"Ableton Live" Sound Quality

I've recently been looking into new software for mixing/arranging and I was originally looking heavily into Cubase and Sonar. I'm already a little familiar with Sonar but I was still really interested in Cubase because of all the outstanding reviews and feedback this program has gotten with its new version. A friend of mine who is heavy into DJ'ing and live mixing recommended I get into Ableton Live so I decided to take a look. I was very impressed with the software and I really loved the "Live Sequencing" element that this program had.

After trying the Demo version and being very impressed I noticed that the sound quality was a little under par with that of Cubase or Sonar. I was figuring it was just my computer and that I could fix the problem easily. After doing some online research however I've found that many people have criticized "Live" for having "under-par" sound quality compared to other professional sequencing programs (Logic, Protools, Cubase, Sonar...). I found this to be very discouraging and It seemed to be a huge turn-off to a lot of people who were looking to use it as their main program for mixing and producing.

So what do you guys think? Is there a way to increase the sound quality in "Live" or is this not even an issue with the program? I've been fairly impressed with it so-far but I'd rather not have to spend the time learning a program If I'm just going to replace it latter because of flaws in the sound quality.

I don't know. To be honest, I never had a problem with the quality. Then again, I'm pretty much deaf.

i've never worked with Logic, but Cubase has far superior quality than mixing down straight from Live (or Reason, or FL) in my opinion.

turn off all the mastering effects and do a dry mixdown with each platform, you'll notice a vast difference.

I just found this info online and it looks interesting regarding using "Live" within "Cubase".

http://www.ableton.com/pages/rewire/cubase_sx2

What good would this really do for writing a track? Do you think this technique could provide any beneficial way of using "Live" with other software instead of a stand-alone program? I'm not sure how you could really use "Live" as a plug-in, but I'll start doing some research on it.

i always rewire Reason into Cubase.

  LOL Alzado said:

i always rewire Reason into Cubase.

I'm still not sure how this would work? Isn’t it simply playing "Reason" though the program Cubase? How does this benefit the sound of the music?

If there is a way to use "Live" within "Cubase" to gain better sound quality I'd be very interested in this.

  Mental Eclipse said:

I've recently been looking into new software for mixing/arranging and I was originally looking heavily into Cubase and Sonar. I'm already a little familiar with Sonar but I was still really interested in Cubase because of all the outstanding reviews and feedback this program has gotten with its new version. A friend of mine who is heavy into DJ'ing and live mixing recommended I get into Ableton Live so I decided to take a look. I was very impressed with the software and I really loved the "Live Sequencing" element that this program had.

 

After trying the Demo version and being very impressed I noticed that the sound quality was a little under par with that of Cubase or Sonar. I was figuring it was just my computer and that I could fix the problem easily. After doing some online research however I've found that many people have criticized "Live" for having "under-par" sound quality compared to other professional sequencing programs (Logic, Protools, Cubase, Sonar...). I found this to be very discouraging and It seemed to be a huge turn-off to a lot of people who were looking to use it as their main program for mixing and producing.

 

So what do you guys think? Is there a way to increase the sound quality in "Live" or is this not even an issue with the program? I've been fairly impressed with it so-far but I'd rather not have to spend the time learning a program If I'm just going to replace it latter because of flaws in the sound quality.

Aaron Spectre seems to get some decent sounding production out of Live.

Can you describe the difference in sound quality?

This is a very ambiguous term. Are you talking about latency or what? A lot of playback-related "quality" issues can be solved by just fine-tuning your sound card in the preferences.

Are we talking Mac or PC here? You could be using a default MME (standard windows) driver in Live, and ASIO in Cubase, and not realise it.

