Sound differences between FL Studio and Acid Pro

[gettingstarted]

So, im using an FL Studio for making loops, then i export them to .wav and arrange full tracks in the Acid Pro.
Problem is that there occur a sound difference between FL Studio and Acid Pro (just like the topic say).
To be exactly: the FL Studio sound i more full and fat (especially in bass section) and also have a more like "in your face" sounding.
Now when i export an FL Studio loop to .wav and then use it in Acid, they sound different - the Acid Pro got choke on low fat bass notes of the same loop that FL play's just perfectly.
In result - what sounds good in my FL Studio it sound bad in my Acid Pro, it's strange but real.

I give you my settings for both of the programs now:

* FL Studio:

My mixer sample rate in FL - 96000Hz

Export .wav settings:

Quality: Sinc depth 256
Alias-free TS404 - On
HQ for all plugins - On
Disable max poly - On
WAV depth - 32Bit float (0.24)
Options: Save ACIDized - On

* Acid Pro:

Project Properties:

Sample rate: 96 000Hz
Bit depth: 24Bit

So, do you have any conceptions about how to fix this differences and what cause them?

Thx

PS: In Sound Forge the loops just like in Acid Pro sound just worse than in FL Studio : (

 

[Tim The Boss]

all programs will sound better than FL without the proper equipment because FL is built for techno music

 

[Fam Nice]

all programs will sound better than FL without the proper equipment because FL is built for techno music

Please don't pay this comment any mind!

Acid Pro by default will put an eq plugin' on every track at first until you change it. Disable all plugin' from tracks ... in my experience in acid, even when you uncheck things they still seem to process on the signal... just delete all plugins on the tracks in acid when you go from FL..you should be able to get the same sound!

 

[daddyj]

not sure about that statement, but I use the follow settings and have no problems.

64-point sync
Dithering=off
Alias-free TS404=on
HQ=on
Disable max poly=on
and my sample rate is 44.1

if your target is for cd, id suggest using a sample rate of either 44.1 or 88.2

 

[Fam Nice]

I forgot you're not recording at 24 bit ... it's at 16 (CD Quality) therefore ... when you export to 24 bit (32 bassically) ...I assume you gain head room and you'll have different quality (better..lol) and you'll be able to hear things a little better ... that could be it also. As long as you "dither" when you bounce back to 16 bit you should be able to retain what you think you lost in FL.... just my opinion

Peace!

 

[sleepy]

all programs will sound better than FL without the proper equipment because FL is built for techno music

Wow....

 

[jigalow]

all programs will sound better than FL without the proper equipment because FL is built for techno music

Man I better call up Crystal Method and tell them to switch from Ableton to FL !!

 

[xtrordinare]

all programs will sound better than FL without the proper equipment because FL is built for techno music

smh....

 

[gettingstarted]

I give you an audio example so you can check and judge by self.
Personaly i say that the FL Studio track sound better than this Acid Pro one.

* FL Studio track was recorded with Sound Forge "what you hear" record option, stright from the FL. So this is the orginal FL Studio sound of this loop.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/6/741046/Sound from FL Studio.wav

* Acid Pro track is the same track as above but exported to .wav from my FL Studio. After exporting it, i just opened my Acid Pro and paste this loop into it. All plugins off, all settings flat.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2007/2/6/741046/Sound from Acid Pro.wav

Pay attention especially to the bass sounds.

Also i must say that when im listening this loop even in winamp the effect is the same - it just sound worse than in FL Studio.

Beside that i think that the problem is hiding directly in the export function of the FL Studio, coz when i exporting loops to .wav their sound get worse. But when im recording the loops stright from the FL Studio with help of any program with the "what you hear" record function there is no problem with sound, even if i save this record to .wav and then use it in Acid Pro or whatever - it still sound nice, just like in the FL Studio.

Anyway, i still dont have any solution for how to fix this problem and how to get rid off this sound quality differences afer exporting sounds to .wav

It's so annoying...

 

[Timbryo]

Hey -- I wouldn't blame this on FL. Do you have another program you can play the wav file in? If you play the mixed down wav from FL in, say, windows media player, does it still sound crappy?

Because, in my opinion, Acid is utter garbage, friend. It is hooked on timestretching -- it makes things sound terrible, and that's been true for ages. What I would submit is probably happening is that Acid is choking on your sample rate and is doing some stupid on-the-fly resampling to play back your track. Try mixing to 44.1 from FL and then pasting it into acid -- i bet you it will sound better. Because Acid is an idiot like that.

good luck.

