sharke

dappa1

Soundwise
I also prefer Cakewalk's audio engine to the rest.
Don't be surprised, though, that majority of DAW users don't hear any difference and will come up with scientific facts proving that nobody is able to hear any difference at all.

They will always come with I have tested it theory. I can hear differences in DAWs it is very noticeable. Maybe those who use gadgets to prove theory should just close their eyes and listen. it's obvious. Anyway, Bandlab are playing games with me and making this simple DAW difficult to download. Good job I have Studio One 3 to go to

This is just pure hocus pocus. You are seriously suggesting that scientific tests - i.e. a mathematical comparison of 0's and 1's - are less reliable than your ears? If two audio files are identical and they null then that's the end of the story - there is NO difference. None. Any difference you claim you hear is an auditory illusion, a figment of self delusion. 
 
Please tell me that you understand the basic concept that if two signals sound different then their underlying 0's and 1's are quantifiably different as well. Because I seriously suspect that some people here don't understand that basic fact. 

Please take a moment and with some patience, to read the original post. There are two separate processes where mixing and transfer of final audio is involved 
 
1. Playback of Audio (typically real time) to the computer's audio interface
 
2. Mixdown of the Audio to an audio file.
 
There is no dispute that under ideal identical conditions - mixdown to an audio file should be identical - that is not contested, if you read previous posts, especially the original post. Comparing these files is somewhat trivial - and has been done by many - and they do null - no contest there.
 
The difference alluded to is in the real time playback of audio, and it would take a bit more than what most end users have installed, to compare the digital output sent directly to the audio interface, by two different DAW's. I certainly do not have this level of kit, to capture digitally the audio stream sent to the audio interface and compare.
 
Well I thought I did not, but I just thought of a way to do this, send the audio out via a digital interface - such as SPDIF and record into the digital input of the same or another audio interface card.
 
When I have the time, I will do this - just need to buy a digital cable to do the routing out and back in to the digital SPDIF or ADAT ports. The results should be most interesting. 
 
This should put all the contention on the subject to rest, as this would be an objective test - measured ideally by software that can compare the original file, and the result of the recorded audio from the output of both DAW's. - All ideally done by software tools, no human intervention involved in the comparison.
 
Will come back here with the results, as soon as I've done this.
 
 

You really need three computers to do a test like this properly.  Two of them playing back the same file (of which was not recorded on either as well i.e. a third party file) both through identical interfaces and a third recording the result.  Anything less than that is not ideal. Or at lest two machines playing out through identical interfaces both set for identical levels and switching immediately.  Get my drift.  You may not be able to do this so unless you do you may get ambiguous results. 
 
Digital VS analog outs could also not be a valid thing either. On both my RME and Focusrite Clarett  interfaces there is not a squat of difference in sound between the digital and analog outs.
 
 

Before I got Sonar Platinum, I tried Reaper for a long while, and have several master tracks still from that Daw that I have since moved to use in Sonar. 
 
Thing is, at the time I tried Reaper, I was using Music Creator 7, and in the end by comparison I found that I could tell a difference in how the sound and clarity was better with Music Creator 7 compared to reaper using 24/48 settings. 
 
Not being a Homer at all with that statement. But in my own personal experience, as I said MC7 recording for me at the time sounded better than Reaper. It's almost like the settings I was reading in Reaper weren't correct, NOTE : THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT, THAT IS MY OPINION. 
 
As for the here and now : Using Sonar Platinum, or the new Cakewalk by Bandlab, the clarity in recording is outstanding compared to Reaper. And I was a Reaper homer there for a while. Not now. I can hear the differences. Sonar/Cakewalk by Banlab has a better sound IN MY OPINION. 
 
And for those of you who want to talk specs, there's not much more to say beyond 24/48 except how the audio is processed, and for my Money I'd bank it on Cakewalk by Bandlab and or Sonar Platinum which I am a owner of both software as of now. 
 
Honestly, I don't see the point in comparing anything, you either like what you have or you don't, and who's to say you weren't listening to heavy loud music in between your test, and if you were doing scientific test then who's to say your testing software isn't flawed. 
 
My advice would be, Don't complain and go with what you feel is best for you. 
 
For me it is Cakewalk by Bandlab, LOL : The Artist formerly known as Sonar Platinum!
 
Best of luck!
 
Bobby
 

I like Splat.

