protools, vs cubase vs Sequoia are all NULL

[drpenguen]

original tracks were recorded with NEVE VR60 desk in to 2" / 24 studer, then bounced in to Protools mix+ via Apogee 8000 converters at 24/44.1
it was a jazzy rock project, sound quality or recording is not the issue here...

i have picked :

low kick
kick
OH_L
OH_R
SN_top
SN_bot
Room_L
Room_R
from the session for this auditioning.... i think 8 track is enough...

i have imported those 8 tracks in same order without any plugin to Protools, Sequoia Samp, Logic and Cubase SX3 at 24/44.1 as mono tracks.
i used hard L and R for overheads and room mics...rest are in the middle
all faders at 0 on all tracks... master fader wasnt serious clipping on neither sequencers, as original recordings were not too hot.... occasional clips, may be 2-3 times... i wanted to see if they behave differently when they clip too...


Protools pan law is fixed to -2.5 ( as far as i know there is no user setting for it)
Samp, and Sequoia have user definable pan law setting,
so i set both to -2.5 and on second passs, i set them both to 0 "zero"

logic and cubase have fixed pan law settings to choose from.
so i set them both to 0 "zero"

i have used bounce to disc future on all sequencers...
(some have different name for this)

i imported them all back in to Sequoia...

Protools, Samp, and Sequoia sessions are NULL on phase reverse
(all at -2.5 pan setting)

samp, Sequoia, cubase and logic are also NULL on phase reverse
at 0"zero" pan law setting....

i wasnt able to compare cubase direct to protools due different pan law setting, but,
if samp and Sequoia is NULL to protools, and cubase and logic NULL to samp and Sequoia at 0"zero" pan law setting
then there no reason why cubase and Protools and logic and Sequoia woudnt be NULL if the user had choice to set pan law to same on all sequencers...


my personal view is all sequencers listed below sound the same....

protools LE 7.4c
cubase SX3
Sequoia 10
sampitude 10
logic pro


i dont remember opening mixer page on cubase nor on Sequoia, or on the others, other than on protools... i always use the side option window... and end up muddy mixes... but they are great for making ultra fast demos, unlike protools...
personally no other sequencer can beat protools mixer layout,
but all other sequencers are way too fast for getting the work done compared to protools... but only until the mixing stage... when it comes to mixing stage protools mixer layout encourages you to mix, its so analogy feeling, unlike ugly looking cubase or other mixers...

this is for my personal workflow tho...
if i was only mixing, or operating a commercial studio, i wouldnt even touch anything but protools, just because its mixer,and multi channel audio edit capabilities ...
but for song writes, sound designers etc any sequencer but protools...

i work on cubase and Sequoia and mix on protools,
if possible protools with NEVE VR60


ADDITIONAL NOTE I:
i have just set the levels to -20 on all 8 tracks
and on all sequencers , and placed a SSL bus compressor plug on master fader on all,
with -15db threshold and +15 gain make up, on mastering preset,
it was giving me 8-13 db gain reduction on this extreme setting
STILL NULL on ALL


ADDITIONAL NOTE II :
all faders still at -20
in have placed SSL channel strip plugs on all 8 tracks with matching presets,
(for kick, kick preset, for snare snare preset etc etc...)
same thing
STILL NULL
NOTHING CHANGES


ADDITIONAL NOTE III
i have just added waves ren_channel strip, with matching presets to all 8 channels on all....
NOTHING CHANGES
STILL NULL AND NULL AND NULL and so on.....

[Never1]

They should all be the same, in theory and in application but with the myriad of variables within any given mix on any given DAW, some platforms will yield better results for different users, based on even more variables.

It's an old argument and I just say "pick your poison".


With everything set to unity and with zero automation, I'd be shocked to learn that something did not null.

[Ben B]

I'm glad you did this. It should put to rest all of those arguments that one DAW inherently sounds different from another.

-Ben B

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by Never1

With everything set to unity and with zero automation, I'd be shocked to learn that something did not null.

i didnt started the argument re one sound better than the other
i have just ended it

just put some automation... still NULL.... i had to tweak them a little....

[shanabit]

This test is NULL, who cares??? Use the DAW you like and make music

Cubase has 0, -3, -4.5 , -6 and equal power pan laws available BTW

Although i would sound much better going to that Studer you have

[cbc459]

Congrats on a great post! I work at a sound engineering school, and I make sure to drive this into student's heads as early as possible. We use Pro Tools to teach, but by no means claim it is better than anything else out there. We make an effort to refer to it as the "recorder" and not "Pro Tools" since most work is done on the consoles anways. I've heard the old "But Logic sounds warmer way too many times by now. Doing your own null tests is often the only way to really believe this. Pick a DAW you work well in and rock it!

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Ben B

I'm glad you did this. It should put to rest all of those arguments that one DAW inherently sounds different from another.

