gcolbert

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

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

The code is not the same, that is a wrong assumption otherwise it would be easier for plug in manufacturers to update their products. There are communication factors unique to each DAW and options of the plugin platform which DAW manufacturers can choose to support or not support. Which is why some plugins don't work correctly when a DAW developer changes something. If I am understanding your statement, you can't assume a plugin written for both platforms is the same code. Also there can be economies of performance depending on how good your developers are i.e. more efficient code.

"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"-- yeah im familiar with null testing---------------------- " 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. "-- am i correct in saying that in one daw you used 1176, and the other daw la 2a, and if so, cuz they are two different processors, is that not going to cause some variations on the two files------------------------ "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. " ,,,,+1

The 1176 was one test bed where I used the UAD plugin in both environments. I did the same with the LA2A. So I was not nulling the two different compressors against each other but was comparing the same plugin in VST against RTAS i.e. 1176 VST to 1176 RTAS and LA2A VST to LA2A RTAS. After the wave files were created in their respective environments I brought them into Sonar X1 for the final comparison. But this was all just to convince myself what I was hearing had some factor behind it.
 
Somebody else needs to comment at this point about their experiences with the two DAWs. I feel like I've commented enough.

In the situations where I have used the same plugin using two different formats and in two different DAW's there was little difference in terms of the inspiration experience. I was looking the same GUI and the plugin was behaving the same way for me so on that front one was no more experiential than the other. The differences in the two DAW's themselves may have an influence on your experience and much more so I would think. 

After bouncing and comparing both parts I was not hearing anything significant and if there were and very slight differences they would not impact on the music/mix very much at all coming from either plugin. After all the music itself is still way more important than the plugin format and DAW that you happen to be using.

Write a great song.

always you are right on the mark!  Thanks!

I have been using Sonar since 7 and been up-to-date towards all of their versions since.
And recently I've been using Pro Tools for my internship, I can really tell the difference.
 
Firstly,
Scientific argument is useless when we discuss about tone.
I've used the same VSTs to test the vocal sound using the same setting and source. It's a different result, totally!
 
This is my subjective(artistic) evaluation on both DAWs.
 
Sonar X3 : The best thing about Sonar sound is the 'sonic' and 'in your face' impact, the tone is really 'true' it doesn't alter that much. It's more important of 'what DRIVERS you use to record in SONAR'. You can hear differences using ASIO and WDM. ASIO is much cleaner, less bass, less definition, but it's easy to handle and mix. WDM sounds more 'in your face' or '3d sounding', it's truer to your ears, great bass definition and it captures every frequencies without discrimination making it harder to handle. But if you managed to pull it(with good eq'ing mainly), you will get the HD sound out of the WDM drivers.
 
Pro Tools 10 : The best thing about PT is for me, it's bussing system seems a lot controlled(it sounded clear). But in terms of sound, PT is very easy to control, the ASIO driver mode on PT seems to be a lot cleaner(and less noise) compared to Sonar X3 making PT the first choice to create mainstream music. But the thing is, it has less definition across frequencies, mainly on the bass. It seems like PT was made to record everything clean, it doesn't sound 'true' to my ears but it sounds fantastic. It doesn't sound '3D' or 'in your face' no matter how much I tried with the same plugin and settings.
 
I use VST to RTAS wrapper by FXPANSION so it maybe has a thing to do with how RTAS handles VST's algorithm but I'm here not to talk about scientific because at the end of the day what enters our ears be our judge.
 
For me, the conclusion will be, both of them has pros and cons, but as a lifelong user of Cakewalk I think it's a really really straightforward DAW and has the edge for how it sounds.
Pro Tools is not a very straightforward DAW and it seems very discriminative towards DIYers or freeware programmers. But I love their how their busses sound, very clean and controlled.
 
You can check out my soundcloud to get the idea of how I record with Sonar using WDM/KS drivers.
I will upload the sonic comparison between Pro Tools and Sonar for you to compare later.
 
Cheers!
 
- Rayne The Amateur Audio Engineer

what reasons do you have for using either DAW over the other?
It depends what is placed in front of me at the time.