Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Music Computers (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/)
-   -   Samplitude Pro X (Opinions) ? (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/727050-samplitude-pro-x-opinions.html)

muziksculp 12th May 2012 03:03 AM

Also sold here : Front End Audio | Your Ultimate Pro Audio Dealer | 888-228-4530 and Amazon.com

Q. Is Samplitude Pro X (Suite) version worth it ? or is Samplitude Pro X a better value ?

Thanks,
Muziksculp

[email protected] 12th May 2012 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muziksculp (Post 7870803)
Also sold here : Front End Audio | Your Ultimate Pro Audio Dealer | 888-228-4530 and Amazon.com

Q. Is Samplitude Pro X (Suite) version worth it ? or is Samplitude Pro X a better value ?

Thanks,
Muziksculp

Here is a page describing Samp on the left and the extra features included in the Suite on the right. If the extras are worth the cost to you or not, only you would know.

Overview > Samplitude > Music Production > MAGIX Pro

trock 12th May 2012 12:55 PM

anyone using the eucon integration with artist series controllers? how is that working ? deeply integrated and stable?

submarin 12th May 2012 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRStudio (Post 7865964)
I'm sorry you had stability issues. I have about 15 clients that now use Sam and a few have had issues when starting. I have always been able to help them fix what was wrong and every single time it was a driver issue from another piece of gear or VST plug issue or an improper setup (pilot error). Stuff like the virus protection being left on. I've been using Sam since V2.5 and never had stability issues. I can't afford down time either.

Well unfortunaltely it had nothing to do with our machines.We are in Germany and here´s the developer of Sam. We were on the phone with him and he was trying to help us.
In the end he said: ´Why are you using UAD cards?? Our plug ins are good enough!´
That was the end of all discussions! Instead of fixing problems they avoid to use 3rd party plug in´s, well thank you!

Bob Olhsson 12th May 2012 07:21 PM

FWIW Pro Tools is not dominant because of marketing. They dominate because they were the first affordable DAW that had accurate time code support and was not just native audio tacked onto a MIDI sequencer. Most Pro Tools users have a couple decade's worth of time invested in the program and in projects that use it. The TDM version also has the best fader latency available and I can't imagine their new DSP version isn't comparable.

I use Samplitude for mastering and some mixing and Pro Tools for recording. The two programs compliment each other extremely well. So well that I haven't the slightest interest in going back to a Mac computer.

[email protected] 12th May 2012 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by submarin (Post 7872598)
...
That was the end of all discussions! Instead of fixing problems they avoid to use 3rd party plug in´s, well thank you!

Sorry they could not help you, and we all know that it is not possible to please everyone. But a whole lot of Samp users run UAD cards. There has to be more to the equation than just UAD.

AMIEL 12th May 2012 10:33 PM

Just the fact that is only Windows is a huge turn off to me :(

jrides 12th May 2012 11:03 PM

The Modeling Suite fiasco threw me off the Samp path. They need to just move that back over to the Pro X version for good. Of course Samp was no longer on my radar, when they made concessions at the end of the year. Financially it doesn't made sense to me to run with Samp now, after the fact.

Samp has some amazing features. It is not the easiest DAW to wrap your head around. I have been demoing Studio One recently, and that to me is clearly the easiest DAW to get your head around. So now im stuck with choosing Samp with no Modeling Suite, or Studio One which shouldnt even be on the table due to lack of maturity. I have been messing about with Reaper too which has many options.

Samp can be very stable, and has many good features. I can reccomend it even though I may end up going down a different path.

muziksculp 13th May 2012 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrides (Post 7873242)
The Modeling Suite fiasco threw me off the Samp path. They need to just move that back over to the Pro X version for good. Of course Samp was no longer on my radar, when they made concessions at the end of the year. Financially it doesn't made sense to me to run with Samp now, after the fact.

Samp has some amazing features. It is not the easiest DAW to wrap your head around. I have been demoing Studio One recently, and that to me is clearly the easiest DAW to get your head around. So now im stuck with choosing Samp with no Modeling Suite, or Studio One which shouldnt even be on the table due to lack of maturity. I have been messing about with Reaper too which has many options.

