SAMPLITUDE RULES (DAW Summing)

[mauseoleum]

It was more rough and much smoother and punchier somehow but the PT mix was definately much more Kiss FM / Energy, aka Radio mix which is why most people thought it sounded better (coz it sounded familiar which is usually confused as 'better').

I have got the "PT feel" (it was 2000/2001) *soundalike* out of: rendering (24bit-loops) in CubaseVST, import in samp6. Won't go in details but key was to use it's noisereduction (funny settings) and it's masterlimiter and set it to *rms* and - forgot - something else. I was asked if I bought PT (LE). This method worked for over 15 tracks.

There was also *nuendo sound* raving. Any info/links, etc?

[bmanic]

Seriously, there's no audible difference in the audio engines in different hosts. If you think there is, you're just fooling yourselves and others.

People have been doubting my claims about the sonalksis EQ minimal sound difference without tweaking anything.. until sonalksis themselves confirmed it. Don't underestiamte my ears mr!

I always rely on ABX tests as I've been fooled more than twice by such a simple thing as "..wow this sounds awesome! Much better than before.. duh! plugin wasn't even on!"

It'd be interesting to do some rendering tests in a real life situation (aka more than 20 tracks worth of material mixed). However, I agree that the difference is probably so minimal that there are far more important things to consider before a DAW's summing.

Cheers!
bManic

[bmanic]

It was more rough and much smoother and punchier somehow but the PT mix was definately much more Kiss FM / Energy, aka Radio mix which is why most people thought it sounded better (coz it sounded familiar which is usually confused as 'better').

I have got the "PT feel" (it was 2000/2001) *soundalike* out of: rendering (24bit-loops) in CubaseVST, import in samp6. Won't go in details but key was to use it's noisereduction (funny settings) and it's masterlimiter and set it to *rms* and - forgot - something else. I was asked if I bought PT (LE). This method worked for over 15 tracks.

There was also *nuendo sound* raving. Any info/links, etc?

No idea but see my comment above. I don't personally really believe in the difference in DAW summing. Analogue vs digital however is a completely different matter, like the one you took my quote from, that was analogue vs digital.

Cheers!
bManic

[stefancrs]

Seriously, there's no audible difference in the audio engines in different hosts. If you think there is, you're just fooling yourselves and others.

People have been doubting my claims about the sonalksis EQ minimal sound difference without tweaking anything.. until sonalksis themselves confirmed it. Don't underestiamte my ears mr!

I always rely on ABX tests as I've been fooled more than twice by such a simple thing as "..wow this sounds awesome! Much better than before.. duh! plugin wasn't even on!"

It'd be interesting to do some rendering tests in a real life situation (aka more than 20 tracks worth of material mixed). However, I agree that the difference is probably so minimal that there are far more important things to consider before a DAW's summing.

Cheers!
bManic

EQ is an effect . Different effects sound different. If you can't turn certain effects _off_ in a host, that is a drawback ofcourse. But it does not mean that it's channel summing sound different from any other hosts.

[popsych]

Seriously, there's no audible difference in the audio engines in different hosts. If you think there is, you're just fooling yourselves and others.

People have been doubting my claims about the sonalksis EQ minimal sound difference without tweaking anything.. until sonalksis themselves confirmed it. Don't underestiamte my ears mr!

I always rely on ABX tests as I've been fooled more than twice by such a simple thing as "..wow this sounds awesome! Much better than before.. duh! plugin wasn't even on!"

It'd be interesting to do some rendering tests in a real life situation (aka more than 20 tracks worth of material mixed). However, I agree that the difference is probably so minimal that there are far more important things to consider before a DAW's summing.

Cheers!
bManic

EQ is an effect . Different effects sound different. If you can't turn certain effects _off_ in a host, that is a drawback ofcourse. But it does not mean that it's channel summing sound different from any other hosts.

Mate where are you from - do you not even get what he was trying to say. You're excused as you're probably a non native english speaker but make sure you get something before making a fool of yourself.

[stefancrs]

Seriously, there's no audible difference in the audio engines in different hosts. If you think there is, you're just fooling yourselves and others.

People have been doubting my claims about the sonalksis EQ minimal sound difference without tweaking anything.. until sonalksis themselves confirmed it. Don't underestiamte my ears mr!

