Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Faightlight Core II: Dream System
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76160 is a reply to message #76159] |
Sun, 19 November 2006 08:03   |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t 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,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>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 has been proven) that summing isn't different
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>unless
>>>>>>>there is an error somewhere, or variation in how the user duplicates
>>the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>same mix in two different apps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Imho, that's actually a very good thing - approaching a more consistent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>basis for recording and mixing from which users can make all
>>>>>>>of the decisions as to how the final product will sound and not be
>>>>>>>required
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>to decide when purchasing a pricey console, and have to
>>>>>>>focus their business on clients who want "that sound". I believe
we
>>are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>actually closer to the pure definition of recording now than
>>>>>>>we once were.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>Dedric
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I the answer is yes, then,the real task is to discover or rather
>>>>>>>> un-cover
>>>>>>>> what's say: Motu's vision of summing, versus Digidesign, versus
>>>>>>>> Steinberg
>>>>>>>> and so on..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's under the hood. To me and others,when Digi re-coded their
>
>>>>>>>> summing
>>>>>>>> engine, it was obvious that Pro Tools has an obvious top end (8k-10k)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> bump.
>>>>>>>> Where as Steinberg's summing is very neutral.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Hi Neil,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Jamie is right. And you aren't wacked out - you are thinking this
>>>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>in a reasonable manner, but coming to the wrong
>>>>>>>>>conclusion - easy to do given how confusing digital audio can be.
>>
>>>>>>>>>Each
>>>>>>>> word
>>>>>>>>>represents an amplitude
>>>>>>>>>point on a single curve that is changing over time, and can vary
>with
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>speed up to the Nyquist frequency (as Jamie described).
>>>>>>>>>The complex harmonic content we hear is actually the frequency
>>>>>>>>>modulation
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>a single waveform,
>>>>>>>>>that over a small amount of time creates the sound we translate
-
>>we
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>don't
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>really hear a single sample at a time,
>>>>>>>>>but thousands of samples at a time (1 sample alone could at most
>>>>>>>>>represent
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>single positive or negative peak
>>>>>>>>>of a 22,050Hz waveform).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If one bit doesn't cancel, esp. if it's a higher order bit than
number
>>>>>> 24,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>you ma
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76163 is a reply to message #76162] |
Sun, 19 November 2006 11:08 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>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,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>bit for bit, and one is phase inverted,
>>>>>>>>>they will cancel through all 24 bits. For two files to cancel
>>>>>>>>>completely
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>for the duration of the file, each and every bit in each word
>>>>>>>>>must be the exact opposite of that same bit position in a word at
>>the
>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>sample point. This is why zooming in on an FFT
>>>>>>>>>of the full difference file is valuable as it can show any differences
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the lower order bits that wouldn't be audible. So even if
>>>>>>>>>there is no audible difference, the visual followup will sh
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76165 is a reply to message #76163] |
Sun, 19 November 2006 10:34 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>>>>>changes), we are only looking at linear, one for one
>>>>>>>>>comparisons between the two files' frequency representations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Regards,
>>>>>>>>>Dedric
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Neil wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dedric@echomg.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The tests I did were completely blank down to -200 dB (far below
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> bit). It's safe to say there is no difference, even in
>>>>>>>>>>>> quantization noise, which by technical rights, is considered
>below
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> level
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> of "cancellation" in such tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76167 is a reply to message #76165] |
Sun, 19 November 2006 11:32 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>>>>>>>> last bit while still allowing for a null test to be successful.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No? Am I wacked out of my mind?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>Hey Chuck, where can we find those guys..They should be coveted by evry DAW
company on the planet! :)
"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 reference, 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 chip or set of
dsps
>
>>similar to ProTools,
>>with I/O and a hardware surface attached.
>>
>>I know it may be hard to separate the mix engine as software in either
a
>
>>native DAW
>>or a digital mixer, from the hardware that translates the audio to something
>
>>we hear,
>>but that's what is required when compa
|
|
|
|
| Re: Faightlight Core II: Dream System [message #76169 is a reply to message #76165] |
Sun, 19 November 2006 13:01 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
y 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
>>> 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
>>>>are locking with the same accuracy. This was one of the issues that
came
>>> up
>>>>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri May 08 02:09:21 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05920 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