Samp can be very stable, and has many good features. I can reccomend it even though I may end up going down a different path.

Are you referring to the Modeling Suite that is in the (Suite) version of Samplitude Pro X ?

Studio One Pro (v2) is a great DAW as well, but I agree, it needs more time to mature. Maybe (V3) will be mature enough, but not sure how long that will take to happen.

muziksculp 13th May 2012 01:02 AM

How is Magix with customer support ? since they are based in Germany, I was wondering how responsive are they if I needed some assistance in sorting an issue ?

Now that Magix took over Yellowtools (ENGINE 2) sampler. and is offering their large 70 GB sample content which comes with the Samplitude Pro X (Suite) version, plus other plug-ins and instruments.

How well integrated is (ENGINE 2) with Samplitude Pro X ? and is it very efficient as a sampler, and is the (Suite) content very good ? I have read on this and other forums mixed feedback regarding ENGINE 2, and was not able to come to any conclusions about it. I frequently read about users having issues with their Authorization system. Any feedback on this ?

Thanks,
Muziksculp

[email protected] 13th May 2012 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMIEL (Post 7873176)
Just the fact that is only Windows is a huge turn off to me :(

I buy my software and buy the computer platform to support it. As I spend almost no time in the OS, I could care less which one it is.

muziksculp 13th May 2012 01:22 AM

Magix is developing a Mac version of Samplitude, but it is going to take them a while khrthjdrt

You can always bootcamp your Mac into Windows 7, to use Samplitude Pro X, but I know that many Mac users don't like doing that ;) so you can always wait for the Mac version.

RedBaaron 13th May 2012 01:30 AM

Get it. You won't be disappointed.

[email protected] 13th May 2012 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muziksculp (Post 7873533)
How is Magix with customer support ? since they are based in Germany, I was wondering how responsive are they if I needed some assistance in sorting an issue ?

Now that Magix took over Yellowtools (ENGINE 2) sampler. and is offering their large 70 GB sample content which comes with the Samplitude Pro X (Suite) version, plus other plug-ins and instruments.

How well integrated is (ENGINE 2) with Samplitude Pro X ? and is it very efficient as a sampler, and is the (Suite) content very good ? I have read on this and other forums mixed feedback regarding ENGINE 2, and was not able to come to any conclusions about it. I frequently read about users having issues with their Authorization system. Any feedback on this ?

Thanks,
Muziksculp

I think the user group is pretty helpful. And you've heard from Tim, who is the US rep and there is also a US support number. In my experience Magix support is as helpful as any other. And those videos we've mentioned... pretty deep and comprehensive stuff.

I remember the days when if I had a problem I would speak to a developer and a few hours later get a patch. Those days are gone for most mature softwares... they do so much more, and you can't just throw a patch onto the code without testing for the affect that new code might have on the whole program.

iain_m 13th May 2012 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muziksculp (Post 7873533)
How well integrated is (ENGINE 2) with Samplitude Pro X ?

Not integrated at all, just another plugin instrument.

muziksculp 13th May 2012 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iain_m (Post 7873747)
Not integrated at all, just another plugin instrument.

Thanks for the feedback.

I'm still unable to figure out if Samplitude Pro X has any features that make (Arranging) a song, and experiment with its sections in speedy/fluid/ manner ?

i.e. anything that resembles Cubase 6's (ARRANGER Track) ? or Reason 6's (BLOCKS), or Ableton Live's (CLIPS), ...etc. ?

Or Arranging Audio,and Midi Regions in Samplitude Pro X restricted to a moving Regions around manually, copy/pate/duplicate type of workflow ?

And ... Does it offer FOLDER Tracks ?

Any feedback on this would be very helpful.

Thanks,
Muziksculp

iain_m 13th May 2012 03:14 AM

Hello,

No, Samplitude doesn't have those kinds of quick arranging/experimenting features. It's more linear.

