Loopback vs Bouncing

[moose209]

My understanding of this is:

An offline real-time bounce should be more accurate than a recording whilst mixing scenario. The rules that we should have lower sample buffer settings for recording and higher ones for mixing to handle plug ins, would suggest that your computer would do a better job of mixing and then summing one at a time.

Any time you are doing something critical I would suggest it would be best for your DAW to be doing just one thing at a time.

It would be good to get a technical reason for either as certainly when I was using cubase 5 ( a long time ago now) a 'loopback' was better sounding than a bouncedown

Prehaps if your bounce downs are sounding iffy you are using the wrong sample rate - ie if your product is going to cd you should only be using 44.1 , 88.2 or an interger multiple of the final destination sample rate as you will lose a lot of information in the conversion process from one to other - even with dithering, if using a non-interger multiple.

 

[~BURNY~]

Interesting subject. I have no opinion about it but I often hear a difference between the mix through the daw and the bounced file. But I can't say if it's an imaginary difference or not, nor point what is different. I also wonder if it's about summing or player.
I hear differences between winamp,WMP, and wavelab for example. It doesn't mean there are actual differences. Maybe it's about the color of the gui, who knows?
A phase test + a file analysis should probably clear that up.

 

[brandy]

In Cubase/Nuendo there is (should be) absolut no difference when doing an (internal) bounce or a loopback. If there is a difference then is something wrong.

Because i like the "i get what i hear" thing as well as i had all kinds of "not proper working automation" during offline bounce i allways do my mixdowns in realtime using a plugin called Tapeit wich basicaly just record the main out.

But this (same with plugin errors) is more like "bounce-mistake" - not a defference in sound like "it sounds warmer" or "it has more punch" or "better top end". Wich is totally bullshit.

Don't mix up a "bounce" (mixdown) with "summing" - here are of course tonal differences when using an (analog) console compared to the digital summing of the DAW.

Loopback, Realtimebounce and Offlinebounce are all using the same summing bus.


brandy

 

[brandy]

Interesting subject. I have no opinion about it but I often hear a difference between the mix through the daw and the bounced file. But I can't say if it's an imaginary difference or not, nor point what is different. I also wonder if it's about summing or player.
I hear differences between winamp,WMP, and wavelab for example. It doesn't mean there are actual differences. Maybe it's about the color of the gui, who knows?
A phase test + a file analysis should probably clear that up.

Same here. I can swear that i hear a difference when listening to a mix in Nuendo or listening to the mixdown later in Wavelab. Listening to the file in Mediaplayer sounds different as well.

But that is not true. You are right with that phase reverse trick, i did that - reimported the (different sounding) mixdown file to the fullblown nuendo project, lining up sampleprecise (!!) and flipping the phase. Allways cancels out.

But there are a few exeptions:

Modulation Plugins
Some Gate/Dynamic Plugins when using extreme ("clicky") settings
Realtime Drumagog with random Samples

and stuff like that. Dealing with such kind of processing will result in slightly different mixdowns each time you hit "render". But not a difference in "overal sound" (--> punchy, warm, bassy etc).


brandy

 

[Mutant]

analysis

Rightmark is the best.

 

[AStacy2]

http://www.johnvestman.com/rates_policies.htm


I think there was an article on his site about this too, can't find it but the chart is interesting...

 

[flhctroll]

If I put the Mixdown file in my session and reverse the phase there is no sound at all. I can mute the Kick drum and then I can hear the kick from my mixdown file. Seems the mixdown/export is a perfect match to what is there. At least in Adobe audition. If it wasn't wouldn't it have some sort of noise/audio?

 

[brandy]

If it wasn't wouldn't it have some sort of noise/audio?

Yea, could be all kind of noise, mostly a tiny crackle wich sounds a litte like your song.

Do that:

make an mp3 with max 128kbit, inverse that and line up with the original wave.

What you hear now is the difference between the wave and the mp3. Sounds funny!

That way you might be curious to compare different encoders etc. Think about tweaking one wave with an eq - what you hear ist just the "eq-tweak"




brandy

 

[moose209]

If I put the Mixdown file in my session and reverse the phase there is no sound at all. I can mute the Kick drum and then I can hear the kick from my mixdown file. Seems the mixdown/export is a perfect match to what is there. At least in Adobe audition. If it wasn't wouldn't it have some sort of noise/audio?

That would be the case if you were using the same bit depth and sample rate as your output medium, i.e to CD 44.1khz, 16 bit so your session was the same. Even if you were to do a session in a different sample rate then bounce down at CD standard and then import it back in you would be converting the file twice and losing data on both occasions and so the bouncedown file that people are not liking would sound different and I would argue not as nice as your session file if it was at a higher sample rate and bit depth only.

Out of interest and to prove me wrong, what session settings are people using that prefer the loopback option. I would assume you are mastering after the fact, so you would use the higher bit depth certainly and dither down in mastering? again one job at a time in my opinion - old fashioned I know, but think and concentrate on the job at hand and not next thing in the chain that is entirely dependant on what you are doing now!

 

[greyskull]

In tools you hit bounce to disk and it does this for you!
also means you can mix using outboard as inserts which is rather nice