-Ben B

Sadly, this exact test has been done over and over by hundreds of different users FOR YEARS. Lynn Fuston did it in 2003.

In addition, anyone who has honestly performed blind listening tests of controlled comparisons has come away with similar conclusions.

Nevertheless, though I appreciate drpenguen's efforts, nothing will be 'put to rest' here. Ever. If you are looking for closure, you might as well start a Mac vs PC thread.


There will always be the guy who listens to Pro Tools in studio A on monitors X on Monday and Logic in studio B on monitors Y on Friday who will flatly declare "Logic sounds best." He will say "Null tests don't matter. No blind testing is needed, the difference was obvious"

There will Always be people who feel you are Insulting their hearing by even suggesting a null test or blind ABX.

When challenged with the facts, they will suddenly become experts in digital theory and reach for ever more fanciful explanations of where these supposed differences in the 'sound' of the DAW are coming from. But they aren't going to change their minds.

Just wait- the Difference Hearers will be along in this thread any minute now.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by shanabit

This test is NULL, who cares??? Use the DAW you like and make music

Cubase has 0, -3, -4.5 , -6 and equal power pan laws available BTW

Although i would sound much better going to that Studer you have

dude, am i taiking in french here.....

PROTOOLS LE HAS FIXED PAN LAW WHICH IS -2.5
CUBASE HAS ONLY FIXED RATES FOR PAN LAW TO CHOOSE FROM AND NONE OF IT IS -2.5 init

read the post well first then make comments....

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by joeq

Sadly, this exact test has been done over and over by hundreds of different users FOR YEARS. Lynn Fuston did it in 2003.

In addition, anyone who has honestly performed blind listening tests of controlled comparisons has come away with similar conclusions.

Nevertheless, though I appreciate drpenguen's efforts, nothing will be 'put to rest' here. Ever.



There will always be the guy who listens to Pro Tool in studio A on monitors X on Monday and Logic in studio B on monitors Y on Friday who will flatly declare "Logic sounds best." He will say "Null tests don't matter. No blind testing is needed, the difference was obvious"

There will Always be people who feel you are Insulting their hearing by even suggesting a null test or blind ABX.

When challenged with the facts, they will suddenly become experts in digital theory and reach for ever more fanciful theories of where these supposed differences in the 'sound' of the DAW is coming from.

Just wait- the Difference Hearers will be along in this thread any minute now.

i totally agree with you....
its the bloody pan law making all that difference ...

i have just learned myself today too

[Jay M]

A Steinberg rep at some event said that all DAWs should sound the same, but he went on to say that most people think that Nuendo sounds better. He answer is that it's better because they don't screw up the audio.

I had this feeling that Nuendo sounded better than Vegas. It took quite a while for me to figure out that When using Waves Plugins as a Direct X in Vegas caused distortion. When I used them as a VST they sound fine.

Little demons hide in software, and sometimes its audible.

~Jay

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by drpenguen

dude, i am taiking in french here.....

PROTOOLS LE HAS FIXED PAN LAW WHICH IS -2.5
CUBASE HAS ONLY FIXED RATES FOR PAN LAW TO CHOOSE FROM AND NONE OF IT IS -2.5 init

read the post well first then make comments....

DUUUHHHHHHHH, Dude, pardon my non-reading stupidity. Reading too fast will cause mistakes LOL youz right my brutha

Carry on.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by shanabit

DUUUHHHHHHHH, Dude, pardon my non-reading stupidity. Reading too fast will cause mistakes LOL youz right my brutha

Carry on.

dont worry i am sure GOD of DAW ProSteiinTudeQuoia will forgive you

[Never1]

Originally Posted by joeq

Sadly, this exact test has been done over and over by hundreds of different users FOR YEARS. Lynn Fuston did it in 2003.

In addition, anyone who has honestly performed blind listening tests of controlled comparisons has come away with similar conclusions.

Nevertheless, though I appreciate drpenguen's efforts, nothing will be 'put to rest' here. Ever. If you are looking for closure, you might as well start a Mac vs PC thread.


There will always be the guy who listens to Pro Tool in studio A on monitors X on Monday and Logic in studio B on monitors Y on Friday who will flatly declare "Logic sounds best." He will say "Null tests don't matter. No blind testing is needed, the difference was obvious"

There will Always be people who feel you are Insulting their hearing by even suggesting a null test or blind ABX.

When challenged with the facts, they will suddenly become experts in digital theory and reach for ever more fanciful theories of where these supposed differences in the 'sound' of the DAW is coming from. But they aren't going to change their minds.

Just wait- the Difference Hearers will be along in this thread any minute now.

amen.

[MarkRB]

Nice post.

I guess the icing on the cake would be some screenshots and audio file bounces so people could perform their own tests to seal the deal.