It does have folder tracks though.

I've been using Samp for a few years and will try to post some more detailed comments for you in the next couple of days.

muziksculp 13th May 2012 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iain_m (Post 7873800)
Hello,

No, Samplitude doesn't have those kinds of quick arranging/experimenting features. It's more linear.

It does have folder tracks though.

I've been using Samp for a few years and will try to post some more detailed comments for you in the next couple of days.

Thanks, That is very helpful to know.

I find it odd that DAW developers seem to ignore these type of features, which I feel are so useful to have (referring to Arranging tools). The linear format is so tape-deck like, and slow way of experimenting with song ideas/structure. Especially for making electronic music. I have a feeling that Samplitude users are more into recording live instrumentalists, rather than into making electornic music. Hence, don't need (or have not bothered requesting) this type of feature from Magix. Otherwise, Magix would have incorporated this type of feature in Samplitude Pro X, especially if they had enough requests for it.

Cheers,
Muziksculp

iain_m 13th May 2012 02:52 PM

As promised, here are some more thoughts on Samplitude. I've been using the program since early 2008, beginning with version 10, and now version 11. I have not upgraded to version 12 (aka "ProX").

Currently I have pretty mixed feelings about the program, and do not currently intend to upgrade to ProX.

The number one thing that attracted me to Samplitude was the ability to do all the tasks required for a project within a single program - wave editing, restoration, tracking, mixing, CD burning. In particular, the ability to burn CDs directly from the timeline looked like a big time-saver. The entry price was accordingly quite high but I liked the idea of focusing on learning only one program, as well as having only one program to keep updated/troubleshoot etc.

Object editing wasn't something that particularly drew me to the project, but I rapidly appreciated how powerful it is, and have gone on to use it a lot.

Something else which I've come to value is the great flexibility of Samplitude, and the feeling that you're not bumping into silly limitations on how you can configure and use the software. In particular I like the flexible track routing/bussing options. I also like the fact that the bundled effect plugins are high quality and add real value. It's easy to do a great-sounding mix using only the internal plugins.

Overall the program has a more "serious" and almost "scientific" air than programs such as Acid or Live. Whether that suits your way of making music is obviously subjective. :-)

There are, of course, bugs. All software has them, so it would be unfair to single out Samplitude here. However, what I have noticed since I began using the program in 2008 is a decrease in the speed and responsiveness of Magix to bugs.

I'd also question the rigour of their QA processes - there are some longstanding and bad bugs in v11 (and confirmed as still in ProX at the time of writing), including:
(1) Samplitude writing corrupt metadata into all audio exported from objects.
(2) Samplitude adding silence onto the ends of files that have been processed with plugins requiring delay compensation.
(3) Samplitude overwriting files with white noise (I am not making this up!) when they are simply previewed in the Samplitude file browser, if their bit depth has been changed by another program since they were last opened in Samplitude.
These have really interrupted my workflow and are quite astonishing in a high-end audio production program.

In this respect one of Samplitude's strengths (so many features in one program) is also its weak spot: there's more scope for things to go wrong, and the program's value as a "one stop shop" for audio production is limited by any weak links in the chain.

For example, there's a "high quality" time/pitch adjustment mode available at object level, which sounds like a great idea, but at some point in the v11 product cycle, it was broken and now sounds worse on some material than the lower quality modes. Another example is the "elastic audio", a Melodyne-like feature which is great in principle, but in practice can't be relied upon for consistent results. A third example is the batch processor: it's so cumbersome to use -- and the order in which processes are applied is so opaque -- that I can't rely on it, and have to use Sound Forge for batch processing.

I feel that Magix has tried to put so many features into the product that it can't develop all of them to a consistent standard.

From the user's point of view, if you have to move outside of Samplitude to get your work done, what's the point in continuing to pay the high upgrade prices to stay with Samplitude?

In fact, in the case of ProX, the upgrade actually removes a feature (fullscreen destructive spectral editing) that existed in v11. Incredibly, Magix expects upgraders to buy both the ProX upgrade and then pay extra to get back the fullscreen spectral editing, which has been moved into the "cleaning and restoration suite" add-on.

