Samplitude sound quality

[andsonic]

I'm now mixing my 2nd project in a row ITB in Samplitude. Since 10.2 my outboard & console are getting very dusty.

We did a shootout between Samplitude, Logic, PT M-powered, & DP. We all chose Sampy

[joeq]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

.

Ultimately there will be some scientific verification of the sonic differences between DAWs.

Just out of curiosity, why will you believe THAT scientific evidence? Because it conforms to your subjective opinion?

You do seem to be conceding that such verification is, at the present time, non-existent.

As Thomas Kuhn says, there will be a paradigm shift. We just have to be patient.

Paradigm shifts come from people doing research, not from people griping about someone else's research. How sad that Kuhn is so often misappropriated by those wishing to discredit or attack the authority of science- such as creationists.

In any case, you, like the Creationists, have it exactly backwards. The idea that some 'magical algorithms' cause software to sound "different" is, in actuality the OLD paradigm, based as it is on an analog-hardware model, where individual components have only an 'approximate' value that varies with age, heat, materials and so on. The recent surge in null-testing is revealing the NEW paradigm: that numbers is numbers. That each 'component' of a DAW merely performs repeatable arithmetic. That computers are stupefyingly boring and predictable. That the 'magic' must lie elsewhere.

Time after time, every process that can be isolated keeps nulling. Summing, faders, EQs, on and on. Often full nulls and the rest of the time, nulls so deep that to believe the differences involved would make some DAW software sound "better" than another strains credulity.

The difference-hearers have been forced to retreat to their Keep- the "Fortress of The Real World Mixes". That somehow the "magic" - which has been shown to not exist in any individual component - is nevertheless manifesting itself at some later point in the complex interaction of components.

Could be, but how convenient to have this sonic 'character' of DAWs hide in there where nobody can get at it. Still, if the difference is truly audible, surely blind testing could prove that people can hear it.

Then again, why do you even care? If you 'hear it every time', why do you need this scientific validation? If your ears are so much better than any test science can design, who needs science? Is that what you are saying?

If null-testing is "pseudo-science", why is Mark your hero when his desultory experiments fail to find a null? People complain about Mark's methodology because frankly, he is sloppy.


Speaking of patience, we are still waiting for all the difference-hearers to ace the blind listening tests. To the best of my knowledge, we are still waiting for the difference-hearers to even TAKE the blind listening tests.

You want scientific verification? You don't need a lot of gear, or a big lab, or a PhD. Just some A/B/X software and some golden ears.

[tribeojudah]

Originally Posted by deuc647

I dunno, but im thinking that when you record a file(AD), its 1s and 0s, so when you import the wav into a daw, its not importing the actual sound, just converting the sound to 1s and 0s and playing it back the way that daw handles processing. i think the only way to determine if it sounds different is to listen to the side by side, this null stuff is all binary code.

But what do i know, i work in healthcare

What you're saying makes the most sense to me? Side by side would seem to be the best way, using heavy track counts as well, to determine if there's a difference. I have to admit though, that the talk about Samplitude has got me interested.

[thesoundcellar]

I have used Samplitude since version "2496" and have to agree with much of what has been said here. I have also tried other DAWs and found that their workflow was simply not as intuitive. For those who have said that the newer versions don't sound as good as the older ones, I'll share my experience: When I got a new comp, I installed Sam10 but I also kept my old one with Sequoia7 just in case. Both sound fantastic. I am using the new Sam 10 "quad core" engine on a quad core comp and it sounds as good as Sequoia did on a single core. Maybe that's the key, IDK. As for sounding better than others, here are some opinions:
Samplitude, Sequoia Kahne
Samplitude, Sequoia Hoskulds
The bottom line for me is that while I have heard that Sam/Sequoia sounds better than other DAWs, I have never heard anyone say that anything else sounded better than Sam/Sequoia! Form your own opinion with your own ears, but be sure to use good monitors in doing so!

