Post by: Matt_G on June 14, 2008, 10:10:32 AM
I am a very avid mac user even though I also have a reasonably well spec'd PC as well (mainly for Plextools & real time metering).
So I thought what better bunch of people to ask about their current DAW of choice. I've set up the Poll as an indicator of who is currently using what. Perhaps you could also supply a brief answer in this thread as to why you prefer your DAW over the other options available.
An amazing piece of software has recently come to my attention in the form of Reaper http://reaper.fm
While not specifically designed with mastering in mind it stood out as a valid DAW for CD mastering & here is why...
This application can be run on OSX or Windows & is a true 64bit floating point end to end DAW, has plug-in & hardware latency correction built in, can do hardware inserts, can route anything to anywhere & multiple output routing, can handle mixed sample rates in the same session without SRC on import (uses non destructive real time SRC), supports VST or AU plugs up to 64bit end to end (if the plug-in supports it), has unlimited track counts, utilizes multi-core CPU's very efficiently (even more so than Logic!), allows you to change pan laws to whatever you want, has a phase reverse button built into each channel, handles stereo interleaved files without splitting, renders audio in non-realtime or realtime from 16bit up to 64bit float wave files. It also can do PQ editing & CD burning right from the application. This is just a small list of what it's capable of & all of this for a commercial license of $225US!
So far the only limitation I've had trying the demo of this amazing software is the HD Digi core audio driver for OSX I'm using is limited to 8 channels of I/O instead of 16 channels (thanks Digi!). Another thing Digi screwed up with HD when 002/003 users can get 18 channels of I/O from the core audio driver...
I've been very impressed with what I've heard & how easy it is to set up & customize to a particular workflow. Has anyone else here tried or used Reaper for mastering recently?
The other application I've also been considering recently is Sonic soundBlade. I think it's still in it's infancy but at least it's getting stable with new features & improvements added all the time. Probably not as flexible as Reaper, but designed specifically for CD mastering.
Thoughts?
Matt
Post by: Matt_G on June 14, 2008, 10:19:45 AM
Ideally I'd like to be able to process the source files digitally first at 96kHz, send out to analog & then recapture to 44.1kHz for CD assembly. Who is working this way & how are you doing this approach?
Matt
Post by: Eliott James on June 14, 2008, 11:00:35 AM
How about Peak 6.1. Not bad.
Drop mixes in, tweak, levels, assembly.
Post by: bblackwood on June 14, 2008, 11:01:55 AM
Post by: Garrett H on June 14, 2008, 03:38:44 PM
I've used several of the titles on your list and that's my 2 cents.
Post by: TotalSonic on June 14, 2008, 03:53:24 PM
some things I like about it:
* 64bit fixed point internal processing math used for all multiples and divides returning a full 32bit dword (not just a 24bit + 8bit mantissa typical of 32bit floating point engines) throughout the entire signal chain
* engine core written in assembly language which bypasses many Windows shells allowing for rock solid stability and efficiency of cpu use
* a number of excellent very cpu efficient 64bit processing plugins in fully automateable native format (including fantastic stuff by Sonoris) readily available as well as support for VST, DX, UAD-1
* all bounce to discs for processed image creation much faster than real time
* NO dongle, NO activation scheme, NO registry hooks, allowing complete ease of installation and frees you from any concern that issues with these commonly used forms of copy protection can malfunction and delay a session
* ability to reorder plugins on the fly with a single key click
* excellent editing, cross fading, unique fade parameter controls, etc.
* ability to quickly copy automation (i.e. fades), loaded plugins and all other settings from one layer or track to another
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: carlsaff on June 14, 2008, 05:13:31 PM
Post by: MoreSpaceEcho on June 14, 2008, 05:20:47 PM
Post by: Glenn Bucci on June 14, 2008, 05:26:48 PM
| carlsaff wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 17:13 |
Still using Nuendo, and still not feeling a need to change. |
You can't burn CD' with Nuendo, nor do you have the editing features, or the helpful metering of some of the other programs.
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 14, 2008, 05:55:46 PM
| Glenn Bucci wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 16:26 | ||
You can't burn CD' with Nuendo, nor do you have the editing features, or the helpful metering of some of the other programs. |
Personally, I don't think the inability to cut parts disqualifies a app from being used in mastering. Conversely, being able to burn a disc doesn't make it a 'mastering' app. Admittedly, this is coming from a guy that mastered in the ProTools TDM environment for years and used a separate program from assemblies for many years.
Even having now switched fully to soundBlade after adding a 304 I/O, I have a mastering session at the native rate and an assembly session post-SRC. Really no different in practice than using a 2-app solution.
Post by: carlsaff on June 14, 2008, 08:05:08 PM
| Glenn Bucci wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 16:26 |
You can't burn CD' with Nuendo |
Yeah, I figured that out.
I really don't mind exporting a disc image and burning using CUE sheets. In fact, it has one really nice advantage -- I can de-archive masters from many years ago, including some mastered in apps I no longer own, and burn perfect copies from the master image files (a rare need, but it has happened). That would be tricky were I dependent on a specific application to burn. CUE sheet burning isn't likely to become obsolete any time soon. DAWs sometimes do fade away.| Quote: |
nor do you have the editing features, or the helpful metering of some of the other programs. |
Metering can be added on via plugins (I love Inspector XL and Voxengo's Span) and I'm at a loss to think of an edit I couldn't perform in Nuendo. Not saying there isn't one... I just haven't been asked to or wanted to do something that couldn't be done... yet.
Post by: TotalSonic on June 14, 2008, 08:17:43 PM
| carlsaff wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 20:05 | ||
Yeah, I figured that out. I really don't mind exporting a disc image and burning using CUE sheets. In fact, it has one really nice advantage -- I can de-archive masters from many years ago, including some mastered in apps I no longer own, and burn perfect copies from the master image files (a rare need, but it has happened). That would be tricky were I dependent on a specific application to burn. CUE sheet burning isn't likely to become obsolete any time soon. DAWs sometimes do fade away. |
I agree totally that cue sheets offer an excellent non-proprietary master image archival system. I just happen to like the ability to create the index points and subcodes for the cue sheet directly from the same app I use for processing and editing. Having done processing/editing and index point creation with two seperate apps previously I found that having both tasks in a single app made auditioning, revisions, and taking a holistic approach to the album much easier.
| Quote: | ||
Metering can be added on via plugins (I love Inspector XL and Voxengo's Span) and I'm at a loss to think of an edit I couldn't perform in Nuendo. Not saying there isn't one... I just haven't been asked to or wanted to do something that couldn't be done... yet. |
Again I agree that DAW based metering equal to the quality of any packaged with any DAW app is very easily added via plugins - and I figure like myself most mastering folks are using additional analog hardware metering as well.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 14, 2008, 09:26:34 PM
| Matt_G wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 10:10 |
I'm feeling the need to re-evaluate my current software model for mastering. I've been using Pro Tools HD for sometime for processing & WaveBurner for CD assembly. Having recently discovered a bug with WaveBurner I've already moved to Sonic PMCD for CD assembly & this has me thinking about looking into ditching Pro Tools as well.... |
Same thoughts here although I started think about this a year ago.
I'd love to try some of the PC applications. Sequoia, in particular, seems to do everything I'd want in a DAW.
Unlike my learned web board buddy, Jerry Tubb, (who likely would have been exploring the New World, had he lived in that era), I just want to go to the studio every day and master. I only change things up or experiment when something is not working or if I have a new piece of gear to test.
Using my current setup, PT & WB, I'm fast and efficient. The few little things that WB doesn't do, causing one to go back to PT, are few and far between and when necessary, only add a few minute to a session.
However, I am also alarmed by the WB bug, plus I know there are more elegant ways to handle sessions with multiple sample rates than my current methods. CD writing in the same program would be a plus and there are a few other perks in some of the other setups.
The big question is cost versus perceived and practical improvements.
1) I have a G5 and would need to either upgrade to a new Mac or switch to a PC.
2) My 2 HD units would need to be upgraded in either case and with the PC, I would only be able to use one HD for inserts and so would have to get a bigger Z-Sys.
3) The cost of the new software. Sequoia is currently about 3K although Samplitude is less expensive and WaveLab even less.
The total cost would be anywhere from 6 to 10K!
I do not believe that the few improvements that I might make by doing this, after suffering through the installs and new software learning curve, could possibly warrant the expense on a business level. Maybe on a personal growth level but I'm not going to make that money back by spending it on a new setup. My work is not going to be significantly faster nor will it sound better!
The simple alternative to WaveBurner is to just go with SoundBlade and stay on my current computer. That is the least expensive solution but as the owner of the now discontinued DDP V2, I am gun shy! I could also look at the other Mac CD writing programs...
I'm looking forward to seeing more comments on this subject.
Post by: tom eaton on June 14, 2008, 10:03:19 PM
It's back to Nuendo for me, too, though.
As a longtime Sonic "classic" user, Nuendo feels comfortable, is ridiculously fast, edits and fades quite nicely without playback hiccups (you can even rewrite a file and replace while playing and it won't stutter). No, it doesn't do indexes and PQ... but that can be done easily elsewhere. What is does do is make the sonic part of the job easier.
The amount of information that Nuendo gives the user about what's going on is phenomenal, too. And the segment based gain handle.
I also demoed "Wave Editor" from the Sample Manager people... but it misses some very basic functionality for me.
-tom
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 14, 2008, 10:06:49 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 22:03 |
I tried to like Soundblade, I really did. It's back to Nuendo for me, too, though. As a longtime Sonic "classic" user, Nuendo feels comfortable, is ridiculously fast, edits and fades quite nicely without playback hiccups (you can even rewrite a file and replace while playing and it won't stutter). No, it doesn't do indexes and PQ... but that can be done easily elsewhere. What is does do is make the sonic part of the job easier. The amount of information that Nuendo gives the user about what's going on is phenomenal, too. And the segment based gain handle. I also demoed "Wave Editor" from the Sample Manager people... but it misses some very basic functionality for me. -tom |
What do you use for assembly and burning?
Post by: tom eaton on June 14, 2008, 10:13:09 PM
I do the gaps in Nuendo and then just enter the gap times into Jam. Takes about 30 seconds to do that manually. ISRC and all that stuff, too.
-tom
Post by: Ben F on June 15, 2008, 12:42:34 AM
Ideally I'd like to have a Mac Pro with dual boot, OSX for Logic Pro and Pro Tools stem mixes, XP for Sequoia...but the solution for the moment is a Mac and PC both for there own specific purpose.
Post by: Matt_G on June 15, 2008, 08:16:48 AM
Andy, you pretty much summed up how I feel about changing from what I know & use daily. The thought of learning a new application is a daunting exercise & one that would require getting up to speed either in down time or with unattended sessions. Not to mention as you say the added cost of buying new hardware & software.
As a lot of people are using a separate application for CD assembly it really was an easy choice to swap Waveburner for Sonic PMCD & the price was right. As for replacing Pro Tools that is not an easy task as I have so much invested in terms of hardware & plug-ins. Most of the plug-ins have an AU or VST installer but some of the plug-ins I use don't mainly MDW EQ & Sonic NoNoise (although I could get the NoNoise II license for PMCD).
Reaper for OSX isn't much of a risk in terms of the initial outlay with the commercial license being only $225US. It's the best bang for buck software I've ever seen. Having set up a test case session I was able to do pretty much everything that I would normally do in Pro Tools with the exception of the plug-ins I've mentioned that aren't compatible. This program has really impressed me in both sound quality, reliability & functionality. It's always growing in features & is truly cutting edge (perhaps the equal to Samplitude for Mac).
Even if I was to get this & soundBlade the outlay would be minimal & yet the possibilities are endless with this combo. Reaper can also be duplicated to run 2 or more instances simultaneously each one can use a different core audio driver if you have 2 soundcards. Allowing multiple source/destination sample rates. Alternatively Reaper could act as the source playback & digital processor with soundBlade capturing & doing the editing cutting post the analog chain. This with a new 8 core Mac Pro seems like a very powerful combo, also bootcamp or parallels could run Plextools. Perhaps the sale of my HD rig & some plug-ins could pretty much cover the cost of the complete upgrade.
Anyway just thinking out loud for now... decisions, decisions. Thanks to everyone who have replied so far, it's a timely thread with all the new choices available.
Matt
Post by: bblackwood on June 15, 2008, 08:26:19 AM
Post by: masterhse on June 15, 2008, 09:22:52 AM
I've been running tests here on the Waveburner issue as well.
I'm still not clear on if the Wavburner issue happens at the bounce or somehow when burning the disc. The bounced files used to be SDII but can't seem to open these now as they moved to some proprietary file format. In the meantime it's back to booting in OS9 for assembly.
Matt, if you're still using sample manager for SRC I tested this and it nulls when converting to 16 bit. From tests by others it appears that adding indexes to an existing 16 bit in WB is not an issue (have yet to test this). The only drawback is having to do fades and final edits in PT.
I've also been playing around with Soundblade, but it just doesn't seem to have the routing capabilities that I like in PT yet. I'll probably end up just replacing Waveburner with SB and sticking with PT for processing of more complex sessions. At the college they have a Pyramix system that I'm thinking about as well.
