Samplitude sound quality

[EgyptionRing]

I hear a difference in all of them. I always assumed it was the playback engine. Like how Winamp sounds different from Itunes. This would not necessarily affect the mixdown file but would have an influence on your mixing decisions.

[trapper]

Doubting the validuty of a null test is just... ignorant

Unless you've discovered a completeley new paradigm in DSP and mathematics in which case you should post less on GS and more in academic papers as you are well on your way to a Nobel prize!

[BringItBack]

Then - at long last - we'll confirm the results when the other scientists at the Nobel prize party dance harder to the tracks mixed in Samplitude!

[nigel saunders]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Then - at long last - we'll confirm the results when the other scientists at the Nobel prize party dance harder to the tracks mixed in Samplitude!

But they only thought they were dancing harder- have you got the vibration readings from the dancefloor?

[Dog Boots]

Originally Posted by nigel saunders

Sigh
The whole point of making music is to get it sounding as good as possible.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by nigel saunders

Sigh
If a setup A sounds consistently better to me than setup B then that matters to me.

But wouldn't you want to be sure that you're attributing the difference to the correct thing so that you could use your money where it actually mattered?

Maybe it's your imagination and you could get on to purchasing something that actually did make a difference?

Or maybe it's the GUI/workflow in which case it would indeed make sense for you to use whatever it might be.[/QUOTE]

[Dog Boots]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Science is supposed to aid your hearing, not replace it.

Incorrect. Science is there to tell you when you can not trust your ears, and when your ears say one thing and science another, science wins!

Originally Posted by BringItBack

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.

So far the onus is on you to prove there is one.

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by trapper

Doubting the validuty of a null test is just... ignorant

Unless you've discovered a completeley new paradigm in DSP and mathematics in which case you should post less on GS and more in academic papers as you are well on your way to a Nobel prize!

Howabout a Nobel prize for a DAW that doesn't require a bug fix upgrade or patch? Maybe this is why there are differences? I dunno? Di you ever think 2 daws may differ do to sloppy programming, bugs etc...?
Anyone who thinks the Null test proves that DAWs sound the same needs to understand driver development and software development in general

The way DAW's implement plugins, summing , Sound card drivers etc... is not all subjective but it is also not subjective. Sure there are VST , RTAS and ASIO specifications but there is still room for interpretation and error. Maybe this opens the door for DAWs differing in sound? There are multiple ways to solve identical problems.

Again, buy a transparent splitter and record multiple tracks simultaneously to multiple DAW's and build a whole song with this method. Then do multiple mixes with the same plugins within the multiple DAW's of that song you recorded . Then do your null test with the multiple mixdowns.

Then tell me if the null test works. Until then please give it a rest. The way the Null test has been tested here is suspect and does not include all the different variables of why or why not DAWs may or may sound different.

Null test as used here is a farce. It simply doesn't ot address all the variables and internals of the DAWs

"Unless you've discovered a completeley new paradigm in DSP and mathematics"

First off there is more to DAW's than DSP and Math. What about the platform? the linker? compiler? driver implementation
your comment is short sighted. How many bug fixes does cubase, samplitude and Digi release to fix errors in their software? I'm not saying all the bugs alter the sound but can you say with 100% certainty that atleast some of them they do not?
With your theory all DSP reverb plugins and hardware would sound identical. Surely the math has been around for 500 years
But yet my H3000 reverb sound much different than my spx 90 reverb. There is one word you are 'implementation'

[Em Kay]

in the Em Kay account...

My comment refers to the fact that nulling = no difference. If you think otherwise, you need help with simple arithmetic (i.e. 1 plus -1 = 0).

Driver implementation, compiler, linker and what not is a different ball game yet still does not affect audio Such things affect performance and stability.

Edit: appologies for confusion, the trapper post is me

[John Willett]

For info - Samplitude 11 is out now in the German version and the English version due any moment.

If you bought v10 in the last month or so the upgrade to v11 will be free.

[BringItBack]

Originally Posted by nigel saunders

But they only thought they were dancing harder- have you got the vibration readings from the dancefloor?

I knew the scientific community would not rest with a simple visual confirmation, so there would be calibrated scales and sensors installed under the floor tiles, along with David Hasselhoff and his talent-judging panel for a second expert, but not-so-scientific confirmation.

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

Incorrect. Science is there to tell you when you can not trust your ears, and when your ears say one thing and science another, science wins!

When medical science tells people they are terminally ill and they survive far beyond the prognosis - science loses! We all know science suffers a thousand defeats for every victory - that's part of the scientific method and progress.

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

So far the onus is on you to prove there is one.

