No More Mixing in Ableton LIVE...

B

biggrome

Guest
The debate rages on about the sound quality of different DAW's. Ableton LIVE takes the worst hit for sounding the crappiest out of all of them, even though the workflow gets praises from almost everybody that understands the workflow.

Well, I'm throwing in the towel and buying REAPER for 40 bucks to do my mixing in. I actually gave it a try yesterday. I DIDN'T WANT TO hear a difference, I wanted to blame the difference on my lack of knowledge but... REAPER sounded brighter and shinier...

I played the same song from WITHIN Live ... not a rendered version and ... REAPER sounded brighter and shinier...

If you render all tracks from LIVE... you can just drag all of them into REAPER at once and polish up your product.

Why is there a FLAW... in every DAW? Ehh... I feel like I'm cheating on LIVE and this is my confession (Anthony Weiner style)...

Mixing in LIVE... is a no go (even if you like your results - they could be better)
 
Hey Rome, I hear what you are saying, but I still have to disagree. I was a Sonar user, and when I first switched to Live, I swore that my renders from Sonar sounded brighter. Once I started using Live all of the time, my mixes got better. I just had to change my approach a little.

If you feel like you get better mixes in Reaper, then by all means, stick with it. I would love to hear one of your songs rendered from both programs so that I could do an A/B comparison. There is a lot of talk about Live's engine being inferior, but it hasn't been proven mathmatically, and the PDC being an issue is only valid in a certain set of conditions that really never applies to what I do. I think that we all can become victims of internet influences, but exactly what is real???

If you read the forums too much, you'll never be happy with any DAW you buy. Every once in a while, it's nice to get a reality check:

tascam-portastudio.jpg
 
Can I please know, what the **** is the 'sound engine of a DAW?'

All this time I've never known if there was any truth in one DAW sounding different than another, strictly based on a dithering algorithm or the way it exports audio.

Its stupid in the morning here, 4am, but I really cannot fathom this at all.
 
That's the problem with evaluating audio. It's hard to quantify sound quality, as far as what one actually hears. A "null" test has been officially/unofficially deemed the best way to evaluate if one thing is perceived to be better than another, but from what I've seen on forums, no one seems to really know what to do or think if something doesn't actually "null". The only thing that can be concluded is that the two things being compared are different. Until someone with a much better understanding of psychoacoustics than I, comes up with a better way to evaluate audio quality, I don't waste my time worrying about it. Some of the music that I love the most and consider to be "timeless" was recorded in one take on equipment that for all intents and purposes is now completely antiquated.


 
Funny i plan on getting reaper for the same thing and timestretching
 
stillfunkin said:
with that being said... open a vsti in stand alone mode... then open that same vsti in ableton live... there is a difference... the output of the DAWs may sound the same but stand alone compared to the output of the DAW sounds different (in my opinion. no science behind it. just my ear)... also, it seems like in ableton the more vsti tracks the more muffed the sounds become...
Click to expand...


Unless you have some scientific or mathematical way of proving that, I'm going to have to simply consider that to be placebo.
 
Live sounds perfectly fine to me. I'm thoroughly convinced that the nonsense with "this sounds better than this" is a crock of shit and then some. No software I've used has sounded better than another once I've gotten used to the interface and how to work with its strengths and weaknesses.
 
Com'on Rome...lol

Bright and Shiny is wack anyway. Save that $40 and take your wife to movies. Add a eq on the master channel and adjust to your liking. There you go...Bright and Shiny!
 
Last edited:
stillfunkin said:
i cant wait to see ableton live 9 update... with improved audio... with so many ableton live 9 users talking/complaining about live's audio (not just Biggrome) i believe ableton will address that in verision 9...

question... if one of ableton live 9 update is "improved audio"... how valid is the "null" test?
Click to expand...


I don't think that Ableton would ever claim "improved audio" as an update feature. They might site something specific like "Improved Plugin Delay Compensation with Automation", but that's about it. FWIW, Ableton did claim improved audio back in version 7:

The enhanced audio engine improves fidelity with 64-bit mix summing, POW-r dithering, optimized sample-rate conversion and other advances.
Click to expand...

Ableton - News

Until someone can mathematically prove that something is wrong with their engine, I don't see them changing or admitting anything.
 
Lorenzo Burton said:
Com'on Rome...lol

Bright and Shiny is wack anyway. Save that $40 and take your wife to movies. Add a eq on the master channel and adjust to your liking. There you go...Bright and Shiny!
Click to expand...

I did that before, I think KB420 told me to get PSP VintageWarmer and I did and it sounds great.... but I wanted the best possible output initially without any tweaking. I wanted all of the tweaking to be done last and have the best possible mix as I go.

I bought REAPER for $40, I'm happy with it. I kept seeing the LIVE sound argument... it seems it's the only DAW that gets docked for it's sound quality. Samplitude also "sounds better" that LIVE to me.

I even noticed that if you play a song you're working on in LIVE it sounds okay (but just okay), if you render the song, the quality goes down a lot.

So now I just make a new folder, render all tracks to that folder, drag everything to REAPER, turn down all of the faders and start to adjust them.... bright and shiny output, lol.

