Comparing DAW's

Re: Comparing DAW's (pwalpwal)

Sat, 22 Dec 2018 13:51:29 GMT

xmas special from season 1

Re: Comparing DAW's (pwalpwal)

Sat, 22 Dec 2018 13:43:54 GMT

Fog "father ted"

love me some father ted " />

Re: Comparing DAW's (Soundwise)

Fri, 21 Dec 2018 16:45:35 GMT

Grem
bitflipper

The point being that the most impactful variables for recording quality have nothing whatsoever to do with the DAW.

Best quote of the thread.

I agree!

Re: Comparing DAW's (Grem)

Fri, 21 Dec 2018 05:02:26 GMT

bitflipper

The point being that the most impactful variables for recording quality have nothing whatsoever to do with the DAW.

Best quote of the thread.

Re: Comparing DAW's (bitflipper)

Fri, 21 Dec 2018 04:27:03 GMT

The biggest variable in my recording process is the amount of caffeine in my bloodstream. Too little, and I run the risk of forgetting to check my track interleave and then staring blankly at the screen wondering why an effect doesn't work right. Too much, and I rush through everything and next day wonder what I was thinking yesterday...where'd the snare go?

The point being that the most impactful variables for recording quality have nothing whatsoever to do with the DAW.

Re: Comparing DAW's (azslow3)

Thu, 20 Dec 2018 23:35:31 GMT

Soundwise
azslow3
If you used to work with one pan law, bitrate, up-sampling, etc. in one DAW, it can be easier to start with the same settings in another DAW. People normally adjust the sit the first time they drive a new car, instead of claiming "that car is bad since the driver chair default position is unusable for me" " />

On my side of the universe it's more like the text in bold, rather than what you described as a normal habit. Not sure why.

I till remember the universe with 2141 (AKA "DIY") " />

May be I should make a DAW comparison guide video, illustrating what I have written before in this thread. For that need some music, a native speaker and time. My own performance and Russian accent will be too distracting from the topic... Fortunately I know people which can help with that. Lets see what I can do in 2019.

Re: Comparing DAW's (Soundwise)

Thu, 20 Dec 2018 21:38:42 GMT

azslow3
I have tried to find a good video how correctly compare DAWs. And you are right, I have found nothing. But there is in general more fake news/videos then proves why all that is fake " />

We definitely use different video hosting services. " />

azslow3
If you used to work with one pan law, bitrate, up-sampling, etc. in one DAW, it can be easier to start with the same settings in another DAW. People normally adjust the sit the first time they drive a new car, instead of claiming "that car is bad since the driver chair default position is unusable for me" " />

On my side of the universe it's more like the text in bold, rather than what you described as a normal habit. Not sure why.

Re: Comparing DAW's (azslow3)

Wed, 19 Dec 2018 08:53:02 GMT

Soundwise
Just an observation... People, who believe, that DAWs sound different usually try to prove it by making some video comparison, screenshots and whatnot, while people who are sure, that every DAW sounds the same usually tell stories and appeal to theory. " />
Just saying.

I have tried to find a good video how correctly compare DAWs. And you are right, I have found nothing. But there is in general more fake news/videos then proves why all that is fake " />

Soundwise
bitflipper
Sorry, not buyin' it. The test is flawed. The three mixes are obviously not volume-matched (which you can confirm by the spectral displays), which is why the nulled version sounds like a quiet version of the original mix.

They are! Not in scientific manner, rather in an ordinary usage manner, i.e., the way most users would do it. That's why the guy says that he used stock settings and matched only levels, pan positions and plugin settings.
We can speculate in the subject, saying "if you match pan laws..." or "if you change these settings...", or "if you rewrite code...", or "if you substitute developers..." and so on, but the reality is, if you take any DAW as it is and start recording/producing/mixing and during the process you decide to try another DAW because of its better UX, you won't care too much about matching all those minor adjustments, but will try to reach the desired quality level within your new DAW.
On the other hand nobody really cares if any two DAWs sound the same or have some difference, because if there is a difference, it is not significant and can be safely ignored. It's the music that matters the most, not the tools.

If you used to work with one pan law, bitrate, up-sampling, etc. in one DAW, it can be easier to start with the same settings in another DAW. People normally adjust the sit the first time they drive a new car, instead of claiming "that car is bad since the driver chair default position is unusable for me" " />

dubdisciple
I actually like mixbus but at the end of the day, it is just a good example of what happens when you stick a fairly intuitive saturation tool in every track. One could make a similar template in any DAW and season their own mixbus to taste

Mixbus is Ardour DAW with added effects. These effects have "own sound", the DAW itself does not (the DAW is open source and the source never lie).

Re: Comparing DAW's (dubdisciple)

Wed, 19 Dec 2018 05:38:18 GMT

I actually like mixbus but at the end of the day, it is just a good example of what happens when you stick a fairly intuitive saturation tool in every track. One could make a similar template in any DAW and season their own mixbus to taste

Re: Comparing DAW's (Soundwise)

Sun, 16 Dec 2018 08:31:43 GMT

I've done such tests too and found that there is a measurable difference, but it's way below perceivable level, somewhere around dithering noise level. So I don't care about summing engine inaccuracy giving that difference. To me it's more about ease of use, workflow, overall user experience, price, support, bug fixes and upgrade policy.

