Samplitude sound quality

[trock]

i have had Sonar 7PE, Cubase 4 and sonar 10.2 pro all on the same PC, with the same pan laws set, the same files, the the same gear, in the same room, without any effects and all faders at 0 and there is no sound diff at all.

while i love the way samp looks, the whole sounds better when there are no effects and the pan law is the same is a myth

tack on SAW and Logic 9 now, and i can make a song sound good in any of them

but samp to me was the best looking, especially with the orange and birdline skins

i do subscribe though to the fact of how DAW's handle a real session, with many tracks, panning, plugs etc. i do think then Samp and SAW really were great. IMHO

[siriusbliss]

I do all production work in Samplitude now, and then fly MIDI and audio tracks out to a co-producers' copy of Live 8 for a live interactive theater production.

I think with V11 I will probably no longer use Live for live performance.

Greg

[pashatom]

........the whole sounds better when there are no effects and the pan law is the same is a myth

The people who claim to hear differences in the sound almost invariably use the same adjectives to describe such differences. It's because they exist.

I would have been more than happy not to have to shell-out the extra but am now more than happy to have such a great-sounding program.

Actually, I was making two remarks:-

1. There definitely is a difference
2. That what I can do in Samplitude (i.e. with their plug-ins, dither, etc) is much better-sounding than what I can do in Cubase, ALTHOUGH I can work quickly and make great music in Cubase. It's fast, especially if I'm using midi. No reason not to use them both.

(I do also agree with you that Samplitude looks better.)

[Dog Boots]

Originally Posted by pashatom

The people who claim to hear differences in the sound almost invariably use the same adjectives to describe such differences. It's because they exist.

Certainly not, you get the same adjectives from all sorts of AB-tests, also clean placebo ones where nothing has changed. It's all bullocks. You have to know when to trust your ears and when NOT to.

[Empty Planet]

And this is precisely the sort of situation in which to trust your ears.

It seems like a subcurrent of this thread could more accurately be stated, "You have to know when to trust your ears, and when to close your mind."

Since switching to Samplitude, tracking and mixing have become significantly easier for me. Partially through a different software design, yes, but partially as well because it simply sounds better to me. It's much easier to achieve sounds I can work with.

As I stated before, you can get the entire population of Earth to jump up and down simultaneously, screaming that there's no difference between method a and method b, but if I think method b gives me better results, by God I'm going to use method b.

As artists and craftsmen, we learn to trust our ears for good reasons, and the opinions of others have their place, but sound is precious to me, and what I hear for myself takes precedence.

I love my Germanium. Some people aren't so keen on it. People have different opinions about gear. What's the big fukkin deal?


Cheers.

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

And this is precisely the sort of situation in which to trust your ears.

It seems like a subcurrent of this thread could more accurately be stated, "You have to know when to trust your ears, and when to close your mind."

Since switching to Samplitude, tracking and mixing have become significantly easier for me. Partially through a different software design, yes, but partially as well because it simply sounds better to me. It's much easier to achieve sounds I can work with.

As I stated before, you can get the entire population of Earth to jump up and down simultaneously, screaming that there's no difference between method a and method b, but if I think method b gives me better results, by God I'm going to use method b.

As artists and craftsmen, we learn to trust our ears for good reasons, and the opinions of others have their place, but sound is precious to me, and what I hear for myself takes precedence.

I love my Germanium. Some people aren't so keen on it. People have different opinions about gear. What's the big fukkin deal?


Cheers.

I completely agree with this post. Samplitude is easier because it sounds better. Just yesterday I took the tracks from a project I'd been mixing in Samplitude and put them in DP so my friend could cut some new guitars on the project. The same exact tracks sounded like crap in DP. It was a noticable difference. Stereo tracks with no pan laws involved just sounded worse. This is what you notice over and over once you move to Samplitude: mixing is quicker and easier because you can finally hear what's actually going on. Instead of fighting you, the DAW is working with you for a change.

