Donald Fagan; Nuendo; ProTools; Sound on Sound

[inverseroom]

RADAR has vastly superior clocking and AD/DA converters to almost anything on the market.

That there's what it's all about, eh?

[hammertime]

I don't know. I think this is just the "Virgin Mary effect" where everybody says that someone else said they saw or heard something that they may or may not have seen or heard. And pretty soon everybody sees or hears it. But if they actually go there, it's just some light that someone set up, or some hearsay on a forum, or some dude in a little room creating a Wizard of Oz.

[Spark]

That there's what it's all about, eh?

Yah, try one out if you get the chance. They sound great, even if they dont have all the bells and whistles of your average DAW.

[Everybody's X]

I don't know. I think this is just the "Virgin Mary effect" where everybody says that someone else said they saw or heard something that they may or may not have seen or heard. And pretty soon everybody sees or hears it. But if they actually go there, it's just some light that someone set up, or some hearsay on a forum, or some dude in a little room creating a Wizard of Oz.

theoretically I can see your argument, but I have tracked stuff in PT, exported it to nuendo and played them through the same hardware, same monitors, same everything and I thought it sounded better, so did the other 3 guys in the room. I don't know what made it sound better but I tried the best I could to make it an even playing field, and I brought in other ears to make sure I wasn't fooling myself.
I don't work for steinberg and I don't really care what DAW anybody uses, I'm just saying I heard a difference. I suspect it's in the 32 bit float architecture, which would explain why people are now saying the new 64 bit apps sound better

[runrunrun]

I don't know. I think this is just the "Virgin Mary effect" where everybody says that someone else said they saw or heard something that they may or may not have seen or heard. And pretty soon everybody sees or hears it. But if they actually go there, it's just some light that someone set up, or some hearsay on a forum, or some dude in a little room creating a Wizard of Oz.

theoretically I can see your argument, but I have tracked stuff in PT, exported it to nuendo and played them through the same hardware, same monitors, same everything and I thought it sounded better, so did the other 3 guys in the room. I don't know what made it sound better but I tried the best I could to make it an even playing field, and I brought in other ears to make sure I wasn't fooling myself.
I don't work for steinberg and I don't really care what DAW anybody uses, I'm just saying I heard a difference. I suspect it's in the 32 bit float architecture, which would explain why people are now saying the new 64 bit apps sound better

so if you did a mixdown to tape, one from nuendo, one from PT, with the same converters, would the nuendo one sound better or is it just when you are monitoring through the program?

[Everybody's X]

I'll have to try that

[Slider]

I wonder if when PT had no ADC, the shift that would result when inserting plugs on certain channels caused everyone to question it's sound quality.
Having multi mic'ed drums stay coherent with plugs was HUGE.

For me Nuendo is much easier to work on, which is the real reason I use it over PT whenever possible.

[emrr]

Thre was a thread on another forum somewhere about PT's variable error rate in regards to automation tracking. Phase reverse cancellation tests were showing random remaining data when summing two supposedly identical ITB mix bounces. There seemed to be confirmation from multiple parties about DP (for one -and some others I can't remember) creating perfect clone bounces ITB.

This seems to me to be related to processor allocation, implementation, and what happens when system limitations are met, what happens when executable command chains don't have bulletproof streamlining and know when to slow down and stay in proper order. And that will certainly f*$% up your audio math when it leaves something hanging.

I expect you'd find far less difference beyond converter quality when comparing DAW's used strictly as tape machines.

[mrc]

Have worked on 1/2" mono to 16/24...30 & 15ips 2 inch, blackface adat. cubase 3.5 and up, Cakewalk 3 and ups, Acid 2 and ups, Wavelab and Soundforge and ups.
Seems to me that there are so many illusions out there, all the chains and rooms over the years changed.
After 40 years of owning and using recording devices, I'm going to agree with an elder statesman who said something like "If it sounds good, it is."
We can only work with what we have access to. We can only judge by what we've been exposed to, and even that turns to quicksilver.

[emrr]

Have worked on 1/2" mono to 16/24...30 & 15ips 2 inch, blackface adat. cubase 3.5 and up, Cakewalk 3 and ups, Acid 2 and ups, Wavelab and Soundforge and ups.
Seems to me that there are so many illusions out there, all the chains and rooms over the years changed.
After 40 years of owning and using recording devices, I'm going to agree with an elder statesman who said something like "If it sounds good, it is."
We can only work with what we have access to. We can only judge by what we've been exposed to, and even that turns to quicksilver.

Amen, power to the people! I listened to a record I made on blackface ADAT about 10 years ago the other day; I had no enjoyment or sonic difficulties. I had no desire to re-cut it with better gear. It works fine now. How much have I spent on gear upgrades since then?.....