The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Studio one sounds thin
Old 4th December 2014
  #61
Lives for gear
 

One last thing just to play devil's advocate. A lot of people mention the differences in what a DAW sounds like on the same system. Has anyone tried nulling what you are hearing as opposed to what the DAW is bouncing down. In other words has anyone tried recording the output of from your monitors and trying to null or analyze the output. A lot of times when people say this DAW sounds better than the other what they are really saying is when I open Logic it sounds like this, but when I open Studio One it sounds like that. Couldn't there be a difference in playback engines between DAWs? I would assume so because some DAWs optimize more heavily than others.

If I had the equipment and space to do it I would try it just for peace of mind.
Old 4th December 2014
  #62
Old 4th December 2014
  #63
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
If you use your ears, it really isn't relevant.

Literally all a pan law does is change how the source's level is affected as it moves across the stereo field - in fact, there's no reason to have anything other than "flat" pan law when working digitally. The only reason we do is because analogue consoles had to have one of several compromise solutions in order to build a pan pot out of two potentiometers. It's just "legacy" really.

But if you pan something and it's a bit loud in a certain position, turn it down! If it's too quiet, turn it up! I couldn't actually tell you what pan law I use, because I don't think I've ever checked - if you're listening you should be compensating for any level changes.

I really don't think anyone who correctly understands a pan law could use it as a reason for why a DAW might sound "thin". It might be a reason why 2 static balances with identical fader levels don't null and sound a bit different, but some level adjustments would fix that.

If you move to a different platform and are matching settings....you should ge using your ears more. I really think it's a tenuous, unlikely explanation, and at any rate the DAW itself doesn't "sound different" - the user is just operating it differently, which self evidently prices the DAW doesn't have a "sound" because of this reason.

You've not mentioned my point re plugins, but I take it you see the logic there - they can't be part of the "sound" of something if you don't use it. I do completely see why you might pick a DAW because of the whole package.
Actually I did have a response to the plugins but that got cut off for some reason. I do see your logic but the argument isn't a real world assessment of how people would use a DAW imo. For example I will use the Channel EQ in Logic or the EQ8 in Live more than any other plugin simply because they are far more efficient to use than something like Pr-Q for example. It's well documented fact that Logic's EQ and EQ8 impart a sound to your project. Racks are a huge part of what makes Live what it is, a large portion of audio effects racks are using the included plugins. Those plugins have their own sound which will carry over to whatever I mix.

