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

[Jon Hodgson]

Originally Posted by LaoTzu

to say something is a constant is to misunderstand. and its a very heavy subject.
but yes in someways your right for a general understanding. but an overall misunderstanding your wrong. because everything is always in motion and in flux. and im open for me to be wrong.

Zero is in flux?

[LaoTzu]

Originally Posted by Jon Hodgson

Zero is in flux?

it depends on how you see things . for a theoritcal physicist you can use general mathematics to solve equations like they usually do. but they need a closer microscope of reality to understand that everything is in flux. so this brings in some variables that they have to account for.
but how i understand things everything is in motion just how "time" moves forwards and not backwards.

who knows i could be a complete idiot.

and as for this being related to the daw question im gunna bring it back down to earth and say that because of these variables youll get so many different perceptions of how another daw sounds. aswell as different philsophies and coding. because of these differences. there will be very very slight differences. if you can hear them your not wrong. and if you cant your not wrong either.
.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by LaoTzu

it depends on how you see things . for a theoritcal physicist you can use general mathematics to solve equations like they usually do. but they need a closer microscope of reality to understand that everything is in flux. so this brings in some variables that they have to account for.
but how i understand things everything is in motion just how "time" moves forwards and not backwards.

who knows i could be a complete idiot.

and as for this being related to the daw question im gunna bring it back down to earth and say that because of these variables youll get so many different perceptions of how another daw sounds. aswell as different philsophies and coding. because of these differences. there will be very very slight differences. if you can hear them your not wrong. and if you cant your not wrong either.
.

Very zen, and so vague as to be useless.

Have you ever thought of writing horoscopes?

[Jon Hodgson]

Originally Posted by LaoTzu

it depends on how you see things .

You mean mathematics or fantasy?

for a theoritcal physicist you can use general mathematics to solve equations like they usually do. but they need a closer microscope of reality to understand that everything is in flux. so this brings in some variables that they have to account for.

As I said, physical things have lots of little variables and influences.
You cannot create an analogue circuit that precisely calculates A+B, there will always be some distortion and noise.
On the other hand you CAN precisely calculate A+B in digital, and if you round the result that will always round in the same way. It's a completely deterministic world.

but how i understand things everything is in motion just how "time" moves forwards and not backwards.

who knows i could be a complete idiot.

Your misapplying the characteristics of one field to another.

and as for this being related to the daw question im gunna bring it back down to earth and say that because of these variables youll get so many different perceptions of how another daw sounds. aswell as different philsophies and coding. because of these differences. there will be very very slight differences. if you can hear them your not wrong. and if you cant your not wrong either.
.

Rubbish.

Sorry, but this is getting tiresome, a DAW processes numbers, that's all it does, there is no mystery or metaphysics involved. There are lots of opportunities for two DAWs to act differently and sound different with seemingly similar settings (e.g. you might boost mid by 6dB on both but they have different EQ curves), but the times when they do generate identical output, they do sound identical (Assuming no ballsup in the really rather simple process of feeding that data to a DAC).

[LaoTzu]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Very zen, and so vague as to be useless.

Have you ever thought of writing horoscopes?

hey if it pays the bills why not lol

id love to talk to a proper physcist about these matters to get some clarity.
i guess i am mixing two things together the physical and the technological which is based on mathematical general principles. anywho it was an interesting thought for me. ill keep schtum now off i go

[Larry Mal]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what is happening with a null test, if it's not what we've all been told is what is happening.

That is, two files are canceling each other out completely. We can set this up by taking the exact same files and playing them against each other and hearing absolutely no sound. This is something that we can set up as a test and observe. We are doing this in order to test a theory.

We know that sounds usually don't cancel each other out, because we have all walked down the street and heard every sound- every word, every horn, every song coming from every car that has engines running- so we know that typically, we hear sounds and they don't cancel each other out.

As people who record music, we are aware of having to take phase into account, we know that you have to set microphones up properly in order to combat that phenomenon and we are also aware of "comb filtering".

