IF i bought a powerbook

[joolzriff]

what would be a good program and interace to use w/ it.....very user friendly is important.
i need guitar/amp sims,drum loops and writing drum traks,fx all of it.......'maybe' in the future record live drums at a later date.....
i want to do cd's good enough to sell @ shows ect and i have no dilusions of granduer that i'm doing a million dollar album on a laptop.
thanx

[Antero]

Well, the MBox comes with ProTools LE, a slightly limited form of Reason and Live, and a simple (and not very good) amp modeller. Really, you should get a mic for guitars because digital direct-recorded guitars just sound like expletive.

[joolzriff]

dont have the room for the micing of amps,absolutly impossible at home,any suggestions?

[covert]

Until you're working with real instruments and mics, you may well be happy with Garageband, which comes with the mac. There are also several minimal usb interfaces coming on the market.

Good enough to sell at gigs is more a matter of what your audence will like than quality of the recording.

[holyears]

I agree with covert - GarageBand is by far the most user friendly program you will find - and it comes FREE on your laptop. The program comes with drum loops, amp models, FX, instrument loops, etc. and is a great place to start. I know of people who have recorded full-length albums using GB. Eventually though you will want some other sounds besides the ones given to you in the software so you'll either want to expand your loop library (Apple sells expansion sets for GB) or move into tracking your own live sounds.
When you're ready to move into more live tracking I think the best way to go is the Mbox. It's small, doesn't cost too much, has decent mic-preamps, and comes with Pro Tools - Which is still the industry standard in digital recording. I can't think of anything better for tracking to a laptop.
Either way - have fun making music!

[MichaelK]

Just to be contrary...

>> GarageBand is by far the most user friendly program you will find

I can't stand it... it keeps moving around the screen in the most irritating way. The most counter-intuitive interface I've ever wrestled with. It's a royal pain in the ass to use as a "real" recording interface. I don't expect it should be pro-level, I'm just talking about simple tracking and basic editing, like cut and paste. However...

>> it comes FREE on your laptop.

... and you can't beat that price. So no reason NOT to try it and see how you feel before dropping money on anything else.

>> I know of people who have recorded full-length albums using GB.

Really?? I don't, but I'll take your word for it. Seems like it would be nearly impossible.

[mitch]

Well, the MBox comes with ProTools LE, a slightly limited form of Reason and Live, and a simple (and not very good) amp modeller. Really, you should get a mic for guitars because digital direct-recorded guitars just sound like expletive.



I have been recording with RPC, Its a band I have been working with for about a year, and we are right on the verge, seriously.... we MAYBE had 25% of the guitars through my splawn, Zinky, or Marshall JTM-45... ALL the other guitars were DIRECT... and it has fooled MORE than a handful of Professionals.... They all say, WOW, what amp did you use to get that sound.... Technology is REALLY making it easy to record...

[retro]

User friendly on a Mac would have to be Garageband. There is also an active and informative crowd at the Apple support site for it if you run into trouble or just need more info. And there is a growing number of sites and forums and third party software dedicated to GB and to post your tunes. A lot of available drum loops.
Very easy to get going if it's your first DAW. It has some limitation's compared to other DAW's but it's feature implementation continues to improve with new versions. GB utilizes AU plug ins and there are a number of AU plug guitar sims. I have had good results using a tube preamp hooked up to my interface.
I use several other DAW's quite a bit but still go to GB. It's a very cool little DAW. I think you will find many people use it to create their own CD's.
For interface's depending on your DAW, budget, I/O needs and the sound quality you are looking for....there are quite a few choices. M-Audio, Presonus, DigiDesign, Motu, Metric Halo, etc...If the interface needs a driver it may be worth checking in with users to see if there are any driver issues.
I think for audio it's nice to have FW rather USB and zero latency monitoring. It's also nice to have a buss powered capable interface with a notebook. Interfaces generally tend to come bundled with DAW's and other software which may make them more attractive to you.
If in the future you want to track drums. The Presonus Firepod with 8 mic pre's is something you may want to look at.