Re: Comparing DAW's (Jeff Evans)

Sat, 15 Dec 2018 20:48:22 GMT

I was open to both sides of the argument. When I did the 4 mixes in the 4 DAW's I was even hoping I could hear something and almost disappointed there was nothing between them. It just comes down to summing engines. You cannot compare mixes on multiple DAW's and use all their plugins. That is just not a fair or reasonable test. Unless you are very precise with level settings, panning and pan laws you will never get a perfect null either.

So once you take all the plugins out of the equation you are just left with the bare summing engine test at the end of the day and what I found was they all sounded identical.

Re: Comparing DAW's (Soundwise)

Sat, 15 Dec 2018 18:32:05 GMT

Just an observation... People, who believe, that DAWs sound different usually try to prove it by making some video comparison, screenshots and whatnot, while people who are sure, that every DAW sounds the same usually tell stories and appeal to theory. " />
Just saying.

Re: Comparing DAW's (Jeff Evans)

Sat, 15 Dec 2018 04:19:28 GMT

I have explained this before but will again. While working for Roland back in 2007 or so selling the V Studio they provided with an amazing multi track recording session. (done on a completely different system.) The tracks are so pristine without a single plugin in sight you can get a fantastic sounding mix. This is master class in mic placement. The band was amazing too BTW.

I mixed this session down on 4 DAW's. Logic, Studio One, Sonar and Pro Tools. I set a mix up with faders and only used a whole number for db settings eg -6db or -8 db etc.. Panning wise I uses only LCR and set all DAW's to C= -3db pan law. I used no plugins anywhere so just basically doing a summing test.

I got a total null with any combination of two mix downs. So there you go. DAW's do not sound different. Oh and BTW I did a blind listening test in a room full of excellent engineers on great speakers and a nice sounding room. No one had any idea what DAW we were listening to.

And for the Mixbus people I am not convinced Mix buss has a sound either. I mixed down a multi track sessions of my son playing drums in both Mixbus and Studio One. However I turned all dynamics and saturation off everywhere and used no EQ or dynamics in Mixbus. Same in Studio One. Got a perfect null with these two tracks as well. I have stopped using Mixbus now because of this test. What you are hearing is the result of other factors in Mixbus, not the so called sound of the engine itself. It does not have a sound!

Everything else in a DAW however will affect the sound. Plugins, reverbs, time based things you name it. Not the actual summing engine though. Interesting though is the same engineer will arrive at exactly the same sound even if all the other elements in the DAW's are different.

Re: Comparing DAW's (Soundwise)

Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:54:50 GMT

bitflipper
Sorry, not buyin' it. The test is flawed. The three mixes are obviously not volume-matched (which you can confirm by the spectral displays), which is why the nulled version sounds like a quiet version of the original mix.

They are! Not in scientific manner, rather in an ordinary usage manner, i.e., the way most users would do it. That's why the guy says that he used stock settings and matched only levels, pan positions and plugin settings.
We can speculate in the subject, saying "if you match pan laws..." or "if you change these settings...", or "if you rewrite code...", or "if you substitute developers..." and so on, but the reality is, if you take any DAW as it is and start recording/producing/mixing and during the process you decide to try another DAW because of its better UX, you won't care too much about matching all those minor adjustments, but will try to reach the desired quality level within your new DAW.
On the other hand nobody really cares if any two DAWs sound the same or have some difference, because if there is a difference, it is not significant and can be safely ignored. It's the music that matters the most, not the tools.

Re: Comparing DAW's (Studioguy1)

Fri, 14 Dec 2018 04:10:01 GMT

There is irony in the above comparison for many reasons, but the main one for me is that having tried Samplitude, I found it to be kludgy, no user friendly and the sound was not anything to write home about to my ears. That is my take on the subject. I can think of several much better than Samplitude, but to my experience, Cakewalk handles my projects methodically, accurately and they sound damn good. nuff said.

Re: Comparing DAW's (dubdisciple)

Fri, 14 Dec 2018 01:31:31 GMT

Not buying it

Re: Comparing DAW's (Wayfarer)

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 22:10:00 GMT

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

Re: Comparing DAW's (Jim Roseberry)

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:19:56 GMT

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

Re: Comparing DAW's (Starise)

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:40:37 GMT

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.

Re: Comparing DAW's (jude77)

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:27:29 GMT

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

That, for me, is the bottom line.

Re: Comparing DAW's (Fog)

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 02:54:31 GMT

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.

Re: Comparing DAW's (marled)

Sun, 09 Dec 2018 22:14:56 GMT

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!

Re: Comparing DAW's (tobiaslindahl)

Sun, 09 Dec 2018 21:15:34 GMT

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 ...

Re: Comparing DAW's (azslow3)

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 22:14:19 GMT

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...

Re: Comparing DAW's (Grem)

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 19:55:29 GMT

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!!

Re: Comparing DAW's (TheSteven)

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 19:39:58 GMT

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... " />

A bit back Netflix had the 1st 3 seasons and then dropped it.
Looks like they added it back and now have 5 seasons!
Cool... I've never seen seasons 4 & 5.

. (The Maillard Reaction)

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 17:36:18 GMT

Re: Comparing DAW's (abacab)

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 16:57:56 GMT

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... " />

Re: Comparing DAW's (msmcleod)

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 16:15:57 GMT

This enables/disables upsampling:

But you need to enable them in the plugins:

. (The Maillard Reaction)

Sat, 08 Dec 2018 16:01:25 GMT