Edit: I personally have been using Live for the best part of a year and I think it wipes the floor with the competition.

used cubase since atari days

binned it when live got midi

been a liver since version 1

i love live

never had an issue with sound quality and i've mixed on all the big programs, helps if you know what you are doing first tho.

we produced and mixed our album predominantly in Live (4,5 and 6).

a lot of post-prod in Sonar (4.0 Producer Edition) mind you, but most of the mixdown and audio summing took place in Abe.

yes, you can hear it in places if you know what you're looking for and already know that something was originated in Live, but on the whole.. reckon it's fairly good and colourless audio engine. It does seem to have improved since v3 when I first had a go with it.

it's the mutt's nuts.

urban myth

syntheme's right

  ۞ Syntheme ۞ said:

urban myth

I think we need to submit this to the Mythbusters, pronto.

It seems that when a sequencer develops a certain level of popularity with bedroom musicians, its quality is poo-pooed. A couple of years ago it was FL, now it's Ableton.

A good workman etc...

i moved over to live from cubase about 6 months ago. this buss summing malarky is nonsense - it's just another case of the emperors new clothes

there is a difference.

if you can't hear it, you can't hear it. that's fine.

but then you probably can't tell the difference between 192kpbs mp3 and 1411kbps wav.

the reality is, it's easiest to demonstrate with your own material as you know it very well (obviously!). Not such a clean cut case to spot the difference between the likes of Reason or Live and something like Logic, Cubase or Sonar, when it's not your own work.

Bear in mind I'm just talking about the audio summing. of course it's even easier to spot the difference when taking into account the actual built-in effects or sound sources. Abe's suite of plug-ins are particularly easy to spot - especially the reverb (even the later improved version, but to a lesser degree), the ping pong delays, and likes of the saturator and autofilter. Personally though, i quite like that certain quality they have. It's not a bad thing in my mind. Just sometimes makes stuff sound a bit plasticky at times. But you learn its parameters and adjust accordingly to get the best out of it.

No different from anything else, I spose...

  ~ism said:

there is a difference.

 

if you can't hear it, you can't hear it. that's fine.

 

but then you probably can't tell the difference between 192kpbs mp3 and 1411kbps wav.

 

the reality is, it's easiest to demonstrate with your own material as you know it very well (obviously!). Not such a clean cut case to spot the difference between the likes of Reason or Live and something like Logic, Cubase or Sonar, when it's not your own work.

 

Bear in mind I'm just talking about the audio summing. of course it's even easier to spot the difference when taking into account the actual built-in effects or sound sources. Abe's suite of plug-ins are particularly easy to spot - especially the reverb (even the later improved version, but to a lesser degree), the ping pong delays, and likes of the saturator and autofilter. Personally though, i quite like that certain quality they have. It's not a bad thing in my mind. Just sometimes makes stuff sound a bit plasticky at times. But you learn its parameters and adjust accordingly to get the best out of it.

 

No different from anything else, I spose...

really? try this:

take wave file 1

place it in track 1 and an inverted copy in track 2

take wave file 2

place it in track 3 and an inverted copy in track 4

take wave file 3

place it in track 5 and an inverted copy in track 6

take wave file 4

place it in track 7 and an inverted copy in track 8

do this in live and cubase and any other DAW

render the project

in cubase and live, both rendered files are completely silent - ie they've been summed in exactly the same way

PS obviously, if you use different effects in different DAWs, they will sound different

  ۞ Syntheme ۞ said:

  ~ism said:

there is a difference.

 

if you can't hear it, you can't hear it. that's fine.

 

but then you probably can't tell the difference between 192kpbs mp3 and 1411kbps wav.

 

the reality is, it's easiest to demonstrate with your own material as you know it very well (obviously!). Not such a clean cut case to spot the difference between the likes of Reason or Live and something like Logic, Cubase or Sonar, when it's not your own work.

 

Bear in mind I'm just talking about the audio summing. of course it's even easier to spot the difference when taking into account the actual built-in effects or sound sources. Abe's suite of plug-ins are particularly easy to spot - especially the reverb (even the later improved version, but to a lesser degree), the ping pong delays, and likes of the saturator and autofilter. Personally though, i quite like that certain quality they have. It's not a bad thing in my mind. Just sometimes makes stuff sound a bit plasticky at times. But you learn its parameters and adjust accordingly to get the best out of it.

 

No different from anything else, I spose...

