Busy professionally. Think about it.
But "professionally busy" does sound like most of the human race. haha.
Trying to make a profession out of being busy! Get it?
Always waiting on royalties isn't a profession, I admit.
I know you were making a joke, don't shoot me down. I'm making one too.

 

good one

I've actually wanted to make being lazy a profession since I was 10. Months. I guess you could say I'm a natural. For some unknown and, I gotta say, unfair reason I never made it despite trying really hard to fulfill my vocational calling...

https://audiosex.pro/threads/do-all-daws-sound-the-same.55628/page-7#post-505224

 

Encara trobo a faltar el teu punt ...
Finalment, no hauríeu de confondre més aquesta publicació ...

 

Hm... The reference to real science was meant to reflect the willingness to analyze and test using real scientific principles. Not accepting blindly a practical tool as being valid without questioning. Like a daw. Because one CANNOT use the SAME category of instrumentation, like the test subject; one needs a magnitude time "better" ( i.e accurate) one. The problem is that's NOT how digital audio works.Nor how it is distributed. Also the mathematical representation of a null test is a+(-b), which if gives the result 0, mathematically undoubtedly renders a=b. Hence the frequent religious reference by the "null" crowd But, again, those codes run on a machine (with specific limitations and implementations) and NOT on a piece of paper.

Well I'm a Cuibase user (from ATARI days) and I can tell you that there is even a generational sound change in them. Pre SX then after SX3, then 8. For example until Cubase 4 it was possible to route output to output(via sends) then it wasn't, the different output busses become not even latency compensated (among them). Also their output driver( BAIOS.dll BAsic Output Input System) is a different version.

 

Last edited: Oct 10, 2020

That's not a bad proposition, but this is not how digital audio works. Digital audio is and HAS to be discrete. Otherwise one will start hearing the dreaded crackles.That's why it is so problematic testing this stuff.

 

Yep, exactly. But even then (same hardware) the differences can be ARGUABLY attributed to variations in the analog stage of the DAC.That's why it is so hard to have a discussion on this matter.

Well this where I beg to differ. But is a personal choice so no argumentation

 

100% Yes.We are also artists, who create.

While you didn't ask me, it is about trust. If the simplest "operation" of all can not do it reliably ( i.e. without changing the intent of the creator) what else it can ...drive south?

 

Yeah. Well all of that is very nice and actually funny. But....you didn't said anything of substance related to the topic. Juust sayin'.No "attacking"

 

You're right.
That's because it's only a difference I had with pratyhara pages ago that is a bit OT but still valid to begin with. But also the kind of argument/debate that if continued never leads to anything productive but it sure leads to more OT.

And there's also the straight jokes, guilty of joke-OT as charged. @Olymoon often scolds me for this and rightfully so

 

Speaking strictly from my perspective and experience the best results (soundwise) I got using Cubase, was exporting/rendering to split L/R files, with NOTHING on the masterbus, importing them on separate tracks in Samplitude and mastering there.It did take a bit of back and forth but,... it got me the best results.

 

MQA Time-domain Accuracy digital standard will possibly very soon make all existing DAWs and plugins obsolete anyway, and
especially asking questions like this because of innate time-domain error tracing and correction.

 

Interesting info, but that word obsolete is a bit tricky...
Would a MQA Time-domain digitally enhanced guitar make my 1956 Stratocaster obsolete?
Should I sell my Strat quick before it becomes worthless?

My old music platforms are just like instruments.
Nothing about them matters more than can I usefully use them - no esoteric techie detail matters more than that.
My old platforms will never be obsolete even when they are in the company of my equally desirable newer platforms.

But also - praise be to audio engineering geekery for making this all possible.

---

EDIT: came back to say thanks again @pratyahara for that info. (was new to me)
It got me to read this...
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/mqa-time-domain-accuracy-digital-audio-quality
Good stuff.

 

Last edited: Oct 14, 2020

protocols like dsd, mqa that seek to address some of the inadequacies of pcm have been in the public forum for a while now. the arguments for or against have not been able to, thus far, demonstrate a significant enough benefit to pass a cost-benefit (not necessarily purely financial) threshold. something like mqa is more practical due to its 'wrapper' like nature and backward compatibility. issues like this probably translate as more matters of trust and faith-in on a human level rather than practical audible benefits.

 

That's seems interesting technology. Would you make thread about it?

 

A delicate way to say that the post is off topic....

Yes, I have been downloading superaudio cd .dsf for some time now: I find this idea interesting and it would be nice if someone prepared on the subject here discussed its advantages. Unfortunately what I find on this subject is extremely technical and incomprehensible to me.
Go ahead @pratyahara it seems that you know a lot about the topic

Here is a link to download some dsf, mqa, dsd files to test their potential:
http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
—legit download—

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2020

It's off topic, but I'm sincerely interested to learn more about it.

 

The August 2016 SOS article that @Ad Heesive linked already contains everything that anyone would need (or want...) to know on the subject. Slogging my way through this obtuse advert i and was struck again & again how this was scant more than a puff-piece for proprietry/licenced software technology that now (four years on) seems hardly any nearer to being universally adopted now than it was then... The nub of the problem is that MQA would need to be employed across the entire recording-production-mastering-distribution-reception chain to show any substantial benefit whatsoever - and even then it would be noticeable on top-tier DAC kit only, whereas the average modern phone/car/laptop user wouldn't notice any significant improvement whatsoever. So, that's four commercial licences that no other commercial interests (other than the owners of MQA) feel any particular inclination to pay for - and all to satisfy the obsessive 'needs' of a fractional percentage of hardcore nerd audiophiles who remotely give a shit anyway about this level of 'perfection' anyway...

IMHO this technology will remain substantially stillborn until/unless it becomes open source, which frankly isn't likely to happen. And its premise is essentially irrelevent for the average music consumer anyway, 'cos whatever benefits MQA can supply, it certainly can't transform crappy content into incredibly profound masterpieces... which indeed would be software tech worth paying for.

 

BOOOOOM!