Samplitude sound quality

[The dman]

Originally Posted by gurubuzz

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsup



Like the time many years ago when I spent half an hour panning stuff and saying "Hmmm yes that sounds better" when all along the mono switch was in

And the time when I tweak an eq, hear the difference and realise that the eq was bypassed....

DON'T LAUGH it's a big lesson, when it happens to you, of what you believe and what is actually true...

LOL we've all been there a time or two

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by drpenguen

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

but samps object editing is a fantastic idea...

i use cubase too, i am still on sx 3...

heard some bugs on 5

waiting for fix... or shouldnt i wait....

Cubase has had this for awhile now. You can apply any effects to and OBJECT or audio event.

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

Why is it that Nuendo is so much more expensive, about £800 more expensive? If I remember correctly, it used to be that you couldn't do video editing or 5.1 in Cubase, but hasn't this changed now? Does it come with a lot more plug-ins than Cubase?

Either way, it's hard to justify the price increase. Is there something magical Nuendo can do that Cubase can't? I have only used Nuendo for a long time now and haven't seen the new Cubase in action so haven't had a chance to see the differences.

The real question is how did the price jump from $1200 for Nuendo to $2100 for the FULL verion??? WITHOUT adding anything new to it. Cubase was $600 at that time and Nuendo was $1200 and they jacked the price up to $2100 for the full kit.

Yes NUENDO has a lot more bells and whistles but for the guys making records, you would never use those things for the most part. Most of it is POST features and more file compatibility, surround options and networking more than one Nuendo system to a bigger hub so multiple stations can work on the project

[gurubuzz]

Originally Posted by shanabit

Cubase has had this for awhile now. You can apply any effects to and OBJECT or audio event.

Cubase does it offline and has an audio object undo history. if you chop a bit of audio right click and apply a pluggin is doesn't touch that bit of audio it creates a new file and pastes it in it's place. YOU don't see it do it ...to you it looks integrated but it's not.

Samplitude
since, like, version 5 has realtime object channel strips... each time you cut an object you can have discrete EQ compression and plugins etc and it does it in real time, it's not just slipping a new file under your nose like cubase does. I just wish samplitude automation was easier to go above 0db on a channel.

Cubase rocks when it comes to gain staging.

Here is another example of REALITY vs BELIEF

During a session on an album I decided to switch to 96k to see what it sounded like.

It blew me away it sounded awesome...it was crisp punchy and had clarity

it sounded great...I was never going back...

The next song, I recorded and then started mixing it. That too sounded awesome... the best mix i had done to date...it was beautiful working in 96k

For some reason I was in the project settings and to my disBelief, it was set to 44.1k...

This could not be true could it ? ...I checked the pool and all the recorded tracks were 44.1 and the project was definitely 44.1.

Big lesson "I" was a better engineer that day

it was me who was to be congratulated for an awesome sounding mix NOT the sample rate...

Sometimes I think I have big problems but then I contemplate the size of the universe.

Our brains are play dough you can make whatever you think of true...

[trock]

thanks, i have to get some new songs up there and get it updated, those and the site are a couple years old with no changes

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

Why is it that Nuendo is so much more expensive, about £800 more expensive? If I remember correctly, it used to be that you couldn't do video editing or 5.1 in Cubase, but hasn't this changed now? Does it come with a lot more plug-ins than Cubase?

Either way, it's hard to justify the price increase. Is there something magical Nuendo can do that Cubase can't? I have only used Nuendo for a long time now and haven't seen the new Cubase in action so haven't had a chance to see the differences.

because there isnt one

nuendo and sequola is more expensive, because of their video/surround stuff...
nothing else...

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by gurubuzz

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsup


Null Test is a Null test

and if you argue that something sounds better in the face of a Null you just have missed somewhere along the line what cancellation really means.

If someone says they can hear the difference in the face of a true null you are being a bit too creative...

Like the time many years ago when I spent half an hour panning stuff and saying "Hmmm yes that sounds better" when all along the mono switch was in

And the time when I tweak an eq, hear the difference and realise that the eq was bypassed....

DON'T LAUGH it's a big lesson, when it happens to you, of what you believe and what is actually true...

this is an excellent post dude
i did the same things many times too... i sometimes still do

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by shanabit

Cubase has had this for awhile now. You can apply any effects to and OBJECT or audio event.

its not the same thing...
in samp, every object has is own little mixer type window,
you can insert fx, etc, and edit them and week later, teak the fx ....

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by gurubuzz

Cubase does it offline and has an audio object undo history. if you chop a bit of audio right click and apply a pluggin is doesn't touch that bit of audio it creates a new file and pastes it in it's place. YOU don't see it do it ...to you it looks integrated but it's not.

Cubase allows you to preview it BEFORE you apply it and create a new processed file. I dont care if its offline as Im gong to commit and move on

I dont want it to affect the original file myself. Cubase doesnt touch ANY of the ORIGINAL file and thats the way it should be. You can ALWAYS go back to the original file through the history or your sequential saves that youve done. I think it integrates just fine and uses less CPU to do it.
Sorta like Protools Audio Suite versions of the plugins.