[KRStudio]

Try this, it blew me away the first time I heard it. Open up one of the demo songs in Reason or FL studio and listen. Now open it up in Rewire in Sam and listen. HUGE dif. Deeper and clearer. Why, I don't know but it's clearly there.

[Surbitone]

Originally Posted by drpenguen

protools, vs cubase vs Sequoia are all NULL


read this

Panning law? Tooo many variables for this to be accurate. Like the whole digital eqs sound the same thing because they null (which they dont perfectly anyway, so that defeats the object). Theres more to sound than numbers and null tests. You can tell just as much, if not more by using your ears. Sequoia / samplitude, pyramix native & saw studio have excellent sound engines. Audio conspiracies ........

[themadnun]

slightly OT, i can't help but imagine in twenty years that the less well-informed engineers/musicians will start wanting ot use logic 9 or cubase 5 for their "vintage warmth and vibe"...

[The Listener]

We use(d) Samplitude and Nuendo regularly.

I am a long-time Nuendo user, so familiarity with the work-flow is more important than anything else to me, but Samplitude is a great programme.

Their integrated plug-ins are among the best, Nuendo started to catch-on only in the version 4.

But to comment about "sound quality" - DAWs don't have their own "sound", period.

I could null the mixdown of unprocessed tracks from Samplitude and Nuendo... Differences might occur because of setting the panning law differently and similar, but without any FX at the same resolution they are ALL the same.

It all comes down to functionality, workflow, quality of integrated filters and FX if you don't use 3rd party plug-ins, etc.

Once more: DAWs don't have "sound" on their own!

Speaking of Nuendo - it is most friendly with hybrid ITB/OTB integration with its automatic latency compensation and overall "studio" logic. It's workflow resembles the classical studio arrangement the most, but that is getting increasingly irrelevant with new generations of users who never worked with classic mixer and outboard set ups.

again: DAWs don't have "sound" on their own! But if you produce better work because you believe it sounds better in (let's say) Samplitude - keep believing.

[bonneybear]

I have a question about the "NULL TEST".
Isn't it true that when you take music from 2 different sources: like pro-tools and samplitude, and then play them back on the same DAW the Daw thats playing them back is now using its engine, so phase flipping= Null is not really an accurate test.
Has anyone tried syncing 2 Daws together, outputting them into an analog console then flip the phase ?? I know, I know ...cable length, transisto, transients. bla, bla, I would be interested in the results though. I find it hard to believe that all these "NULL TESTS" are the acid test. I think the playback engine DAW interprets its material and therefore makes it identical. Thanks Mike

[Surbitone]

Originally Posted by The Listener

We use(d) Samplitude and Nuendo regularly.

I am a long-time Nuendo user, so familiarity with the work-flow is more important than anything else to me, but Samplitude is a great programme.

Their integrated plug-ins are among the best, Nuendo started to catch-on only in the version 4.

But to comment about "sound quality" - DAWs don't have their own "sound", period.

I could null the mixdown of unprocessed tracks from Samplitude and Nuendo... Differences might occur because of setting the panning law differently and similar, but without any FX at the same resolution they are ALL the same.

It all comes down to functionality, workflow, quality of integrated filters and FX if you don't use 3rd party plug-ins, etc.

Once more: DAWs don't have "sound" on their own!

Speaking of Nuendo - it is most friendly with hybrid ITB/OTB integration with its automatic latency compensation and overall "studio" logic. It's workflow resembles the classical studio arrangement the most, but that is getting increasingly irrelevant with new generations of users who never worked with classic mixer and outboard set ups.

again: DAWs don't have "sound" on their own! But if you produce better work because you believe it sounds better in (let's say) Samplitude - keep believing.

Why do mastering engineers use Sequoia/Samp, audiocube, pyramix, sadie etc? Aside from the workflow, its because the programming / sound engines are better. SAW studio also sounds very different. Have you read Bob Katz Mastering Audio book? Theres a pretty big section on this.

