How can you describe DAW's sound?

[jsaliba]

Simple really, Protools sounds a little more "purple" than Logic does.

[Barbary Ape]

Originally Posted by Mike Derrick

How far down was the null?

Did you check and match your panning laws on each DAW?

On my test, there is no panning law in DP5 not that I know of so I just left them at center, as far as Samplitude I had center damping at 0db which is the default setting. I don't have the individual files anymore but I still have the bounced files and when summed with one of the track's phase inverted. This is what the peak meter is showing.




It could be also that when I did the test, plugin delay compensation could've played a part since it was a DSP driven plugin that was being used, I just thought of this now, I think delay compensation isn't the same for DP and Samplitude, I don't know how much it makes of a difference.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by Mike Derrick

Yes they do sound different because of the variables in the user!!!

Allen, if you take two copies of the same audio files and listen to them separately, and if you think you hear a difference, is there a difference because you hear a difference, or are they the same?

Daw's have there own sound. They do. I don't know why I don't care why. I don't care that you disagree. Whether or not the raw .wav or .aiff files sound identical does not matter to me. For whatever the reason, loaded in a DAW, playing back multiple files yields a different sound with some programs. I don't care if some DAW's have a built in limiter or some have color added through an algorithm and this is the reason behind it.

Maybe one DAW has a bug and is only playing back 19 bits of a 24 bit file? Maybe another DAW'S ASIO Driver
is not to spec. Maybe another DAW is buggy and doesn't buffer to 20h or to disk properly. Maybe the fact that some programs are too busy looking for a dongle they are not paying enough attention to the buffering. IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I DON'T CARE IF SOMEONE ELSE CAN'T HEAR IT!!! I CAN!! AND I'M A PERFECTIONIST AND I SEEK PERFECTION. IF A DAW IS NOT TO MY STANDARDS I DON'T USE IT. I DON'T CARE IF SOMEONE IS TONE OR TIMBRE DEAF. I AM NOT TONE OR TIMBRE DEAF, I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

[adoucette]

Its not rubbish.. Think about it, DAW's are all mathematics, and the mix buss engine "calculates" all the audio tracks to a total and thats what you hear. Thats why its called a mix engine, there is a physical conversion happening inside the DAW. So do you really think the DAW is using the same mix engine in version 7 as they are in version 2? I dont think so.. As with all other types of software, they progressively get better and better.

Ive used Nuendo (cubase but with a better MIX ENGINE, aka SOUNDS BETTER, among other features) for the past 5 years and just recently did some sessions with pro-tools 7 and immediately I heard a difference. I even mixed a song in protools that I originally recorded in Nuendo and heard a difference in the tracks immediately. Do they sound better or worse? thats all in your opinion. Personally I feel the nuendo tracks sounded better in nuendo probably because they were recorded in nuendo.. but overall id probably choose pro-tools.

Now dont get me wrong, im not saying your going to hear massive differences between DAW's, the differences are miniscule at most. There have been times though that I'll hear a mix someone did and i'll know it was from nuendo.. I cant explain it, I just know its sound.. and im sure alot of people will disagree with me, but I dont care.

I can hear a difference, maybe you can, maybe you cant. But there is certainly a difference.. deep inside that software there is a process that is taking all those tracks and combing them with your effects and pushing them all into a master buss, and that software process had to at one point be designed by someone. Plain and simple.

[Dean7]

Originally Posted by vernier

Does everyone use the same plug-ins?
'

Obviously not... that seems like a silly question. My point is that if you use the same plug-ins on different DAWs with the same settings the sound should be exactly the same.

[Dean7]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Daw's have there own sound. They do. I don't know why I don't care why. I don't care that you disagree. Whether or not the raw .wav or .aiff files sound identical does not matter to me. For whatever the reason, loaded in a DAW, playing back multiple files yields a different sound with some programs. I don't care if some DAW's have a built in limiter or some have color added through an algorithm and this is the reason behind it.

Maybe one DAW has a bug and is only playing back 19 bits of a 24 bit file? Maybe another DAW'S ASIO Driver
is not to spec. Maybe another DAW is buggy and doesn't buffer to 20h or to disk properly. Maybe the fact that some programs are too busy looking for a dongle they are not paying enough attention to the buffering. IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I DON'T CARE IF SOMEONE ELSE CAN'T HEAR IT!!! I CAN!! AND I'M A PERFECTIONIST AND I SEEK PERFECTION. IF A DAW IS NOT TO MY STANDARDS I DON'T USE IT. I DON'T CARE IF SOMEONE IS TONE OR TIMBRE DEAF. I AM NOT TONE OR TIMBRE DEAF, I CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by adoucette

Its not rubbish.. Think about it, DAW's are all mathematics, and the mix buss engine "calculates" all the audio tracks to a total and thats what you hear. Thats why its called a mix engine, there is a physical conversion happening inside the DAW. So do you really think the DAW is using the same mix engine in version 7 as they are in version 2? I dont think so.. As with all other types of software, they progressively get better and better.

