Samplitude sound quality

[roadsweeper]

I have heard from numerous sources about how Samplitude sounds better than other DAW's due to it's clever algorithms. If this is the case then why don't over DAW's such as PT, Logic etc. keep up to speed and improve their audio engines?

I'm sorry if I seem a little ignorant, I don't have much knowledge in the algorithmic, programming side of things hence why I ask this question. Does it really sound better than PT HD to the majority of people? I use Nuendo at home and have been informed that the difference between it and Cubase is more advanced audio engines, however I don't know if this is true and have never noticed any substantial difference.

So, if Samplitude really is better in terms of audio quality, then this means that either they have some real geniuses working for them that are loyal to the company or other DAW manufacturers just haven't put enough resources into the audio engine.

And if Samplitude is everything that it's cracked up to be, why haven't they released a version for Mac (or have they?)

Once again, sorry for my ignorance but I would like to learn a little about this as it seems quite interesting to me.

[drpenguen]

protools, vs cubase vs Sequoia are all NULL


read this

[roadsweeper]

Thank you, very interesting. I have always wondered whether there are sound differences in different DAW's and now it seems that that is simply not true overall.

So, apart from the ways in which DAW's deal with plug-ins etc. if there is no difference in audio quality then I wonder why so many people claim that some DAW's (in this case Samplitude) sound better than others. Maybe it has something to do with a psychological effect due to the graphic's each DAW uses. I for one know that when I am working on the Mac at the studio everything 'feels' better due to the way buttons, toolbars etc. are laid out compared to the quite blocky effect of windows XP. I also find that I think that Nuendo has a worse audio quality when I haven't used it for a while due to its extremely ugly layout (I use Nuendo 3).

I have never used Samplitude or ever really even seen it, does it have a very attractive look to it?

[George Necola]

there are sounddifferences..

timedomain.. nulltest.. please check.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by George Necola

there are sounddifferences..

timedomain.. nulltest.. please check.

link would be great

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

Thank you, very interesting. I have always wondered whether there are sound differences in different DAW's and now it seems that that is simply not true overall.

So, apart from the ways in which DAW's deal with plug-ins etc. if there is no difference in audio quality then I wonder why so many people claim that some DAW's (in this case Samplitude) sound better than others. Maybe it has something to do with a psychological effect due to the graphic's each DAW uses. I for one know that when I am working on the Mac at the studio everything 'feels' better due to the way buttons, toolbars etc. are laid out compared to the quite blocky effect of windows XP. I also find that I think that Nuendo has a worse audio quality when I haven't used it for a while due to its extremely ugly layout (I use Nuendo 3).

I have never used Samplitude or ever really even seen it, does it have a very attractive look to it?

just download the demo of samplitude from their web, you cant export any audio, but you can import, to do a decent test...

DO NOT FORGET to change the pan law to which ever sequencer you want to compare with..

[drpenguen]

if i am not mistaken samplitude' s pan law default "0" zero...


so if you have anything in the center it sounds louder...
we have samp and seq, both, for specific work flow...
when i compared to protools LE at first, i had the same feeling,
damn, its sounding even louder then the protools, with same exact tracks...
then we realised, pan law was set to -2.5 on protools, and when we change the pan law setting on samp/seq we had the same result
it wasnt lauder anymore

[DivineMusic]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

Thank you, very interesting. I have always wondered whether there are sound differences in different DAW's and now it seems that that is simply not true overall.

So, apart from the ways in which DAW's deal with plug-ins etc. if there is no difference in audio quality then I wonder why so many people claim that some DAW's (in this case Samplitude) sound better than others. Maybe it has something to do with a psychological effect due to the graphic's each DAW uses. I for one know that when I am working on the Mac at the studio everything 'feels' better due to the way buttons, toolbars etc. are laid out compared to the quite blocky effect of windows XP. I also find that I think that Nuendo has a worse audio quality when I haven't used it for a while due to its extremely ugly layout (I use Nuendo 3).

I have never used Samplitude or ever really even seen it, does it have a very attractive look to it?

nuendo sounds amazing and looks great vs a lot of daws.
i like how samplitude works at times. i have to learn it a little more though.
the daw doesnt matter, just make sure your front end is good

[drpenguen]

also read these two

All digital Eq's are the same - redux

cubase's stinky EQ NULLs wave Ren EQ

[work2do]

samplitude/sequoia are used in mastering houses for a reason.

Slap same plugs in the path of each daw and get up alot of tracks and listen to a bounce or just how the master summing sounds. This is when the sound quality of the daws engines get compromised. LE and most others collapse or get hazy or thinner.

Also for those that cant hear the difference between a Fulltec EQ and the internal Cubase EQ you shouldnt be mixing records with those ears

[Tube World]

I use Samplitude for several reasons.
1. I like the Object Editing feature compared to how I worked in Cubase. (You can go to a vocal track for instance, cut a section {left and right} and add a plug in to just that portion of the track. Similar things with automation and other features).
2. Plug in on the program are a lot better than Cubase. Logic has better plug ins than Cubase too.
3. I can master and burn CD's in Samplitude with all the red book info needed.
4. Great customer support
5. They have numerous tutorial videos that are very clear and understable. This has greatly reduced learning curve time.
6. My mixes sound great with it.
7. It has most of the same detailed meters as Wavelab.
8. Has Spectural Cleaning like Wavelab to get rid of background noises.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by konkaos

Also for those that cant hear the difference between a Fulltec EQ and the internal Cubase EQ you shouldnt be mixing records with those ears

never wasted my money on any plug eq so far...
as i am pretty happy with my sontec EQ.
anyway, just to make you happy, i have downloaded your superior
Fulltec EQ demo,
and did a NULL test vs Cubase's stinky channel EQ... guess what
THEY NULL

mind you graphics only worth the money., dont worry

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

[...] I use Nuendo at home and have been informed that the difference between it and Cubase is more advanced audio engines, however I don't know if this is true and have never noticed any substantial difference. [...]