This is some of the wave theory behind what is happening, plain and simply:

"The principle of superposition of waves states that when two or more waves are incident on the same point, the total displacement at that point is equal to the vector sum of the displacements of the individual waves. If a crest of a wave meets a crest of another wave of the same frequency at the same point, then the magnitude of the displacement is the sum of the individual magnitudes – this is constructive interference. If a crest of one wave meets a trough of another wave then the magnitude of the displacements is equal to the difference in the individual magnitudes – this is known as destructive interference."

Emphasis mine, from Wikipedia:

Interference (wave propagation) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So as people who do audio work, we are very aware of what is happening when we talk about phase. We also know that automobiles combat road and engine noise by using these destructive interferences, as do makers of microphones. If anyone doubts that, I'll look it up and copy and paste it here. But we all got the Google. Or, I suppose, some of the null test doubters might be more comfortable with Bing- pow! That was a low jab there, sorry. No one deserves that, not even Bandorr.

But my point is, we know about sound waves and we know about phase and we know about additive and destructive interference when they meet- even when it's not the same audio wave, there is still the possibility for some but not all cancellation. This is what you will often see called "comb filtering" and it's something that typically you would not want to happen. So we know that when audio waves meet each other, something happens, but usually they are so complex that the results are somewhat, well, not random- nothing is random- but unpredictable.

But wave theory also tells us that when two of the exact same audio waves meet each other exactly perfectly out of alignment with each other in terms of phase then they will completely exhibit the destructive version of destructive interference. And they have to be exact in order to do this- they have to be exactly in time, exactly the same amplitude, and exactly out of phase. Of course, they have to be the same exact sounds, also- remember walking down the street, and how none of those sounds cancelled each other out? That's because they were all different, which is how most audio information that your ear receives is.*

So this was an easy test. We read up on the theory, we understood portions of it to be true from what we've observed in our working and social lives, and we tested it, and found it to be true.

Or at least that's what I did. Anyone who is telling me that a null test doesn't mean that there isn't a sonic difference inherent in all DAWs, then tell me:

What is happening with a null test that leads to the conclusion in which no audio is heard, if the premise of the null test isn't correct? Because you can't have the null test be what I say it is if they aren't the same audio files completely, thus, all DAWs can export the same files and thus don't have an inherent "sound" to them outside of whatever manipulations I or someone else would put into them (say, the programmer chose some pan law settings or decided to add a "console" sound to the DAW that I couldn't turn off).

In a nutshell, that's why I believe that DAWs can export the same files and thus don't have a "sound".

But anyone who disputes me on that also has to dispute the null test itself. So please, anyone- what is the phenomenon that we are observing with a null test in the first place if it doesn't mean what I say it means?






*This is a gross oversimplification. There could be phasing phenomena while walking down a street, obviously I can't account for every walk on every street here.

[Larry Mal]

And incidentally, that's why I found this thread to be particularly insulting... it really doesn't matter if I or anyone else is a designer of software or not. It only matters that I can read and comprehend science.

Which I can. More to the point, I might not be a physicist or a software designer, but I am the sort of person who is always learning. I don't sit around saying this like "it sounds like" or making guesses about things if I care enough to learn otherwise.

That's why the people who come up with these threads- and we haven't seen the original poster since I first asked him to tell me what was happening with a null test if it wasn't what I'd been taught- really annoy me. Because they exhibit a complete and total inability to learn about what is actually happening, instead going on their perceptions, which are a flawed as my own and anyone else's.

Crap thread, like I've said. I had been sitting them out... but the notion that a fancypants software designer knows better than me about what is physics is irritation. It's not a software issue.

[jrhager84]

There really are some weird people in here. This is audio, stop talking about the freaking universe!

1-1=0. Don't talk about how in some circumstances, 0 is purple, and up is tuna. It really is the epitome of 'reaching'...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[valis]

What this thread is missing is a proper "if waveforms were cars then..." analogy. Just imo...

[DAW PLUS]

But cars don't null. Phase inverse them and you get a mess.

Page 6 guys. Time to draw a conclusion.

[valis]

Sorry it's more of a /. (slashdot) and freshmeat etc style joke. Car analogies get used for everything from politics to physics to economics, which is doubly funny when someone takes the common use of the car analogy as a means to make two things equate in ways that they don't (because the analogy is cliche to begin with in those parts, and wrong as well). So now anytime a thread gets longwinded, I wait for the car analogies...