Jeff Evans
Even in my test after creating bounces from all four DAW's I then tested the same stereo mix in all 4 DAW's in order to check on the fact that they all played the same from each one and they did! (I had multiple computers at the time and I arranged to have the same interface attached to both so I could at least compare instantly between any two)
 
I suspect something is switched on that you don't know about.  Which is bad in my opinion because if that is the case it means that Sonar can have something hidden and activated.  This cannot happen in Studio One for example.  There is simply nothing inserted anywhere when you create a blank slate.   Dig much deeper and check things out carefully.  Are you using the same audio interface for your comparisons? I just don't believe it.  The same stereo mix should sound the same everywhere in any DAW.  
 
Really the only way to compare is to have two computers setup with different DAW's on each and exactly the same interface attached to both and switch from the audio outs that way.  Something I doubt you will be able to do.
 
If when you are making comparisons for example time elapses between one and the other then your test is not valid at all.  The time between one DAW and the other needs to instant.  If there is time involved e.g. you are comparing something that you are hearing in the present to something you heard in the past then that is also not valid either.  The brain can play tricks and make you think something is different. 

Actually Jeff, think about it...of course each DAW will sound different. If you add in all the variables, like different plugs (quality, analogue emulation), upsampleing, oversampling and on top of that different converters - even though there are only a handful of different manufacturers of digital converter chips - each chip though would sound different because of dynamic range and jitter or distortion...which would be odd harmonic distortion because transistor not valve, but you can see how each DAW could produce different sonic results can't you?

What the OP is perhaps hearing on saying all that is, if the OP has switched on 64 bit FP - this is the mix engine and 64 bit FP audio files and oversampling...the difference is night and day between only a 32 bit mix engine and 32 bit fp audio files. When I first heard the difference - I was like what the ****? Again night and day...the 32bit fp mixes were fine, but lacked definition in the bottom end, and in fact the bottom end where all the analouge emulation goodness (2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion) was distorting. It is hard to hear, unless you have very...very good headphones. I was using AKG 712s at the time...so AKGs 2nd vest headphones.

I've been meaning to do some tests, by say using Reaper for a whole piece...but when you discover HD audio using nothing more than software...its hard to be bothered to use perhaps an inferior product and waste time. This is even though I use Reaper for digital varispeed tricks. In fact thinking about mixes put through digital varispeed at the start of the mastering process - it's harder to get a particular sheen that you get when you don't use Reaper and digital varispeed. I wouldn't say this is proof though, because the process of varispeed maybe the issue.

:)

I agree Ben for sure. Once you start using plug-ins and as you say all the other variables that come into play for sure.
 
But at a pure summing level or just playing back a high quality stereo wave file with zero processing taking place anywhere then I have my doubts.  That is what the OP is trying to say. That file just sounds SOOOOOO much better in SPLAT. 
 
I have already done the test as I have said with 4 DAW's just summing big multitrack sessions and nothing else and I got zero differences at this level.  I just find it hard to believe that the same file playing back in multiple DAW's with zero processing going on can sound so different.  There must be something else going on. 

I have seen so many posts here and elsewhere on DAW sound comparisons. The tests are always flawed - this is evident if the author claims that one sounds "better" than the other. If a DAW did change the sound without me asking it to I wouldn't want to use that DAW. Any good DAW will give you the same sound out as what you put in. The sound should only be altered if you alter it!

It's funny reading the same  "X sounds better than Y, it's amazing!"  messages on other forums except that X and Y have been replaced by whatever. I've seen "Studio One 3" is better than "Reaper"; I've seen "Reaper" is better than "Cakewalk"; etc etc.
 
Sometimes it's Pan Laws; sometimes it's user error, sometimes it's "the math-diff may be null but I can HEAR a difference". Sometimes there may actually be a difference. So what?
 
And I bet none of these guys are actually spending enough time with each product to understand the differences in workflow and relative benefits of each.
 
This is the opinion of one dude who has used Cake/SONAR for the last 20 years, but figured this new year that it was a great time to migrate a project-in-progress over to Reaper and give it a whirl. And you know what? It's pretty cool. It's different... but some aspects of the workflow allow me to do stuff intuitively (Folder=Buss, oh my god) and the customization is out of this world.
 
That said, it is way too early to dump one DAW in favor of another. I installed CbB just for kicks and it opens an existing project and plays back. It's good to know it'll be around for a while longer....
 