[dankayaker]

Garage Band is by far the easiest and most powerful (cheap) program out there.

If you want more , get Logic, or ProTools.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

Garage Band is by far the easiest and most powerful (cheap) program out there.

If you want more , get Logic, or ProTools.

yup, garage band is dead simple. my bass player's 13 yr. old kid was able to start making music immediately.
on top of that logic is cool. but rather that PTLE i would think about ableton live. but then, i think that PTLE is a pretty crippled program compared to PTHD or logic, cubase, DP or live.

[holyears]

>> I know of people who have recorded full-length albums using GB.

Really?? I don't, but I'll take your word for it. Seems like it would be nearly impossible.

Just for fun, here's one:
www.thegaragealbum.com

[MichaelK]

i think that PTLE is a pretty crippled program compared to PTHD
These "crippling" differences being...?

[MichaelK]

Just for fun, here's one:
www.thegaragealbum.com
Thanks for the link. I'll take a listen sometime over the next few days.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

These "crippling" differences being...?

track count.
inability to use the audio interface U want.
poor midi implementation.
freeze?
does it have full PDC implementation yet?
poor latency performance w/mBox.
lack of comprehensive time/stretch functionality like live, logic, DP. cubase, maybe? haven't used cubase in a while.

those are a few that come to mind straight away. i'm sure if i spent another minute thinking of more stuff the list would be longer.
i suppose "crippled" is a relative term, but compared to the other programs mentioned let's just say it doesn't have the "features" of the other stuff.

[justicetones]

My two cents and then some on this notion or belief that PTLE is crippled by member µ¿ z3®ø™.

There is a reason that ProTools is the industry standard other than a huge company pushing it. It is far easier to deal with audio and editing than Logic or DP. The plugins sound far better, even on The LE version. I mix for a commercial jingle house on a regular basis and I can say with out a doubt that Protools sounds better than Logic. I don't know if it is more the plugs or the mixer and summing but the Logic mixes never sounded as punchy as the ProTools mixes EVEN when I ran it in DAE mode using all of Protools plugins. All of the writers and the company owners brought it up before I said it. That is why they bought two more Protools systems.

That said i have worked on many DAW platforms and I don't think that PTLE is crippled in comparison to it's competitors. Of course it is more limited that HD. Host processing vs. PCI cards. That is a no brainer to anyone that really understands computers.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

My two cents and then some on this notion or belief that PTLE is crippled by member µ¿ z3®ø™.

... I mix for a commercial jingle house on a regular basis and I can say with out a doubt that Protools sounds better than Logic.

which would be be the entire opposite of what most peeps working in pro audio experienced when listening to the summing busses of the various DAWs as recorded on lynn fuston's CDs.
i actually DID rephrase my comments, vis-a vis, "crippled".
now if ya wanna talk about THAT....
or the assertion that anyone can tell the difference between ANY of the DAWs in a double blind test....
whatever.

[justicetones]

In my opinion and seeing what DAW's are actually used in professional studios, I still say Protools is the Standard for good reasons. I will say that I have seen an increasing number of Nuendo which sounds quite good from what I have heard played from it. I would love to do something on Nuendo in the future. Logic is much more common in Europe than here but is far more difficult to use and deal with audio in my opinion. I know alot of people that feel this way. But then again there are others that feel opposite.

I can't comment on the Lynn Fuston cd as I have not heard it. I am sure there are situations that are the reverse also. So to quote your post and you obvoius dislike for Protools. "whatever"

Lastly I will add that I am not in any way saying that all other DAW's are useless. I think a great mix is possible on just about any DAW. It is really about the song (artist and musicians) and the user (engineer, mixer)

[MichaelK]

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd say again it depends on the application. Talk about comparing apples to oranges... the only similarity among these platforms is that they all fall under the heading of "DAW" and can produce a final product of uncompressed audio. If they all worked the same and had identical functionality it would be a simple question of which sounded best... or was the least expensive.

