Poll: Do some DAWs have superior sound? (and, are you a programmer / engineer?)

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

I read the first page of this thread as well as the last several pages.
...
Again,, use those ears people.

Uh oh... it's another one of those priests who "use the ears."

You skipped past the middle pages in the thread but it was explained that several of us (me included) have been deaf since birth. We do use cochlear implants but that's only barely usable for speech. Because of this handicap, we can only analyze the actual numbers that the DAWs spit out. Therefore, please cut us some slack. For some of us, ears were made for hanging reading glasses instead of detecting sound pressure waves. With that said, we still do want to participate in DAW discussions -- is that cool with you?

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson

But many of the "non-tech" guys DO have something to prove. If they simply said "it sounds better to me and that's all that matters to me" and left it at that then there wouldn't be anything to disagree about.

OK Jon. All I can say is that my experience is different. I don't find most of them having to "prove" their way. If they want to "prove" it, then you're absolutely right, they'll have to "PROVE" it.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by synthoid

right.

@drBill: suppose that no one had ever heard of a null test, and that no one knows what's inside a DAW. As far as we're concerned, a DAW is a black box that puts out audio files. Suppose further that audio files are something we can listen to, and that's all.

Nothing unreasonable in your post. My post was merely a sociological view of why these two groups are always at odds. I don't expect my view to null or to be taken seriously by anyone with a dissenting viewpoint.

[Tim@ WOVEN audio]

Originally Posted by joeq

there is no such thing

there is no such thing as a difference so "obvious" that a blind test is "not necessary" - not when you are making a statement of 'fact' that applies to the objective sound of something. A statement that other people are supposed to accept as describing reality.

I guarantee you that if you properly matched the DAWs, volume, effects and pan laws, put a blanket over the screen and had someone else switch the files for you, those 'obvious' differences would be nowhere to be found.



a test like what? did you match the levels? did you set the pan laws the same? did you cover the screen? did you double-blind the listeners? did you scramble the order? how much time elapsed between shutting down one DAW and opening the other?

People have NULLED nearly every DAW with a simple playback of stereo files. People have NULLED nearly every DAW with a simple playback of 24 tracks. People have NULLED nearly every DAW with a simple playback of 24 tracks with the faders moved to different positions and those positions matched in the other DAW. People have NULLED nearly every DAW with a simple playback of 24 tracks with the faders moved to different positions and those positions matched in the other DAW and with 3rd-Party plug-ins with the same presets inserted on the tracks.

even the most vociferous difference-hearers have the decency to claim that the differences must "begin" at some point of extreme "complexity" beyond these tests, because there is no 'answer' to a null. A null is huge.

If other people are getting NULLS, then you and your friends are the ones who need to check their methodology. You DO NEED to put on the blindfold. Double-blind.

If by some miracle, you are identifying the "sound" of these DAWs, with your ears alone, feel free to print some files and get back to us with your science.

Hi there. Just for the sake of clarity: I am referring to a listening test I did with a mastering engineer in his mastering room. He simply put up a stereo mix (one stereo file) at unity gain, pans wide open. Same file (32 bit floating point 88.2kHz) being playing back by Samplitude vs. Cubase. I'm not sure what versions of the software he was running at the time. Maybe things are different now. There wasn't a reason to capture the difference at the time.
Around the same time that I had the chance to listen to these two DAWs,
another interesting point came up with a client in Beijing who did his mix in Cubase. He sent the two mix, but he also printed his stems from which he derived his two mix. The amazing thing to me, was that when we took his stems and summed them in Sequoia and compared that to the two mix that he sent us from Cubase, the difference was stunning. I'm sorry, it wasn't my client and I don't have the files to share, but if someone has Samplitude or Sequoia and Cubase and the wherewithal to do a proper test like this, please do.
... after being involved in this thread for a little bit,, now I know why people refer to putting on a flame suit.. Ha. Really, my comments are only meant in a good hearted sort of way. I don't in any way mean to be offensive.
I'm out.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

I read the first page of this thread as well as the last several pages. Why are so many of you so hateful about this stuff?