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by bonneybear

I have a question about the "NULL TEST".
Isn't it true that when you take music from 2 different sources: like pro-tools and samplitude, and then play them back on the same DAW the Daw thats playing them back is now using its engine, so phase flipping= Null is not really an accurate test.
Has anyone tried syncing 2 Daws together, outputting them into an analog console then flip the phase ?? I know, I know ...cable length, transisto, transients. bla, bla, I would be interested in the results though. I find it hard to believe that all these "NULL TESTS" are the acid test. I think the playback engine DAW interprets its material and therefore makes it identical. Thanks Mike

Polarity flipping in the digital domain is a simple case of inverting the sign of a given sample, e.g. +1 becomes -1, -1 becomes +1 and so on. Regardless of the audio engine (48 bit fixed point, 32 bit floating point and so on) and assuming there's no bugs in the DAW, the result of mixing two files of opposite polarity will be digital silence, i.e. all samples will be zero. If two files null, they are identicle with absolutely no room for doubt. So yes, as far as accuracy goes, as a comparrison method it's about as accurate as you're going to get.

[Empty Planet]

It sounds infallible from a theoretical perspective, but though I'm a huge fan of the scientific method I haven't really drilled down and attempted to separate the wheat from the chaff -- for my own purposes, let's just say -- in the whole null test discussion. There is something about the intransigence of some members of the null test crowd that I find disquieting; I'm much more comfortable with statements like "the preponderance of evidence suggests" rather than "this is so, without doubt." A brief glance at the history of scientific thought will bear me up on the dubious merits of surety.

For instance, what was the verdict on this thread, in which people claimed to absolutely null pricey plugin eqs with their cheap or free counterparts? Was that conclusively decided? Is there doubt?

Just to be clear, I made no claims that Samp "sounds better" in some absolute sense. I stated that Samplitude sounds better -- to me. A different point. I look at this from the viewpoint of a person working to get music out. I grab the box that works best for the situation and I get to work.

I'm amused by this discussion, and I do have my perspective, but I'm not committed to "proving" anything. I'm committed to getting the work done to the best of my ability.


Cheers.

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

It sounds infallible from a theoretical perspective, but though I'm a huge fan of the scientific method I haven't really drilled down and attempted to separate the wheat from the chaff -- for my own purposes, let's just say -- in the whole null test discussion. There is something about the intransigence of some members of the null test crowd that I find disquieting; I'm much more comfortable with statements like "the preponderance of evidence suggests" rather than "this is so, without doubt." A brief glance at the history of scientific thought will bear me up on the dubious merits of surety.

Well, so long as 1 + 1 = 2 a null test will be valid without a doubt, although I totally get your point (and a valid one at that, but less so in this particular instance).

[Empty Planet]

You see, no offense in the slightest intended, but I find that a little glib. Of course mathematic propositions like that are undeniably true. But where is the conclusive experimental evidence that the proposition is a perfect analogy -- or substitute, as it is used here -- for the null test? Yes, audio files comprise ones and zeros, though I find that alone a rather appalling simplification, but if there's a good reason to strip these complex phenomena down to such an analogy, I'm just not seeing it.

That particular argument just seems more like a rhetorical device to me.


Cheers.

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

Yes, audio files comprise ones and zeros, though I find that alone a rather appalling simplification, but if there's a good reason to strip these complex phenomena down to such an analogy, I'm just not seeing it.

No, it's not an over simplification, it's literally true. Digitial audio is just a set of numbers that are processed in exactly the same way as other numbers. As I already stated, polarity flipping in digital audio is simply a case of inverting the sign of a given sample. Summing an audio file/stream against a polarity-flipped copy is simple mathematics:

+1 0 -1 0 +1

polarity flipped becomes:

-1 0 +1 0 -1

summed against each other becomes:

0 0 0 0 0

Clearly this is a simplification in the sense that a lot of superfluous details have been removed, but the bread and butter mathematics is exactly the same.

[Empty Planet]

If true, of course I'm completely with you.

It is also a fact, however, that audio files represent vastly more complex sets of numbers than 1 + 1 = 2.

Is it possible that there subtle complexities that are masked by the algorithms some DAWs utilize to sum files? Is it possible there is some variety of averaging occuring somewhere in the process? Is it possible etc. etc....?