I have to laugh when these arguments start on the net, because I never hear these arguments in the real world. No one I know makes an issue of this stuff in ordinary conversation. If a friend of mine says he likes to work in DP or Logic and we're both making a living, what's the fricking argument?? No one pays us based on our choice of DAW. It's music! They pay us for what comes out of their speakers.

I work in ProTools and when I collaborate with a Logic or DP user there's no translation problem at all. 24-bit/44.1 is 24-bit/44.1 in any studio. Yes, it's a little easier when I collaborate with a ProTools user because we can open each other's session files. But it doesn't take much to work around that.

If I need to go outside for my own tracking, editing or mixing I prefer to stay in ProTools... so yeah, then it makes a difference to me.

On the audio quality question... I know a remixer whose dance mixes in Logic have sold multiple millions... and as far as I know he has received zero complaints about them not being "punchy" enough. In fact, they are punchy as hell. I've never A/B-ed the same mix on both platforms, but my guess (and it's ONLY a guess) from your story is that there was a difference in the clock.

[elambo]

Great mixes have come out of Logic and PT. One platform will cater more to one type of personality and workflow than the other, which makes it better for that person, but not better in general.

Unless other factors are in play, like compatibility, or perception. If ProTools makes your studio more compatible, or give the impression to potential clients that you stand at a higher level than studios that use Logic, then it's better for those reasons. But for pure fidelity, both have very similar potential.

[justicetones]

Quote from MichaelK
"I've never A/B-ed the same mix on both platforms, but my guess (and it's ONLY a guess) from your story is that there was a difference in the clock."
__________________
Quote from Elambo "Great mixes have come out of Logic and PT. One platform will cater more to one type of personality and workflow than the other, which makes it better for that person, but not better in general."


They were both clocked from the Apogee Big Ben. Also the tests were done both using Logic in DAE mode (which sounded far better to all of us than in Core Audio mode. But, like I had stated before in my previous post. I have heard great mixes from bothI think the thing that some people miss is that they start baggin on one system when they don't have alot of experience with it or are partial to not liking it because of some issue they have.

I think my post could be misinterpreted because of my word choice after responding to µ¿ z3®ø™ posts using the term "crippling". Also some of the small issues that he listed are not so major to most of us with easy solutions.

I own Logic and Protools (002rack) because I have to work in both for my clients. I have achieved great results from both but I prefer Protools. I can also more earily achieve the sound I am looking for in Protools. My comment on the summing was from experience with clients and a little from my personal works. But I still use Logic for some things.

MichaelK and Elambo and some others around here who are more open minded and or experienced get it. Like I had said a great mix can come out of many DAW's. I totally agree with MichaelK's comment on compatibility. It is never really an issue for me either between Logic and Protools or other systems. DAW choice does have alot to do with how someone works and or what their needs are as Elambo said.

I appreciate the other posts from members that also have experience in both platforms. It is ultimately alsmost impossible to compare the platforms and rate them fairly against each other because there is more to it that which systems summing is the best or which one has automatic dealy compensation, or has the ability to freeze tracks. In the end it is all about the final product and NOT how you got there to me.

[µ¿ z3®ø™]

I think my post could be misinterpreted because of my word choice after responding to µ¿ z3®ø™ posts using the term "crippling". Also some of the small issues that he listed are not so major to most of us with easy solutions.
...MichaelK and Elambo and some others around here who are more open minded and or experienced get it.
...I appreciate the other posts from members that also have experience in both platforms. It is ultimately alsmost impossible to compare the platforms and rate them fairly against each other because there is more to it that which systems summing is the best or which one has automatic dealy compensation, or has the ability to freeze tracks. In the end it is all about the final product and NOT how you got there to me.