Here's a question for you: Can you hear a difference when playing back a file in iTunes vs. Finder vs. quicktime vs. Pro Tools (or other DAW)? A lot of you people out there certainly have the ability to try this at home and use those ears you've got, right.

So why does a stereo file sound noticeably different between these applications? Some more than others, right. Like even iTunes sounds different than Finder. So how does the science crowd want proof of this? Here's your proof: play the same file on those different applications! If you can't hear a difference,,,, leave it at that. To prove this on the internet, you'd have to capture the file digitally and further change the sound. Everything effects everything. In the real world, people understand this.
peace!

Er... this was about different sounding DAWs, not if there could be a difference in any digital playback software at all. To claim that all digital playback algorithms sound alike would be rightout crazy. OS-playback vs mp3 vs DAW? What kind of mad comparison is this? It's about the summing engines of DAWs. Those are high precision tools that have to be neutral, reliable and strictly deterministic. How the "science crowd" would proof this? A simple nulltest would do for that. But as some people here think it's a matter of believe to trust a null test, we offered to it their way: provide some samples in a blind test that we all can listen to.

[~Zenshin Suru~]

Originally Posted by Jason West

Uh oh... it's another one of those priests who "use the ears."

You skipped past the middle pages in the thread but it was explained that several of us (me included) have been deaf since birth. We do use cochlear implants but that's only barely usable for speech. Because of this handicap, we can only analyze the actual numbers that the DAWs spit out. Therefore, please cut us some slack. For some of us, ears were made for hanging reading glasses instead of detecting sound pressure waves. With that said, we still do want to participate in DAW discussions -- is that cool with you?

Woe, Dude. I'm sorry to offend you. I thought this was an audio engineering forum, and I didn't realize about your specific situation. It seems like DAWs are used for listening to things and calculators are used for spitting out numbers. My cousin's husband also has cochlear implants and I totally sympathize. I gotta be more careful with what I say around here I guess. It just seems like a discussion about how things sound is all. I've been engineering for a minute, and it seems like people with zero experience end up getting so hung up on things like this, that it just gets silly. No disrespect to you whatsoever, brother.

[synthoid]

Originally Posted by drBill

Nothing unreasonable in your post. My post was merely a sociological view of why these two groups are always at odds. I don't expect my view to null or to be taken seriously by anyone with a dissenting viewpoint.

And what I'm saying is that IMO it's possible to take a different position where the viewpoints aren't really so divergent. Give us some audio files from DAWs A and B that show a difference. Then we can all listen. Or if we're inclined to do some tests on the files, we can do that. But at least we're not waving our hands at the air. Some might say that they hear a significant difference. Some might say that they hear no significant difference. That's legitimate; it happens all the time with stuff like microphones and preamps etc.

What's happening instead is (again, IMO) one side is taunting the other by saying that there are differences but we're not going to show you what they are. haha. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion on those terms.

This isn't like UFOs where they appear for a moment and they're gone before you can grab a camera. I think we can all agree that whatever DAWs do, it's only because we make them do it, haha. And we can do it more or less at will, haha.

For what it's worth, I don't really have a dissenting viewpoint. I would not be surprised to find out that there really is some DAW, even a mainstream one, that does something like dithering its master bus by default or something of that kind that causes an audible effect (*). Where I dissent is where someone has run across such a thing and heard it on his own equipment, has lots of time to invest in posting about it, but won't put up a couple of audio files to show us what it is.

(*) -- in another thread on this forum, some wrote that Digicheck was registering a very low noise level coming off the PT master bus with the playback stopped. So (I thought) maybe there's dither running constantly on that bus, or something. I don't know what. Maybe user error of some kind. But the presence of that noise signal with no transport and what I understand to be nothing 'live' in the project doing a send to the master bus made me wonder.