Are you stating unequivocally that you believe the cheap eqs in the thread I mentioned, other than in differences of design, produce identical results to their expensive counterparts, since they null?

The simplicity of the 1 + 1 analogy is very seductive, and it seems to match up to how we want to believe the systems others have devised are working. Maybe there's good reason for that, but it gives me at least a mild disquiet.

Perhaps the answer is simple -- I have no allegiance to being "right" in this -- but I would accept that answer only from an individual deeply fluent both in the mathematics of sampling and the actual coding techniques used by specific DAWs.


Cheers.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

For instance, what was the verdict on this thread, in which people claimed to absolutely null pricey plugin eqs with their cheap or free counterparts? Was that conclusively decided? Is there doubt?

As far as I remember noone really provided a complete null... there was always some residue and people claiming that it is inaudible. It might as well be, but as long there is residue, there is difference and some people might actually hear it.

My opinion was maybe also too definitively expressed... but the differencies are much exaggerated IMO.

No doubt, Samplitude is great, but it doesn't "sound" much different than Nuendo4 in my current experience.

btw - I have nothing against Samplitude, If I would be a virgin DAW user I would choose Samplitude, but since I am so used to Nuendo, I stay with it and only transfer some projects from a collegue, who uses Samplitude, when I have to...

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

If true, of course I'm completely with you.

It is also a fact, however, that audio files represent vastly more complex sets of numbers than 1 + 1 = 2.

Is it possible that there subtle complexities that are masked by the algorithms some DAWs utilize to sum files? Is it possible there is an averaging occuring somewhere in the process? Is it possible....?

You raise an interesting and valid point and at risk of diverting this discussion completely I'll rattle this out in as clear and concise manner as possible: Yes, it is perfectly possible (and expected) that a given representation of digital audio can produce errors due to the finite resolution available, however this is more of a fixed point vs. floating point discussion rather than singling out specific sequencers for comparison (AFAIK the overwhelming majority use 32/64bit floating point whereas PT uses 48bit fixed point, thus the discussion is pretty much limited to PT vs the world).

Are you then stating unequivocally that you believe the cheap eqs in the thread I mentioned, other than design differences, produce identical results to their expensive counterparts?

Without meaning to duck out of this point I am unfamiliar with the thread in question, however I will give it a read so I can get an understanding of where you're coming from

The simplicity of the 1 + 1 analogy is very seductive, and it seems to match up to how we want to believe the systems we have devised are working. That alone is cause for at least mild disquiet.

Well, one way of looking at it is that if the system (CPU) is not working, then the least of your concerns is whether your DAW is working Again, I do get your point and respect your skepticism, but what we are dealing with here is the nuts and bolts of computer logic, something that is built from/with staple mathematic principles.

Perhaps the answer is simple -- I have no allegiance to being "right" in this -- but I would accept that answer only from an individual deeply fluent both in the mathematics of sampling and the actual coding techniques used by specific DAWs.

Oh sure, I totally agree with you. Again, I respect your skepticism, as after all I am one of about a million voices on the internet and I'm by no means an expert. By all means don't take anything I say as gospel, do some research on your own and come to your own conclusions. If it's a topic you wish to learn more about I'll have a dig round for any starting points I can point you in, however I can't guarantee it won't bore the socks off you

[pashatom]

It's all bullocks. You have to know when to trust your ears and when NOT to.

EARS................TRUST-EM...................ALWAYS

They are your only judge of what is good music, good sound, good audio, good quality.

Of course, there may be people who have better ears than you or I. Then trust their ears. But it's EARS ALL THE WAY. Mastering engineers spend a lifetime training them.

[Empty Planet]

Originally Posted by The Listener

No doubt, Samplitude is great, but it doesn't "sound" much different than Nuendo4 in my current experience.

Hey, Listener, I respect that completely.


All good points, Em Kay.