first of all, i amended my "crippled" quip. i think "lacks features" is far more innocuous. i realise that when one comes on a web-site and promulgates views in an open discourse that there is a risk of offending someone. people tend to feel the need to get defensive when their tool is given intense scrutiny under the cold light of objective reality. justicetones, if this is what has happened and U were offended by my use of the word "crippled", please forgive me. I HAVE amended the comment. it was not my purpose to offend anyone or to start any sort of flame war or have anything other than some sort of calm, rational discourse w/ the thought of helping the original poster.
however, justicejones, if Ur quip about not being open minded or lacking experience is directed at me (hard for me to think it could be directed at anyone else), i think that Ur remarks are far too close to being personal attacks. that's just silly. U don't know me. to prove my point, above U state that "So to quote your post and you obvoius dislike for Protools". i have NEVER said this and i do not believe it to be true. if U would have had the foresight to actually think of asking me WHAT my opinion was and then reiterate my opinion that would be acceptable. but it is presumptuous to put words into peeps mouths and think that they will not want to clarify the matter.
here are the objective facts:
1)in any test done using the lynn fuston CDs in a double blind test, statistically speaking, no one has been able to score better than chance in identifying differences between ANY of the DAWs, whether using a native system or a bespoke dedicated system like protools HD.
to put it plainly...
many, many, many hard core pro engineers have done these tests and even these golden eared pros are unable to tell the difference between any of the DAWs whether native or dedicated. but then again, i don't know of ANY pro engineers who are now saying that there is ANY difference between the sound of any computer DAW.
i must say that prior to educating myself, i personally did not want to believe that this is true. i wanted to believe that all DAWs had different sounds. it seems that the engineering staff behind these programs have succeeded very well in their effort to give us neutral tools to work with. so, we can toss out any idea that DAWs sound "different" from each other as being an urban myth. just like the one from a few years ago that said that plugins sounded different when used in different DAWs.
for those that would like to educate themselves, please don't take MY word for it, i would direct U to gearslutz.com and search "lynn fuston dawsum".
2)if we are going to compare DAWs we are, inevitably, going to compare the feature set. simply put, PTLE lacks features. digidesign admits this and, in fact, uses it as a promotional tool to sell it's HD systems. ain't nothing wrong w/ that. they do periodically update PTLE and give it "pro" features from time to time. an example of this would be making beat detective available to LE users. however, the lack of features that i pointed out above are neither trivial nor esoteric. in fact, this information could be pivotal in someone choosing one platform or another. this seems entirely axiomatic to me so forgive me if i fail to give examples. to me, to give examples would seem to be condescending.
3)"In the end it is all about the final product and NOT how you got there to me" might be an entirely appropriate comment in a general discussion of DAW preferences and how it relates to the creative muse. not really helpful to someone that starts a thread and wants to know facts about the functionality of the various DAWs.

[elambo]

I said all DAWs have a similar sonic potential, but they're NOT IDENTICAL, regardless of what people are saying about Lynn's CD.

I've heard the differences for myself, but I've also proven it mathematically. For anyone interested, here's what I did:

In ProTools LE, I composed with MIDI a 10-track orchestral composition using EastWest's Symphony Orchestra Gold, which is a plugin orchestral sampler. I then bussed each track (at unity) to an audio track and recorded them. I also bouced-to-disk the entire composition at the master fader.

Then in ProToold HD, I opened the MIDI information and routed it to the EastWest plugin with the exact same settings. Just listening to this I could sense that there was added depth and richness. Then I brought in the audio tracks I'd made in PT LE and listened. They were indeed less present and even narrower in their presentation. I was able to play the "live" MIDI track and A/B it on the fly with the LE file and it was plain as day. Two other engineers in the room with me also picked this out quickly.