Quad Core AMD 2.3GB Phenom processors
4GB DDR2 memory
6 7200rpm Fluid bearing hard drives in RAID 1&5 +1 archive HD
Emu 1820m interface (w/ AKM AK5394a A/D processors)
Samplitude 10 pro & Sequoia 7
total over 800 DSPs incl Waves & UAD
Emu Proteus VX
30GB Proteus/Emulator Samples
26" LCD monitor
15"Tannoy Gold dual-concentric (Westminister) reference monitor drivers

[dip]

lets face this! Including in a daw tools like vocal/pitch editors, beat maker tools, lots of crappy plugins.... for the only purpose to have them all included make us as customers to ignore high quality stuff from celemony,fxpansion, toontrack,ni...isn't this new approach more commercial than professional or what? i don't know what's your opinion but for this is another reason i decided to keep XP instead of Vista, to use Firefox and not IE, to get rid off Cubase

Originally Posted by thesoundcellar

I have used Samplitude since version "2496" and have to agree with much of what has been said here. I have also tried other DAWs and found that their workflow was simply not as intuitive.

you're not wrong,my feeling also,Samplitude is more intuitive to use

[MarsBot]

After reading this thread about a month ago, I decided to check out the Samplitude demo which you can use for 30 days. It's been a revelation. I mixed a song from a rock album project I'm working on and it sounds distinctly better than the other songs from that project that were mixed on Reaper and Sonar. The whole album was recorded as analog multitrack in the same studio and all the basic tracks were recorded in one session on one day. So the basic sound quality of the tracks is very similar from song to song. The Samplitude mix has a clarity that the others lack. I'm using the same mixing techniques and the same plug-ins.

After hearing this, I took a song from another project I'd mixed in Sonar that I was pretty happy with and imported the tracks to Samplitude. I duplicated the mix and the Samplitude mix was a revelation. My wife could hear the difference. It's not a subtle thing.

Yesterday I tried going back to Reaper to mix another song from the rock album project and I just couldn't stand it. After hearing Samplitude for a few weeks I noticed there seemed to be a layer of obscuring distortion over the whole thing in Reaper that made mixing a fight. I ended up importing the files to Samplitude and that distorted overlay disappeared. I can hear the tracks way better and make adjustments much more quickly.

I've learned a few DAWs (DP, Logic, Sonar, Reaper, Tracktion) and I must say that Samplitude was the fastest and easiest to learn. Also, as I started to check out the included plug-ins, I realized that they sounded great, especially the channel EQ. I wish I had just bought Samplitude about 3 years ago. I could have saved a lot of plug-in money.

And I want to thank that the person who posted that link to David Kahne's review of Samplitude. I saw this after I'd heard how good Samplitude is, but he's basically talking about hearing the same kind of difference.

I just ordered the Samplitude Pro cross-grade for $599. For those who are skeptical, I recommend that you download the Samplitude demo and play around with it before you buy any more plug-ins.

[siriusbliss]

Samplitude V11 has been released in Germany, and apparently English version due in August.

Greg

[BringItBack]

I've always noticed a difference between the sound of different DAWs. I bought Samplitude once I heard it. It sounds better than the other three I've used - you can't convince me otherwise. I didn't feel the need to transfer all my projects to Samplitude and I still use my other DAW often, but Samplitude is my 1st choice now for mixing and I usually use the other DAW more to develop ideas before transferring the project over to Samp.

The sound quality and Object concept will save you time and money - you could spend much more than the price difference between Samp Pro and some other DAWs trying to improve your gear to bring another DAW up to Samplitude's level. You can get a great-sounding pro mix in all the DAWs (that I've tried), Samp just makes it easier (and easier on the ears in the process). You just have to try it - you don't really know you're missing anything until you hear it.

[Dog Boots]

Very very late to the party....

Wow, what a depressing read....and entertaining at the same time.

Depressing to see how little people grasp of science, considering how important it is to our survival as a species.

Even after it's been firmly established that there is no difference, people still pop in saying how much better X sounds than Y. Un-be-lie-va-ble.

mplancke, you have a very limited grasp of the science. You don't seem to understand the whole purpose behind the null test and burden of proof. And what it is with the irrelevant talk about people's credentials and accomplishments?

