That's still Citroën 2CV, even after all these years

Still can't do quick turns without one of the tires, or both, up in the air either way...

lots of clever words are impressive, but unfortunately this is all irrelevant. if the files are the same, any "differences" you percieve are not there. if they aren't there, no DAW sounds better than the other. whether you *think* you hear the differences that aren't there, or *perceive* the differences that aren't there doesn't make have any effect on the fact that there aren't any differences whatsoever.

the original question was - does Samplitude "sound" better than any other DAW. the answer is - it doesn't. while you may perceive the differences that aren't there due to different factors, they are what they are - the differences that aren't there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mU5p3Fa08k

beauchamp

I don' t think I agree. The right answer to the question "does samplitude sound better" could be "Yes to some people who have certain visual preferences for Samplitude". As my quote says in my first post, speech is more intelligible when you can see the one who is speaking. Thus visual patterns, e.g. seeing a level meter in a daw, while hearing the music or having certain visual preferences, could have the same affect on the perception as a whole while listening to music. A boring looking daw could lead to lack of excitement and general attention to the stimulation as a whole, while an exciting looking daw could lead to the opposite. so the differences could indeed be there in form of varied levels of attention to the same auditory stimulation. The multiconnectivity of brain areas support this hypothesis as said.
Last edited by IncarnateX on Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

But maybe it has better fidelity

Samplitude is cool, and by 'cool' I mean 'totally sweet'.

ppffffttt.....

stock 2cv's could not do that without going over...

Cool, it's powered by seiko.

you're confusing "what is heard" with "what is being said". this is why null test is done - to remove all this "it looks better, so it sounds better" bullshit as much as possible, so that you can actually *see for yourself* a *mathematical* proof that both these sounds are the same, and the differences that you heard were simply your brain playing tricks on you.

again, i'm not claiming what you say is not true - it is a known fact that our perception is extremely biased. what i am saying is that in case of null test it's irrelevant - computers don't "perceive" music, so if the files null - they are identical, regardless of what you perceive. if you subjectively like how one host sounds (for whatever reasons) - great, but to claim it gives you a better mix than a different host with identical project settings is simply being wrong, because it doesn't.

your mix might turn out to be better because you are more inspired by your DAW, but that's a different matter, and it doesn't have anything to do with one DAW sounding better than the other. it's got to do with the workflow not getting in your way, visuals not irritating you, and lots of other different reasons, which have nothing to do with how DAW actually sounds.

Then I don' t think I know what you are objecting to. I provide a hypothesis that does not contradict the null test on one hand but on the other it recognizes that the differences people say they hear between DAWs do not have to be considered to be conceptual illusions nor hallucinations but real perceptions. Everyone should be happy. Case is that you can not extrapolate what people actually perceive only on basis of stimulation alone, e.g. some people are color blind, thus they do not proces visual stimulation like others do.
If real-life perception is based on cross-modal perception, limited attention span, bias, priming and preferences, then the null test only tells us that any perceived differences are not caused by the auditory stimulation as an isolated event. In this respect you are right that a DAW doesn't "sound" different in terms of the auditory stimulation, but not in terms of all other known factors to perception, including it's look and how this can influence the level of attention to the sound coming from the daw. I see no contradiction unless you will claim that the differences people hear HAVE to be illusions for some reason. But you do not need to, the null test is not contradicted.

And the idea about the daw's look does not has anything to do with the mix, but that people might attend more to the auditory stimualtion on basis of an aroused attentional system. Thus they extract more information from the auditory material than they would do with any other DAW, which would result in an actual experience of a clearer sound. What you can say to this is that it is not caused by the sound the DAW actually produces, but you can not exclude the perception as a product of an emphasised attention to the material. I bet you know that a piece of music actually never is heard exactly the same way when you hear it over and over again. Thus you can attend to different parts, noticing new aspects while neglecting others. But these variations are not illusions, they are just a result of shifting attention to different parts of the same material.

All this might be irrelevant to you, but I bet it isn't to those who report that they do actually hear differences, because usually they are told that they are full of shit or hallucinating on basis of the null test

in essence, what you call "perceived differences" are very well hallucinations or illusions i.e. hearing something that isn't there.

i am not objecting to the truthfulness of what you say. i am objecting to the fact that you are making these perception differences part of the equation. they aren't, and they shouldn't be, because what we perceive is, at the end of the day, irrelevant. DAWs don't sound different, that is a fact that can and is proven by correctly conducted null test. hence, no DAW sounds better than the other. hence, Samplitude can *not*, under any objective test, "sound better than other DAWs", period, end of discussion.

these perception differences might explain why people hear the differences between two DAWs, but this is exactly why we have a null test - to objectively measure DAW's sound without any perceptual bias. what you say boils down to "well, DAWs sound the same, but you could still hear the difference based on this or that theory", what i say is "DAW's don't have a sound, period". both statements are valid, but first one is kind of misleading and still perpetuates the myth about DAW's sounding different, even acknowledging that they don't. second one is more pragmatic and objective, and is the ultimate truth everyone must know when choosing a DAW.

No they do not need to be because in principle the brain never perceives all that is there. It extracts certain parts of what is present and neglecting others, in daily living proved by the fact that you can extract varied informantion from the same song over an over again but ortherwise supported by tons of studies of perception. What they perceive might be there, they did just not notice when they used another daw. However I'll give you this: Even if they do perceive differences due to extracting levels of info they did not do previously, you are right that they are wrong attributing these differences to the auditory output of the DAW. I agree completely with that and that it would be misleading to suggest otherwise, but I haven't done that anywhere in the discussion to my knowledge.

Though late to this thread, as a student of the psychology of perception and neuropsychology, assuming the nulling of files cross platform, which I haven't done myself, I must side with Burillo.

While it is true that the brain's main job is to filter out the vast majority of sensory data bombarding us at an instant as extraneous and at that particular moment inconsequential, cross-modal perception is a reducible reality quite easily removed from the equation.

The proper title for this thread should have been: is Samplitude perceived as sounding better (by some people)?

With respect to any enhancing cross-modal input of the 'pleasing' visualizations in the DAW itself, simple: do a double blind test with blindfolded listeners and see if Samplitude can be be chosen as 'best' among different DAWs at any degree of scientific probability considered as negating the null hypothesis.

BTW, for those dubious of the reality of cross-modal perception, the next time you buy some fast food take it into the toilet or 'water closet' area to eat and see if it tastes as good as in the dining hall.

Como

shout out to my wire hanga's