Samplitude: Best sounding Daw?

[nineofkings]

But if you get a chance, check out Aristotle's four types of causation. It will help you get a grip on how to think through problems like whether or why DAWs might sound different to different people.
Como

I think we're trying to look at this as objectively as possible. By making this a psychological existential question everything becomes too complicated. In any event, the sound differences between DAWs is marginal if anything at all, and has negligible effects on the quality of what is being produced.

[como baila]

But if you get a chance, check out Aristotle's four types of causation. It will help you get a grip on how to think through problems like whether or why DAWs might sound different to different people.
Como

I think we're trying to look at this as objectively as possible. By making this a psychological existential question everything becomes too complicated. In any event, the sound differences between DAWs is marginal if anything at all, and has negligible effects on the quality of what is being produced.

Eminently pragmatic conclusion.

Objectivity does need, however, to factor in known contributants. And in the instant discussion, the distinction between sensation and perception is certainly one of them.

I think it must be acknowledged in any discussion/ debate like this, as it points to the fundamental reason we disagree when we all agree that audio nulling means there is no physical difference with the source reality.

If you think this consideration is all egg head tail chasing, puzzle yourself for a moment over the psychoacoustics of MP3s ... or even better the display of 30 still photos a second becoming moving pictures.

Como

[IncarnateX]

it's certainly a language thing, my understanding of the "null hypothesis" was apparently different than what was yours i apologize for misunderstandings.

The null hypothesis is a statistical expression. If a statistical test shows that a given outcome of an experiment can be explained by chance, the null hypothesis can not be rejected. If a given outcome can not be explained by chance, the null hypothesis is rejected and the results have to be explained by other factors than pure chance.

[como baila]

it's certainly a language thing, my understanding of the "null hypothesis" was apparently different than what was yours i apologize for misunderstandings.

Innocent misunderstanding due to language does not require an apology!

But I'm very glad it's sorted out.

I think if you 'wade' through my comments, you will see that we mostly agree.

I like rationalism and rationalists.

Como

[Burillo]

i wouldn't consider myself a "rationalist", more like a "pragmatist" the difference is marginal at best, but IMO pragmatist is one who strives to choose the best (most beneficial, least bad, etc.) given the circumstance, while rationalist leans towards the most rational, which is not always the best when dealing with humans

[jazzimprov]

Wow!

The better looking interface deceives someone into thinking it sounds better?
****Really****?

I find that hard to believe, unless maybe you are in the 12 year old range.

You really think that the people here who happen to think Samp sounds better is because they like the interface more?

Bizarre Topic.

I'm outta here.....

[Trakstar]

Best sounding DAW has to go to Harrison Mixbus2 hands down. It makes all my others sound like amateur league. Harrison really put some work into this, read the review if you like, I bought it purely for the mixbus2 summing feature and the Tape Emulations .The EQss could have done with more controls but the sound speaks for itself. Ive not heard any other analog emulation EQ or Dynamics plugin come as close to what this does. They did a demo but stopped it probably due to the pirates. I got reason 6 specifically for the SSL emulation Mixer but Mixbus has become my go to for analog summing. Ive used Samplitude before, the basic version, and sound wise its as capable and if not one of the best DAW similar to Pro tools or whatever. Just had to say about mixbus2 ...

[IncarnateX]

Since no one apparently is going to perform my test within the next 24 hours, this whole thing can not go any further. Never mind then. It wasn't worth the effort anyway, at best this topic would have ended like 99% of all scientific studies, namely something like this:




Time to go home!

Cheers and God's speed

[Winstontaneous]

I haven't seen any mention of the Sample Rate Conversion (SRC) tests between different DAWs at http://src.infinitewave.ca/
They seem to indicate that there are visible differences regarding how the SRC of certain DAWs affects test signals. They (probably wisely) don't touch the question of whether the differences are audible.

This is a fascinating subject...it took me a LONG time to get over REAPER's fugly interface in the v. 1/2 days. I also avoided some of its wonderful builtin effects because they lacked fancy GUIs. Also one of my favorite VSTis ever--VAZ Modular--sounds phenomenal, but its '90s-style graphics (though perfectly functional/well laid-out) turn a lot of people off. I think we're more synaesthetic creatures than we suspect.

[jancivil]

Best sounding DAW has to go to Harrison Mixbus2 hands down. It makes all my others sound like amateur league. I bought it purely for the mixbus2 summing feature and the Tape Emulations....

the difference is an additional feature that distorts the output. it isn't a straightforward comparison which will rely on 'all things being equal'.

a lot of people use plugins to warm up, distort the sound at various stages of the signal path. 'analog summing bus' amounts to a plugin.

'amateur league' as a necessary outcome for 'all the other DAWS' reveals only inexperience at mixing.
'they do not sound different'; they ought not to, ie., a clean slate to draw on rather than one that's colored for you as is Mixbus.