And unlike some of their competitors, Magix doesn't charge a flat rate for users of all earlier versions to upgrade to the latest; the cost goes up steeply if you're upgrading from anything other than the immediately preceding version. (Not to mention the completely insane upgrade pricing for Samplitude's big brother Sequoia; as one user commented, they could get a new Nuendo license for the price of upgrading to the latest Sequoia...).

Lastly I should add that despite the program's power and flexibility, I have been endlessly frustrated by:
(1) the often grindingly busy and inconsistent GUI, and
(2) the ambiguous and misleading documentation.
The latter follows through to the product website, which is a great example of how not to sell anything to anyone. These are two areas in which I think many other DAWs, and especially Pro Tools , totally smoke Samplitude.

In sum, then, despite finishing many successful projects with Samplitude since I started with it in 2008, I find it hard to give an unqualified recommendation. I definitely feel I got a good return on my investment, but I am not sure if I could say the same thing about buying or upgrading Samplitude in 2012. I, for one, will be looking closely at Audition CS6 and Pro Tools 10/11 when it comes to spending the money I could use for the ProX upgrade.

Hope this helps with your decision.

AMIEL 13th May 2012 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 7873565)
I buy my software and buy the computer platform to support it. As I spend almost no time in the OS, I could care less which one it is.

Well that make sense, the problem is that Windows to me Sux! the nature of the Windows OS is just so messy..with Mac I never have to re install the OS and do so often maintenance ....Windows performance get worst over time.

AMIEL 13th May 2012 03:12 PM

What about the sound?? sounds much better than any other DAW?? that was theirs biggest selling point some years ago....it is true??

[email protected] 13th May 2012 03:13 PM

Ian,

You might want to look at ProX just for the GUI improvements. I don't know if it is enough to change your mind or not, but it has been cleaned up.

"...2) the ambiguous and misleading documentation. ..."

I have not found it to be misleading, but I also have not found it to be all that useful... something that has been a complaint of mine since I first started using the program. I'm very used to taking documentation with me, reading it at odd moments, and discovering new features and ways to do things. I can't do that with my Sequoia manual. I assumed that this was a problem with my personal 'data aquisition' paradigm. The videos, which are better than documentation, impress me, if not you. But I can't drag them around with me and refer to them at odd free moments.

I don't make electronic music, but I do write and I wonder if the use of folder tracks/alternate takes/the various managers (take, MIDI, object, etc...) and the oft-ignored power of the range feature might not provide some of the answers to what you guys want to do?

iain_m 13th May 2012 06:30 PM

Hello Bill,

Thanks for replying. I respect your opinion, but based on what I've seen so far of the ProX GUI, I'm not convinced that it's been improved enough to make the (expensive) upgrade worthwhile.

To give one example from a recent discussion over on the Samplitude forum, the object editor now looks more or less like this (I say 'more or less' because this image has some copy and paste buttons which one user added as a custom skin, but AFAIK everything else is standard):
http://i48.tinypic.com/j0h5cj.jpg

To be sure, it looks better than the "Windows 95" style of the earlier object editor. But there are so many bad design choices in that layout:
  • Why does the line between the plugins and EQ sections not align with the line below between the fades and content sections?
  • Why does only the edit button (at the bottom) have both text and an icon on it?
  • What is the purpose of the patronising icons in the lower right that depict 'loop end' and 'loop length', etc?
  • Why is the automation pencil button so much larger than all the other elements?
  • Why do some of the arrow icons have rounded edges, and others have square edges?
  • What is the significance of the same "cog" icon appearing in both the content section, on a button on its own, and in the time stretch section, on the edit button?
  • Why is the same rectangular button used to enable some features (EQ, looping, plug-ins) and reset another (time/pitch shifting)?
  • Why is the header above the fade section used to access drop-down menus (unlike any of the other headers)?
  • Why are some bits of header text not centred (e.g. "Content", "Loop"), whereas others are (e.g. "Gain", "Pan-Pot")?
In another forum discussion about how to change the skin of the object editor, it emerged that this can be done by right-clicking the blank area beneath the pan and stereo knobs. Right-clicking a blank area: user interaction doesn't get much more intuitive than that! :-s

The confusing GUI extends to the terminology used within it. Another recent forum discussion (about ProX) centred on the use of the phrase "activate dongle" in one of the menus. This caused confusion, because it turned out that it means the direct opposite of what you would think it means -- not "use the program to activate the dongle", but "activate the program from the dongle".

