***Sound Quality: Cubase vs. FL***

GreenBurn

New member
Is there actually a difference in the sound quality between these two programs? I mean if you sequence the same sound source into both programs and then export into an .mp3 is there any audible difference in sound quality?

If not, I might switch over to FL7 because I love the sequencer...it doesnt get more basic than blocks on a grid!
 
Last edited:
It's like wearing boxers and briefs and asking other people "What's more comfortable?"

They already ran a test which proved FL to be on the par with all other leading DAWs (look for benchmarks on google). But hey, if quietb4storm's "expiriance" tells him otherwise, perhaps it is a matter of personal taste. In which case, I suggest you do a simple comparison test using the same sounds.
 
[Shizo] said:
They already ran a test which proved FL to be on the par with all other leading DAWs (look for benchmarks on google).
"they"?!?

mhhh... well, that's not the kind of people i tend to trust.


different apps will sound different at the end. nobody just makes sound by simply adding some tracks or samples (i mean without processing them in some way). the naive tests you are mentioning have nothing to do with reality, they exclusively compare the pure mixing quality - and that's mathematically really just an addition - so there's not much to compare.

but every app comes with different pitch algorithms (something used all the time), different EQs, different comps, different audio routing structures, different internal precision, different dithering, different sample-rate convertion and finally different, more or less "healthy" workflows (as some tend to emphasize overprocessing).

all these factors will change the sound quality. yes, make a null test (but with real projects, not just a simple file playback) and you'll see they sound dramatically different.


look what i found after googling a bit:

a comparison of the pitching algorithms in different appz (you know, playing a sample at a lower note):
http://www.simonv.com/tutorials/quality.php

and that comparison of the internal sample-rate-converters:
http://src.infinitewave.ca/


and by the way,

"I mean if you sequence the same sound source into both programs and then export into an .mp3"

this is the most stupid thing one can do. never ever use lossy data compression when making sound (no matter what situation). always keep your material in 24bit wav files.

simply forget the term "mp3" in audio production. convert your wavs to mp3s before uploading them to the internet, but try to not use them at home.
 
Last edited:
Is 512 sinc not the most precise pitching algo?
This would make FL not only render identical to everything else in a null test summing wave files, but have a edge in pitching as well.
The tests I read at KVR also used effects(the same effects with identical settings), and all of the hosts still nulled out around -150db.

All sequencers have different native effects with their own sound, but for instance, a Waves bundle sounds the same in all of them.
 
Last edited:
moses said:
"they"?!?

mhhh... well, that's not the kind of people i tend to trust.


different apps will sound different at the end. nobody just makes sound by simply adding some tracks or samples (i mean without processing them in some way). the naive tests you are mentioning have nothing to do with reality, they exclusively compare the pure mixing quality - and that's mathematically really just an addition - so there's not much to compare.

but every app comes with different pitch algorithms (something used all the time), different EQs, different comps, different audio routing structures, different internal precision, different dithering, different sample-rate convertion and finally different, more or less "healthy" workflows (as some tend to emphasize overprocessing).

all these factors will change the sound quality. yes, make a null test (but with real projects, not just a simple file playback) and you'll see they sound dramatically different.

and by the way,

"I mean if you sequence the same sound source into both programs and then export into an .mp3"

this is the most stupid thing one can do. never ever use lossy data compression when making sound (no matter what situation). always keep your material in 24bit wav files.

simply forget the term "mp3" in audio production. convert your wavs to mp3s before uploading them to the internet, but try to not use them at home.

I think you missing the whole point of his question, does Cubase sound better than FL Studio. From my experiance with the two I would have to say no. There isnt an audible different between that most users can hear. The pitch alogrithms that you speak of dont factor in as much as you think and most will hear a small difference between the EQs, Compressors, Reverb, and other FX (with compressors and reverb being the most obvious differences). If an example was done today with one audio track recorded on a neutral DAW (ala Pro Tools or Cool Edit) and then run both DAWs with that same recording, I can bet that there isnt much of a difference at all. I know for a fact that many unbiased audio magazines have discussed the dynamic range of a DAW and no where do they say there a big different between Product #1 with a 32-bit workframe or Product #2 with a 32-bit workframe. It all sounds basically the same.
 
moses said:
"I mean if you sequence the same sound source into both programs and then export into an .mp3"

this is the most stupid thing one can do. never ever use lossy data compression when making sound (no matter what situation). always keep your material in 24bit wav files.

I do. I only convert to .mp3 for posting on the net where .wav isn't an option.
 
