Do You Recognise The Sound Of The DAW?

[No_Use]

I think most daws don't have their own sound, they shouldn't if made right, but I think bitwig does have its own sound

So bitwig is made wrong?

[legendCNCD]

No, but I could quite reliably hear back in the day when logics internal mixer channel eq was used heavily (it warped lows and highs badly). It was there when I learnt to hear phase a lot better the first time
Also Ableton EQ8 before cytomic came to rescue sounded really horrible on lows... I dont know why - did not bother to measure. Used other EQ's on live then.

So no I dont think there is much difference in the DAW output itself usually if same plugins are used, but there are differences in sample rate conversions, sometimes drastic ones.

[j wazza]

I think most daws don't have their own sound, they shouldn't if made right, but I think bitwig does have its own sound

So bitwig is made wrong?

It might be. There has been alot of talk about this on kvr and I think its been shown with null tests etc

[Jac459]

I think most daws don't have their own sound, they shouldn't if made right, but I think bitwig does have its own sound

So bitwig is made wrong?

It might be. There has been alot of talk about this on kvr and I think its been shown with null tests etc

Actually, Bitwig is indeed sounding a bit different because it is made what we call technical call "super right". Other DAWs sound the same because they are made "right". Like "so-so right".
But Bitwig has in fact been developed using an ancient forgotten alien technology and even with a 22khz, 8bits output, it has been proven through many many international studies (including from the MIT, Princeton and my grand-mother) that it sound similar to 192khz 32bits on Abelton.

So yes.... Facts....

[j wazza]

Long-winded sarcasm

I'm a bitwig user. I'm not claiming to have facts about this. feel free search for the prior discussions about it.

[koalaboy]

Null checks, or just stop stating crazy talk.

[Negoba]

I came here for "Notes of cinnamon and leather" - a little disappointed folks.

Cakewalk sounds like your third Yuengling at lunch on Monday
Cubase sounds like lemonade on a Wednesday afternoon in early July
Studio One sounds like a Blueberry Smoothie on the strip just outside of campus
Pro Tools sounds like drinking McDonald's coffee at 5:30 in the morning
Reaper sounds like drinking McDonald's coffee at 10:30 at night

[Jac459]

Null checks, or just stop stating crazy talk.

Even null checks... It would just shows that there is a difference or not but how to interpret this difference is a different story.

I find the best test for these kind of assertion is AB blind testing.
It quickly kills all bullshits .

[koalaboy]

Even null checks... It would just shows that there is a difference or not but how to interpret this difference is a different story.

It's science. If there is no difference, there is no difference.

Sure, if there is a difference, you have to figure out what, but that would tell you if there 'is' a sound to be recognised.

Blind tests are subjective. Null checks are not. If a null check says there is no difference (or 'sound' to hear) then there is no difference.

[Burillo]

Even null checks... It would just shows that there is a difference or not but how to interpret this difference is a different story.

It's science. If there is no difference, there is no difference.

Sure, if there is a difference, you have to figure out what, but that would tell you if there 'is' a sound to be recognised.

Blind tests are subjective. Null checks are not. If a null check says there is no difference (or 'sound' to hear) then there is no difference.

double blind tests are as objective as it gets: either you can reliably identify the difference, or you cannot. to give you an example, if you take the same file and just shift its audio by 1 sample, it will no longer null, but blind test will demonstrate that no one can hear the difference between the two files.

[koalaboy]

double blind tests are as objective as it gets: either you can reliably identify the difference, or you cannot. to give you an example, if you take the same file and just shift its audio by 1 sample, it will no longer null, but blind test will demonstrate that no one can hear the difference between the two files.

They tell you if people think they can hear a difference. That do not prove it though.

Null checks done properly, will be aligned. Science is always the best, although I'll agree that a double blind test should be good enough for this scenario.

[Michael L]

Me too.
And same, I struggle with EQ.
What I find easy is to recognise the CPU used. In particular Apple silicon, I can recognise in the first 3 seconds of the song.
Most of the time I am also able to hear if the disk used is SSD or HDD.

All that ear training pays off!
No one can say that music theory hasn't lifetime benefits.
I bet you can do double blind testing with your eyes closed!

[Jac459]

Me too.
And same, I struggle with EQ.
What I find easy is to recognise the CPU used. In particular Apple silicon, I can recognise in the first 3 seconds of the song.
Most of the time I am also able to hear if the disk used is SSD or HDD.

All that ear training pays off!
No one can say that music theory hasn't lifetime benefits.
I bet you can do double blind testing with your eyes closed!

No unfortunately, I am very very good at blind tests but only with the minor caveat of having my eyes open.

[Jac459]

Even null checks... It would just shows that there is a difference or not but how to interpret this difference is a different story.

It's science. If there is no difference, there is no difference.

Sure, if there is a difference, you have to figure out what, but that would tell you if there 'is' a sound to be recognised.

Blind tests are subjective. Null checks are not. If a null check says there is no difference (or 'sound' to hear) then there is no difference.

Yes but.... That's what I said no ?

[Bunny_boy]

Whoop whoop it's the sound of Cubase