Not using the included tools of a DAW, to me, is a waste and at that point I may as well mix in Adobe Audition. The tools of a DAW are the most important part of a DAW. I'm not saying the DAW has an inherent sound but it's tools do (compresor, eq, reverb, etc) and those tools are there to be used and are used heavily when people mix and compose with a DAW.
Old 4th December 2014
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
One last thing just to play devil's advocate. A lot of people mention the differences in what a DAW sounds like on the same system. Has anyone tried nulling what you are hearing as opposed to what the DAW is bouncing down. In other words has anyone tried recording the output of from your monitors and trying to null or analyze the output.
Of course that won't null. That has nothing to do with the DAW and everything to do with your monitors, room acoustics, audio interface, recording equipment, etc. It's impossible to null that way even using two recordings played from the same DAW. You can't null two unique recordings under any circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
A lot of times when people say this DAW sounds better than the other what they are really saying is when I open Logic it sounds like this, but when I open Studio One it sounds like that. Couldn't there be a difference in playback engines between DAWs? I would assume so because some DAWs optimize more heavily than others.
No. The "playback engine" is your sound card/audio interface which is the same from DAW to DAW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Actually I did have a response to the plugins but that got cut off for some reason. I do see your logic but the argument isn't a real world assessment of how people would use a DAW imo. For example I will use the Channel EQ in Logic or the EQ8 in Live more than any other plugin simply because they are far more efficient to use than something like Pr-Q for example. It's well documented fact that Logic's EQ and EQ8 impart a sound to your project. Racks are a huge part of what makes Live what it is, a large portion of audio effects racks are using the included plugins. Those plugins have their own sound which will carry over to whatever I mix.
Right, but you are ignoring the fact that you are already modifying the frequency balance by using effects. You dropped in an EQ, so obviously the source material was already thin or muddy or harsh from the start. Your job is to fix that problem. So if you use an EQ and it still sounds thin, you did not fix the problem! Your parameters are wrong. How can you still say that's the DAW or plugin's fault? How can you just declare you EQ'd it correctly even though the end result says otherwise? Whether EQ8 gets there on a completely different curve than FabFilter Pro-Q is irrelevant to the fact that the sound was already wrong to begin with and it's your job to make it right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Not using the included tools of a DAW, to me, is a waste and at that point I may as well mix in Adobe Audition.
This implies that if you disregard stock effects, all DAWs are the same which is seriously misguided. Plugins are a small subset of a DAW's included features. Ableton and Bitwig are the only two with a session view. Ableton has FX racks and can be used with Max. Bitwig has plugin sandboxing and per note automation, etc. These types of things are game changers for a lot of people, especially performance artists/DJs. There is nothing wasteful or tragic about using third party plugins. Ableton spends a small fraction of the time and resources on EQs/compressors that a vendor like Softube does. I'm going with the better **** from people that specialize in and invest all of their time in that particular area.
Old 4th December 2014
  #65
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
One last thing just to play devil's advocate. A lot of people mention the differences in what a DAW sounds like on the same system. Has anyone tried nulling what you are hearing as opposed to what the DAW is bouncing down. In other words has anyone tried recording the output of from your monitors and trying to null or analyze the output. A lot of times when people say this DAW sounds better than the other what they are really saying is when I open Logic it sounds like this, but when I open Studio One it sounds like that. Couldn't there be a difference in playback engines between DAWs? I would assume so because some DAWs optimize more heavily than others.

If I had the equipment and space to do it I would try it just for peace of mind.
The logic of this baffles me. With respect, you need to learn how to isolate variables when you're testing something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Actually I did have a response to the plugins but that got cut off for some reason. I do see your logic but the argument isn't a real world assessment of how people would use a DAW imo. For example I will use the Channel EQ in Logic or the EQ8 in Live more than any other plugin simply because they are far more efficient to use than something like Pr-Q for example. It's well documented fact that Logic's EQ and EQ8 impart a sound to your project. Racks are a huge part of what makes Live what it is, a large portion of audio effects racks are using the included plugins. Those plugins have their own sound which will carry over to whatever I mix.
But that's you. Not me. And not the DAW!

Of course, we could get into a whole other debate about how one digital EQ is identical to another, and the only thing that differs is the curves, ie the tactile response (very similar to pan law in that you can emulate one EQ's curves with another, if you want...or you just use your ears and make the result sound like you want it to).


Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Not using the included tools of a DAW, to me, is a waste and at that point I may as well mix in Adobe Audition. The tools of a DAW are the most important part of a DAW. I'm not saying the DAW has an inherent sound but it's tools do (compresor, eq, reverb, etc) and those tools are there to be used and are used heavily when people mix and compose with a DAW.
As has been pointed out, that's just a silly statement. Audition doesn't edit audio like pro tools or logic, the routing's not the same, the features (eg beat detective/elastic audio) aren't the same, the playlists aren't the same, the automation isn't the same, it doesn't look the same, Audition doesn't support TDM plugins, etc etc etc...there's so many differences it's nonsense.

I get that you like included plugins and that's fine, but really it's one part of a complicated whole - and it's just NOT the sound of a piece of software!

Never mind that one person might get a "thick" result out of one software and thus conclude it's the "fat" sounding one, and someone else doesn't so thinks it sounds "thin"...can you not see that it's completely a personal experience, and the software is not creating the "sound" of anything?

