Sound Quality in DP

[Timeline]

I'm laboring the CPU so much it all sounds like •••• to me and in Nuendo it's worse. I kinda gave up on Nuendo today sadly. I don't get feedback on the BBS I needed and it's too uptight over there.

I have spoken to Yamaha/Steinberg employees that are really cool like Greg Ondo but he doesn't really know why my IO's would sound any different on N3 compared to DP either.

My external clock helps though as mentioed earlier. I see one of you guys is still using the 1296. They sound different too you know.

It's a giant crap shoot if your system really performs and makes you like digital, isn't it.

Back to vacume tubes and Ampex 1/2" 351 four tracks I guess.

[sdfalk]

Not to pry,
but howbig are your sessions?
With Your system and fast scsi they must be huuuge
to bring your computer to its knees

[Timeline]

Not to pry,
but howbig are your sessions?
With Your system and fast scsi they must be huuuge
to bring your computer to its knees

Indeed.

50 audio 24/96
4 MIDI
2 or 3 virtual
lots of autotune 4-8 tracks
No reverb but many delay channel setups
Reverb outboard but sends from HD192.
2-hd192s using all 24 OP's for feeds to API mixer.

The scsi's are never a problem and handle the audio perfectly.
Always CPU headroom issues and HD192 heating issues sometimes.

I think I need another 2MHZ in the dual CPU or quad processing to rock my world.

Node twin computer lockups might be the answer too but I don't know how to do that.

Cheers

[Archer]

Hi Timeline,

I think what brings your system to its knees is that fact you have many OP channels active...they really do use up resources at 24/96. You might not like it very much, but try mixing ITB and deactivating as many outputs as possible. You should then be able to have your system handle that amount of data. I know, this is not really a solution....

Probably this is happening with Nuendo, too. And it might be that it uses more power than DP.

[sdfalk]

SOunds like it would push limits of the fastest PC, windows or mac.

[Timeline]

Yep, your both right but i prefer OTB and the use of vintage gear.

Again I would love to get some training on setting up nodes.
Any suggestions would be appreciated or I could take a vacation for a few years and wait for the super puper Mac, or retire?

Hmmmmm?

<small>[ July 22, 2005, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Timeline ]</small>

[Archer]

I do understand your OTB choiche and your love for vintage gear.
I had to draw a compromise, too. "Coloration" now comes into play during recording/mastering, mixing is done ITB. Before doing so, I was practically forced to create stems. It migth be an alternative, but the whole process is tedious...On the other hand, not doing so taxes the CPU, and as you noticed, the quality suffers...

Two possibilities would be 2 machines running DP and synched either through WC/MTC or the node approach seen in LP. The first surely is pricey, if one wants to do things properly. For what concerns nodes, I'm new to this, but I've heard there migth be some issues related to bottlenecks during data transmission, as well as timing issues. Maybe dual-core is a viable solution, though future oriented. Or PTHD, but the price.....

Oh, I forgot. Another approach would be to create subgroups, which you'll then route to the mixer and deactivate the unused OPs. You should be able get enough CPU power and it should be possible to follow your workflow for, say, 80-90%?

<small>[ July 22, 2005, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Archer ]</small>

[Kubi]

Originally posted by Timeline:
50 audio 24/96
4 MIDI
2 or 3 virtual
lots of autotune 4-8 tracks
No reverb but many delay channel setups
Reverb outboard but sends from HD192.
2-hd192s using all 24 OP's for feeds to API mixer.

The scsi's are never a problem and handle the audio perfectly.
Always CPU headroom issues and HD192 heating issues sometimes.

I think I need another 2MHZ in the dual CPU or quad processing to rock my world.

Node twin computer lockups might be the answer too but I don't know how to do that.

Cheers

For the time being you sound like a prime candidate for ProTools HD...

Hey, this kind of firepower simply costs money.

[rockinsage]

Archer,

Can you explain what you mean by disabling outputs? Please excuse my ignorance. Are you talking about many tracks assigned to the same output(s), or many tracks each assigned to different outputs?

[Timeline]

Thanks for the replies.

Kubi thanks but I really don't have the funds but I know what your saying. It just kills me to even consider giving money to those pigs for some reason. I would have to sell my tele 251 pair and still add in for gods sake.

Maybe Apples XGRIDs the ticket to tie macs together?

Do you guys know if it's supproted in DP? I doubt it but what a
great way to go if MOTU would 'make it so' as Patrick Stewert used to say on the bridge. To boot, the app from apple is free.

That would be the f...ing bomb! We would just buy up another G5 and hookum up. Don't know about the PCI slots though.

Too much blue sky I know...

[Timeline]

He's right. Disabling OPs will save some headroom but I've tried and it's not as much as it used to be.

I use stems now but I don't like the sound of them. I would rather feed direct out if at all possible as it's punchier.

[Archer]

Rockinsage,

in the PCI-console it is possible to determine which inputs/outputs are active. If there are ins/outs not in use it is best to make them inactive, because they'd use up processing power.

In a large setup, it would be possible to use subgroups to collect many tracks to a stereo output. The outs previously used by those many tracks could now be made inactive. Depending on the bit depth, sample rate and number of ins/out, it is possible to regain a fairly consistent amount of processing power.

[Archer]

TL,

I think the sound of stems is still influenced by the amount of CPU power in use at the moment of creating them. I also find it makes a difference if they're done realtime vs. offline.

Direct outs sound somewhat punchier, true, but then some external flavors are being added.

[tripit@earthlink.net]

Originally posted by Dave Polich:
enCOder, with all due respect, you can't possibly listen to something in the digital domain - it has to be out of some converter somewhere. In other words, it has to be analog somewhere.

Unless you test two different DAW's on the EXACT same system, in the SAME room, you cannot make a fair A/B comparison.

Do mixes sound better on PT than DP? That's a rhetorical question. Mixes sound good primarily due to the skill of whoever's mixing.
And what is good? Over-compressed, brickwall limited to death dance mixes? That's not my idea of great sound, but someone who loves dance music might disagree.

No matter how many times this topic is debated, it really comes down to whether you like the sound you're getting from your system and your DAW. If you like it, then it's good enough. Why waste time wondering if it "might" sound better on another DAW or through different converters, blah-blah...

No one ever says, "I hate the band, but the mix is so great I can't stop listening to the CD".

I mix all the time in both PT and DP. The one thing I've noticed is that the itb summing in PT seems to be better. It's overall clearer and more defined when I mix PT. This isn't something I've set out to test, just an observation from working both this apps every single day. I do projects in both all the time, sometimes using both apps for the same project.
It use to be that DP had a better sounding summing. This was several years ago. But, since PT HD and the new and improved mix bus, PT sounds better to me now. Also, I've taken to mixing a low gain levels to keep intersamples and unseen peaks from filling my mixes with artifacts. This makes a huge difference - akin to using a summing box.
I think I'm going to try several experiments when I have some free time. I don't know what it is exactly, but DP mixes always end up sounding a bit more cloudy to me. It's a very subtle difference, but it's there.

By the way, I should note that I'm in doing all this in the same room, both apps using DAE, same i/o, same plugs etc.

<small>[ July 22, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: tripit ]</small>

[Timeline]

I've taken to mixing a low gain levels to keep intersamples and unseen peaks from filling my mixes with artifacts. This makes a huge difference - akin to using a summing box.
I think I'm going to try several experiments when I have some free time. I don't know what it is exactly, but DP mixes always end up sounding a bit cloudy to me.

Tripit...

Could you look up the actual maximum output level on the PT io and let me now. Just curious about the spec. I assume it's balanced.

thanks