Ive used Nuendo (cubase but with a better MIX ENGINE, aka SOUNDS BETTER, among other features) for the past 5 years and just recently did some sessions with pro-tools 7 and immediately I heard a difference. I even mixed a song in protools that I originally recorded in Nuendo and heard a difference in the tracks immediately. Do they sound better or worse? thats all in your opinion. Personally I feel the nuendo tracks sounded better in nuendo probably because they were recorded in nuendo.. but overall id probably choose pro-tools.

Now dont get me wrong, im not saying your going to hear massive differences between DAW's, the differences are miniscule at most. There have been times though that I'll hear a mix someone did and i'll know it was from nuendo.. I cant explain it, I just know its sound.. and im sure alot of people will disagree with me, but I dont care.

I can hear a difference, maybe you can, maybe you cant. But there is certainly a difference.. deep inside that software there is a process that is taking all those tracks and combing them with your effects and pushing them all into a master buss, and that software process had to at one point be designed by someone. Plain and simple.

You just said it yourself. They calculate the mixed tracks to a total. There's no magic, no black art... just a simple calculation that's either right or wrong. If you have a calculation like this: 2 + 2 = 4, do you think it's going to "change with every release" or something? Are they going to constantly refine it?

-Dean

[astronmr20]

I actually hate that I am posting this, but I DID notice a difference in Logic 8 from Logic 7. Logic 8 sounds better to my ears. I use a Metric Halo and Tannoy monitors. I hear it.

Can't explain why.


Despite null tests and every bit of logical explanation to surmise otherwise, I did and still do notice a difference.

(flame suit is on.. but I stand by my observation)

[Barbary Ape]

Originally Posted by astronmr20

I actually hate that I am posting this, but I DID notice a difference in Logic 8 from Logic 7. Logic 8 sounds better to my ears. I use a Metric Halo and Tannoy monitors. I hear it.

Can't explain why.


Despite null tests and every bit of logical explanation to surmise otherwise, I did and still do notice a difference.

(flame suit is on.. but I stand by my observation)

Logic 8 has new audio engine compared to Logic 7. They sound different.

[Dean7]

Originally Posted by astronmr20

I actually hate that I am posting this, but I DID notice a difference in Logic 8 from Logic 7. Logic 8 sounds better to my ears. I use a Metric Halo and Tannoy monitors. I hear it.

Can't explain why.


Despite null tests and every bit of logical explanation to surmise otherwise, I did and still do notice a difference.

(flame suit is on.. but I stand by my observation)

Well, it doesn't make sense (seriously, if I told you that listening to my MP3s in Winamp sounds better than in Windows Media Player you'd laugh at me, right?? :D), but I'd like to do some testing sometime to see what's up. I mean, if all of you hear a difference there must be SOMETHING going on. It might be better automatic delay compensation or something... I don't know. ?

-Dean

[vernier]

No two daws sound the same. Not even identical systems. Too many factors that make them different.
'

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Dean7

Interesting.


You just said it yourself. They calculate the mixed tracks to a total. There's no magic, no black art... just a simple calculation that's either right or wrong. If you have a calculation like this: 2 + 2 = 4, do you think it's going to "change with every release" or something? Are they going to constantly refine it?

-Dean

Yes indeedy- my 2008 calculator program adds 2 + 2 SO MUCH BETTER than the primitive versions that came before. "Deep down" in the depths of the calculator, I believe that sophisticated "new" algorithms are at work subtly enhancing the addition and subtraction that used to be done by um, adding and subtracting.

It true that both calculators arrive at the total of "4" but the "4" from the new calculator is so much nicer. It's just different. I can tell.

[dbbubba]

I first started mixing ITB and using DAWs in 1992.
For EIGHT YEARS I worked in the same two rooms with the same equipment (console/mics/players/instruments), but we "up-graded" the digital recording platform many times over the years.