The first thing true scientists learn about before conducting any controlled experiments are the outliers and anomalies - they generally do this so they can perform the experiments with the median/standard deviation in mind (or to exclude the anomalies) , already knowing the extremes and that some exceptions to the rule exist.

The "onus" would be on the "scientists" who feel the need to argue with individuals based on descriptions of the individual's own perceptions.

A more valid argument would be posed by determining the factors that lead so many people to hear these subtle differences and examining whether the results had more to do with psychological factors or physiological factors and of the people who can do this consistently - what is different about them in particular?

Science has its place, but it's only half the battle for musicians - specs can point you in the right direction but you still (should) use your ears to decide whether you want a piece of equipment even when you blindly trust those specs. Personally, I choose the science behind the sound of Samplitude - whatever makes it do what it does works well for me.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

When medical science tells people they are terminally ill and they survive far beyond the prognosis - science loses! We all know science suffers a thousand defeats for every victory - that's part of the scientific method and progress.

Medical science will never tell you you will die for sure when you are terminal.
They would say that it is very very propable that you will die.
Also, they don't want to get peoples hopes up cause despite the fact that there are exceptions the chances are slim.

The first thing true scientists learn about before conducting any controlled experiments are the outliers and anomalies - they generally do this so they can perform the experiments with the median/standard deviation in mind (or to exclude the anomalies) , already knowing the extremes and that some exceptions to the rule exist.

That is exactly what a null test is.
Extremes are that either something nulls or not.
No exceptions unless the computor magicly does weird stuff to numbers (cause you'd be unable to run your OS on it if it did that).

The "onus" would be on the "scientists" who feel the need to argue with individuals based on descriptions of the individual's own perceptions.

Since it's the Samp believers that claim it sounds better the onus in on their side.
The scientists only say: Show me the money.
But alas, no money as of yet...

Then the scientists help a hand and say, look here we have a test that can show if there is indeed a difference, and the samp believers scurry back under the rock they came from.
Coincidence?
I Dont Think So.

A more valid argument would be posed by determining the factors that lead so many people to hear these subtle differences and examining whether the results had more to do with psychological factors or physiological factors and of the people who can do this consistently - what is different about them in particular?

yup, i'd like to see a test like that done properly.

Science has its place, but it's only half the battle for musicians - specs can point you in the right direction but you still (should) use your ears to decide whether you want a piece of equipment even when you blindly trust those specs.

Have to agree on that.

Personally, I choose the science behind the sound of Samplitude - whatever makes it do what it does works well for me.

Nope, you chose the individual's own perceptions (namely, yours) of Samplitude.
If there is science behind your choise then i'd like to see it.

[rogerbrain]

this thread is too long to read everything. I have been following it for a few days. I had Samp from 2496 until 7 and it SOUNDED good.

on other threads about plugins I read about 'is the DAW using the plug in correctly' etc. .. is it not possible since SAMP includes so many plug in's that COULD be a REAL reason it sounds better... integrated design. They have certainly had time to develope their stuff.

am I not correct that Bob Ludwig uses it in his mastering house? why would he?

as it has been said a few times in this thread. i don't here PT users saying how good it sounds.

[PDC]

Originally Posted by EgyptionRing

I hear a difference in all of them. I always assumed it was the playback engine. Like how Winamp sounds different from Itunes. This would not necessarily affect the mixdown file but would have an influence on your mixing decisions.

and we all have heard a difference in EQ without the EQ being engaged. Common man.

[BringItBack]

Originally Posted by monomer

That is exactly what a null test is.
Extremes are that either something nulls or not.
No exceptions unless the computor magicly does weird stuff to numbers (cause you'd be unable to run your OS on it if it did that).

Just because your chosen scienctific argument can't explain why something doesn't work, doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

I can hear the sound of your Null test failing every time you use it to insist that all DAWs are created equal and produce identical output.

Originally Posted by monomer

Nope, you chose the individual's own perceptions (namely, yours) of Samplitude.
If there is science behind your choise then i'd like to see it.

Alas, that would be the science that we know the least about - the science involving the sound/ear/brain dynamic where every unique human hears things slightly differently. The perfect arena to slap the good ol' one size fits all null test on and hope it sticks.

There will never be any scientific consensus on what sounds the best to everybody, somebody out there is bound to pop up arguing for white noise, fire alarms, and screeching chalkboards - we're just arguing in circles at this point. Music does need science and owes much to it, but the null test as applied here hasn't led me to any "educated" decisions.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Just because your chosen scienctific argument can't explain why something doesn't work, doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

I can hear the sound of your Null test failing every time you use it to insist that all DAWs are created equal and produce identical output.