I did some tests between the last version of Sonar Platinum and the Cakewalk by BandLab. I exported some songs with both version, same processing (only third party plugins, dithering of Fabfilter Pro-L) and same exporting options, and a drum only mix, with a lot of processing.
The result was that the the new version of Cakewalk is more clear and focused. The last version of Sonar seems to have some uncontrolled low end, and sounds a little sluggish. The differences aren't that big, but exist. I think that is because the Cakewalk by BandLab has a cleaner code. I wish they continue this path, and focus on the audio engine and processing.
 
Before this test, I did the same drum mix exporting and compared between the last version of Sonar, and the Studio One 3.5.4, and now repeated with the newer Cakewalk, and, of couse, putting the pan law on -3dB sin/cos taper, on Sonar and Cakewalk. The processing and mastering in Studio One, was the exactly the same, in every details. The result was that, for me, Studio One has a better sound: Cleaner, more balanced, more controlled and prettier. I think that maybe this happens because Studio One is a more recent program, designed from scratch, and has a cleaner, more modern code.
 
I prefer the workflow and the interface of Cakewalk/Sonar, it feels like home to me, and now that BandLab gave it a new home, and Meng said that they have an agressive vision about the product, I have great hopes about the future of Cakewalk/Sonar. I was about to make the jump to Studio One, but now, I'm staying! Certainly now, the program will get to the next level!
 
PS.: Should I put this on its own thread for debate?

In all such discussion, the following link appears at some point. And since I have not found it in the text, here it is, McGurk effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0
Do you still trust what you hear more then 0 and 1 (Boolean logic)?
 
Some small comments:

When I played back just one audio  WAV file of a commercial track extracted from the CD (16 bit - 44Khz - converted to 16 bit 96Khz by SPLAT - and also imported - same upsample into Reaper  - so source audio is 100% identical).

No, it is not...
 

My suspicion is that CbB provides options for dithering on playback (or not) which could be the difference I am hearing - hitherto, the only user selectable options for dithering I have encountered in other DAW's has been limited to rendering (the actual creation of a mix track by the DAW). CbB provides options to dither or not - on playback as well as while rendering, and you can set these to different values.

When using 16bit ASIO mode... dithering THEORETICALLY can be notices. Practically, that can happened in cases you are able to hear the difference in signal on the level of -80dB. That can be in 2 cases:
a) you significantly amplify the signal after it enters interface. F.e. you have -40dB overall level, so you turn output gain +30dB
b) you are genius or alien... happens 
When using 24bit ASIO mode... The best ADCs are in fact 20bit and dithering affect the last bit only, so (useless) bit 24. Can someone hear the difference? Sure... in case digital amplification is used, which "shift" bits into meaningful for ADC zone.
 
But (related to the first comment), have you checked Re-sample mode options in Reaper? Default playback re-sample settings are adequate for noobs (like me), but probably have insufficient fidelity for your.
 
Also note that Reaper  by default is not sample accurate. So in case you put a clip on Measure 2 and tempo is 132.5BPM, samples in the media are shifted compare to the project samples. What happens then depends from many factors. F.e. in recent alpha there is a change in Glue, it was preserving the shift before and now it is more Freeze/Render like. Also Reaper re-sampling approach depends from the source and the target rates, f.e. "44.1 -> 48" can be just interpolated while "44.1 -> 96" is extra processed (not 100% sure, but from the wave picture that is LPF). And that is with unchanged  settings in preferences!
 

I did some tests between the last version of Sonar Platinum and the Cakewalk by BandLab.

I remember reading that CbB is compiled from the same source code. But may be Noel has managed to improve audio processing during 1 month working for BandLab, something he has not managed during previous 15+ years. Happens
 
PS. I do not claim people do not hear differences. I just wonder why most such people do not try to understand from where it comes... When someone publish examples/what is done exactly, other people can help to understand the origin. Can be overseen option, can be not so nice feature, can be a bug in software, but also can be McGurk effect.
Usual counter argumentation for such proposal "but then some bit-worries will try to point what I should do...". Well. If someone WANT (to believe) that DAWs sound different (even in case they technically do not), no one can help.
 
PSPS. When doing some comparisons, not only (and sometimes not) the top equipment plays the role, but deep understanding what is really happens behind the scene.
Imaging you compare the sound of 2 guitars. Make sense? Sure. But imagine during the comparison you play one guitar with finger (only) and another guitar with pick (only).
 
PSPSPS. Note that Pan law settings in Sonar and Reaper do not match exactly. For most (but not all) Sonar Pan law options there is an equivalent in Reaper, but that is not (!) just one option.