The realtime aspect of Samp for the object editing is cool though.
Now, if they ALL could get rid of their bugs wed all be happy.
Midi in Samp sucks, sound quality is fine. I do a lot of midi, guess what I use?

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by drpenguen

its not the same thing...
in samp, every object has is own little mixer type window,
you can insert fx, etc, and edit them and week later, teak the fx ....

I DIDNT say it was the SAME, I said it has OBJECT processing. Yes is not the SAME as SAMP. Protools will do it as well. Take another read if you will
I said Cubase has object processing, thats it. I know what Cubase does and does not have. Im pointing out that Cubase can do processing on an audio event/region/object which the person I quoted didnt seem to think was there, it is!! I KNOW how SAMP works and yes the concept taken to the next level and then some. Yes it ROCKS!!!!
I like to COMMIT my edits and move on so the Cubase method doesnt bother me here.

Get Samps MIDI control surface functions together and Ill be there. Until then, OBJECT EDITING will have to wait.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by shanabit

I DIDNT say it was the SAME, I said it has OBJECT processing. Yes is not the SAME as SAMP. Protools will do it as well. Take another read if you will
I said Cubase has object processing, thats it. I know what Cubase does and does not have. Im pointing out that Cubase can do processing on an audio event/region/object which the person I quoted didnt seem to think was there, it is!! I KNOW how SAMP works and yes the concept taken to the next level and then some. Yes it ROCKS!!!!
I like to COMMIT my edits and move on so the Cubase method doesnt bother me here.

Get Samps MIDI control surface functions together and Ill be there. Until then, OBJECT EDITING will have to wait.

i use cubase myself too... chill out

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by drpenguen

because there isnt one

nuendo and sequola is more expensive, because of their video/surround stuff...
nothing else...

Not quiet true - Sequoia has 4-point source/destination editing, which Samplitude doesn't - Sequoia is worth the extra for that alone and that's why I bought Sequoia.

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Not quiet true - Sequoia has 4-point source/destination editing, which Samplitude doesn't - Sequoia is worth the extra for that alone and that's why I bought Sequoia.

I've never understood what 4-point editing is. Is there somewhere I can learn about and/or experience it?

[violindave]

I switched from Nuendo 2 to Samp Pro just before version 8.

I heard a distinct difference in sound. Nuendo sounded very good to me before the comparison but compared, Nuendo sounded sort of compressed against the open-ness of Samp. Since I do a lot of acoustic instruments, violin, guitar etc this was very important to me. I find it to be very transparent even with very high track counts. The transparency has kept me with Samp despite some bugs [which DAW software doesn't?] and the documentation which could be improved, though learning the basics is a snap. The object based features are definitely great too and the ability to burn CDs right from the program. Samps own effects suites are also fabulous and another definite plus.

I do not hear a degradation of the Samp sound with newer versions. There was some discussion of this on Samp forums and from my recall had something to do with plugins not with Samp, but I don't recall the specifics on that. Personally I use plugins also and don't find the sound to degrade so I dunno.

I know this may defy scientific logic that zeros and ones might sound different from one to the other DAW, my understanding is it may have something to do with the internal processing or the summing mixer in the software, which may be higher resolution in Samp. That tech stuff is over my head, I'll leave that to others.

But whether it is smoke and mirrors all I know is it sounds better to me and that's all I care about.

YMMV
cheers
Dave

[mplancke]

Originally Posted by gurubuzz

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsupthumbsup


Null Test is a Null test


DON'T LAUGH it's a big lesson, when it happens to you, of what you believe and what is actually true...

Ahhhh, the purist approach. I'll only believe in science to verify what my ears are telling me. Just like the audiophile guys talk about proving results in double blind tests. How the hell do you get anything done in the studio? "Please wait Mr. artist, I must put a scope up and do some tests to verify that what I'm hearing is okay."

Here in the real world, where we modify and bend audio routinely to get a sound, where plug-in and track counts approach the obscene. Load in 100 tracks and 100 or 150 plugins, do some automation, overdrive the channels, abuse the 2 bus, do some real work and let me know which programs fold up and which ones don't.

Mark

[clorax hurd]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Not quiet true - Sequoia has 4-point source/destination editing, which Samplitude doesn't - Sequoia is worth the extra for that alone and that's why I bought Sequoia.

could you please explain me what is this good for? I think I understood what it does, (after reading the info about it on sequoia page Samplitude, Sequoia, Sam for Rent ) but i cannot imagine when i would need it and what for. why wouldn't i use copy/paste instead?

[Leon EA]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

Why is it that Nuendo is so much more expensive, about £800 more expensive? If I remember correctly, it used to be that you couldn't do video editing or 5.1 in Cubase, but hasn't this changed now? Does it come with a lot more plug-ins than Cubase?

Either way, it's hard to justify the price increase. Is there something magical Nuendo can do that Cubase can't? I have only used Nuendo for a long time now and haven't seen the new Cubase in action so haven't had a chance to see the differences.