[Trakstar]

Best sounding DAW has to go to Harrison Mixbus2 hands down. It makes all my others sound like amateur league. I bought it purely for the mixbus2 summing feature and the Tape Emulations....

the difference is an additional feature that distorts the output. it isn't a straightforward comparison which will rely on 'all things being equal'.

a lot of people use plugins to warm up, distort the sound at various stages of the signal path. 'analog summing bus' amounts to a plugin.

'amateur league' as a necessary outcome for 'all the other DAWS' reveals only inexperience at mixing.
'they do not sound different'; they ought not to, ie., a clean slate to draw on rather than one that's colored for you as is Mixbus.

Well Im going on the sound quality and thats where it counts and not someone else's opinion who hasnt even used the Mixbus software, and Ive noticed your already changing what Ive said again as it was "ALL MY OTHER" and not "ALL OTHER" daw's and then further hinting that Im an amatuer and inexperienced mixer, so Im not even going to bother wasting my breath any further.

quote from website

Mixbus sounds better. Other DAW mixers are designed by companies with experience in computer sound, but no pedigree in world-class recording facilities. The Mixbus mixer is designed by Harrison: the maker of consoles used in the world's most demanding music, film, and live performance facilities. Harrison consoles are known for their great-sounding EQ, filters, dynamics, and bus summing. If you find a music recording from the golden age of albums - the 70s and 80s - that has stood the test of time, it is likely that a Harrison console was used during the production. With the Harrison sound and a logical knob-per-function mixer interface, Mixbus invites you to produce recordings that will stand with the best.

And I am inclined to agree with everything they say thus the reason I bought it. No doubt you will have to comment further probably about me and my failings even though you know absolutely nothing about me so I will leave you with a proverb.
" Do not answer a Fool according to their Folly "
so there you go. Now you can have your turn baby, dont forget what you said in the other forums as well as Im guessing thats why you picked this to comment on. From now on youre muted and Ill be watching you like a Hawk

[Burillo]

define "sound quality".

[trimph1]

We need to overcome the dominance of The EYE!!!!

[jsp1979]

Wow!

The better looking interface deceives someone into thinking it sounds better?
****Really****?

I find that hard to believe, unless maybe you are in the 12 year old range.

You really think that the people here who happen to think Samp sounds better is because they like the interface more?

Bizarre Topic.

I'm outta here.....

You'd better start believing because that's pretty much established fact in a number of other contexts. Why wouldn't it be true here?

IncarnateX is one of the few speaking any sense in this thread. The null tests show that the sound is *identical*, so the question then becomes, "Why do people think that is sounds different?". The visuals may in fact be what's influencing people.

Why do you think companies spend so much money testing out logos, color schemes, etc. before advertising or releasing a product? Just for the fun of it? Or perhaps they know that the visuals make a difference to one's perception of the product.

You can find that concept hard to believe if you'd like, but it doesn't change it's truth.

[AC222]

I used Samplitude during the time Emagic Logic moved over to Apple and I was still using PC's and Samplitude handled multitrack mixes a lot better than anything I used since. Protools9-10, Cubase, Ableton and Logic never sounded as clear to me when mixing. I have on a number of occasions had exactly the same arrangements loaded in each of those Daws and Samplitude did in fact sound clearer without any Eq's, Dynamics etc on the mix(premix). There is always that argument about wether Daws sum properly but I can say that Samplitude always handled summing the mix a lot better. I'm currently looking at moving back to PC and if I do I will be using Samplitude for sure.

Well said, Tonkatodd. These are my findings exactly as well. It's funny that someone in this thread mentioned that these perceived differences are "random". I don't think it's such a coincidence that others come to the same conclusions as the two of us. Kudos to you for stepping up and speaking truthful about your observations rather than discounting what is evident based on preconceived notions of how things should be.

Also, the visual impact changing the auditory perception is a great working theory. However, it is worth pointing out that one of other DAWS that gets consistntly mentioned as having a superior sound engine is SAW studio. And those same people that admit they love the sound quality are the first to mention that the GUI is so ugly that it's sinful. Seriously, look on KVR or Gearslutz. You get people cracking jokes about it left and right that it looks like a Cairo whore's g-string, looks like it wants to be star trek, came out of a dungeon and dragon's video game, has magic gem stones look you expect from an RPG game, should be the new skin for Snood etc... The point is that NOBODY likes the GUI and a lot of others hate the work flow, but yet people still rate it tops for sound quality. Yes, that program uses integer-based calculations. Maybe that contributes to the quality but it doesn't sound the same as other DAWS, as ugly or clunky as that one might seem.

I don't think anyone would refute the fact that the end user is the most important factor contributing to the sound quality. A great mixer should be able to get great sound on any DAW. But with differences in summing/processing quality from different DAWS using many plugins, that same mixer might get top notch results faster and more mediocre engineers might be able to get better results period with the different tools at hand (talking about summming/processing quality, not using stock plugins).

In any case, thanks everyone so far the the thoughtful posts. You guys rock!