We had a little discussion going a while back about the bounce quality in Logic 4.x. Here is a link to a discussion on KVR where Spectrum (Logic Mac user) compares the quality of the bounce in Logic 4.x and 5.x unfavourably to recording the the same mix by routing the SPDI/F output to the SPDI/F input or to recording direct to a CD recorder via SPDI/F. http://www.kvr-vst.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t0318;p Regards, Murray

Murray McDowall <murraymc@m...> wrote: > Spectrum (Logic Mac user) compares the quality of the bounce > in Logic 4.x and 5.x unfavourably to recording the the same > mix by routing the SPDI/F output to the SPDI/F input or to > recording direct to a CD recorder via SPDI/F. ---- i havent done much internal bouncing in logic but what little i have done has a certain something "different" about it to my ears. i regularly bounce audio out of logic, which is a bit more long winded, but makes me feel a little easier about the process. i have to say that i often internally bounce simple things like big fat pad sounds from audio instruments to audio files to save on cpu, in these cases it makes little difference to me. its good to read that others feel the same way though, thanks for the link. andy

Murray McDowall <murraymc@m...> wrote: > > Spectrum (Logic Mac user) compares the quality of the bounce > > in Logic 4.x and 5.x unfavourably to recording the the same > > mix by routing the SPDI/F output to the SPDI/F input or to > > recording direct to a CD recorder via SPDI/F. "highlandsource" <ythan@b...> wrote: > i havent done much internal bouncing in logic but what little i > have done has a certain something "different" about it to my > ears. i regularly bounce audio out of logic, which is a bit more > long winded, but makes me feel a little easier about the process. > i have to say that i often internally bounce simple things like big > fat pad sounds from audio instruments to audio files to save on > cpu, in these cases it makes little difference to me. > its good to read that others feel the same way though, thanks for > the link. If this is true, it's a very serious issue. We are basically saying that Logic is almost useless. Losing the sound quality on Bouncing is unacceptable! Can EMAGIC please comment on this? Mike

highlandsource wrote: > i havent done much internal bouncing in logic but what little i > have done has a certain something "different" about it to my > ears. I have just been reading the article Murray posted, but over here bouncing in almost all cases is sample accurate (exceptions may happen with some virtual synths that aren't, but these sound different each time I playback a sequence anyways). This means, whenever I reimport a bounced file, invert it and play it against the souce material the result is silence. So in the end the bounced result is sounding *exactly* like what I was listening to when I worked on the song. I really can't get much out of sentences such as "There is a major difference in "air" and stereo imaging lost when you bounce" when this is not provable at all. We could argue about Logic's internal mixing quality if we wanted, but you simply cannot argue about the quality of a bounce as long as it's provable in a physical way that a bounced file is sounding 100% the same as what you were listening to before. If (as "spectrum" is saying) a mixdown sounds different when being bounced straight to a DAT or standalone CD recorder, then be it like that, I can't even have my doubts about it because I don't own either of these devices, but physically identical is physically identical - and I would assume that this would be the point of a "bounce" function. I would actually like to reply to that thread on K-V-R but right now I'm just too lazy to register. Ah well, maybe I'm just not getting the point in this discussion... Regards, Sascha

