Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jwhynot]

Quote:

3. Bypassing plugins? It seems you have to open them to bypass. There should be a bypass switch on every plugin slot.

Not sure of the Windows shortcut but on Mac you simply command-click the plug-in to bypass it - and the little hanger-with-a-dot will highlight to indicate the bypass status.

Sorry I don't remember the Windows riff, but it's certainly a single modifier-plus-mouse on the plug.  You don't have to open the plug.

JW

[Rail Jon Rogut]

LawrenceF wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 08:29

Dislikes:   1.  Automation.  It's comprehensive but somewhat convoluted.  Too many steps for automating plugins.  In SX it's a lot more straight forward and every parameter is automatically exposed to the timeline as soon as a plug is loaded.  In PT I have to go to another screen to expose individual or groups of plugin parameters to the timeline.  Unless again I'm missing something.

Yes.. there are numerous other ways to switch the display to view different automation objects.. Are you on a Mac or XP?  Under XP Control+Start click on any automated object to view that object's automation (on the Mac it's Control+Command+click).. Under XP you can also use Control+Start+ the left and right arrows to cycle through the views (on the Mac use Control+Command+ the arrows)  

Quote:

3. Bypassing plugins?  It seems you have to open them to bypass.  There should be a bypass switch on every plugin slot.

Wrong... Under XP Control click on the state plate (the little insert with the plug-in name) to bypass the plug-in without opening it.. on a Mac Command+click.

Quote:

4.  No "standard" eq.  In most daws every channel has it's own built in eq that's always available.  In PT you have to insert an eq plug.  In SX if I want to do a quick "non-critical" eq it's right there on the channel like a conventional mixer and available without acessing the mixer.  Digi should build the EQII in as the default 4 band ch eq and leave the plugin slots available so you can just switch one in and go to work.

Having an EQ on every track is a waste of space and CPU/TDM chips -- besides the biggest strength of pro Tools is it's modularity -- it can be almost any configuration you need.

Quote:

5.  Stopping playback to do many things.  They gotta address that at some point.  One of my "likes" above moving tracks falls under this category as does creating new send/return routings.  I can take a small audio glitch but I really hate stopping the track when I'm in the middle of a flow.  What is it about the audio engine that can't change these routings in realtime?

Pro Tools is built upon a voicing scheme - which adds trmendous power to a TDM system where you can use voice stealing.. voices cannot be changed dynamically during playback.. and the order of tracks defines the voice allocation..

I suggest you don't try and change what you can't.. but accept the fact that it's modular as part of the power of the program.  This is why 100 people can all use Pro Tools completely differently.

Rail

[zboy2854]

David Schober wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 11:20

This sentence caught my eye... Quote: From the Nuendo manual: 2. Nuendo processes audio internally in 32 Bit Float format - recording in the same format means the audio quality will be kept absolutely pristine.   Absolutely pristine??  What is this, the backcounty of Yosemite?

Well, considering that since the program processes internally at 32 bit float, if you are recording or processing a 24 or 16 bit file it has to do some form of dithering to go from its 32 bit processing back down to the 24 or 16 bit result, but if recording at 32 bit float, that internal dithering is not necessary, so yes, it would make sense.

Quote:

Quote: You can record hotter signal into Nuendo when recording at 32 bit float. Is just plain wrong.  And even if it was true.....SO WHAT?  Since when did loud equal good?

When you have more dynamic range to work with, therefore your softer passages are higher in the bit range.

I admit I don't fully understand the whole deal on it, but I know two things.  One, the 32 bit recordings I make just sound better.  And two, as I mentioned before, there must be a good reason that Steinberg put 32 bit float recording as an option in the software, and not just to eat up more disk space.  There has to be a tangible benefit to it, otherwise, why make it available as an option?

[Rail Jon Rogut]

Marketing.

Rail

[djwayne]

We had this same conversation on the Audition forums, the debate about 16 bit vrs. 24 bit or 32 floating, and it was stated that for editing , and adding effects such as reverb, you'd get a better, smoother sound while working on 32 bit floating files, then convert them back to 16 for cd burning.

So there is a benefit for the 32 bit files.

[LawrenceF]

wireline wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 12:35

- Isn't the PTLE option just going to cause that much more (option anxiety) when it comes to mixing?  I remember we talked about this some time ago, and we both agreed that having too mnay choices could actually slow the process down some...Now you've got Cubase (which thanks to you I am exploring heavily), PTLE, AND the d8b.

Nah.  I'll mix in SX unless somebody wants me to mix in PT.  I haven't mixed on the d8b in a while though.  I made my choice a couple of months ago to go strictly in the box.

Quote:

- So what do you do when platform A has exactly what you want for a track, but that option is not available in platforms B or C?  But then the next track, an effect/option you GOTTA have is available on B, but not A or C?  (See where I'm going with this?  Can you run PTLE simultaneously and drop n drag between the two?)

