Fender Studio Pro 8 Released

[nusound mind]

I also find a full render often comes out sounding a little different anyways, regardless of what DAW I've used. It's never quite the proverbial sought after null that a lot of people seem to like to chase. That can get a little into ocd territory imho, for diminishing returns of time investment.

Ime it can also depend how many/ which plugins you use as I find some plugins work better than others when it comes to rendering.

[jamcat]

You could never even get a null between two different renders. Especially if you are using any automation, anything with an LFO, or a physically modeled instrument like Pianoteq, which will never produce exactly the same note twice.

[dastewart]

You could never even get a null between two different renders. Especially if you are using any automation, anything with an LFO, or a physically modeled instrument like Pianoteq, which will never produce exactly the same note twice.

Absolutely, but just to be clear I'm talking about rendering one audio track with no plugins. Under certain (quite common) circumstances Studio One will move a track by 1 sample when you mix it down which can make an audible difference if it's a something which has a phase relationship with another track (like multi-mic drums or bass di/amp tracks).

[Jim Roseberry]

Regarding Studio Pro rendering being off a single sample.

When syncing multiple ADAT machines, sync across those machines was accurate to a single sample.
Lots of records were recorded using multiple ADAT machines.

Even regarding phase, I doubt you could hear a single sample's difference.
At 44.1k, that's 0.02268 milliseconds
At 48k, that's 0.02083 milliseconds

[ThomasHelzle]

Took the plunge to update from Studio One v3 to v8 - this is a great offer for old users with all the stuff included.
Studio Pro is no longer as clean and straight forward as back in the day, but it's awesome to see some of the new stuff in there.

After over 10 years of Bitwig-only, it's also interesting to take a look around again, now that Bitwig goes in a direction I do not like much (I'll stay on BWS 4.4.10) and other DAWs have catched up in some areas. Also, my musicmaking is changing over the last couple of years.

Some stuff in SP8 is a bit hard on a Bitwig user and feels antiquated, but other things are great, so I'll see how things balance out.

Vers l'avenir

Cheers,

Tom

[thievedletter]

Took the plunge to update from Studio One v3 to v8

Wow, that's a big jump! You'll love it once you get a handle on the new features.

[ThomasHelzle]

Yeah, I hope so, so far it's rather unstable though and seems to regularly crash something internally, so that a single track either has no audio or seems to have a crashed plugin that no longer responds.
I guess I'm spoiled by Bitwig, can't remember when I had such basic issues there.

We'll see how it goes...

[dastewart]

Even regarding phase, I doubt you could hear a single sample's difference.

 

I can (in the circumstances I explained above).

I've tested it loads over the past few months so I'm not just guessing.

I was just pointing it out in passing as something that I discovered isn't an issue in Cubase.  I wasn't trying to get into a deep discussion or debate because it exists, you can hear it and there is a way to avoid it which I posted.

[jamcat]

Yeah, I hope so, so far it's rather unstable though and seems to regularly crash something internally, so that a single track either has no audio or seems to have a crashed plugin that no longer responds.

Crashes are usually caused by plugins. Try to identify the culprit(s). Also make sure your plugins are all up-to-date.

[BONES]

I also find a full render often comes out sounding a little different anyways, regardless of what DAW I've used.

Really? I've never noticed that with any DAW. I always get exactly what I expect.

Under certain (quite common) circumstances Studio One will move a track by 1 sample when you mix it down which can make an audible difference if it's a something which has a phase relationship with another track (like multi-mic drums or bass di/amp tracks).

Rubbish. One sample isn't going to affect anything audibly. By your own admission you had to invert one and try to null it with the other to even know it was happening. The timing differences between the placement of mics in a multi-mic set-up will introduce greater differences. Sound travels approximately 343m per second at sea level. Divide that by 48,000 (samples per second at 48kHz) and you'll see that if one mic is 7mm closer or further from a source than another, then the sound in one mic will be one sample out, compared to the other. 7mm, about the width of your pinky finger's nail. Nobody in the whole world has ears good enough to pick that. Mostly we can't differentiate timing differences of less than about 2ms, apparently. Sound travels about 343mm in one millisecond, for comparison. Violinists in the string section of an orchestra sit further apart than that but the symphonies don't seem to suffer unduly, do they? It's all in your head.

[tumface]

Sound travels approximately 343m per second at sea level. Divide that by 48,000 (samples per second at 48kHz) and you'll see that if one mic is 7mm closer or further from a source than another, then the sound in one mic will be one sample out, compared to the other. 7mm, about the width of your pinky finger's nail. Nobody in the whole world has ears good enough to pick that.

I wonder how hard that is to test? I'll make the world's most basic synth synth patch and duplicate it, so they play at the same time. Then I'll make another duplicate, but delay it by 1 sample, and compare it to the non-delayed version.

Well, I guess I must not be from this planet.

Screen Shot 2026-04-08 at 18.34.09.png

beep boop.wav

[BONES]

They sound identical to me, 100%, and that is the only thing that matters. If you have to look at a spectral analysis to see the difference, you know you've lost the argument. And if you want to argue that maybe my hearing isn't good enough to hear the very top end, I'd suggest you go to a spectral analysis and see just how quiet the top end is, how completely irrelevant it would be in a mix.

[tumface]

If you have to look at a spectral analysis to see the difference, you know you've lost the argument.

I don't. I can hear it easily. I posted it for illustrative purposes for people who didn't want to download and listen.

I'd suggest you go to a spectral analysis and see just how quiet the top end is, how completely irrelevant it would be in a mix.

It's good that you agree the effect is audible and measurable after all. We can talk about to how much of a degree this kind of 1 sample offset matters under different conditions, now, if you want.

[BONES]

I don't. I can hear it easily. I posted it for illustrative purposes for people who didn't want to download and listen.

I'll wait for a few more comments before I decide whether or not to believe you. At the moment, though, I don't at all.

Did you pan them left and right? Because you are never going to layer identical tracks and keep them centred. If the tracks aren't identical, then a one sample offset it definitely won't matter in the slightest.

[tumface]

I don't. I can hear it easily. I posted it for illustrative purposes for people who didn't want to download and listen.

I'll wait for a few more comments before I decide whether or not to believe you. At the moment, though, I don't at all.

Did you pan them left and right? Because you are never going to layer identical tracks and keep them centred. If the tracks aren't identical, then a one sample offset it definitely won't matter in the slightest.

We can meet up and you can A/B me and I'll buy you drinks all night if I miss a single one out of a set of 30.

(Offer expires in 10 years as my hearing range continues to lower.)

You're right, I wouldn't ever do that in a real song. I did it that way to create the simplest possible way to demonstrate it. But I could do something similar with an effect mixed in parallel (bounced as two audio tracks, as preferred) to get the same effect.