Cheregg, if you are familiar with null testing then you know that when two files are compared, you will hear nothing when they are matched. In a couple of tests I null tested the UA plugins in RTAS and then again in VST using the same original file imported into two different DAWs. I used one of the preset settings for the 1176 compressor (think it was the gentle vocal) and the LA2A (medium compression preset). There was upper mid range sound from the null tests in the 800 up to 5k. Just transient differential information.

Now some could say, even though the results are not the same, making a statement like "better" or "clearer" is an opinion, and it is, but the original OP asked for people's reasons for using one over the other. Those are my reasons.

Unless you're an Avid beta-tester, you have no means to compare Sonar X2 vs. ProTools 11.   

Middleman


Cheregg, if you are familiar with null testing then you know that when two files are compared, you will hear nothing when they are matched. In a couple of tests I null tested the UA plugins in RTAS and then again in VST using the same original file imported into two different DAWs. I used one of the preset settings for the 1176 compressor (think it was the gentle vocal) and the LA2A (medium compression preset). There was upper mid range sound from the null tests in the 800 up to 5k. Just transient differential information.

Now some could say, even though the results are not the same, making a statement like "better" or "clearer" is an opinion, and it is, but the original OP asked for people's reasons for using one over the other. Those are my reasons.

And you know which one is "wrong"? Could it be that the VST version is the "truer" version? Perhaps both are "wrong"?

John

And you know which one is "wrong"? Could it be that the VST version is the "truer" version? Perhaps both are "wrong"?

 
Both being wrong is a possibility. Truth is in the mind (and ears ) of the beholder.
 
VST sounded flatter and duller to some extent than the RTAS results. I like the latter sound better, that is my reason for choosing one over the other for audio.
 
I think I've answered all the questions asked about my "reasons". Let others provide theirs who use both DAWs.

Reasons for Sonar:
• Used it for a long time (since Windows 3.1) and didn't want to relearn
• I use a lot of soft synths and memory matters.  Sonar was running 64-bit a year and a half ago when I went to X1
• Sonar comes bundled with more stuff
• I like the V-Studio integration and since I used VS-1680 and many Roland products, I felt comfortable with it
• Sonar has better support.
• Pro Tools is the industry standard if you mean large facilities with existing equipment that replaced the multitrack tape machine with a computer a few years ago.  It may or may not be the standard for most producers.  Not sure.
• Pro Tools has changed but originally required a complex and expensive hardware+software solution.  Sonar (like Cubase and others) could be easily installed on virtually any reasonably-powered PC.
• PCs are way cheaper than Macs for what you get.  I understand the advantages of Macs—there are two in my house—but PC wins the bang-for-buck war.
 
All that said, I am not married to Sonar but see no real reason to change.  I can easily make stems (wavs) to take to another studio when needed.

You have to be careful using null tests to compare things. Some tests are OK and you are going to get a good null. For example comparing exactly the same mix faders wise and using LCR panning only on two DAW's. I have done this and the results are as you would expect. Literally a perfect null. 

But null testing EQ and also dynamics processes is a little different. Especially dynamics processes. The same plug in two different formats inside two DAW's may produce very slight variances in behaviour thus not giving a perfect null at certain frequencies. But yet the 'sound' of them may still be identical when used singly or on their own. The same applies to EQ.

I have not had huge amounts of experiences with this but I have used the same synth for example in two different plugin formats and inside two different DAW's. I certainly did not hear any sonic differences between the two and I am usually sensitive to minor differences in synths especially. Of course I was not doing an A/B test either and had to rely on memory. I have printed or bounced parts though and when you do compare them they are hard to pick.

There is nothing wrong with the VST audio standard or quality. It is nit picking a very fine or literally undetectable difference detail in production which under a very controlled A/B test would make it very hard for anyone to hear. And it has not been mentioned elsewhere has it. Has any respectable magazine such as Sound on Sound made a big deal of sonic differences between plugin formats. NO, not really, As I have said many times it is your production skills, ear and adjusting skills that far outweigh any talk of differences in plugin formats. Average engineer = average mix, great engineer = excellent mix. So where do your plugin sonic differences come into play here.

