honestly why do people debate the sound quality of a host?

[Stupid American Pig]

Pro Tools! All the way. Most expensive is the best.

Most expensive? If that's true, then you need, say, a Studer Vista.

According to This Vista is just a phase

[james0tucson]

Pro Tools! All the way. Most expensive is the best.

Most expensive? If that's true, then you need, say, a Studer Vista.

ProTools, even TDM, is still a consumer solution running on a general purpose consumer hardware platform, no matter how much money you pour into it. It might be a de facto standard in some segments of the industry, and it might be a very good solution for some, but it's still just a consumer platform being shoehorned into service as a production studio solution.

True as true could be...Daily we hear of the myth that PT was a top down type of deal, but it truly was bottom up, ad up, conservatory up

Love the use of past tense with regard to PT...

[Epiphany]

No-one voices these opinions anymore on KVR, which I presume is why you needed to collectively imagine it, in order to provide another platform for smug mutual ego massage.

4 pages taking the web piss out of yourselves.

[Stupid American Pig]

what is web piss?

[Epiphany]

"All the irony in the world wouldnt invalidate your screen name" is one example.

[eduardo_b]

Ah, the world of psychoacoustics.

It's very unlikely there's any significant audible difference (meaning easily discernible) among DAWs. An A/B test with exactly the same settings would be required, which is rather a challenge, and doesn't account for the always present psychological aspect of these things. And if it takes an A/B test to determine a difference, then it doesn't matter because it will have no effect in real world circumstances.

No one can recognize which DAW was used to create a piece of music. They may think or believe they can, but there's simply no credible evidence to support this.

I suppose under ideal circumstances, differences in bit-rates will be more obvious, but, again, it won't matter to listeners. A lot of this stuff (best reverb, best compressor, best gui) doesn't matter to listeners, who wouldn't even know there's more than one kind of reverb.

This is such a KVR kind of thread.

[spacefox]

I think some of you are missing the OP's point. Regardless if there is or isn't a difference in sound quality between hosts - they are all at least good enough for the purposes of Kvrians, Kvrists and Kvrafs everywhere (members who have a cool handle all get free special edition Receptors with a KvR super-secret host).


Why do people debate sound quality? I think it has a lot to do with justification. Let's say you just shelled 400$ you don't have for a host. You're not exactly sure why, but a friend told you to (or a teacher, or a salesperson). Now, you can't just go and say: well, I have no clue why it supposed to be the best. I just did what I was told. "It just sounds better" is a much better justfication. And if you can't hear it - well, it's because your hearing sucks.

[eduardo_b]

Why do people debate sound quality? I think it has a lot to do with justification. Let's say you just shelled 400$ you don't have for a host. You're not exactly sure why, but a friend told you to (or a teacher, or a salesperson). Now, you can't just go and say: well, I have no clue why it supposed to be the best. I just did what I was told. "It just sounds better" is a much better justfication. And if you can't hear it - well, it's because your hearing sucks.

Maybe it's about how much money was spent on the host. As in, well, a $400 host is going to be way better than, say, a $75 host. Way better meaning better sound, when in fact the only thing about a host that really matters is if its workflow seems like a good fit.

Debates on sound quality are like debates on which women are better looking.

[johnnytluxury]

REAPER BITCH! 720 bit sound-o-matic quantunizations, all wrapped in a TDMPCMIA with VST subtitles. Y'all see 'tit' in subtitles? Did you????

[jupiter8]

Debates on sound quality are like debates on which women are better looking.

No it isn't. You can easily prove there's no difference in sound quality between hosts. That's why it is so frustrating to us with at least half a brain to see this nonsense repeated ad nauseum.

[aallvor]

seriously, beyond workflow, included features and plugin standards supported, stability, video scoring, and possibly the ability to have projects in the same format as a collaborator. I dont really even see sound quality as being in the top 10 of reasons to purchase a modern DAW that mixes at 32bit or greater.

It's the same thing as a recent discussion about knowing if a compressor is working, because they couldn't hear the difference. There were all these posts about how to use compressors, but the question I thought more interesting was if you can't hear the difference, do you really need it?

There was a recent interview with one of the Hartnoll brothers, and he wasn't even sure if they used compression on any of their first three albums. I'm sure most will agree to the awesomeness of Snivilisation and the Brown album

[eduardo_b]

Debates on sound quality are like debates on which women are better looking.

No it isn't. You can easily prove there's no difference in sound quality between hosts. That's why it is so frustrating to us with at least half a brain to see this nonsense repeated ad nauseum.

I agree with you that there's no discernible audible differences in hosts, but I don't see how you could easily prove this to those who believe otherwise because...well...they believe.

My remark about these debates was a comment on how easy it is to end up trying to compare apples and oranges. Some people are easily influenced by psychological perceptions that cannot be measured but seem obvious enough to them. At that point, the debate becomes far more subjective than objective and there's no possible resolution.

Here's an an example. A lot of people apparently think Paris Hilton is hot, but I find her so utterly vacuous that she's not even attractive. Prove me wrong, dude.

[Cryogenic]

Taxi!

[mensturbation]

what is web piss?

[jupiter8]

Debates on sound quality are like debates on which women are better looking.

No it isn't. You can easily prove there's no difference in sound quality between hosts. That's why it is so frustrating to us with at least half a brain to see this nonsense repeated ad nauseum.

I agree with you that there's no discernible audible differences in hosts, but I don't see how you could easily prove this to those who believe otherwise because...well...they believe.

My remark about these debates was a comment on how easy it is to end up trying to compare apples and oranges. Some people are easily influenced by psychological perceptions that cannot be measured but seem obvious enough to them. At that point, the debate becomes far more subjective than objective and there's no possible resolution.

Here's an an example. A lot of people apparently think Paris Hilton is hot, but I find her so utterly vacuous that she's not even attractive. Prove me wrong, dude.

The looks of a Paris or any other woman for that matter is pure subjective whereas the sound quality of a DAW is not. It is simple maths and it is really easy to find out how to test it. That isn't the problem. The problem is that they want to believe. They can easily test it if they want to but no. But there are those who have who knows.

Sometimes one can choose to be a moron or not. What i don't get is why you would want to choose moron.