Doesn't the new version of Sequoia have issues with dithering properly? Also how is the SRC?
Post by: mastertone on June 15, 2008, 09:33:11 AM
Post by: Jerry Tubb on June 15, 2008, 10:39:20 AM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 20:26 |
I'd love to try some of the PC applications. Sequoia, in particular, seems to do everything I'd want in a DAW. |
Yeah but with 20+ years of daily Mac OS use, why switch horses now?
| Quote: |
Unlike my learned web board buddy, Jerry Tubb, (who likely would have been exploring the New World, had he lived in that era) |
Hahaha, well... our name does translate to "New Turf" I can see the new motto already... Where Change is Constant!
| Quote: |
I just want to go to the studio every day and master. |
Hey me too, but the experimentation time has been a necessary indulgence (hey that's an oxymoron!) over the last year.
With testing WaveBurner, CD-Text enigmas, confirming PT fidelity, & learning soundBlade, I've found new meaning to the term soft-ware.
| Quote: |
I only change things up or experiment when something is not working or if I have a new piece of gear to test. |
By the looks of all the groovy gear at your place, it must have been like the Manhattan Project around there for a while!
| Quote: |
Using my current setup, PT & WB, I'm fast and efficient. The few little things that WB doesn't do, causing one to go back to PT, are few and far between and when necessary, only add a few minute to a session. |
Yup but at this point, at least for me, WaveBurner is Toast ... oh wait a minute,
| Quote: |
The big question is cost versus perceived and practical improvements. <snip> The total cost would be anywhere from 6 to 10K! <snip> My work is not going to be significantly faster nor will it sound better! |
Exactly!
Well, a blind A/B test between otherwise identical discs made with WB and sB might be interesting.
| Quote: |
The simple alternative to WaveBurner is to just go with SoundBlade and stay on my current computer. |
Ditto!
------------------------
current workflow:
PT HD for the playback & EQ processing, including external analog EQ loop, minimal use of plug-ins.
Capture on the same PT DAW at the sessions' native sampling rate.
Export the mastered files to stereo interleaved, SRC with Sample Manager if needed.
Reset CoreAudio to default at 44.1kHz.
Drop the soundfiles into the top panel of soundBlade
Adjust the sequence, fades, gaps. Set the PQ Marks, populate CD-Text and ISRC.
Insert a blank disc, specify a DDP folder, burn & test the master. Print the PQ Log.
Easy as pie, no big dilemma.
----------------------------------------
As an alternative I'll do the whole process in sB, including external analog loop.
As another alternative, been considering using my backup G5 as a second "capture only" DAW with sB, but the first scenario is working so well...
All the Best - JT
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 15, 2008, 10:45:34 AM
| masterhse wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 08:22 |
I've also been playing around with Soundblade, but it just doesn't seem to have the routing capabilities that I like in PT yet. |
Expanded routing, I/O and editing flexibility are available via the Multichannel option.
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 15, 2008, 10:52:50 AM
| Bob Boyd wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 10:45 | ||
Expanded routing, I/O and editing flexibility are available via the Multichannel option. |
Hey Bob:
What exactly do you have and how much does it cost?
Post by: masterhse on June 15, 2008, 12:03:48 PM
| Bob Boyd wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 10:45 | ||
Expanded routing, I/O and editing flexibility are available via the Multichannel option. |
Bob, does it have plug-in and level automation on the routing channels?
Another option that I'm thinking of is just moving my PT rig over to a PC to have more options for CD creation, or using it for feeding SB on a Mac.
Post by: jdg on June 15, 2008, 12:13:53 PM
and you get more panels, same routing, but more of it.
there is not any plugin automation per se, but u can have object based plugins, on as many edit points/objects your computer can handle.
level automation is done by the gain overlay
Post by: Peter Beckmann on June 15, 2008, 12:33:41 PM
My workflow:
Playback/capture on Protools HD. Mostly analogue processing DA/AD via Hedd into analogue chain. I use Massenberg EQ and very occasionally Oxford EQ ITB.
I assemble PQ and burn in SB.
The bonus for me in using PT is automation, either for level rides or specific EQ in/out on problem areas. Also, I edit incredibly quickly in PT and incredibly slowly in SB!!
If I have non 44.1 source files I cam either SRC post capture, or play at native rate out via Protools LE digitally to HEDD and capture at 44.1 in PT HD.
I don't mind using 2 apps. It means I can archive processed files with the SB project for neater archival.
Just finished a really nice EP today [yeah its Fathers day here in the UK...] and I really appreciated SB very fine fade adjustments. And the master sounded great, the client VERY happy.
What's not to like?
Peter
Post by: masterhse on June 15, 2008, 12:37:53 PM
I'm not really trying to replace PT, actually I like it for processing when used as many here do. I feel the main issue is the lack of reliable and professional level CD burning options on OS/X. There should be a satirical Mac commercial with the "PC guy" burning a CD and the "Mac guy" looking around the room for a box of software.
At this point it seems that Sonic is the best in this area. Being able to handle chores other than just CD creation is an added bonus and may offer other possiblilites in my workflow that can save time. There are some audio post functions that I also need where PT is well suited to the task while other software may not be. Just being able to run these on one machine without having to add additional wiring, reboot, or duplicate hardware would be great.
Post by: zmix on June 15, 2008, 12:49:30 PM
Seems that the ommision of Waveburner or even Logic is pretty glaring, considering the number of threads about them on this forum....
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 15, 2008, 01:27:15 PM
| zmix wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 12:49 |
Other? Seems that the ommision of Waveburner or even Logic is pretty glaring, considering the number of threads about them on this forum.... |
Watching the threads and posts it would seem that Logic is seldom used by mastering specialists. Given the success that many of us have had with Pro Tools as a processing DAW, there is no reason not to adapt any other DAW but for whatever reason, PTs is more popular, at least on this web board.
WaveBurner has not at all been excluded and is/has been used extensively by many mastering pros. However, recently it was discovered to have a programming glitch resulting in an inaccurate rendering of bits in certain modes.
Whether this is making an audible difference in sound is disputable (and would need a proper A/B/X test) but given that ME's pride themselves on accuracy and detail, this problem is making us abandon or think about abandoning what is a very easy to use, full-featured sequencing program with very, very few operational downsides.
Post by: masterhse on June 15, 2008, 01:47:18 PM
Has anyone used a bitscope to see if the last bit is just dropped off? The numbers are an odd coincidence.
Post by: zmix on June 15, 2008, 02:20:15 PM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 13:27 | ||
Watching the threads and posts it would seem that Logic is seldom used by mastering specialists. Given the success that many of us have had with Pro Tools as a processing DAW, there is no reason not to adapt any other DAW but for whatever reason, PTs is more popular, at least on this web board. |
I thought the point of this poll was to determine what DAWs were in use for mastering. How can you state that something is 'seldom used' if you the very poll used to determine that excludes it?
| Quote: |
WaveBurner has not at all been excluded and is/has been used extensively by many mastering pros. |
It's not on the list, so I would say it has.
| Quote: |
However, recently it was discovered to have a programming glitch resulting in an inaccurate rendering of bits in certain modes. |
Can you please provide some more information ofr possibly a link to qualifty this claim?
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 15, 2008, 02:48:38 PM
| masterhse wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 13:47 |
I'm wondering if the WB issue has to do with their processing chain some sort of assumption about dithering and truncation. Has anyone used a bitscope to see if the last bit is just dropped off? The numbers are an odd coincidence. |
I just took a master that I burned (24b to 16b via POW-r type 1 dither), dragged it to the desktop, loaded it into WB, booted up Spectrafoo and VOILA, the meter shows the full 16 bits.
If it's missing a bit, what's up with that?
Then I decided to try a quick listening test even though I know it isn't really going to be conclusive.
I opened 2 instances of WB. 1 had the copied 16b file off my master disc (POW-r type 1 dither) and the other had the 24 bit file it was made from. Unfortunately, the POW-r dither when enabled in the menu doesn't seem to work in real time (need a bounce) so I inserted a Waves IDR to get it down to 16 bits. Unfortunately, that screws the test even more than having no 2nd operator and the X factor b/c of the 2 different sounding dithers.
I forged ahead anyway and my conclusion was that the 24 bit file with IDR dither played in real time sounded a bit fuller in the bass area but who knows if its b/c of the that particular file responding better to that dither or b/c it hasn't been bounced yet.
OK so now I'm really intrigued. So I burned a disc with the IDR dither and copied it from the CD to the desktop and put it into WB.
Now I have the 24b file with IDR inserted in the region and the copied-from-CD file with no IDR (trks. 1 & 2 respectively in the WB doc).
With a few quick jumps back to the start of each file, now I hear no difference!
BTW, both files show a full 16 bits on the bitscope of Spectrafoo.
Again I apologize for the shallow testing methods. On the other hand, I have been making quick sonic decisions like this for many years (like any experienced ME) and do think that I am qualified to make a reasonably accurate judgement in this case.
All I know is that I heard a difference in the first test but nothing stood out a being different in the second test.
This proves, at least to me, that the masters I put out sound like they should and that if I do replace WB, I will be very careful in my selection and not rush b/c I'm worried about the sound being screwed up.
I'm all for switching to a new system if it is worthwhile to do so but just a reminder of the thousands of CDs that were burned in WB by folks on this board. Does that mean they are not accurate? That they all of a sudden don't sound good? You proofed them and they passed your test. Your clients approve the jobs and told you they sounded great (well, most of the time!) but now the sound of WB is not right? Hmmm...
That's why I didn't jump off WB immediately when the first posts of bit "problems" were posted. Using the logic in the para. above, It just didn't make sense to rush into to something else.
Thanks for inpiring me to do some testing, Tom.
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 15, 2008, 02:52:15 PM
| zmix wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 14:20 | ||||||||
I thought the point of this poll was to determine what DAWs were in use for mastering. How can you state that something is 'seldom used' if you the very poll used to determine that excludes it?
It's not on the list, so I would say it has.
Can you please provide some more information ofr possibly a link to qualifty this claim? |
There are several. Start with this one:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/201129-wavedi tor-vs-waveburner.html
As for ME's using Logic, I'm just saying that not many people that are posting on this board and Gearslutz mention it. Perhaps all you Logic users that are full-time ME's would like to chime in.
Post by: masterhse on June 15, 2008, 03:29:54 PM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 14:48 |
Thanks for inpiring me to do some testing, Tom. |
Thanks for performing the bitscope test Andy.
The testing that I performed so far was to create a file in PT with alternating 1 sample clicks and a 1K test tone. The purpose of the 1 sample clicks was to line-up the files before performing a null test. I bounced this down to 24 bit and 16 bit in PT.
I then used WB to burn a CD (no dither) with 2 versions of each of these files, one intact and the other with a fade (assumption being that the ones with the fades would be processed while the others would not). I then brought all tracks back into PT, lined-up the clicks and performed the test. None of these nulled and the 16 bit files where off consistently by approx 6 db as reported elsewhere.
I then ran the original 16 bit bounce from PT through sample manager and had it perform a 16 bit reduction with no dither and also performed a null test against the original. This one nulled perfectly.
I really wish I was able to read the bounce from WB before burning to the CD to clear-up a few variables in my mind. This isn't a conclusive test by any means and I plan to try a few other things before jumping to any conclusions.
Anyway glad to see that this is not the issue, though my friends sometimes accuse me of being "1 bit short of a full word".
Post by: Ben F on June 15, 2008, 09:26:51 PM
Post by: bblackwood on June 15, 2008, 09:32:55 PM
| Ben F wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 20:26 |
It's interesting that most people that are debating Sequoia are on the Mac platform. I'm a die hard Mac fan as well, but am prepared to use XP if a better software alternative comes around. |
Yep - I use XP simply because IMO Sequoia is the best software available...
Post by: dave-G on June 15, 2008, 09:58:30 PM
| Eliott James wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 11:00 |
How about Peak 6.1. Not bad. |
+1
I'm surprised it's not on the list and/or more widely used by the Mac crowd. Compared to PMCD (and as a companion to PT), I find it more intuitve to use (for simple assemble, isrc, text and burn).
-dave
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 15, 2008, 10:04:41 PM
| Ben F wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 21:26 |
It's interesting that most people that are debating Sequoia are on the Mac platform. I'm a die hard Mac fan as well, but am prepared to use XP if a better software alternative comes around. |
I don't think any one is "debating" whether sequoia is the best or at least one of the best all around mastering platforms.
What I am debating is whether I am willing to spent very significant dollars plus a certain amount of pain in the changeover and learning process that would be necessary to change to the XP platform. I have to keep Pro Tools and HD in my studio as others use it after hours so unless I want to get a less expensive, separate system, I have to consider staying on the same platform very seriously.
Apparently Sequoia runs just fine on the new Macs as long as the HD units are upgraded. However, some peculiarity of the XP world dictates that on one HD can be used for routing and inserts and I need two so bring on the new and bigger Z-Sys! Big bucks, all in all!
