wat jullie nodig hebben is fruity loops studio ....;;die heeft hewoonh alles wat op jullie verlanglijstje staat, en voor een fractie van de prijs /op zijn misnt evenwaardige geluidskwaliteit /fruity loops heeft sample accurate timing ..;reason niet
zie hier :
http://members.shaw.ca/stu.macQ/
Part 2: Timing Accuracy
Introduction:
With the knowledge that the phasing between the two files was not uniform, I next set out to test the timing accuracy of both programs. Again, in the interest of objectivity, you may download the source files here.
Method:
For this test, I needed a reliable indicator of sample position, so I decided to use a square wave as my source file. For those of you who aren't familiar with a square wave, it is a waveform that is geometric in shape. There is only one level of volume in a square wave, and only the phase changes from positive to negative. This phase change occurs in 1 sample, so this makes an excellent timing device as I can determine exactly where the square wave begins and where it ends (with sample-accurate measurement).
To start, I generated a square wave in Sound Forge, which began with an initial amplitude of -12.0dB on the first sample. This was a constant tone (8 cycles) at 60Hz for a total sample length of 5,879 samples.
I next programmed a 4-beat pattern in both Fruityloops and Reason (in the ReDrum), at a tempo of 120BPM, and placed the square wave on every quarter note. This allowed me to have a total loop length of exactly 88,200 samples. I exported these loops (44,100Hz, 16 bit), and opened them in Sound Forge, whereupon I normalized them both to -12.0dB (the amplitude of the initial square wave).
Because the loop was 88,200 samples long, and the sample rate of the audio was 44,100Hz, this made it quite easy to determine exactly where the square waves should be for sample-accuracy. Because the loop was 88,200 samples long, I divided the sample into four parts of 22,050 samples each. At a sample rate of 44,100Hz, this equates to exactly 0.5 seconds in length. Therefore, the correct sample positions should be:
Seconds: 0 0.5 1 1.5
Samples: 0
22,050 44,100 66,150
Results:
Fruityloops:
Fruityloops, as the developer claimed, should have sample accurate timing. I'm happy to tell you that I cannot refute this claim. Indeed ... the samples all fell exactly at the correct sample positions.
Correct: 0
22,050 44,100 66,150
Fruityloops: 0 22,050 44,100 66,150
I'm also happy to report that each square wave was confirmed to be exactly 5,879 samples long. The timing in Fruityloops is SAMPLE-ACCURATE.
Reason:
Reason did not fare as well in this test. The square waves fell at the following points:
Correct: 0
22,050 44,100 66,150
Reason: 0 22,016 44,096 66,112
Difference: 0 +34 +4 +38