Samplitude sound quality

[ShadowAMD]

I have to admit I have read alot on this, can one DAW sound better than another?

Of course it can, by trade I am a IPT (IP telephony) Engineer, all I deal with most of the time is codec's, audio streams, jitter correction and other audio related details. I am also on the side a programmer for audio replication plugs for Emulator's like PSEMU etc.

I'll keep this as simple as possible, we have two different audio codec's G.711 A-Law and G.711 U-Law now they are both a 64kbps audio streaming codec used on telephony platforms. In essence they are similar and they ultimatley strive to do the same thing, one was created for the EU one was created for America and Japan.

G.711 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (notice the bit's about better high end and low end quantize).

Do they sound different? Yes
Do they achieve the same thing? Yes
Are they different ways of doing things? Yes
Which one sounds the best? Whatever you prefer...

So getting off my relation and back to the subject even if a Daw sounds better but lack's functionality and reliabilty, will you use it?

Depends if you can put up with it.

It's no different from sound engines to game engines, they are all written in different ways to achieve different things. It's you that has to way up the pro's and cons.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Dannyvect

I have to admit I have read alot on this, can one DAW sound better than another?

Of course it can,

can and does are two different things. DAWs use the full audio signal and do not reduce it to a codec. The "engine" is Addition.

to date, the evidence shows that most, if not all DAWs null when settings are matched

if you have proof of your contentions -
such as:

• tests where everything was set the same (including pan law) and the DAWs did not null

• blindfold tests where a listener was able to pick out one DAW from another when all settings were identical

- bring that evidence here for us to look at

[Arksun]

Originally Posted by Dannyvect

I have to admit I have read alot on this, can one DAW sound better than another?

Of course it can, by trade I am a IPT (IP telephony) Engineer, all I deal with most of the time is codec's, audio streams, jitter correction and other audio related details. I am also on the side a programmer for audio replication plugs for Emulator's like PSEMU etc.

I'll keep this as simple as possible, we have two different audio codec's G.711 A-Law and G.711 U-Law now they are both a 64kbps audio streaming codec used on telephony platforms. In essence they are similar and they ultimatley strive to do the same thing, one was created for the EU one was created for America and Japan.

G.711 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (notice the bit's about better high end and low end quantize).

Do they sound different? Yes
Do they achieve the same thing? Yes
Are they different ways of doing things? Yes
Which one sounds the best? Whatever you prefer...

So getting off my relation and back to the subject even if a Daw sounds better but lack's functionality and reliabilty, will you use it?

Depends if you can put up with it.

It's no different from sound engines to game engines, they are all written in different ways to achieve different things. It's you that has to way up the pro's and cons.

It's entirely different. You're making an analogy between DAW audio streams (32 or 64-bit uncompressed) and telephony audio codecs (which compress the data and the A law and U law aren't even the same number of original bits!)

How exactly is comparing 32-bit float vrs 32-bit float the same as comparing 13-bit audio compressed to 8bit vrs 14bit audio compressed to 8bit using an entirely different method?.

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by joeq

can and does are two different things

to date, the evidence shows that most, if not all DAWs null when settings are matched

if you have proof of your contentions -
such as:

• tests where everything was set the same (including pan law) and the DAWs did not null

• blindfold tests where a listener was able to pick out one DAW from another when all settings were identical

- bring that evidence here for us to look at

In all fairness, it's pretty simple and pretty commonplace. I have better versions of linear preditive codecs that are better than others.

Unless all the music DAW manufacturers are literally ripping each other off, it will sound different. It's just like the quake 3 engine vs. the unreal engine they are written in different ways, unless another game is using the same engine it will look different.

This is a really simple concept and it is naive to think otherwise.

I'm not saying any is better than any other, I'm also not saying that they will sound world's apart.

Audio is part of my profession and I have been doing it for a while, I can assure you without doubt there will be differences.

If you are sceptical that's fine, tbh I'm not really bothered but if you want to learn the basics of audio engines, how they work are designed and implemented I can point you to material. Also there is RFC and IEEE standard's on how protocols and codecs work and how they can be used within specific audio applications.

IEEE Signal Processing Society - Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing

Some random basics on IEEE and Signal Processing, there is so much of this stuff it is unbeleiveable.