Go for the ball, not the man! You'd make a great scientist: "Before I'll even consider rebuking my esteemed colleague's criticism of my hypothesis, I'd ask him to take his pants down so we can measure..."...Yeah, that's how it's done....

And Gibson that has popped by every now and then spouting his own brand of crazy. Priceless!

When will you people understand how little you can trust your own ears? And that science is by definition THE only thing we can actually trust.

If you think one DAW sounds better than the next, go ahead and believe that. But you need to learn that when a null test shows otherwise, it is your ears that are lying. Not the null test.

I was surprised to see that even though this thread took off into the usual flame war pretty quickly, we had to wait all the way to post #396 until any mention of Hitler (and then even only by proxy/category).

Lesson that should've been learned: Science - it works, bitches!

[El-Roy]

This thread is fu*king stupid. I agree w/the guy above me. And As long as your working w/the same bit rate & sample rate, you're going to get the same quality. Aside from your hardware interface and the converters that is. Maybe PTs audiosuite plug-ins sound better to one person than another. The plug-ins from one DAW to another will sound different, but aside from that there shouldn't be a difference. Either way you can get the same results from one workstation to another.

[BringItBack]

Science is supposed to aid your hearing, not replace it. If you don't think the difference between DAWs is a hindrance for professional work, I agree with you. If you flat out can't hear the difference between DAWs, you should probably stop trying to mix your own material.

[anguswoodhead]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Science is supposed to aid your hearing, not replace it. If you don't think the difference between DAWs is a hindrance for professional work, I agree with you. If you flat out can't hear the difference between DAWs, you should probably stop trying to mix your own material.

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Science is supposed to aid your hearing, not replace it. If you don't think the difference between DAWs is a hindrance for professional work, I agree with you. If you flat out can't hear the difference between DAWs, you should probably stop trying to mix your own material.

I wish SAMP would FIX the issues instead of adding to the version number We have one Steinberg already, we dont need another

[monomer]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

Hey Mark,

Thanks so much for taking the time and energy to point out the pseudo-science of the "null" crowd. I'm with you all the way on this and I love the fact that whenever someone creates files that "should" null but don't as you did, the nullers go ballistic about the methodology. They don't really understand science and its relationship to real-world observations; they're pseudoscientists as you say

What is pseudoscientific about a null test?
I mean, it is a test as a direct response of an observation.
In my eyes that is a correct procedure to find out if there is something to observe.

Also, the claims that your opinions are invalid because you are not famous or have not worked with famous bands are completely meaningless, especially given what passes for top-level production in the world of modern pop.

I think that that argument started out with Mark claiming that he has done this and that and so he was an autority.

Ultimately there will be some scientific verification of the sonic differences between DAWs. As Thomas Kuhn says, there will be a paradigm shift. We just have to be patient. Keep up the good work!!

Science or pseudoscience, a null is a null.
If things null then there is absolutely no difference.
The same numbers will arrive at the DA converters and then will produce identical sound.
It's not magic, it's intrinsic to what digital is.

On thing is sure, you cannot do a null test on the plugins of Samp.
So i you use them then there may be a difference.

But i think that we had established that there is nothing different about the summing engine of samplitude compared to most other DAWs.

You have to remember that in digital, there is nothing beyond the samples themselfs.
So if stuff nulls in a comparison then whatever you are comparing is identical.
You'd have to bend the universe to change this.
But there is one limitation to a null test.
It will only give meaningfull results if there is a completely perfect null.
If there is a residu then there is a difference and however subtle it would possibly be hearable and thus constitute a difference.
So one needs to interpret null tests correctly.

[Tube World]

All these talk about Samplitude vrs the rest.......what made me choose Samplitude is not that it sounded better than Cubase, but it's work flow, what it offers compared to Cubase.

First off, you can burns CD's in Samp, and they have a lot of the important features that Wavelab has. Working in one program for everything is more appealing to me.