Since I have never tried Sequoia, I can't say for sure I would be faster and more efficient but if I get any faster and more efficient than I am already using my current setup, I'm going to lose money
!But seriously, the reason many of us use PTs as a processing platform is b/c we have morphed it into to a very suitable DAW for this purpose.
Whether one cuts parts in WB or some other Mac sequencing program is really just a very slight inconvenience to use a separate program.
Post by: dave-G on June 15, 2008, 10:11:50 PM
| Ben F wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 21:26 |
It's interesting that most people that are debating Sequoia are on the Mac platform. I'm a die hard Mac fan as well, but am prepared to use XP if a better software alternative comes around. |
Indeed. I'm a Mac guy too, and know/use PTHD well enough to not really feel any 'itch' to change .. but I can still see a rationale for putting together an XP rig for Samplitude. After seeing an extended demo of it at the last AES, I get why guys like Brad are so enamored with it. The overall interface and flow of it made more immediate sense to me than SoundBlade, which I Mac-centrically wanted to like more (and despite Thor's excellent beer-house demo of it).
-dave
Post by: Ben F on June 15, 2008, 11:58:32 PM
The biggest inconvenience is probably configuring Windows for audio, which doesn't take long if you read the instructions that are on Magix website. The other is not using the internet on that machine so you don't have to run anti virus software- just have it on a local network. Turn automatic updates off and it will run rock solid 365 days a year.
I have to admit I freak out a little more when a Windows machine bugs out as I am not as used to the OS as much. However, a quick google or forum search generally provides most answers. They are all running off Intel hardware there days anyway.
Post by: fuse on June 16, 2008, 06:30:40 AM
Sound quality might be sufficient but I'm missing out on the usability part. Instead with every version they put in more stuff you don't really need. And if I ask them to put stuff in I like to use they won't because 'thats not what the customers want'.
Guess the point is there isn't a company who's interested into creating a DAW specially for ME's because the customer base is way too small.
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on June 16, 2008, 06:41:06 AM
I also have Samplitude which I use for multi-track editing and some mastering,
I guess it boils down to what you are familiar with and what works best for your use.
We use some plug-ins and an external processing rack and WL lets me do this with ease so it gets my vote as the best DAW for mastering.
Post by: zmix on June 16, 2008, 11:20:25 AM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 14:52 |
However, recently it was discovered to have a programming glitch resulting in an inaccurate rendering of bits in certain modes. |
So I asked:
Can you please provide some more information or possibly a link to qualifty this claim?
| Quote: |
There are several. Start with this one: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/201129-wavedi tor-vs-waveburner.html |
Gearslutz? Are you pulling my leg?
The first relevant quote I found in that thread was this:
| Quote: |
Even 1.5.2 will only burn bit accurate discs from 16 bit source files with no processing. __________________ |
Obviously this was posted by someone who does not understand the following basic facts:
1: You cannot burn a red book audio CD at a greater bit depth than 16, so any file with a greater bit depth than 16 bits will be truncated and dithered.
This process will not allow the original higher bit depth file to be extracted from the stored 16 bit file.
So, yes, NOT bit accurate, but hardly unique to Waveburner.
2: Any signal processing, even a level change will alter the original data.... Again,
EDIT: Further idiocy in that *gearslutz* thread has resulted in the unsubstanciated claim that Waveburner truncates to 15 bits...
If you truncate and - dither - a 24 bit file you will NOT get a null when compared to the original 24 bit file or even the 24 bit file after truncation to 16 bits.
Why?
Dither needs to toggle the LSB to be effective, therefor only the upper 15 bits will null against the original 24 bit file or the truncated to 16 bit file.
Verdict?
NOT A BUG
Post by: Matt_G on June 16, 2008, 11:31:00 AM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 02:49 |
Other? Seems that the omission of Waveburner or even Logic is pretty glaring, considering the number of threads about them on this forum.... |
Actually, when I started the thread I set the poll up with applications that do recording & processing (not CD burning only). While it is possible to do plug-in processing in Waveburner it's not possible to record with it & I left it off because of the newly discovered flaw handling 24bit files. I didn't think of Logic as I haven't heard of anyone using it professionally for mastering.
I do own Waveburner & I've used it on countless projects. When I first heard of this bug I too was also reluctant to test it for fear of looking at the alternatives. I did the tests & verified that it fails going from 24bit to 16bit every time (fwiw - it's always in the bounce down to HD & nothing to do with burning to CD & it also applies to bounce region, bounce mix & bounce project). Whether you could reliably pick the faulty bounces in a blind listening test, I have doubts, but the fact is Waveburner is broken & this was enough to cause me to worry about it's validity & integrity for professional mastering.
Let's face it, it's bundled free for Logic users so why would Apple bother developing it further or adding new features? All these things make it a dead end piece of software in my book.
I've now added Peak to the poll...
Matt
Post by: Matt_G on June 16, 2008, 11:35:02 AM
Matt
Post by: Matt_G on June 16, 2008, 11:55:40 AM
| zmix wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 01:20 |
Can you please provide some more information or possibly a link to qualifty this claim? |
Here is some more links for you...
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/154664-wavebu rner-effing-up-my-tracks.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/154669-wavebu rner-problems.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/195415-more-w aveburner-tests.html
Be patient & makes sure you read through the threads & do the tests yourself before deciding that they are invalid.
| Quote: | ||
Gearslutz? Are you pulling my leg? The first relevant quote I found in that thread was this:
Obviously this was posted by someone who does not understand the following basic facts: 1: You cannot burn a red book audio CD at a greater bit depth than 16, so any file with a greater bit depth than 16 bits will be truncated and dithered. This process will not allow the original higher bit depth file to be extracted from the stored 16 bit file. So, yes, NOT bit accurate, but hardly unique to Waveburner. 2: Any signal processing, even a level change will alter the original data.... Again, EDIT: Further idiocy in that *gearslutz* thread has resulted in the unsubstanciated claim that Waveburner truncates to 15 bits... If you truncate and - dither - a 24 bit file you will NOT get a null when compared to a 24 bit file or even a 24 bit file truncated to 16 bits. Dither needs to toggle the LSB to be effective, therefor only the upper 15 bits will null against the original 24 bit file or the truncated to 16 bit file. Verdict? NOT A BUG |
Respectfully you don't know what you're talking about. Please try this test on your copy of Waveburner (any OSX version has this same problem even the latest version 1.5.2). This bug does not exist in the OS9 version of WaveBurner so it's only in the OSX version, the following test validates all these claims...
1. Take a 16bit file convert it to 24bits with any application other than WaveBurner. Yes this will add an extra 8bits of padded zeros, stay with me...
2. Add this newly created 24bit file into WaveBurner & without doing any fades, volume changes, processing or adding any dither options (dither turned off in WB prefs) bounce this region to hard disk & select 16bit as the word length.
3. Take this newly created 16bit bounce & line it up with the original 16bit file in the DAW of your choice (Pro Tools, Logic etc.) make sure they are lined up to sync accurately & flip the phase on one of the files & listen to the result (check the peak meters to see the results as well).
In all my tests (these were extensive!) Any 24bit to 16bit processing, bouncing or burning in WaveBurner (without dither!) resulted in a cancellation of only -90.3 against the original 16bit file. The same tests done with other applications such as WaveEditor, SampleManager & Pro Tools resulted in complete cancellation down to infinity.
Ok so it may not be dropping a bit but, the results are conclusive that WaveBurner is not bit for bit accurate when handling 24bit files & converting them to 16bit.
Do the tests as we all have done & you will see for yourself.
Matt
Post by: tom eaton on June 16, 2008, 01:36:06 PM
Can you think of a time you would want to go from 24 to 16 bit without dithering? I can't.
-tom
Post by: cerberus on June 16, 2008, 02:16:52 PM
i think it could be my best work ever, but that is subjective... i did however
feel more in control than ever, so if it is sent back for a recall, it's my
fault, not the soft.... the macpro is blazing, and stable like a rock.
one thing i have to say about getting a new system. i upgraded to
a much finer a/d/a and i've unwittingly been bent toward some
kind of audiophilia.... for example: i said to a client,
"would you like some of the pops and clicks to
be fixed?" and he kinda looked like he
wasn't quite sure what i meant!
and i observed that on my old system, those aren't
so noticible, of course. and likewise on the
client's krk monitors.
have any of you ever been "changed" because of
getting new gear? how do you deal with this
problem in general? maybe say:"is it ok to
ignore the pops and clicks i hear?" rather
than: "would you like them fixed..." ?
jeff dinces
Post by: cass anawaty on June 16, 2008, 02:30:54 PM
"Must have happened during the ftp transfer", he said.
I always tell them, because I had one guy who had installed some firewire drivers for his AD/DA 16s, and they did something to the calibration that resulted in barely audible clicks, pops,and distortions. He was very grateful I let him know.
Post by: zmix on June 16, 2008, 05:07:58 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 13:36 |
Hi Matt- Can you think of a time you would want to go from 24 to 16 bit without dithering? I can't. -tom |
Post by: masterhse on June 16, 2008, 05:54:04 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 13:36 |
Hi Matt- Can you think of a time you would want to go from 24 to 16 bit without dithering? I can't. -tom |
Well, the example that he gave would actually be one, though I don't know why someone would import as 24 bit to knowingly burn at 16 bit unless there was some sort of software limitation.
Nevertheless it should work reliably this way. For it not to work points to a potential underlying issue that reduces confidence in its use.
Post by: jfrigo on June 16, 2008, 07:02:07 PM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 11:20 |
Gearslutz? Are you pulling my leg? |
A bunch of the same regulars over there as here as on Glenn's board. I don't think everybody loses their minds just because they hit "send" on a different board.
Do the tests yourself and report back on what you find. Your point about dither not nulling is certainly worth mentioning, but is it any less valid when you post it over there?
It also seems that there were more complaints than just this point. The 24-16 truncation was the main issue as I read it. Things like cache errors seemed less significant. It was unclear to me if Jerry and Matt said the 16 bit "rounding error" as it was called happened without dither or not. Jerry or Matt? Clarification?
Post by: jdg on June 16, 2008, 07:51:26 PM
and there was a munged bit.. it nulled to one bit, then i normalized that one bit and it was just distortion.
i will re-do it.. as it was pretty damning in my mind, and i ran away at that point.
give me a few, and i will come up with how i did the test and repost.. its slightly different.
Post by: zmix on June 16, 2008, 09:24:52 PM
I did some tests, and I suspect that the residual is due to the remainders in the floating point audio engine. I have been studying the dither requirements of fixed and float point math and it's not insignificant. Perhaps Bruno could comment here on that...
In good news, I truncated to 16 bits in Logic with dither and unlike the undithered Waveburner tests, it nulled completely, with only the dither audible (once I added 48dB or so of monitor gain).
Post by: jdg on June 16, 2008, 10:04:57 PM
nulled against the same 24->16bit tone dithered in peak (both with POW-r 1)
i see and hear dither.. and i see and here some 1k tone (there is a harmonic too?!?! wtf)
Post by: Fifthcircle on June 16, 2008, 10:43:13 PM
| masterhse wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 06:22 |
Doesn't the new version of Sequoia have issues with dithering properly? Also how is the SRC? |
There were some issues with dithering at version 10.0x. They have been fixed with the newly released 10.1.
As for the SRC... There were improvements made at Version 10 (if I remember correctly), but I still use R8brain for my SRC as I think it is a bit better.
--Ben
Post by: Matt_G on June 16, 2008, 11:07:59 PM
| tom eaton wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 03:36 |
Hi Matt- Can you think of a time you would want to go from 24 to 16 bit without dithering? I can't. -tom |
Yes when you want to null test a program's integrity, it's the only way you can do it reliably. Using dither with Waveburner doesn't solve it's problem.
Matt
Post by: Matt_G on June 16, 2008, 11:23:14 PM
| jfrigo wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 09:02 |
It was unclear to me if Jerry and Matt said the 16 bit "rounding error" as it was called happened without dither or not. Jerry or Matt? Clarification? |
All the tests were performed without dither for the sake of getting an accurate null test without dither residue left over.
| zmix wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 11:24 |
]I did some tests, and I suspect that the residual is due to the remainders in the floating point audio engine. I have been studying the dither requirements of fixed and float point math and it's not insignificant. Perhaps Bruno could comment here on that... |
When this same test using the same test file was performed with various 'fixed' & 'float' based hosts they nulled down to infinity. So you can't blame it on remainders in the floating-point audio engine... whatever that means!?
| Quote: |
In good news, I truncated to 16 bits in Logic with dither and unlike the undithered Waveburner tests, it nulled completely, with only the dither audible (once I added 48dB or so of monitor gain). |
Which again disproves your floating point theory about WB. Just face it as we've all had to, WaveBurner is flawed when converting from 24 bit files to 16 bit. For me this makes it useless as I prefer to do all my fades for convenience sake at 24bit before doing the final dithering to 16bit. This is the best way to work with clients wanting to do fades & cross fades etc at the final CD sequence.
I've mentioned the bug to Apple & they may fix it eventually, but in the meantime I've moved on to something more reliable.