I then bouced the PT HD version and brought it into a track along with the LE version. I matched the beginning of each track at a sample level, then inverted the audio of one. If the two tracks were identical, I would hit play and hear no sound at all, but there WAS sound. This proves that there's something different between the two, and something different between the "mix busses" of ProTools HD and LE (since this has all been internal, no hardware has come into play and the mix bus is responsible.) The noise that remained was primarily low end and at the outer edges of the speakers.

To be honest, the inversion test was unnecessary because a simple comparison with our ears was enough. The test showed us that we weren't crazy. This was just a test of PT HD and LE, but if even these two formats are different, it would stand to reason that others would be also.

[justicetones]

µ¿ z3®ø™ I think we are suffering from the email or in print syndrome that does not have a tone of voice or facial expression connected with it.

µ¿ z3®ø™ after reading my post I could see why you might think that I was inferring some thought that you were not experienced. For that I apologize. That was not my direct intention. I don't know you and I always try to assume someone knows their stuff until proven otherwise.

Also I promise I was not directly referring to you in the quip about People baggin on some systems. That happens alot in here and in gearslutz. I think that it is silly as you stated. There is no reason for ANYTHING to get personal. This is a forum. None of us know everything and no one person ever will. So please know that none of my comments were directed directly at you.

As for the the tests that elambo ran. I agree there are differences. Elambo did you clock from the same source or was it internal clocks? Also were the converters the same. I am very curious to know more about what your conclusions were.

Let me just state that I know many other engineers that feel the same way I do when it comes to Digidesign. It is a love hate thing. Of course they are smart enough to not give you to much in LE. They need to justify for people the need to buy an HD system. They are smart about their business.
However I will say that the results in LE with a very good external clock and some different converters is large. I work on HD systems almost daily and having a little portable LE rig with some additional converters and a clock is a very handy thing when you are freelancing or just having fun. :-)

[elambo]

I hate to chime in only to be contradictory - I guess I keep quiet when I agree - but now is a time like no other where Digidesign is NOT able to justify their high-end system, HD. With the quad processor Mac, a Digi002, and ProTools 7, you have incredible recording and mixing power. I was days away from buying an HD system to have at home, but then I got wind of the improvements PT7 was making to its processing architecture, and when the quad Macs were announced it was sealed. I'm saving thousands and sacrificing very little. Actually, for what I do at home, I'm sacrificing almost nothing. Contrary to what keeps getting posted here, PT LE is feature packed. The ONLY thing I miss from the full program is SMPTE, but there are easy ways to work around that, too.

I've had a few conversations with Digi brass in the past month and, believe me, they're quite nervous about preserving the necessity of their hardware. It could also explain why they're so slow at approving LE on the new machines. But there's no doubt that they have great marketing and will continue somehow. It's "how" that has me a little nervous. Requiring iLok to run PT HD is a sign that their tightening their reigns.

[MichaelK]

>> Then in ProToold HD, I opened the MIDI information and routed it to the EastWest plugin with the exact same settings...

Sorry, but this test is flawed in so many ways that I can't begin to get into it. Suffice to say that it is not really "A/B."

>> Actually, for what I do at home, I'm sacrificing almost nothing. Contrary to what keeps getting posted here, PT LE is feature packed.

Key words here are "for what I do at home." This has always been Digi's aim with LE: to keep it impractical for a large studio, i.e. any facility with a console larger than 8 tracks. And it still is.

This is also why they withheld large track count and SMPTE capability from LE: to keep it impractical for scoring mixdown – so that Sony or Disney couldn't snap up 200 LE systems and create an in-house mixdown factory.

There in a nutshell you have the three biggest differences between LE and any TDM system: I/O limitation, track count and SMPTE. For a large facility there's no question that those limitations make LE unuseable - also for anyone doing scoring, like Les or splatt. So to call those limitations "crippling" in either of those contexts is correct (not to beat a dead horse over $*(&^'s use of the term, but here I think it's 100% appropriate).

But any other differences, as far as capability, are IMO utterly trivial. I don't know a single HD user who disagrees with me, by the way (most of them use LE systems at home), but that's just my experience.

