Samplitude: Best sounding Daw?

[IncarnateX]

To this point the discussion might be boiled down to terminology. Technically speaking a hallucination is not caused by external stimulation but internal processing. Thus a perceived difference caused by different levels of attention caused by visual preferences is not a hallucination in a technical term insofar as the visual stimulation still plays a part and the auditory stimulation is there as well.

And BTW, I am an associate professor of psychology and not just a student, but I wouldn't use this fact to suggest any appeal to authority here, so let us keep our professions out of it and stay focused at the topic at hand.

[hibidy]

so let us keep our professions out of it and stay focused at the topic at hand.

Where is the "like" button?

[IncarnateX]

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.

Sorry mate, but I can not see how this test would tell us anything about cross-modality. If they fail the test and yet claim they hear differences when they are not blindfolded, this result could both be explained by their visual preferences or that they are illuding themselves systematically.

What we need is a test in which they rate different daws for visual pleasentness introspectively. A good deal of daws to be sure. Then we make them rate the same auditory material from different DAWs while looking at them. If there is a significant correlation between these ratings, we finally provide them with a blind test. If this final test confirms the null hypothesis, we can conclude that their preferences for the auditory material while looking at the daw likely is caused by visual preferences. Or what do you say?

[IncarnateX]

Where is the "like" button?

And where is your like button Hibidy? I am sure it would be a top score at KVR.
When a good heartet fellow like you is around, I always find much more easy to resist trolling. Bless You pal.

[Hink]

what we really need is less tests and more practice, not much else matters imo. Whether one host sounds better than others only matters if there are hosts that really sound bad. As it is the worst case scenario would seem to be that all host sound great and people are suggesting some actually sound better than great. I'm content with great and will put the rest in my hands.

Look at it like a drag race, the cars are pretty much all very quick cars...does the quicker car or quicker driver win the race?

[hibidy]

Edit, it's pointless to try and "bargain" with people who have no clue.

[como baila]

And BTW, I am an associate professor of psychology and not just a student, but I wouldn't use this fact to suggest any appeal to authority here, so let us keep our professions out of it and stay focused at the topic at hand.

LOL 'Student' has many denotations, as I'm sure you're aware, Professor. I intend it as 'scholar,' being post-doctoral myself.

I'd also contend, absent the 'authority' of reason there in no argument ever to be had.

Como

[como baila]

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.

Sorry mate, but I can not see how this test would tell us anything about cross-modality. If they fail the test and yet claim they hear differences when they are not blindfolded, this result could both be explained by their visual preferences or that they are illuding themselves systematically.

What we need is a test in which they rate different daws for visual pleasentness introspectively. A good deal of daws to be sure. Then we make them rate the same auditory material from different DAWs while looking at them. If there is a significant correlation between these ratings, we finally provide them with a blind test. If this final test confirms the null hypothesis, we can conclude that their preferences for the auditory material while looking at the daw likely is caused by visual preferences. Or what do you say?

Rather the opposite: whether there are any discernible, reliable and predictable differences in the perceived sound when contaminations from other modalities are eliminated. In which case it could be concluded whether or not anything sounds better with respect to the dimension of sound alone.

Como

[como baila]

To this point the discussion might be boiled down to terminology. Technically speaking a hallucination is not caused by external stimulation but internal processing. Thus a perceived difference caused by different levels of attention caused by visual preferences is not a hallucination in a technical term insofar as the visual stimulation still plays a part and the auditory stimulation is there as well.

And BTW, I am an associate professor of psychology and not just a student, but I wouldn't use this fact to suggest any appeal to authority here, so let us keep our professions out of it and stay focused at the topic at hand.

Agree with you on hallucination.

Agree with you on the interaction between attentional processes and sensory modalities in perception.

Disagree with you on 'stay focused.' This is significantly ... as you present it ... a discussion about perception, not measurable acoustics.

Como

[IncarnateX]

Rather the opposite: whether there are any discernible, reliable and predictable differences in the perceived sound when contaminations from other modalities are eliminated. In which case it could be concluded whether or not anything sounds better with respect to the dimension of sound alone.

Como

Don' t think I understand what you mean here. If there is a positive correlation between the visual and auditory ratings you have to explain this somehow and if the null hypothesis is confirmed in the blind test, difference in sound can not be it thus leaving only one possible explanation, namely that their ratings of the sound somehow are influenced by their visual preferences. Simple as that. It was you who proposed your own test as one concerning cross modalities and not just a blind test that would examine the auditory dimension alone. My objection were that such a test as yours do not say anything about cross-modality. It goes without saying that you can not say anything about the effects cross modality if you examine one modality only.

If you just want to test the predictions of the DAW null test, then your method will do. If you want to see whether visual preferences can influence ratings of auditory clearity , you will have to use mine or some other experimental paradigme.