In this case it would be something like: "We all know that a Tesla and a Chevy Volt are the same basic thing, they operate in the *same way*. Yet we know they drive differently! THerefore DAWs can be doing the 'same basic thing' to get you from point A to B yet drive differently! Thus, they sound differently!" (there I made it myself)

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by Larry Mal

More to the point, it's digital audio. It can be programmed badly, coded poorly, and have a lot of problems. But what it can't be is random: any change in the recorded audio was made somewhere by someone, whether it is visible to the end user or not.

But there is no random element to it.

I agree,I always felt stock Plugins are more of a seperater,which I sure is why these type of thread surface every couple of days.

Can I get different using logic plugin while mixing vs live?

That's what they really want to know.even when ask properly,the thread gets trolled and is thrown of topic.

Mods should give warnings,but some are exempt around here.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[drBill]

Originally Posted by kennyda

Some people think different DAWs sound different, but it's never been scientifically proved.

That statement (in bold) is incorrect. DP running on PTHD hardware DAE mode vs. PT running on PTHD hardware in (obviously) DAE mode. No null, different sounding. PT is wider, more open sounding. There was a very argumentative and accusatory thread about this a couple years ago. I did the test. It was legit and perfect. No null. And personally, I don't care.....

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by drBill

That statement (in bold) is incorrect.

It really scares me, that people don't consider null-testing a scientific method.

It is a repeatable process, and has no subjective bias. Can't get much more scientific than that!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[joeq]

Originally Posted by The Aristocrat

I'm surprised no one yet has decided to just upload some files and have a test. I think that would solve it all because every week in some form or another something like this pops up.

oh, this has been done many many times over
if people were willing to accept this as proof, this argument would be long over

The people who want to believe the DAWs sound different refuse to accept the tests. Usually they state the 'complexity' argument - that at some sufficiently complex mixing scenario, (always just beyond the scope of whatever is the most complex test to date!) the DAWs will become different.

While this is entirely possible, it boggles the mind to think that this effect which DOES NOT EXIST at heretofore tested complexities would suddenly arise and ALSO "inflate" itself to the point where it becomes so strong it creates a "character" for the DAW.


Some tests have been pretty complex, BTW. One guy got nulls with moved faders and even with third party plug-ins.

Just because you get a null doesn't mean the difference is audible to a human being.

even using the SAME DAW:
• If you move one pan knob from >100 to >99, you will break the null
• If you use a reverb with a randomizing algorithm for the reverb tails, the differences in each pass will break the null
• If you use a delay with a free-running LFO, it will break the null.

those differences are enough to break the null, but only a blowhard would claim he could "hear" them and pick them out blindfolded.


Null or no null, blind listening is the key. Nulling is useful mainly as the final nail in the coffin. The questions are, with the settings matched: 1) can anyone hear it at all, and 2) can they hear it so clearly that they can tell which BRAND of DAW they are listening to blindfolded?

No one has yet, and the ones who believe they can are the same ones who refuse to test double-blind. So it will always go around in circles. Sadly, uploading the files will not end it.

[Fuseburn]

Most people perform null tests like this:
- Create 2 channels, original and "test subject"
- Flip the polarity on one of the channels
- Look at the master faders vu peak value. If it shows "-inf", both sources are considered identical.

However: "-inf" only means the DAW has "decided" to not bother displaying the exact dB value anymore, since it is "so low, you won't hear it anymore"
Different DAWs have different thresholds from where they start displaying explicit values.
Reapers metering threshold is somewhere around -144 dB which means it covers the entire 24 bit dynamic range. Good enough to display every difference our playback equipment might ever be able to reproduce.

However, if we're trying to be SCIENTIFIC, we shouldn't use thresholded meters.
The bundled JS plugin "schwa/audio_statistics" is able to display down to around -300 dB.

I null-tested a basic Samplitude mixdown against a Reaper mixdown (both WAV 32 Bit float files) and they felt different. However, they "nulled" in the "-inf"-sense. I felt stupid. Then I discovered that there are more differences under the "hood".