 

[HeIsTruth]

If anything, i've always thought FL was the weaker sounding. And i've been a FL user since day one.

 

[Timbryo]

If anything, i've always thought FL was the weaker sounding. And i've been a FL user since day one.

Well, maybe that's the problem -- FruityLoops 1.0 is totally incomparable to FL Studio 7.

But I just don't see how you can think Acid doesn't sound awful. Everyone's got a different set of ears, I guess.

 

[bylecokolwiek]

Hey -- I wouldn't blame this on FL. Do you have another program you can play the wav file in? If you play the mixed down wav from FL in, say, windows media player, does it still sound crappy?

Because, in my opinion, Acid is utter garbage, friend. It is hooked on timestretching -- it makes things sound terrible, and that's been true for ages. What I would submit is probably happening is that Acid is choking on your sample rate and is doing some stupid on-the-fly resampling to play back your track. Try mixing to 44.1 from FL and then pasting it into acid -- i bet you it will sound better. Because Acid is an idiot like that.

good luck.

Did you check the samples that i uploaded? I`am asking coz im curious that you hear the same way as me - the FL Studio sound is better then Acid Pro one. Especially bass notes are choking up in Acid : (

Now answering your question: yes i played this exported .wav in winamp and windows media player, the sound is fuc*ed up compared to the FL Studio.

About your opinion about Acid Pro... to be honest i think the same way, this is garbage, i associate this with magix making music lol ; ) But yeah i know in theory this soft is very professional. Anyway it's easy to use.

Mixing in FL at 44.1 could be some solution, but like for my ears the difference betwen 44.1 and 96 is just too dramatically (before exporting loop to .wav of course). So why mixing in 44.1 when this sample rate just suck ? Anyway, to be precise - you say 44.1/24bit/32bit or 44.1/16bit?

Finally... can you recommend any good program for sequencing my FL loops in good quality and nice sound ?

Peace

 

[Timbryo]

word...

Did you check the samples that i uploaded? I`am asking coz im curious that you hear the same way as me - the FL Studio sound is better then Acid Pro one. Especially bass notes are choking up in Acid : (

I haven't gotten to listen actually, haven't been home in couple days. I trust your ears though.

Now answering your question: yes i played this exported .wav in winamp and windows media player, the sound is fuc*ed up compared to the FL Studio.

Well, to be specific, I'm referring not to the mix you made in Acid, but the wav you took right from FL. If you're saying that when you play the track live in FL, it sounds good, but when you export it, it sounds bad, then yes the cause is FL. If the mix doesn't sound bad until you've imported and then re-exported it out of Acid, then the cause is Acid.

If in fact it is a problem with exporting from FL, I would check your levels on the bass. Sometimes I miss peaks in my mix until I've mixed them down. I suspect that some sequencers leave some cushion room above 0db.

About your opinion about Acid Pro... to be honest i think the same way, this is garbage, i associate this with magix making music lol ; ) But yeah i know in theory this soft is very professional. Anyway it's easy to use.

Yeah, I dunno, the theory is so far from the practice... Acid has been in a bad way since even before Sony took it over -- not enough attention to detail, I feel like.

Mixing in FL at 44.1 could be some solution, but like for my ears the difference betwen 44.1 and 96 is just too dramatically (before exporting loop to .wav of course). So why mixing in 44.1 when this sample rate just suck ? Anyway, to be precise - you say 44.1/24bit/32bit or 44.1/16bit?

You definitely ought to be able to mix at as high a sample/bitrate as you want to. I was just suggesting it as a test, to see if Acid would be less confused by a 44.1/16bit sound than the 96/24bit sounds you're using. I must admit, though, I'm not really sure what the useful application of mixing tracks at 96k is unless you've got a media you're going to distribute your work on that won't discard the extra data, i.e. a DVD-Audio disc or if you're printing vinyl from it. If you're putting this stuff on a CD, it's all going to get downsampled before you're done with it anyway.

Finally... can you recommend any good program for sequencing my FL loops in good quality and nice sound ?

I'm not sure why you're leaving FL at all. What are you trying to do that it can't? It has the multitrack capabilities that it sounds like you need. And as of 7 it has better timestretching than Acid, which was like the one thing Acid had that FL didn't do so well.

wordd

 

[Marol]

*sarcasm starts*Last time I check FL 7 doesnt make any sounds at all. I open it and all it makes is a starting sound and after that, nothing... [/COLOR]*sarcasm ends*

SORRY I had to, the Sound quality is relative to your mixing skills man, they dont sound different.