I would reiterate an earlier point, though, stated a different way, that sweaty coders working in cubicles under a deadline to update their company's DAW might or might not have workarounds that adhere with varying strictness to the mathematical perfections of sampling theory.

At any rate, Em Kay, you've cheered up my morning. It would be fun to have coffee sometime, and yes, if you can be bothered, I would like those links on Sampling For Pompous Internet Idiots 101.

After righteously pronouncing that doing my work is above all things to me, here I am hip-deep in this silliness. It is of my own doing.


Cheers and thanks.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by pashatom

EARS................TRUST-EM...................ALWAYS

They are your only judge of what is good music, good sound, good audio, good quality.

Of course, there may be people who have better ears than you or I. Then trust their ears. But it's EARS ALL THE WAY. Mastering engineers spend a lifetime training them.

Yes, but it's the brain that causes all the trouble.

Have you never tweaked a bypassed EQ and actually heard the changes?

Or did you never trick a musician asking for louder monitor mix (which was already loud) with turning the knob slightly up and again back to its previous level position and innocently asked - "is it ok?" and musician going - "yeah, it's fine now" ?

[Em Kay]

Originally Posted by Empty Planet

Hey, Listener, I respect that completely.


All good points, Em Kay.

I would reiterate an earlier point, though, stated a different way, that sweaty coders working in cubicles under a deadline to update their company's DAW might or might not have workarounds that adhere with varying strictness to the mathematical perfections of sampling theory.

And not to throw up more dust, but at the moment there is, amusingly, a thread in the "Music Computers" section referencing an eq setting that someone has devised that, apparently, mimics the NS-10 so perfectly as to null.

Since we know that frequency domain solutions cannot accurately cover events occuring in the time domain, what does this tell us about the null test? One could argue that there are data not being captured.

At any rate, Em Kay, you've cheered up my morning. It would be fun to have coffee sometime, and yes, if you can be bothered, I would like those links on Sampling For Pompous Internet Idiots 101.

After righteously pronouncing that doing my work is above all things to me, here I am hip-deep in this silliness. It is of my own doing.


Cheers and thanks.

Hehe glad I've put a smile on your face Yet again you raise some interesting points, although I feel that we're just missing each other in the angles we're coming from.

I've had a quick look around the net for some interesting literature that covers a lot of the issues I've raised and I hope that they may also bring resolution to the issues you have also raised. The list below is my no means a difinitive guide but it should give you enough to get the ball rolling. If you get the time, have a quick skim through the concepts outlined and if there's any questions with the topic matter then hopefully myself or other users on this board can help.

(btw this list is not in any particular order)

1) Principles of digital audio - Google Books <-Chapter 2 has quite a good overview of DA ingeneral.

2) Tutorial - Basics - Part 1 - Digital Audio <-Very general overview of sampling in DA

3) Fixed versus Floating Point <-General overview of fixed versus floating point, should give you some keywords to google

4) http://www.rane.com/pdf/old/note153.pdf <-More FP vs FP, although by a company who I assume produces fixed point DSP h/w so take any drastic claims with a pinch of salt

5) VST Plug-Ins SDK Documentation <-Documentation for developers of VST plugins. Although a technical documentation, a basic grasp of how such plugins interact with VST-compliant DAWs can be gleened and should offer some insight as to how audio is stored and processed in a typical 32bit floating point DAW

6) PcMus: Digital Audio Theory <-This site seems to have quite a few useful resources for all things DA

7) PCRecording.com - - your best source for information on the Digital Audio Workstation. <-More of a "FAQ" than anything, might clear up some of the concepts raised in previous links

8) http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/etext/digital_audio/chapter5_binary.shtml <-An intersting site that seems to cover quite a wide base of DA topics in a general manner

9) http://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/192a/Sampling.pdf <-Another overview of sampling in DA

10)

I don't know your level of understanding with regards to topic matter so I don't want to come off as condescending or anything, hopefully this should feed your hunger for knowledge for a little while and by all means let's keep the discussion going as it's been very interesting.

