Samplitude sound quality

[joeq]

Originally Posted by deadears

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

Could be. But that works both ways.

It could also be that similar 'operator based' problems might be reason Samplitude users don't like the "sound" of other DAWs.

for every guy saying "my DAW sounds best" there's another guy saying it sounds worse and another guy saying it sounds the same. There is a lack of consensus. Not only on what sounds "best" but even on what the difference IS.

When things really sound different, people agree on the differences. You may love a Strat and your buddy likes the Les Paul, but regardless of your preferences, both of you can agree on descriptions of what each one sounds like.

This agreement is totally lacking in all discussions of DAW sounds that I have seen.

[deadears]

Originally Posted by joeq

Could be. But that works both ways.

It could also be that similar 'operator based' problems might be reason Samplitude users don't like the "sound" of other DAWs.

I think the consensus of opinion of those who have been down this road more than once, regardless of their DAW of choice, is that any minute differences in the coding of digital audio software is negligible relative to other more important factors such as ad/da converters and the electronics on either side, the native or third party plug-ins you may be using, the dimensions of the space you are working in, the acoustic treatment of that space, and the color of the socks you are wearing as the absorptive factors will change with the density of the dye.

I will certainly agree that functionality and features, and hence the work flow of your (or anyone else's) favorite DAW is definitely a contributing factor in making you feel creative, and as a result, get better "quality" results.

So I think it's about features and functionality that works for the individual, and not the math that happens when you move the fader up and down a few db. When you patch in an EQ, that's a different story, and a whole different collection of arguments about who makes the better EQ.

~deadears

[deadears]

Originally Posted by Gibson

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?

While some folks use this forum for shameless self promotion, some of us choose to remain incognito to take "what have you done" out of the conversation, as it shouldn't be used to qualify an opinion towards a piece of hardware or software.

And no, we are not on the same page.

And for the record, I didn't listen to your music since I don't have speakers hooked up to this computer at the moment. And if I had, I would suspect the artifacts of your MP3 converter to have a greater impact on the fidelity of your music than the mix bus or input stage of your DAW.

~deadears

[Studiodawg]

come on guys...this pissing match kills the threaddfegad

[deadears]

Originally Posted by Studiodawg

come on guys...this pissing match kills the thread

Sorry, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Showing your credits ...or a link to a website with pictures of girls with big boobs ...does not make your opinion of "which DAW is better" more valid. (although I like pictures of pretty girls)

And the rest of my comment, that MP3 conversion degrades the quality of audio more than using any popular DAW, also stands.

~deadears

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by joeq

Could be. But that works both ways.

It could also be that similar 'operator based' problems might be reason Samplitude users don't like the "sound" of other DAWs.

for every guy saying "my DAW sounds best" there's another guy saying it sounds worse and another guy saying it sounds the same. There is a lack of consensus. Not only on what sounds "best" but even on what the difference IS.

When things really sound different, people agree on the differences. You may love a Strat and your buddy likes the Les Paul, but regardless of your preferences, both of you can agree on descriptions of what each one sounds like.

This agreement is totally lacking in all discussions of DAW sounds that I have seen.

I agree that there is no formal consensus that Samplitude sounds better. But I decided to try it because I noticed there were a lot more people who had experience with other DAWs and were impressed by Samplitude's sound quality when they switched.

Only Sonar comes close in user endorsement of sound quality in my admittedly informal census. Honestly, I just don't see a lot of people talking about how great Logic or DP or Cubase sound whereas that is usually cited by Samplitude users as a MAJOR reason for why they like the program.

Also, I'm not sure most people ever compare DAWs. Most of my musician friends have stayed with the one they started with and have never tried any other. We might have more agreement if more people actually compared the major DAWs

[ImJohn]

Originally Posted by Gibson

listen to my mixes 78 FROM HOME - Official Band Website

Sounds good, Gibson!

[Simma Lugnt]

Originally Posted by Randall

I can hear an obvious difference.. to me Samp 7 sounds better than 8 - 10.. People call me nutz.. for some reason somehow they seemed to have lost something after V7... Samp does have nice plugs as standard issue

The only problem I've had with V7 is that UAD plugs never seemed to work quite right.. and then they abandoned it before getting all the bugs worked out.. which seems to be standard operating procedure for all DAW software companies.

Wondering why some ppl hear the differance and some don't?

I too, hear differance between V7 and V10. V10 sounds "worst" to me but new V11 is improved. Did't compared it to my first Samplitude V5.2 yet...

It seams there are more nutz out there

[PDC]

Originally Posted by Simma Lugnt

Wondering why some ppl hear the differance and some don't?