Matt
Post by: TotalSonic on June 16, 2008, 11:43:57 PM
| cerberus wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 14:16 |
i just delivered my first job that used my new system : with cubase 4 and izotope rx. i think it could be my best work ever, but that is subjective... i did however feel more in control than ever, so if it is sent back for a recall, it's my fault, not the soft.... the macpro is blazing, and stable like a rock. one thing i have to say about getting a new system. i upgraded to a much finer a/d/a and i've unwittingly been bent toward some kind of audiophilia.... for example: i said to a client, "would you like some of the pops and clicks to be fixed?" and he kinda looked like he wasn't quite sure what i meant! and i observed that on my old system, those aren't so noticible, of course. and likewise on the client's krk monitors. have any of you ever been "changed" because of getting new gear? how do you deal with this problem in general? maybe say:"is it ok to ignore the pops and clicks i hear?" rather than: "would you like them fixed..." ? jeff dinces |
I often hear ticks or pops that the client wasn't aware of as well - usually if you let them know the exact timing they occur at and ask them to listen through a pair of headphones with hyped-up high end response they'll be able to finally hear them as well.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: Jerry Tubb on June 17, 2008, 12:23:07 AM
| jfrigo wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 18:02 |
It was unclear to me if Jerry and Matt said the 16 bit "rounding error" as it was called happened without dither or not. Jerry or Matt? Clarification? |
Hi Jay, the answer to your question is without dither.
I actually made that very plain in my test reports on GS.
I used the phrase "rounding error" simply because we don't know that WB is actually truncating, it's just that one bit is simply different, and only nulls with the original file under certain common conditions to -90.3dBFS, instead of -96dB.
Does WaveBurner sound bad? No.
Many of us MEs that use(d) it, wouldn't have if it were sonically bad.
I should give credit where it's due, and mention that Barry Stramp aka "Coyoteous" that originally found the bug back in November '07 and posted on GS.
Is it the end of the world for WB users? No. Would I criticize someone if they use it? No.
WB is a very powerful, easy to learn, really good sounding application, that needs a bit of attention from Apple's Logic programmers.
I also used Sonic Studio soundBlade to perform identical tests, which all nulled.
| Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 13:48 |
I'm all for switching to a new system if it is worthwhile to do so but just a reminder of the thousands of CDs that were burned in WB by folks on this board. Does that mean they are not accurate? That they all of a sudden don't sound good? You proofed them and they passed your test. Your clients approve the jobs and told you they sounded great (well, most of the time!) but now the sound of WB is not right? Hmmm... That's why I didn't jump off WB immediately when the first posts of bit "problems" were posted. Using the logic in the para. above, It just didn't make sense to rush into to something else. |
Very perceptive stuff Andy, you make some very good points.
I should add that I've actually wanted to add Sonic Studio to our arsenal for a few years, since I first heard it was on the horizon for OSX.
But the WB test results were conclusive, and confirmed by a few different MEs.
I did some listening tests tonight for about an hour on the big Dunlavys and also the Grado phones, and IMHO soundBlade sounds better than WB. Whether it's by a nose, a neck, or a horse-length is pretty subjective.
The lack of any forward momentum from Apple, helped me move on a little faster, no regrets.
Using both Pro Tools HD ~and~ Sonic Studio soundBlade is simply a gas.
All the Best - JT
Post by: masterhse on June 17, 2008, 07:06:45 AM
What's you're opinion on the multi-channel option for Soundblade with Pro Tools HD hardware? Worth purchasing, or is it overkill for what you use SB for?
Best,
Tom
Post by: astroshack on June 17, 2008, 07:55:27 AM
Cheers,
Sean
Post by: zmix on June 17, 2008, 08:28:13 AM
When using dither in WB, the null test results in a horrid periodic noise + 1 bit music....
Post by: Tomas Danko on June 17, 2008, 09:37:36 AM
| Matt_G wrote on Mon, 16 June 2008 16:55 | ||||||
Here is some more links for you... http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/154664-wavebu rner-effing-up-my-tracks.html http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/154669-wavebu rner-problems.html http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/195415-more-w aveburner-tests.html Be patient & makes sure you read through the threads & do the tests yourself before deciding that they are invalid.
Respectfully you don't know what you're talking about. Please try this test on your copy of Waveburner (any OSX version has this same problem even the latest version 1.5.2). This bug does not exist in the OS9 version of WaveBurner so it's only in the OSX version, the following test validates all these claims... 1. Take a 16bit file convert it to 24bits with any application other than WaveBurner. Yes this will add an extra 8bits of padded zeros, stay with me... 2. Add this newly created 24bit file into WaveBurner & without doing any fades, volume changes, processing or adding any dither options (dither turned off in WB prefs) bounce this region to hard disk & select 16bit as the word length. 3. Take this newly created 16bit bounce & line it up with the original 16bit file in the DAW of your choice (Pro Tools, Logic etc.) make sure they are lined up to sync accurately & flip the phase on one of the files & listen to the result (check the peak meters to see the results as well). In all my tests (these were extensive!) Any 24bit to 16bit processing, bouncing or burning in WaveBurner (without dither!) resulted in a cancellation of only -90.3 against the original 16bit file. The same tests done with other applications such as WaveEditor, SampleManager & Pro Tools resulted in complete cancellation down to infinity. Ok so it may not be dropping a bit but, the results are conclusive that WaveBurner is not bit for bit accurate when handling 24bit files & converting them to 16bit. Do the tests as we all have done & you will see for yourself. Matt |
I can't see when someone would ever load a 24 bit sample and have the CD-burning operation truncate it to 16 without dither.
What I am really interested in knowing is this:
If you import a true 16-bit file into Waveburner and then make a CD, does the output still only null to -90.3?
Post by: zmix on June 17, 2008, 10:47:54 AM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 09:37 |
If you import a true 16-bit file into Waveburner and then make a CD, does the output still only null to -90.3? |
I have only been testing the audio extracted from the 'package' created during the "bounce" process, not a CD burn, but I have determined that a 16 bit bounce file created from a 16 bit master will only null to -90.3dBfs...
What is really odd is that the TENTH bit indicator in the SSL ISM stays lit during the null....wtf? If the lower 8 bits are all zero, then this would indicate that the 2nd LSB is active.... ( I have reported this to Apple in a bug report)
Post by: Tomas Danko on June 17, 2008, 11:12:00 AM
| zmix wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 15:47 | ||
I have only been testing the audio extracted from the 'package' created during the "bounce" process, not a CD burn, but I have determined that a 16 bit bounce file created from a 16 bit master will only null to -90.3dBfs... What is really odd is that the TENTH bit indicator in the SSL ISM stays lit during the null....wtf? If the lower 8 bits are all zero, then this would indicate that the 2nd LSB is active.... ( I have reported this to Apple in a bug report) |
Again, do you mean you loaded a 16-bit file and bounced it and the output only nulled to -90.3. Or are you still talking about the 24-bit file that you bounced to 16-bit?
That tenth bit thing is more than enough to shy away from the application, though!
Post by: Jerry Tubb on June 17, 2008, 11:34:54 AM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 08:37 |
What I am really interested in knowing is this: If you import a true 16-bit file into Waveburner and then make a CD, does the output still only null to -90.3? |
No, if you follow a pure simple procedure: Load the 16-bit stereo interleaved files into WB, and without using the "bounce project" process, hit the Burn button, WB makes a disc that nulls perfectly with the original source.
What's odd is that WB does a temporary bounce anyway, but the disc nulls.
I thought we made that clear in the WB threads, but I realize there's lots of bs to wade thru to find the answers.
Maybe one of us should summarize our findings from the other threads, trim out all the BS, and post it over here.
Best Regards - JT
Post by: Jerry Tubb on June 17, 2008, 11:50:13 AM
| masterhse wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 06:06 |
Jerry - What's you're opinion on the multi-channel option for Soundblade with Pro Tools HD hardware? Worth purchasing, or is it overkill for what you use SB for? |
Hey Tom, I haven't gone there yet but I plan to sometime this year.
Seems it would add a little more flexibility... elbow room.
Not sure yet if sB would utilize all the I/O options on the digi 192. Probably four stereo pairs of AES or analog I/O.
Maybe Bob Boyd would know the answer to that one.
Cheers - JT
Post by: zmix on June 17, 2008, 12:34:38 PM
| Tomas Danko wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 11:12 |
Again, do you mean you loaded a 16-bit file and bounced it and the output only nulled to -90.3. Or are you still talking about the 24-bit file that you bounced to 16-bit? That tenth bit thing is more than enough to shy away from the application, though! |
I imported a file from a commercially produced CD, so it was certainly 16 bit...
I extracted the audio from the resultant 'package' created after the 'bounce' operation.
I may re-test since I just realized that the track I lifted was from a PMCD....
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 17, 2008, 01:36:21 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Tue, 17 June 2008 10:50 | ||
Hey Tom, I haven't gone there yet but I plan to sometime this year. Seems it would add a little more flexibility... elbow room. Not sure yet if sB would utilize all the I/O options on the digi 192. Probably four stereo pairs of AES or analog I/O. Maybe Bob Boyd would know the answer to that one. Cheers - JT |
Yes, it sees 4 pairs of the 192. I've tested it here and it routed fine. I will add though that adding a Sonic 303, 304, etc. is something I would recommend looking into as budget allows. The version 5 Sonic Console software is excellent and is really flexible. If I remember correctly, my 304 seems to play a little nicer with sB than the sB+192 combo because of I'm able to avoid the digi Core Audio tool. I remember both fighting for control of the 192 in some cases.
Post by: masterhse on June 18, 2008, 07:23:50 AM
Purchased Soundblade yesterday and am trying out the multichannel option later today. Definitely one of the less intuitive user interfaces that I've used, but it's fun learning something new and makes one re-think their workflow.
I can see their reasoning behind some of the design. For example in most apps you can just click and drag a region to move it. Here it's more of a two step process to drag, but given that one can accidently move a region a bit too easily with a simple drag, it's a good thing to prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot.
I'll very likely still take Jerry's approach and continue to do the majority of my heavy-lifting in PT though. For lighter projects only requiring a quick chain it's a very nice addition and for CD mastering on OS/X it's a must have. Seems like a winning combo. Being able to record to a Sonic 30x from PT would be a very nice workflow.
Best,
Tom
Post by: Dave Davis on June 18, 2008, 07:45:24 AM
I use both PT and sB, so I hear ya... digital into PT via a Sonic interface is heaven!
The biggest issue for me is that while PT has many of sB's editing benefits (e.g. the dedicated tools prevent unintended edits, which is similar to in operation/but different from sB's drag bars and autotools in use), PT lacks precision and clarity with audio. It's become increasingly frustrating since moving to Intel mac, but that's another story.
Sonic's 64 bit plug architecture really does sound/measure better than PT. It's capable of reciprocal processing (applying inverse settings returns a clone), TDM/RTAS cannot. It seems the issue is not the plugs, but the intersections: chopping every output of every plug and gain stage to 24 bits ITB is needless in mastering (though useful in multitrack), and throws away precision, relative to delivery.
Historically audio pros have worked at higher resolutions than we deliver to for a reason. Today we can deliver 24 bits to the consumer, though 16 and lossy is most common. While 24 is certainly good enough for anything humans consume (with our ears), it's measurably inferior in DSP and inter-process transport. It's acceptable because it's the best case scenario for OTB digital, and historically OTB processors have set the bar. This is becoming less and less true, and as folks begin to hear the benefits of greater precision it will be seen as a useful compromise, not necessarily desirable, but good enough.
At any rate, PT simply doesn't sound as good ITB as sB running the same plugs in the same sequence. In fact, Logic sounds/measures better as a plug rack, so I tend to use Logic when I need outboard. PT still gets used daily in production/mixing, but in mastering I've gotten away from it for purely sonic reasons.
-d-
Post by: Tomas Danko on June 18, 2008, 08:01:48 AM
| Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 18 June 2008 12:45 |
Historically audio pros have worked at higher resolutions than we deliver to for a reason. Today we can deliver 24 bits to the consumer, though 16 and lossy is most common. While 24 is certainly good enough for anything humans consume (with our ears), it's measurably inferior in DSP and inter-process transport. It's acceptable because it's the best case scenario for OTB digital, and historically OTB processors have set the bar. This is becoming less and less true, and as folks begin to hear the benefits of greater precision it will be seen as a useful compromise, not necessarily desirable, but good enough. |
The storage and delivery format do not need to be bigger than 24 bit, since any DSP process and digital mixing engine should be able to increase that precision (ie 32 floating or 48 fixed) during the process anyway.
Post by: masterhse on June 18, 2008, 08:06:58 AM
I have Logic, (I bought it for Waveburner, so it's kind of ironic now). Haven't really used it much in part because many of the plug-ins that I use in PT would require that I use TDM in Logic so it wouldn't matter. I'll have to look into replacing some of these as I move forward to AU and formats that SB supports, so it may make more sense in the future.