I always rely on ABX tests as I've been fooled more than twice by such a simple thing as "..wow this sounds awesome! Much better than before.. duh! plugin wasn't even on!"

It'd be interesting to do some rendering tests in a real life situation (aka more than 20 tracks worth of material mixed). However, I agree that the difference is probably so minimal that there are far more important things to consider before a DAW's summing.

Cheers!
bManic

EQ is an effect . Different effects sound different. If you can't turn certain effects _off_ in a host, that is a drawback ofcourse. But it does not mean that it's channel summing sound different from any other hosts.

Mate where are you from - do you not even get what he was trying to say. You're excused as you're probably a non native english speaker but make sure you get something before making a fool of yourself.

From sweden, as you can probably see in my location field.
He was basicly agreeing with me. In what way did I not understand his post and in what way did I make a fool out of myself?

[popsych]

From sweden, as you can probably see in my location field.
He was basicly agreeing with me. In what way did I not understand his post and in what way did I make a fool out of myself?

I didn't have to see it. It shows. Sorry if you think i'm rude. I'm not bashing , merely stating a fact(IMHO :p). You thought he meant he couldn't switch the effect off. What he said is that everyone didn't believe that although the effect was on but with unchanged parameters it could change the same. He was making a parallel example - not one directly connected to our discussion.

You are yet to provide evidence of all engines sounding the same as you said - (independent of beter or worse). which host are you using ? Want to have a test ? Just the two of us to see what turns out. I own logic, samplitude (soon -can get it done at mates though if don't have it), and have access to Cubase SX2 and SX3.

[dasdeck]

Hey bros!

I tested a lot of daws (if not all major ones)and i dont know why but when i plug ravity(r) and some self mapped samples into different host i end up with diffenerent transparancy feelings. I really prefer samplitude since i tried v8. It's the most classic sounding to me. Cubase sounds very modern, but i really don't like much modern music. I think cubase is a bit more an european thing but i'm not shure.I'm shure i can hear wich app produces wich sound but this may vary(master effects,couloring and such differs) . don't forget that how a fader reacts on the actual floating number is different from host to host. (faders like vol pan e.t.c). If you don't expire differences in the sound from host to host (I know a lot of MUSICANS that don't even know how a speaker should sound to get a good mix while working on it!) I think my ears are well trained and I dont go to loud clubs and/or concerts without my earsafe, and i don't play drums or E-guitar.

What i want to say is: The hosts sound different! As somebodei said: its up to teh summ algos. I heard the word "fixed Math" and that is what sam sounds to me: more solid ore more "fixed" so there is more precise in the calculations. The roundings are fixed i think wich give the sound (the mixed sound of course) a more stable and transparent feel. I hear it even on my old and mid class monitor speakers (in my living room, not at a Pro studio or something like taht!)

P.S.: i'm really no hater at all exept one thing: i hate the sound of cubase. Even fruity, wich is the "muddiest" i think, sounds "sweeter" to me.

and to the belivers out there: belive it or not ! you got a brain ! every phenomenom you can not understand is just what it says : "a phenomenom you can not understand" you can call it a wonder if you like it but it remains logical in any way.

DECK

[stefancrs]

From sweden, as you can probably see in my location field.
He was basicly agreeing with me. In what way did I not understand his post and in what way did I make a fool out of myself?

I didn't have to see it. It shows. Sorry if you think i'm rude. I'm not bashing , merely stating a fact(IMHO :p). You thought he meant he couldn't switch the effect off. What he said is that everyone didn't believe that although the effect was on but with unchanged parameters it could change the same. He was making a parallel example - not one directly connected to our discussion.

Yeah, actually, that was my bad. I apologize. I wouldn't doubt for one second that a "neutral" eq alters the sound though.

You are yet to provide evidence of all engines sounding the same as you said - (independent of beter or worse). which host are you using ? Want to have a test ? Just the two of us to see what turns out. I own logic, samplitude (soon -can get it done at mates though if don't have it), and have access to Cubase SX2 and SX3.