The progression was:
Wave Frame 1000
ProTools (circa 1995) the four XLR I/O DigiDesign interface
DigiDesign Session Eight with Opcode Studio Vision Pro
Korg 1212 I/O with Opcode Studio Vision Pro
MOTU DP3 with MOTU 2408 mkII

I realize that there were different converters, but sound of these recordings are strikingly different! ANYONE can hear it.
It was far from being a case of engineers getting better because I had engineered for over fourteen years when I first used a DAW in 1992. The same was true of the other engineers involved.

The internal workings of a DAW or a mix engine are not common knowledge like analog circuit design.
The companies DO NOT share proprietary information.
There are certain common practices in software design, but the design of a DAW's recording/mixing engine is a VERY complex thing that evolves and goes through many permutations.

[Rich Pell]

Originally Posted by adoucette

Its not rubbish.. Think about it, DAW's are all mathematics, and the mix buss engine "calculates" all the audio tracks to a total and thats what you hear. Thats why its called a mix engine, there is a physical conversion happening inside the DAW. So do you really think the DAW is using the same mix engine in version 7 as they are in version 2? I dont think so.. As with all other types of software, they progressively get better and better.

Ive used Nuendo (cubase but with a better MIX ENGINE, aka SOUNDS BETTER, among other features) for the past 5 years and just recently did some sessions with pro-tools 7 and immediately I heard a difference. I even mixed a song in protools that I originally recorded in Nuendo and heard a difference in the tracks immediately. Do they sound better or worse? thats all in your opinion. Personally I feel the nuendo tracks sounded better in nuendo probably because they were recorded in nuendo.. but overall id probably choose pro-tools.

Now dont get me wrong, im not saying your going to hear massive differences between DAW's, the differences are miniscule at most. There have been times though that I'll hear a mix someone did and i'll know it was from nuendo.. I cant explain it, I just know its sound.. and im sure alot of people will disagree with me, but I dont care.

I can hear a difference, maybe you can, maybe you cant. But there is certainly a difference.. deep inside that software there is a process that is taking all those tracks and combing them with your effects and pushing them all into a master buss, and that software process had to at one point be designed by someone. Plain and simple.

+1 thumbsup The Real Q: is.. how could they NOT be all diff. sounding ? All coded differently , using diff. audio engines . Of course they sound subtly different .... I have 3 diff. Hosts here , going through the same SC and DAC`s and they all sound subtly different to my ears... Best Rich

[IzzyRock]

Wow, this debate got exciting

I wonder if someday we will agree on something, or even get a proper "test".
Maybe its like discussing if God exists or not...who knows

[IzzyRock]

Originally Posted by joeq

Yes indeedy- my 2008 calculator program adds 2 + 2 SO MUCH BETTER than the primitive versions that came before. "Deep down" in the depths of the calculator, I believe that sophisticated "new" algorithms are at work subtly enhancing the addition and subtraction that used to be done by um, adding and subtracting.

It true that both calculators arrive at the total of "4" but the "4" from the new calculator is so much nicer. It's just different. I can tell.

Come on guys. you know that its just not 2 plus 2. Even two different calculators do different summing with larger decimal numbers, they approach it different
dfegad

[joeq]

Originally Posted by IzzyRock

Come on guys. you know that its just not 2 plus 2. Even two different calculators do different summing with larger decimal numbers, they approach it different
dfegad

but... if AFTER that all that summing, the number comes out the SAME that really should be the end of the discussion. Whether the math is complex or simple, whether each DAW uses different or identical algorithms to get there, if the results are always the same, then they are always the same.

In terms of pure summing, many of the DAWs under discussion have been proven to output files that null. Even if some Magic were at work that makes them sound different to the operator upon "playback" - once these identical files are sent off to the factory to be made into a glass master, how will the glass master "know" which one was made on the "better sounding" DAW?



When I win the lottery, my first project will be to build a state of the art Testing Lab. All those who claim to hear differences in files that null to infinity will be cordially invited to come by and demonstrate their golden ears.

Unlike their home "methodology", there will not be "this DAW sounds better to me than the DAW we used last year". Or "the DAW in that studio sounds better than this one here"

There will be identical hardware.

And there will be no peeking at the screen.

I will reserve a nice chunk of my lottery money to be held in escrow as a prize for those who can repeatably distinguish between files that null to infinity.



It amazes me how the people who will not trust a computer to properly do ADDITION and SUBTRACTION are the same people who believe their human brains are somehow flawless machines incapable of error - and incapable of being influenced or misled by expectation bias.