Better yet, a fully narrated Youtube video!!

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by Never1

With everything set to unity and with zero automation, I'd be shocked to learn that something did not null.

read the additional notes.... they still behave the same...

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by MarkRB

Nice post.

I guess the icing on the cake would be some screenshots and audio file bounces so people could perform their own tests to seal the deal.

Better yet, a fully narrated Youtube video!!

they all sound the same, which files you want

actually you tube is a very good idea... i dont have a camera :(

[Dean Roddey]

If you'd have recorded those tracks with a $15K mic, $5K A/D/A, and $8K monitors, then it would have sounded different on all three. That's the thing. If you don't hear a difference, it's always because you didn't use expensive enough something, right? It's only the poor, naive losers like us who can't hear the difference because we don't have rarified enough equipment.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

If you'd have recorded those tracks with a $15K mic, $5K A/D/A, and $8K monitors, then it would have sounded different on all three. That's the thing. If you don't hear a difference, it's always because you didn't use expensive enough something, right? It's only the poor, naive losers like us who can't hear the difference because we don't have rarified enough equipment.

original recordings are surely sounds different depends on studio/equipment...
when i was doing the auditioning for those sequencers,
i didnt need speakers... phase reverse NULL you can see NULL on your stereo buss.
besides, i have pretty accurate monitoring system here... and it was NULL too

[Dean Roddey]

I was being facetious. The audio voodoo types always claim, when measurement proves something unfounded, that it's because something wasn't expensive enough.

[rackdude]

I don't it should be too hard for people to understand the fact that the DAW doesn't work with audio at all... it gets the digital signal from the converters. From that point on, all the audio mangling is done by simple math to increase and decrease amplitude and the only difference is in effects... which are cross platform.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

I was being facetious. The audio voodoo types always claim, when measurement proves something unfounded, that it's because something wasn't expensive enough.

ooops apologies
i guess i have misunderstood you,not in a bad way tho...
it was a little complicated post for my level of english

[Dean Roddey]

No problemo. I can't understand what I'm saying half the time. But, I never let that stop me from claiming I have the answers.

[shanabit]

If your not selling anything then it all is NULL and VOID LOL

[JoeyM]

Yeah they may or may not null, but process audio in the DAW and there goes yer null!

SRC Comparisons


In other words just because two trees null dosen't mean two forests null. It's all about balance and the bigger picture.

I should just pay the $30 and become a licenced Reverend

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by JoeyM

Yeah they may or may not null, but process audio in the DAW and there goes yer null!

SRC Comparisons


In other words just because two trees null dosen't mean two forests null. It's all about balance and the bigger picture.

I should just pay the $30 and become a licenced Reverend

Originally Posted by joeq

Just wait- the Difference Hearers will be along in this thread any minute now.

we have been waiting for you

[larry b]

Somebody should tell Tad Donelly about this.

[betamatt]

Actually to be fair to the individual who mentioned sample rate conversion, there is a difference there, which has been measured many times, and which I've personally confirmed with a null test that didn't null. I was comparing PT HD vs. Sequoia, with tracks that I converted in each program from 96kHz to 44.1kHz, and a fair amount of sound was left over when you flipped the phase on one and mixed them together. To me Sequoia's SRC sounded better when A/B-ing, and I don't say that as a fanboy, PT is where I do most of my work.

That being said, the OP is my hero. I'd like to think I inspired the test with my post about testing BS digital audio claims, but I'll keep my ego in check ;-) I think the point that should be taken away from this is: pick the DAW you like for workflow reasons, plugins, what your friend likes, whatever, and then get to work and stop blaming software for mysteriously "stealing tone." You can always do SRC and other processing with stand-alone apps. Or leave it for the mastering engineer.

Now this isn't to say someone can't claim that there is still a difference - but you're going to have to point out flaws in the methodology of this test, or provide examples of the same test with different results, to disprove these results.

And of course, the question still remains what kind of comparison we can devise between PT HD (with the 48 bit fixed-point mix enginer) and these 32 bit floating-point mix engines.

[Ben B]

Once, I duplicated a track in Pro Tools, and applied an AudioSuite gain change to the audio on one of them. Next, I normalized the audio on both tracks to the same value. The duplicate therefore went through one more gain operation than the audio on the first track. After doing that, the two did not null. I attribute this to word length expansion and quantization errors.

From this I do not draw any conclusions regarding sound quality in DAWs, as these phenomena would be unavoidable regardless of which DAW you're using.

-Ben B

[Iggy Poop]

Originally Posted by Dean Roddey

No problemo. I can't understand what I'm saying half the time. But, I never let that stop me from claiming I have the answers.

That's Gearslutz in a nutshell.

[Cameron Johnson]

Originally Posted by Iggy Poop

That's Gearslutz in a nutshell.

+1 well said, my man... well said