> > i havent done much internal bouncing in logic but what little i > > have done has a certain something "different" about it to my > > ears. i regularly bounce audio out of logic, which is a bit more > > long winded, but makes me feel a little easier about the process. > > i have to say that i often internally bounce simple things like big > > fat pad sounds from audio instruments to audio files to save on > > cpu, in these cases it makes little difference to me. > > its good to read that others feel the same way though, thanks for > > the link. unfortunately I wasn't able to enter the mentioned site, so I did once again some tests on my own... My workstation at home advances to a little teststation these days... As far as I can see and hear, there is no loss of Quality, at least at 44,1kHz with 16 Bit. My Setup: Sek'd Prodif plus, Sony PCM2600 DAT, LAWP 5.0.0 Bounce of Audio-files with no dither (as recommended for further use in Logic), containing 100Hz to 10kHz wobble, single spikes, white noise and DC. I bounced this Audio-file being sent through several Plugins (native as Fat EQ and Stereo Delay, Direct Show as Renaissance EQ, and several VST's) and at the same time, I recorded the Output through the Coax-SPDIF of the Prodif into my DAT. Then I recorded back the DAT-recording into Logic, never leaving digital domain, put it sample-accurate to the bounced file to a neighbour-track, and turned its Phase by 180 Deg. Even if there would have been a resulting output, it wouldn't been the evidence for incorrect bouncing, cause there are too many stages, where the error could have come from. But fortunately, there was not even one bit, wich came through. And that's an evidence for the correctness of Logics bouncing, 180 Deg Phase-turning, the Prodif Drivers, my ADAT and the sample accuracy of my Audio-files altogether! After all, first my ears were witness, then there was a measurable evidence. Good work Emagicians! Hope I don't have to draw back my statement one day ?!.. ;o) Regards, Tim Dylla

i bounce my audio out of logic because it sounds better to me. actually....i do internal bounces every time. i just wanted to watch you guys have a heart attack :-) one of the above statements is true. andy

"highlandsource" <ythan@b...> wrote: > i bounce my audio out of logic because it sounds better to me. > actually....i do internal bounces every time. i just wanted to > watch you guys have a heart attack :-) > one of the above statements is true. I just had the #1 single in Canada three weeks in a row... bounced internally in Logic.

rob@... writes: >I just had the #1 single in Canada three weeks in a row... >bounced internally in Logic. What song is that? And by who? Maybe it's one my daughter owns and I can do a quick review as if pertains to Logic's sound quality. What audio hardware did you track with? Did you use all native plugins? All TDM plugins? Some outboard gear (which?). Or some combination? Anyway, it would be nice if if the technical parameters of this song were known. The song is likely available in a lot of places, so a lot of folks can be impressed with the song and with Logic's abilities (er, I hope I don't speak so soon.... I haven't heard it myself: sales of music isn't guaranteed by sonic superiority, which means the corollary is also true: sonic inferiority doesn't guarantee lack of sales. Remember "La Vida Loca" and how awful and tinny and compressed it sounded!). But I'm pullin' for you, Rob! f-erenc szabo, smarty pants (Tastes awful, but it works) Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

> sales of music isn't guaranteed by sonic superiority, which > means the corollary is also true: sonic inferiority doesn't > guarantee lack of sales. Remember "La Vida Loca" and how > awful and tinny and compressed it sounded!). This is often the most overlooked fact, a 24bit/192khz version of a bad song is still a bad song......I'll take a good song in 16bit/44.1khz, bounced to hell and back any day of the week...............or at least the corresponding royalties:) The average consumer could care less about the bit rate, whether the drum tones were good, whether all the midi was locked, or whether or not the vocal was too loud or soft........ they just know when the song moves them or they can't get it out of their heads.......

technodork_2000@... writes: >This is often the most overlooked fact, a 24bit/192khz version >of a bad song is still a bad song......I'll take a good song in >16bit/44.1khz, bounced to hell and back any day of the >week...............or at least the corresponding royalties:) >The average consumer could care less about the bit rate, >whether the drum tones were good, whether all the midi was >locked, or whether or not the vocal was too loud or soft........ >they just know when the song moves them or they can't get it >out of their heads....... You likely meant to say "...average consumer COULDN'T care less......" The sonic quality (or lack thereof) of music made with gear in the last decade+ no longer determines if it will sell or not. This is now completely the domain of the engineers, songwriters and musicians. The worst recording gear (hardware and software) made in the last decade can still produce results that exceed the vast majority of listener's expectations. The pursuit of sonic excellence is always indeed a noble goal, but don't kid yourself that it is the prime or even secondary reason for $ucce$. And even in the domain of sound quality itself, the choice of microphone placement or choice of one eq setting over another, or relative volumes of various instruments can have a vastly greater impact on sound quality than the difference between 16 or 24 bits. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants (Tastes awful, but it works) Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!"