[Empty Planet]

I'm more familiar with coding -- and coder workarounds -- than I am with the mathematics involved in sampling. I find myself coming at this subject more from the "Weasely Human" School of theory implementation in commercial projects.

But many thanks for your kind collection of links! I appreciate the effort and will devote some time to it.

Certainly a great deal to understand.

As usual.


Cheers!

[BringItBack]

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

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).

There are many certainties in medical science and there are many educated guesses where science cannot fully explain the unique cases that 6 Billion plus individuals can present. This makes this an excellent analogy - the scientist cannot always be right when there are billions of variations in human hearing.

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

"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.

Said the scientist to Diego Rivera -"That hand isn't anatomically accurate..."

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

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!?

You have to be a psychic, not a scientist, to tell me what I'm imagining. Or maybe your imagination extends to internet debates more readily than music.

Originally Posted by bob katz

When I receive an excellent in-the-box mix from a client using the most popular DAW (we have and use this DAW in our mixing system in Studio B as well)---as well as stems from the same client, I bring them into my Sequoia system. I carefully check gains and matching and the stems produce the identical levels to the ear as the full mix. Yet inevitably I (and visitors and other engineers) observe that simply summing in Sequoia from the stems produces a wider, deeper sound image.

Is this a scientific comparison? Absolutely not. It's an anecdotal observation. Is it possible that the client forgot to implement the dithered mixer in that DAW (it's a common mistake, the stereo dithered mixer can be found as an optional plugin that has to be moved into the main folder). Or is it something else?
...I intend to do some objective tests feeding stems out of Pro Tools HD along with full mixes and blind listening tests in Sequoia.
Bob

Samplitude...Sequoia's little brother

Originally Posted by Dog Boots

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.

Musicians who trust their ears and not the test of the indifferent and distant internet "scientist"-What is the world coming to?

Science is a tool. When it enables you you do best to embrace it. When it limits you unnecessarily or incorrectly, well...

The problem with science is there are always two equally educated and accomplished scientists on either side of every argument. (I know someone will respond with - "not this argument...Blah, blah...")

Too much ego and money involved in science these days for me to chalk up what I'm hearing as "imaginary" because someone very far from my monitors did a test once. That's my "anecdotal observation" and I'm sticking to it.

[BringItBack]

...and yes, the prediction was based on science

[Gibson]

Back on the topic of the Samplitude sound.

First i would like to add that i personaly own Samp Pro 10 which i had for 2 or so years. Originaly started with samp 9 then updated to 10.

I also have Nuendo 4 which i have been using for about 5 years. As same goes Nu 3 to 4 Upgrade....

For me its Nuendo for Tracking and Mixing . . .
Samplitude for Mastering . . . .

I have over the years i have used and tryed tracking to Samplitude but i find it way to Sterile , Bright , Digital Sounding , Thin.. Nasel..
Cant get the full bottoms out of kick and Bass with it.

I have a collection of great Pre,s.. API , Avedis , Avalon , Millennia ect
For converters i use Apogee AD/DA 16Xs. So my set up is not the problem.

Nuendo for tracking and mixing is just Mojo Heaven. Its fat , Smooth , Full and more Musical Sounding....



To try and describe the differences between both softwares is like-
Nuendo sounds like a Neve as to Samplitude Sounds like SSL..

So thats why i track and mix on Nuendo and use Samplitude for Mastering.

BTW Those of you who say software all sounds the same is total bull s..t

[deadears]

Originally Posted by Gibson

I have over the years i have used and tryed tracking to Samplitude but i find it way to Sterile , Bright , Digital Sounding , Thin.. Nasel..
Cant get the full bottoms out of kick and Bass with it.
<snip>
BTW Those of you who say software all sounds the same is total bull s..t

And the multitudes who successfully use Samplitude will likely think your problem is operator based.

~deadears

[Gibson]

Originally Posted by deadears

And the multitudes who successfully use Samplitude will likely think your problem is operator based.

~deadears

If its operator based then listen to my mixes 78 FROM HOME - Official Band Website
This should confirm my lack of knowledge.. What have you done.
I just want to know if were both on the same page?