I too, hear differance between V7 and V10. V10 sounds "worst" to me but new V11 is improved. Did't compared it to my first Samplitude V5.2 yet...

It seams there are more nutz out there

Probably because it's all in your heads because they did not recode the programs completely, or change the DAEs FWIBT.

[jazzimprov]

Have to agree with the sound difference in spite of the technical argument against it.

I tried Samp11 thinking it was inferior to Cubase 4. As a Cubase 4 owner I thought cubase was going to be a clearly better app so there was no predisposition to Samplitude. (11)

The Clarity and sound depth caught me right away!

The suprise was surprising!

So continue on with the Nullness of your ways but I'll let my ears do the listening on this one.

Jim

[Studiodawg]

Originally Posted by jazzimprov

Jim

thumbsup Years ago I researched Windows based DAWs and it came down to Samplitude/Sequoia vs. Cubase/Nuendo ... I chose Samplitude because many classical records are made with this software. Classical musicians are the fussiest people I know... so for all the null-sayers out there- Samplitude Rocks! And we're armed with am-munition.

[Tangible]

on this argument, I'm in a win/win situation. I think the sound quality argument is mostly bullshit, but Samplitude is my daw of choice, so I have nothing to lose .

[jerkface]

Originally Posted by Gibson

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.

Sounds GOOD! thumbsup

[jazzimprov]

what ever side you come down on- there are those that think there is an audible difference between DAWS, similar to the discussion about EQ's all being the same. --or not!


bottom line is use what your ears dictate and whatever other criteria you may use.

I

[Gibson]

I've recently been doing tracks with Samplitude again for a change. I agree it sounds wondrefull. I can hear the upper harmonics loud and clear. Bottom end has better more define separation between kick and bass. Bottom end is also deeper or extended. It's also more 3D and sounds open across the entire spectrum and more in your face and up front.
Wow Samplitude really rocks!!!
I take back what I said in the above posts.
That's life, you live and learn.

[MarsBot]

Originally Posted by Gibson

I've recently been doing tracks with Samplitude again for a change. I agree it sounds wondrefull. I can hear the upper harmonics loud and clear. Bottom end has better more define separation between kick and bass. Bottom end is also deeper or extended. It's also more 3D and sounds open across the entire spectrum and more in your face and up front.
Wow Samplitude really rocks!!!
I take back what I said in the above posts.
That's life, you live and learn.

Try the Studio One demo. It's markedly better than Samplitude. I've done quite a few songs in Samplitude and I like it. But Studio One is the next step.

[PDC]

Originally Posted by MarsBot

Try the Studio One demo. It's markedly better than Samplitude. I've done quite a few songs in Samplitude and I like it. But Studio One is the next step.

+1. While it is not a replacement for any one particular DAW, it is cool. MIDI is a bit weak, and some two button click processes in PT are not possible yet. But, I am waiting to see what develops.

[John Willett]

For info - Samplitude 11.1 is due for release any moment now (free if you have a v11 version already).

[Tube World]

I used Samplitude 10 and Cubase 5. Any difference in sound between the engines is so small and not worth even discussing at this point. If they sound a little different, my mixing with hardware and software plug ins, the end result will be the same. If Samp has a little more of X then you will touch up Cubase to get closer to the Samp sound...if that is what you want. More engineers are familar with Cubase, and the backing of Yamaha makes it more appealing to me. For mastering, since Cubase does not burn CD's, I use Samplitude which I prefer over Wavelab though both are good. Again more of a personal preference thing.

[Gibson]

Originally Posted by Tube World

I used Samplitude 10 and Cubase 5. Any difference in sound between the engines is so small and not worth even discussing at this point. If they sound a little different, my mixing with hardware and software plug ins, the end result will be the same. If Samp has a little more of X then you will touch up Cubase to get closer to the Samp sound...if that is what you want. More engineers are familar with Cubase, and the backing of Yamaha makes it more appealing to me. For mastering, since Cubase does not burn CD's, I use Samplitude which I prefer over Wavelab though both are good. Again more of a personal preference thing.

I think different software may just produce slightly different tone, From my experiance- Nuendo sounds thick and smooth- Samp is just slightly cleaner or not as colored. ITB summing engines are great on both.

[Teddy Ray]

Originally Posted by Gibson

I think different software may just produce slightly different tone, From my experiance- Nuendo sounds thick and smooth- Samp is just slightly cleaner or not as colored. ITB summing engines are great on both.

these sorts of statements make no sense...cannot think of any answers for this that do not involve us living in alternate dimensions, where the laws of physics , mathematics , etc are irrelevant. that being said, I love Samplitude because of the workflow, amazing plugs, and object based editing. I will never go back to PT or Nuendo..