I tend to be plug-in light whenever I can, so the 24 bit issue is going to bite me anyway (going out to analog land or Weiss units). Any gain changes or routing in PT are 48 bit, and in comparing gain changes in PT versus the Weiss most clients seem to prefer PT (with the EQ still engaged). Go figure. What I'm looking forward to for "plug-in light" sessions is working entirely in SB. I tend use PT for harder to manage indie mixes, stem sessions (yeah, I smoke stems) and some audio post work.
Anyway I'm not disagreeing with any of your comments, it's just that in my current scenario it's kind of a wash.
Best,
Tom
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 18, 2008, 10:33:47 AM
| masterhse wrote on Wed, 18 June 2008 06:23 |
Thanks Jerry, Bob, et al. Purchased Soundblade yesterday and am trying out the multichannel option later today. Definitely one of the less intuitive user interfaces that I've used, but it's fun learning something new and makes one re-think their workflow. I can see their reasoning behind some of the design. For example in most apps you can just click and drag a region to move it. Here it's more of a two step process to drag, but given that one can accidently move a region a bit too easily with a simple drag, it's a good thing to prevent you from shooting yourself in the foot. I'll very likely still take Jerry's approach and continue to do the majority of my heavy-lifting in PT though. For lighter projects only requiring a quick chain it's a very nice addition and for CD mastering on OS/X it's a must have. Seems like a winning combo. Being able to record to a Sonic 30x from PT would be a very nice workflow. Best, Tom |
I used a PT/sB setup for about a year and a half. Worked well. First on 2 computers with a Weiss SFC2 in between. Then, as the better crop of software SRCs started coming out, sold the SFC2 and the second Mac G5 and ran both PTHD and sB on one Mac.
I finally took the last step in January once I got the 304 and multichannel option went all sB. I'm hoping to take my MacBook Pro and the 304 on vacation and experimenting with the Intel-Mac/304 combo if I get some downtime. (I'm on a dual G5.)
Fortunately, my wife is a very understanding person.
Post by: Matt_G on June 19, 2008, 11:05:44 AM
| Bob Boyd wrote on Thu, 19 June 2008 00:33 |
I finally took the last step in January once I got the 304 and multichannel option went all sB. I'm hoping to take my MacBook Pro and the 304 on vacation and experimenting with the Intel-Mac/304 combo if I get some downtime. (I'm on a dual G5.) |
Hey Bob, do you find you're missing any plug-ins or functionality in sB compared to PT's? Do you use plug-ins with sB? Also do you find sB 1.2.2 reliable enough for daily use? What's your crash ratio for a days work?
I've had PMCD for a week & it crashes 2-3 times a day & for no real reason. Waveburner was much more reliable with 1.5.2 & Pro Tools 7.3.1cs6 is rock solid. Personally I'd probably only miss MDW EQ v2 (TDM Only).
Matt
Post by: jdg on June 19, 2008, 12:32:51 PM
MOTUs DP6 is out now, with CD buring PQ/ISRC/CD-Text ability from the arrange window.
back in school, we had PT, and DP, altho very early versions of both, but i could never get my little head around DP... it hurt.
any DP ppl here gonna upgrade and report back?
Post by: Peter Beckmann on June 19, 2008, 12:45:26 PM
| Matt_G wrote on Thu, 19 June 2008 16:05 |
do you find you're missing any plug-ins or functionality in sB compared to PT's?...... ........Personally I'd probably only miss MDW EQ v2 (TDM Only). Matt |
Matt. The MDW eq and Cranesong Phoenix are some of the very few plugins I use when mastering, and that, plus the automation are the main reasons I still use PT HD rather than just Soundblade. I also use the extensive routing available in PT to check pre/post processing etc. as I dont have the multi channel option for Soundblade.
I don't tax SB too hard in my assemble/ PQ/ burn workflow, but it hasn't crashed on me yet......
Peter
Post by: Jerry Tubb on June 19, 2008, 01:25:12 PM
| Peter Beckmann wrote on Thu, 19 June 2008 11:45 |
I don't tax SB too hard in my assemble/ PQ/ burn workflow, but it hasn't crashed on me yet...... |
Ah that's good news Peter, glad you're enjoying sB.
If sB/PMCD does crash, it's really no big deal, it re-opens really quickly. Even with an attending client, if there's a crash, I'll be back up and running again before the client even knows there was a crash. Years ago I got in the habit of 'save and save often', my left hand instinctively hits 'Command-S' after just about any move.
I feel the same as you guys about PT, it's just so fast, flexible and easy, and once in a while a project gets saved by the Phoenix TDM plug.
That said, last night while mastering a coupla singles, decided to 'take it like a real man' and do the whole shebang in sB. I was using one plug-in (a de-esser), and have to admit it sounded great. Made me think about what Dave Davis said in his post about PT vs sB and plug-in usage.
Congrats to Peter, Tom, and Matt for making the 'leap' to Sonic Studio, good to know there's a group of us now using Sonic and Pro Tools, bouncing ideas around.
Man I really like the sound of it, more clarity and depth in the mid-range (than WB), lots of unsolicited favorable comments from clients, 'trust the transparency' : - )
Best - JT
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 20, 2008, 01:25:31 AM
| Matt_G wrote on Thu, 19 June 2008 10:05 |
Hey Bob, do you find you're missing any plug-ins or functionality in sB compared to PT's? Do you use plug-ins with sB? Also do you find sB 1.2.2 reliable enough for daily use? What's your crash ratio for a days work? |
It can still happen but stability is up from earlier versions. I do use some plugs - maybe 2 or 3 - fairly often and they behave fine.
| Quote: |
Personally I'd probably only miss MDW EQ v2 (TDM Only). Matt |
I do most of my EQ in the analog domain with maybe just a touch or a corrective move with the digital EQ (maybe less than 5% of the time). When I was in PT, I would usually grab MDW EQ like you. (Still love that band-isolate feature in V2.) The Sonic EQ has been more than fine for my (admittedly light) digital EQ needs.
Post by: masterhse on June 20, 2008, 08:32:30 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Thu, 19 June 2008 13:25 | ||
Ah that's good news Peter, glad you're enjoying sB. If sB/PMCD does crash, it's really no big deal, it re-opens really quickly. Even with an attending client, if there's a crash, I'll be back up and running again before the client even knows there was a crash. Years ago I got in the habit of 'save and save often', my left hand instinctively hits 'Command-S' after just about any move. I feel the same as you guys about PT, it's just so fast, flexible and easy, and once in a while a project gets saved by the Phoenix TDM plug. That said, last night while mastering a coupla singles, decided to 'take it like a real man' and do the whole shebang in sB. I was using one plug-in (a de-esser), and have to admit it sounded great. Made me think about what Dave Davis said in his post about PT vs sB and plug-in usage. Congrats to Peter, Tom, and Matt for making the 'leap' to Sonic Studio, good to know there's a group of us now using Sonic and Pro Tools, bouncing ideas around. Man I really like the sound of it, more clarity and depth in the mid-range (than WB), lots of unsolicited favorable comments from clients, 'trust the transparency' : - ) Best - JT |
Wow Jerry we really do have a lot in common. Old guitar slingers now MEs, Crane Song Phoenix for mastering (when needed of course), PT, and your comment 'trust the transparency' hits it right on the head. I feel like I don't have to look over my shoulder as much when burning a CD from Sonic.
There are some additional plugs that I haven't gotten to work yet with SB that I like, but got all of my Sonnox stuff to work in SB and actually they work better as AU plugs than TDM. The TDM version of the Sonnox limiter is very buggy, turning parameters on and off at will. There is also some additional functionality in the AU version that is sorely missed in the TDM, like being able to type in values for the EQ.
PSP Xenon works the same, and there are some other plugs that are AU that I can't use in PT that may come in handy.
I'm thinking of the following work flow for more complex processing:
1. Process in PT as normal.
2. Remove the limiter and bounce files.
3. SRC with sample manager.
4. Final assembly and limiting in Soundblade.
I'll take a bet that Jerry is already doing things this way
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on June 20, 2008, 09:37:08 AM
| masterhse wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 08:32 |
I'm thinking of the following work flow for more complex processing: 1. Process in PT as normal. 2. Remove the limiter and bounce files. 3. SRC with sample manager. 4. Final assembly and limiting in Soundblade. |
Why limit after SRC, at 44.1k? Wouldn't it be better to leave the limiter on and SRC after the bounce?
Andrew
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 20, 2008, 10:32:29 AM
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 09:37 | ||
Why limit after SRC, at 44.1k? Wouldn't it be better to leave the limiter on and SRC after the bounce? Andrew |
I wondered the same thing plus sometimes when going for contemporary pop levels, the program will print with a lot of overs if I remove the limiter.
I realize limiting in the sequencing program gives one a "quick-fix" volume adjustment if a client asks for one later or if the ME feels he has erred in hind site, but that technique doesn't work for me! The only way it could work is if I make sure there are no intended overs on the bounce and then limit later...but I prefer to get things pretty close to the right level before limited and just use a dB or 2 maximum of the limiter.
Post by: zmix on June 20, 2008, 10:40:15 AM
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 09:37 |
Why limit after SRC, at 44.1k? Wouldn't it be better to leave the limiter on and SRC after the bounce? Andrew |
SRC can result in overs that did not exist in the original program material. This is because the filters will (due to the math involved) generate word lengths bigger than the input file.
The constant overs will drive you nuts until you realize this is what's happening...
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 20, 2008, 11:33:24 AM
| zmix wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 10:40 | ||
SRC can result in overs that did not exist in the original program material. This is because the filters will (due to the math involved) generate word lengths bigger than the input file. The constant overs will drive you nuts until you realize this is what's happening... |
As you say,only material that needs SRC is the only time this is a potential problem.
I find the lowering the output ceiling of the limiter to -1 dB or.8 dB when mastering at the native SR does the trick for "loud" mastering. The program will end up at fs or lower but never over. Then in the sequencing program, one can do a quick volume adjustment, up or down, if necessary.
Post by: AndreasN on June 20, 2008, 11:43:43 AM
| zmix wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 16:40 |
SRC can result in overs that did not exist in the original program material. |
SRC can change the position of the sample points, but it doesn't create overs. The overs where already there - but "hidden" between the then current set of sample points.
If the "pre SRC" wave is something like the right hand side of this picture:
The "post SRC" may be the left hand side. The waveform is the same, but the positon of the sample dot varies.
| zmix wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 16:40 |
This is because the filters will (due to the math involved) generate word lengths bigger than the input file. |
It does, but that only affects the bottom end of the dynamic range, not the peaks. Having sufficient word length in the calculations and dithering back to 24 bit(or whatever container size is used) takes care of that.
Regards,
Andreas Nordenstam
Post by: masterhse on June 20, 2008, 01:17:17 PM
Everything is a trade-off at some point, for me the pros of this approach seem to outweigh the cons at the moment.
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 20, 2008, 01:52:34 PM
| masterhse wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 13:17 |
Other than the potential issues raised above, another reason I prefer (at least at this point) to limit last is to be able to have other dither options in Soundblade. PSP Xenon includes upsampling (I know two SRCs) but if one strongly feels it's that much of an issue during limiting there's also that option. Everything is a trade-off at some point, for me the pros of this approach seem to outweigh the cons at the moment. |
I SRC to 24b/44.1k in order to use different dither or adjust volume in the sequencing program.
I didn't know PSP Zenon upsampled. Is this automatic or enabled somewhere?
Thanks,
Post by: zmix on June 20, 2008, 05:08:14 PM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 11:33 |
I find the lowering the output ceiling of the limiter to -1 dB or.8 dB when mastering at the native SR does the trick for "loud" mastering. The program will end up at fs or lower but never over. Then in the sequencing program, one can do a quick volume adjustment, up or down, if necessary. |
I've had program material with peaks of -0.6dBfs generate overs after SRC.
Post by: zmix on June 20, 2008, 05:12:39 PM
| AndreasN wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 11:43 | ||
It does, but that only affects the bottom end of the dynamic range, not the peaks. Having sufficient word length in the calculations and dithering back to 24 bit(or whatever container size is used) takes care of that. Regards, Andreas Nordenstam |
Not true... try Paul Fridle's HP filter experiment, where inserting a 20hz HP on a 100hz signal or a 20Khz LP filter on it will increase the sample value by as much as 3dB.
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on June 20, 2008, 05:37:26 PM
Some SRCs will automatically lower the incoming signal by a fraction of a dB in order to make room for the new peaks created by the 24 bit dither summed to the new sample positions.
Also, a FS sample here and there is not an over. Look at the cover of Mastering Audio... The SpectraFoo limiter has a FS count on one channel (but no "overs," which would be 3 or more FS samples in a row). If you use a real-time SRC, which I feel is the only way to avoid driving (somewhat) blind in mastering, you can watch the meter of the output and dial in the right amount of trim.
In practice, I leave L2 at a -0.5 dBFS ceiling. It's threshold is anywhere between -0.309015... and -1.61803...
("Oh no, I've said too much."