[MichaelK]

"In the end it is all about the final product and NOT how you got there to me" might be an entirely appropriate comment in a general discussion of DAW preferences and how it relates to the creative muse. not really helpful to someone that starts a thread and wants to know facts about the functionality of the various DAWs.
Good point. But innocuous questions quickly lead to ridiculous arguments with very little information of practical value, often because no one has bothered to ask the poor bastid, "What do you plan to do?"

Or, if the question is asked, no one pays attention. Screw that, it's another opportunity to spout "The Opinion," just like last week! ;)

[elambo]

>> Then in ProToold HD, I opened the MIDI information and routed it to the EastWest plugin with the exact same settings...

Sorry, but this test is flawed in so many ways that I can't begin to get into it. Suffice to say that it is not really "A/B."

The test is perfectly valid - sorry if you're confused.

(edited to fix the quotes)

[justicetones]

Originally said by Elambobut now is a time like no other where Digidesign is NOT able to justify their high-end system, HD. With the quad processor Mac, a Digi002, and ProTools 7, you have incredible recording and mixing power.


MichaelK and Elambo. Very well put. I was also going to buy an HD system this time around but for what I do there was no reason. I have plenty of stuff running on TV and no one cares or could tell that I tracked most of it or mixed some of it on LE. And in turn I could afford other pieces of gear that make a faw larger difference in the sound than The diff between LE and HD. Like mic, mic pre's and a clock and better converters. In the HD system there is much room for improvement in the clock and the converters IMHO.


Oh and also the portability option that an LE system offers with a laptop for me just is unbeatable sometimes.

[MichaelK]

In the HD system there is much room for improvement in the clock and the converters IMHO.
I've heard people say that about the 96 I/O, which I have not used. Personally I feel the 192 I/O sounds fricking great.

[justicetones]

MichaelK, The 192 does sound very good, I completely agree. I was referring more to the 96 i/o. Sorry I should have been more clear. The clock however is good but could be better even in the sync module. The systems I have worked on and the shootout that led to this all sounded better off of the Apogee Big Ben whether it was 96 i/o's or 192's. I am sure there could be other clocks that would have that same positive effect.

Then again we are talking about differences that at the end of the day the record buying public could probably care less about or even hear as they download from itunes. Heck, I do it too. So I love the difference for me and my listening and working pleasure. I can't help it.

[Cary Chilton]

As per Michael Brauer, who would probably kill the experience of anyone here said PT is still the way to go, but he said Nuendo still sounds better in his opinion. Gearslutz.com members still concur that pt has least amount of latency issues. Nuendo gets on par with pt in this area we might have a new industry standard.

[elambo]

>> Then in ProToold HD, I opened the MIDI information and routed it to the EastWest plugin with the exact same settings...

Sorry, but this test is flawed in so many ways that I can't begin to get into it. Suffice to say that it is not really "A/B."

I'm still waiting for your insight, Michael, to explain the flaws in my test (I'm not actually, but I'd rather not have anyone believe that you're right).

For the record, you're absolutely wrong. I've left out a slew of specific information about the test, the knowledge of which would have been completely necessary in order to determine whether the test was valid. A contrarian wouldn't care and would simply say, "it's flawed." An engineer would have asked more questions. Period.

I eagerly welcome the light you might shine on any holes in this test.

[MichaelK]

I'm still waiting for your insight, Michael, to explain the flaws in my test (I'm not actually, but I'd rather not have anyone believe that you're right).

1) Comparing summed and re-sampled audio from one system to live real-time MIDI playback on another system is hardly comparing apples to apples.

2) Re-recording the same MIDI file to audio will not yield a sample-for-sample identical audio file. But...

3) ...then you go and bounce a bunch of them down, summing them through the mix bus and re-sampling the result... well, of course you're not going to end up with an exact match to your first summed file. Even if you did everything twice on the SAME system, it might sound the same but under a microscope (so to speak) it wouldn't match up exactly. The phase reversal experiment might have been interesting, but to say it "proved" anything "mathematically" is simply untrue.