-synthoid

[chk23]

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

Right, I think some of the argument where someone is saying one DAW sounded different in a listening test,, wasn't it between Samplitude and Cubase?? Of course those DAWs sound different. Everyone knows that Samplitude does some weird and cool thing other DAWs don't do.. Haven't you ever used Samplitude and realized this? Again,, use those ears people. In the end we're concerned with sound. I don't have a copy of Samplitude at home or I would prove this and silence the haters. Like the above post states,,, some DAWs may tweak the code a bit.. (ie, Samplitude!) that accounts for the difference. I don't know of another DAW besides Samplitude that does something like that.. Well, actually sometimes I feel like Ableton Live has a sound, and earlier versions of Logic certainly had sound,, but that's probably due to natural techniques and the plugins that come with those applications. Oh well. Enough of this nonsense. Make music! stop arguing about DAWs... Now I will listen to my own ranting and take my advice.
peace!

So if you don't own a copy how could you be so sure - or are you just repeating "what everybody knows"? If this were the case, Samplitude would disqualify immediately for serious mixing. That would be like using a "megabass" ghettoblaster with some "cool eq preset" for monitoring.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by joeq

If by some miracle, you are identifying the "sound" of these DAWs, with your ears alone, feel free to print some files and get back to us with your science.

Let's look at that for a monent, can we?

Let's choose 2 DAW's that sum, null, and perform perfectly identical.

Let's take a particular engineer (we'll call him Bob) and let him listen to both. Let's say Bob has only used RADAR and not a DAW before so he has no DAW platform bias.

In his listening, Bob prefers DAW B and hates DAW A. (I know,. doesn't make sense, but the audio world is REPLETE with many examples of just this type of illusion.) For whatever perception bias reason you prefer to think up, Bob doesn't like A. Doesn't matter. Bob is firmly of the belief that DAW B is significantly better.

So what's the harm in smiling, and suggesting that Bob go out and get himself a copy of B cause it will obviously work better for him than A? Is it necessary to beat him into submission and the realization that they are essentially identical?

IF, he is forced to use A, he will be cranky, second guessing himself constantly, and have the nagging feeling (obviously wrong) that A is wrecking his "sound". And if he uses B, he will have the feeling (again, obviously wrong) that B is significantly helping him out sonically.

It's his own PERSONAL truth. He's free to share it with others. Others can evaluate for themselves. Unless an evangelist, he will not make a career out of preaching DAW B.

I actually see BENEFIT, and PRODUCTIVE / CREATIVE goodness coming out of his bias in choosing B. However incorrectly his choice was made.

And that's where I diverge from the bulk of you I assume. To me, it's better to be energized and believe you're right when you're wrong, than empirically prove you're right, and hate it.

It's a point of view. A lifestyle. A creative choice. It's not science.



Now a FYI - you all will need to discuss amongst yourselves. I'm going to do something actually productive today - go buy a sweet motorcycle. Cheers, bp

[~Zenshin Suru~]

Originally Posted by chk23

Er... this was about different sounding DAWs, not if there could be a difference in any digital playback software at all. To claim that all digital playback algorithms sound alike would be rightout crazy. OS-playback vs mp3 vs DAW? What kind of mad comparison is this? It's about the summing engines of DAWs. Those are high precision tools that have to be neutral, reliable and strictly deterministic. How the "science crowd" would proof this? A simple nulltest would do for that. But as some people here think it's a matter of believe to trust a null test, we offered to it their way: provide some samples in a blind test that we all can listen to.

No mad comparison. Use some common sense. play back the same file, without any enhancement, flat. same file, make it 16 bit 44.1 if you like so all applications can handle it the same way. I'm just saying that if simply the playback of a stereo file sounds different in different applications, then you can easily test that by listening to any stereo file in different applications. It's not mad. It's very simple. very simple. I guess this sort of thing is better dealt with "offline" in a room with people you can talk to and listen with. Nobody's ever going to be happy discussing this online. I know for me, 99% of the stuff I work on is for clients who wouldn't be very happy if I was putting examples of there stuff online for people to pick apart and be snarky about.
peace.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by synthoid

And what I'm saying is that IMO it's possible to take a different position where the viewpoints aren't really so divergent. Give us some audio files from DAWs A and B that show a difference.
<snip>
-synthoid

Possible? Absolutely - how they turn out is obviously up for debate.

But Probably? Not likely. It's way easier to type than do a critical test that will be scrutinized to it's deathbed.

So I don't disagree with you. I just don't see it happening.

