|
Subject:Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Posted by: jack_freud
Date:7/11/2002 8:49:48 AM
I've slowly become aware that the sound of the files I bring into Acid and mix together isn't quite as good as they could be. Files generated in Reason sounded better there: is it the Asio engine? A friend switched to Samplitude because he said that the sound of tracks mixed together was much better than Vegas or Acid. I guess there's a lot of math in combining signal paths, and some do it better than others. I'm a huge Sonic Foundry fan; I wonder if they will improve the audio engine? |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: drbam
Date:7/11/2002 9:14:54 AM
<<We're trying to figure out if ASIO is superior, or if Sonic Foundry's audio engine is inferior, or what. I've been oblivious til now, loving Vegas and Acid, but Reason sounds noticeably better... A friend uses Samplitude and said it sounded a lot better than Vegas too.>> I pasted the above from your other post to which I also replied. This is the more appropriate thead so I'll also ask again here: Could you please be as specific as possible about *how* it "sounds better." What exactly do you mean? This is an interesting topic. I have a friend who just started using Logic on a Powerbook (a complete recording novice). He sent me some demo material he recorded for a project (bamboo flutes & voice) on a very cheap mic plugged directly into the powerbook and I was shocked at how warm and "full" the recording sounded. We just finished recording his project at my studio (Vegas 3, Layla 24, with a very nice front end) and the "fullness" I'm referring to doesn't seem to be present in Vegas. ??? It doesn't sound bad my any means but it seems to "lack" something in this area (when compared) so I'd definitely be interested to hear other comments about this. Thanks! drbam |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: waynegee
Date:7/11/2002 10:53:59 AM
I notice even a difference btw. ACID and Vegas. There is a noticeable jump in quality/volume with Sonar and ProToolsFree as well. I think they are working on the audio codecs. The quality improved btw. VV2 and VV3 so we'll see. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:7/11/2002 11:13:19 AM
I also noticed that the time stretching algorithm in ACID Pro 3.0 was much better than that of ACID Pro 2.0. (Something that most people didn't seem to realize especially when reviewing the product. I call that a huge oversight and poor judgment.) It would probably be assumptive that ACID Pro 4.0 will be even better. As waynegee said, we'll see. Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: pwppch
Date:7/11/2002 4:06:47 PM
There are many factors to consider. One VERY important one is : What sound card are you using and what type of drivers does it have. Since ACID and Vegas are Wave based, if you are using drivers that are WDM based, then the audio runs through the Kmixer of Windows. The Kmixer can add/subtract and generally mess with the audio before it gets to your sound card. Consider the SB live or Audigy. These cards don't actually do 44.1 kHz. They only support 48 kHz. The driver or Kmixer has to resample for these cards. The resampling is very down and dirty, but can be improved if you change the settings in your control panel. We are working on alternatives to WDM wave emulation and the kmixer.... Peter |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: waynegee
Date:7/11/2002 8:40:21 PM
>>The resampling is very down and dirty, but can be improved if you change the settings in your control panel. Peter, how do we improve the sound...I have the Audigy. Plz share your knowledge. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: pwppch
Date:7/11/2002 10:48:52 PM
Work at 48 kHz only. This will prevent the kmixer/audigy from resampling. From the control panel, Sounds and Audio Devices applet. Choose the Advanced Audio properties and select the Performance tab. Se the "Sample Rate conversion quality" to best. ACID 4 will be addressing this issue directly. Peter |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: jack_freud
Date:7/11/2002 10:56:17 PM
It sounds fuller and richer in Reason than in Acid. Hard to describe beyond that, but it sounds like you had the same experience. I have the Frontier Design Dakota card; my partner has a Gina/24. We both experienced this. As I said, my friend used Logic and Samplitude and he thought they both sounded better than Vegas, much as he preferred the user interface to Vegas. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: jack_freud
Date:7/11/2002 11:00:00 PM
Vegas has a properties setting for "resample quality". The help barely explains it. Is this only a setting for monitoring, or rendering, or both, and exactly what does it do? Vegas is amazing at mixing files of different sample rates, but is all this resampling part of what might contribute to the inferior sound quality? My sound card is the Frontier Design Dakota. I do believe that their XP/2000 driver is doing WDM, but I'm not clear on that. But the same seemed to hold true under 98 as well. Does ASIO bypass Windows altogether in the normal sense? Thanks, Jack |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: pwppch
Date:7/13/2002 12:19:50 AM
>Does ASIO bypass Windows altogether in the normal sense? Yes. It is very near the "metal" as they say. Up side : Performance no "Windows" to get in your way. Down Side : Risk of stability Peter |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: pwppch
Date:7/13/2002 12:26:36 AM