I should clarify: You proved that the two files are not 100% identical. But you didn't prove why.

[Layne-o]

I've tracked sessions to regional and national radio play on my Mbox with Protools LE. I dig Garage Band for it's user-friendliness as well.

YMMV,

Layne

[elambo]

1) Comparing summed and re-sampled audio from one system to live real-time MIDI playback on another system is hardly comparing apples to apples.

2) Re-recording the same MIDI file to audio will not yield a sample-for-sample identical audio file. But...

3) ...then you go and bounce a bunch of them down, summing them through the mix bus and re-sampling the result... well, of course you're not going to end up with an exact match to your first summed file. Even if you did everything twice on the SAME system, it might sound the same but under a microscope (so to speak) it wouldn't match up exactly. The phase reversal experiment might have been interesting, but to say it "proved" anything "mathematically" is simply untrue.

I should clarify: You proved that the two files are not 100% identical. But you didn't prove why.

Point 1) You're right, it's apples to oranges, but this was a listening test only. It was never my intent to base the conclusion on this observation. I made that clear. Further empirical tests - apples to apples at a DNA level, if you will - were intended, and were performed, and it was only based on those later tests, not the insignificant one you pointed out, upon which I made any solid conclusions.

Point 2) This is where you lack information and continue to fail to ask for more. In fact the MIDI-triggered audio would render the EXACT same audio, or so it should, based on the fact that I'd imported the MIDI, AND the plugin itself, which would not have changed from one test to the other, and is a type of plugin that is merely involved in sample playback, not convolution. There's no factor that would alter the audio EXCEPT for any differences between PT HD and PT LE, factors which were trying to be discovered and are the basis for the entire test. On a system set to fire MIDI at intervals of 960 per quarter note, there's a chance that they might start at slightly varying times (which is why I choose a very fast tempo to compose to), but once they start, they'll remain in sync relative to each other.

Point 3) Phase inversion is a common way to analyze the differences between one audio file and another. It's also a way to prove whether or not the two files are identical. One way we used to test the integrity of a new digital cable was to run audio through it, back into the system, then rerecord the audio. It's a very simple process to line up the samples, and once aligned we would invert the sample and run the sum through an analyzer. If there was complete cancellation, the cable was quiet. My engineers were TAUGHT to do this - it's not witchcraft but a common practice. It's done for many reasons, and often. In any case, my two samples were bounced from identical sources, then layed together with sample accurate alignment. That the two samples were different would suggest that PT HD and PT LE have different mix busses, which, guess what... THEY DO! PT HD is 48-bit, LE is 32 bit.

(I'll do multiple bounces of the same MIDI session tonight, on the same system, then try the test, but I already know the results. If they happen to be different, I'll post it here.)

What other doubts do you have about my test? Ask before accusing because I thought through all of this when I originally did the test.

Returning to the point, PT HD and LE do NOT sound the same. It also suggests that other DAWs will not sound the same, whihc they don't. But they do all have the potential to sound great and that's all I originally wanted to say to the author of this thread.

EDIT: I forgot to answer your last point - You've unnecessarily clarified yourself. All I was trying to do was find out if they WERE different, not why, at least not at that stage. To be honest, I figured they would be before I even did the test because I'd heard it for myself hundreds of times when moving sessions back and forth. And all this thread has tried to do was find out if they are different, not why. "Why" is another thread.

[MichaelK]

Again, apples to oranges.

When you test your cables, you're playing back and re-recording an existing waveform on the same system. If the cable's 100% quiet, the waveform coming out should be exactly the same as the waveform that went in. It not even resampled.

