abacab

bitflipper
 
I am reminded of the hilarious episode of The IT Crowd where Jen breaks the internet.
 

Hilarious!!!  Just added to my Netflix list.  Something to binge watch during snow days this winter...

Agreed. That was funny!!

Splat Chat O'samplemashy
Rather than citing the results as a cause to invalidate the test, the results might just as well be offered as evidence of a quantifiable difference at the outputs.

1+1 = 2... At this point you can think I must be joking
But think what DAWs are doing when mixing several tracks into one output? They just summing all values from different tracks, sample by sample. When you move the fader, corresponding values are multiplied. When you pan, corresponding values are multiplied according to some "pan law".
And now someone comes and say that one program can sum and multiply numbers better then other. Sorry, but who is really joking then?
 
DAWs can differ in the sample rate conversion algorithms and multiplication factors for particular fader/pan values you see in the interface. But that difference should be discussed as such, f.e. "DAW X convert from 44.1 to 96kHz different way then DAW Y". And there are several such discussions (easy to find), note that there is no "absolute right" way to do this, there are pro and contra for any approach.
 

 
 
 
 
Here is a question: Why do the Samplitude examples show that the signal has significant amplitude beyond 22kHz while the other two examples seem to lo pass the signal below 22.5kHz?

And so you have spotted yet another problem yourself (probably number (IV) in my previous post).
What means you see frequencies over Nyquist frequency in this plug-in? That means the plug-in is working at higher frequency.
What means the values in that region are significant? There are several possibilities:
1) the source waveform signal is not 44.1, so the tester is "cheating"... or
2) Samplitude call Fabfilter in upsampling mode and:
2.1) something in the chain has produced higher frequencies, on purpose or just buggy
2.2) Samplitude up-sampling approach produce higher frequencies and since they can not be in the original signal, that approach is buggy...

Yea, as with all things audio. Do a blind test and come back and tell me you can hear a difference. This goes for high-end audio cables, guitar pickups, daws, audio interfaces etc etc. I would challange almost anyone to be able to spot ANY difference at all in any of these things with any degree of certainty higher than pure chance. 
There is SO much snake oil and nonsense going around the audio world it is almost laughable. Especially so in the digital realm, where things either is, or not. How one manufacuturer can claim their 1's and 0's sounds "better" than the competition is cute. 
 
People can't hear the difference between a lamp cable and hifi gold plated monster mega cables in blind tests. Yet people describe them as having more body, richness, fuller midrange etc etc. Its a joke people. I would arge that the same goes for any decent DAW, you put **** in, it does its binary job with the data and ****s out the results. If there is a noticable difference it is most likely due to bias on the part of the listener. 
 
And more imporant than that, there is no substitue for good music, melody and harmony. So what if one daw might sound a TAD better to your ears, if what you put into it is garbage. Focus on the input, and the output will not matter one bit in terms of how it is recieved. You can't polish a turd and all that ...  

I totally agree with you Tobias! People are so often fooled like that and they absolutely lose the focus. Even with the shoddiest guitar would Eric Clapton play better than me with a super-expensive one. It is really more important what you feed in.
But I think this is not only in the audio area where folk is cheated this way! Look around, you see it everywhere!

having 100% same tests in DAW needs to be taken partly to the maker to make sure each one is 100% back to base / bare metal.. without any of their "seasoning" to alter the sound / summing etc.
 
 
as for the IT crowd, glad you are enjoying the documentary ;-) .. the same person also did "father ted" also , if you don't know that as well.
 
 
 
 
 

tobiaslindahl
So what if one daw might sound a TAD better to your ears.

That, for me, is the bottom line. 

All things considered DAW makers only have so many things they can market. They have attempted to market a better sound with "better" being totally subjective in a fair test. I didn't watch the vid because I can't right now.I can imagine by the description what it is though. Imagine for one minute if a DAW maker could truly claim better sound by independent professional outside testing? They would really have something. So far it's all smoke, mirrors and a lack of knowledge.
 
I have been fooled by the snake oil on occasion and sometimes there is some truth to it. High cost oxygen free cables are said to be better. I believe they are slightly better. Marginally not good enough to make their purchase necessary by the average Joe. Similarly DAWs work best at high resolutions and accurate sample rate settings. You have to mix differently with 24 bit compared to 16 bit because it has a bit more headroom and eats up more hard drive space.
 
I hear music all the time from different artists who use different DAWS. You can't tell who is using what. I've heard really crappy music on Cubase and top notch music on Cakewalk or Reaper. It doesn't seem to matter.
FYI If you launch a template in CbB with Pro Channel or anything in it engaged you won't have a clean signal which might influence your perceptions. I'm not saying PC is bad. You just need to be aware of it.
 
 

Small differences in sound between DAW applications is a whole lot less than the difference between digital multi-track tape machines.  

When it comes to just a straight up mono wave file, they have to sound the same.

Not buying it