--- In logic-users@y..., "f-erenc szabo" <zerobeat@g...> wrote: > But I'm pullin' for you, Rob! -- f-erenc....i think there are more appropriate sites on the web for this kind of behaviour... :-) andy

Von: f-erenc szabo [mailto:zerobeat@...] > The sonic quality (or lack thereof) of music made with gear in > the last decade+ no longer determines if it will sell or not. > This is now completely the domain of the engineers, songwriters > and musicians. > The worst recording gear (hardware and software) made in the last > decade can still produce results that exceed the vast majority of > listener's expectations. > The pursuit of sonic excellence is always indeed a noble goal, but > don't kid yourself that it is the prime or even secondary reason > for $ucce$. > And even in the domain of sound quality itself, the choice of microphone > placement or choice of one eq setting over another, or relative volumes > of various instruments can have a vastly greater impact on sound quality > than the difference between 16 or 24 bits. In many cases I agree, but there are circumstands, where the bitrate gets very important, and even minor (ie. dither-) errors are enjoyment-killers. Best example: a classic-CD from the famous ECM-Label: Arvo Pärt, Te Deum (real audiophile!). If you see it anywhere, buy it, it's a milestone. Even for classic-haters! It's so pure and delicious... In the first 20 seconds, you can hear, what the advances of the last five years could have done to this Recording. The engineers who did this CD, knew a lot about their Job, although the beginning of the Te Deum goes under in smeary dust. There is so much athmosphere (it was recorded in a church somewhere in finnland), that I always want to pull up the Volume to catch more of it, but the 16 Bits say NO! But you're right, for Rock'n Roll, and major-company-radio-shit it's not quite important. Don't get me wrong, I'm Rock'n Roller in my roots, but in the meantime I also earn money with classic-recording and producing, and I'm happy to say that Logic is a good Instrument for that, too (after getting to know, what to avoid ;o)! Regards, Tim Dylla (waiting for the 24 Bit-consumer-CD & the FusionPower)

This alleged problem first reared its head for TDM users, even to the extent that an Emagic "guru", on a recent tour of New Zealand, supposedly admitted that Logic wasn't making full use of DigiDesign's DAE, and therefore Logic mixes were lacking stereo imaging and sub-bass information. A respected colleague of mine finds Logic/TDM so bad ON HIS SYSTEM that casual listeners passing the control-room door pop their heads in to tell him how bad it sounds, compared to ProTools. The fact that the alleged problem has now transferred itself to non-TDM users opens a whole new can of worms. "Perceived" sound quality is an incredibly subjective thing, and can be affected by all sorts of subliminal psychoacoustic suggestions. Who hasn't patched some audio through a favourite piece of equipment and said "Ah, much better!", only to discover later that the piece of equipment wasn't actually in the chain. The absence of any hard data must make any non-believer sceptical. Surely if there was a change in stereo imaging, or sub-bass depth, or high-frequency content, or added jitter, or bad noise-shaping then it would be measurable SOMEWHERE, SOMEHOW. Plug-ins like Waves' spectrum and phase analyzers could surely show discrepancies in frequency or stereo phasing information. What we need is for someone who CAN hear discrepancies to get some measurable data. Ian ------------------------------ Ian G. Morris - Tonewright ian@... "It's one o'clock and time for lunch. Dum-de-dum-de-dum."

> What we need is for someone who CAN hear discrepancies to get some > measurable data. Somehow this whole thread reminds me of the age old sound engineer's trick: always keep a few non cabled strips on your board. That way when the guitar player says "more guitar, please!", you can push a fader. And then, when the drummer asks for more kick, you can push another one. And so on....usually makes everybody happy. BTW, I was in a sound engineer school once and our teacher was an incredibly talented sound engineer. We used to start the session by calibrating the monitors, feeding them with a sine tone at 1KHz, and moving the main pan button on the board until the tone sounded "dead center". Once we had the teacher try to localize the sound. He started: "hold, on, almost, a little more to the left, again, a tad more, oops, that's too much, now to the right, again, oops, just a tiny bit back left, THERE, perfect." while one of us was moving his hand ABOVE the knob, without even touching it. David http://mp3.com/6ameternal