In your test, you were not sending a waveform and re-recording it. You were recording a NEW waveform from MIDI and comparing it to an OLDER waveform created from the same MIDI on a different system, which is a much less precise process. MIDI triggers a sample to play back and the audio is then re-sampled by the DAW. It's not waveform in - waveform out. Even inside the box MIDI is not 100% precise.

I didn't say the mix busses were the same, or sounded the same. I said the test didn't prove anything about the busses. You were recording on a different system and the waveforms being out of perfect phase could have been attributed to any number of things besides the mix bus: e.g., processor load, clock calibration, read time for the samples, latency, etc.

And again, I'm not saying you're wrong about how it sounded. Nor that there is no difference in sound between the two mix busses. I'm only saying that the listening comparison as you described it – live vs. recorded – and that phase cancellation test don't shed any light on any inherent audible difference between the systems.

The best way to test your theory would be to bounce down the same session file on both systems: same audio, same settings, same automation, same clock, no plug-ins, no outboard processors, no changes in the session from one bounce to the other, completely in the box. If all that is the same, the only significant variable should be the bus. Then you burn both to a CD and just listen.

(minor edits for clarity)

[elambo]

Aargh! I don't know why this is so confusing - I thought the original posts was clear enough with this point: It was NOT live MIDI vs. bounced audio, it was bounced audio vs. bounced audio. SAME! Apple and apples. MIDI was bounced in LE, it was bounced in HD.

The test is valid, but I can't keep explaining to you "why" when you refuse to read what's been written. It's all there already. If you have further questions go back and read the prior posts.

[MichaelK]

Maybe it was something you said...

Then in ProToold HD, I opened the MIDI information and routed it to the EastWest plugin with the exact same settings. Just listening to this I could sense that there was added depth and richness. Then I brought in the audio tracks I'd made in PT LE and listened. They were indeed less present and even narrower in their presentation. I was able to play the "live" MIDI track and A/B it on the fly with the LE file and it was plain as day...

You then go on to describe your phase inversion experiment after bouncing down newly recorded tracks... which even if you A/B-ed them after bouncing down (and like it or not, it's unclear whether you did), still proves nothing because they weren't the same audio tracks as in your original mix.

Also: if BEFORE you did the bouncedown, the new recorded tracks sounded better than the old tracks (a comparison you don't mention, but that would be crucial information), that would change everything. The master bus is not used when you record audio from an aux input, so if they did sound better up front, why is that? If they didn't sound better, why not just use your original tracks?

But if you're now saying that you didn't even record each track to audio in HD, and just bounced down the entire MIDI mix... well, that's moving so far away from what you did in LE that no comparison is even remotely valid. Maybe that's not what you're saying; it's hard to piece your story together.

Look, I'm not just idly breaking your balls because I have nothing better to do today. The question interests me and I'm trying to point out the most accurate way to test your theory, if you're not too pissed off to consider it. I'd do it myself but I don't work with HD regularly. Anyway, here's what I'd do:

(1) Forget recording new audio from MIDI. If there is any difference (and I'm not saying there isn't) it's unrelated to the mix bus. It's another question for another experiment.

(2) Take your original LE session folder, including all the related audio and fade files, and put it on a firewire drive if it's not already. Use this drive for both systems. Your clock should also be the same on both systems.

(3) From this drive, open the session in LE. If the original session folder is on a different drive, make sure it's not mounted on your desktop (otherwise PT will seek out and use the audio files on the original drive).

(4) Open the session in LE and make sure the disk allocation is pointing to the correct drive and the clock source is correct. Disable all plug-ins (HD RTAS is slightly different from LE RTAS and you don't want any unnecessary variables). Don't use any external busses. Save the session and bounce down the mix in the box.

(5) Using the same drive and clock, open the same session in HD. Don't change anything. Again, with no plug-ins and no external routing, bounce down the mix in the box, same bit depth and sample rate as the LE mix.

Burn them to a CD and do a blind test. If there's any audible difference, you should at least be able to tell "A" from "B" fairly consistently.

Peace and love, OK? :)