[Dean7]

Originally Posted by vernier

No two daws sound the same. Not even identical systems. Too many factors that make them different.
'

And yet nobody can actually produce any evidence or a single example or how the DAWs can take in the same set of numbers and come up with a completely different output. If somebody had a legit point that I hadn't thought of I'd totally accept that, but "I can TOTALLY hear the difference... you must just not have good ears like me" type of crap gets on my nerves. (fyi: I'm not saying that you said anything like that, but I'm just explaining why I fight that point of view)

Originally Posted by joeq

Yes indeedy- my 2008 calculator program adds 2 + 2 SO MUCH BETTER than the primitive versions that came before. "Deep down" in the depths of the calculator, I believe that sophisticated "new" algorithms are at work subtly enhancing the addition and subtraction that used to be done by um, adding and subtracting.

It true that both calculators arrive at the total of "4" but the "4" from the new calculator is so much nicer. It's just different. I can tell.

This post has me cracking up big time... I can tell you like the same brand of sarcasm that I subscribe to.

<zealot>
You don't honestly think Microsoft has been using the same calculation engine for Calculator for all these years do you???? No, they've been refining it with every release of Windows (even though it worked before and spending money on development time is money wasted, especially if they can't market said refinements).

Can I provide proof? Well obviously not... it's common knowledge, man! If you can't see the difference in calculations you must just be a n00b with bad eyes... not a pro like me.

All this talk gave me a new idea. I'm going to create my own calculator competitor and instead of just addition and subtraction I'm going to create something called additionalizationizing(tm) and subtractimining(tm). Yeah, the math's going to still add up, but it's going to be totally sweet. You'll all be sorry.
</zealot>

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I first started mixing ITB and using DAWs in 1992.
For EIGHT YEARS I worked in the same two rooms with the same equipment (console/mics/players/instruments), but we "up-graded" the digital recording platform many times over the years.

The progression was:
Wave Frame 1000
ProTools (circa 1995) the four XLR I/O DigiDesign interface
DigiDesign Session Eight with Opcode Studio Vision Pro
Korg 1212 I/O with Opcode Studio Vision Pro
MOTU DP3 with MOTU 2408 mkII

I realize that there were different converters, but sound of these recordings are strikingly different! ANYONE can hear it.
It was far from being a case of engineers getting better because I had engineered for over fourteen years when I first used a DAW in 1992. The same was true of the other engineers involved.

The internal workings of a DAW or a mix engine are not common knowledge like analog circuit design.
The companies DO NOT share proprietary information.
There are certain common practices in software design, but the design of a DAW's recording/mixing engine is a VERY complex thing that evolves and goes through many permutations.

So for those 8 years have you used the same exact mics/pres/plug-ins in the same positions with the same settings? If not, what does that prove? Yeah, technology has progressed but mostly manifested itself in terms of stability and plug-in technology (the algorithms are getting better, CPUs are able to handle more complex math, etc).

Originally Posted by Rich Pell

+1 thumbsup The Real Q: is.. how could they NOT be all diff. sounding ? All coded differently , using diff. audio engines . Of course they sound subtly different .... I have 3 diff. Hosts here , going through the same SC and DAC`s and they all sound subtly different to my ears... Best Rich

But what does the audio engine do? Everybody seems to think that there is some magical calculations that these audio engines are doing that get refined through the ages, but there aren't any that I know of. Re-constructing a waveform from data is a process that (as far as I know) can be done a right way or a wrong way. I don't understand how there ccould be a difference, so I'm asking that question with humility and honesty.

If it sounds different from DAW to DAW why not say that it sounds different from OS to OS and Macs have "better sound quality" than PCs and will somehow sound different. That just seems like lunacy to me.

Originally Posted by joeq

but... if AFTER that all that summing, the number comes out the SAME that really should be the end of the discussion. Whether the math is complex or simple, whether each DAW uses different or identical algorithms to get there, if the results are always the same, then they are always the same.

In terms of pure summing, many of the DAWs under discussion have been proven to output files that null. Even if some Magic were at work that makes them sound different to the operator upon "playback" - once these identical files are sent off to the factory to be made into a glass master, how will the glass master "know" which one was made on the "better sounding" DAW?



When I win the lottery, my first project will be to build a state of the art Testing Lab. All those who claim to hear differences in files that null to infinity will be cordially invited to come by and demonstrate their golden ears.

Unlike their home "methodology", there will not be "this DAW sounds better to me than the DAW we used last year". Or "the DAW in that studio sounds better than this one here"

There will be identical hardware.