[chk23]

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

No mad comparison. Use some common sense. play back the same file, without any enhancement, flat. same file, make it 16 bit 44.1 if you like so all applications can handle it the same way. I'm just saying that if simply the playback of a stereo file sounds different in different applications, then you can easily test that by listening to any stereo file in different applications. It's not mad. It's very simple. very simple. I guess this sort of thing is better dealt with "offline" in a room with people you can talk to and listen with. Nobody's ever going to be happy discussing this online. I know for me, 99% of the stuff I work on is for clients who wouldn't be very happy if I was putting examples of there stuff online for people to pick apart and be snarky about.
peace.

No it's mad, because you're comparing consumer stuff to professional tools. A desktop audio player doesn't have to be neutral, reliable and consistent. Like I said, what you're doing is like comparing a ghettoblaster to a highend studio monitoring system. You'll never get the ghettoblaster to sound as neutral as even a lowend studio monitor, even with eq and enhancement turned off, because it doesn't have to be neutral, that's not what it has been built and designed for.

[~Zenshin Suru~]

Originally Posted by synthoid

(*) -- in another thread on this forum, some wrote that Digicheck was registering a very low noise level coming off the PT master bus with the playback stopped. So (I thought) maybe there's dither running constantly on that bus, or something. I don't know what. Maybe user error of some kind. But the presence of that noise signal with no transport and what I understand to be nothing 'live' in the project doing a send to the master bus made me wonder.

-synthoid

Some plugins have analog noise modeled into them that is on by default, but that you can turn off.. like the Waves PYE compressor, etc. maybe that was the noise issue. I've seen people freak out about that quite a bit until they realize some of their nice Waves plugins are intentionally noisy by default.

[~Zenshin Suru~]

Originally Posted by chk23

No it's mad, because you're comparing consumer stuff to professional tools. A desktop audio player doesn't have to be neutral, reliable and consistent. Like I said, what you're doing is like comparing a ghettoblaster to a highend studio monitoring system. You'll never get the ghettoblaster to sound as neutral as even a lowend studio monitor, even with eq and enhancement turned off, because it doesn't have to be neutral, that's not what it has been built and designed for.

Do you have two DAWs?

[chk23]

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

Do you have two DAWs?

I worked with all Cubase releases from SX3 to 6.5, demoed reaper for a while and started out with CoolEdit Pro (now Adobe Audition) and a very early version of samplitude. But besides that I read about and listened to a lot of comparison tests with all DAWs currently on the market. None of them could confirm that the summing engines of those DAWs sound different in any way. I'm also a software developer that did some audio programming in the past.

[Jolly Jimmy]

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

Here's a question for you: Can you hear a difference when playing back a file in iTunes vs. Finder vs. quicktime vs. Pro Tools (or other DAW)? A lot of you people out there certainly have the ability to try this at home and use those ears you've got, right.

So why does a stereo file sound noticeably different between these applications? Some more than others, right. Like even iTunes sounds different than Finder.

iTunes and Quicktime null to infinity on my Mac. As in they sound exactly the same when playing back the same file.

[Jon Hodgson]

Originally Posted by drBill

Let's look at that for a monent, can we?

Let's choose 2 DAW's that sum, null, and perform perfectly identical.

Let's take a particular engineer (we'll call him Bob) and let him listen to both. Let's say Bob has only used RADAR and not a DAW before so he has no DAW platform bias.

In his listening, Bob prefers DAW B and hates DAW A. (I know,. doesn't make sense, but the audio world is REPLETE with many examples of just this type of illusion.) For whatever perception bias reason you prefer to think up, Bob doesn't like A. Doesn't matter. Bob is firmly of the belief that DAW B is significantly better.

So what's the harm in smiling, and suggesting that Bob go out and get himself a copy of B cause it will obviously work better for him than A? Is it necessary to beat him into submission and the realization that they are essentially identical?

I have no problem with smiling and saying "if you prefer it, why not buy it?"... but DON'T asl me to say "You're right, it is different, and better", and don't ask me to sit idly by while he spreads technical misinformation. People have a right to their own opinions, we don't get to choose our own facts.