All these DAW's are deep programs, and I found Samp has the best tutorial videos at Samplitude.com to understand all the main features from recording, mixing, midi, effects, and mastering. This saves hours of frustration in figuring out things.

I like the mixer in Samp a lot better. They first offer serveral skins to choose from. In addition, you can see your inputs, aux, inserts, EQ and faders all on the screen at the same time. With Cubase, you can't see the bottom of the screen since they force 8 inserts in which takes up a lot of room. Their layout is not as good as Samp either.

Samp has better compressors, and utility effects than Cubase though I still use Waves, and UAD, the Samp effects sometimes does it better. I also like the two master faders compared to the single one in Cubase. Not to mention the mono button they have on the master buss, and enhance knob which really can help the sound of a mix.

I also found that Samp uses less CPU than Cubase.

Regarding sound quality, I have found better mic placement makes more of a difference than the DAW you use. 5 -10 years ago, I would agree more, but I think most of the DAW engines are pretty close to each other. I would say though that in working both in Cubase and Samp that Samp's high end seems a little more crystal clear.

The latest version 10 is very stable on my computer. They have come out with version 11 mostly because Cubase, Logic and Sonar keep adding to their programs so they have to stay competitive. Though I don't care for amp simulations, they can be handy and the amp simulations in Samp 11 on youtube sound decent. I am more excited about the new EQ which is suppose to be more like the Red EQ that is out there. However version 10 is such a deep program and more designed for engineers compared to Sonar which is more for musicians. My understanding is Magix worked with making Samp 11 a little more user friendly to musicians, so I welcome any improvement in that area as well.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by Tube World

All these talk about Samplitude vrs the rest.......what made me choose Samplitude is not that it sounded better than Cubase, but it's work flow, what it offers compared to Cubase.

Yes, i can certainly see that. :)

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

I have heard from numerous sources about how Samplitude sounds better than other DAW's due to it's clever algorithms. If this is the case then why don't over DAW's such as PT, Logic etc. keep up to speed and improve their audio engines?

I'm sorry if I seem a little ignorant, I don't have much knowledge in the algorithmic, programming side of things hence why I ask this question. Does it really sound better than PT HD to the majority of people? I use Nuendo at home and have been informed that the difference between it and Cubase is more advanced audio engines, however I don't know if this is true and have never noticed any substantial difference.

So, if Samplitude really is better in terms of audio quality, then this means that either they have some real geniuses working for them that are loyal to the company or other DAW manufacturers just haven't put enough resources into the audio engine.

And if Samplitude is everything that it's cracked up to be, why haven't they released a version for Mac (or have they?)

Once again, sorry for my ignorance but I would like to learn a little about this as it seems quite interesting to me.

Samplitude will probably never be released for Mac. It was originally developed for the Amiga and there is stong animosity to this day between Amiga people and the Mac community.

[John Eppstein]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

I was actually told this by a senior lecturer and also a Steinberg representative, not just hearsay from someone on a forum. Whether this is actually true or not I can't say, have done some research bu without any real answers.

Cubase and Nuendo use the same audio engine. Don't ever believe anything a Steinberg rep tells you - they're pathological liars. In fact, after speaking with several of them in person on various occasions I'm convinced that that is one of the traits they're hired for - being able to lie with a straight face. Steinberg lies to their customers more than any other company I know of - they lie about performance, they lie about upgrades, they lie about release dates, they lie about copy protection impacting on program performance, they lie about the inner workings of the programs themselves.

[nigel saunders]

just to through some more fuel on the fire - just tried metric halo mix bus after using pro tool and logic previously - sounds unbelievable- panning sounds like panning, reverb sounds like reverb.
No doubt someone will say it nulls with everything else but I think its a revelation

[Dog Boots]

Originally Posted by nigel saunders

just to through some more fuel on the fire - just tried metric halo mix bus after using pro tool and logic previously - sounds unbelievable- panning sounds like panning, reverb sounds like reverb.
No doubt someone will say it nulls with everything else but I think its a revelation

Sigh. Yet another one who does not appreciate the meaning of the null. I don't know anything about the product you mention, though, and I'm not saying it's not possible to actually a summing engine that sounds better or at least different from the ones we have, but so far they're all the same, as far as I know.