On Tuesday 30 April 2002 09:48 pm, knee@... wrote: > This alleged problem first reared its head for TDM users, even to the > extent that an Emagic "guru", on a recent tour of New Zealand, supposedly > admitted that Logic wasn't making full use of DigiDesign's DAE, and > therefore Logic mixes were lacking stereo imaging and sub-bass information. > A respected colleague of mine finds Logic/TDM so bad ON HIS SYSTEM that > casual listeners passing the control-room door pop their heads in to tell > him how bad it sounds, compared to ProTools. > I remember when this simillar thread was going around the pro tools community (in fererrence to bouning in PT). It was the same thing, yet every text reveiled that the bounced audio cancelled out original audio. There was/is also the argument about PT mixer in general lacking quality of that of the Sony Oxford, etc. Yet when tests were done next to an Oxford, evreyone agreed they could not tell the difference. While I haven't done any testing or comparing on my Logc TDM system, I haven't noted any degridation in sound when bouncing. I have never tried bouncing w/o TDM, but I honestly thing it's mostly imagination or some users having problems with thier system that causes this (I wouldn't want to insult anyone by saying they are imagining things). Colin Miller

Colin Miller <snoopy@m...> wrote: > (I wouldn't want to insult anyone by saying they are imagining > things). -- hey, i think i might be insulted - are you implying i have no imagination? heh. thing is, surely all sound (in fact everything - but that's another thread, in a land far form here...) is imagined. if someone imagines a sound which isnt scientifically provable are they wrong? and if someone imagines hearing and seeing silence when phase inverting a bounce are they wrong? i think not in both cases. at least that's what i imagine. andy

When I want to setup program changes, I check the PRG box and select the number I want. Unfortunately, it is always off by one number. If I select 15 in Logic, program 16 comes up on my Yamaha Motif. How would I change this? Thanks Chaz

Thoughts from the mind of Chaz, 03-05-2002: >When I want to setup program changes, I check the PRG >box and select the number I want. Unfortunately, it is >always off by one number. If I select 15 in Logic, >program 16 comes up on my Yamaha Motif. How would I >change this? You don't. Some synths number from 00 upwards, while others start at 01. In both cases this corresponds to a "program change 0" message. Not much you can do about it, except mentally add or subtract 1. If it really bothers you, you could always make a text fader in the environment, set to send out program changes, and change the text-content from 0-127 to 1-128. -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: > If it really bothers you, you could always make a text fader in the > environment, set to send out program changes, and change the > text-content from 0-127 to 1-128. Unfortunately that's not possible with multi instruments. In Cubase for instance you can just select whether you want your program changes to be (or well, "to look") like 0-127 or 1-128. I wonder why there's no such checkbox for instruments in Logic - should be no deal to implement at all. Regards, Sascha

> Unfortunately that's not possible with multi instruments. > In Cubase for instance you can just select whether you want your program > changes to be (or well, "to look") like 0-127 or 1-128. I wonder why there's > no such checkbox for instruments in Logic - should be no deal to implement > at all. I fully agree. Sonar Cubase and many other sequencers can do this as a matter of basic usability. There is no reason why Logic can't do a much better job in the support of hardware synths. If Emaigc wants to make Logic the premiere sequencer, then, they should get some of these little things corrected Best John

Thoughts from the mind of Sascha Franck, 04-05-2002: >Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: >> If it really bothers you, you could always make a text fader in the >> environment, set to send out program changes, and change the >> text-content from 0-127 to 1-128. > >Unfortunately that's not possible with multi instruments. ? >In Cubase for instance you can just select whether you want your program >changes to be (or well, "to look") like 0-127 or 1-128. I wonder why there's >no such checkbox for instruments in Logic - should be no deal to implement >at all. OK, the suggested fader won't change the view in the instrument parameter pane -- if that's your point. You would need to open e.g. an environment float with the fader and use that for program changes instead. -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: > OK, the suggested fader won't change the view in the instrument > parameter pane -- if that's your point. Yes, it is. > You would need to open e.g. > an environment float with the fader and use that for program changes > instead. I know. An unnecessary effort if you ask me - if it was implemented straight, say, by some checkbox available for multis. As said, can't be that hard to do. Regards, Sascha

