The Samplitude Sounds Great Thread

[sascha]

Can you expand on?: "Some think they outsmarted the compiler"

How did you come to this conclusion in regards to competitors software?

It's not only restricted to competitors. Been there, done it. Every couple of years every DSP developer needs to do some cleanup and check whether the code of which you think is the fastest and smartest in the world would still perform great on modern architectures. For instance, in former times you avoided conditional jumps ('if', 'else') in tight loops as those led to cache penalties when the CPU's branch prediction went wrong, and flushing the entire pipeline took ages. Nowadays, CPUs are so fast, it doesn't play that much of a role (it does, but not at all corners).
DSP development is very close to the actual machine, but there can be layers in between that matter. It's a per-case decision, and it takes some years of experience and some gathered knowledge of teams to have a 'feeling' for things and when to make a changeover (which of course binds resources).

[WotEva]

I agree that Samplitude is definitely pretty close to a one-stop shop for production. Just needs some more midi and prv tricks/stuff/functionality to tighten up the composition end of things.

I do have a Samp.+Logic user friend, leaving the midi part to Logic but he makes pretty advanced stuff that doesn't aim commercial music.

Plug-ins internally can handle a lot these days to save time for the user and I suspect not many still use advanced tricks/routing as much as they used to, meaning the DAW part's role has decreased a bit compared to the past. So just saying samp.s midi editor should handle pretty much everything going on for a typical homestudio guy.

2 concrete negative opinions I know of Samplitude is being buggy and vst/midi poor. But specially to me starting at X3 they've really taken care a big part of such complaints. Today, I don't see as much complaint on the samplitude forum compared to the past when a new version was released.

I mostly use either Cubase or FL for prv work. So I guess I immediately miss having all their options as up front as they are in those programs. Though that could just be my perception, as myself and Cubase go waaaaaaaaaaay back. Plus out of the DAW's that I own, X3 is the one that I have the least amount of experience with. So I certainly do not possess the capabilities of seasoned Samplitude ninjas.

[WotEva]

Can you expand on?: "Some think they outsmarted the compiler"

How did you come to this conclusion in regards to competitors software?

It's not only restricted to competitors. Been there, done it. Every couple of years every DSP developer needs to do some cleanup and check whether the code of which you think is the fastest and smartest in the world would still perform great on modern architectures. For instance, in former times you avoided conditional jumps ('if', 'else') in tight loops as those led to cache penalties when the CPU's branch prediction went wrong, and flushing the entire pipeline took ages. Nowadays, CPUs are so fast, it doesn't play that much of a role (it does, but not at all corners).
DSP development is very close to the actual machine, but there can be layers in between that matter. It's a per-case decision, and it takes some years of experience and some gathered knowledge of teams to have a 'feeling' for things and when to make a changeover (which of course binds resources).

Cheers for the explanation.

[id4kvr]

I think the video above maybe could end of the debate. I'm not 100% the method that the guy used is scientific, but at least he actually did the comparison. Depending on the info from the video, I think samplitude sounds more dynamic, and a little bit better than sonar and reaper.

[Giova942]

I think the video above maybe could end of the debate. I'm not 100% the method that the guy used is scientific, but at least he actually did the comparison. Depending on the info from the video, I think samplitude sounds more dynamic, and a little bit better than sonar and reaper.

Flawed test. That guy didn't even bother to check if the pan law is the same for the three DAW.
Also, he's exporting at 24 bit, so it's possible dithering is being applied by some of the DAW.

When the pan law is the same and when no dithering is involved, the resulting files totally null.

[Coxy]

When the pan law is the same and when no dithering is involved, the resulting files totally null.

Source/Link to this specific result please?

[Steve Bolivar]

Part 3 he gets it nulled.

[Steve Bolivar]

His part 1 test was flawed if you look at it from the perspective of purely testing the audio engine. But he does say he's trying to see if with the default settings they sound the same with all mix parameters the same. He does specifically point out that that the pan laws maybe different.

[jancivil]

For those non believers who'd rather wank over null tests, you crack on. Doesn't bother me.

If the audio result nulls, it is a matter of fact it's the same result. "Facts don't bother me, I'm a believer" is why the world is in the state it's in today.

It may sound different in the reality-based assessment if the plugins are different than the other DAW's, and it won't null.
Full stop. That's the test for difference. If it doesn't 100% null, there's something going on.

The argument for it having the one PURE result via its engine is something to do with dithering? Is that not a non-sequitur?

This is like this other thread here, people need their personal impression to become The Truth. That's pretty egoistic, isn't it?

I hate to have to say this, as I think the thread itself exists in order to promote this particular fight, or at least bring the people in with that particular belief for ridicule, but it's out there evidently.

Not here to ridicule or promote a fight. That's why I said in the OP let's not make this a "single sine wav nulls" thread. I am just genuinely curious about seeing or hearing some examples that backup these statements. I have come across some experienced people who have held this opinion and have finally gotten to the point where I'd like to find out if there's any proof to these "pure", "more accurate", or "pristine" statements. If the people making them have done any direct compares, or if it's all just a "feeling" they have?

Right, sorry. I should have looked to see and will have found not very many posts from you, or a long time here.
Thing is, this crops up, not real frequently but with a fair degree of regularity here. And I'm not recalling anything very scientific brought in, it has more or less looked like the statements made by proponents in this thread right here.