Null-testing is unquestionable, dealing with 1s and 0s - yet, most of the null-tests out there are imho flawed.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

It really scares me, that people don't consider null-testing a scientific method.

It is a repeatable process, and has no subjective bias. Can't get much more scientific than that!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

I didn't say nulling wasn't a scientific method. I said the two DAW's DIDN'T null. Different thing completely.

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Fuseburn

Most people perform null tests like this:
- Create 2 channels, original and "test subject"
- Flip the polarity on one of the channels
- Look at the master faders vu peak value. If it shows "-inf", both sources are considered identical.

However: "-inf" only means the DAW has "decided" to not bother displaying the exact dB value anymore, since it is "so low, you won't hear it anymore"
Different DAWs have different thresholds from where they start displaying explicit values.
Reapers metering threshold is somewhere around -144 dB which means it covers the entire 24 bit dynamic range. Good enough to display every difference our playback equipment might ever be able to reproduce.

However, if we're trying to be SCIENTIFIC, we shouldn't use thresholded meters.
The bundled JS plugin "schwa/audio_statistics" is able to display down to around -300 dB.

I null-tested a basic Samplitude mixdown against a Reaper mixdown (both WAV 32 Bit float files) and they felt different. However, they "nulled" in the "-inf"-sense. I felt stupid. Then I discovered that there are more differences under the "hood".

Null-testing is unquestionable, dealing with 1s and 0s - yet, most of the null-tests out there are imho flawed.

There are two fundamental points at play here.

1. That all daws sound exactly the 'same', as proved by null testing.

2. Even *if* there is a difference, it is so indescribably infinitesimal, that nobody could notice the difference itself, and by extension, couldn't tell any daw apart...

Null testing is absolutely good enough, as if the difference is imperceptible, the opposing argument fails. I don't care if they're not identical, you can't pick cubase out over pro tools EVER. Ever...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

There are two fundamental points at play here.

1. That all daws sound exactly the 'same', as proved by null testing.

2. Even *if* there is a difference, it is so indescribably infinitesimal, that nobody could notice the difference itself, and by extension, couldn't tell any daw apart...

Null testing is absolutely good enough, as if the difference is imperceptible, the opposing argument fails. I don't care if they're not identical, you can't pick cubase out over pro tools EVER. Ever...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

Real question here,would a modeled compressor on the 2 buss null with a differently modeled compressor on the 2 buss,even from the same daw?

Joeq,you have a one paragraph limit,if you choose to answer

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by valis

In this case it would be something like: "We all know that a Tesla and a Chevy Volt are the same basic thing, they operate in the *same way*. Yet we know they drive differently! THerefore DAWs can be doing the 'same basic thing' to get you from point A to B yet drive differently! Thus, they sound differently!" (there I made it myself)

I'm sure *no one* is ever talking about mix engines/summing engines *ever*.

It's the other parts,excluding the *engine*,that makes a Toyota into Lexus.

Smoother ride,smoother sound-CPU efficiency,fuel economy-handling,task to task perception-appeal,GUI.

A daw is the vehicle that will get you there,even if you need an exhaust on this vehicle with the bumper hanging off.

If avid secretly made another big named daw with a different gui,people will use it.others won't budge from protools.

How can my non protools daw null without heat applied?

I'll use a nomad factory tube plugin for 9 bucks and it will sound just as good if not better(even with newby programmer,in his sophomore year in college)(with no audio experience).

No how about a slate digital very subtle plugin even when pushed to its highest db.

I'm not fussing at you valis(your great),I'm just making my point.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[The Aristocrat]

Originally Posted by joeq

oh, this has been done many many times over
if people were willing to accept this as proof, this argument would be long over

The people who want to believe the DAWs sound different refuse to accept the tests. Usually they state the 'complexity' argument - that at some sufficiently complex mixing scenario, (always just beyond the scope of whatever is the most complex test to date!) the DAWs will become different.

While this is entirely possible, it boggles the mind to think that this effect which DOES NOT EXIST at heretofore tested complexities would suddenly arise and ALSO "inflate" itself to the point where it becomes so strong it creates a "character" for the DAW.


