Magix Samplitude Pro X2 Released !

[trimph1]

If it's not on Betamax, it's not on the charts. (In 1987)

Needs be on 16mm film.

[mandolarian]

They all sound bad when I use them

Lolz!

[Andywanders]

100 years ago, in this thread I wrote...

I almost bought PRO X last year after trying it out, but I didn't because it doesn't support VST3.

It's a nice DAW with a lot of great features - good-looking too - but the lack of VST3 support is a deal breaker for me.

Well now it's finally here, but not quite...

One of the things I love about VST3 is the fact that plugins are organised automatically - no need to make separate folders for dynamics, reverbs etc - it's done for you. Cubase & Studio One handle VST3 like this and I like it. In fact, it's the only way VST3 plugins can be organised in a host. It can't be done manually - by moving the dlls into separate foldes VST 2.4 style.

The host has to do it!

Samplitude ProX 2 doesn't do this, and it's a mess!

If you've only got a handfull of VST3 plugins, then it's not a biggie, but throw a few more in there (which will happen over time) and your VST3 list gets huge. With reverbs, compressors, EQs, flangers, gates, delays etc all mixed together in one long/wide list.

Come on Magix. That's not cool.

If you're gonna do it, do it right.

[Examigan]

Can the plugins from this be used in other DAWs?

I seem to remember Music Studio Premium had Rewire, and that was the only way to get at those from another DAW.

[fmr]

One of the things I love about VST3 is the fact that plugins are organised automatically - no need to make separate folders for dynamics, reverbs etc - it's done for you. Cubase & Studio One handle VST3 like this and I like it. In fact, it's the only way VST3 plugins can be organised in a host. It can't be done manually - by moving the dlls into separate foldes VST 2.4 style.

The host has to do it!

Hmmm... I must be missing something. Although hosts can automatically organize VST3 plug-ins, nothing prevents you from organizing them in folder like with old VSTs. Ate least, I am doing it, and it works on my side.

[Olzik]

Please don't spread such misinformation around the Internet as it may give newcomers the wrong idea and think they have to pay the big dollars for samplitude to "sound good". I can assure you reaper, cubase, logic, pt, fruity, etc etc all sound identical to samplitude. Its digital math, it's not even debatable as any actual perception of a sound difference is just placebo as there actually literally CANT be a difference to the core engine sound

I really don't understand your statement.. You said that all programmers made the same code on each daw ?!! There's only one way to write a daw ? Because it's digital math, 2 EQ plugins will sound the same ? I guess there's many way to write a software, lot of mistakes can alter the sound.. I hope some programmers can be better than others.. So, I will not be surprise if someone explain me that a daw is more accurate because the code is better.. But I'm not a coder.. So, if you can explain me why there's different program/coders if all are the same ?
Thanks!

(I remember the time when Ableton Live sounded really bad (before the V7). They improved their mixer engine and the sound became really better. It's a fact, I'm sure you can test it, and found this "audio engine" upgrade explanation from the Ableton coders)

[lfm]

Please don't spread such misinformation around the Internet as it may give newcomers the wrong idea and think they have to pay the big dollars for samplitude to "sound good". I can assure you reaper, cubase, logic, pt, fruity, etc etc all sound identical to samplitude. Its digital math, it's not even debatable as any actual perception of a sound difference is just placebo as there actually literally CANT be a difference to the core engine sound

I really don't understand your statement.. You said that all programmers made the same code on each daw ?!! There's only one way to write a daw ? Because it's digital math, 2 EQ plugins will sound the same ? I guess there's many way to write a software, lot of mistakes can alter the sound.. I hope some programmers can be better than others.. So, I will not be surprise if someone explain me that a daw is more accurate because the code is better.. But I'm not a coder.. So, if you can explain me why there's different program/coders if all are the same ?
Thanks!

(I remember the time when Ableton Live sounded really bad (before the V7). They improved their mixer engine and the sound became really better. It's a fact, I'm sure you can test it, and found this "audio engine" upgrade explanation from the Ableton coders)

As only reading some threads about Live having had issues with plugin delay compensation - improvement of mixing engine may refer to this being fixed. That all paths for signals through tracks, plugins, busses, sends etc are correctly delayed is important.

As installed they may also sound different depending on panning laws used.
If having panning with 0dB, meaning center is running 100% level on each channel left and right - and panning hard right as example still only run 100% on that channel. Panning law, still linear, but -3dB in center, means hard panning right give 100% on right but center give only 70% on each channel. So mixing some tracks with panning setting the same but panning law different as installed, make it sound different. then there are different logarithmic panning laws etc, how energy is distributed.

Also important is if you import projects to compare, if sample rate is original of all audio or if anything need conversions. Some daws like Reaper always resample with stretching algorithms which is much worse than pure sample rate conversions of high quality. If you just go and change sample rate in Samp and check that audio is to be adjusted - you will also get stretching algos used - so instead you don't do that adjustment there, but select each clip and do conversion on sample manipulation on effects menu - and you can choose the high rate conversions.

So again a source that may give a project sounding different on one daw depending on conversion stuff. After a lot of processing the artifacts from stretching conversions stuff may be audible.

In june version of Sonar they introduced ability to oversample any VSTi's you use. You mark it to oversample, and all rendering as freezing and bouncing will use 2xoverampling meaning that resample to correct pitch of all notes will have less aliasing artifacts. But it's only after rendering, not in realtime. I use http://ddmf.eu Metaplugin to host synths and the oversampling setting for this, also works in realtime.

But an example how one daw may sound different, and actually better than another - unless you use special plugins like Metaplugin etc.

Some use daws internal eq - which may very well sound better or worse than another.

But I doubt that just importing a wave, and run at original sample rate will sound different on one daw from another.

Just a bunch of thoughts on the matter....

[Olzik]

As only reading some threads about Live having had issues with plugin delay compensation - improvement of mixing engine may refer to this being fixed. That all paths for signals through tracks, plugins, busses, sends etc are correctly delayed is important.

As installed they may also sound different depending on panning laws used.
If having panning with 0dB, meaning center is running 100% level on each channel left and right - and panning hard right as example still only run 100% on that channel. Panning law, still linear, but -3dB in center, means hard panning right give 100% on right but center give only 70% on each channel. So mixing some tracks with panning setting the same but panning law different as installed, make it sound different. then there are different logarithmic panning laws etc, how energy is distributed.

Also important is if you import projects to compare, if sample rate is original of all audio or if anything need conversions. Some daws like Reaper always resample with stretching algorithms which is much worse than pure sample rate conversions of high quality. If you just go and change sample rate in Samp and check that audio is to be adjusted - you will also get stretching algos used - so instead you don't do that adjustment there, but select each clip and do conversion on sample manipulation on effects menu - and you can choose the high rate conversions.

So again a source that may give a project sounding different on one daw depending on conversion stuff. After a lot of processing the artifacts from stretching conversions stuff may be audible.

In june version of Sonar they introduced ability to oversample any VSTi's you use. You mark it to oversample, and all rendering as freezing and bouncing will use 2xoverampling meaning that resample to correct pitch of all notes will have less aliasing artifacts. But it's only after rendering, not in realtime. I use http://ddmf.eu Metaplugin to host synths and the oversampling setting for this, also works in realtime.

But an example how one daw may sound different, and actually better than another - unless you use special plugins like Metaplugin etc.

Some use daws internal eq - which may very well sound better or worse than another.

But I doubt that just importing a wave, and run at original sample rate will sound different on one daw from another.

Just a bunch of thoughts on the matter....

Thanks for these explanations !
So, it's not stupid to state that some daw "sounds" better than other