pro tools question sonic difference in importing audio files

O.k. I'm pretty versed in pro tools and digi but I been wondering this.

I have a file that is 48/24 broadcast wave and I import it into a session that is 48/24 and uses broadcast wave

why is that if I import the file into the session it does processing on said audio file?  What processing is it really doing?  Why is it, it will sound different after it imports into the  session?  This would be using digi converters to listen to the file in pro tools as well as say quick time.

Do you mean when you import a stereo interleaved file?  It splits it to dual mono.

check Preferences / Processing:
- Convert Imported ".wav" Files to AES31/Broadcast Wave
- Automatically Copy Files on Import

who is Digidesign ?
Digidesign is Avid now ???
RIP

onlymeeee said:

Do you mean when you import a stereo interleaved file?  It splits it to dual mono.

Click to expand...

No I am talking about mono file.

[silent:arts] said:

check Preferences / Processing:
- Convert Imported ".wav" Files to AES31/Broadcast Wave
- Automatically Copy Files on Import

who is Digidesign ?
Digidesign is Avid now ???
RIP

Click to expand...

I dunno I am so used to saying digidesign pro tools. avid owns digidesign... I'll check those processing preferences, but the files I am refering to are mono and they are already broadcast wave.

"processing" could mean it's just generating the graphical waveform you see on screen.

obviously won't affect sound in any way.

Kingston said:

"processing" could mean it's just generating the graphical waveform you see on screen.

obviously won't affect sound in any way.

Click to expand...

Yep, and probably time-stamping the file with PT´s own timecode.

pucho812 said:

I dunno I am so used to saying digidesign pro tools. avid owns digidesign...

Click to expand...

they owned them for a long time now.
Dave Lebolt left Digi and went to Apple.

Avid now drops the brand Digidesign:
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?langid=100&navid=48&itemid=40433

the latest Pro Tools Update has no Digi Logo anymore in the "About ..." screen. Avid only ...

Kingston said:

"processing" could mean it's just generating the graphical waveform you see on screen.

obviously won't affect sound in any way.

Click to expand...

O.k. now that makes sense. So highly possible the difference I am hearing is all psychological.

[silent:arts] said:

pucho812 said:

I dunno I am so used to saying digidesign pro tools. avid owns digidesign...

Click to expand...

they owned them for a long time now.
Dave Lebolt left Digi and went to Apple.

Avid now drops the brand Digidesign:
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?langid=100&navid=48&itemid=40433

the latest Pro Tools Update has no Digi Logo anymore in the "About ..." screen. Avid only ...

Click to expand...

ah o.k. I'm so used to saying digidesign pro tools.

Hell, I find iTunes sounds different from Quicktime.  Nominally, but different.  I don't think it's far fetched to think a sound file sounds different coming from two different playback engines.  Quicktime isn't going through a 24 bit mixer, for one thing.  

I agree with the above prognoses, though.  The processing is splitting the stereo files, timestamping them, and generating the waveform (which is twice as big a job in PT8 with the 16bit waveforms.  I find it takes a few more seconds than it used to).  

I'm betting that if you were to export those same files and opened them in quicktime, and compared to the originals, you would not hear a difference.  Could be a naive assumption, but it would be a fun experiment.

[silent:arts] said:

Avid now drops the brand Digidesign:
the latest Pro Tools Update has no Digi Logo anymore in the "About ..." screen. Avid only ...

Click to expand...

i bet we will see some digiprotools sounded better than avid protoools  quotes soon on ge*rsl*z  ;D ;D ;D ;D

mushy said:

Hell, I find iTunes sounds different from Quicktime.  

Click to expand...

I believe Itunes is a Quicktime implementation.

Quicktime and Itunes both will play 88.2K files on my MBP, which doesn't have 88.2K as an option, since they both convert on the fly based on output preference settings. 

emrr said:

mushy said:

Hell, I find iTunes sounds different from Quicktime.  

Click to expand...

I believe Itunes is a Quicktime implementation.

Quicktime and Itunes both will play 88.2K files on my MBP, which doesn't have 88.2K as an option, since they both convert on the fly based on output preference settings. 

Click to expand...

(UN)Check the "Sound Enhancer" option in iTunes prefs (if you didn't already). Took me a while to find out about that one, sound improved when I did... :

/Dave

emrr said:

I believe Itunes is a Quicktime implementation.

Click to expand...

It is.  It's a GUI/file management front end for Quicktime, basically.  However that front end has audio manipulation code in it.  IE the crap EQ.  Opening a file in Quicktime is the only way to get iTunes' greasy mitts off your music. Remember that iTunes wasn't coded by Apple and until recently was completely built on it's SoundJamMP kernel which dates back to the 90's.  I think Version 9 was a complete rewrite.

Just what I was told. My information could very well be wrong. I should also mention that I haven't done a direct comparison between iTunes and Quicktime in a few revisions of both pieces of software.

mushy said:

emrr said:

I believe Itunes is a Quicktime implementation.

Click to expand...

Opening a file in Quicktime is the only way to get iTunes' greasy mitts off your music.

Click to expand...

Yes, for quick listens of single files from the web and the odd CD file or two, the quickest way is to drag the file icon to the QT icon and let it go, thereby opening the file in QuickTime.  I prefer that to waiting for iTunes to launch and its interface...  

Quicktime (pro) has nice audio slowdown and speedup options too, etc.  It's the way to go for a close listen to a file.

For casual listening and background listening over a period of time of course iTunes is far better because you don't have to manually open every file etc....

With all the Itunes 'enhancement' options turned off (did that day one), I can't say that I've ever noticed a sonic difference compared to QT.  But I haven't compared closely.