)Xeon is in front of L2, operating at 2xFs, L2 is still at 2xFs, and the SFC-2 takes it from 2x to 1x, still at 24 bits, to Sonic - M1/M2 output monitored by either SpectraFoo or Digicheck. The SFC-2 does not create overs this way - only the rare FS sample. I have seen many commercially successful CDs with hundreds of real OvErS. This is somewhat strange to me, though, because it's sometimes-to-often _not_ those records which sound distorted to me. It's the one's with aggressive limiting in spite of there being NO overs that can sound harsh.
Andrew
Post by: Matt_G on June 20, 2008, 08:15:02 PM
| Bob Boyd wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 15:25 |
When I was in PT, I would usually grab MDW EQ like you. (Still love that band-isolate feature in V2.) |
Yeah this is the only function I use MDW for, it's never actually applying EQ to the signal. I just like using it to zero in on frequencies quickly & easily with the band-isolate feature. Once I've got a number of frequencies I want to cut I usually dial these into the Weiss or the Sontec, if there's any bands free for cutting. Most of the time the Sontec is set to boost & enhance rather than cut or correct.
Are you using the SPL for surgery & the Sontec 250 or MP for boosts or a combo of both boost & cuts on each unit?
Matt
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 21, 2008, 01:02:53 AM
When boosting they have different but both very usable personalities. Where one doesn't quite feel like it's doing the trick, often the other can slip right in and handle the job nicely.
On the Massive, I guess I tend to do wide (occasionally mid-ish) width boosts more than anything. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I often treat this box as a mostly broad-stroke M/S enhancement tool via the Dangerous Master.
Post by: masterhse on June 21, 2008, 02:17:47 AM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 13:52 |
I didn't know PSP Zenon upsampled. Is this automatic or enabled somewhere? Thanks, |
Hi Andy,
It an option.
Best,
Tom
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 21, 2008, 09:50:00 AM
| masterhse wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 02:17 | ||
Hi Andy, It an option. Best, Tom |
Ah! I just read it as a way to eliminate inter-sample peaks and didn't pay much attention to the word "oversample".
Of course I tried it quite often when I first got it but I'm not crazy about the sound of it when engaged and so had largely abandoned it. Maybe that's because I don't use the up-sample technique that some espouse but always master at the native rate.
For whatever reason, the way I master is not creating very many, and mostly not any intersample-peaks anyway, at least according to the SSL "Inter-Sampling Meter". However, I have noticed that it doesn't always agree with the PSP version with the latter showing more peaks than the former.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on June 21, 2008, 09:56:54 AM
| masterhse wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 07:32 |
I'm thinking of the following work flow for more complex processing: 1. Process in PT as normal. 2. Remove the limiter and bounce files. 3. SRC with sample manager. 4. Final assembly and limiting in Soundblade. I'll take a bet that Jerry is already doing things this way |
Not yet Tom, sounds like you're ahead of me on that one.
I've always liked the idea of finding your youe EQ settings and removing the limter to preserve a pure version of the mastered song. 'Course these days I rarely limit more than 1.5 dB, so it's not as big of a deal compared to how hard I hit the Lavry ADC.
Yeah I really like the PSP Xenon, has some interesting uses for touch ups, iirc the 2x Oversample is an option in the upper left corner.
More Later, cheers - JT
Post by: Andy Krehm on June 21, 2008, 10:18:50 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 09:56 | ||
Not yet Tom, sounds like you're ahead of me on that one. I've always liked the idea of finding your youe EQ settings and removing the limter to preserve a pure version of the mastered song. 'Course these days I rarely limit more than 1.5 dB, so it's not as big of a deal compared to how hard I hit the Lavry ADC. Yeah I really like the PSP Xenon, has some interesting uses for touch ups, iirc the 2x Oversample is an option in the upper left corner. More Later, cheers - JT |
I'd probably work without the limiter for the bounce also if I could find a way to eliminate those pesky overs that seem to pop up with it off
!And if I lower the output of the program enough to eliminate the overs (so I can use the limiter later), then it seems to me one would have to use more of the limiter that if using it as part of a one-pass process.
Tom, what is your method/observations on this issue?
Thanks,
Post by: masterhse on June 21, 2008, 11:08:58 AM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 10:18 |
And if I lower the output of the program enough to eliminate the overs (so I can use the limiter later), then it seems to me one would have to use more of the limiter that if using it as part of a one-pass process. Tom, what is your method/observations on this issue? Thanks, |
I don't know that I've really encountered that Andy. When setting up my routing configuration in PT I usually use two aux channels. The first aux channel is most often used for de-essing, "surgical" or "corrective" digital eq, then the analog chain. This then feeds the second aux channel that contains optionally harder compression, and final limiting.
Since the analog chain is the last thing in aux 1 any overs are easily seen on the peak meter for this channel. As Jerry said, if your clipping with the Lavry these show up (they are what they are). As long as the meter from the DAW is measuring 24 bit (like PT HD) overs shouldn't be hidden like they might be using 32 float or when processing inside of an internal bus with a higher bit depth.
Essentially what I'm doing by reserving the limiting for later is to postpone the processing in aux 2 until I get into soundblade (with SRC in between). One could also record this to another audio channel in PT while reviewing and then bounce the limited version to have both. You could also just as easily not perform SRC in between and limit at the higher sample rate, then have SB perform SRC.
The possibilities are endless, which isn't always a good thing
.
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 21, 2008, 01:33:48 PM
Post by: zmix on June 21, 2008, 02:15:13 PM
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Fri, 20 June 2008 17:37 |
Some SRCs will automatically lower the incoming signal by a fraction of a dB in order to make room for the new peaks created by the 24 bit dither summed to the new sample positions. Andrew |
Which ones do this? (links, please!)
Also you certainly must realize that 24bit dither is greater than 146dB below 0dBfs....
Post by: Bob Boyd on June 21, 2008, 04:03:08 PM
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on June 21, 2008, 06:46:27 PM
| zmix wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 14:15 |
Which ones... [lower gain before the SRC]? (links, please!) |
Bob B. mentions Saracon. I think the SFC-2 might do this as well. Also, I believe that SonicStudio HD does this for various processes, besides SRC, including EQ and... oh yeah, that's all it does. (:
Others? Not sure which ones. This is what I've read, and it seems like a logical practice.
| Quote: |
Also you certainly must realize that 24bit dither is greater than 146dB below 0dBfs.... |
I should hope so! Theoretical dynamics of 24 bit is (only) 144 dB. So the dither which is required to decorrelate requantization errors (from the signal's amp. mod.) must be higher than -144 dBFS (i.e. a lower number, preceded by the minus sign). But how much is enough is probably still very little if the noise is flat. Why noise shape before delivery?
Andrew
Post by: aivoryuk on June 22, 2008, 10:23:34 AM
There is one way I have come across using the SRC in Izotope RX that saves me the need of using a limiter after SRC.
AS I work ITB after I have processed i export the file as 32bitfloating. I then import into RX and perform the src, this will obv then create overs.
I then save the file as 24bit.
when looking then are now no overs showing on the peak meter although using a oversampled meter it will still show intersample peaks, but essentially the intersample peaks have not be recreated within the waveform.
Post by: Matt_G on June 22, 2008, 08:34:57 PM
| aivoryuk wrote on Mon, 23 June 2008 00:23 |
There is one way I have come across using the SRC in Izotope RX that saves me the need of using a limiter after SRC. AS I work ITB after I have processed i export the file as 32bitfloating. I then import into RX and perform the src, this will obv then create overs. I then save the file as 24bit. when looking then are now no overs showing on the peak meter although using a oversampled meter it will still show intersample peaks, but essentially the intersample peaks have not be recreated within the waveform. |
Yeah I discovered this a while back although I'm using SampleManager instead. I actually find converting the 24-96k master file to 32bit fixed point first before the SRC & than using 24bit TPDF dither to convert back to 24 on the output (or if you don't need to do further fades 16bit MBIT+).
This seems to work best, it doesn't totally rid you of peaks but it's certainly a lot cleaner. For the record I found using 32bit fixed over float worked best in this regard. If I'm going straight to 16bit I drop the input to the dither module by 0.1 & this always brings me out at -0.1dbfs
Post by: zmix on June 23, 2008, 12:06:06 AM
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 18:46 | ||
I should hope so! Theoretical dynamics of 24 bit is (only) 144 dB. Andrew |
I think you have been using a simplified formula, Andrew.
The actual formula for determining theoretical dynamic range in linear PCM encoding is 1.76 + 6.02 times the number of bits...
In a 24 bit system this gives 146.24dB
Post by: mcsnare on June 23, 2008, 01:51:19 AM
Dave
Post by: zmix on June 23, 2008, 10:37:28 AM
| Bob Boyd wrote on Sat, 21 June 2008 16:03 |
Weiss Saracon |
That is a well thought out system. According to the manula, they reduce the level (3-4 dB??) when dithering for SACD...
Post by: zmix on June 23, 2008, 10:47:36 AM
| mcsnare wrote on Mon, 23 June 2008 01:51 |
Whew, good to know. I haven't been able to sleep since I thought I'd lost 2.24db of dynamic range. Dave |
Actually you should sleep better now knowing that you can lop off nearly 3dB and nobody's the wiser!
In being very specific about that figure, I was not trying to be a weenie, but I hate it when people try to bust other people's shit without using facts as a reference...
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on August 29, 2009, 04:15:19 PM
146.2553105 dB
I'll let it slide, this time, since SonicStudio only shows -144 on the master fader.
We all stand, corrected.
Andrew
Post by: Phil Demetro on August 29, 2009, 10:55:14 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 11:01 |
Dig playback via Wavelab (for PCM), capture/edit/cut parts in Sequoia. |
Brad, what's the reasoning for this? Why not run 2 * Sequoia's (2 Wavelab's) ?
Do they sound different from each other?
Post by: Phil Demetro on August 29, 2009, 10:59:40 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 08:26 |
FWIW, Sequoia (and Samp) can run multiple instances at once - I choose to use Wavelab to fed the analog chain simply because there's less of a chance of confusion (on my part or in the playback engine/sound card assignment) and Wavelab will open just about any digital file ever made. |
Thanks... appreciate the quick reply!
Post by: bkuijt on August 30, 2009, 09:48:14 AM
| zmix wrote on Mon, 23 June 2008 16:37 | ||
That is a well thought out system. According to the manula, they reduce the level (3-4 dB??) when dithering for SACD... |
I believe that is because of the maximum modulation level of DSD allowed by the SACD Scarlet Book.
It is about -3 dB from full (theoretical) scale modulation.
(it's actually more complicated, but the result is aprox -3 dB from full Scale)
bests,
Post by: Jerry Tubb on August 30, 2009, 10:38:41 AM
Pro Tools HD 8.0cs3 as a Playback DAW, at the project sampling rate, lots of 88.2k here lately, on a G5 with OSX Leopard.
soundBlade 1.3.4 as a Capture DAW, at 44.1k, on a second G5 with OSX Leopard.
It's a little more trouble to operate two DAWs, but the increased flexibility seems worth it. And it sounds ever so slightly better than using any SRC in the workflow.
Although Sample Manager is great, and does a stellar job, it adds one more process to the audio. Most of the time I won't even use plug-ins due to the slight coloration.
So far the only hitch is that some of the add-on options in sB won't initialize to my iLok in Leopard, but it's been solid as a rock for capture, edit, burn.
This workflow is nothing new, as I used a Dual DAW approach in the late '90s.
But then it was PT LE for playback on a Power Computing 225MHz tower, to SD II on a Power Computing 100MHz tower, and burned with MasterListCD : - )
Post by: Andy Krehm on August 30, 2009, 12:20:43 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 10:38 |
For the past few weeks, at the behest of my Sterling friend Dave McSnare, I've been using a dual DAW setup. Pro Tools HD 8.0cs3 as a Playback DAW, at the project sampling rate, lots of 88.2k here lately, on a G5 with OSX Leopard. soundBlade 1.3.4 as a Capture DAW, at 44.1k, on a second G5 with OSX Leopard. It's a little more trouble to operate two DAWs, but the increased flexibility seems worth it. And it sounds ever so slightly better than using any SRC in the workflow. Although Sample Manager is great, and does a stellar job, it adds one more process to the audio. Most of the time I won't even use plug-ins due to the slight coloration. So far the only hitch is that some of the add-on options in sB won't initialize to my iLok in Leopard, but it's been solid as a rock for capture, edit, burn. This workflow is nothing new, as I used a Dual DAW approach in the late '90s. But then it was PT LE for playback on a Power Computing 225MHz tower, to SD II on a Power Computing 100MHz tower, and burned with MasterListCD : - ) |
Hey JT:
Sounds interesting and an option I have thought about but never tried.
I gather from posts of the past, I may be alone in this but my work flow depends on me being able to reference to previously mastered tracks as I feel that is the way I can best master my sequences. In fact, I sometimes like to flip through several previously mastered tracks as I work on the current on.
Obviously this is easy, at the moment, as I do all my processing in PTs and the masters are recorded back in to the same session. How could I zip around to preset markers in a 2 DAW setup?