It really seems like you're clutching at straws to stick to "your" definition here. It's silly. No-one's saying that one person might get a better result in one DAW than another, or that one person's mixes always come out "thin" in one DAW than another - but to think that's inherent in the DAW when a different person gets a totally different result...well, it just doesn't make any sense!
Old 4th December 2014
  #66
Lives for gear
 
beyondat's Avatar
 

I just did a null test using plugins inside of Cubase and Pro Tools. I used a waves SSL Channel preset and a J37 preset in both daws. For some reason Cubase added a few milliseconds to the aiff file so I had to nudge it backwards a bit but the 2 files do null.
Attached Files
File Type: aif vintage DRums CB.aif (2.41 MB, 107 views) File Type: aif vintage DRums PT.aif (2.41 MB, 153 views)
Old 4th December 2014
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
The logic of this baffles me. With respect, you need to learn how to isolate variables when you're testing something.



But that's you. Not me. And not the DAW!

Of course, we could get into a whole other debate about how one digital EQ is identical to another, and the only thing that differs is the curves, ie the tactile response (very similar to pan law in that you can emulate one EQ's curves with another, if you want...or you just use your ears and make the result sound like you want it to).




As has been pointed out, that's just a silly statement. Audition doesn't edit audio like pro tools or logic, the routing's not the same, the features (eg beat detective/elastic audio) aren't the same, the playlists aren't the same, the automation isn't the same, it doesn't look the same, Audition doesn't support TDM plugins, etc etc etc...there's so many differences it's nonsense.

I get that you like included plugins and that's fine, but really it's one part of a complicated whole - and it's just NOT the sound of a piece of software!

Never mind that one person might get a "thick" result out of one software and thus conclude it's the "fat" sounding one, and someone else doesn't so thinks it sounds "thin"...can you not see that it's completely a personal experience, and the software is not creating the "sound" of anything?

It really seems like you're clutching at straws to stick to "your" definition here. It's silly. No-one's saying that one person might get a better result in one DAW than another, or that one person's mixes always come out "thin" in one DAW than another - but to think that's inherent in the DAW when a different person gets a totally different result...well, it just doesn't make any sense!
What I said was that depending on experience someone moving from one DAW to the next will get a different sound because the tools inherently sound different.

It may seem like I'm clutching at straws or whatever but the fact is that if someone is using Fruity Loops or Live they are using the included tools for the most part and may use a plug in or two an addition not as a replacement to the tools included in the DAW. I never said that's a reason why it may sound thin I said that the tools have an inherent sound that will dictate depending on experience how or why the users mix sounds different between DAWs and that null test don't tell the real wholesale story, because nulls are a false test that would never happen in the real world. No matter what you do, a real world mix (with effects, eq etc) mix done in Logic then a mix done in Protools won't be the same (as in null). Putting a wav file in both daws then nulling isn't a real world indicator of how a mix would be done nor how the tools used will affect how it sounds.

It's a clean room argument with no real basis on how someone would actually use the tools, their level of experience, etc.

My point was a simple that tools sound different and as someone moving from one DAW to the other that needs to be taken into account if you are using the included tools. Most people use the included tools in a DAW to say otherwise would be silly imo. I'm pretty sure I've been consistent in that regard.
Old 4th December 2014
  #68
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anstahc View Post



This implies that if you disregard stock effects, all DAWs are the same which is seriously misguided. Plugins are a small subset of a DAW's included features. Ableton and Bitwig are the only two with a session view. Ableton has FX racks and can be used with Max. Bitwig has plugin sandboxing and per note automation, etc. These types of things are game changers for a lot of people, especially performance artists/DJs. There is nothing wasteful or tragic about using third party plugins. Ableton spends a small fraction of the time and resources on EQs/compressors that a vendor like Softube does. I'm going with the better **** from people that specialize in and invest all of their time in that particular area.

Not at all if you reread my argument you will see that I also mentioned that how a tool is used will affect your results. I may not have been very eloquent with what I said but the arguments are always that two audio files null, which is great, but no one in the real world uses a DAW to null audio files, they use them to compose, mix, record, and while you may be all hung about Softube and the like a lot of folks who spent whatever it was on their DAW are not, and will use the tools included in the DAW. Even if there were other tools out there, some aren't necessarily better, as better is subjective. To me Space Designer just sounds good there is no reason for me to use anything else within Logic, but I can't get Space Designer in Studio One (and Open Air sucks to my ears). If I need a simple precise EQ that doesn't color my mixes too much then I'm using the Channel EQ, or EQ8 or Pro-EQ, because they are far more efficient (in-terms of resources) and easy to use than something like Pro-Q which while great is relegated to specialty purpose in my workflow, because it's waste of resources in my book.