Post pro features, surround, more extensive automation, file support, project exchange, networking, 9-pin control, some plugs, etc, etc.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by John Willett

Not quiet true - Sequoia has 4-point source/destination editing, which Samplitude doesn't - Sequoia is worth the extra for that alone and that's why I bought Sequoia.

i know that, we have both... i didnt wanted to go in to details...

[vernier]

Since they all Null, may as well save a buck and use Reaper. Its free.
'

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by vernier

Since they all Null, may as well save a buck and use Reaper. Its free.
'

REAPER | Purchase

Doesnt look FREE to me unless your the crooked kind

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by mplancke

Ahhhh, the purist approach. I'll only believe in science to verify what my ears are telling me. Just like the audiophile guys talk about proving results in double blind tests. How the hell do you get anything done in the studio? "Please wait Mr. artist, I must put a scope up and do some tests to verify that what I'm hearing is okay."

Here in the real world, where we modify and bend audio routinely to get a sound, where plug-in and track counts approach the obscene. Load in 100 tracks and 100 or 150 plugins, do some automation, overdrive the channels, abuse the 2 bus, do some real work and let me know which programs fold up and which ones don't.

Mark

we did test that too.... in protools case :

we did the first test bwith heavy plug ins.....
it nulls RTD vs BTD

then we drew a lot of random automation....
i would say it was pretty heavy automation,

we bounced to disc (BTD) 2-3 times... they didnt even perfectly NULL all the way....
regarding to automation....

on record to disc (RTD) same 2-3 takes didnt even NULL eachother....

RTD vs BTD same, they didnt null....


when i say thye diodnt null, they were quite null, but on some parts very audible
differences....

screen shots are at

Bouncing to disk in Pro Tools LE

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

I've never understood what 4-point editing is. Is there somewhere I can learn about and/or experience it?

You can see it on the Samplitude website.

It makes editing much faster - so much that even the client commented how much better it was.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by clorax hurd

could you please explain me what is this good for? I think I understood what it does, (after reading the info about it on sequoia page Samplitude, Sequoia, Sam for Rent ) but i cannot imagine when i would need it and what for. why wouldn't i use copy/paste instead?

It's the best and fastest way of editing - and very easy to trim to get it right without having to do undo/redo on an edit to get it right.

I love it.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by vernier

Since they all Null, may as well save a buck and use Reaper. Its free.
'

i havent done any *null test to it but, i would be very surprised if it didnt null

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by John Willett

You can see it on the Samplitude website.

It makes editing much faster - so much that even the client commented how much better it was.

I have looked, and I still don't understand how it's special or useful. It seems like another poster doesn't either.

Can you please explain an instance or two where this would be useful

[Leon EA]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

I have looked, and I still don't understand how it's special or useful. It seems like another poster doesn't either.

Can you please explain an instance or two where this would be useful

It is a traditional way of editing, which is still very common in editing of classical music.
In my opinion, it is only useful when doing a lot of edits over multiple tracks, or when a certain selection needs to be copied to multiple positions. For single tracks, or just a few, the "regular" editing is faster imo.

[a1236040]

I have do some null test with Nuendo 3.2 and Samplitude 10.
Still audio differences and Samplitude seems to sound better. I think that Samplitude works in a different (better) way the plugins and I agree with Bob Ohlsson that maybe the great difference is the dither. Not only when you dithering to 16 bit but also the dither that the program does on every track when you put a plugin. If you put a spectrum analyzer you can see this. And not last, it seems that the vst instruments play better into Samplitude. I have do a test bouncing some vsti from Nuendo and Samplitude and with Samplitude the sound is more deep and open with much transient informations.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by a1236040

I have do some null test with Nuendo 3.2 and Samplitude 10.
Still audio differences and Samplitude seems to sound better. I think that Samplitude works in a different (better) way the plugins and I agree with Bob Ohlsson that maybe the great difference is the dither. Not only when you dithering to 16 bit but also the dither that the program does on every track when you put a plugin. If you put a spectrum analyzer you can see this. And not last, it seems that the vst instruments play better into Samplitude. I have do a test bouncing some vsti from Nuendo and Samplitude and with Samplitude the sound is more deep and open with much transient informations.

what pan law did you set your samp to?

[cooker]

Originally Posted by a1236040

I have do some null test with Nuendo 3.2 and Samplitude 10.
Still audio differences and Samplitude seems to sound better. I think that Samplitude works in a different (better) way the plugins and I agree with Bob Ohlsson that maybe the great difference is the dither. Not only when you dithering to 16 bit but also the dither that the program does on every track when you put a plugin. If you put a spectrum analyzer you can see this. And not last, it seems that the vst instruments play better into Samplitude. I have do a test bouncing some vsti from Nuendo and Samplitude and with Samplitude the sound is more deep and open with much transient informations.

Samplitude has (if I remember right) auto dither, be sure to check its not enabled.

[a1236040]

Thank you, tomorrow I'll check eveythings