[allencollins]

this post is still going? I haven't been on GS in 7 months ( lucky you right)
I remember you guys going back and forth on this biz 2 years ago.

Samplitude sounds great as does Cubase. Some DAW's I've heard do not.

I am a strong believer in DAW sound differences. Maybe most of it has to do with plugin implementation, summing, dithering etc... But if you run a test between DAW's and are not specifically testing these main processes then you're not really testing. That NULL test on it's own is just stupid and has no validity.

DAW's sound different. summing, dithering, plugin implementation, sound card driver implementation and memory management? Don't kid yourselves there are differences. The null test you guys have been spewing for a year does not count
as a test. It is pointless. That's maybe why it's called a NULL TEST. Howabout more like a 'moot' test

Use a transparent splitter like the one BA makes and record a whole song to multiple DAW's simultaneously
then tell me DAW's don't sound different. Until then this Null test is a frikkin WASTE OF TIME And does not address
all aspects of why DAW's may or maynot differ in sound. The null test address only one of many aspects of a DAW as a whole.

[anguswoodhead]

Originally Posted by allencollins

this post is still going? I haven't been on GS in 7 months ( lucky you right)
I remember you guys going back and forth on this biz 2 years ago.

Samplitude sounds great as does Cubase. Some DAW's I've heard do not.

I am a strong believer in DAW sound differences. Maybe most of it has to do with plugin implementation, summing, dithering etc... But if you run a test between DAW's and are not specifically testing these main processes then you're not really testing. That NULL test on it's own is just stupid and has no validity.

DAW's sound different. summing, dithering, plugin implementation, sound card driver implementation and memory management? Don't kid yourselves there are differences. The null test you guys have been spewing for a year does not count
as a test. It is pointless. That's maybe why it's called a NULL TEST. Howabout more like a 'moot' test

Use a transparent splitter like the one BA makes and record a whole song to multiple DAW's simultaneously
then tell me DAW's don't sound different. Until then this Null test is a frikkin WASTE OF TIME And does not address
all aspects of why DAW's may or maynot differ in sound. The null test address only one of many aspects of a DAW as a whole.

[nigel saunders]

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

Sigh. Yet another one who does not appreciate the meaning of the null. I don't know anything about the product you mention, though, and I'm not saying it's not possible to actually a summing engine that sounds better or at least different from the ones we have, but so far they're all the same, as far as I know.

Sigh
The whole point of making music is to get it sounding as good as possible.
If a setup A sounds consistently better to me than setup B then that matters to me.
If others share my perspective then great, but at the end of the day music is subjective.
From my understanding of the metric halo summing engine it is fundamentally different from others particularly in relation to headroom - before being dismissive you might want to check it out

good luck!

[monomer]

Originally Posted by allencollins

DAW's sound different. summing, dithering, plugin implementation, sound card driver implementation and memory management? Don't kid yourselves there are differences.

Sound card driver implementations and memory management do exactly nothing for the sound unless they are somehow seriously broken.
They are only ment to transfer samples, they do not actually do anything to the data they transfer.

Plugin implementation would be depending only on the CPU architecture.
So a TDM plugin nessesarily works differently from a VST plug.
Build-in plugins are of course completely dependant on the DAW manufacturer and are a comparison all of their own.

Summing has been shown to be identical in most DAWs.

Differences in dither algorithms between DAWs are hard to tell.

So, what's left that we can blame?

Maybe it's the precision of the automation.
Thats just about the only thing i can imagine apart from the workflow.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Use a transparent splitter like the one BA makes and record a whole song to multiple DAW's simultaneously
then tell me DAW's don't sound different.

Then you would be testing the interfaces along with the DAWs.
You need to split the signals after AD conversion.
But yeah, that would tell us if there is any difference.

