linuxaudio.org

On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 02:03:01AM +0300, Moshe Werner wrote:
> Yet there is one endless discussion between friends and colleges of mine

quoted text
> that I usually do not participate in due to the lack of knowledge.

> The topic is algorithms of software (DAW) mixers. Some people say that they

> can hear a sound difference between several kinds of software mixers (e.g.

> Cubase, Protools etc.).

> I must say that I never made any serious A\B testing but I didn't notice

> that there is any difference. Although I do work with Pro-tools and Cubase

> (in other studios), most of the time I'm actually using Ardour (and I'm

> loving it).

I assume you refer to the basic _mixing_ algorithm, i.e. summing signals,

and not to e.g. effect plugins. For the latter there is usually a zillion

ways to do things, and of course they will sound different. As to the

former, the basic mixing, this is just a lot of nonsense.
Sad facts are that:
- The pro audio world is today infested with the same type of pseudo-

science that hit the hifi market 25 or more years ago and that makes

some people pay $3000 for a piece of cable and two connectors, or makes

them spend money on machines to replace old and tired electrons by fresh

young ones which sound better.

- The same wave of nonsense now hits also the software world.
The reasons are simple: basic problems have been solved, to create a

'competitive edge' you have to add snake oil.
> My questions would be:
> 1. Is it only me that can't here a difference between different DAWs mixing

quoted text
> algorithms?

Unless some of those algorithms are completely wrong (which would require

quite a high level if ignorance from the designer), nobody will hear any

difference. Those that claim they can should prove it in a blind test.

I know of no such test that ever demonstrated this.
> 2. To the developers out there, what is your opinion? Is there a

quoted text
> better/worse algorithm, or is the whole thing another "pay 600$ for this

> software - it has great algorithms!!!" hype?

There isn't much 'algorithm' to speak of, it's just adding. And single

precision floating point provides all the precision you need. There *are*

some issues if you ar mixing thousands of signals - then some ways of doing

it are better than others. But this doesn't occur in normal audio engineering

practice.
> 3. If there is a difference what's the explanation?
See previous point. Explaining this would lead us very far.
> 4. Analog emulation plugins. How does one "emulate" analog waveforms in a

quoted text
> digital world? That sounds like a paradox to me.

One doesn't emulate 'analog waveforms'. What's done is to reproduce

digitally the defects of some analog equipment (particular types of

distortion in a compressor for example), or the 'look and feel' of

them. There also recently a wave of 'exact digital copies' of e.g.

Neve equalisers. There's no reason why any of these should be better

than one that is not an 'exact digital copy'.
HTH,
--

FA
_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-user mailing list

Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user