You will read a lot of nonsense here and all across the web about all kinds of things.

There are a lot of people who appear to think they know what's going on but, in actuality, are too dense to understand how little they know. This is, of course, not restricted to audio matters and, to some extent, many of us are probably guilty or have been in the past. (A big mea culpa here on that front, and I'm sure I'll sin again. But I try... )

Check your facts; check your sources. Test new knowledge against old. If something sounds fishy, investigate. In today's online world, there's little excuse for settling for offhand word-of-mouth when it's easier than ever to find authoritative factual sources. Don't just take the word of the biggest blowhard in a thread... that might be... me.

[Rich Pell]

To me , i heard a difference right away coming from Cubase .. pan laws or whatever.. ( in my case it wasnt a loudness difference but a more transparent clarity , expecially in the low end , to me, Cubase always sounded slightly coloured in a way ) .

But regardless .. mxing in Samplitude is a dream and once you hooked on Object based editing you can never go back .

[Tha Wiizard]

Originally Posted by Rich Pell

To me , i heard a difference right away coming from Cubase .. pan laws or whatever.. ( in my case it wasnt a loudness difference but a more transparent clarity , expecially in the low end , to me, Cubase always sounded slightly coloured in a way ) .

But regardless .. mxing in Samplitude is a dream and once you hooked on Object based editing you can never go back .

Yep, transparency and clarity, the whole spectrum sounds amazing. The closest Daw to Samplitude's sound quality to me is Sonar, whenever it works.

[Leon EA]

Originally Posted by konkaos

samplitude/sequoia are used in mastering houses for a reason.

That is because of their editing capabilities fitting mastering workflows better.

[Leon EA]

Originally Posted by theblue1

You will read a lot of nonsense here and all across the web about all kinds of things.

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

[roadsweeper]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

I use Nuendo at home and have been informed that the difference between it and Cubase is more advanced audio engines, however I don't know if this is true and have never noticed any substantial difference.

.

I was actually told this by a senior lecturer and also a Steinberg representative, not just hearsay from someone on a forum. Whether this is actually true or not I can't say, have done some research bu without any real answers.

[deuc647]

I think that the files are going to null, but their has to be a difference on how those 1s and 0s and processed. I think that is why some daws sound different.

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by deuc647

I think that the files are going to null, but their has to be a difference on how those 1s and 0s and processed. I think that is why some daws sound different.

if they were sounding different.... then they wouldnt NULL... would they...

[drpenguen]

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.

samp should have had never upgraded their stuff

[deuc647]

Originally Posted by drpenguen

if they were sounding different.... then they wouldnt NULL... would they...

I dunno, but im thinking that when you record a file(AD), its 1s and 0s, so when you import the wav into a daw, its not importing the actual sound, just converting the sound to 1s and 0s and playing it back the way that daw handles processing. i think the only way to determine if it sounds different is to listen to the side by side, this null stuff is all binary code.

But what do i know, i work in healthcare

[trock]

lets see, i have had and used

SAW
Cubase sx 2, 3, then C4 and now C5
Sonar PE 7
Reaper
and Samp pro 10.2

all with the same room, monitors, AD/DA, plugs etc etc etc

In terms of Samp Specifically, there is no sound diff. however i think the plugs that come with it are top nothc, the support is very very good, and the skins from birdline make it look fantastic

since i use C5 now as my main DAW i will say i think Cubase is a better fit for me. its loaded with good plugs, instruments (kills samp here), midi is fantastic ( better than samp although samp is good)

Don't buy into the Samp is magic and has no issues. there were numerous bugs in it that hindered my workflow that did not exist in Cubase or Sonar, or reaper for that matter

Generic USB issues, and a few others, so in the end i sold it.

all these programs have strength's and weakness's, all have bugs and all will make you change your workflow

just change it or make it work for you, which ever one makes you happy and gets your song done the best and fastest for you is the one you want

[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....

[drpenguen]

Originally Posted by trock

lt

dude, your web rocks thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

[obostic]

Originally Posted by Tha Wiizard

Yep, transparency and clarity, the whole spectrum sounds amazing. The closest Daw to Samplitude's sound quality to me is Sonar, whenever it works.

I will have to second that but with qualifiers:

Samp/Sequioa up to 8.31
Sonar 5 and up.

Sorry for the plug, but if you looking to get into Sequoia I'm selling my copied for cheap. Search the classified.

[obostic]

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.

No you're not! 9 and 10 is not my beloved Magix sound. 7 and 8 was the magix sound that I would swear by over any DAW other then Sonar 5 and newer.

[Leon EA]

Originally Posted by roadsweeper

I was actually told this by a senior lecturer and also a Steinberg representative, not just hearsay from someone on a forum. Whether this is actually true or not I can't say, have done some research bu without any real answers.

Well, now you know not to trust these 2 people, since it is absolutely bollocks. Since Cubase SX, Nuendo and Cubase have always had the same audio and mixing engine. I've heard multiple times over the years that Steinberg reps have told this, but it is an absolute lie or a poor guess at best.

[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.

[gurubuzz]

Originally Posted by theblue1

You will read a lot of nonsense here and all across the web about all kinds of things.

Originally Posted by Leon EA

thumbsupthumbsupthumbsup

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...