…or does C6 actually sound different to C5? Just that little bit smoother, airier and spacious. Hell, better! (at least on this track)
It’s your imagination!
I did a mixdown of the same track in Cubase 5 and 6, inverted one of the mixdowns and played them together.
The result: null
With other words: 5 & 6 sound 100% identical!
Whew! That means I don’t have to re-mix anything. Still, I like your bit of detective work so I’ll give it a go anyway. Cheers, C
Well that didn’t work! I got loads of rather jangly guitar l+r and, oddly, a really solid kick and bass… They’re both 16-bit 44.1 and it happens whether I import back into C5 or C6.
You imported the stereo mixes into two new channels, soloed them and inverted one at the top of the mixer, right?
Yes, I imported both the mixdowns to two audio channels and reversed the phase of one of the channels.
You can do it on the mixer or the way I did: Audio -> Process -> Phase reverse.
Then I played both files together.
When you hear a lot of sound it indicates there is a difference between both mixes.
A little side note on my test, I did not use any of Cubase’s stock effects. So it could be those versions react different.
I did test the channel EQ though, those are 100% identical afaik.
I also did a quick test with the stock multiband compressor and noticed a slight difference. Not audible though, I had to blew up the visual of the wave a lot to even see it. So I think a normal human ear would not be able to hear it. At least I didn’t, but the the level meter showed a little activity, so I checked to make sure.
I use factory fx pretty much exclusively so slight improvements to them would explain a lot if not everything.
Now you’ve put me on the scent, I see that “HALion Sonic SE replaces HALion ONE, but all HALion ONE sounds have been revamped and are now included in HALion Sonic SE”, so that accounts for the bass sounding better, then!
And to think that I decided to stick with native plugins in order to avoid this…
That well could be why you still hear sound if you compare the mixdown of both versions.
Strange though the HALion ONE tracks are opened with HALion Sonic SE, because HALion ONE is still present in Cubase 6 (at least here with Cubase 5 still installed).
I did a comparison with a whitenoise audio file, just to make sure I don’t get any artifacts of VSTi’s in the test.
I hear you, appart from how excellent VSTi’s and VST’s technology is, on that point the technique really loses points.
Read up on Interpolation.
What has Interpolation got to do with this topic?
Are you asking the question because:
a) You don’t know the answer
b) You do know the answer but wish to commence an argument
Judging by the history of this kind of discussion on this and the old forums, I think it is fair to assume the latter.
First off brains, it is rude to answer a question with a question. So can you please inform us of why interpolation is of relevance.
There is absolutely nothing relevant of a bounced stereo file inverted or otherwise, nulled etc, as an indicator of the sound playback quality within cubase.
A nulled file might verify the exported mixes as being the same, but realtime playback is what is being discussed here, and the difference between realtime playback, and what you got from a bounced stero file has ALWAYS been cubases achilles heel.
since VST 3.5 upwards whatever you heard while playing back your mix, normally was not what was bounced down, jeez thats why most of us decided to play our mixes into a DAT machine to capture the mix perfectly, not relying on aliased crackly bouced files.
100% in agreement that Cubase 6 sounds FAR FAR better than cubase 5 did in all of its incarnarnations. period, end of, full stop.
The realtime Algo is far superior, there is no sound degradation, no awful timing anomalies with drum loops using media bay…or random artifacts in timestretched bass parts…all in all it is a FINE sounding workstation now. with the basic feature of timestretching & pitchshifting finallyt sorted.
The old skoolers among us are finally rejoicing thta we have a DAW with a sound to be proud of, and not having to rely on “Big Hollywood Producers” tell us its great when WE know it wasnt!
and this is aimed at the Long Term users of Cubase…Doesnt Cubase 6 sound fecking phenomonal ! FINALLy woop woop!.
But the jury is still out on bounced mixes, at least on my part, I still record to dat then digitally transfer back …and if most of you young uns are serious about your audio, Just try it and compare !. hear for your self.
Well I know what interpolation is and I know that you stated somewhere that some part of the vst or something had been changed. Could you explain you reasoning and sources for implying that interpolation has anything to do with a null test between C5 and C6.
Golden ears bro!
(seems crotchety has them too)
Yamaha Sound Reinforcement Handbook, it states ears are more important than numbers
P.S. Can’t wait for the update C5 is gonna blow C6 away
@discoworx it’s in the first or so paragraph of wikipedia
As I thought, no substance… oh well
I think discoworx said it quite well.
Entirely up to you, but if you spout off terms like “interpolation” without rhyme or reason then you should be prepared to back it up, that’s all.
Interpolation defines a table of values that can be used for any purpose such as audio algorithms or rendering of pixels on a screen.
How well defined those values are within the constraints of a given system determines the overall quality of output.
How does interpolation relate to a perceived difference in sound quality between C5 and C6?
And where is this discussed?
I’m not arguing with you, I would just like to know where the source is as I’ve looked and can find no mention.
That is the question.
I would just like to know where the source is as I’ve looked and can find no mention.
I can only defer to discoworx in this case, who in their infinite wisdom has outlined the situation very well.
All the best
Much as I thought.