Lastly, to give an example of something misleading in the manual, here's one I ran into recently:

The manual states:
Quote:

Click on the "Link objects on all tracks" button in the mouse mode bar. Now all objects are linked to the selected objects which are aligned one after the other along the time axis.
Click on the "Connect all objects in one track" button in the mouse mode bar. Now all objects are linked to the selected objects which are aligned on the same track along the time axis.
Now these buttons were very hard to find (if the description itself were not difficult enough!), because the buttons don't exist under the names given in the manual. The manual refers to "Link objects on all tracks" and "Connect all objects in one track", but the available buttons are "Link all tracks" and "Link one track" - which sound like something completely different.

Bill, I agree with you that Kraznet has done great work with his tutorial videos, but I feel strongly that the onus should be on Magix to provide a clear, up-to-date, and comprehensive manual. Powerful features don't mean much if you can't get the information you need about how to use them.

blim 13th May 2012 09:19 PM

I've been using Samplitude since the 90s. It's a powerful program.

Apart from the bizarre upgrade pricing policies, clueless marketing, failure to fix longstanding bugs, inclusion of features that don't work (or don't work well enough) -- all of which have been alluded to here in this thread --I don't have much to add.

Except one thing: Samp has never worked with my UAD cards. This has been an issue for over five years. I've run the program on four different PCs, used many different UAD cards (alone and in combination with others), been on a number of different Samp versions, used different OS's -- nothing has worked, and the problem has not gone away.

Soon, I will have to choose between Samp and UAD. It will not be an easy decision. If Samp were a well-written program, it is not one that I would be forced to make.

atreidesheir 13th May 2012 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muziksculp (Post 7873925)
Thanks, That is very helpful to know.

I find it odd that DAW developers seem to ignore these type of features, which I feel are so useful to have (referring to Arranging tools). The linear format is so tape-deck like, and slow way of experimenting with song ideas/structure. Especially for making electronic music. I have a feeling that Samplitude users are more into recording live instrumentalists, rather than into making electornic music. Hence, don't need (or have not bothered requesting) this type of feature from Magix. Otherwise, Magix would have incorporated this type of feature in Samplitude Pro X, especially if they had enough requests for it.

Cheers,
Muziksculp

Sounds like I am the type of person that needs to look seriously at Samplitude. I do my electronic duties in Reason. I converted from Pro Tools to Reaper and it has been bumpy for me.

John The Cut 13th May 2012 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muziksculp (Post 7873533)
How is Magix with customer support ? since they are based in Germany, I was wondering how responsive are they if I needed some assistance in sorting an issue ?

Now that Magix took over Yellowtools (ENGINE 2) sampler. and is offering their large 70 GB sample content which comes with the Samplitude Pro X (Suite) version, plus other plug-ins and instruments.

How well integrated is (ENGINE 2) with Samplitude Pro X ? and is it very efficient as a sampler, and is the (Suite) content very good ? I have read on this and other forums mixed feedback regarding ENGINE 2, and was not able to come to any conclusions about it. I frequently read about users having issues with their Authorization system. Any feedback on this ?

Thanks,
Muziksculp

You can pick up the Yellow Tools Free version from the Yellow Tools site. Its pretty good and has some very nice sounds in the free content.

GearNerd 13th May 2012 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonesH (Post 7864582)
Dear Rick,
The clip gain in Pro Tools is a bit more advanced than the static one in Sequoiatude. Aside from adjusting the whole clip, you can draw curves just as with regular volume automation.
That said, the object editing is miles ahead of PT of course.