Do we really have to do that again?
I got Podium and access to SX2 via work. If we keep the duration of the test (in seconds of playtime inside the host that is) short, we can do this via email. I suggest we use white noise for the channels, -3dB panning law, 44100Hz sample rate and no fx (limiter, eq, ditherer etc). Render to float and then normalize to 0dB and convert to 16bit without dithering.

If we must go down this road again. Yes, it has been done before. Yes, threads similar to this has popped up many times before.

[nuffink]

...
You are yet to provide evidence of all engines sounding the same as you said - (independent of beter or worse). which host are you using ? Want to have a test ? Just the two of us to see what turns out. I own logic, samplitude (soon -can get it done at mates though if don't have it), and have access to Cubase SX2 and SX3.

You're the one making the outrageous claim. We've had numerous developers on this site, all of whom say there is no difference. We have conducted our own nulling tests which like the DAWSUM tests show nulls so exact that the differences are not only below the threshold of hearing, they are below the brownian motion of air molecules in a room.
The burden of proof is with you. So how are you going to go about proving you can hear a difference?

[nuffink]

Hey bros!

I tested a lot of daws (if not all major ones)and i dont know why but when i plug ravity(r) and some self mapped samples into different host i end up with diffenerent transparancy feelings. I really prefer samplitude since i tried v8. It's the most classic sounding to me. Cubase sounds very modern, but i really don't like much modern music. I think cubase is a bit more an european thing but i'm not shure.I'm shure i can hear wich app produces wich sound but this may vary(master effects,couloring and such differs) . don't forget that how a fader reacts on the actual floating number is different from host to host. (faders like vol pan e.t.c). If you don't expire differences in the sound from host to host (I know a lot of MUSICANS that don't even know how a speaker should sound to get a good mix while working on it!) I think my ears are well trained and I dont go to loud clubs and/or concerts without my earsafe, and i don't play drums or E-guitar.

What i want to say is: The hosts sound different! As somebodei said: its up to teh summ algos. I heard the word "fixed Math" and that is what sam sounds to me: more solid ore more "fixed" so there is more precise in the calculations. The roundings are fixed i think wich give the sound (the mixed sound of course) a more stable and transparent feel. I hear it even on my old and mid class monitor speakers (in my living room, not at a Pro studio or something like taht!)

P.S.: i'm really no hater at all exept one thing: i hate the sound of cubase. Even fruity, wich is the "muddiest" i think, sounds "sweeter" to me.

and to the belivers out there: belive it or not ! you got a brain ! every phenomenom you can not understand is just what it says : "a phenomenom you can not understand" you can call it a wonder if you like it but it remains logical in any way.

DECK

Winner of this weeks feng shui motherboard award.

[popsych]

...
You are yet to provide evidence of all engines sounding the same as you said - (independent of beter or worse). which host are you using ? Want to have a test ? Just the two of us to see what turns out. I own logic, samplitude (soon -can get it done at mates though if don't have it), and have access to Cubase SX2 and SX3.

You're the one making the outrageous claim. We've had numerous developers on this site, all of whom say there is no difference. We have conducted our own nulling tests which like the DAWSUM tests show nulls so exact that the differences are not only below the threshold of hearing, they are below the brownian motion of air molecules in a room.
The burden of proof is with you. So how are you going to go about proving you can hear a difference?

1st. What they said about brownian molecule motion is that the accuracy 32 bit floats provide are greater than the effect of brownian air molecules motion. However this is for ONE sample, if truncation or loss of accuracy happens in every calculation even with a "low" sampling frequency of 44.1 khz that 44.100 truncations a second multiplied by the numerous places your signals flows to and fro and ......
Can you say "Exponential Growth" ? The differences could probably manifest as audible artefacts.

2nd i did not say that the summing procedure is the only reason but also both objective stuff : e.g bad PDC timing giving phasing problems, panning laws and subjective stuff : e.g. : logic 5.5.1 that is use has 127 step values in it's mixer - the volume i need may not be in those numbers.

[stefancrs]

...
You are yet to provide evidence of all engines sounding the same as you said - (independent of beter or worse). which host are you using ? Want to have a test ? Just the two of us to see what turns out. I own logic, samplitude (soon -can get it done at mates though if don't have it), and have access to Cubase SX2 and SX3.