Thanks,
Post by: mcsnare on August 30, 2009, 05:05:21 PM
Dave
Post by: TotalSonic on August 30, 2009, 06:50:07 PM
| mcsnare wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 17:05 |
I think it's easier to toggle back and forth on one screen and keyboard than use two. |
I agree. Luckily most KVM's out there let you have an easy key command to allow you to jump from monitoring one computer to another - and allow controlling several different computers via one keyboard/video monitor/mouse.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: Ed Littman on August 30, 2009, 11:30:50 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 18:50 | ||
I agree. Luckily most KVM's out there let you have an easy key command to allow you to jump from monitoring one computer to another - and allow controlling several different computers via one keyboard/video monitor/mouse. Best regards, Steve Berson |
Over a year ago I upgraded to a new computer. I was used to having separate drivers for both my RME AES-32 & RME HDSP 9632
To allow asynchronous operation in the old comp.
Unfortunately the new set up would not allow installation of the same drivers I was using & the new rme drivers ganged the cards together...BAD.
I had a long call with Synthax & dug into the archive page to find drivers that worked. The ones that worked were
RME AES-32 Driver version 2.5.2.1
RME HDSP 9632 Driver version 2.8.3.1
The tech said I was the only one he heard of using one computer with two sound cards for play & capture at different sample rates. I thought that was odd, but maybe he was right....
Things are working rock solid since getting through the BS.
I use three instances of Wavelab 1playback,2capture,3assemble.
Capture & assemble are using asio drivers so I can toggle between each instance quickly to A/B/C
I have a kvm box to switch to the internet etc comp
Ed
Post by: Jerry Tubb on August 31, 2009, 02:17:12 AM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 11:20 |
Hey JT: Sounds interesting and an option I have thought about but never tried. I gather from posts of the past, I may be alone in this but my work flow depends on me being able to reference to previously mastered tracks as I feel that is the way I can best master my sequences. In fact, I sometimes like to flip through several previously mastered tracks as I work on the current on. Obviously this is easy, at the moment, as I do all my processing in PTs and the masters are recorded back in to the same session. How could I zip around to preset markers in a 2 DAW setup? Thanks, |
Hey Andy!
I've done the same thing in PT HD, by toggling the input mode on the "capture" tracks to check previous mastered songs.
It's also easy to do with the Dual DAW setup:
On DAW One, I'm playing the song to be mastered in PT HD.
On DAW Two with sB in Input mode, I'm listening thru the EQ path & making adjustments. Then toggling the input and output modes with my left hand (page up/page down keys) to reference previously mastered songs on the fly. You can jump from one SRP (place markers) to another, via the drop down SRP menu. After the adjustments are made to taste, I drop the edit point at the desired spot in the sB sequence with the left hand mouse, and hit the "/" key to capture.
It's very flexible, & actually easier to do than to explain, once the ergonomics, workflow, and tactile dexterity are ingrained, lots of nice shiny lights all flash all at once : - )
Cheers - JT
Post by: Jerry Tubb on August 31, 2009, 10:41:40 AM
| mcsnare wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 16:05 |
JayTee, I just use one computer to playback and record, but like Brad, 2 apps and soundcards. Wavelab for playback and Sequoia to record and assemble. I think it's easier to toggle back and forth on one screen and keyboard than use two. The second computer is for plugins only. I think I got the idea from Andy VanDette, and use Wavelab on 'live input' mode. Dave |
Hi Dave(!)
Yes I roughly understand the approach that you guys do, it's very efficient, with RT Lavry 3000 SRC as a kicker.
Also well aquainted with a KVM switcher, we've got one toggling our Server & Plextools PC.
But AFAIK on the Mac, Core Audio and/or PT (HD & LE) only allow one multichannel audio stream & sample rate at a time.
But I haven't tested it lately, maybe Leopard and a new Mac Pro with two third party sound cards, and different audio apps than PT would let it happen.
Best - JT
Post by: Andy Krehm on August 31, 2009, 11:50:48 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 31 August 2009 10:41 | ||
Hi Dave(!) Yes I roughly understand the approach that you guys do, it's very efficient, with RT Lavry 3000 SRC as a kicker. Also well aquainted with a KVM switcher, we've got one toggling our Server & Plextools PC. But AFAIK on the Mac, Core Audio and/or PT (HD & LE) only allow one multichannel audio stream & sample rate at a time. But I haven't tested it lately, maybe Leopard and a new Mac Pro with two third party sound cards, and different audio apps than PT would let it happen. Best - JT |
Hey JT:
It's been awhile but I'm sure that we were using our 3rd part sound card (currently used for Spectra-Foo) to record into Logic and/or WE on the same machine with the Lavry 3000S in between.
There were some ergonomic problems and/or practical problems that caused this to be put on the back burner but it can be done and we may persue this when we have more time. BTW, this was with our G5 dual 2.5 and an older 0SX system.
Post by: KAyo on September 01, 2009, 05:47:10 AM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 15 June 2008 20:32 | ||
Yep - I use XP simply because IMO Sequoia is the best software available... |
I use XP, because it has an universal advantage over Mac OS, on all levels… as far as my personal set-up and business is concerned.
And yes, I own Macs too.. and still a staunch XP supporter. Always have been!
I use two XP machines, Wavelab and Soundforge.. Digital limiting ITB, after analogue capture …
SRC dependencies, are decisions taken after type of file presented. Do not always upsample as a habit.
Also use CD Architect, Sequoia, Samplitude, Nuendo and even Sony Vegas at times!
KAyo
Post by: Jerry Tubb on September 01, 2009, 11:10:15 AM
| Andy Krehm wrote on Mon, 31 August 2009 10:50 |
Hey JT: It's been awhile but I'm sure that we were using our 3rd part sound card (currently used for Spectra-Foo) to record into Logic and/or WE on the same machine with the Lavry 3000S in between. |
Sounds interesting. Maybe I'll try a Lynx card in me Mac at some point, just to see. AFAIK PT in all it's forms blocks any other Core Audio activity (maybe an assumption). So maybe two Lynx cards running sB and another audio app like Peak Pro. Should prove for some curious experimentation.
How're you liking Leopard on the G5 with WB 1.6 and PT HD 8 situation?
Cheers - JT
p.s. my second G5 DAW has been acting up, I think it's the power supply, so I'm temporarilly back to a single DAW setup.
Post by: David Glasser on September 01, 2009, 11:47:33 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Tue, 01 September 2009 09:10 |
AFAIK PT in all it's forms blocks any other Core Audio activity (maybe an assumption). |
JT - I run soundBlade and PT simultaneously on a Mac Pro. Works like a champ.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on September 01, 2009, 12:11:17 PM
| David Glasser wrote on Tue, 01 September 2009 10:47 | ||
JT - I run soundBlade and PT simultaneously on a Mac Pro. Works like a champ. |
Thanks David, now I remember, you posted that a few months back.
One question tho' ... same sampling rates ... or different?
i.e. PT at 96k, sB at 44.1k, I assume you're using the Lynx AES card for sB?
Cheers - JT
Post by: David Glasser on September 01, 2009, 12:35:13 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Tue, 01 September 2009 10:11 |
One question tho' ... same sampling rates ... or different? i.e. PT at 96k, sB at 44.1k, I assume you're using the Lynx AES card for sB? Cheers - JT |
Different rates - otherwise I'd use a single workstation.
Sonic 303 for sB.
Post by: jfrigo on September 02, 2009, 03:07:48 AM
| David Glasser wrote on Tue, 01 September 2009 12:35 | ||
Different rates - otherwise I'd use a single workstation. Sonic 303 for sB. |
Same here. Got a PT rig and a Sonic sB on a Lynx AES-16e in a single mac pro running simultaneously at different rates with no trouble. I used to do this years ago with Sonic HD and pro tools D24 rig in a single G4.
I also have a larger PT rig in a G5 next to it if we need to get into any hairy, complex stems in surround kind of situation. Still, a majority of the time it's just the single machine in stereo.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on September 02, 2009, 09:52:03 AM
| jfrigo wrote on Wed, 02 September 2009 02:07 | ||||
Same here. Got a PT rig and a Sonic sB on a Lynx AES-16e in a single mac pro running simultaneously at different rates with no trouble. I used to do this years ago with Sonic HD and pro tools D24 rig in a single G4. I also have a larger PT rig in a G5 next to it if we need to get into any hairy, complex stems in surround kind of situation. Still, a majority of the time it's just the single machine in stereo. |
Thanks for the Enlightenment guys!
Looks like I'll be heading that direction soon.
Keeping my PT HD rig on my main G5 DAW intact for big surround & stem jobs, and adding a new Mac Pro with PT8 LE for playback, along with sB for capture and deliver on the same rig, probably with the Lynx card.
Yesterday had a full length 88.2k session that I ran on my pair of G5 DAWs, capturing at 44.1k on sB. Actually it's no trouble to run two G5s as I've got plenty of real estate on my mothership desk. Just have to sort out my iLok and authorization schemes a touch.
Cheers - JT
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on September 02, 2009, 11:29:40 PM
Post by: hnewman on September 03, 2009, 12:30:17 PM
| Andrew Hamilton wrote on Wed, 02 September 2009 23:29 |
The sound card for Samplitude is an RME DIGI96/8. |
I don't want to thread hijack, I can start this in a separate discussion if that would be helpful, but what drivers are you using for the DIGI96/8? For reasons unknown my ASIO drivers work with all programs on my machine EXCEPT Samplitude.
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on September 06, 2009, 10:05:41 AM
I installed version 2.1.1.0.
Post by: hnewman on September 06, 2009, 12:04:31 PM
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on September 06, 2009, 06:44:13 PM
Do you think maybe one of the apps might be hogging that resource? Can you select a different output for SF and FB and then see what Samplitude does? If possible, maybe even reinstall the apps in a different order than you did before. Maybe Samplitude needs to see the card before the others do?
All's I know is I am using the RME card for digital in/out for Samplitude (6.0.5), DigiCheck (4.5), and Izotope RX, with no problems. I routinely use DigiCheck while also using PTLE...
Oh, yeah, and my DIGI96/8 card doesn't have analog.
Don't give up,
Andrew
Post by: hnewman on September 06, 2009, 07:43:39 PM
I'll keep fighting the good fight, it might be time for a full un/reinstall. Do you know where I can find 2.1.1.0?
Post by: Andrew Hamilton on September 07, 2009, 08:27:00 AM
| hnewman wrote on Sun, 06 September 2009 19:43 |
I believe I'm using 2.1.1.1...It's just Samp that's shut out, even when nothing is running or holding the driver. ... I'll keep fighting the good fight, it might be time for a full un/reinstall. Do you know where I can find 2.1.1.0? |
I noticed that the one, labeled w2k_211, which is at the RME-audio download "archiv," is, as you mention, described as "2.1.1.1." However, my system has the insalled w2k_211 showing up as "2.1.1.0," as well as some helping files that are "2.1.0.0."
Not saying it will help, but I have the installer I used, which is a month older (14/06/05) than the one at rme-audio (21/07/05), available to you, exclusively for educational purposes, or to any Brad Blackwood forum subscriber, at the Serif Sound Server.
http://www.serifsound.com/web/downloads/
(visitor/serifs)
There's also a few .pdfs you are welcome to download.
Also, a couple of files on what to turn off to make XP relatively lean for DAW use. One of them is from the "Sweetwater" team. Nothing new, but I have followed each of its suggestions with no known "issues."
I do recommend uninstalling all the RME drivers and, if you have the serial numbers, dongles, time, etc., uninstalling even Samplitude and SF and anything else that you have gotten to work with the card, or have even tried to get to work with the card (by preference). I think that in some scenarios - perhaps not yours - even when the other application is _off_, its erstwhile claim on the card (via preference) supersedes Samplitude from accessing it. Just how you could be getting the analog path of the card (which is also digital, after all) and not the S/P DIF, I'm not sure.
There is a force-adat mode on the setup panel for the card which I am sure you have tried in all its possible states of toggle (including off-on-off). (; And Samplitude's system audio prefs are aimed appropriately? Did Samplitude ever work with that card (digital e-e) for you on that PC?
Andrew
Post by: Doc Roc on November 18, 2010, 12:11:11 PM
Post by: jdg on November 18, 2010, 12:39:26 PM
very happy.
Post by: MASSIVE Mastering on November 18, 2010, 12:44:20 PM
Post by: TotalSonic on November 18, 2010, 01:23:34 PM
| Doc Roc wrote on Thu, 18 November 2010 12:11 |
Bump cause I'd love to bring this topic into 2010/2011 relevancy. Everyone still using the same DAW? any changes advances lately? |
I'm still using SAWStudio and don't have any plans to change to anything else. The 5.0 update for it should be out in the next few months and without knowing specifics of what it will contain, based on user's wish lists and the response to these by the developer, is looking to add a good number of additional features - many of which will likely not that big of a deal towards mastering needs, but a few that might.
The one main thing that I have added since the last time this came up is Sonoris DDP Creator and DDP Player OEM -
http://www.sonoris.nl/catalog/ddp-creator-p-47.html
http://www.sonoris.nl/catalog/ddp-player-oem-p-50.html
- which has allowed me to do quick conversions of CD layouts to DDP, as well as quick editing of layouts when needed - as well as be able to provide a cross platform downloadable reference player to all my clients so that they can more easily audition their masters in online orders.