You haven't yet defined "inferior". Based on what? What is your criteria and measurement? How things sounds is subjective at best. For each person that says X is inferior to B, I could provide you with an exact oposite. Define what you mean "quantitatively" and perhaps we can look at the issues. In the end though, there is a simple test. Take the exact same audio files. Create an as identical project in the inferior and the superior tools. Have each of these tools render out the final "mix". Compare them both subjectively using your ears Compare them digitally using a software tool that lets you compare digital. I'd be interested in how the rendering aspect of all of this comes out. Remember, ths A/D, driver, speakers, etc,etc can all add/subtract from the mix. How the software "mixes" can effect how things are done to some degree, but to be quite honest there isn't a lot of rocket science in adding two or more samples together. Resampling will always take a hit, especially if you are doing it in real time. Resampling will always produce artifacts. I have had users complain that their project sound bad only to find out they are saving all of there audio in 64 or 128 MP3 files. Well DUH! Peter |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: waynegee
Date:7/13/2002 12:16:11 PM
Well, I did this very this thing yesterday. I used a file(2-track groove mix w/ substantial bass) and opened it in Sonar, VV3.0, Acid Pro 3.0, ProTools Free and Reason (the file started here so we just listened in the environment). My wife, partner/engineer and myself took the ears only using blindfolds(I know...corny). All settings at 0.0 with no plug-ins or extra eq. We then added the correct ID's for each program and divided by 3. The general consensus: Sonar: Flat(as far as depth of imaging, i.e. not very "3-D"), some freq. slightly more prominent than others, slight distortion around the "edges" of the mix, bass response not very good. Identified correctly 95% in the blindfold test all 3 listenings. VV 3.0: Pretty good imaging, high end distortion prominent(the upper frequencies seem to be very prominent, almost "excited" which gave the illusion, as my wife puts it, of 'being really loud'), bass OK, better focus and presence than Sonar. Identified correctly 75% in the blindfold test all 3 listenings. Acid Pro 3.0: More bass than the prev. two although we did notice a drop in overall clarity and definition, upper and upper-mids slightly distorted, focus and tightness OK. Identified correctly 79% in the blindfold test all 3 listenings. ProToolsFree: LOUD, definite bass difference(measured up to +3db with Spectrum Analsyer), almost no distortion on top end. Sounded tight, very punchy. Identified correctly 100% in the blindfold test all 3 listenings. Reason: Crystal clear(using the original files...not .wav). More life and body than all the others. To even the score out, I imported the same .wav file we've been using back into Reason and played it with the NN-19 sampler. Sounded good but not like the original Reason file, lost some highs and defintion in the mid and low frequncies. Not as punchy. You definitely lose lose something in the .rns file to .wav. Identified correctly 90% in the blindfold test all 3 listenings. I then exported a .wav of this file from each program and looked at in SF Spectrum Analyser. I found more or less exactly what our ears had told us. Vegas had a definite high-end curve boost around 3-5 khz, Sonar's low and high curve seemed to drop around 70-80 Khz(low) and 2-4 Khz(high). Resaon had a very even freq. curve with a slight mid bump around 400-500 khz and a smooth bass rolloff around 200khz. Acid had a pretty smooth curve although it dropped sharply around 70--800 khz. PTFree had a curve similar to Reason altho the mid and bass response was a little higher(again, about a +2 to +3 db difference). There's my results. Don't know if it means much except ProTools sounded "PHAT" and warm. All tests were done with the Audigy set as PCH described above. Peace. W- |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: Iacobus
Date:7/13/2002 12:34:24 PM
To add to what Peter has said, it's important to consider not only the software, but the hardware as well, especially the drivers for the hardware. A set of drivers for a particular soundcard/interface might work fine in one app but not in another (probably based upon the audio subsystem (DirectX, WDM, ASIO, EASI, etc.) it's using). There are just so many factors to consider, it'd be difficult to assess where things are exactly going wrong. I can honestly say that ever since upgrading to pro-quality hardware, my music projects sound way better than they ever have. (I'm using an M-Audio Audiophile 2496, an M-Audio USB Duo, and a DigiTech GNX2 guitar effects processor. I ditched my Soundblaster a long time ago. Using Windows XP as my OS and, of course, ACID Pro and Sound Forge.) Iacobus |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: waynegee
Date:7/13/2002 3:00:47 PM
I'm not discounting what Peter has stated and I think he has a point. My findings are relevant to the software playing the same file thru the same hardware thru the same speakers on the same system with the same codecs using the same algorithims, irrespective of where and on what it was recorded. I could play the new FooFighters or Pat Metheny CD's and I think my findings would be pretty close to the same as before. And just like software, algorithims in anything don't lie. I remember thinking everyone was nuts and biased, telling me that the MPC just 'sounded' fatter, had more bottom, more woof, more hump, whatever...until I got one. Then there was no denying. It was fat. EOD. SoFo makes great software. When I started using the stuff, I could finally compete with big boys. But, the stuff is not perfect and I'm sure thay are working on it. Don't wanna get into a flame war here...just my opinion. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: jack_freud