That won't happen with SX although it might happen if I'm mixing in PT since I have a lot more VST/DX plugs than I have for PT.  The thing I miss the most when mixing in PT is SIR convolution verb.  I haven't tried running both at once.  I probably don't have enough memory to do that with a large project though.

Quote:

- Aside from your learning experiences, what benefits have you seen from actually taking the PT plunge?

Another good question.  I haven't seen one yet it's too early.  I think the main benefit will be when someone walks in with PT masters.  I can take their money now.

Even though I'd never spring for HD I'd advise anyone to grab an MBox (since it's the cheapest one) and have it ready just in case.  The investment is minimal.

BTW Ken I'm doing great.  How are you my friend?

Lawrence

[zboy2854]

Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 16:01

Marketing. Rail

Really?  You really believe that they'd include that feature into the software just for marketing purposes?

The more engineers I talk to with real world experience with the various platforms consistently single out Nuendo/Cubase, as well as Samplitude/Sequoia as the best sounding platforms.  Interestingly, Samplitude and Sequoia also allow for 32 bit float recording.  I find it hard to believe they also included it as well just for marketing purposes.

In any case, to each his own.  I've done my own A/B tests, and find tangible improvements with the recordings done at 32 bit.  YMMV.

[LawrenceF]

Quote:

Well, considering that since the program processes internally at 32 bit float, if you are recording or processing a 24 or 16 bit file it has to do some form of dithering to go from its 32 bit processing back down to the 24 or 16 bit result, but if recording at 32 bit float, that internal dithering is not necessary, so yes, it would make sense.

In version(s) 2 there is no automatic dithering.  If you want to dither you can add one at the output bus.  I was told Nuendo 3 has some kind of dithering scheme but dithering is not as effective with floating point as it is with a fixed point like HD.  Hard to explain but you don't get full "coverage" with floating point.  You'd have to talk to Nika about that.  He explained it to me over the phone and my head still hurts.

What you hear through the speakers has been truncated (by the application and/or the coverters) to 24-bits since there are no 32-bit converters.  This is why some people (including me) put 24-bit dither (with no noise shaping) in the last slot of the mix bus.  I change it to 16 when printing the final CD file or leave it at 24 if I'm rendering my mix to 24.  Or remove it if I decide to render a 32-bit float mix file.

When rendering 32-bit float mix files the other 8 bits never get thrown away in the actual file.  So if you (for instance) render or a track with dsp on it to free up dsp, it'll be (if you're working with 32-bit float files) exactly as it was in the software and not truncated to 24 bits.  

And if you import the 32-bit float (rendered) mix file into an app like Wavelab for stereo editing it's 100% true to what was happening in the DAW software instead of truncated (or dithered) to 24 like a 24-bit mix would be.  So even if you record 24-bit files it's an advantage to render mixes (if you mix in the box with SX/Nuendo) to 32-bit float if you plan on more editing / mastering at home or if you want to keep the best quality archive mix.

You can also render a 24-bit file for the "real" mastering house.

Lawrence

[David Schober]

zboy2854 wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 14:30

When you have more dynamic range to work with, therefore your softer passages are higher in the bit range. I admit I don't fully understand the whole deal on it, but I know two things.  One, the 32 bit recordings I make just sound better.  And two, as I mentioned before, there must be a good reason that Steinberg put 32 bit float recording as an option in the software, and not just to eat up more disk space.  There has to be a tangible benefit to it, otherwise, why make it available as an option?

Zach,

First of all, I'm not saying Nuendo sucks.  It seems however, whoever writes their manual has no idea what's going on.

Think about it this way...
Let's say you have a 24 bit session but have a 16 bit dither on the output.  Since the session is a 24 bit session when you mix down the result will be a 24 bit file, but only 16 bits will have relevant information.  When you show up at mastering you'll have a 24 bit file all right.  But you only have 16 bits of music.  The remaining bits are zeros and doesn't increase the volume or the bit resolution as the source was 16 bit.  

With Nuendo, if you have a 24 bit A/D converter, the resulting file is 24 bit...Nuendo apparently adds and extra 8 bits for the mix engine it uses.  That doesn't make the file louder.  (and if it did...who gives a .....  )  Most loud recordings I hear these days sound the worst!

You provided a link for this discussion, but it seems you didn't read it the way I did.  It would seem that the Nuendo designers decided to go with a 32 bit floatiing point system so they give the option to record in that mode. The result is load on the system lessened.  That's why they encourage users to do it.  (Not that you could tell from their literature!)  

Again...seems to me they don't know why it works...but "It's one (or eight) louder."

[zboy2854]

OK, I see your points.  But isn't it possible that the lessened load on the system by having the files already at 32 bit can result in less calculation errors?  I don't know, I'm just fishing here.

