Sound Quality in DP

[Christian]

A discussion I have been having recently with a few people. I've been switching back and forth between my DP rig at home and an HD1 PT system at work. One of the things I've been noticing is that overall, mixes are wider and have more depth of field in the PT system.

My a/b'ing has been via OMF, keeping the same automation and panning data, and no plug-ins; Just summing raw tracks.

I've been listening to the final stereo tracks on the same monitors as well.

Does anyone else have this experience or is there already a thread exploring this?

Thanks so much!

[sdfalk]

It's been explored on OSXaudio it's been explored here..
It's been soooo explored on various other forums/articles
on the internet, I've seen it explored on Nuendos page...
Does your DP system at home use the same convertors as
your HD system at work if so then I'm not sure what to tell
you.
If not then it's not even a fair comparison is it?

<small>[ July 11, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: sdfalk ]</small>

[chrispick]

Originally posted by Christian Hanlon:
A discussion I have been having recently with a few people. I've been switching back and forth between my DP rig at home and an HD1 PT system at work. One of the things I've been noticing is that overall, mixes are wider and have more depth of field in the PT system.

My a/b'ing has been via OMF, keeping the same automation and panning data, and no plug-ins; Just summing raw tracks.

I've been listening to the final stereo tracks on the same monitors as well.

Does anyone else have this experience or is there already a thread exploring this?

Thanks so much!

I'm just guessing, but maybe DP and HD PT adhere to different pan laws? It's a common difference among DAW apps. I'm assuming all other sample rate and A/D conversion variables are ballpark similar

I often resort to using the Trim plug to fine-direct sounds in stereo space in DP. Works great -- just have to keep an eye on phase issues.

I also use the stereo widener (sparingly) in iZotope Ozone to spread things out a bit when mastering a track.

<small>[ July 11, 2005, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: heavypick ]</small>

[bradswan]

I am very curious to know the answer to the question regarding converters. Also, it might be a good idea to do a double blind or taste test if you will. I think the mere mention of HD PT makes one think it's better bigger sounding--which it just might be, so I'd like to know.

[Christian]

Hey Brad

Converters shouldn't be an issue. I'm actually summing ITB on each system... ie - my sequence is exactly the same. I have my sequence in DP, I sum it to a stereo file. I then OMF my sequence out from DP and into PT and then sum it ITB there. I bring that stereo file out and listen to both on a variety of monitors.

Each time, the summing sound better on the PT stereo file. I've listened to both of the summed files on each system (my DP rig and my PT rig) and I seem to always here a wider, bigger mix from PT.

So in terms of my converters - they are not playing a part in the summing process.

[Christian]

Saying that - outside of software, what IS playing a part in the summing process is the processors I'm using. I'm summing on DP on a Dual 2.0 G5; on PT I'm using an HP XW800 3Ghz processor, along with an HD card.

I'm assuming the HD card helps out with processing algorithms that are not written into DP... possibly because of being a native DAW? I love DP as a composing tool, I'm just trying to find a solution to creating better mixes on one application (rather than going back and forth between DP and PT).

Is anyone using DP via DAE engine and summing via an HD card? If so, does it make a noticable difference?

[bigdaddy]

Don't forget the room - It has a huge impact on the sound. Even with the same monitors, where you place them in a room (or different rooms themselves) will make the monitors sound different. Some rooms sound more open while some are dry and dead.

Bring a copy of DP into work and test things there. That gives DP a fighting chance at least.

[sdfalk]

Hey Brad

Converters shouldn't be an issue. I'm actually summing ITB on each system... ie - my sequence is exactly the same. I have my sequence in DP, I sum it to a stereo file. I then OMF my sequence out from DP and into PT and then sum it ITB there. I bring that stereo file out and listen to both on a variety of monitors.

Why would convertors not be an issue..or whatever hardware/mixing/
Monitoring/room combination.
As Big Daddy pointed out, use DP on the same system/room
at work and make things a bit more on equal footing, no?

[chrispick]

It bears repeating: Could be different pan law application. Especially if you're talking stereo spread.

[Timeline]

Pan laws aside, DP and MOTU IO's work together better than say MOTU IO's and Nuendo or SX.

I can't tell you why but that is my experience.

There appears to be an effect to the audio in Nuendo above 6K.

I have no idea why when my clock is the same (UA2192)

I prefer DP. Would be curious how PT IO's sound though. I have found the input AD's tone to vari widely more so than the OP.

My 02c

[grimepoch]

AFAIK converters have NOTHING to do with the summing process, they take the signal after it has been processed by the system, not to say that some systems cannot have hardware accelerated mixing, but that's not the job of the converter.

That said, I think there is a HUGE difference in the converters on multiple systems. Why do you think people pay top dollar for Apogee encoders? But remember, it's not just encoding, it is decoding as well.

I've recorded stuff on my 896 and taken it to a Pro Tools studio with all Digidesign hardware, it sounded different. The real difference was the guy I worked with knew his equipment, and mastered it for me.

I will say this, the BIGGEST thing I've done in my studio is monitor through the computer and NOT hardware. Why? Because I know what it sounds like exactly, and it IS different. That said, everything I do is in the digital domain, I don't listen to the pure analog signal, and my mixes have been a thousand times better.

I used to have very shallow mixes, and I thought it was DP, but then I realized, as a masterer, there is a LOT of stuff to do if you want to pull the mix up. However, I am sure it is VERY arguable if that is a good thing. So many mastering houses compress the hell out of your audio for loudness, and you really loose some of the beauty of the dynamic range. But again, depends what you are doing. When I am working on EBM/Industrial, I want loud, dancable. When I am working on blues, I want dynamic range and very fine detail on accents.

That's my 2 cents anyways

[thermos]

I find them to sound way different also. I usually can't really get through an entire itb mix in Dp. I have a much easier time with the summing in Pt, even le for some reason. (that is with the same converters, fireface lightpiped through an 002).
Some other differences I noticed: I used the EXACT same plugins to test master a stereo file in both DP and PT. I used the exact same settings in both daws, and bounced to disc. The differences were pretty huge. The dp file was like 3 or more db hotter than the pt file. The high end info also sounded more solid in Dp, (not necessarily better but different).

My way of getting around the DP summing, a dangerous 2 bus lt. I don't think its all in my head, but without it I can't even begin to get a good mix. As soon as I put stuff through the d2b, mixing becomes very easy. I've gotten some stellar mixes this way. When mixing in PT, I don't notice such a huge difference with the D2b. Still a little better, but not much.

[David 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".

<small>[ July 11, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Dave Polich ]</small>

[gtrnstuff]

A studio (one engineer, the owner) where I work frequently recently changed from DP to PT. Monitors, room, Sony dig console, Apogee converters all stayed the same. First day I was playing a session after the change, me and the bass player looked at each other and sort of mouthed the words, "What's up? Does it really sound that much better?"
We had no vested interest or desire, it just hit us both that way. And later the owner came out and said the same thing--wasn't sure why, but it sure hit him the same way-bigger, better. And that's mixing outside the box, so it's not software panning.
My .02.
FWIW I'm still on DP at home, overdubbing guitar for people.

[iMAS]

Originally posted by Christian Hanlon:
Hey Brad

Converters shouldn't be an issue. I'm actually summing ITB on each system... ie - my sequence is exactly the same.

Yea, BUT are you playing these sequences out throught the same D/A converters or the same audio interface...chances are, you're not because PT only runs on it's own interface and DP can't run on PT hardware....SO you are using different D/A converters.
So not a fair test I would say.