Date:7/14/2002 8:42:16 PM
One thing I wonder is whether Reason somehow outputs inferior wave files to what is coming out of its output. Or is that voodoo talk? I'm a programmer, but not a dsp specialist, much as I love audio and computers. I do get the feeling from what Peter said that asio MIGHT allow better quality than directx or other windows drivers... My big question is whether the final output is ultimately different, or is it just my ears when monitoring the stuff. I mean, I'm always defending Vegas compared to Pro-Tools. I figured, what makes Pro-Tools so expensive is the hardware they use for the A/D/A, so you get better sounds in, and it sounds better coming out, but ultimately, Vegas is doing the same kind of work internally. But am I wrong? Is DirectX hindering Vegas, Acid and Sound Forge? I'm certainly not trying to start a flame war either: I'm a big SoFo fan, and would very reluctantly use Cubase over Vegas, for instance, but if it turned out that using an asio program actually made my final mixes superior, I'd have no choice. Cheers, Jack |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: cputnam
Date:7/15/2002 7:12:47 AM
I see that there are "quantitative" responses to your question later in the thread. It may or may not be that all this can be measured. This is music. If you hear a difference, there IS a difference. I'm the person jack_freud refers to earlier who switched to Samplitude from Vegas, because I heard a major improvement in sound. I was working on a project which I had tracked largely in Vegas at 24-bit/48kHz through a M-Audio Delta 1010. At some point I realized I wasn't happy with the sound from the system, and started listening more critically. Originally, I thought I would just use Vegas as a transport and mix out through my analog console, until I realized that I couldn't really get a direct output from Vegas that sounded true. So I started listening tests against other software. In my case, I found that taking the 24-bit files recorded in Vegas and playing them back in Samplitude yielded an improvement in clarity, depth, body. That's just on single wave files, mono or stereo. The real difference came when mixing many tracks together. In Vegas, I found that the result was very two dimensional, lacking in depth. The SAME source files mixed in a Samplitude project, sounded much closer to what I expected to hear from an analog mix - each instrument retained its detail, its place in the stereo image, and there was an overall dimensionality to the sound that just sounded much better. I ended up not bothering with the console at all, mixed the whole project in Samplitude. I could not tell you why this is the case, because I didn't write either piece of software. Samplitude is 32-bit internally, so that presumably has a lot to do with the difference. I guess the point is that different software sounds different, whether it should in theory or not. Pro Tools sounds different again, and as someone else in this thread pointed out, has a very identifiable sound. To my ears, Samp sounds better than Pro Tools also, not that that's hard. BTW - I am not looking for a "sound" from my DAW - it shouldn't be warm, phat, punchy or anything else, not unless you're adding processing to achieve that effect. I'm just looking to hear an output that is as close as possible to the input, and then to retain control over that as I mix. |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: SputCuttz
Date:7/16/2002 9:03:59 AM
I have been reading much of the postings here and I have just one small newbie question. I having been using Acid 3.0 pro and I have Protools le but I like the ease of use for creating songs using my own loops in Acid. Is there really a difference in sound when I thought Acid was using my digi001 card. Is Acid somehow lessning my sound quality where as if I open Protools and use Protools as my looping interface would that be a better way. Please respond and thanks for your help. Sput |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: SputCuttz
Date:7/16/2002 9:11:00 AM
Just a quick question..... What If I use Acid pro 3.0 as a place to lay the tracks down and do all my fading and tracking there and then I save as wav files and then reopen in Protools le. Will by opening it again in protools make the sound betters as far as lows and mids and hi's. I just want to make sureI get the most of out my software as far as sound quality. Will by opening it again in Protools start dimininshing the sound quality. Sputcutz |
|
Subject:RE: Sound quality of Sonic Foundry Audio Engine
Reply by: drbam
Date:7/16/2002 9:14:05 AM
<<Is Acid somehow lessning my sound quality where as if I open Protools and use Protools as my looping interface would that be a better way. Please respond and thanks for your help.>> Why don't you experiment with this and post your conclusions here. It would be really helpful in terms of this current discussion. Try recording and playing back a simple loop in both programs, something with a wide dynamic range and don't use any efx or processing. Compare them and see what you think. Thanks! drbam |