In Live I prefer to use the included tools because the UI interaction is far superior to having a whole bunch of plugin windows all over the place and working with racks is far easier. Even though I have Kontakt using the included samplers in Live, Logic, or Studio One is better because I can do things like chop audio in the session view and turn them into sampler instruments with one click. Sidechaining in Live is far easier to do with the included compressor/gate/filter/whatever than a 3rd party plugin.
Old 4th December 2014
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
What I said was that depending on experience someone moving from one DAW to the next will get a different sound because the tools inherently sound different.

It may seem like I'm clutching at straws or whatever but the fact is that if someone is using Fruity Loops or Live they are using the included tools for the most part and may use a plug in or two an addition not as a replacement to the tools included in the DAW. I never said that's a reason why it may sound thin I said that the tools have an inherent sound that will dictate depending on experience how or why the users mix sounds different between DAWs and that null test don't tell the real wholesale story, because nulls are a false test that would never happen in the real world. No matter what you do, a real world mix (with effects, eq etc) mix done in Logic then a mix done in Protools won't be the same (as in null). Putting a wav file in both daws then nulling isn't a real world indicator of how a mix would be done nor how the tools used will affect how it sounds.

It's a clean room argument with no real basis on how someone would actually use the tools, their level of experience, etc.

My point was a simple that tools sound different and as someone moving from one DAW to the other that needs to be taken into account if you are using the included tools. Most people use the included tools in a DAW to say otherwise would be silly imo. I'm pretty sure I've been consistent in that regard.
OK. I'm not disagreeing with you. Different DAWs may push a given user in a different direction. It'll affect some people more than others, and ideally a given person will be using their ears and it won't affect them noticeably, but it can happen for sure.

However - it is NOTHING to do with how the DAW inherently sounds - it can't be it'll be different for each user.

"Studio 1 sounds thin". No it doesn't - YOU (the general you) get a thin mix out of it, but it's not the DAW - it's you.

Do we agree?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the plugins - the mix I've just completed has precisely zero PT included plugins on it - it's 90% Waves+Slate, with other plugs from Soundtoys/Exponential/Massey/a few others. So - does my mix have "the pro tools sound" or not?!

FWIW a mix done in PT, and then the same song mixed in PT by the same engineer (from scratch) the following day won't "null". Of course it won't.

All the factors you mention are human factors, not DAW issues. The DAWs "sound the same"; it's the humans who don't!
Old 4th December 2014
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Not at all if you reread my argument you will see that I also mentioned that how a tool is used will affect your results. I may not have been very eloquent with what I said but the arguments are always that two audio files null, which is great, but no one in the real world uses a DAW to null audio files, they use them to compose, mix, record,
Your point? The null test discussion was used to disprove that a DAW inherently alters the sound. Not to show a real world example of how DAWs are commonly used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
and while you may be all hung about Softube and the like a lot of folks who spent whatever it was on their DAW are not, and will use the tools included in the DAW.
I didn't disagree with that because that was not your original point. You made a pretty clear implication that if you don't use the DAW's stock plugs then it doesn't really matter what DAW you use, which is nonsense. Plus you liking Logic's effects better than Studio One's effects (or whatever your preference) is no different than me liking Softube's effects better than Ableton's effects. Spare me the hypocritical "all hung about Softube" attitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Even if there were other tools out there, some aren't necessarily better, as better is subjective. To me Space Designer just sounds good there is no reason for me to use anything else within Logic, but I can't get Space Designer in Studio One (and Open Air sucks to my ears). If I need a simple precise EQ that doesn't color my mixes too much then I'm using the Channel EQ, or EQ8 or Pro-EQ, because they are far more efficient (in-terms of resources) and easy to use than something like Pro-Q which while great is relegated to specialty purpose in my workflow, because it's waste of resources in my book.