Some tests have been pretty complex, BTW. One guy got nulls with moved faders and even with third party plug-ins.

Just because you get a null doesn't mean the difference is audible to a human being.

even using the SAME DAW:
• If you move one pan knob from >100 to >99, you will break the null
• If you use a reverb with a randomizing algorithm for the reverb tails, the differences in each pass will break the null
• If you use a delay with a free-running LFO, it will break the null.

those differences are enough to break the null, but only a blowhard would claim he could "hear" them and pick them out blindfolded.


Null or no null, blind listening is the key. Nulling is useful mainly as the final nail in the coffin. The questions are, with the settings matched: 1) can anyone hear it at all, and 2) can they hear it so clearly that they can tell which BRAND of DAW they are listening to blindfolded?

No one has yet, and the ones who believe they can are the same ones who refuse to test double-blind. So it will always go around in circles. Sadly, uploading the files will not end it.

I'd be interested in hearing someone refute this. Sadly I think however this debate will rage on as long as:
- one daw is priced higher than another daw

- there are arguable inexplicable price differences between daws even though more or less most daws are capable of the same thing

- there are a group of individuals that are significantly more successful than another set that insist upon using a particular daw

- as long as said group of individuals abstain from explaining their insistence of using such daws

- and as all other variables are constantly overlooked and the undeniable importance of such variables such as the signal chain is constantly understated

Hans Zimmer

Interviews like this don't help either and only add fuel to the fire. Is Zimmer wrong? I cannot say, can daws sound different? I hope not but being absolutely undeniably 100% correct is a luxury I can never afford.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY

Real question here,would a modeled compressor on the 2 buss null with a differently modeled compressor on the 2 buss,even from the same daw?

differently modeled? Probably not, why should it? It would be like changing the settings. It's kind of telling, IMO, that if you change the plug, it won't null, but if you change the DAW it very often will!

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by joeq

differently modeled? Probably not, why should it? It would be like changing the settings. It's kind of telling, IMO, that if you change the plug, it won't null, but if you change the DAW it very often will!

I agree as well as being amazed at your ability to refrain from novel like replies.

Again I strongly believe,its the tools within a daw that spawn this and any other similar thread.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by The Aristocrat

I'd be interested in hearing someone refute this. Sadly I think however this debate will rage on as long as:
- one daw is priced higher than another daw

- there are arguable inexplicable price differences between daws even though more or less most daws are capable of the same thing

- there are a group of individuals that are significantly more successful than another set that insist upon using a particular daw

- as long as said group of individuals abstain from explaining their insistence of using such daws

- and as all other variables are constantly overlooked and the undeniable importance of such variables such as the signal chain is constantly understated

Hans Zimmer

Interviews like this don't help either and only add fuel to the fire. Is Zimmer wrong? I cannot say, can daws sound different? I hope not but being absolutely undeniably 100% correct is a luxury I can never afford.

Daws can sound different if daw (a) layout is more efficient that daw(b).

Not that you can't match or make them null,but after hours and hours of tweaking and limited time to tweak.a less thought out design can limit results IMHO.

I mix in cubase because the shortcuts/keymaps,audio editing,midi,GUI,groups,sends,import export features all agree with my workflow!

I'm tracking people to only stem the files out,so that their mix engineer can mix the music on his laptop in an untreated room

I'm charging by the hour only to shoot my self in the foot after I told the ME,I can import and export all tracks at once with cubase!not one track at a time like our version if protools.

I drag my mouse over all the audio files then hit import.if protools can do that,I don't think it batch all the files out at ones.

My point is ,my client love my mixes,I have more time to actually mix.I never wanted to be a mixer,but it kinda happened and I have so much business,I've been turning people away or upping my prices.

Anyway Rather than dealing with work arounds,I get results!

I asked him why did he choose protools,he didn't have a answer!

Cubase has a Melodyne style pitch editor and pitch correction plugin.

Unless you buy 3rd party pitch correction with some daws,I guarantee my off key singer will sound better than your out of tune singer!

I also guarantee that logic tape delay is very hard to beat!

Some daws come with better tools without the $2000 tool kit,offered for protools.

