Mixing in Pro Tools or Logic X

[moodscape]

Hey All,

Okay, I know that this is subject to several "IMO's" but I have to ask this.

I have PT9 and Logic X. I compose in Logic and that's the proper tool for me as a composer for sure. Mixing in Logic is easy as well. BUT, am I just going crazy or has anyone else noticed that mixing in Pro Tools seems to sound better and "bigger" IMO. I can export AIFF stems out of logic, import into an empty pro tools session and it seems like immediately the sound is fuller and crisper. Is that in my head? Has anyone else noticed this???

Needless to say, since this is the case, when I do a final mix I end up using PT9 just for mixing.

-Tory

[Len911]

Hey Tory! If you take those same stems and import them into a fresh project in Logic what do you get, does it sound more like the pro tools?

If you google the subject, there are also scenarios just the opposite of yours. I don't believe that means that it is just in your head.

It just seems that if the same basic audio chain is the same, that same eliminates anything in the audio chain from being the reason for the different sound and the daw being the only difference. Assuming also that there isn't a setting of something unbeknownst?? Then what is left probably has to do with latencies, cache, and processing load?? That might have something to do with the live sound, but probably not the final rendered audio file.

You could test that also, very tedious, by setting up the same scenario with a heavy load in both daws, same plugins and settings until you notice that one daw is live sounding better than the other one. Then render and compare the final audio files. By doing the first thing I recommended at the very top, would give you an indication of the light load sound.

But by using the stems in a fresh Logic project, if that gives the same sound as the pro tools, then you've probably determined the reason. Oh, and obviously, the caveat, that is just IMO,lol!

[moodscape]

But by using the stems in a fresh Logic project, if that gives the same sound as the pro tools, then you've probably determined the reason. Oh, and obviously, the caveat, that is just IMO,lol!

Great Point! I never thought to try that. I'll give that a shot and let you know what happens!

Just as a point of interest though, in conversations with some other peeps it was mentioned that it may be because Logic uses Interleaved(sp) Stereo files for stereo tracks and Pro Tools using multiple mono files which make up the stereo track. That in theory made a lot of sense but beyond the theory I have nothing

Thanks for the idea though. I'm gonna get around to that asap.

[Len911]

Hmmm, don't know about interleaved vs split stereo tracks.

But if they sound different, and the ultimate audio file is to be interleaved, and because interleaved is what the rest of the world uses, wav, aiff, mp3 etc., how could you use a split system that sounds different to do your mixing on?? Something sounds amiss, imo! Theoretically, they should be the same and therefore sound the same. Other than being handled differently for whatever reason, processing maybe, they should ultimately be and sound the same.

I have heard complaints of people who have a final audio file that after they posted somewhere say it doesn't sound the same, but never of people asking why something sounds great when they are mixing and then after they render a final audio think it sounds different??

[Len911]

Ultimately though, if you don't find the cause, just go with what works best, or seems to,lol!

[elser]

Interesting, is there a difference between interleaved and split stereo tracks to our ears? Logic also allows the option to record and mix in split stereo. It would seem that if you are willing to do a comparison test you would find your answer there. It's hard for me to believe there is an actual auditory difference between competing DAWs. If there is then the winner would surely have a big advantage. But I think the advantages of competing DAWs are more in how the they handle MIDI and audio. Live is the clear winner when it comes to time and pitch manipulation. Pro Tools has an edge in editing audio. Logic is a good all around tool if your doing both audio and MIDI. And then I'll bet Chris Lord Alge could give you a great sounding mix using just Garageband. I think our time and energy are better put to use in studying our music rather than our tools.

[Len911]

Interesting, is there a difference between interleaved and split stereo tracks to our ears? Logic also allows the option to record and mix in split stereo. It would seem that if you are willing to do a comparison test you would find your answer there. It's hard for me to believe there is an actual auditory difference between competing DAWs. If there is then the winner would surely have a big advantage. But I think the advantages of competing DAWs are more in how the they handle MIDI and audio. Live is the clear winner when it comes to time and pitch manipulation. Pro Tools has an edge in editing audio. Logic is a good all around tool if your doing both audio and MIDI. And then I'll bet Chris Lord Alge could give you a great sounding mix using just Garageband. I think our time and energy are better put to use in studying our music rather than our tools.

That's assuming you could find consensus on which one sounded better if there were differences. I'm not sure there is even consensus on a "clear winner" or "edge" of anything to do with daws.
But what gives Chris Lord Alge the edge if it isn't his tools?
I agree though that studying the music over the tools gives "what we are" the edge, because we must do everything, unlike Chris Lord Alge, who can choose the music he mixes. After all, it's not the mix that makes the music, it's the music that makes the mixer, or something to that effect!
Yes I agree, you could use the split stereo inside Logic if it allows you to, but don't we all really already know deep down, that there wouldn't be a difference,lol? And where would be the fun in that?

[mojobone]

Check your pan law; maybe everything really is wider, louder and fuller.

RE hosting sites, it's a common complaint; most of them let the user download whatever you uploaded, but what get's played over the web is recoded at lower bitrates.

[elser]

Hey Len, to clarify when I say study the music I include the mix in that. Our finished product is a result of the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic choices we make and the eq, dynamics, sfx choices we make. Any DAW going is going to have dynamics and eq tools that are useful. My point is that Chris Lord Alge given the exact same set of tools as any of us, will probably come up with a better mix than us. His ears are that good. And he's just a name I pulled out of the hat. I would include Michael's friend Rob Chiarelli, Dave Pensado, any of those guys. They just hear where the eq needs fixing, the slope, the frequency or the how much gain reduction and at what threshold, better than I do. Back to the original topic, I question whether the greater difference in any of our mixes is finding the perfect software, or, just knowing the tools we all have available to us that much better.

[moodscape]

Great points on all fronts. I'm super busy these days and I'm in agreement that as opposed to setting up a comparison scenario I'd rather just focus on the music. I will say this that if it wasn't in my ears, it was in the processing because the logic session was VST's with plugins and the pro tools session was only audio.

Thanks for making getting me back on track though. Focus on the music and hire Chris Lorde Alge! Done aaaaand done LMAO!!!

Thanks again all