In Live I prefer to use the included tools because the UI interaction is far superior to having a whole bunch of plugin windows all over the place and working with racks is far easier. Even though I have Kontakt using the included samplers in Live, Logic, or Studio One is better because I can do things like chop audio in the session view and turn them into sampler instruments with one click. Sidechaining in Live is far easier to do with the included compressor/gate/filter/whatever than a 3rd party plugin.
What was the point of this? How does this have anything to do with a DAW sounding thinner than another? You are randomly getting defensive about third party vs. stock and driving this topic further off the rails. I have no problems with anybody using stock plugins. I'm just arguing your point that if you don't use stock then you might as well close your eyes and blindly pick a random DAW. There's much more to a DAW than included effects. I thought we already got passed this.

There's an obvious pattern here that you don't respond directly to any points made or questions asked, and instead go off on new tangents. #1 symptom of not knowing what you are talking about.
Old 4th December 2014
  #71
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
OK. I'm not disagreeing with you. Different DAWs may push a given user in a different direction. It'll affect some people more than others, and ideally a given person will be using their ears and it won't affect them noticeably, but it can happen for sure.

However - it is NOTHING to do with how the DAW inherently sounds - it can't be it'll be different for each user.

"Studio 1 sounds thin". No it doesn't - YOU (the general you) get a thin mix out of it, but it's not the DAW - it's you.

Do we agree?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the plugins - the mix I've just completed has precisely zero PT included plugins on it - it's 90% Waves+Slate, with other plugs from Soundtoys/Exponential/Massey/a few others. So - does my mix have "the pro tools sound" or not?!

FWIW a mix done in PT, and then the same song mixed in PT by the same engineer (from scratch) the following day won't "null". Of course it won't.

All the factors you mention are human factors, not DAW issues. The DAWs "sound the same"; it's the humans who don't!
Removing tools from the DAW package imo is not a real world use case for a DAW and I've rarely ever seen anyone not use at least the EQ in a DAW. I see a DAW as a whole not just as a summing engine. So in that respect yes we will have to agree to disagree.
Old 4th December 2014
  #72
Lives for gear
 
47radAR's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Removing tools from the DAW package imo is not a real world use case for a DAW and I've rarely ever seen anyone not use at least the EQ in a DAW. I see a DAW as a whole not just as a summing engine. So in that respect yes we will have to agree to disagree.
You're saying that certain aesthetics of a DAW might influence a different end result from the user. While this may be true, that does not make the DAWs or their mix engines any different in sound.

If I have two cars - one is ugly as hell and the other is the best looking car on the planet - but they both max out at 90 mph. Neither can exceed that speed no matter what you do.

However, since the pretty car is so visually appealing to me, I'm unwilling to drive it faster than 60 mph for risk of damaging it. The ugly one, I don't care so I push it to the max.

By your logic, the maximum speeds of the two cars are now different simply because I've been aesthetically influenced to treat them differently.

By your logic, in the real world, the appearance of the cars is part of the cars (and their maximum speed) as a whole. That makes no sense.
Old 4th December 2014
  #73
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Removing tools from the DAW package imo is not a real world use case for a DAW and I've rarely ever seen anyone not use at least the EQ in a DAW. I see a DAW as a whole not just as a summing engine. So in that respect yes we will have to agree to disagree.
This is such a nothing point. Stop repeating it. Nobody is buying it. You choose to use Maschine over Ableton Impulse or Drum Rack. You're removing tools from the DAW man! Not a real use case! Invalid opinion!