[Jonas as]

zboy2854 wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 21:30

And two, as I mentioned before, there must be a good reason that Steinberg put 32 bit float recording as an option in the software, and not just to eat up more disk space.  There has to be a tangible benefit to it, otherwise, why make it available as an option?

In cubase, you can put plugins on the input channels going to disk. (printing the FX with the sound) Since the output of these plugs are 32bit, it makes sense to write the already processed files as 32bit.

-Bora.

[LawrenceF]

Quote:

Think about it this way... Let's say you have a 24 bit session but have a 16 bit dither on the output.  Since the session is a 24 bit session when you mix down the result will be a 24 bit file, but only 16 bits will have relevant information.  When you show up at mastering you'll have a 24 bit file all right.  But you only have 16 bits of music.  The remaining bits are zeros and doesn't increase the volume or the bit resolution as the source was 16 bit.

???  Why would anyone put 16-bit dither on a file that's being written as a 24-bit file?  That would be dumb.  I use 24-bit dither coming out of SX to "smooth" over some of the errors caused by the 32-24 bit reduction.  It wouldn't make sense to use 16-bit dither unless you are rendering a 16-bit file.  Waves L2 does 24, 20, 18 and 16-bit dithering.  The dither should match the output file bit depth.  20 maybe for some older stuff but 18?  Dunno why they included that one.

Quote:

With Nuendo, if you have a 24 bit A/D converter, the resulting file is 24 bit...Nuendo apparently adds and extra 8 bits for the mix engine it uses.  ...  It would seem that the Nuendo designers decided to go with a 32 bit floatiing point system so they give the option to record in that mode.

Uh, no.  They did it for the same reason everyone else does it, more accurate dsp math than a straight 24-bits.

Lawrence

[djwayne]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that when you record with a 24 bit sound card, all you're getting is a 24 bit file, not 32 bit,  the additional 8 bits (32-24=8) aren't used at all. They remain zero's. Applying effects to the 24 bit file, come out a little smoother sounding, than if they were applied to a 16 bit file. After the effects desired are applied, it all gets squashed down to 16 bit to go onto a cd, or left at 24 bit and recorded to dvd. Done this way, the effects supposedly sound better.

[LawrenceF]

djwayne wrote on Sat, 07 May 2005 18:56

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that when you record with a 24 bit sound card, all you're getting is a 24 bit file, the additional 8 bits aren't used at all. They remain zero's. Applying effects to the 24 bit file, come out a little smoother sounding, than if they were applied to a 16 bit file. After the effects desired are applied, it all gets squashed down to 16 bit to go onto a cd, or left at 24 bit and recorded to dvd.

Wayne,

The moment the file enters the software on playback it becomes 32-bit float, 24-bits with 8 extra zeros.  Those zeros stay zeros until you twist a knob or move a fader or do some other dsp operation.  When that happens they become "active" or in other words they contain data that is used by the dsp.  They aren't zeros anymore.  Using (yes actually using) all 32-bits allows a lot better math and better dsp operation.

The reason for using 32-bit float internal is that more accurate mathematical calculations can be done which results in better quality.  32-bit floating point math can represent numerical figures that 24-bit math cannot.  24-bit might get close and round the math off.  That's the reason why Steinberg and everyone else uses (at least) 32-bit float math internally.  This includes the Mackie d8b and probably a lot of other digital hardware mixers that use 32-bit float for dsp.

After the numbers are crunched and the audio is output it is truncated or dithered back to 24.  The dsp effected 24-bits that remain sound better than they would otherwise because they were processed with that "higher" 32-bit math. I think all daw and 2-track editing apps use at least 32-bit float for internal processing some use double precision (PTHD) and a couple of 2-track apps use 64-bit internal.

Just remember the bigger the internal bit number the better (more accurate) the math can be, the better (again more accurate) the overall dsp sound.  No matter if it eventually ends up as a 24 or 16-bit file.  This is while you're "twisting" the audio.

That's the theory anyway.  DAW's do sound much better now than when they were processing at 24-bit internal.  They all do at least 32-bit float internally so the idea that Steinberg did it "so they can record 32-bits" is not true.  They did it to make their daws sound better.

Again (just to be clear) I can't take credit for "knowing" any of that.  It was explained to me by Nika Aldrich.  I'm not good with math.

Recording tracks at 32-bits? Dunno.  And what you said is true, unless you render those tracks with dsp those 8 zeros in the files will remain 8 zeros in the files.  Waste of disk space unless you're recording with effects during tracking.

The real benefit in Nuendo/SX is in using 32-bit float mix files as masters (rendered, not recorded through output converters).  No truncation.

Lawrence

[djwayne]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. What you say makes sense, and answers the question of why anybody would want a 64 bit computer when all the available sound cards only deliver 24 bit. Internal processing....hmmmmm...