Jeff Evans


You have to be careful using null tests to compare things. Some tests are OK and you are going to get a good null. For example comparing exactly the same mix faders wise and using LCR panning only on two DAW's. I have done this and the results are as you would expect. Literally a perfect null. 

But null testing EQ and also dynamics processes is a little different. Especially dynamics processes. The same plug in two different formats inside two DAW's may produce very slight variances in behaviour thus not giving a perfect null at certain frequencies. But yet the 'sound' of them may still be identical when used singly or on their own. The same applies to EQ.

I have not had huge amounts of experiences with this but I have used the same synth for example in two different plugin formats and inside two different DAW's. I certainly did not hear any sonic differences between the two and I am usually sensitive to minor differences in synths especially. Of course I was not doing an A/B test either and had to rely on memory. I have printed or bounced parts though and when you do compare them they are hard to pick.

There is nothing wrong with the VST audio standard or quality. It is nit picking a very fine or literally undetectable difference detail in production which under a very controlled A/B test would make it very hard for anyone to hear. And it has not been mentioned elsewhere has it. Has any respectable magazine such as Sound on Sound made a big deal of sonic differences between plugin formats. NO, not really, As I have said many times it is your production skills, ear and adjusting skills that far outweigh any talk of differences in plugin formats. Average engineer = average mix, great engineer = excellent mix. So where do your plugin sonic differences come into play here.

This is an outstanding post. It is also an important one.

One thing that I must add is that Middleman is a very fine and knowledgeable forum member that I listen to. In this case he has his own views that are contrary to my own. This in no way impacts my complete respect for him. 

Jeff Evans


But null testing EQ and also dynamics processes is a little different. Especially dynamics processes. The same plug in two different formats inside two DAW's may produce very slight variances in behaviour thus not giving a perfect null at certain frequencies. But yet the 'sound' of them may still be identical when used singly or on their own. The same applies to EQ.

If there are only minor differences yes. But differences in the 1-3db range would be audible. Just saying, you have to make a determination as to what is significant and what is not.

There is nothing wrong with the VST audio standard or quality.
 

I agree, the original question speaks to user experience, opinion and differences.

 
It is nit picking a very fine or literally undetectable difference detail in production which under a very controlled A/B test would make it very hard for anyone to hear. And it has not been mentioned elsewhere has it. Has any respectable magazine such as Sound on Sound made a big deal of sonic differences between plugin formats.
 

I agree if the sonic differences are minor but my ear hears a considerable difference and sonic perceptions speak to human response and creativity. One person cannot negate what inspires creativity. If you find that working in a VST environment is more inspirational then no one can really comment but when someone asks for why a person would use one environment over another and there are measurable differences and experiences, I think it fair to relay those experiences.

So where do your plugin sonic differences come into play here.

They come into play when I can get better results and be inspired in one environment versus the other because I am getting auditory feedback that inspires me. Just for the record here I maintain that the RTAS experience for me, in audio, is better. I also mentioned earlier that Sonar X1 is the environment in which I create midi because the VST sound is not unusable and the midi experience for creating tracks is better. Regardless, in all cases the easiest and more inspirational experience for creating music is the choice.
 
John, thanks for the comment. I am not looking for converts here, just relaying the experience based on the original inquiry. Mutual respect as well. But we are both from a time on this board when ideas were debated, questioned but not squashed. I miss those days.
 
Jeff, I have to address the SOS comment. Why has not one magazine or article in all the years of digital compared plug in platforms? No information for or against the premise. There a numerous DAW shootouts but no one has dug into the impact of plugins. I would like to see a Steinberg vs Protools platform comparison on this. Would be interesting for the masses.

The way the math is implemented, and it is not the same

 
It seems that 2 + 2 = 4.  Do they have some new math that produces a smoother or better sounding 4?
 
There may be some rounding differences between integer math and floating point math, but this would be limited to the least significant digit (way below any noticable noise floor). 
 
VST and RTAS are even less than protocols, they are just API definitions to execute the same code (the same math).
 
And on the topic. 2 + 2 still equals 4 if you are running on an x32 system or an x64 system.  There is a performance difference, but no difference in the math.
 
 

gcolbert

VST and RTAS are even less than protocols, they are just API definitions to execute the same code (the same math). 

       

This is the bottom line and all we really need to know.  Any perceived differences are not due to the plug-in platform.