Hi all, I did a little ackward test today; I bounced a song in Logic 6, then opened the same song in Logic 7 and made another bounce. If I put these two bounces next to each other and flip the phase of one of them, the sound does not cancel out completely. In other words, something is going on under the hood of the audioengine. (I guess...?) I tried this with all 3 panning laws in Logic 7. Anyone have a clue what this means? O.

> I did a little ackward test today; I bounced a song in Logic 6, then > opened the same song in Logic 7 and made another bounce. If I put > these two bounces next to each other and flip the phase of one of > them, the sound does not cancel out completely. In other words, > something is going on under the hood of the audioengine. (I > guess...?) Did you bounce offline? There are some bugs in L7 in offline bouncing. Secondly, could it be that you're using any plugins that may have been improved in L7? Maurits.

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Maurits van de Kamp" <maurits@...> wrote: > > > I did a little ackward test today; I bounced a song in Logic 6, then > > opened the same song in Logic 7 and made another bounce. If I put > > these two bounces next to each other and flip the phase of one of > > them, the sound does not cancel out completely. In other words, > > something is going on under the hood of the audioengine. (I > > guess...?) > > Did you bounce offline? There are some bugs in L7 in offline bouncing. > Secondly, could it be that you're using any plugins that may have been > improved in L7? > > Maurits. > Offline yes. I did use the logic compressor of which I've noticed that the controls behave differently from the one in the Logic 6 versions. There was no audible difference in level between the two bounces though. Still kinda strange... Or maybe not :-) BTW, I did this test because I'd been suspecting that LP7 sounds differently from day 1 (october 2004) but always thought it was in my head... Not entirely I guess. O.

> I did use the logic compressor of which I've noticed that the > controls behave differently from the one in the Logic 6 versions. > There was no audible difference in level between the two bounces though. Well those differences will be a lot harder to hear than a phase inverse test result. :o) (What does the result sound like by the way? Only certain frequencies or just a very soft but nice total mix?) > Still kinda strange... Or maybe not :-) > BTW, I did this test because I'd been suspecting that LP7 sounds > differently from day 1 > (october 2004) but always thought it was in my head... Not entirely > I guess. Well if the difference is not in the plugins, you should even get a difference without any plugins (and it will be easier to determine what causes the difference). Still, first thing to try is a realtime bounce, because you'll even get different results bouncing offline and realtime in L7 - and that's not because of endlessly discussed "mathemagics", but simply because it is buggy. :o) (Plugin settings sometimes not applied properly, some automation ignored, sometimes even complete regions ignored etc). Maurits.

On 28.09.2006, at 15:26, darealbasoski wrote: > I did a little ackward test today; I bounced a song in Logic 6, > then opened the same song > in Logic 7 and made another bounce. > If I put these two bounces next to each other and flip the phase of > one of them, the sound > does not cancel out completely. In other words, something is going > on under the hood of the > audioengine. (I guess...?) Not expected? Apart from plugins which may have changed I expect some enhancements from Version 6 to 7 and rather not exactly the same bits. I would understand if the tracks had cancelled each other and you complain about lazy developers who did nothing ;-) ___ Peter Ostry

On Sep 28, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote: > Still, first thing to try is a realtime bounce, because you'll even > get > different results bouncing offline and realtime in L7 - and that's > not because > of endlessly discussed "mathemagics", but simply because it is > buggy. :o) > (Plugin settings sometimes not applied properly, some automation > ignored, > sometimes even complete regions ignored etc). Wow -- is that really true? Is it generally recommended to always use realtime bounce? (I'm on Logic Pro 7.2.3, Quad G5) thanks, / dy

> Apart from plugins which may have changed I expect some enhancements > from Version 6 to 7 and rather not exactly the same bits. > > I would understand if the tracks had cancelled each other and you > complain about lazy developers who did nothing ;-) But any modification of audio should only happen in the plugins or in the faders. Anyway this sounds like it's just going to be a repeat of mathemagic discussions...:o) Maurits.

> Is it generally recommended to always use realtime bounce? (I'm on > Logic Pro 7.2.3, Quad G5) Well to each his own, but offline bouncing lost its use for me when I found out I still had to listen to the entire result before being certain that it was alright. :o) It could be that things are fixed by now, IIRC the last time I noticed problems was in 7.0 (and then I stopped using it) but I think I saw other reports here of strange things going on in later versions. Anyway the point I was making here was not a general recommendation though, only that if you are going to compare audio engines by phase-inversion and you do find differences, I'd try a realtime bounce. :o) Maurits.