If you know how it all works then it does not matter what people "think".

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by Arksun

It's entirely different. You're making an analogy between DAW audio streams (32 or 64-bit uncompressed) and telephony audio codecs (which compress the data and the A law and U law aren't even the same number of original bits!)

How exactly is comparing 32-bit float vrs 32-bit float the same as comparing 13-bit audio compressed to 8bit vrs 14bit audio compressed to 8bit using an entirely different method?.

All I'm trying to say is they do things differently and achieve a similar outcome.. But not the same.. All audio engines have different method's..

BTW it's a PCM module not just a bit rate compressor, that example is an excerpt.

[rocksure]

In the last couple of weeks I have been using Samplitude to edit drum samples. I am normally a Logic user and don't know Samplitude very well. I have to say as far as editing samples goes it is far easier to do it accurately and quickly in this program than in Logic.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Dannyvect

All I'm trying to say is they do things differently and achieve a similar outcome..

No, they achieve an identical outcome - that's what nulling means

But not the same.. All audio engines have different method's..

and yet they null! how curious.

Your telephony experience is pointing you in the wrong direction. There are no codecs in the DAW - no systems for reduction of data that might vary from one to the next. The "engine" is simple addition in every case, and there is only one way to add 1 + 1 and that is = 2

The DAWs null. How can you "get around" this simple fact?

Even if the 'methods' were different, it doesn't matter one bit. < ha ha see what I did there?

Anyway, if you have actual evidence - such as non-nulls or blindfolded human trials - you are still more than welcome to share it.

[ShadowAMD]

All audio is simple addition from sampling to compression to everything a computer does, and beleive me if there is a 2 involved the system has a problem.

It's what it does with these numbers that counts.

Hearing test's are subjective and I don't trust them 100 percent.

I don't really care for your null test result's either.

If you give me / or prove to me that the source code in a couple of DAW's audio engine is the exact same and all variables and threshold's are set to the same then I will say hey I guess your right.

Even Samplitude says they think it sounds better.

"Praised for its excellent sound which is based on highly developed digital algorithms, absolute phase stability and consistent application of floating point calculations, Samplitude is one of the most successful and ambitious solutions for audio authoring, editing & mastering for your PC."

Samplitude 11 > Shop > Samplitude

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Dannyvect

All audio is simple addition from sampling to compression to everything a computer does, and beleive me if there is a 2 involved the system has a problem.

clever, but since we all know what I am getting at, no points tutt

Hearing test's are subjective and I don't trust them 100 percent.

They are certainly more reliable than anecdotes. If the DAWs null, AND nobody can pick them out blindfolded, where does that leave the claim that one sounds 'better' than another, or even different?

I don't really care for your null test result's either.

If you give me / or prove to me that the source code in a couple of DAW's audio engine is the exact same and all variables and threshold's are set to the same then I will say hey I guess your right.

And I don't care if you 'care' for the null test results. There is no refutation of a full null. There is no need to look at the source code if the results are bit-identical every time.

The phenomenon you are challenging me to 'explain' has yet to be shown to Exist. I do not need to show you an aerodynamic analysis of swine torsos - you need to show me a video of a flying pig:


The burden of proof is on you.

Before you look for reasons to explain why a difference might exist, show us this difference! It's a simple request, IMO.

Even Samplitude says they think it sounds better.

"Praised for its excellent sound which is based on highly developed digital algorithms, absolute phase stability and consistent application of floating point calculations, Samplitude is one of the most successful and ambitious solutions for audio authoring, editing & mastering for your PC."

read it again!

The wording is VERY careful not to claim "better" sound. All DAWs sound "excellent" - and 'successful' and 'ambitious' are workflow statements, not "sound quality" claims. It's "highly developed" not "higher developed". Where does it say their competitors have "less developed" algorithms, or 'unstable phase'? Where does it say listeners picked Samplitude out 10 to 1 in blind tests?

It's just like a gasoline claiming "nothing makes your car go faster" No other gas makes your car go slower either, but technically, they are not "lying".

[ShadowAMD]

Originally Posted by joeq

clever, but since we all know what I am getting at, no points tutt



They are certainly more reliable than anecdotes. If the DAWs null, AND nobody can pick them out blindfolded, where does that leave the claim that one sounds 'better' than another, or even different?