I really don't have any idea of how 'dithering' would appear or not in the DSP, but even if it does, there is the implication that only the people working on it under the one employer have caught this particular mistake, and this once was so significant, like that's something to hinge the argument on.

Yeah, no.

I have zero interest in dismissing Samp as a product, it's purely to question the reasoning in the assertion. And I realize you can't make people question cherished beliefs.

[WotEva]

Part 3 he gets it nulled.

Thanks. I meant to take a look at the rest of his video but forgot about it after seeing the poor methods in the 1st video. It is interesting that he makes all the examples null, including 3rd party fx, but then mentions that when he heard Samplitude for the first time, that it was enough to make him switch DAW's. I wondered if he was coming from Sonar that perhaps they have different pan laws, but it appears that the default for both applications is 0db centre.

I still find it curious how experienced people with good equipment are hearing this "something." Maybe a shiny new look is as good as a holiday and everyone always thinks their holiday was amazing?

[WotEva]

For those non believers who'd rather wank over null tests, you crack on. Doesn't bother me.

If the audio result nulls, it is a matter of fact it's the same result. "Facts don't bother me, I'm a believer" is why the world is in the state it's in today.

It may sound different in the reality-based assessment if the plugins are different than the other DAW's, and it won't null.
Full stop. That's the test for difference. If it doesn't 100% null, there's something going on.

The argument for it having the one PURE result via its engine is something to do with dithering? Is that not a non-sequitur?

This is like this other thread here, people need their personal impression to become The Truth. That's pretty egoistic, isn't it?

I hate to have to say this, as I think the thread itself exists in order to promote this particular fight, or at least bring the people in with that particular belief for ridicule, but it's out there evidently.

Not here to ridicule or promote a fight. That's why I said in the OP let's not make this a "single sine wav nulls" thread. I am just genuinely curious about seeing or hearing some examples that backup these statements. I have come across some experienced people who have held this opinion and have finally gotten to the point where I'd like to find out if there's any proof to these "pure", "more accurate", or "pristine" statements. If the people making them have done any direct compares, or if it's all just a "feeling" they have?

Right, sorry. I should have looked to see and will have found not very many posts from you, or a long time here.
Thing is, this crops up, not real frequently but with a fair degree of regularity here. And I'm not recalling anything very scientific brought in, it has more or less looked like the statements made by proponents in this thread right here.

I really don't have any idea of how 'dithering' would appear or not in the DSP, but even if it does, there is the implication that only the people working on it under the one employer have caught this particular mistake, and this once was so significant, like that's something to hinge the argument on.

Yeah, no.

I have zero interest in dismissing Samp as a product, it's purely to question the reasoning in the assertion. And I realize you can't make people question cherished beliefs.

Yeah I think the part 3 video posted above showing that even 3rd party fx still null between Sonar proves that there definitely isn't any differences coming from the output of either application. So the added mojo argument looks a little dead. I am starting to think that this may definitely be a case of marketing/hearsay that was said enough that it burrowed into some people's consciousness and still remains as their perceived reality on this topic until this very day. Like how some people still think microwaves cook food from the inside out, even when they have experienced the outside of the food turning into a boot whilst the inside remains partially frozen.

[Cooker]

Part 3 he gets it nulled.

Years ago when I did my own test (matching pan-law's, checking if dither will be applyed etc...it takes a while to make sure there's no mistake) and samplitude did null. But when you think about it, thats not the case;

Simply means the DAW is default setup-ed better if you like the Samp. clips more in the video. You could adjust (for example) Reaper to sound like samplitude but I've never heard of anyone doing that and not easy to dive deep cloning them.

Finally, we must keep in mind these tests are kept simple to avoid mistakes. Another example, Samp. channel eq's simply sound amazing (oversample+Lin. phase capable)...if included to similar test would further smoke other DAW's even more obvious.

[Cooker]

double.post

[Cooker]

double post

[bmanic]

Never underestimate the placebo effect. It is very real and it is very strong.. even when you know for a fact that it is present. There are tons of stupid things I do all the time that I _know_ make no difference yet I do them to please my ego and to ignore the placebo effect. While I'm doing these things, I am actually aware of the fact that there is no difference to the audio, yet I "hear" a difference which impacts my creativity/mood.. so I ignore it and go with what I feel sounds best.

Ignorance is a choise and I sometimes decide to be ignorant and let the creative juices flow. However I do never try to sell this "better sound" to anybody else. In fact I'm always very uppfront about it being placebo and just say it exactly as it is.. a quirk of mine.

I've noticed that I'm very sensitive to the user interface colours. For instance in Reaper I can "hear" a clear difference between two tracks if they are coloured a different way, yet contain the same audio. My brain _knows_ the audio is exactly the same, yet I sometimes have the need to ignore this fact and just carry on with my feeling of "better" just to keep the flow going.

I also absolutely love ABX tests. At one point I was almost obsessed with them. My findings are that if you get about 80% correct from a test sample of 50 tries you can be almost certain that you are actually hearing a difference. Any smaller percentage or smaller sample size you are most likely in the realm of the placebo effect.

My point is: The placebo effect is completely real and we are affected by it constantly, throughout our day. It can be very stressful if you constantly think about it and try to fight it. Thus you can and probably should knowingly simply embrace it and carry on, yet don't be ignorant of it being in play. Never ever try to deny it's existence and most importantly never ever try to convince others that what you "hear" is real. It isn't.

Cheers!
bM