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Surbitone

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 ........

Agreed that buzz about this or that fixation of the moment can distract us from the central role of our craft, making great music and sound recordings.

And granted that the situations where a null test is even applicable are quite limited. The files being compared must have originated under the same clocking and be in sample-accurate temporal alignment, and when compared, they must be precisely the same amplitude. (Inverting the polarity is the easy part. ) The general conditions don't come up often and the particulars can be hard to get right, even when they do.

But when two files fully null in a properly performed null test, one can be assured that they are functionally identical. And if they null within a given dynamic range, it can be said that they are functionally identical within that range. (That last is a little self-referential of a statement, but, if anything, that underlines the simple logic of the test.)


PS... Null testing can also be used for precisely time aligned analog audio, too. The logic is the same, the procedure is a little different. And, of course, it only tests one thing: the degree to which the audio signals being compared are identical. The most common situation would likely be to compare two analog signal chains for differnences (in which case you'd split the source to the beginning of the elements of the chain you were testing) or maybe to compare two possibly identical tracks on a multitrack recorder, where the tracks are already time aligned. Invert the polarity ('reverse the phase' if you like your tech semantics on the loose side) of one track and set it at a nominal level. Slowly raise the level of the other track until you reach a minimum signal level of the sum of the two tracks. Obviously that could be pretty tricky with normal program material, but if you had identical tones at the head of each track, you could set your null testing level there and then compare the program material. There's probably other ways. I just hadn't thought about null summing on analog in a million years. Nostalgia... a cruel mistress with a keen sense of irony. And, again, it's a test of limited value beyond such comparisons of possibly identical, time aligned signals.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

these sorts of statements make no sense...cannot think of any answers for this that do not involve us living in alternate dimensions, where the laws of physics , mathematics , etc are irrelevant. that being said, I love Samplitude because of the workflow, amazing plugs, and object based editing. I will never go back to PT or Nuendo..

We all live in alternate dimensions of mind, baby.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by Teddy Ray

these sorts of statements make no sense...cannot think of any answers for this that do not involve us living in alternate dimensions, where the laws of physics , mathematics , etc

Software is not simple in that everyone who develops it does it exactly the same way. Plug-ins can sound different but DAWs can't? Or do all plug ins sound the same too?

Is developing an audio engine as simple as pulling out a math and physics book and looking up 'digital summing' and 'audio engine' in the appendix/index, flip to those pages and jot down the formulas and start coding?

Sure it is the stuff of Mathematicians and physicists but there is still implementation. I'm not saying all DAWs sound different but you can't rule it out. Simply taking a stereo file and re-bouncing it and having them null only proves the render/mixdown algorithm produces the same result. Start adding fx and add sound card device drivers into the equation we'll see if everything nulls. It's not as simple as "the laws of physics , mathematics" Even in theory if every algorithm inside every DAW were standardized (which many are to be fair) there still would be the human element of error and misinterpretation and also re-implementation.

We all know how buggy computers & software are, even the smallest rounding error in a DAW could produce undesired results. How many
patches has Cubase had for v4? I can't even count them. And not one of those patches fixes a potential flaw with summing or the audio engine or ASIO or VST??? I have no idea either way but it's possible, and no one cane say for certain. And noone can say a bug or a different implementation of an algorithm would produce a different or undesired result potentially altering sound in some way.

There was a thread here yesterday about melodyne producing undesired artifacts. Sorry but a DAW is not exempt from implementation imperfections or bad coding or just a simple mistake, all which could make them sound different whether that was intended or not. Is it possible some software developers are more talented than others? And their code works more efficiently or reproduces sound differently? We all know plug-ins do why not an audio engine? or summing engine? plug-in engine? Sound-card device drivers?

afterall It's only just 0s and 1s............. well not really

[Tube World]

It's not just the DAW software but third party plug INS and how they react to the DAW updates. My last song in Samp I have been getting UAD errors. One or more plus were disabled due to some error. So I replaced all my Uad plug in with Samp and Waves plug INS. Then when I bounced the song the BFD drums were nit in sync with the song. But I have had no Samp or UAD software updates in the last year. Why not work in this song but the previous songs no problems? This is one reason why I updated to Cubase 5 from version 3. I have to say Cubase 5 is a huge improvement over 3. However I could equally make great mixes with both. I do prefer the workflow with Samp though with it's object editing. Not to mention when you double click on a wave file so many more options show up in Samp compared to when you open the similar window in Cubase where the Eq, inserts, etc are present.

[Barfunkel]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

Software is not simple in that everyone who develops it does it exactly the same way. Plug-ins can sound different but DAWs can't? Or do all plug ins sound the same too?