And there will be no peeking at the screen.

I will reserve a nice chunk of my lottery money to be held in escrow as a prize for those who can repeatably distinguish between files that null to infinity.



It amazes me how the people who will not trust a computer to properly do ADDITION and SUBTRACTION are the same people who believe their human brains are somehow flawless machines incapable of error - and incapable of being influenced or misled by expectation bias.

Well go ahead and win the lottery ASAP, will ya? Jeez. :D

[vernier]

An elaborately controlled experiment won't prove anything. One computer with two softwares is all thats needed, which everyone already has.
Done deal.
'

[joeq]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I realize that there were different converters....

and what facts and evidence have led you to conclude that different converters alone could NOT be responsible for 100% of the differences you are hearing?

why put legs on a snake? how can you disregard a variable if your testing "methodology"" has not eliminated that variable?

[obolewis]

Who the **** cares!?!? Go make some records...

[joeq]

Originally Posted by vernier

An elaborately controlled experiment won't prove anything. One computer with two softwares is all thats needed, which everyone already has.
Done deal.
'

if the time lag between playing back one software, shutting it down, opening and then playing back the next did not render such a "test" moot, then the LOGO displayed on the screen while you are listening surely would.

The inability to understand and accept the scientific method shows a lack of reason. The inability to accept one's possible limitations as a fallible human being shows a lack of humility.

If one is truly committed to acquiring the Best Sound Possible, he will consider ALL the possible ramifications of Why things seem to be this way or that way. Without reason or humility, he will Never get there. Blind insistence on subjective impressions is nothing more than the egotistical posturing of blowhards.

Hearing subtle differences that DO NOT exist is just as grave an error as missing subtle differences that DO exist.

To deny even the possibility of expectation bias is merely a compounding of that error.

[vernier]

Sorry, but your theory is just a hypothesis. Not real-world.
'

[Barbary Ape]

Okay, I just did another null test. It's up to you what to make out of this,I don't know how much this proves or if I had disgarded something during the test but here it is.

My earlier test might have been skewed since I was using a DSP driven plugin with the UAD Fairchild and the plugin delay compensation might have been a factor. Now I just used a native plugin.


I made 5 tracks in DP5 a Pad, Piano, Bass, Percussion and Chords. I inserted one instance of PSP Vintage Warmer 2 on each track using the "Mix liteDriven Tape" preset on each instance. All faders 0 and all pan knobs at center. Master fader left empty. All fades on were disabled. Then I bounced to disk.

I did the exact same thing in Samplitude. Both Samplitude and DP5 are set to 256 buffer settings.

Here are the pics below :




I loaded both bounced tracks in DP5 inverted the phase of the other and hit play. It was a perfect null. Samplitude is the one at the top in blue, DP5 below in red.

edit: I looked at the waveforms much more closely they are very much the same.

[Corran]

Someone want to explain how different DAWs do panning differently? Just wondering...

[Dean7]

Originally Posted by Barbary Ape

Okay, I just did another null test. It's up to you what to make out of this,I don't know how much this proves or if I had disgarded something during the test but here it is.

My earlier test might have been skewed since I was using a DSP driven plugin with the UAD Fairchild and the plugin delay compensation might have been a factor. Now I just used a native plugin.


I made 5 tracks in DP5 a Pad, Piano, Bass, Percussion and Chords. I inserted one instance of PSP Vintage Warmer 2 on each track using the "Mix liteDriven Tape" preset on each instance. All faders 0 and all pan knobs at center. Master fader left empty. All fades on were disabled. Then I bounced to disk.

I did the exact same thing in Samplitude. Both Samplitude and DP5 are set to 256 buffer settings.

Here are the pics below :




I loaded both bounced tracks in DP5 inverted the phase of the other and hit play. It was a perfect null. Samplitude is the one at the top in blue, DP5 below in red.

edit: I looked at the waveforms much more closely they are very much the same.

thumbsup

That seems like a legit test. Thanks for doing this. I would have done something but all I've been using is Reaper lately (I don't have a new enough version of ProTools M-Powered to use with my ProFire 2626, and I don't own any other DAW software).

Anyway, what do you have to say now, vernier?

[Dean7]

Originally Posted by obolewis

Who the **** cares!?!? Go make some records...

Well, that's a 100% legit point (and I constantly have to control myself or else I'll just fuss endlessly over details instead of just getting out there and using my gear!). But, the reason that I personally am involved in this debate is that I'm a total technocrat and just knowing the truth is interesting enough to me that I'm willing to debate it with other people to see if they can prove me wrong (and if they can all the better because I will have learned something new). And if I prove them wrong it just re-inforces my own abilities and still brings me closer to some sort of truth. Know what I mean?