You're the one making the outrageous claim. We've had numerous developers on this site, all of whom say there is no difference. We have conducted our own nulling tests which like the DAWSUM tests show nulls so exact that the differences are not only below the threshold of hearing, they are below the brownian motion of air molecules in a room.
The burden of proof is with you. So how are you going to go about proving you can hear a difference?

1st. What they said about brownian molecule motion is that the accuracy 32 bit floats provide are greater than the effect of brownian air molecules motion. However this is for ONE sample, if truncation or loss of accuracy happens in every calculation even with a "low" sampling frequency of 44.1 khz that 44.100 truncations a second multiplied by the numerous places your signals flows to and fro and ......
Can you say "Exponential Growth" ? The differences could probably manifest as audible artefacts.

2nd i did not say that the summing procedure is the only reason but also both objective stuff : e.g bad PDC timing giving phasing problems, panning laws and subjective stuff : e.g. : logic 5.5.1 that is use has 127 step values in it's mixer - the volume i need may not be in those numbers.

There's no such thing as bad PDC. Either it's there or it isn't. If it's buggy (which I doubt any hosts pdc is) it most likely gets fixed quite rapidly. Which hosts does not allow the user to set the panning law? Does logic not use floats for the volumes in the mixer (I don't know, I don't use logic, but if it only uses 127 steps I wouldn't want to use it either )

[nuffink]

1st. What they said about brownian molecule motion is that the accuracy 32 bit floats provide are greater than the effect of brownian air molecules motion. However this is for ONE sample, if truncation or loss of accuracy happens in every calculation even with a "low" sampling frequency of 44.1 khz that 44.100 truncations a second multiplied by the numerous places your signals flows to and fro and ......
Can you say "Exponential Growth" ? The differences could probably manifest as audible artefacts.

Spectacularly ignorant rubbish. Give me a link or a refence to any piece of research even claiming to show that amplitude differences are cumulative over time.

2nd i did not say that the summing procedure is the only reason but also both objective stuff : e.g bad PDC timing giving phasing problems, panning laws and subjective stuff : e.g. : logic 5.5.1 that is use has 127 step values in it's mixer - the volume i need may not be in those numbers.

Backtracking and still nonsense.

How do you propose to prove your claim? Put up or shut up.

[popsych]

...
You are yet to provide evidence of all engines sounding the same as you said - (independent of beter or worse). which host are you using ? Want to have a test ? Just the two of us to see what turns out. I own logic, samplitude (soon -can get it done at mates though if don't have it), and have access to Cubase SX2 and SX3.

You're the one making the outrageous claim. We've had numerous developers on this site, all of whom say there is no difference. We have conducted our own nulling tests which like the DAWSUM tests show nulls so exact that the differences are not only below the threshold of hearing, they are below the brownian motion of air molecules in a room.
The burden of proof is with you. So how are you going to go about proving you can hear a difference?

1st. What they said about brownian molecule motion is that the accuracy 32 bit floats provide are greater than the effect of brownian air molecules motion. However this is for ONE sample, if truncation or loss of accuracy happens in every calculation even with a "low" sampling frequency of 44.1 khz that 44.100 truncations a second multiplied by the numerous places your signals flows to and fro and ......
Can you say "Exponential Growth" ? The differences could probably manifest as audible artefacts.

2nd i did not say that the summing procedure is the only reason but also both objective stuff : e.g bad PDC timing giving phasing problems, panning laws and subjective stuff : e.g. : logic 5.5.1 that is use has 127 step values in it's mixer - the volume i need may not be in those numbers.

There's no such thing as bad PDC. Either it's there or it isn't. If it's buggy (which I doubt any hosts pdc is) it most likely gets fixed quite rapidly. Which hosts does not allow the user to set the panning law? Does logic not use floats for the volumes in the mixer (I don't know, I don't use logic, but if it only uses 127 steps I wouldn't want to use it either )

What if one host miscalculates the latency of a plugin. From what i remember not all of the plugins report their latency and some even report it incorrectly.

As for the logic bit, why do you think i want another app to mix :p. I asked if it is only 127 steps cause from what i could gather looking everywhere it was, and the reply i got was that this was indeed correct. Bummer as wouldn't change logic with anything for my midi stuf