ableton!! Whats wrong with it.

[BobStock]

Guys thx anyway! It will come alright!
It was about hardware ( Evolver, 808, 707 and stuff), recording in ableton.
Thx.

Bob

[Robot Criminal]

Robot why do you mention rendering to disk? I've heard you mention this several times. why?

cuz it just doesn't sound the same in the program and then rendered out.

don't, I say do not render to disc. Use the resampling function instead.

can you elaborate on this? If i have a project finished in ableton, how do i get it out, other than render?

create a new track, choose "resampling" in track input, arm the track and rec and ur done

and well actually I haven't noticed any serious sound degradation issues in ableton, but I haven't also recorded anything directly into it.
As the man said, its not essentially meant for multitracking...

[hydrogen]

and well actually I haven't noticed any serious sound degradation issues in ableton, but I haven't also recorded anything directly into it.
As the man said, its not essentially meant for multitracking...

Right... so you use cubase for this? or just mix down in Ableton by recording a sample like you've been saying?

[harass]

I use cubase and ableton with my hardware, and I don't notice a huge difference when mixing down with both. And you’re always going to loose the warmth when going from analogue to digital regardless of what DAW you use. Maybe you have a different eq setting on your mp3/wav player?

[s.k.]

as far as my experience goes, recording audio into Ableton IS and should be absolutely the same (given the same soundcard settings) as recording into SoundForge, Cubase or Logic. i have done quite some tests in the past to make sure it is so.

another question is how any of these DAWs 'play' the sound. i agree with everybody here that ableton sounds a little 'different' from other multi-trackers, but that is not a recording issue. to ensure this, simply record the same source first into ableton, then in whatever DAW you trust. after that import both the wav's into one DAW (SoundForge, Cubase, Sonar.. you name it) and compare the files.

you can go further with this, doing the phase-flip on one of the wav files and checking if they cancel each other completely thus resulting in total silence, but that wouldnt be possible if your source is analogue gear - simply because analogue is never the same two times.

[steevio]

You can make almost anything sound like it's hardware just by knowing how to eq the sound right.

IMO thats too much of a generalisation mate, like theres just one issue, the difference between the sound of hardware and software.
theres huge differences in the sound of individual pieces of kit. Virtual analogues dont sound like analogues, theres even differences between identical analogue machines. i've got two SH101 's and i prefer the sound of one of them, it's indefinable, but i prefer to use one over the other.
no amount of eqing is going to make them sound the same.
all analogue machines have a character of their own. EQ isnt the only issue that makes them sound different from their software counterparts, they are individual alive instruments, and they cant be truly compared to software instruments.
and i'm not necessarily saying that software instruments are the poor relation, theres some nasty sounding analogue machines.

[Robot Criminal]

Right... so you use cubase for this? or just mix down in Ableton by recording a sample like you've been saying?

usually i use wavelab for recording anything (just a habbit I guess)

[Torque]

You can make almost anything sound like it's hardware just by knowing how to eq the sound right.

IMO thats too much of a generalisation mate, like theres just one issue, the difference between the sound of hardware and software.
theres huge differences in the sound of individual pieces of kit. Virtual analogues dont sound like analogues, theres even differences between identical analogue machines. i've got two SH101 's and i prefer the sound of one of them, it's indefinable, but i prefer to use one over the other.
no amount of eqing is going to make them sound the same.
all analogue machines have a character of their own. EQ isnt the only issue that makes them sound different from their software counterparts, they are individual alive instruments, and they cant be truly compared to software instruments.
and i'm not necessarily saying that software instruments are the poor relation, theres some nasty sounding analogue machines.

Well i personally love the SH-101 just because of the way it's set up alone But i can make the same sounds with software and you couldn't tell the difference.
As crazy as this may sound some some of you that have been indoctrinated to believe that only hardware can sound like hardware there is only few real differences between hardware and software.
Sometimes software will sound crappy because the person that made it was not able to keep it from aliasing and hardware is manufactured with solid math so it doesn't alias. Another difference is that right before the output on almost every peice of hardware there is an eq. The eq of the sound coming out of a piece of hardware is usually it's calling card. Sometimes it not only has an eq before the output it may also have a compressor usually set to a ratio of around 2.5/1 which really makes it a multiband compressor that is preset to only the setting that they want on that hardware.
With a multiband compressor and a good ear you can eq even the most washed out shitty free cheap ass plugin sound to sound like it came out of hardware but it takes a good ear.
As for the SH-101 i know there are differences in the way they sound from machine to machine and it's susally dictated by the color. I'v heard the blue ones are shitty. Most of the people i know seek out the red ones because they have a phatter low end. I guess they had quality control issues with the 101.