 

[Mattman04]

If your settings are correct all software capable of 32bit float export will sound identical, as long as you use identical settings.

 

[Marol]

If anything, i've always thought FL was the weaker sounding. And i've been a FL user since day one.

WOW where did did u get those drugs that you are using....

Cause they are causing u trip, FL doesnt make a sound!!!!!!!!

 

[Timbryo]

RE: There's no difference...

I don't agree, those sounds don't magically render themselves. There's a different engine involved for bringing all those effects and tracks together in each program, and some are better than others. If someone has a source that contradicts this, I'd love love love to read it. But Acid and FL have different rendering engines, and therefore have the potential to sound different. I mean, this should be clear if simply on the basis that FL has a much more customizable rendering engine than Acid, as demonstrated by the different options you have.

 

[Mattman04]

RE: There's no difference...

I don't agree, those sounds don't magically render themselves. There's a different engine involved for bringing all those effects and tracks together in each program, and some are better than others. If someone has a source that contradicts this, I'd love love love to read it. But Acid and FL have different rendering engines, and therefore have the potential to sound different. I mean, this should be clear if simply on the basis that FL has a much more customizable rendering engine than Acid, as demonstrated by the different options you have.

Nope no differance at all as long as all your settings (volume, panning, effects) are the same.
In other words Nuendo, a $2000 application rendering a wav at 32 bit float will sound Identical to FL using the same sample, and rendering settings.
I've read where software developers have validated this by doing null tests on several sequencers, and they all nulled out.

If a sequencer has a rendering engine that does happen to add coloration then it means that either it has a severe bug that somehow slipped by the developers, and beta testers, or it's adding some type of eq in the rendering stage, and no one would ever code an audio engine with eq built in.

Copied, and pasted from digido.com
"The next test is easier and almost foolproof-the null test, also known as the perfect clone test: Any workstation that can mix should be able to combine two files and invert polarity (phase). A successful null test proves that the digital input section, output section, and processing section of your workstation are neutral to sound. Start with a piece of music in a file on your hard disk. Feed the music out of the system and back in and re-record while you are playing back. (If the DAW cannot simultaneously record while playing back, it's probably not worth buying anyway). Bring the new "captured" sound into an EDL (edit decision list, or playlist), and line it up with the original sound, down to absolute sample accuracy. Then reverse the polarity of one of the two files, play and mix them together at unity gain. You should hear absolutely no sound. If you do hear sound, then your workstation is not able to produce perfect clones. The null test is almost 100% foolproof; a mad scientist might create a system with a perfectly complementary linear distortion on its input and output and which nulls the two distortions outbut the truth will out before too long."

 

[Timbryo]

Nope no differance at all as long as all your settings (volume, panning, effects) are the same.
In other words Nuendo, a $2000 application rendering a wav at 32 bit float will sound Identical to FL using the same sample, and rendering settings.
I've read where software developers have validated this by doing null tests on several sequencers, and they all nulled out.

If a sequencer has a rendering engine that does happen to add coloration then it means that either it has a severe bug that somehow slipped by the developers, and beta testers, or it's adding some type of eq in the rendering stage, and no one would ever code an audio engine with eq built in.

Copied, and pasted from digido.com
"The next test is easier and almost foolproof-the null test, also known as the perfect clone test: Any workstation that can mix should be able to combine two files and invert polarity (phase). A successful null test proves that the digital input section, output section, and processing section of your workstation are neutral to sound. Start with a piece of music in a file on your hard disk. Feed the music out of the system and back in and re-record while you are playing back. (If the DAW cannot simultaneously record while playing back, it's probably not worth buying anyway). Bring the new "captured" sound into an EDL (edit decision list, or playlist), and line it up with the original sound, down to absolute sample accuracy. Then reverse the polarity of one of the two files, play and mix them together at unity gain. You should hear absolutely no sound. If you do hear sound, then your workstation is not able to produce perfect clones. The null test is almost 100% foolproof; a mad scientist might create a system with a perfectly complementary linear distortion on its input and output and which nulls the two distortions outbut the truth will out before too long."

No, but dude, that doesn't take into account things like time stretching, which definitely is built into the Acid engine. What dude has given us here -is- basically a null test and Acid is failing it. Besides, what you're saying is that FL will produce the same file regardless of the float or dithering settings, which is clearly false.