I use both but mostly sequoia (Samp's big bro)

:facepalm:

Drawing curves on the clip has been in Cubase for god know how many years, I´m sure Samplitude has had that as well already for many years.

Face it! Pro Fools is so ancient it´s not even funny! Not even 64-bit yet! Gimme a break! :facepalm:

siriusbliss 14th May 2012 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iain_m (Post 7875204)
Hello Bill,

Thanks for replying. I respect your opinion, but based on what I've seen so far of the ProX GUI, I'm not convinced that it's been improved enough to make the (expensive) upgrade worthwhile.

To give one example from a recent discussion over on the Samplitude forum, the object editor now looks more or less like this (I say 'more or less' because this image has some copy and paste buttons which one user added as a custom skin, but AFAIK everything else is standard):
http://i48.tinypic.com/j0h5cj.jpg

To be sure, it looks better than the "Windows 95" style of the earlier object editor. But there are so many bad design choices in that layout:
  • Why does the line between the plugins and EQ sections not align with the line below between the fades and content sections?
  • Why does only the edit button (at the bottom) have both text and an icon on it?
  • What is the purpose of the patronising icons in the lower right that depict 'loop end' and 'loop length', etc?
  • Why is the automation pencil button so much larger than all the other elements?
  • Why do some of the arrow icons have rounded edges, and others have square edges?
  • What is the significance of the same "cog" icon appearing in both the content section, on a button on its own, and in the time stretch section, on the edit button?
  • Why is the same rectangular button used to enable some features (EQ, looping, plug-ins) and reset another (time/pitch shifting)?
  • Why is the header above the fade section used to access drop-down menus (unlike any of the other headers)?
  • Why are some bits of header text not centred (e.g. "Content", "Loop"), whereas others are (e.g. "Gain", "Pan-Pot")?
In another forum discussion about how to change the skin of the object editor, it emerged that this can be done by right-clicking the blank area beneath the pan and stereo knobs. Right-clicking a blank area: user interaction doesn't get much more intuitive than that! :-s

The confusing GUI extends to the terminology used within it. Another recent forum discussion (about ProX) centred on the use of the phrase "activate dongle" in one of the menus. This caused confusion, because it turned out that it means the direct opposite of what you would think it means -- not "use the program to activate the dongle", but "activate the program from the dongle".

Lastly, to give an example of something misleading in the manual, here's one I ran into recently:

The manual states:

Now these buttons were very hard to find (if the description itself were not difficult enough!), because the buttons don't exist under the names given in the manual. The manual refers to "Link objects on all tracks" and "Connect all objects in one track", but the available buttons are "Link all tracks" and "Link one track" - which sound like something completely different.

Bill, I agree with you that Kraznet has done great work with his tutorial videos, but I feel strongly that the onus should be on Magix to provide a clear, up-to-date, and comprehensive manual. Powerful features don't mean much if you can't get the information you need about how to use them.

Where the hell did you find this screenshot?
That's not what it looks like at all.
It's funny looking.

Greg

iain_m 14th May 2012 06:49 AM

Here. heppy

Could you post a screenshot, then, please Greg?

Lawrence 14th May 2012 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by muziksculp (Post 7873925)
I find it odd that DAW developers seem to ignore these type of features, which I feel are so useful to have (referring to Arranging tools). The linear format is so tape-deck like, and slow way of experimenting with song ideas/structure. Especially for making electronic music.

Cheers,
Muziksculp

I don't find it odd in cases like Samp, SAW, etc. They seem to have a main target audience, and from what I can see they've served that core audience pretty well. It seems to be a great recorder / mixer / editor from what I can tell. I never really got on with it personally but it seems to be a really great product.

I'm not always sure that it's a good idea for every DAW to chase after the electronic music crowd so much... unless they see financial value in that. Some things are (imo) best left to do their core thing really well... like (I assume) the new Audition, where they apparently had second thoughts about some of that.

Cheers my friend.