MOTUnation.com

Don't BTD!! Simply record the mix to another stereo audio track! Better sound quality, too!! I never Bounce...simply record the mix.

salvadorpauli wrote:Don't BTD!! Simply record the mix to another stereo audio track! Better sound quality, too!! I never Bounce...simply record the mix.

OK, HOW does it get better sound quality? I never understood when people say it and enough people say it - but how is it better?

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:

salvadorpauli wrote:Don't BTD!! Simply record the mix to another stereo audio track! Better sound quality, too!! I never Bounce...simply record the mix.

OK, HOW does it get better sound quality? I never understood when people say it and enough people say it - but how is it better?

Indeed.

It may have 'small' impact say on a protools 24 floating point system but in 32 bit floating environment I can't see how.

If someone knows about the science and the hows and whys I'd love to hear more.

Easier maybe than bouncing several VIs but it would seem that a virtual bounce has less chance of adding artifacts. Maybe its the artifacts that sound better? Especially in rock!

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Especially in rock!

You mean...

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:

salvadorpauli wrote:Don't BTD!! Simply record the mix to another stereo audio track! Better sound quality, too!! I never Bounce...simply record the mix.

OK, HOW does it get better sound quality? I never understood when people say it and enough people say it - but how is it better?

The speed of the computer seems to weigh in on BTD sound. Buffer settings definitely do too. I think if you have the help of an 8 core cruzin at 3ghz you're likely to have about the same mix in BTD although I agree on a G5 I had to capture in Masterlink. My Masterlink is now idle and in a box somewhere.

Timeline wrote:

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:

salvadorpauli wrote:Don't BTD!! Simply record the mix to another stereo audio track! Better sound quality, too!! I never Bounce...simply record the mix.

OK, HOW does it get better sound quality? I never understood when people say it and enough people say it - but how is it better?

The speed of the computer seems to weigh in on BTD sound. Buffer settings definitely do too. I think if you have the help of an 8 core cruzin at 3ghz you're likely to have about the same mix in BTD although I agree on a G5 I had to capture in Masterlink. My Masterlink is now idle and in a box somewhere.

Um how so????

It wouldn't matter surely as the algorithm involved would do the same job just slower?

I have no issues with BTD and sound currently. When I had a G5, many of my large sessions would halt in the middle of a BTD. Sonically when I changed machines, it was like taking a mask off the sound on big projects. Even playing back consistently had issues on G5. I thought the same as you back then but samples are affected it seems. This has been my experience.

Timeline wrote:I have no issues with BTD and sound currently. When I had a G5, many of my large sessions would halt in the middle of a BTD. Sonically when I changed machines, it was like taking a mask off the sound on big projects. Even playing back consistently had issues on G5. I thought the same as you back then but samples are affected it seems. This has been my experience.

Well that make sense.

Boy those must of been BIG files

Those are really 2 different issues. If a machine is pushed to it's limit and screws up a file via BTD, it doesn't necessarily follow that BTD is to blame, per se. Changing machines can mean a lot of things changed to improve the sound - including ones perception of a change in the sound - not unlike the old trick some engineers play by sending a producer 5 identical mixes, yet the producer will swear #3 sounds the best. You may have change an audio cord, moved a speaker .5" or eliminated a sonic dead spot in the room when installing the new machine. Maybe the fan noise was 3db less, thus unmasking the previously decimated sound. Lots of things could account for the 'improved' sound.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, including myself, but I would want to see quantitative data (AKA: proof) of the differences in the sound of BTD vs. real-time recording in a fully functional system being used within its limits. A comparative spectral analysis of the files might be a good start. Object anecdotal evidence? - not so much.

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Those are really 2 different issues

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong here, including myself, but I would want to see quantitative data (AKA: proof) of the differences in the sound of BTD vs. real-time recording in a fully functional system being used within its limits. A comparative spectral analysis of the files might be a good start. Object anecdotal evidence? - not so much.

As I stated, that is exactly my experience. Good luck finding tech proof

This would be very simple to test. Just do a bounce to disk and a real-time recording of the same exact mix. Then go back and then flip phase on one and see if they cancel 100%. If so, there is no difference between the two methods. If they don't cancel then you have two different mixes. I'm betting they cancel.

Thanks,
Rainmaker

Yes but you would need to have both machines loaded exactly to do so. That would be a rarity for most of us who sell the later to afford the new investment.

As well, many plugs ran on G5 that became obsolete on Intel. Can't remember which but there were a hand full I used all the time. Why would anyone bother anyway. 8 cores are simply better on every possible parameter. MLC should find his own answers.

kassonica wrote: Um how so????

It wouldn't matter surely as the algorithm involved would do the same job just slower?

Curiously, it doesn't always do that... I found that when my Mac is on the verge of collapse (because of a particularly large DP Session), DP will bounce with LOTS of errors. Errors in the form of forgetting panning automation, even some reverb sends. For instance, last time this happened to me, the resulting bounced file did not include the reverb assigned to the main singer. Listening to the original DP session, it was there.
Same with automation. It's almost as if DP suddenly decided to simplify the automation, or something equally weird.

But in principle, as you correctly stated, it should not matter, since the computer should, in theory, process the same algorithm taking as long as it needs... but I've confirmed, with my current set up, that the bigger the Session, the less reliable BTD becomes.

Strange

Well this is interesting....

Magic dave magic dave where are you.