The highest paid producers in the world right (EDM DJs) are using 90% Native Instruments, iZotope, and Waves. You can see what they are using backstage. Those are real world use cases of professionals making millions from working inside a DAW. Your definition of how to use a DAW properly is not only unfounded but inaccurate in today's landscape.
Old 4th December 2014
  #74
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anstahc View Post
This is such a nothing point. Stop repeating it. Nobody is buying it. You choose to use Maschine over Ableton Impulse or Drum Rack. You're removing tools from the DAW man! Not a real use case! Invalid opinion!
That doesn't mean that I'm going to replace everything a DAW has and I doubt everyone does that so my point still stands. Also you know very little about my workflow so you have no idea why I'm using maschine, how I'm using maschine, or even if I'm using maschine inside of a DAW at all. In Ableton I will use the Drum Racks more often than not and that is in-fact one of Ableton's biggest selling points for me.

It's silly to think that just because I use one tool over another that means I am going to ignore everything else that my DAW, that I paid almost $800 for (which is what Ableton Suite costs), has included. Am I going to stop using operator because I have Massive? Am I going to stop using Sampler because I have Kontakt. Hell no, because Sampler and Operator are damn good on their own and they integrate better with Live. I'm not going to replace every EQ in my audio/effects racks with EQuilibriam because that plugin is too heavy and EQ8 is good enough. The same with Compressor and The Glue.
Old 4th December 2014
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
That doesn't mean that I'm going to replace everything a DAW has and I doubt everyone does that so my point still stands.
You argue like a toddler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Also you know very little about my workflow so you have no idea why I'm using maschine, how I'm using maschine, or even if I'm using maschine inside of a DAW at all.
You argue like a toddler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
It's silly to think that just because I use one tool over another that means I am going to ignore everything else that my DAW, that I paid almost $800 for (which is what Ableton Suite costs), has included. Am I going to stop using operator because I have Massive? Am I going to stop using Sampler because I have Kontakt. Hell no, because Sampler and Operator are damn good on their own and they integrate better with Live. I'm not going to replace every EQ in my audio/effects racks with EQuilibriam because that plugin is too heavy and EQ8 is good enough. The same with Compressor and The Glue.
Exactly, more rambling about irrelevant ****. I noticed you ignored the second half of my post, as well as Trell Blaze's post, as well as almost all of what psycho monkey said, and almost all of what I said in the past couple pages. You won't touch any of those points, the ones actually relevant to the thread topic. You'll only talk to yourself about why DAW consumers are obligated to use all of a its included effects, a baseless point that you don't even adhere to yourself and a discussion that nobody is engaged in.
Old 4th December 2014
  #76
Lives for gear
 
47radAR's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
That doesn't mean that I'm going to replace everything a DAW has and I doubt everyone does that so my point still stands. Also you know very little about my workflow so you have no idea why I'm using maschine, how I'm using maschine, or even if I'm using maschine inside of a DAW at all. In Ableton I will use the Drum Racks more often than not and that is in-fact one of Ableton's biggest selling points for me.

It's silly to think that just because I use one tool over another that means I am going to ignore everything else that my DAW, that I paid almost $800 for (which is what Ableton Suite costs), has included. Am I going to stop using operator because I have Massive? Am I going to stop using Sampler because I have Kontakt. Hell no, because Sampler and Operator are damn good on their own and they integrate better with Live. I'm not going to replace every EQ in my audio/effects racks with EQuilibriam because that plugin is too heavy and EQ8 is good enough. The same with Compressor and The Glue.

Dude just stop. You're all over the place. NONE of this proves that the sound/mix engines of various DAWs have a different sound.

The only thing you've proven is that it's possible for the workflow of the DAW to alter the final product - which we ALL already knew.

There is no difference between the summing of Studio One, Cubase, or Ableton. Stock plugins, workflow, pan laws - none of these things are a part of the mix engine.

Not only has this been scientifically proven time and time again, Beyondat has posted his own experiment (which you seem to have ignored) just a few posts ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyondat View Post
I just did a null test using plugins inside of Cubase and Pro Tools. I used a waves SSL Channel preset and a J37 preset in both daws. For some reason Cubase added a few milliseconds to the aiff file so I had to nudge it backwards a bit but the 2 files do null.

