Sound Quality Of Reaper FL Studio And Live

back a few years i aligned some old funk classics to the grid to prepare for dj use. the bass and highs did suffer in ableton. but in cubase the sound was fine after strecthing the beats around. so i heard the muffling and wrong bass in ableton too and it was not an imagination! thats was on ableton 4 or 5 though vs cubase sx2. (over 10 years past) that said, "live" means to me "performance driven" , not quality driven , the dj/liveact can just turn the highs up on the dj-mixer

If you're time expanding/compressing stuff (especially with time and pitch unlinked - ie. not 'verispeed'), you're going to have mad artifacts in any DAW. You can get away with a lot with these modern tools doing this of course but "fidelity" is still thrown out the window with an unlinked time/speed compression/expansion. This conversation has nothing whatsoever to do with any host DAW other than perhaps the time/speed compression/expansion algorithms available.

Just like Donald, the toupeed retard: some people "hear" things and some people hear "people are saying". Post-factual "hearing" and "feeling" trump facts.

Hi Avocadomix, we are talking floating point math here;). Planet Nine mentioned one advantage of 64 Bit FP. Here is some food for thoughts:

Let me expand on that to not be misunderstood. It's pervasive on the Internet in discussions about digital audio for people to confuse what's technically and measurably true, with what people can actually hear. It's everwhere, across multiple different subjects like sample accuracy, bit depth, etc, etc, things that can be measured and proven to be different. The logical flaw in the thought process is making the very unscientific leap that just because something can be proven to be different, that anyone can actually hear it, so too often it results in long discussions or arguments or debates about some things that (literally) nobody can even hear. My most common analogy is with infrared light. You know it's there and can easily prove that's it's there, but you still can't see it. There are things like that in digital audio also, things that are demonstrably true and still 100% irrelevant, because nobody can hear it. But people spend months (or years) arguing about it anyway.

I find that the scenarios where you actually hear something wrong (artifact or generation loss) are usually these left-field situations with a couple different types of generation loss stacking up. Audio with problems to begin with that is. If/when you DO hear something, it's a distraction and that's a bad thing. You might start second guessing everything and go a few rounds with perception bias until you forgot what you were trying to work on. Turns out that when we give ourselves a ridiculous amount of digital headroom and very wide margins for the actual audio band, nothing (and I mean nothing) odd gets by. No matter what. So... Use the system that is overkill most of the time with confidence. vs. Evaluate every audio job that comes along and choose the level of processing quality that will just suffice by trial and error. Pick your battles on that. :D