IF, he is forced to use A, he will be cranky, second guessing himself constantly, and have the nagging feeling (obviously wrong) that A is wrecking his "sound". And if he uses B, he will have the feeling (again, obviously wrong) that B is significantly helping him out sonically.

Who's forcing anyone? I'd say it's your "artistic" people if anyone. From a technical point of view I don't care what DAW somebody uses, unless something is actually broken I'm not going to tell anyone they should use or avoid any DAW, contrast that with telling people "don't use XXX, it makes things sound closed".

It's his own PERSONAL truth. He's free to share it with others.

But he's sharing it as universal fact.

Others can evaluate for themselves. Unless an evangelist, he will not make a career out of preaching DAW B.

And if it's ok to let him spread misinformation, why is it so bad to spread information? These threads wouldn't exist if people didn't insist on telling everybody about these "Personal" truths.

I actually see BENEFIT, and PRODUCTIVE / CREATIVE goodness coming out of his bias in choosing B. However incorrectly his choice was made.

Misinformation can often lead to positive results, it can also lead to very negative ones. Personally I think that on balance creativity allied with fact will come out ahead of creativity in conflict with fact.

And that's where I diverge from the bulk of you I assume. To me, it's better to be energized and believe you're right when you're wrong, than empirically prove you're right, and hate it.

Who's going to hate anything? The only thing people have to lose is their delusion of the invincibility of their hearing, which might ruin things for a few insecure individuals, for me not getting hung up on whether the summing sounds different is creatively liberating, not constricting, it lets people focus on things that really do make a difference, and the music.

It's a point of view. A lifestyle. A creative choice. It's not science.

Actually you're into psychology there, so still in science.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Tim@ WOVEN audio

Hi there. Just for the sake of clarity: I am referring to a listening test I did with a mastering engineer in his mastering room. He simply put up a stereo mix (one stereo file) at unity gain, pans wide open. Same file (32 bit floating point 88.2kHz) being playing back by Samplitude vs. Cubase. I'm not sure what versions of the software he was running at the time. Maybe things are different now. There wasn't a reason to capture the difference at the time.
Around the same time that I had the chance to listen to these two DAWs,
another interesting point came up with a client in Beijing who did his mix in Cubase. He sent the two mix, but he also printed his stems from which he derived his two mix. The amazing thing to me, was that when we took his stems and summed them in Sequoia and compared that to the two mix that he sent us from Cubase, the difference was stunning. I'm sorry, it wasn't my client and I don't have the files to share, but if someone has Samplitude or Sequoia and Cubase and the wherewithal to do a proper test like this, please do.
... after being involved in this thread for a little bit,, now I know why people refer to putting on a flame suit.. Ha. Really, my comments are only meant in a good hearted sort of way. I don't in any way mean to be offensive.
I'm out.

I'm sure no one doubts that you perceived a difference. Many factors can go into such a perception -- including position in the room and in relation to speakers, the angle of your head, and even minute to minute differences in the distribution of fluids and gases in your Eustachian tube and inner ear. (Swallow or yawn and see if that, alone, doesn't often seem to make a difference in what you seem to be hearing. If you're really listening, you will likely hear possibly quite significant differences before and after.)

For those reasons and others of a more cognitive nature,* a single anecdotal experience can't reasonably be given much weight in such a discussion, vis a vis either objective measurements or true double blind listening tests.


*Perceptual scientists learned long ago that, for perceptual testing to have any reliability and credibility, that true double blind testing was necessary. Obviously, in our day to day lives in the studio, we often don't have time for such double blind testing while we're in the middle of projects -- but spending some time with true double blind testing can be a real eye-opener for many who formerly believed in the 'infallibility' of their hearing. (Of course, there are then those who decide that the 'problem' is not with the vagaries and transigencies of human auditory perception but, rather, with double blind testing itself. But what can one really say about those who reject science because it injures their prideful self-image?)

[DAW PLUS]

Originally Posted by smoke

I'm not being sarcastic!

Maybe not clip, since I don't know for sure. But running very hot with no gain staging going i/o of plug-ins, boosting an EQ to the top, full GR inside compressors, even the lo/hi cuts on the Cubase delays have a sound.

