30 Mar
2009
30 Mar
'09
8:47 a.m.
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like cubase
or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at all.
They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo track's
input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the two
because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
Am I missing something ?
30 Mar
30 Mar
8:59 a.m.
Arda Eden wrote:
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
cubase or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at
all. They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo track's
input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the two
because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
Am I missing something ?
unless the software is doing something very, very stupid, you are
perfectly right. the people who argue quality issues are probably those
who use gold-plated toslink connectors on their cd decks...
9:05 a.m.
Thanks Jörn,
:)
2009/3/30 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
Arda Eden wrote:
--
Arda EDEN
Cumhuriyet University
Faculty of Fine Arts
Department of Music Technology
Sivas/TURKEY
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
cubase or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at
all. They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo track's
input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the two
because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
Am I missing something ?
unless the software is doing something very, very stupid, you are
perfectly right. the people who argue quality issues are probably those
who use gold-plated toslink connectors on their cd decks...
9:18 a.m.
2009/3/30 Jörn Nettingsmeier <nettings(a)folkwang-hochschule.de>
Arda Eden wrote:
Or $5,000 patch cables on their mixer.
:)
--
Parchment Studios (It started as a joke...)
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
cubase or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at
all. They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo track's
input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the two
because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
Am I missing something ?
unless the software is doing something very, very stupid, you are
perfectly right. the people who argue quality issues are probably those
who use gold-plated toslink connectors on their cd decks...
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
12:14 p.m.
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 13:47 +0300, Arda Eden wrote:
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
cubase or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at
all. They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo
track's input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the
two because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
I suspect the idea that high speed copying results in a reduction in
quality comes from the days of analogue tape.
With a digital workstation, as long as all processing modules use the
correct sample clock, i.e. don't refer to any real-time hardware timers,
the result should be identical regardless of whether the speed is "real
time" or "as fast as possible".
If the output is to a non-compressed format, like normal .wav files you
could probably event run a side by side test and find that the 'cmp'
command finds the files absolutely identical.
Regards,
Steve.
3:02 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Steve Fosdick
<lists(a)pelvoux.nildram.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 13:47 +0300, Arda Eden wrote:
This could depend on the bit depth of the bounced track. If you are
working on the tracks in 32 bit float format (as you would with ardour
by default, for example), and you bounce to the CD standard 16 bit
integer, you will lose data.
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
cubase or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at
all. They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo
track's input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the
two because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
I suspect the idea that high speed copying results in a reduction in
quality comes from the days of analogue tape.
With a digital workstation, as long as all processing modules use the
correct sample clock, i.e. don't refer to any real-time hardware timers,
the result should be identical regardless of whether the speed is "real
time" or "as fast as possible".
If the output is to a non-compressed format, like normal .wav files you
could probably event run a side by side test and find that the 'cmp'
command finds the files absolutely identical.
Regards,
Steve.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
31 Mar
31 Mar
12:09 a.m.
On Monday 30 March 2009 06:47:32 Arda Eden wrote:
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
cubase or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at all.
They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo track's
input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the two
because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
Am I missing something ?
Depending on the software, it could even be higher quality when bouncing to
disk directly. However this is only the case if you are using control signals
that have to be sample accurate and your software would otherwise render them
based on audio blocks. This is what some people use CSound and SuperCollider
in NRT mode for. In that case, it may take longer than a realtime bounce
though.
In regular DAW software, I could also imagine that on certain parts where
there is a lot of DSP going on (lot of effects for example), directly
bouncing to disk may also be better, as the calculation does not *have* to be
realtime, so where maybe in realtime you'd get hickups, rendering to disk may
be safer.
It could be that some ProTools stuff needs to drag it through their hardware
DSP's that will only run in realtime mode. In that case I could imagine there
is a quality difference between letting the host PC do it, or the ProTools
hardware DSP's. And this is probably where the myth comes from.
sincerely,
Marije
5 a.m.
This seems to be a good estimation.
Especially, ProTools HD systems use TDM plug-ins that are being processed on
the specific ProTools DSP hardware.
Thanks.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 5:09 AM, nescivi <nescivi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday 30 March 2009 06:47:32 Arda Eden wrote:
--
Arda EDEN
Cumhuriyet University
Faculty of Fine Arts
Department of Music Technology
Sivas/TURKEY
Sorry if this is discussed before but,
Some DAW software can bounce mixdown to an output file directly (like
cubase or reason).
But many audio people claim that this kind of bouncing is not good at
all.
They say that bouncing real-time
(like with protools or by routing all the tracks to a new stereo track's
input) is better resulting for audio quality.
Now,
My consideration is that, there should be no difference between the two
because theoretically the software
should be writing the same data in both ways.
Am I missing something ?
Depending on the software, it could even be higher quality when bouncing to
disk directly. However this is only the case if you are using control
signals
that have to be sample accurate and your software would otherwise render
them
based on audio blocks. This is what some people use CSound and
SuperCollider
in NRT mode for. In that case, it may take longer than a realtime bounce
though.
In regular DAW software, I could also imagine that on certain parts where
there is a lot of DSP going on (lot of effects for example), directly
bouncing to disk may also be better, as the calculation does not *have* to
be
realtime, so where maybe in realtime you'd get hickups, rendering to disk
may
be safer.
It could be that some ProTools stuff needs to drag it through their
hardware
DSP's that will only run in realtime mode. In that case I could imagine
there
is a quality difference between letting the host PC do it, or the ProTools
hardware DSP's. And this is probably where the myth comes from.
sincerely,
Marije
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5717
days inactive
5718
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
alex stone -
Arda Eden -
Justin Smith -
Jörn Nettingsmeier -
nescivi -
Steve Fosdick