And I don't care if you 'care' for the null test results. There is no refutation of a full null. There is no need to look at the source code if the results are bit-identical every time.

The phenomenon you are challenging me to 'explain' has yet to be shown to Exist. I do not need to show you an aerodynamic analysis of swine torsos - you need to show me a video of a flying pig:


The burden of proof is on you.

Before you look for reasons to explain why a difference might exist, show us this difference! It's a simple request, IMO.



read it again!

The wording is VERY careful not to claim "better" sound. All DAWs sound "excellent" - and 'successful' and 'ambitious' are workflow statements, not "sound quality" claims. It's "highly developed" not "higher developed". Where does it say their competitors have "less developed" algorithms, or 'unstable phase'? Where does it say listeners picked Samplitude out 10 to 1 in blind tests?

It's just like a gasoline claiming "nothing makes your car go faster" No other gas makes your car go slower either, but technically, they are not "lying".

Nah dude, the burden of proof is not on me and null tests prove nothing in an every day working enviroment. You can't prove to me that other DAW's don't have better sonic quality...

So instead of wasting my time arguing about something that can go on forever, I'm going to go learn how to mix better in whatever DAW I "think" I can get the best results out of

[timlloyd]

Originally Posted by Dannyvect

"Praised for its excellent sound which is based on highly developed digital algorithms, absolute phase stability and consistent application of floating point calculations, Samplitude is one of the most successful and ambitious solutions for audio authoring, editing & mastering for your PC."

The "absolute phase stability" part is referring to Samplitude's ability to play back multiple different sample rates on-the-fly without sub-sample shifts. No other DAW that I know of (apart from REAPER) can do this; they all require audio items to be the same sample rate as the project/session.....which means that they're 100% sample accurate anyway...no phase issues at all. And REAPER is phase-accurate as well...

You have to remember that anything they write on their website is worded and intended specifically to sell their products.....

[timlloyd]

Originally Posted by Dannyvect

null tests prove nothing in an every day working enviroment.

Actually, a null between two files does prove irrefutably that they are the same...and therefore sound the same, because they are the same.

So instead of wasting my time arguing about something that can go on forever, I'm going to go learn how to mix better in whatever DAW I "think" I can get the best results out of

Yes. This is the point

[Bob Olhsson]

DAWs only sound the same when playing audio with absolutely no DSP such as gain changes involved. The minute you are doing multiplications you are dealing with how the application handles exponents and that certainly can be expected to change the sound because the numbers are not the same.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by TimDolbear

Samplitude V12 will not be Windows and Mac, Mac is still a year out... Its a big process...V12 will be 64bit and there is a revamping of the entire routing and automation system and a lot more. V12 is slated for release in N.America in July.

Ok, so does that mean Mac for V13? Or some sort of Mac update before 13 comes out? Or is that still undecided?

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

DAWs only sound the same when playing audio with absolutely no DSP such as gain changes involved. The minute you are doing multiplications you are dealing with how the application handles exponents and that certainly can be expected to change the sound because the numbers are not the same.

Lynn Fuston's tests for 'fader damage' nulled with the "faders at 0" tests. The gain changes made no difference.

Tests using 3rd-party plugs with identical presets have also nulled.

[TimDolbear]

Probably just as V13 early next year.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by joeq

Lynn Fuston's tests for 'fader damage' nulled with the "faders at 0" tests. The gain changes made no difference.

I don't know the test, but it sounds like having the 'faders at 0' would null on any daw?

Anyway, since i switched from mac to pc i have been trying out samplitude and must say i like it.
But it doesn't sound better than logic, in fact, they sound the same to me.
Some plugins that come with it are very nice, but others are so-so.

Before samplitude, tho, i was trying to get things going with ableton.
That one never rocked with me and i allways found the sound of it slightly unclean.
The thing is, i use the same set of synth plugs in both sequencers.
Live comes out gritty and not quite how i expect it to be sound-wise.
With samplitude i had a sort of homecomming.
It was the sound that i was used to from working with logic, what i consider 'normal'.

[ShadowAMD]

Tbh I'm not fussed, if I can get the same result and not have to use pro tools I'm happy.

[LdC]

Originally Posted by monomer

I don't know the test, but it sounds like having the 'faders at 0' would null on any daw?