-Dean

[Long_Shaded_Eye]

Originally Posted by adoucette

Its not rubbish.. Think about it, DAW's are all mathematics, and the mix buss engine "calculates" all the audio tracks to a total and thats what you hear. Thats why its called a mix engine, there is a physical conversion happening inside the DAW. So do you really think the DAW is using the same mix engine in version 7 as they are in version 2? I dont think so.. As with all other types of software, they progressively get better and better.

& Allen : IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ME. I DON'T CARE IF SOMEONE ELSE CAN'T HEAR IT!!!

AMEN !

For exemple we can use the analogy of 3d engines in video games. In the "real world" a square is forever a square BUT make the 3d engine of the first Doom draws a square and make the 3d engine of the last Quake draws a square : THE SQUARE WON'T LOOK THE SAME, YOU CAN TRUST ME.

It's about algorythm guy. It's not only 0 & 1. There is an infinity of way to sum the 0 & 1 and in the end it won't sound the same.

Sorry for the people that don't trust that ...
/Nick
ps: really sorry for my terrible English, I do the best as I can

[vernier]

Anyway, what do you have to say now, vernier?

It's a waveform representation from a controlled test. I can't make any judgements other than I know that my three software sequencers don't sound the same.
'

[obolewis]

The more power to you Dean! Don't listen to me! LOL

"Well, that's a 100% legit point (and I constantly have to control myself or else I'll just fuss endlessly over details instead of just getting out there and using my gear!). But, the reason that I personally am involved in this debate is that I'm a total technocrat and just knowing the truth is interesting enough to me that I'm willing to debate it with other people to see if they can prove me wrong (and if they can all the better because I will have learned something new). And if I prove them wrong it just re-inforces my own abilities and still brings me closer to some sort of truth. Know what I mean?

-Dean"

[Dean7]

Originally Posted by Long_Shaded_Eye

AMEN !

For exemple we can use the analogy of 3d engines in video games. In the "real world" a square is forever a square BUT make the 3d engine of the first Doom draws a square and make the 3d engine of the last Quake draws a square : THE SQUARE WON'T LOOK THE SAME, YOU CAN TRUST ME.

It's about algorythm guy. It's not only 0 & 1. There is an infinity of way to sum the 0 & 1 and in the end it won't sound the same.

Sorry for the people that don't trust that ...
/Nick
ps: really sorry for my terrible English, I do the best as I can

You couldn't be more wrong. Your example is completely flawed because different engines render things differently due to the fact that they are CREATING the output. So, what you're talking about is the difference in sound between software that CREATES a waveform and what we're talking about is a difference in sound between pieces of software that only play back a waveform.

Playing back a waveform is more like drawing a bitmap on screen or something. There is only ONE way to draw a bitmap... each pixel has been defined and all you can do is render it. In a digital representation of a waveform every sample has been recorded, and all you can do is turn those samples in to your output buffer. I don't know how to explain it more clearly than that.

Anyway, I'm not discounting the possibility that one of these companies in their infinite wisdom does some massaging of the output to make it sound different, but I doubt they would do that because it would annoy every engineer that ever caught wind of it. Would you want a DAW that messes with your audio (like applies an EQ or something to make it sound "warmer") without you telling it to?

Originally Posted by vernier

It's a waveform representation from a controlled test. I can't make any judgements other than I know that my three software sequencers don't sound the same.
'

Well, sequencers are doing more than just playing things back. There are timing issues there that could explain some slight variations I suppose.

Originally Posted by obolewis

The more power to you Dean! Don't listen to me! LOL

"Well, that's a 100% legit point (and I constantly have to control myself or else I'll just fuss endlessly over details instead of just getting out there and using my gear!). But, the reason that I personally am involved in this debate is that I'm a total technocrat and just knowing the truth is interesting enough to me that I'm willing to debate it with other people to see if they can prove me wrong (and if they can all the better because I will have learned something new). And if I prove them wrong it just re-inforces my own abilities and still brings me closer to some sort of truth. Know what I mean?

-Dean"

Well, at least I politely disregarded your wisdom, right?

Anyway, I'm coming around to your POV. I know what I believe to be the truth (and it's based in fact), nobody is presenting any scientific evidence to expose my theory as a fraud, so I'm wondering what the point of this whole excercise really was.