On 28.09.2006, at 19:43, Maurits van de Kamp wrote: >> Apart from plugins which may have changed I expect some enhancements >> from Version 6 to 7 and rather not exactly the same bits. >> >> I would understand if the tracks had cancelled each other and you >> complain about lazy developers who did nothing ;-) > > But any modification of audio should only happen in the plugins or > in the > faders. Anyway this sounds like it's just going to be a repeat of > mathemagic > discussions...:o) No, Logic was not the only thing which changed. Apple makes the audio engine better and better sounding. And for the plugins: I guess our Macs will soon access a remote database with the analysis of top 40 charts and configure the plugins for us :-) ___ Peter Ostry

> > Not expected? > Apart from plugins which may have changed I expect some enhancements > from Version 6 to 7 and rather not exactly the same bits. > > I would understand if the tracks had cancelled each other and you > complain about lazy developers who did nothing ;-) > > LOL. Problem is that I seem to like the LP6 sound better.... O.

"Maurits van de Kamp" <maurits@...> wrote: > Well if the difference is not in the plugins, you should even get a difference > without any plugins (and it will be easier to determine what causes the > difference). > > Still, first thing to try is a realtime bounce, because you'll even get > different results bouncing offline and realtime in L7 - and that's not because > of endlessly discussed "mathemagics", but simply because it is buggy. :o) > (Plugin settings sometimes not applied properly, some automation ignored, > sometimes even complete regions ignored etc). > > Maurits. > Ah, great idea, I'm going to try a couple without any of the internal plugs. As for the sound difference, I don't know. I'm totally basing that 'feeling', cause it's not more than that, on a creative way of looking at things. I.E. whenever I work in LP7 I find myself spending so much more time on getting things to sound the way I want. One might say this could be caused by a natural growth in self-critisism, afterall it's been almost 2 years since version 6, but even now that I fired up 6.4 for this I end up coming back to it more and more because for some reason I seem to get my results way faster. As in 'ah yes this sounds great' as opposed to 'hm I can't get it to sound this or that'. (I work with hardly any audio at all, 95% virtual instruments). In all honesty, it also may have to do with my general disliking of the LP7 interface. Sure, it's slick, it totally looks better, perhaps even faster, let alone all the great enhancements to speed up workflow, but the basic things like the size of the buttons all over the GUI have made me curse more than once :-) This is a total different subject though... I will surely do that test again without the plugs! Thanx for that suggestion. O.

On Sep 28, 2006, at 9:17 PM, darealbasoski wrote: > In all honesty, it also may have to do with my general disliking of > the LP7 interface. That is actually a very "genuine" reason to end up with a worse mix, since the interface is a very important part of the mixing process. What I meant with my question about how the difference sounded was not so much how you perceived the differences in the mixes, but what exactly did you hear when you cancelled out the sounds and were supposed to hear nothing? Anyway tell me when you tried it without plugins. :o) The thing is, the audio engine is not supposed to do anything to your sound at all, so no improvement (or disprovement) :o) should change the sound it makes, unless one of the versions is so badly implemented that it gets audio delivered to its destination too late and causes jitter or nasty stuff like that. Maurits,

On Sep 28, 2006, at 1:38 PM, Maurits van de Kamp wrote: > > In all honesty, it also may have to do with my general disliking of > > the LP7 interface. > > That is actually a very "genuine" reason to end up with a worse mix, > since the interface is a very important part of the mixing process. I can't agree more. I know for fact that people can think they are hearing wether there has been a change or not... Ever seen the situation where you ask someone how the vocal level is, they say it's too soft, you pretend to move a fader, and they say it's now perfect? This really happens. Me, I almost always get a better mix in Nuendo. Same plug-ins, same everything, BUT I feel the interface is better FOR ME. The way we feel has allot to do with what we think of something. George

> What I meant with my question about how the difference sounded was > not so much how you perceived the differences in the mixes, but what > exactly did you hear when you cancelled out the sounds and were > supposed to hear nothing? Anyway tell me when you tried it without > plugins. :o) > aah, ok. What I heard were leftovers from a phase reversed soundfile actually. Like a reverb that was sounding wack, out of phase. certain parts of the song were gone alright, other parts were only heard 3/4 of the time. (Imagine a ride playing all 16ths and only playing every 1st 14ths). Anywaaaaayyyy, I just did the new test; all realtime bounces, no plugins whatsoever. Result: It does have to do with the panning law options in 7. I suppose I must have made a mistake the first time I ran this test, when I claimed I tried all 3 options. Why I think this is because I can now clearly only hear leftovers from what I'm certain were panned tracks, the stuff that's dead in the middle is phased out completely. Hmmmm, my bad...sorry :-) SO! Who knows which of the 3 panning law options in LP7 does the exact same thing as LP6...? :-) O.

On Sep 28, 2006, at 10:26 PM, darealbasoski wrote: > Hi all, > > I did a little ackward test today; I bounced a song in Logic 6, > then opened the same song > in Logic 7 and made another bounce. > If I put these two bounces next to each other and flip the phase of > one of them, the sound > does not cancel out completely. In other words, something is going > on under the hood of the > audioengine. (I guess...?) > > I tried this with all 3 panning laws in Logic 7. > > Anyone have a clue what this means? Which plugins did you use in the song?

--- Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@bassment.nu> wrote: > Still, first thing to try is a realtime bounce, > because you'll even get > different results bouncing offline and realtime in > L7 - and that's not because > of endlessly discussed "mathemagics", but simply > because it is buggy. :o) > (Plugin settings sometimes not applied properly, > some automation ignored, > sometimes even complete regions ignored etc). I've experienced this myself and now consider offline bounce to be unuseable. Wish they'd fix this. JP

On Sep 29, 2006, at 6:09 AM, darealbasoski wrote: > SO! Who knows which of the 3 panning law options in LP7 does the > exact same thing as > LP6...? > > :-) AFAIR Logic 6 did not have pan laws so the answer is -0db. As for the test I am very interested in the results and whether *total* cancellation is possible. It is my *guess* that offline bouncing should work better than real time bouncing for this kind of test.

>> Still, first thing to try is a realtime bounce, >> because you'll even get >> different results bouncing offline and realtime in >> L7 - and that's not because >> of endlessly discussed "mathemagics", but simply >> because it is buggy. :o) >> (Plugin settings sometimes not applied properly, >> some automation ignored, >> sometimes even complete regions ignored etc). > > I've experienced this myself and now consider offline > bounce to be unuseable. Wish they'd fix this. Just to clarify, the issues you are talking about are all in relation to automation? If that is the case I can understand better but if we are talking about a case where there is no automation I would guess the opposite to be the case and that offline would be more reliable. The reason I say this is that I can get pops and clicks in logic without it stopping so it is obvious that logic lets at least some errors go in real time modes.

james page wrote: > > --- Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@bassment.nu> wrote: >>Still, first thing to try is a realtime bounce, >>because you'll even get >>different results bouncing offline and realtime in >>L7 - and that's not because >>of endlessly discussed "mathemagics", but simply >>because it is buggy. :o) > > I've experienced this myself and now consider offline > bounce to be unuseable. Wish they'd fix this. > JP I, too, have found differences between realtime and offline bounces in Logic 7. So... Q1: Which one is the "real" bounce, i.e. the one not affected by bugs? Q2: Assuming it's the realtime one (and because my Mac's old and underpowered) would bouncing 1/2 the tracks in the mix, then the other 1/2, then bouncing the 2 bounces together (got all that?) cause any problems? Cheers, Bill

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, dennis gunn <dennis@...> wrote: > > > On Sep 29, 2006, at 6:09 AM, darealbasoski wrote: > > > SO! Who knows which of the 3 panning law options in LP7 does the > > exact same thing as > > LP6...? > > > > :-) > > AFAIR Logic 6 did not have pan laws so the answer is -0db. > Well, I came back today and did the same thing again, now on a 0 dB realtime bounce. Same thing happened. So it's actually NOT the panning law... I now end up with actually less audio being canceled. Maybe if I have time this evening I can post links with parts of the bounces so anyone interested can try out for themself. So, the mystery continues.... O.

> Q1: Which one is the "real" bounce, i.e. the one not affected by bugs? So far, the realtime one (and this is in fact what you're listening to all the time while mixing). > Q2: Assuming it's the realtime one (and because my Mac's old and > underpowered) would bouncing 1/2 the tracks in the mix, then the other > 1/2, then bouncing the 2 bounces together (got all that?) cause any > problems? This could theoretically give an incredibly tiny difference since the two halves are rounded to integer files before the final mix but since they are already on end levels, this shouldn't really matter. However, if power is your reason for mixing offline (rather than saving time), it's probably less trouble to mix offline and then play it back to see if it's ok. It usually is, just not always. :o) Maurits.

Maurits van de Kamp wrote: >>Q1: Which one is the "real" bounce, i.e. the one not affected by bugs? > > So far, the realtime one (and this is in fact what you're listening > to all the time while mixing). Ta. Makes sense. >>Q2: Assuming it's the realtime one (and because my Mac's old and >>underpowered) would bouncing 1/2 the tracks in the mix, then the other >>1/2, then bouncing the 2 bounces together (got all that?) cause any >>problems? > > This could theoretically give an incredibly tiny difference since the > two halves are rounded to integer files before the final mix but > since they are already on end levels, this shouldn't really matter. Would that theoretical tiny difference still exist when it's mastered and dithered from 24 bits down to 16 bits? > However, if power is your reason for mixing offline (rather than > saving time), it's probably less trouble to mix offline and then play > it back to see if it's ok. It usually is, just not always. :o) Hmmm, all very logical, thanks Mr Spock. ;-)

> Would that theoretical tiny difference still exist when it's > mastered and dithered from 24 bits down to 16 bits? No, these differences happen in the last bit of the 8 you're losing when going to 16. :o) > Hmmm, all very logical, thanks Mr Spock. ;-) Mr Scott, please go to the audio engine room and fix those offline problems. :o) Maurits.