I think that stuff when it accumulates has a sound particular to a DAW... which is probably obvious I guess

You are talking about plugins, which is not discussed here. A DAW with just an empty mixer will not clip, not distort, not overdrive nor add warmth or saturation. It will only clip (in an unpleasant way) when (master) busses pass the audio stream to the converters or digital outputs of the aufio interface, which are 24 bit max, not 32 bit float. So if an output is red in Cubase or another DAW, THAT means clipping distortion is occuring.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by DAW PLUS

You are talking about plugins, which is not discussed here. A DAW with just an empty mixer will not clip, not distort, not overdrive nor add warmth or saturation. It will only clip (in an unpleasant way) when (master) busses pass the audio stream to the converters or digital outputs of the aufio interface, which are 24 bit max, not 32 bit float. So if an output is red in Cubase or another DAW, THAT means clipping distortion is occuring.

Thank you!

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by gollumsluvslave

What a thread!

But here's something I haven't seen mentioned - the OP wanted specifically to know about what programmers/developers think, which I think is interesting but for a different reason.

I am a C# dev by day job, and in that role I am totally focussed on 1+1=2 etc. But when making music, mixing etc, I find that (at least for me) it's a different part of the brain.

Do I think that DAWs null or sound different? When I'm playing or mixing I quite honestly couldn't care less, because it doesn't amount to a hill of beans one way or another - my mics, guitars & god forbid technique are going to be the biggest differentiators and so disproportionate in comparison as to render the summing argument moot...

I find the DAW question interesting as a programmer, sure, but when I interact with DAWs it's not as a programmer, and when I program there is nothing musical or creative involved (more's the pity)

As always, YMMV.

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Calling one thing "science" and the other "passion" is really irrelevant here - that's what some seem to be missing. Those advocating science for checking facts are not demeaning passion for mixing music. We don't start calculating formulas for how loud we want our bass guitar. But if someone says something is one way, you can't check it with passion. You have to check it with science. If someone has an opinion on an issue where there is no right and wrong, then you can't really say anything about that, and you certainly can't bring science into the equation.

So please - leave out the whole "passion" thing from facts. If you're not interested in learning the truth, then stop saying "we don't mix with science" - we know that!

I'm going to repeat this self-quote every time someone uses the "I don't care about the science when I'm mixing" argument. That's not what this thread is about. If you don't care, then no worries - go off and do your thing. But you're not adding anything to the discussion.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Tim@ WOVEN audio

Hi there. Just for the sake of clarity: I am referring to a listening test I did with a mastering engineer in his mastering room. He simply put up a stereo mix (one stereo file) at unity gain, pans wide open. Same file (32 bit floating point 88.2kHz) being playing back by Samplitude vs. Cubase. I'm not sure what versions of the software he was running at the time. Maybe things are different now. There wasn't a reason to capture the difference at the time.
Around the same time that I had the chance to listen to these two DAWs,
another interesting point came up with a client in Beijing who did his mix in Cubase. He sent the two mix, but he also printed his stems from which he derived his two mix. The amazing thing to me, was that when we took his stems and summed them in Sequoia and compared that to the two mix that he sent us from Cubase, the difference was stunning. I'm sorry, it wasn't my client and I don't have the files to share, but if someone has Samplitude or Sequoia and Cubase and the wherewithal to do a proper test like this, please do.
... after being involved in this thread for a little bit,, now I know why people refer to putting on a flame suit.. Ha. Really, my comments are only meant in a good hearted sort of way. I don't in any way mean to be offensive.
I'm out.

The stems issue? buss processing maybe? or maybe he was clipping his master bus. Who knows...without seeing his specific session.

your listening test? as good as didn't happen I'm afraid - you're not really adding any proof to the discussion here, and anecdotal evidence isn't really of any value. I've "heard" a difference when I tweaked a bypassed EQ - does that mean my bypass button is broken?

[krheatman]

Sometimes science is over zealous too though-

Piltdown Chicken
The finding was initially trumpeted as the missing link that proved birds evolved from dinosaurs. In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society's November magazine. Paleontologists were abuzz. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater's tail.