 

 

really? try this:

 

take wave file 1

place it in track 1 and an inverted copy in track 2

 

take wave file 2

place it in track 3 and an inverted copy in track 4

 

take wave file 3

place it in track 5 and an inverted copy in track 6

 

take wave file 4

place it in track 7 and an inverted copy in track 8

 

 

do this in live and cubase and any other DAW

 

render the project

 

in cubase and live, both rendered files are completely silent - ie they've been summed in exactly the same way

 

 

PS obviously, if you use different effects in different DAWs, they will sound different

you're really not getting this are you?

of course both files will be silent as they are the sum product on that particular audio engine simply phase cancelling itself out. what on earth has that got to do with what we are talking about here?

if your telling me there is absolutely no difference between the final mixdown product of one daw in comparison to another (assuming the same constituent audio parts are used) then i suspect you're acid bled ears need a wee rest perhaps.

see skytree's post above. his specific point about the loudness and fullness of ableton mixdowns is something i echo completely. not that it makes ableton anything short of an excellent platform though. but a fact none the less.

  ~ism said:

if your telling me there is absolutely no difference between the final mixdown product of one daw in comparison to another (assuming the same constituent audio parts are used) then i suspect you're acid bled ears need a wee rest perhaps.

 

see skytree's post above. his specific point about the loudness and fullness of ableton mixdowns is something i echo completely. not that it makes ableton anything short of an excellent platform though. but a fact none the less.

yes exactly.

to test it, simply load up any .wav file with audible data and render it in each DAW clean with no effects, just a raw mixdown.

listen to them all with headphones on, you'll notice a difference dude. that doesn't mean Live is shit. Live is great at what it's great for...perhaps the best. but you don't have to defend it blindly because the truth is, the audio engine does not render with the same brilliance.

i think a lot of dedicated users tend not to notice this because they do everything from within that same daw. when you write, sequence, mix and render all in Live, you're never going to hear the difference because you've heard it the same way that whole time. comparisons are the key

  ~ism said:

if your telling me there is absolutely no difference between the final mixdown product of one daw in comparison to another (assuming the same constituent audio parts are used) then i suspect you're acid bled ears need a wee rest perhaps.

This is exactly what this method shows (it's actually Robert Henke's test, designed to show how summing is the same on all DAWs)

I suggest you lay off the purple tinnies for a while as they appear to be rotting your brain.

btw, if you want to prove your point, create a test that will show the rendered output from cubase as being "louder and fuller" than that of live using audio only. Then open the rendered files as text and compare byte for byte.

  jon124 said:

Summing is the same on all DAWS? LOL

 

The summing and mixing code is probably the most prized possession of all the companies that produce daws, the aspect that gets the most research and time spent on. Digital summing is not a simple thing to do and have it sound good. It is extremely complex and like others have said in this thread its not always hard to be able to hear the differences in the architecture of different software

 

This is why every major studio will be using protools/cubase/maybe logic. (there are plenty of other reasons for this I know, but the sound quality if obviously one of them)

summing is the same as adding. The test I produced shows how in cubase and live, adding one value to it's inverse gives zero. If your DAW is doing more than that, then it is behaving incorrectly.

ok, i rendered the same wave from cubase and live :

as you can see, the output is exactly the same

  jon124 said:

you show nothing. I can guarantee you you did no actual "mixing", you put two tracks in and rendered it

 

 

now actually load up a mix, change gain values, pan tracks, utilize plugins, etc, they will be vastly different. why? because each sequencer uses a different algorithm for this. some sound "better", some don't

of course it will sound different if you use fx and panning, that's *not* showing how the summing is different though, as the fx in each DAW are different pieces of code. fortunately, all the major daws allow you to use vsts, so you are not limited to the built-in effects

  jon124 said:

well i mean pan and level everything the same, using the same plugins with same settings

ok, will do

i'm not sure what panning law live uses, in cubase i always used equal power (-3dB)

ok the panning law in ableton is apparently -6dB, but to be sure, i'll use a vst to do the panning.