Which stand alone daw can you get the best results mixing with no 3rd party add-ons?

Logic,cubase,sonar,live,reason/record and protools,in any given order.

That's the way I would order them,based on my real world use.



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by LaoTzu

the level of accuracy could be different depending on the coding and the philosophy behind making the daw.

The programmers working on Cubase, Logic, ProTools, Reaper, and plugin vendors (Waves, UAD), etc must all be laughing at this.

I guarantee that if one of the hiring managers from those programming teams were to interview a candidate that insists that DAWs do math differently and therefore "sound different", they would be instantly written off as some incompetent quack and immediately dismissed out the door!

DAWs can sound different but it's not because of "coding philosophy" or fuzzy mathematics. If the 2 DAWs have the same settings, they will sum & sound identical.

You'll notice that all the repeated debates on various forums about DAWs sounding different never has a real programmer from a DSP plugin or DAW vendor jumping into the thread to back up the claim that DAWs sound different. Why? Because if anyone did, he'd be the laughing stock of the industry!

[The Aristocrat]

Originally Posted by Jason West

You'll notice that all the repeated debates on various forums about DAWs sounding different never has a real programmer from a DSP plugin or DAW vendor jumping into the thread to back up the claim that DAWs sound different. Why? Because if anyone did, he'd be the laughing stock of the industry!

not to mention he would probably lose his job for outing the company secret

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by The Aristocrat

not to mention he would probably lose his job for outing the company secret

What company secrets? Summing 2 or more waveforms is basic arithmetic. A convolution reverb will have some proprietary techniques that will cause Altiverb to sound different from Waves IR, etc . However, digital summing doesn't fall into that category.

Even the volunteer unpaid programmers that work on freeware digital signal processing software never jump into these threads to lend any credence to the idea that "DAWs sound different." Again, the embarrassment and mockery among his software engineering peers would close the door on any job prospects.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Jason West

What company secrets? Summing 2 or more waveforms is basic arithmetic.

But what of the other multitude of things that happens before and after the basic arithmetic. I'm not a programmer, I can't contribute anything on that front. But I do know a bit about marketing, and if it was MY DAW I'd be looking to set myself out as a touch different, if not a lot different. Are you saying that the only thing that happens inside a DAW is simple addition? No other fun stuff? Just askin'.....

[tunekicker]

Whether or not the output from two DAWs nulls out is entirely dependent on a number of internal settings and which features are used. While Pro Tools and Sonar might sum 8 tracks identically with dither turned off and all faders at unison, chances are they won't sound the same if you add dither, add plugins to the mix (RTAS vs. VST anyone?), toggle Sonar's 64-bit mix engine, tweak faders, etc.

What it really comes down to is that DAWs do sound different because they enable different workflows and have different tools included, and we us

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[joeq]

Originally Posted by The Aristocrat

Sadly I think however this debate will rage on as long as:
- one daw is priced higher than another daw

I personally don't think this is about people justifying their expenditures. Many of those who claim to hear differences are apparently multi-DAW users who enjoy telling themselves they are 'switching flavors' when they switch DAWs. For them, it is not about which one sounds "best" - its about which one sounds "mellow" and which one sounds "woody" and which one is "mid-forward", as if they were choosing between acoustic guitars or condenser mics. Or fine wines!

I use Pro Tools - an "expensive" DAW - yet I am one who believes no professional DAW has 'better sound' than any other. Shouldn't I want to believe it 'sounds better' since I paid more?

- there are arguable inexplicable price differences between daws even though more or less most daws are capable of the same thing

Capability and usability are two different things. And the perception of the latter is totally a matter of individual preference. I personally prefer Playlists to Take Folders - even though it is a fair argument that they are showing 'capability of the same thing'.

prices are set by cost - good programming takes more man-hours
and by demand - unpopular DAWs have to lower their margins to compete

In the end, we all choose our DAW based on results. I think results are based on what I put into my mix, not what the DAW puts into it. Some foolishly attribute those results to something they call "inherent sound".

But I never heard anybody say: "this DAW has terrible workflow and confusing menus, it's ugly, and it is missing some features, but I put up with all that because it sounds the best"!