I've bought vst's that cost more than $40, Reaper was a good purchase. I guess it's the equivalent of REASON needing a host to incorporate vsti's into your songs... you have to get another DAW to mix in other than LIVE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
People use stretching algorithms in Live and complain about the mixing engine while the stretching algorithms are the ones producing artifacts. Use non-stretched 24-bit WAV files and mix and I doubt anyone will hear any differences.
 
This is for all of the people that aren't sold on a difference in the sound of different DAW's - namely LIVE

Reaper is only a 5mb download that should take less than a minute to download, do this instead of arguing against the difference...

1 - Download REAPER - You can uninstall it as soon as you're done

2 - Make a New Folder - Track out a song from LIVE - Maybe 16 bars or something short to that New Folder

3 - Select all of the tracked out .wavs and drag them all to REAPER - Click Yes when prompted

4 - Play the song in LIVE (remember that playing a song IN LIVE sounds better than a rendered song from LIVE to some)

5 - Now play the tracked out .wavs in REAPER

6 - One will sound louder and cleaner - even though it has been tracked out

This is one way you can determine if DAW's sound different (or it could all be due to my soundcard configuration - either way... REAPER sounds better on my set up... a lot better)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@ksandvik hit the nail on its head.

Digital mixing (an addition) is near perfect and MUCH more accurate than anything mankind developed since today. There is absolutely no room for arguments here. On a side note, dithering or samplerate convertion has nothing to do with it. The word-length is important, but all modern DAWs do their work at 32bit (at least).

On the other hand, there's the concept interpolation (pitch shifting, time stretching) and other sample-based meta-data tricks (auto slicing, slice quantization, ect). These thing will definitely sound different, as there are countless ways to implement these things. Pls make your life easier and don't confuse this with mixing. ;)

Read the manual of your tools, you'll find detailed explanations about the different time-stretching and whatever algorithms. Both live and reaper offer several options.
 
Last edited:
When they do Pepsi vs. Coca Cola comparisons... they don't ask you to read the ingredients or study the soda creation process... they just ask you to taste two samples and you use your taste buds to determine which of the two appeals more...

That's all I'm asking people to do, lol. Forget programming and math... listen to the two DAW's... see if you hear a difference. It's much more simple than using words like "algorithm" & "null tests"...

good old fashioned ears and 5 minutes of time... it was all the "proof" I needed.

All the proof anybody needs actually. There wouldn't be so many complaints about the sound quality of "one particular DAW" if all of the math was the same and all of that. Somehow... people that have no relation to each other are coming to the same conclusion...

I guess there's something wrong with the people because there "can't" be any anomalies between the DAW's.

Reminds me of pants or shoes... both pairs will say they're the same size but depending on who made 'em... they fit differently. "NO! They're both size 11's... they can't fit differently, you're an idiot!"

If anybody that uses LIVE wants to HEAR the difference vs. discussing the difference... do what I suggested earlier. It will take less time than it will take for you to log in an post a rebuttal.

If you want your stuff to sound more CRISP AND POLISHED! use another DAW, you'll hear a difference BEFORE you even add any plugins. The raw .wavs sound better in REAPER.

If you don't believe me, you know what to do...

---------- Post added at 12:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------
noblewordz said:
Maybe the playback volume in Reaper is just louder.
Click to expand...

It's more than play back volume. The songs sound louder but not as airy and dull. They sound more crisp! clean! and all other words used in household cleaning ads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most cases where people complain about Ableton Live mixing has to do with the stretch algoritms implemented on the audio source. Try MIDI only or 24-bit WAV files with no stretch algorithm implemented.
 
ksandvik said:
Most cases where people complain about Ableton Live mixing has to do with the stretch algoritms implemented on the audio source. Try MIDI only or 24-bit WAV files with no stretch algorithm implemented.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but you're almost arguing my case for me...

Other DAW's can handle the "audio sources" with no problem.... even if the audio sources are rendered out of Ableton LIVE.


There is a SIMPLE 5 minute test that can be done.... the EAR test.

I think the EAR test should be the end of all audio arguments... If you can hear a difference, there IS a difference. Anybody care to explain why people are against the EAR test? and would rather talk programming and bit depth

http://www.reaper.fm/download.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigrome, the "math" you are talking about is really just an addition. That "+" sign you probably saw at school. ;)

All DAWs on the planet mix all tracks in the following way:

track1 + track2 + trackn

no matter what you do,

2 + 2 + 1

will always be 5.

There isn't much room for speculations. Arguing against that just makes you look stupid, really. The only thing you can do is to take a closer look at the digital arithmetic hidden behind that addition, i.e. how the bits are handled and how many you actually have to represent a number. Again, all DAWs use at least 32bit floating point arithmetic for their calculations (which means the maximum precision is over 40dB below the hearing threshold), so there won't be any audible differences.

You're really arguing against logic here. Please post an example.. ..mix a few files in ableton, mix the same files in reaper.

bigrome said:
Anybody care to explain why people are against the EAR test?
Click to expand...

No. Listening tests are always subjective. They depend on tons of things like daylight, fatigue, urge to urinate, motivation, being hungry, whatever. Even your analogue gear has a slight memory effect and will act differently with each play. These factors can change within seconds. You'll find countless articles mentioning all kinds of issues about listening tests.

Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial | AVguide
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top