On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 02:03:01AM +0300, Moshe Werner wrote: > Yet there is one endless discussion between friends and colleges of mine > that I usually do not participate in due to the lack of knowledge. > The topic is algorithms of software (DAW) mixers. Some people say that they > can hear a sound difference between several kinds of software mixers (e.g. > Cubase, Protools etc.). > I must say that I never made any serious A\B testing but I didn't notice > that there is any difference. Although I do work with Pro-tools and Cubase > (in other studios), most of the time I'm actually using Ardour (and I'm > loving it). I assume you refer to the basic _mixing_ algorithm, i.e. summing signals, and not to e.g. effect plugins. For the latter there is usually a zillion ways to do things, and of course they will sound different. As to the former, the basic mixing, this is just a lot of nonsense. Sad facts are that: - The pro audio world is today infested with the same type of pseudo- science that hit the hifi market 25 or more years ago and that makes some people pay $3000 for a piece of cable and two connectors, or makes them spend money on machines to replace old and tired electrons by fresh young ones which sound better. - The same wave of nonsense now hits also the software world. The reasons are simple: basic problems have been solved, to create a 'competitive edge' you have to add snake oil. > My questions would be: > 1. Is it only me that can't here a difference between different DAWs mixing > algorithms? Unless some of those algorithms are completely wrong (which would require quite a high level if ignorance from the designer), nobody will hear any difference. Those that claim they can should prove it in a blind test. I know of no such test that ever demonstrated this. > 2. To the developers out there, what is your opinion? Is there a > better/worse algorithm, or is the whole thing another "pay 600$ for this > software - it has great algorithms!!!" hype? There isn't much 'algorithm' to speak of, it's just adding. And single precision floating point provides all the precision you need. There *are* some issues if you ar mixing thousands of signals - then some ways of doing it are better than others. But this doesn't occur in normal audio engineering practice. > 3. If there is a difference what's the explanation? See previous point. Explaining this would lead us very far. > 4. Analog emulation plugins. How does one "emulate" analog waveforms in a > digital world? That sounds like a paradox to me. One doesn't emulate 'analog waveforms'. What's done is to reproduce digitally the defects of some analog equipment (particular types of distortion in a compressor for example), or the 'look and feel' of them. There also recently a wave of 'exact digital copies' of e.g. Neve equalisers. There's no reason why any of these should be better than one that is not an 'exact digital copy'. HTH, -- FA _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