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Tim Dylla [mailto:Tim.Dylla@...] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 30. April 2002 01:06 > An: logic-users@yahoogroups.com > Betreff: AW: [LUG] GEN Logic Bounce quality > As far as I can see and hear, there is no loss of Quality, at > least at 44,1kHz with 16 Bit. > > My Setup: > > Sek'd Prodif plus, Sony PCM2600 DAT, LAWP 5.0.0 > > Bounce of Audio-files with no dither (as recommended for further > use in Logic), containing 100Hz to 10kHz wobble, single spikes, > white noise and DC. > > I bounced this Audio-file being sent through several Plugins > (native as Fat EQ and Stereo Delay, Direct Show as Renaissance > EQ, and several VST's) and at the same time, I recorded the > Output through the Coax-SPDIF of the Prodif into my DAT. Then I > recorded back the DAT-recording into Logic, never leaving digital > domain, put it sample-accurate to the bounced file to a > neighbour-track, and turned its Phase by 180 Deg. > Even if there would have been a resulting output, it wouldn't > been the evidence for incorrect bouncing, cause there are too > many stages, where the error could have come from. But > fortunately, there was not even one bit, wich came through. And > that's an evidence for the correctness of Logics bouncing, 180 > Deg Phase-turning, the Prodif Drivers, my ADAT and the sample > accuracy of my Audio-files altogether! > After all, first my ears were witness, then there was a > measurable evidence. Good work Emagicians! Hope I don't have to > draw back my statement one day ?!.. ;o) > > Regards, > > Tim Dylla I have to blame myself... Apologies to everyone who took this for real... newest Results: there is a digital mixing-error in the UME on every flank of the Square in amount of 1 LSB for the lenght of 3 samples (at 16bit/44.1 kHz)... But: the error occurs either if you bounce or if you record the Output to DAT (the reason, why this slipped through my test), so there is even no difference between bouncing and ext. recording here... hope that helps beating this topic to death one day ;o) Regards, Tim Dylla

Thoughts from the mind of Sascha Franck, 05-05-2002: >Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote: > > You would need to open e.g. >> an environment float with the fader and use that for program changes >> instead. > >I know. An unnecessary effort if you ask me - if it was implemented >straight, say, by some checkbox available for multis. As said, can't be that >hard to do. Agreed. Some of my gear uses a 0-up numbering and some use 1-up, and that always gets me confused. IMO the fault lies with the 1-up manufacturers -- proper counting starts at zero, as any mathematician knows :-). -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

--- In logic-users@y..., Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@k...> wrote: > Agreed. Some of my gear uses a 0-up numbering and some use 1-up, and > that always gets me confused. IMO the fault lies with the 1-up > manufacturers -- proper counting starts at zero, as any mathematician > knows :-). --- proper counting starts on ONE.... as any musician knows :) andy

Thoughts from the mind of highlandsource, 06-05-2002: >--- In logic-users@y..., Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@k...> wrote: >> Agreed. Some of my gear uses a 0-up numbering and some > > use 1-up, and that always gets me confused. IMO the fault > > lies with the 1-up manufacturers -- proper counting starts > > at zero, as any mathematician knows :-). > >proper counting starts on ONE.... > >as any musician knows :) But mathematicians are, almost by definition, much more intelligent than musicians, and therefore they're right. Ha! :-)) Besides, somewhat more serious, when working with e.g. 4-bar chuncks or loops (not uncommon nowadays... ugh...), a zero-based numbering scheme will have sections start on 0, 4, 8, 12, 16... i.e. whole multiples of 4, which is way easier (imo) than sections starting at 1, 5, 9, 13... And with zero-based numbering, when reaching e.g. bar 75 you know you've exactly had 75 bars, and not 75 - 1. Next September I'll have my 40th birthday, meaning I've lived for 40 years then, and not 39. Makes sense to me... Uhm... is this still on-topic...? Replies, if any, to OT-list please (logic-ot@yahoogroups.com). -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...> Omega Art: http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html