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: crna59 on November 18, 2010, 01:49:42 PM
Post by: Greg Reierson on November 18, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
GR
Post by: bblackwood on November 18, 2010, 02:03:46 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sat, 14 June 2008 10:01 |
Dig playback via Wavelab (for PCM), capture/edit/cut parts in Sequoia. |
Still the same - WL 4 and Sequoia 7.23, same setup I've been running sine 2004 or so.
Post by: lowland on November 18, 2010, 02:57:50 PM
Post by: urm eric on November 18, 2010, 03:01:38 PM
Cheers,
Eric
Post by: urm eric on November 18, 2010, 03:36:30 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Thu, 18 November 2010 13:03 | ||
Still the same - WL 4 and Sequoia 7.23, same setup I've been running sine 2004 or so. |
Have you tried running it sawtooth or square 2010 - waayyy better!
Post by: 24-96 Mastering on November 18, 2010, 04:11:50 PM
Post by: dcollins on November 18, 2010, 05:15:59 PM
DC
Post by: Gold on November 18, 2010, 06:12:53 PM
Post by: TotalSonic on November 18, 2010, 08:03:24 PM
| dcollins wrote on Thu, 18 November 2010 17:15 |
Sonic HD for record. DC |
DC still rockin' with OS9! And here I thought I was the archaic one in that my playback DAW is still running under Windows 2000 (been thinking of finally changing this up soon though).
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: Allen Corneau on November 18, 2010, 08:44:24 PM
(I'm assuming I responded to the original thread. Can't remember!)
Post by: soundroid on November 19, 2010, 01:29:51 AM
| TotalSonic wrote on Thu, 18 November 2010 19:03 | ||
DC still rockin' with OS9! And here I thought I was the archaic one in that my playback DAW is still running under Windows 2000 (been thinking of finally changing this up soon though). Best regards, Steve Berson |
still firing up Sonic HD for capture here. Mac OS 9.2 rocks!!!
A lot less complaints with HD stability, compared to our sB system
Post by: Jerry Tubb on November 19, 2010, 02:03:49 AM
For some reason my sB rig is very solid, maybe it senses that I enjoy using it.
JT
Here's an "action" shot:
Post by: Bonati on November 19, 2010, 03:07:30 AM
Post by: 24-96 Mastering on November 19, 2010, 06:39:35 AM
| 24-96 Mastering wrote on Thu, 18 November 2010 22:11 |
Wavelab 6 on Windows XP here (Wavelab 7 was unstable on my WinXP DAW when I tried it). |
Forgot to add:
Sadie 5 for DSD / SACD work
Nuendo 4 for sound-to-video / surround / multitrack
Post by: dcollins on November 19, 2010, 12:52:01 PM
| TotalSonic wrote on Thu, 18 November 2010 17:03 |
DC still rockin' with OS9! And here I thought I was the archaic one in that my playback DAW is still running under Windows 2000 (been thinking of finally changing this up soon though). |
Yes, and it's rock-solid. I have a backup Sonic in the closet just in case. I just ordered a little Mac mini to run an experiment with SB, so we shall see.
Also getting the Weiss Firewire to AES converter thingy to avoid the Metric Halo hardware.
DC
Post by: Phil Demetro on November 19, 2010, 03:18:47 PM
| dcollins wrote on Fri, 19 November 2010 12:52 | ||
Yes, and it's rock-solid. I have a backup Sonic in the closet just in case. I just ordered a little Mac mini to run an experiment with SB, so we shall see. Also getting the Weiss Firewire to AES converter thingy to avoid the Metric Halo hardware. DC |
Hi Dave!
You'll love the Weiss, I've had one for a bit.
Post by: Mrwoo on November 20, 2010, 12:56:03 AM
Post by: Table Of Tone on November 20, 2010, 06:49:12 AM
| dcollins wrote on Fri, 19 November 2010 17:52 |
Also getting the Weiss Firewire to AES converter thingy to avoid the Metric Halo hardware. DC |
Been thinking of getting one of those myself.
I'd be interested to see if you find that the Weiss AFI1 sounds better than a Lynx card.
A few users have said it does!
Post by: dcollins on November 20, 2010, 10:14:19 PM
| Table Of Tone wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 03:49 | ||
Been thinking of getting one of those myself. I'd be interested to see if you find that the Weiss AFI1 sounds better than a Lynx card. A few users have said it does! |
I wouldn't expect it to sound any different I just don't like the politics of MH.
DC
Post by: TotalSonic on November 20, 2010, 11:19:28 PM
| dcollins wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 22:14 | ||||
I wouldn't expect it to sound any different I just don't like the politics of MH. DC |
What are the politics of Metric Halo?? Left of Mao, Right of Genghis Khan??
Best regards,
Steve Berson
Post by: jfrigo on November 21, 2010, 01:10:33 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Fri, 19 November 2010 02:03 |
Pro Tools HD 7.4 for playback, soundBlade 1.3.5 for captcha. For some reason my sB rig is very solid, maybe it senses that I enjoy using it. |
Same here, both re: platforms and stability. Only difference is I've gone to PT8.
Post by: Ed Littman on November 21, 2010, 09:22:15 AM
| Bonati wrote on Fri, 19 November 2010 03:07 |
Wavelab 5 for playback, Wavelab 6 for capture. |
Just curious..why?
I use 6 for both playback & capture. At this point I'm not interested in 7 as i'm in the mindset of why fix what aint broke.
Ed
Post by: Jerry Tubb on November 21, 2010, 11:53:01 AM
| jfrigo wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 00:10 | ||
Same here, both re: platforms and stability. Only difference is I've gone to PT8. |
Hi Jay, yeah I'm keeping my 7.4 HD rig back in the dark ages on OSX 10.4.11. It's on a G5 with PCI slots, not really interested in making the upgrade to PCIe.
I keep the old PT HD system around for a few reasons:
a. Sonic Solutions NoNoise for PT runs great on it.
b. Crane Song Phoenix TDM plug-in.
c. It's great for 5.1 surround sessions.
d. great for stems.
e. the i/o flexibility of the Digi 192 interface is great.
I'm enjoying the stability of a super solid working system, especially for those attended sessions, for predictable consistent results.
But also considering options and dabbling in experimentation.
Perhaps add a PT9 HD Native rig (on a smokin' new Mac Pro) at some point, as the authorization is portable via iLok.
We also have two PT8 LE DAWs we'll be upgrading one to PT 9 soon on Mac Pro. We also have a coupla "legacy" rigs with PT 5 and other ancient DAW apps on them.
On the Mac Pro soundBlade rig, the interchangeability of the HDD caddies makes it easy to swap OSX versions.
So the stable sB 1.3.5 / OSX 10.5.8 system stays in place (period).
Over the holidays adding a Snow Leopard HDD for sB 2.0, WL7, and PT9 with an extra Lynx AES 16e card for experimentation.
So we have all three: bleeding edge, comfortably stable, and stonetool luddite DAWs, as I like options.
Best, JT
Post by: masterhse on November 21, 2010, 07:58:47 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 11:53 | ||||
Hi Jay, yeah I'm keeping my 7.4 HD rig back in the dark ages on OSX 10.4.11. It's on a G5 with PCI slots, not really interested in making the upgrade to PCIe. I keep the old PT HD system around for a few reasons: a. Sonic Solutions NoNoise for PT runs great on it. b. Crane Song Phoenix TDM plug-in. c. It's great for 5.1 surround sessions. d. great for stems. e. the i/o flexibility of the Digi 192 interface is great. I'm enjoying the stability of a super solid working system, especially for those attended sessions, for predictable consistent results. But also considering options and dabbling in experimentation. Perhaps add a PT9 HD Native rig (on a smokin' new Mac Pro) at some point, as the authorization is portable via iLok. We also have two PT8 LE DAWs we'll be upgrading one to PT 9 soon on Mac Pro. We also have a coupla "legacy" rigs with PT 5 and other ancient DAW apps on them. On the Mac Pro soundBlade rig, the interchangeability of the HDD caddies makes it easy to swap OSX versions. So the stable sB 1.3.5 / OSX 10.5.8 system stays in place (period). Over the holidays adding a Snow Leopard HDD for sB 2.0, WL7, and PT9 with an extra Lynx AES 16e card for experimentation. So we have all three: bleeding edge, comfortably stable, and stonetool luddite DAWs, as I like options. Best, JT |
A tertiary endorsement with an eye on SADiE native.
Post by: Bonati on November 22, 2010, 12:15:32 PM
| Ed Littman wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 09:22 |
Just curious..why? I use 6 for both playback & capture. |
The WL5 PC was the first mastering PC I ever built - the WL6 was the second when I decided to go the two-computer route. Both running on XP Pro. I dislike PCs but man, these guys have been doing the heavy lifting with no complaints for a while now.
Although I have been awaiting the "savior" (mac-based WL7) for years now like other WL users, a new Mac Pro + upgraded Lynx PCIe card + WL7 + plugs starts to get expensive and building PCs is so cheap & easy. I don't even have to put any effort into making them quiet since we have a machine room.
| Quote: |
At this point I'm not interested in 7 as i'm in the mindset of why fix what aint broke |
Exactly. (And I'm cheap.)
Post by: allenrowand on November 22, 2010, 05:11:21 PM
| dcollins wrote on Sat, 20 November 2010 21:14 |
I wouldn't expect it to sound any different I just don't like the politics of MH. |
Out of curiosity, what are Metric Halo's politics?
Allen
Post by: Dave Davis on November 23, 2010, 08:08:52 AM
| allenrowand wrote on Mon, 22 November 2010 22:11 | ||
Out of curiosity, what are Metric Halo's politics? |
Pinko? Birchers?
Damn Allen, now that you've shown up sportin' that MH badge we'll never find out.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on November 23, 2010, 09:09:40 AM
| masterhse wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 18:58 |
A tertiary endorsement with an eye on SADiE native. |
You must have a Windoze PC idling on the side for Plextools!
If I were gonna add that into the equation, I'd probably add WaveLab 7 on our Plextools WindowsXP/Mac Mini, and get fluent with it on both platforms.
Perhaps you just like Sexy Sister Sadie, is she beckoning to you?
Cheers, JT
p.s. can we get a quaternary endorsement?
Post by: allenrowand on November 23, 2010, 09:45:52 AM
| Dave Davis wrote on Tue, 23 November 2010 07:08 |
Pinko? Birchers? Damn Allen, now that you've shown up sportin' that MH badge we'll never find out. |
To put this to rest-
Metric Halo has no corporate political philosophy; we do not officially or unofficially have any political stance. We just make gear. As individuals, our beliefs are varied.
Dave Collins made an assumption about us which was incorrect. We've spoken and understand each other, which is all that needs to be said.
To bring this back on topic, my fumbling attempts at mastering/CD assembly are done in Wave Editor. You know, for that one CD I do every year or two!
Allen
Post by: Jerry Tubb on November 23, 2010, 01:24:38 PM
| allenrowand wrote on Tue, 23 November 2010 08:45 |
To bring this back on topic, my fumbling attempts at mastering/CD assembly are done in Wave Editor. You know, for that one CD I do every year or two! Allen |
What about your alliance with Sonic?
Cheers, JT
Post by: masterhse on November 23, 2010, 08:11:46 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Tue, 23 November 2010 09:09 | ||
You must have a Windoze PC idling on the side for Plextools! |
I do have a couple of Windoze PCs (two with Plextools and Plextor drives) but in this case it's a Mac Pro running boot camp. A simple reboot and all of the hardware and connections are ready to go (assuming no ASIO issues).
Also the Pro Tools sessions are totally compatible between OS/X and Windows (other than plugs which aren't supported on both).
Post by: Jerry Tubb on November 24, 2010, 02:41:34 AM
| masterhse wrote on Sun, 21 November 2010 18:58 | ||
A tertiary endorsement with an eye on SADiE native. |
I was able to do a version of this scenario within a few hours tonight.
PT8 > soundBlade on the same machine, at different sampling rates.
Rather than repeat post in two different forums, I'll provide a link:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/553751-snow-l eopard-daw-tests.html
Cheers, JT
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on November 24, 2010, 06:59:03 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Tue, 23 November 2010 09:09 | ||
You must have a Windoze PC idling on the side for Plextools! If I were gonna add that into the equation, I'd probably add WaveLab 7 on our Plextools WindowsXP/Mac Mini, and get fluent with it on both platforms. Perhaps you just like Sexy Sister Sadie, is she beckoning to you? Cheers, JT p.s. can we get a quaternary endorsement? |
I would wait for version 7.01 of WL7 since it is suppose to "fix" a lot of the problems that version 7 has. It is suppose to be out by the end of the month. It is in Steinberg's QC right now.
Post by: Gregg Janman on November 24, 2010, 07:22:42 AM
Adobe Audition for topping and tailing, generating statistics, and looking at the overall waveform, and AudioMulch for playback/transfer/capture.
(Plus Sonoris plugin for dither and Voxengo r8brainPRO for SRC)