Given two sound files with the same format, if reversing the polarity of one and summing them together produces NO signal, then the two files MUST BE sonically the same.
Therefore, assuming that they are played back on the SAME equipment, with the SAME settings, anyone who claims that they sound different IS deluding themselves.
Since we do not have access to files that are the exports of the renderings of the output of the OP’s recordings on each version of Cubase, none of us are in a position to make any accurate judgement about the veracity of any claims made.
Until such renderings are available for us to do our own summing tests, we are all just p!ssing in the wind!
If you are going to make a claim that is contrary to evidence at hand and also common knowledge, you should absolutely need to show evidence to try and support what you are asserting. Makes it easier to weed out BS claims.
Some elaborate third party plugins claiming to add analog warmth and stuff use random algortihms to add unpredictable live behavior and noise. Other modulation plugins like chorusi an phasers may have a non-syncing modulation LFO that starts at a random offset. Therefore, projects using those can or will differ on small scale on every bounce or export. Nulling any two of those versions will not be zero silence. I figuered that one out 3 Cubase versions back. This is healthy normal behavior and not a fault. Doing the same experiment on a big analog mixconsole with outboard gear and tape did the same in the 80’s.
I have not read through the whole thread, my remark may not account for all problems mentioned here, like EQ HP filters. It may explain some un-null findings though.
Another thing: Cubase in the is not about nulling measurements. If your mix sounds good, use it. I try to avoid taking elaborate projects from one Cubase version to the next. Or have two Cubases installed parallel.
There is no onus of proof required for any assertions made.
However, try submitting a support ticket, and the onus moves up a few notches, as because there is an expectation on the behalf of the submitter that SB is obliged to investigate, SB in turn requires the explicit steps to show how the issue can be reproduced.
With an issue like this, SB could rightly demand rendered outputs from each Cubase version, but only if a support ticket is raised.
If everybody posting on this forum were dispassionate and honest lawyers, purely searching for the truth, and well-versed in the submission of rigorous supporting evidence, only then could anybody reasonably expect proof up front.
However, as we know, many posters come here flustered from operational difficulties, often giving excessive expression to their frustrations, but seeking some form of understanding of the problem and what might help them to solve it. Until they have had some wise counselling, they are not ready for anything that requires a high degree of level-headedness, like presenting ‘proof’.
This forum is like going to a counsellor, whereas the support forum is more like a court.
Of course, neither counselling nor court will help trolls, just banning!
Pre-filters are unlikely to have such randomness included, typically because they are usually required to produce their effect reliably. That is, their use is clinical, not artistic.
If the signal path has plugins with randomness, one would need to determine if the effects of the issue are within their aggregate statistical variance, or significantly outside them.
Of course, the sensible course of action is to, where possible, exclude those FX that are independent of the issue at hand.
It doesn’t need to be. If someone is going to claim (for ex) that one vers sounds different than the other, when 1) many other users say otherwise and 2) the files from these two versions null, that someone should, IMHO, be required to ante up proof.
You don’t need to be in a court of law to require proof.
As it is the “Sound Engine” that is in question, it is only the “Sound Engine” and it’s inherent components (in this case particular care should be taken to ensure the Pre specs are set the same) that should be included in any null testing between versions. Effects and plugins have no place in such tests.
Regarding offering proof, I would say that at least a similar criterion should be expected as in the Issues Forum. A reproducible set of steps which will demonstrate the issue.
Making serious claims without any backing support is akin to those “snake oil” merchants offering their wild claims. There are those who will blindly believe, but anyone making claims without offering evidence or a proof, may and should expect to be chastised by their peers.
The second pic has been taken shortly after flipping the phase while the project was playing, the meters didn’t fully reset.
Re-captured after a ‘cold start’.
I have posted files in this forum to back my statement up. If one can´t hear the differences in those mixes, then I suggest indeed to get better speakers or whatever. Various mastering engineers have listened to those files and their verdict is clear - Version 8 sound worse. As a professional mixdown/mastering engineer I don’t really care what Steinberg come up with as an explanation. I need to work with Cubase every day. So booting up a session in Version 8 and finding out that it sounds worse than in 7.xx is a no-go. I don’t really care about ASIO guard etc. I just care about sound, because that is what I am being paid for. Funny thing: Steinberg um to Version 8 spoke of a pristine quality audio engine. Engine 8 is now optimised on performance. Maybe that is the real story behind the bad sound? More plugs, more instruments, less quality?
It’s these types of comments that tend to sway opinions in the other direction. You think that by making that statement, people are going to believe you, but it’s the opposite that tends to happen. Nobody in their right mind is going to say, “oh - well in that case, C8 does sound worse!”
I listened to the two aifs in the other thread. There is a slight difference . SLIGHT. Anyone who says there is a significant difference needs to have their head examined, and then re-examined. And even tho I am not a know-it-all and do not have as much experience as many others, I am in fact experienced enough to know what’s going on. And it’s not that C7 and C8 “sound different”. Because if they did, the two aifs wouldn’t sound as they do - there would be a different difference. There is something different about the two mixes, be it EQ settings, plugs, or whatever. But the differences are not caused by the two versions sounding different. But you are probably too stubborn to want to say, “ok - maybe that’s it.”
I my opinion things are mixed up pretty heavy in this thread. The way I see it is that due to fliter changes (LP en HP) the mix is different when exporting in C7 vs C8.
When comparing sound quality you must remove all fx processing (including eq, comps etc etc).
Why, because these plugins are changed and behave different then C7 and are no comparision material.
I did not yet concluded that the sound is worse in C8, on the contrary mixing on C8 is even better and the result are similar or even better.
While I do not live from audio engineering, I’m a musician for 25 years now and have had all kind of studio setups and have a audiophile group where i participate in, so listening is based on this experience! So don’t blow me off as a amateur as I know what I’m talking about. Peace and go make some music for god sake!