Marol's Mom said:
If an example was done today with one audio track recorded on a neutral DAW (ala Pro Tools or Cool Edit) and then run both DAWs with that same recording, I can bet that there isnt much of a difference at all.
Marol's Mom said:
that's why i wrote "all these factors will change the sound quality. yes, make a null test (but with real projects, not just a simple file playback) and you'll see they sound dramatically different."

of course, simple playback sounds the same in any app. that's exactly the point i wasn't talking about (read it again).

Marol's Mom said:
I know for a fact that many unbiased audio magazines have discussed the dynamic range of a DAW


haha! ok,

1. no magazine is unbiased. they all earn their money with advertisments of products they write reviews about. want to be featured/interviewed in a magazine? simply pay for enough ad placement and you'll be asked.

2. "magazines discussing the dynamic range of DAWs", no that's really the peak of ignorance. don't buy these magazine again.

the dynamic range of DAWs is simply predefined by the internal precision specs. every 32bit fp audio will have exactly the same dynamic range. it is internally practically infinite (because of the floating point format). and has exactly 144dB of dynamic range when going to a 24bit integer format (or 96dB with 16bit). so, discussing "dynamic range" (as well as the impossible -150dB null tests mentioned above) in digital applications is a big stupid nonsense.

Marol's Mom said:
and no where do they say there a big different between Product #1 with a 32-bit workframe or Product #2 with a 32-bit workframe. It all sounds basically the same.

again, i don't think you read my post correctly. i listed the points that make a difference in my previous post. build the same PROJECT (many sampler, synths and fx) in 2 different applications and it will sound different at the end.

Mattman04 said:
Is 512 sinc not the most precise pitching algo?

it only means that it is a pretty long, 512 taps "sinc" type of filter (which is basically very good). but it doesn't mean the filter is well designed.

the main problem is, nearly nobody renders in that quality - it's to slow, and works only offline. most use linear interpolation which tends to **** up everything with subtility (something you can't remove later) - all this sums up the more tracks/samples you use.
 
Last edited:
I used to find FL quality not that good as compared 2 atha progs...but i got a friend called Jusa DeMentor...truss mie, his Fl Beats are full of Quality.....his beats are even diff u 'll think he aint usin Fl....he told mie one secret....he said SoundFonts are the way Foward in FL...and i do agree!!!!!!!!!

google him out (Jusa DeMentor)...and then sample my own beats .....check mi at myspace....EYESPYENT

juss cheq the differences in The Quality of our beats..yet we use the same Prog...HARDWARE is an important factor!!!!!!!!!
 
DjTinah said:
HARDWARE is an important factor!!!!!!!!!

Yes, audio interface/soundcard is an important factor. The computer really makes no difference as long as it can handle the software ur running.
 
Utmost Respekt un2 u GreeBurn!!! for Quality Output, there has to be Quality Input!!! Can u believe this guys...I used to master my vocals with that Software called GoldWave, which was less than 2MB (truss mie)....My Hardware really helped tunin' everyttin up!!!!!! **QUALITY Hardware tells u wat 2 do...u juss have 2 pay attention!!!
 
I've used both and in my opinion none of you are hitting the right point. If you've properly mixed your drums and or sounds correctly before applying them to either sequencer, the sound is pretty much the same. Now as far as the eq, compression and reverb fx, no. They quality of each are different. I've found that mixing anything in FL is a waste of time (assuming your using the stock fx). So to cut a long post short...whatever your heart desires. The sequencer in FL is the best sequencer ever. Slap the sh1t out whomever disagrees with you.
 
Dot_Robinson said:
The sequencer in FL is the best sequencer ever. Slap the sh1t out whomever disagrees with you.

Agreed. I LOVE the sequencer.

I'm about to go buy FL7. The demo is horrible and u cant even use piano roll. I used to use my boy's cracked version and I use the piano roll for everything because you dont have enough flexibility using the step sequencer (unless u want ur drums to sound like a robot programmed them). I miss FL.
 
Last edited:
Dot_Robinson said:
I've used both and in my opinion none of you are hitting the right point. If you've properly mixed your drums and or sounds correctly before applying them to either sequencer, the sound is pretty much the same. Now as far as the eq, compression and reverb fx, no. They quality of each are different. I've found that mixing anything in FL is a waste of time (assuming your using the stock fx). So to cut a long post short...whatever your heart desires. The sequencer in FL is the best sequencer ever. Slap the sh1t out whomever disagrees with you.

Live's Sequencer is excellent as well (both have a lot of similarities the only thing I get out of FLs that I don't get out of Live is the real time swing bar)
 
Back
Top