[Empty Planet]

Your ears will tell you if there's any difference.

I could only stomach a couple pages of this thread. I fully appreciate the charts and graphs, and I have the highest respect for the scientific method -- I minored in astronomy. A few years back I spent a lot of time with the nulls and the pan laws and the intense staring at wave forms and the constant out-of-context comparisons.

But if I use Box X and it makes my music sound noticeably better, even if the entire scientific community all over the Alpha Quadrant of the Milky Way simultaneously jumps up and down proclaiming it's impossible, I'm still going to trust my ears. It took me years to learn that lesson.

Samplitude is now my app of choice. It ain't perfect, but from the second I gave it a try I've liked it better than anything I've used before -- and Good God Magnum it sounds better to me.

DAWs are a personal thing, but Samp 10 is what I wanted Reaper to be -- just as inventive, just as smart -- though in a mature version, and past all the growing pains Reaper's experiencing now. It's not bug-free, and it's definitely for adults, but my mixes are coming together faster now, and sounding better than they ever have before.

Yay.




Cheers all.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

But if I use Box X and it makes my music sound noticeably better, even if the entire scientific community all over the Alpha Quadrant of the Milky Way simultaneously jumps up and down proclaiming it's impossible, I'm still going to trust my ears. It took me years to learn that lesson....

Your experiences are not being questioned. Your attribution of the source of that experience to "better sound" and "superior algorithms" is not only being questioned, it has been effectively demolished.

my mixes are coming together faster now, and sounding better than they ever have before.

It is totally within the realm of possibility that this is due entirely to workflow/GUI/color scheme. Why the resistance to this explanation? I would be shocked if these things didn't have a massive effect on the way mixes 'come together'. If the difference-hearers want to insist that it is NOT due to these things, but is caused by the sonics of some secret mathematical process that only Samplitude possesses, well then, the burden of proof is on them.

Repeat: no one is questioning your preference in software. Only the unsupported claim that it contains unique sonic characteristics unobtainable in other software.

[Empty Planet]

Originally Posted by joeq

Repeat: no one is questioning your preference in software. Only the unsupported claim that it contains unique sonic characteristics unobtainable in other software.

Mmm, not a point I ever made. But your referring to arguments with the use of words such as "demolished" clearly indicates that you're deeply invested in the outcome of this....chat.

I have a feeling my actual observations on this issue would drive you to distraction, which I must confess provides me some small amusement. Alas, I have no desire to engage you in this particular gerbil-wheel, having already done my time (as I mentioned earlier). It's silly of me to be here at all, as I've got an arrangement to figure out before close of business. You stick with your charts; I'll stick with mine.

But please...enjoy.



Cheers.

[nigel saunders]

[QUOTE=Empty Planet;4346373]Mmm, not a point I ever made. But your referring to arguments with the use of words such as "demolished" clearly indicates that you're deeply invested in the outcome of this....chat.

I have a feeling my actual observations on this issue would drive you to distraction, which I must confess provides me some small amusement. Alas, I have no desire to engage you in this particular gerbil-wheel, having already done my time (as I mentioned earlier). It's silly of me to be here at all, as I've got an arrangement to figure out before close of business. You stick with your charts; I'll stick with mine.

But please...enjoy.



Cheers.


I agree but its quite funny given your avatar the nature of this thread

Maybe you're being punished?

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by monomer

Sound card driver implementations and memory management do exactly nothing for the sound unless they are somehow seriously broken.
They are only ment to transfer samples, they do not actually do anything to the data they transfer.

Plugin implementation would be depending only on the CPU architecture.
So a TDM plugin nessesarily works differently from a VST plug.
Build-in plugins are of course completely dependant on the DAW manufacturer and are a comparison all of their own.

Summing has been shown to be identical in most DAWs.

Differences in dither algorithms between DAWs are hard to tell.

So, what's left that we can blame?

Maybe it's the precision of the automation.
Thats just about the only thing i can imagine apart from the workflow.

thanks for making my point(s)