He meant that audio rendered with the faders at zero nulled with the audio rendered with 'fader damage' (ie, successive gain boosts/cuts, eg, +20dB followed by -20dB or whatever).

[miro]

Originally Posted by monomer

I don't know the test, but it sounds like having the 'faders at 0' would null on any daw?

Anyway, since i switched from mac to pc i have been trying out samplitude and must say i like it.
But it doesn't sound better than logic, in fact, they sound the same to me.
Some plugins that come with it are very nice, but others are so-so.

Before samplitude, tho, i was trying to get things going with ableton.
That one never rocked with me and i allways found the sound of it slightly unclean.
The thing is, i use the same set of synth plugs in both sequencers.
Live comes out gritty and not quite how i expect it to be sound-wise.
With samplitude i had a sort of homecomming.
It was the sound that i was used to from working with logic, what i consider 'normal'.

maybe you heard live worse because it never rocked with you.
(that IS a valid point in being biased)

Live has been nulled with other DAWs.

[monomer]

Originally Posted by miro

maybe you heard live worse because it never rocked with you.
(that IS a valid point in being biased)

Live has been nulled with other DAWs.

Yes, that is a possibility and i won't deny it,.
But i don't THINK so for two reasons.
1) For me the sound and the UI seem to be separate things. I seem to judge these more or less separately. I know tools with a crappy UI that sound great and tools that sound bad but have a nice UI.
2) I've used Live for about two years now and i don't hate it with a passion or anything. But i never got it to sound transparent.
I'm not talking about the rendered results, i'm talking about live monitoring and working on a composition.
I KNOW the timing is wonky because i've been doing some dj-like experiments with manually synching to Reason. Live always went out of phase after a couple of bars, while Reason stays phase locked for minutes at a time, even while you have several instances playing at a time.
Maybe this is causing the 'bad' sound i'm hearing.
If you were wondering, it was not this experiment that made me change my mind. I already found that live didn't sound very well before i did these, but thought that maybe i should give live a chance since it's used so widely. Maybe the tool was worth it somehow.

So my bias towards live is a bit of a mixed bag. I like some things, don't like others.
But sound quality was never something that was obvious to me in live.

[miro]

Originally Posted by monomer

Yes, that is a possibility and i won't deny it,.
But i don't THINK so for two reasons.
1) For me the sound and the UI seem to be separate things. I seem to judge these more or less separately. I know tools with a crappy UI that sound great and tools that sound bad but have a nice UI.
2) I've used Live for about two years now and i don't hate it with a passion or anything. But i never got it to sound transparent.
I'm not talking about the rendered results, i'm talking about live monitoring and working on a composition.
I KNOW the timing is wonky because i've been doing some dj-like experiments with manually synching to Reason. Live always went out of phase after a couple of bars, while Reason stays phase locked for minutes at a time, even while you have several instances playing at a time.
Maybe this is causing the 'bad' sound i'm hearing.
If you were wondering, it was not this experiment that made me change my mind. I already found that live didn't sound very well before i did these, but thought that maybe i should give live a chance since it's used so widely. Maybe the tool was worth it somehow.

So my bias towards live is a bit of a mixed bag. I like some things, don't like others.
But sound quality was never something that was obvious to me in live.

Are you 100% sure you did everything correct with the DJ-ing thing? I play live and DJ (actually a combination) since years and really dunno what you mean. The warping points are extremely important AND what mode you set it to. It's true, that in "Beats" Mode it can sound a bit off, but no so when set to "Re-Pitch". That mode is absolutely clean and perfect.

Sorry guys for going off topic

[monomer]

Originally Posted by miro

Are you 100% sure you did everything correct with the DJ-ing thing? I play live and DJ (actually a combination) since years and really dunno what you mean. The warping points are extremely important AND what mode you set it to. It's true, that in "Beats" Mode it can sound a bit off, but no so when set to "Re-Pitch". That mode is absolutely clean and perfect.

Sorry guys for going off topic

I'll keep it short then
I used live mostly as a midi sequencer with some audio and i usually do loops in samplers, so i actually didn't use some audio features like warping (well, most of the time anyway).
So for me live was mostly a vst host.
Maybe if you work with audio loops exclusively it's better, but i do a lot of drum sequencing and it didn't work for me.