The sound of software

[Saxrec]

Last year I did a comparison between Cool Edit Pro 2.0, Wavelab 3, and the Samplitude 7 demo. I played the same stereo wave file (ripped from a commercial CD) with each program, which went out of an Aardvark Lx6 into a Mackie 1202 VLZ for volume control, out to a Sampson servo amp feeding Truth Audio TA-1P monitors. While admittedly not a high-end setup, it was still revealing. The audio sounded different through each program. To make sure psychological biases weren’t effecting me, I taught my wife how to load the file into each program so she could play it back while I listened blind. To clarify, no processing was used, and the file was played at each program’s “unity gain.” Without knowing which program had played the file, I consistently came to the same conclusion. I most enjoyed the file played by Samp 7, and I did not like how it sounded played by Wavelab. I can’t give you all the details of the differences since it was so long ago. However, tonight I did a similar comparison between Wavelab 3 and Samplitude Project 5.5. Again, I preferred the file (a different one than in the previous test) played by Samp. I did not do tonight’s test blind, but I asked my wife to listen. First she listened to Wavelab. After it finished, I opened Samp and played the same 30 seconds or so of the same file. Before it was even half way through she said it sounded better in Samp. I hadn’t even told her to listen for a difference. To me the Samp version sounded more detailed and clear. The difference was subtle but fairly easily noticeable. By the way, tonight’s test went out of the same Aardvark converters as in the previous test.

Has anyone else done similar and perhaps more scientific tests of the sound of audio software. If so, I’m curious, what’s your favorite recording software in terms of its ability to faithfully reproduce an audio file? I’m not concerned with how mixes sound through it, just simple stereo files.

[jazzius II]

It possible they sounded different....it's also possible you were hearing the different user interfaces.........that's the reason plugin makers often try to make their plugs look like an old analog unit.

[jjdpro]

It's true. Software has a sound.. While I use Wavelab and Sound forge(Becuase I know them quite well), Samplitude outshines then both. As well as, Nuendo 2x sounds better than Nuendo 1x.
Using the same wave file(s)

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by jjdpro
It's true. Software has a sound.. While I use Wavelab and Sound forge(Becuase I know them quite well), Samplitude outshines then both. As well as, Nuendo 2x sounds better than Nuendo 1x.
Using the same wave file(s)

OK, this may be true, but it's not really enough to say it has a "sound".

Do you mean when playing back 1 stereo file?......or 30 files summed?........

[joris de man]

The only reasonable explanation for this AFAIK is the sounddriver, and the way the programs address them.
In theory on straight playback of the file there should be no difference; if there is, then it can be a number of things:
-dither enabled on the master fader of some of the programs (not on soundforge, but perhaps on Wavelab or SAMP 7?)
-different way of addressing the soundcard (asio, multimedia driver, directsound)..this will sound different because multimedia modes might output at 44khz and will therefore resample the output with the windows driver, which is straight truncation and will sound worse.
-different clocking of the audio driver dependent on which mode is used. Clocking on multimedia driver modes is far worse then on asio driver modes, which normally is sample accurate.

If all programs do actually use exactly the same audiodriver (soundforge will not because it doesn't support asio) and there is no dithering/masterfader madness going on, there really *should* not be a difference.
If there is, it would appear one of the programs is adding something to your original signal...not really what you want if you need a true and honest playback of your file.

Anyway, a listening test like this doesn't really prove anything, since it is subjective.
You'd really need a summing test (sum the output of two different programs and look a the difference) to ascertain if there actually is a true difference.

3daudio did a big test a while back and I think most programs summed out completely; not in all cases, but in those particular ones usually the difference was down around -133 db, if I recall correctly.

Yes, there are differences between programs as to how they mix (sum) signals together, but on playback of a single file there should be no difference.

My two cents,

Joris

[Ruudman]

Originally posted by joris de man

IfIf there is, it would appear one of the programs is adding something to your original signal...not really what you want if you need a true and honest playback of your file.

Yes, there are differences between programs as to how they mix (sum) signals together, but on playback of a single file there should be no difference.

My two cents,

Joris

Saxrec,
If you listened to a stereo file,
there could be some pan-level compensation going on.

ruudman

[Bob Olhsson]

Different applications have always sounded different when monitoring. Unless something is broken such as unexpected dither, mono dither, DC offsets, etc. (and I've run into ALL of these) there should be no difference in the final product.

What WILL make a difference in the final product are any decisions that you make concerning eq, balance, compression, reverb level, etc BASED ON hearing these differences. A lot of this has to do with the jitter-sensitivity of the monitoring DAC. Highly jitter-sensitive DACs can be improved by using a pleasing sounding external clock. DACs that are insensitive to jitter such as the Benchmark DAC-1 or the Lavrys can help avoid this whole problem.

[steveH]

I can hear a noticable difference between Cakewalk 9 on 98 SE with an Aark Direct Pro 24/96 (decent sounding consumer card) and my Powerbook running Logic 6 with the built-in soundcard.

No doubt Logic is a better sounding piece of software.

Both systems played through the same monitors in the same room.

[joris de man]

Originally posted by steveH
I can hear a noticable difference between Cakewalk 9 on 98 SE with an Aark Direct Pro 24/96 (decent sounding consumer card) and my Powerbook running Logic 6 with the built-in soundcard.

No doubt Logic is a better sounding piece of software.

Both systems played through the same monitors in the same room.

I don't really understand how you can compare the two this way.
What did you play back? How many channels?
More importantly, you're making assumptions based on two different soundcards on two different platforms.

The real test would be running logic on the same windows machine with the same soundcard playing exactly the same track.
Otherwise a statement like this doesn't really mean anything...

[Ruudman]

A useful DA/monitoring with the program that has the features and the layout you prefer,
then I can't see that you can't make music out of it.
In my opinion, daws are all about workflow.
If it wasn't, I'd go analog any day..

Speaking of workflow, there are so many issues
and tweaks with daw, so it's easy to loose focus
on recording. Owning a daw means that you must
develope some dicipline (many temtations in cyberspace)
Just of my own experience.

ruudman

[Saxrec]

Thanks for all the comments. My curiosity stems from my interest in mastering, where, obviously, monitoring is a huge concern. Not only would the sound of software effect certain decisions but also the quality of the output to external processes.

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
Different applications have always sounded different when monitoring. Unless something is broken such as unexpected dither, mono dither, DC offsets, etc. (and I've run into ALL of these) there should be no difference in the final product.

What WILL make a difference in the final product are any decisions that you make concerning eq, balance, compression, reverb level, etc BASED ON hearing these differences. A lot of this has to do with the jitter-sensitivity of the monitoring DAC. Highly jitter-sensitive DACs can be improved by using a pleasing sounding external clock. DACs that are insensitive to jitter such as the Benchmark DAC-1 or the Lavrys can help avoid this whole problem.

Are you saying that some software is more prone to jitter on playback than others? So, with a good DAC, software should be fairly irrelevant?

Thanks

[NeoVXR]

this is ABSOLUTELY an issue!
I found the same problem also wth winamp, and sonique. the latter sounds much better (WAV, not only mp3).

I agree that this is due to the windows driver structure.
many programs let you choose the output device channel.
there likely are: direct sound audio output, windows wave output, primary sound driver, your card's special output driver, and some more.
sonique also has "enable floating point (24bit) audio".