As i said before, i'm not deying your experience.
I'm jut trying to figure out what this difference is.
People said that the summing engine of Samp was better.
So a null test was done and it showed there is no difference in the summing engine.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Alas, that would be the science that we know the least about - the science involving the sound/ear/brain dynamic where every unique human hears things slightly differently. The perfect arena to slap the good ol' one size fits all null test on and hope it sticks.

If you think that it is not ok to do that then you do not understand what this null test was about.
It was not slapped on the brain, it was slapped on a part of the processes going on in Samp and we found that the magic was not there.
So, i ask, where is it then?

There will never be any scientific consensus on what sounds the best to everybody, somebody out there is bound to pop up arguing for white noise, fire alarms, and screeching chalkboards - we're just arguing in circles at this point. Music does need science and owes much to it, but the null test as applied here hasn't led me to any "educated" decisions.

It's not about good or bad sounding.
We're back to basics with does it sound different at all.
Then and only then can we start asking questions about this difference.

[Dog Boots]

Originally Posted by BringItBack

When medical science tells people they are terminally ill and they survive far beyond the prognosis - science loses! We all know science suffers a thousand defeats for every victory - that's part of the scientific method and progress.

Not at all comparable - very bad analogy. In that sense "medical science" is not an exact science. A null test is. The key is to know what science can and cannot say, and when a null test nulls, it's definitive; there can not possibly be any difference (with respect to the audio files that null - in this case the output of a DAW).

Originally Posted by BringItBack

The first thing true scientists learn about before conducting any controlled experiments are the outliers and anomalies - they generally do this so they can perform the experiments with the median/standard deviation in mind (or to exclude the anomalies) , already knowing the extremes and that some exceptions to the rule exist.

"Digital" means that everything is within an ordered, quantized world where all is predictable. There is no room for uncertainty. That's the beauty of it.

Originally Posted by BringItBack

The "onus" would be on the "scientists" who feel the need to argue with individuals based on descriptions of the individual's own perceptions.

A more valid argument would be posed by determining the factors that lead so many people to hear these subtle differences and examining whether the results had more to do with psychological factors or physiological factors and of the people who can do this consistently - what is different about them in particular?

But nobody has yet shown to be able to do this consistently, which is completely consistent with the hypothesis that it's all imaginary. Which is a perfectly straightforward explanation, as it happens to us all all the time. What's the problem in admitting that!?

Originally Posted by BringItBack

Science has its place, but it's only half the battle for musicians - specs can point you in the right direction but you still (should) use your ears to decide whether you want a piece of equipment even when you blindly trust those specs. Personally, I choose the science behind the sound of Samplitude - whatever makes it do what it does works well for me.

Sorry, you just don't get science. Nothing I can do to help. Go blindly trusting your ears as that is obviously what you so desire.

[Empty Planet]

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

Go blindly trusting your ears as that is obviously what you so desire.

Lol.

Deeply hilarious.

[Gibson]

The Internet is such a bad place if you want real truthful info.
Samplitude does have a surperior sound stage and it's prety obvious.
Reminds me of the types of different tape I use BASF or GP9 and they do sound different. Quantegy GP9 was more 3d and cleaner and Ampex sounded more lo fi and more colored.
As with Digital land Samp is more like GP9.
What really gets me is that I can't believe there are people out there saying that DAWs all sound the same.
I come from experiance of recording with Nuendo and Samplitude for many years.
I'm not sitting with the and trying test and importing files.
I have used both extesively and done dozons of albums and they obviously sound different.
I have done and a/b of my band and recoded it live in the studio. Drums/elec Git/Bass.
One tracked in samp the other in nuendo.
I mix on a console so my daw is dead flat. I stem 16ch out via DA16x
It was a great A/B and much better than Lynn Fustons DAW test.

[Teddy Ray]

jeesh..

would you guys that are talking about things entirely unrelated to the OP topic put your internet wangs away and get on task?

[allencollins]

Originally Posted by Gibson

The Internet is such a bad place if you want real truthful info.
Samplitude does have a surperior sound stage and it's prety obvious.
Reminds me of the types of different tape I use BASF or GP9 and they do sound different. Quantegy GP9 was more 3d and cleaner and Ampex sounded more lo fi and more colored.
As with Digital land Samp is more like GP9.
What really gets me is that I can't believe there are people out there saying that DAWs all sound the same.
I come from experiance of recording with Nuendo and Samplitude for many years.
I'm not sitting with the and trying test and importing files.
I have used both extesively and done dozons of albums and they obviously sound different.
I have done and a/b of my band and recoded it live in the studio. Drums/elec Git/Bass.
One tracked in samp the other in nuendo.
I mix on a console so my daw is dead flat. I stem 16ch out via DA16x
It was a great A/B and much better than Lynn Fustons DAW test.