[dark blue man]

It's time to lay this to rest. In science evidence is king but mathematics (and fine liqueur) deals in proofs. The evidence that files that null sound the same is proven by mathematics. It's that simple. The evidence is irrefutable.

If you perceive a difference then either everything we've learned via the scientific method for the past 200 years (including the technology you are using to read this) is wrong, or you are mistaken, or your tests are flawed.

Occam's razor

Come on now, enough! If you're still not convinced do a genuine double blind test, ie you don't know what your testing and neither does your tester (double blind).

My mate who has Platinum ears heard it too doesn't count if he knows up front which DAWs were used, or even if he was exposed to those that do.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

Here's a question for you: Can you hear a difference when playing back a file in iTunes vs. Finder vs. quicktime vs. Pro Tools (or other DAW)? A lot of you people out there certainly have the ability to try this at home and use those ears you've got, right.

So why does a stereo file sound noticeably different between these applications? Some more than others, right. Like even iTunes sounds different than Finder.

No it doesn't. At least, not when you set it up correctly - turn off iTunes EQ, match levels etc (iTunes has an extra level control which needs to be set to maximum to match the gain). I've just A/B'd between Finder, Snapper and iTunes on the same WAV, Macbook DA and Sennheiser HD600s. Maybe if I captured the streams via soundflower or audio hijack pro, I'd discover some sort of anomaly. But there's certainly no "night and day" difference on my system. Nothing I could pick out in a blind test. Initially I DID notice a difference - iTunes sounded "weaker". Then I noticed the volume was turned down about 3dB. fixed that - no difference.

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

So how does the science crowd want proof of this? Here's your proof: play the same file on those different applications! If you can't hear a difference,,,, leave it at that. To prove this on the internet, you'd have to capture the file digitally and further change the sound. Everything effects everything. In the real world, people understand this.
peace!

No, that's not a proof - at least, not done as you describe it. That's anecdotal experience.

A proof - you'd have to do the same thing blind (ideally double blind) to have any idea. And "capturing the file digitally changes the sound"? Only if you've bodged it up somehow. Playback from as many sources as you like, out as digital audio - capture digitally to another playback device - analyse those files. If they're identical...they're identical, and there's no further debate - you've captured what you were hearing. Nothing should be further changed. If you DON'T understand this, you don't understand digital audio. Passively capturing a source does NOT affect the playback, any more than a listener's ability to understand a piece of music affects it's performance.

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

Right, I think some of the argument where someone is saying one DAW sounded different in a listening test,, wasn't it between Samplitude and Cubase?? Of course those DAWs sound different. Everyone knows that Samplitude does some weird and cool thing other DAWs don't do..

Anecdotally, this has been reported by a few.

As far as "everyone knows" - well, no they don't! Samplitude's authors have never said as much, AFAIK. no-one has ever proved it - maybe it does! but that means there's something deliberate happening, not that other DAWs are broken. If it's doing something "weird and cool", what if "weird and cool" is not what I want for a mix? what if I need to process that audio repeatedly, like we do in post? I'm going to get something "weird and cool" repeatedly on my tracks, which might end up as "weird and sh1t" if over done? If that's the case, great, but come clean and give me the option to turn it off!

DAWs don't do this in general. PT and Logic certainly don't. There's NO cumulative effect from repeatedly bouncing files in and out, which is why Tim@Woven's experiences don't add up for me - some sort of "default" processing would be a nightmare in anything designed for post work.

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

Well, actually sometimes I feel like Ableton Live has a sound, and earlier versions of Logic certainly had sound,, but that's probably due to natural techniques and the plugins that come with those applications. Oh well. Enough of this nonsense. Make music! stop arguing about DAWs... Now I will listen to my own ranting and take my advice.
peace!

Exactly. Personal experience.

Originally Posted by ~Zenshin Suru~

Some plugins have analog noise modeled into them that is on by default, but that you can turn off.. like the Waves PYE compressor, etc. maybe that was the noise issue. I've seen people freak out about that quite a bit until they realize some of their nice Waves plugins are intentionally noisy by default.