Is developing an audio engine as simple as pulling out a math and physics book and looking up 'digital summing' and 'audio engine' in the appendix/index, flip to those pages and jot down the formulas and start coding?

I used to code a lot as a teenager. There was a HUGE difference between different simple .wav player algorithms. Not talking about audiophile kind of differences but big ones, audible to anyone. That was just playing one .wav file, no mixing or anything. Of course things have advanced a lot, I don't think anyone can hear the difference between, say, Winamp and Windows Media player now. But the point is, the coding does affect the sound quality. I don't understand how anyone can say that it's impossible to, for example, 64 tracks played simultaneously, with tons of plugins (plus say some hardware outboard thrown in, to complicate matters) to sound different with different DAW's. The files might null with a few tracks and no plugins (because that's a simple enough task for all professional coders to get right these days), but has anyone tested a huge arrangement with tons of plugins? Especially with them all playing live, not printed. Just tons of tracks, tons of plugins and outboard, recorded live and then comparing the results.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

Software is not simple in that everyone who develops it does it exactly the same way. Plug-ins can sound different but DAWs can't? Or do all plug ins sound the same too?

The thing is that to alter the sound you need to process it somehow.
In plain mixing the only process involved is one multiplication per channel, followed by addition of all the channels.
Now, multiplication and addition are very basic CPU commands.
In other words, there is no room to do it differently.
What could differ is the wordlength used for these commands.
But that would mean that some DAWs would have reached uber-quality years ago since they implement a 64-bit mixing engine.
Noone seems to like these more than the common 32-bit engines, however.
Furthermore, i beliefe that samplitude is plain old 32-bit float internally, so not different from the current crop of common sequencers.

So what is left is a difference in the plugins, which usually do much much more complicated stuff than plain mixing, and can in fact be done in different ways.

So again, you cannot do stuff like multiplication or addition differently without increasing the cpu load by a couple of orders of magnitude.
It is just not a viable option.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

Is developing an audio engine as simple as pulling out a math and physics book and looking up 'digital summing' and 'audio engine' in the appendix/index, flip to those pages and jot down the formulas and start coding?

It's even simpler than that.
You don't need any math or physics books to come up with it.
Digital summing is nothing more than adding all the current/actual samples from every track.
It is just a series of additions.
And this is exactly the reason why all the audio engines null in the tests. They do the same stuff, namely summing.
And just think about it, 'to sum' is just another word for 'to add up'.
There is no magic to it.
It's your lack of understanding this fact that makes you think there is some special process involved.
There is none.
If there is, then please show how you can sum samples in a different way on a computer.

Same goes for gain change.
You multiply the samples with a certain number.
Multiply by 1 and everything stays the same.
Multiply by 0.5 and all the samples are half as big.
Multiply by 2 and all the sample values will be 2x as big.
It's just that simple.

The actual audio engine is much more concerned with keeping track of all the sample data so it can all be output to the audiocard driver on time.
If the engine doesn't output on time then you will get dropouts etc. so this is actually the core function of the audio engine.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by Barfunkel

I used to code a lot as a teenager. There was a HUGE difference between different simple .wav player algorithms. Not talking about audiophile kind of differences but big ones, audible to anyone. That was just playing one .wav file, no mixing or anything. Of course things have advanced a lot, I don't think anyone can hear the difference between, say, Winamp and Windows Media player now. But the point is, the coding does affect the sound quality.

A lot of these players were just faulty in the beginnings.
A lot of them relied on integer calculus too.
And of course windows was pretty bad at handling audio.
Not to mention funky driver issues in soundcards.
But that is a thing of the past now and has been for about a decade.

[robertshaw]

Originally Posted by Barfunkel

I used to code a lot as a teenager. There was a HUGE difference between different simple .wav player algorithms. Not talking about audiophile kind of differences but big ones, audible to anyone. That was just playing one .wav file, no mixing or anything. Of course things have advanced a lot, I don't think anyone can hear the difference between, say, Winamp and Windows Media player now. But the point is, the coding does affect the sound quality. I don't understand how anyone can say that it's impossible to, for example, 64 tracks played simultaneously, with tons of plugins (plus say some hardware outboard thrown in, to complicate matters) to sound different with different DAW's. The files might null with a few tracks and no plugins (because that's a simple enough task for all professional coders to get right these days), but has anyone tested a huge arrangement with tons of plugins? Especially with them all playing live, not printed. Just tons of tracks, tons of plugins and outboard, recorded live and then comparing the results.

right , not talking about playing a single wav file back talking about
summing playing back loads of wav files with plugins/effects

big difference than using PlaySound() function or whatever