I dunno I've used both for years too. started with Samp in 1995. Cubase
since the 'vst' versions. Both have come a long way. I do feel Nuendo/cubase are better all around but you can't deny the transparent sound quality of Samp vs Nuendo it's obvious. I'm not sure what exactly nuendo does whether it's in the summing or some limiter somewhere but it is not pure when playing in real time.

Bouncing may be another story but real time playback in Nuendo is funky. It also seems the more tracks you add the quality gets even worse.

[The True Buck]

Originally Posted by allencollins

I dunno I've used both for years too. started with Samp in 1995. Cubase
since the 'vst' versions. Both have come a long way. I do feel Nuendo/cubase are better all around but you can't deny the transparent sound quality of Samp vs Nuendo it's obvious. I'm not sure what exactly nuendo does whether it's in the summing or some limiter somewhere but it is not pure when playing in real time.

Bouncing may be another story but real time playback in Nuendo is funky. It also seems the more tracks you add the quality gets even worse.

I totally agree with you allen. I've been using cubase since cubase audio and samplitude since version 7. Samp is my mixing studio. I do everything in cubase cause there's where I'm most comfortable, then just load wavefiles into samp to mix. I couldn't care less about this null tests etc. Just frogging listen and you'll hear the differnece! Everything else is just a big fat horned cow.

[fxs]

I have been a Samp user for 4 years now, just love the sound, but kept working my Midi stuff in Cubase 'cause was easier, last march I changed to samplitude and using the same inteface and vstis It sounded much better, even playing a single instrument live there is an audible difference, so I don't care about nulls, samplitude sound better to my ears.

Cheers from Chile

Francisco

[Rich Pell]

Originally Posted by allencollins

I dunno I've used both for years too. started with Samp in 1995. Cubase
since the 'vst' versions. Both have come a long way. I do feel Nuendo/cubase are better all around but you can't deny the transparent sound quality of Samp vs Nuendo it's obvious. I'm not sure what exactly nuendo does whether it's in the summing or some limiter somewhere but it is not pure when playing in real time.

Bouncing may be another story but real time playback in Nuendo is funky. It also seems the more tracks you add the quality gets even worse.

Agreed.. both a long time Samp and Cubase user.. its probably the playback thats more transparent.. good enough for me + i love mixing in Samp . Object editng is realy great !

[RainbowStorm]

The most important thing here is to know whether they actually null or not, because if they null, and that must be tested on different configurations, it's impossible that there are any differences between them in terms of sound quality. So where can I find proof that Samplitude nulls against Cubase and ProTools on all critical configurations like trimming, summing, track attenuation, reducing bit depth, downsampling etc?

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by RainbowStorm

The most important thing here is to know whether they actually null or not, because if they null, and that must be tested on different configurations, it's impossible that there are any differences between them in terms of sound quality. So where can I find proof that Samplitude nulls against Cubase and ProTools on all critical configurations like trimming, summing, track attenuation, reducing bit depth, downsampling etc?

you wont find any. ever.

[RainbowStorm]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

you wont find any. ever.

In that case it's impossible to know whether Samplitude is better/worse sounding than other DAWs are.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by RainbowStorm

In that case it's impossible to know whether Samplitude is better/worse sounding than other DAWs are.

you are right.

but samplitude kicks all sorts of ass(and Sequoia which I also use)

I was a PT user, then wavelab, nuendo, before seeing the samplitude light.

I am never going back.

workflow and object based editing--- genius

great onboard effects/plugins(ive never even bought any 3rd party plugins because I have no need..)

[pashatom]

I just got Samplitude 10 pro after having tried the program on trial.

I have been a Cubase used for many years, and I noticed with the trial version the big unmistakeable difference in the sound, even with the same files.

Now I've got the extra plugs (roomsimulator, compressors etc. and the cedar restoration plug) and I'm well and truly amazed.

I would say that the fairest comparison should be less scientific and more based on the results you get with either program.

With Cubase I can do one thing - with Samplitude it's another altogether. I am remixing tracks recorded in Cubase and they sound completely different. In Samplitude you can hear everything clearly, it's much more transparent and well-defined and I can get an extra 2-3dbs out of the tracks.

Oh and people I let hear the tracks all notice the big difference. Actually, I'm quite happy working this way. Prepare stuff in Cubase and export. Import the tracks and mix in Samplitude. It really works well.

[JP11]

So there are no "important" sound differences in preamps, but there are in DAWs??

The audio world, she is a wacky place....