We're not talking about use of plugins, HEAT, or anything like that. User error is not the same thing as "DAWs sounding different".

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by krheatman

Sometimes science is over zealous too though-

Piltdown Chicken
The finding was initially trumpeted as the missing link that proved birds evolved from dinosaurs. In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society's November magazine. Paleontologists were abuzz. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater's tail.

funny story, but proper scientific method (ie carbon dating the bones) would have fixed that.

Ironically, this simply supports the idea that humans are flawed, and what "seems" right might not "be" right!

And the next time I find a dinosaur in my DAW, I'll check it's not really a chicken with a dog's tail.

[krheatman]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

funny story, but proper scientific method (ie carbon dating the bones) would have fixed that.

Ironically, this simply supports the idea that humans are flawed, and what "seems" right might not "be" right!

And the next time I find a dinosaur in my DAW, I'll check it's not really a chicken with a dog's tail.

What is fascinating to me about this is that it occurred in an age where the technology was there,but not used first for some reason?Based on assumption?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by krheatman

What is fascinating to me about this is that it occurred in an age where the technology was there,but not used first for some reason?Based on assumption?

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

Someone got over excited, clearly!

[ShadowAMD]

I used samplitude for a while, it's the only DAW I ever found that..

A) Has dithering switched on by default.
B) You need to go into system options to switch it to 24 bit recording, or you will record in 16.
C) Has crazy pan depth by default, you actually need to change the stereo spread to mono or all your tracks including mono tracks will be stereo.. Even then for some reason you can 200% stereo spread a mono track.

Then you have the plugs (Which I know where not talking about) which do crazy things..

There is so much in Samplitude you need to know, I'm not surprised they think it sounds different.. If used correctly, Samplitude is an amazing DAW with Plugs better than some of the "Prestige" Manufacturers. But the learning curve is extreme.

Back on the subject, anyone made there minds up yet HA?!

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by krheatman

Sometimes science is over zealous too though-

Piltdown Chicken
The finding was initially trumpeted as the missing link that proved birds evolved from dinosaurs. In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society's November magazine. Paleontologists were abuzz. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater's tail.

Hint: it wasn't psychics who blew the whistle on the hoax.

It was scientists.


The Scientific Method is designed to impose the conditions under which research is conducted in such a way as to provide the greatest certainty in data being collected and conclusions reached -- but it doesn't stop there by a stretch.

It also imposes requirements that, in order to be considered scientifically reliable, experimental findings must be able to be duplicated by others following the same experimental guidelines. It also dictates that the data as well as any conclusions derived from the data should be explored and vetted by other scientists in the same discipline and that those conclusions must be re-investigated when new evidence casts doubt on them or suggests new interpretations.

The results of the scientific process are a thing in progress. No, they do not always give the final answer on any given topic -- but, when approached with proper discipline, science is designed to present us with the best information available at a given point in the evolution of our knowledge.


When folks cite these "everything you know is wrong" type newspaper stories -- all too often written by people who really want to be sports or society writers who have no background in science -- they are really point to a problem that largely lies in the publishing discipline -- not science.

And that problem is that these scientifically ignorant 'science beat' writers often just glam on to some tentative and preliminary findings -- which they then trumpet as "New Scientific Facts!" that supposedly contradict our previous understanding of this or that. Because those are the headlines that sell papers. Unfortunately, while the preliminary conclusions -- often themselves greatly distorted by the alleged journalists -- make headlines -- the corrections and retractions and follow-up studies seldom get any play...

So, no, people are not imaging that the popular press keeps telling you that everything you know is wrong -- including what it told you last year -- but there's a good chance that what they told you last year was just as misleading and poorly reported as this year's story.


My respect and admiration for science goes back to my hippie days at university. I was part of an interdisciplinary studies program that studied civilization through a multi-discipline approach. So, along with classes like "Zen and Existentialism," we got classes like "The History of Biology as seen through the Human Cell" (not the real title but it might as well have been) and a semester class that devoted itself pretty much entirely to the Scientific Method and its history -- as reflected by primary sources (or close as possible) from folks like Pythagoras, Newton, Galileo, et al. Great stuff.