain is simple, they shouldn't. The fact that
>they
>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>use 32-bit float all the way through eliminates a difference
>>>>>>>in data structure as well, and this just verifies that. There was
>a
>>
>>>>>>>time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>that supposedly Logic (v3, v4?) was partly 24-bit, or so the rumor
>went,
>>>>>>>but it's 32-bit float all the way through now just as Sonar,
>>>>>>>Nuendo/Cubase,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Samplitude/Sequoia, DP, Audition (I presume at least).
>>>>>>>I don't know what Acid or Live use. Saw promotes a fixed point engine,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>I don't know if it is still 24-bit, or now 48 bit.
>>>>>>>That was an intentional choice by the developer, but he's the only
>one
>>>> I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>know of that stuck with 24-bit for summing
>>>>>>>intentionally, esp. after the Digi Mix system mixer incident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Long answer, but to sum up, it is certainly physically *possible*
for
>>>> a
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>developer to code something differently intentionally, but not
>>>>>>>in reality likely since it would be breaking some basic fixed point
>>or
>>>>>>>floating point math rules. Where the differences really
>>>>>>>showed up in the pas
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed May 06 16:46:03 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06066 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