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, "Maurits van de Kamp" <maurits@...> wrote: > > > Would that theoretical tiny difference still exist when it's > > mastered and dithered from 24 bits down to 16 bits? > > No, these differences happen in the last bit of the 8 you're losing when going to 16. :o) > > > Hmmm, all very logical, thanks Mr Spock. ;-) > > Mr Scott, please go to the audio engine room and fix those offline problems. :o) > > Maurits. > Oh my god, you totally ARE Mr. Spock! And don't take it out on Scottie would ya! (This coming from a complete startrek no-no)

First I have to say I respect the fact that you actually did the testing. I am endlessly amazed at how much energy people ask questions that they could answer for themselves. On Sep 29, 2006, at 5:00 PM, darealbasoski wrote: > Well, I came back today and did the same thing again, now on a 0 dB > realtime bounce. > Same thing happened. So it's actually NOT the panning law... > I now end up with actually less audio being canceled. OK so I tried the experiment. Since what we are testing here is logic not 3rd party stuff I took an old song set delay compensation to "tracks and instruments" (since L6 did not have bus PDC) and I defeated all but the logic plugins and bounced it in L6.4.3 and L7.2.2. On the first attempt I found that a banjo track that was going through a certain space designer patch did not cancel. So I defeated the space designers in the song and did the test again and got absolutely perfect cancellation. Well almost. By stacking 5 gain plugins set to +24db in the output (for a grand total of 116db of gain I was able to hear what appeared to be dither noise. I am not sure were the dither noise is coming from but since -116 db is about 20db beneath the theoretical noise floor of 16 audio I am basically satisfied that the things are canceling each other. My first impulse was to say that the space designer plugin has somehow changed but as I write this I am realizing it is possible that the versions are simply accessing different SDIR files since the problem track is a custom IR that I have edited a couple of times and exists in different places in my system. Since L6 and L7 have slightly different protocals for searching for IRs they may well not be looking at the same one. I will test this theory when I have time but at the moment my 2 year old is on my lap and he tends to insert variables into my work that invalidate this kind of testing.

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, dennis gunn <dennis@...> wrote: > > > > I will test this theory when I have time but at the moment my 2 year > old is on my lap and he tends to insert variables into my work that > invalidate this kind of testing. > LOL, little engineer in the making huh? Dennis did you use any EXS24's? I realised that the stuff that kept popping up here after phasereversing 1 of the 2 tracks are all coming from the samplers. Who knows, it may well be possible that the EXS24 sound engine was worked on for LP7, considering it also had other enhancements. Or maybe the timing of the thing is different? I dunno... In fact I'm not the 'wanting to know for the sake of knowing' technician type of person, it's just that I want to work in 7 and want to know why 6 sounds more appealing to me. (If at all that is true, somehow too much testing can blur one's judgement in the end ofcourse...) O.

On Oct 1, 2006, at 6:16 PM, darealbasoski wrote: > --- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, dennis gunn <dennis@...> wrote: >> >> >> >> I will test this theory when I have time but at the moment my 2 year >> old is on my lap and he tends to insert variables into my work that >> invalidate this kind of testing. >> > > LOL, little engineer in the making huh? I think maybe he more considering a career in the field of demolition. > > Dennis did you use any EXS24's? Yes and no. There was one in there but it did not have any samples loaded and was just playing the default sine wave sound. > I realised that the stuff that kept popping up here after > phasereversing 1 of the 2 tracks > are all coming from the samplers. Who knows, it may well be > possible that the EXS24 > sound engine was worked on for LP7, considering it also had other > enhancements. > Or maybe the timing of the thing is different? Well the EXS definitely was changed and that definitely could have effected the timing. > I dunno... In fact I'm not the 'wanting to know for the sake of > knowing' technician type of person, it's just that I want to work > in 7 and want to know why 6 sounds more appealing to me. On the basis of the test I did, regarding the sequencer the cancellation was perfect or near enough perfect that I don't believe there is a difference a human could hear. Like I said at least some of the stuff going through Space Designer were different though but it seems to me the difference was about timing not tone so I have a hard time believing the core character of even that has really changed. I do know that space designer used as a live effect adds latency so I guess it is possible that the delay compensation was enhanced for the space designer or something like that. But I have a hard time thinking that that alone would alter the over all "sound" of logic. > (If at all that is true, somehow too much testing can blur one's > judgement in the end ofcourse...) Well actually I think it is important to do the testing because the fact of the matter is we are extremely subjective. There is a great airport paperback called "Blink" that I highly recommend it is about subjectivity and both the power and pitfalls of snap judgments.