[IncarnateX]

And BTW, I am an associate professor of psychology and not just a student, but I wouldn't use this fact to suggest any appeal to authority here, so let us keep our professions out of it and stay focused at the topic at hand.

LOL 'Student' has many denotations, as I'm sure you're aware, Professor. I intend it as 'scholar,' being post-doctoral myself.

I'd also contend, absent the 'authority' of reason there in no argument ever to be had.

Como

In that case congratulations and God's speed to your career. Glad you agree with me regarding the authority issue. Our titles are prone to abuse enough as is.

[hibidy]

I wonder why

[hibidy]

Let me be blunt. (for a change)

There is no proof in any matter why shape of form that any (and I mean any) host sounds different that the other. I guarantee you I can personally make ANY host sound as good (or as bad) as I want.

I do not make the claims Despite a certain members bunk (arguing "higher fidelity or better sound) years ago.......the is NO PROOF. Pay that guy 100 bucks and take the null test. Or better yet, don't. Argue bologna to the bitter end.....

In the end, what good does it do? Hope you find the nugget..........

[Burillo]

i'm not sure you all understand what a null test or "null hypothesis" is. there is nothing to prove, there is no one to pay to prove it to you. you don't even need to listen to anything or ask someone to perform a test on you.

get a DAW, create a bunch of tracks with different settings and different plugins (which process sound *linearly* so that randomizations in the plugin itself are not tainting the test), render it with absolutely no dithering, no resampling, no nothing - just plain render to a 16-bit WAV file (or 24, or 32, or whatever floats your boat).

then get another DAW and create exactly the same project (pay attention to precise gain levels, pan levels, pan laws and use the same plugins on the same tracks), with exactly the same render settings (i.e. no dithering, no resampling etc.). render the second file.

then open one of these DAWs and put resulting two files on two separate tracks, and reverse the phase on one of them, and press "play". if you hear nothing (i.e. the tracks cancel each other) - congratulations, you've just proven the "null hypothesis". if they don't - look where you could screw up, because that is what happens when you don't know how to conduct a null test.

this "null hypothesis" is not a hypothesis that needs proof. it is a scientific test that is repeatable and verifiable but anyone with a few braincells (just enough to do it right and not taint it). there is no subjectivity involved, because everything is done by a computer. this is not a blind test, because no listener is ever involved; this is a scientific experiment that gives you predictable results every time, any time. this test verifiably and credibly proves that whatever differences you hear are not really there.

the tests you are describing (correlation between subjective assessment of DAW sound and its visuals, etc.) will only show that there is something going on in our perception that makes us hear things that aren't there. this is true, but again, it has nothing to do with the DAW's sound, and it should not be taken into account.

the "perceived" differences between DAWs are a great way of studying things like correlation between DAW's visuals and how it's sound is perceived, but it has no place beside the null test, because the basis of it (perfect mathematics vs. greatly imperfect human perception) is vastly different.

[IncarnateX]

i'm not sure you all understand what a null test or "null hypothesis" is. there is nothing to prove, there is no one to pay to prove it to you. you don't even need to listen to anything or ask someone to perform a test on you.

get a DAW, create a bunch of tracks with different settings and different plugins (which process sound *linearly* so that randomizations in the plugin itself are not tainting the test), render it with absolutely no dithering, no resampling, no nothing - just plain render to a 16-bit WAV file (or 24, or 32, or whatever floats your boat).

then get another DAW and create exactly the same project (pay attention to precise gain levels, pan levels, pan laws and use the same plugins on the same tracks), with exactly the same render settings (i.e. no dithering, no resampling etc.). render the second file.

then open one of these DAWs and put resulting two files on two separate tracks, and reverse the phase on one of them, and press "play". if you hear nothing (i.e. the tracks cancel each other) - congratulations, you've just proven the "null hypothesis". if they don't - look where you could screw up, because that is what happens when you don't know how to conduct a null test.

this "null hypothesis" is not a hypothesis that needs proof. it is a scientific test that is repeatable and verifiable but anyone with a few braincells (just enough to do it right and not taint it). there is no subjectivity involved, because everything is done by a computer. this is not a blind test, because no listener is ever involved; this is a scientific experiment that gives you predictable results every time, any time. this test verifiably and credibly proves that whatever differences you hear are not really there.

the tests you are describing (correlation between subjective assessment of DAW sound and its visuals, etc.) will only show that there is something going on in our perception that makes us hear things that aren't there. this is true, but again, it has nothing to do with the DAW's sound, and it should not be taken into account.

the "perceived" differences between DAWs are a great way of studying things like correlation between DAW's visuals and how it's sound is perceived, but it has no place beside the null test, because the basis of it (perfect mathematics vs. greatly imperfect human perception) is vastly different.

You seem to misunderstand all the time. I have no doubt that daws do not produce different auditory output but is concerned whether their reports are dependent on other facts than random illusions. There are no contraditions.