At this point, I think you're just arguing just to be arguing. You're either trolling or just can't accept being wrong and will continue to alter reality until it proves you right.
Old 4th December 2014
  #77
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
Removing tools from the DAW package imo is not a real world use case for a DAW and I've rarely ever seen anyone not use at least the EQ in a DAW. I see a DAW as a whole not just as a summing engine. So in that respect yes we will have to agree to disagree.
Well, see it how you like - but it's if absolutely no relevance to the original point!

It's very common for people to use 3rd party eqs and other processing in preference to the included DAW tools. It's not exclusive - I'm not saying I never use them - I'm saying it's not my go to toolbox.

As I said, if you want to debate the original point, you need to understand the issues and how to test and eliminate variables. You can argue "that's not real world" all you like, but real world is "differences between people" more than anything - the tools are only a very small part of that.

So different people do different sounding mixes, regardless of what they use. Well, there's a revelation. If you want more detail, you have to get away from the real world, isolate a starting point (eg "plugins and automation aside, all DAWs sum audio the same") and build from there.

Anything else is meaningless.
Old 5th December 2014
  #78
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
Well, see it how you like - but it's if absolutely no relevance to the original point!

It's very common for people to use 3rd party eqs and other processing in preference to the included DAW tools. It's not exclusive - I'm not saying I never use them - I'm saying it's not my go to toolbox.

As I said, if you want to debate the original point, you need to understand the issues and how to test and eliminate variables. You can argue "that's not real world" all you like, but real world is "differences between people" more than anything - the tools are only a very small part of that.

So different people do different sounding mixes, regardless of what they use. Well, there's a revelation. If you want more detail, you have to get away from the real world, isolate a starting point (eg "plugins and automation aside, all DAWs sum audio the same") and build from there.

Anything else is meaningless.

All DAWs summing may be the same but what about PDC? PDC can affect greatly how you use a tool or even what tool you use when mixing. Live is notorious for how bad the PDC is and even with 3rd party plugins, matching settings will not give you the same results because you never actually know what the hell the DAW is doing you can guess but your guess will make your project sound fundamentally different than a project done in Logic with the same exact plugins and settings.

My point is that a DAWs summing engine is not an island there are factors within a DAW that while some may be the human factor others are inherent to the DAW and having to compensate can deviate your sound even if you did do you due diligence. Just looking at a DAW summing two audio files is a disingenuous way to look at the matter because a DAW has many moving parts and some DAWs parts move better than others.

You guys keep saying all DAWs sound the same then leave out all the other parts of the DAW that are relevant to people. Just differences in time stretch algorithms used between DAWs can affect your sound. Are people not using time stretch in their projects?

I'm not saying the OP is right about the thinness of Studio One I'm saying that not acknowledging that the tools are fundamentally different and that will affect how you mix and what sound you get out of the DAW, whether good or bad, is not a genuine way to look at the issue, imo.
Old 5th December 2014
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
All DAWs summing may be the same but what about PDC? PDC can affect greatly how you use a tool or even what tool you use when mixing. Live is notorious for how bad the PDC is and even with 3rd party plugins, matching settings will not give you the same results because you never actually know what the hell the DAW is doing you can guess but your guess will make your project sound fundamentally different than a project done in Logic with the same exact plugins and settings.
Well, a plugin might create a specific delay. PDC either correct that or it doesn't. The DAW that doesn't correct it isn't working properly; it's right or wrong, and the wrong DAW should be avoided. It's not like there's an arbitrary correction amount and everyone chooses a different value.

Whilst multimiked sources will sound significantly different if plugin delay isn't working correctly, non-coherent sources (eg a vocal and a synth) won't interact in the same way - there's a chance one will affect the other, but a lot of the time there won't be any noticeable interaction, and a few samples difference one way or the other simply won't be audible - although technically things will be different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
My point is that a DAWs summing engine is not an island there are factors within a DAW that while some may be the human factor others are inherent to the DAW and having to compensate can deviate your sound even if you did do you due diligence. Just looking at a DAW summing two audio files is a disingenuous way to look at the matter because a DAW has many moving parts and some DAWs parts move better than others.
The point is - a lot of people will claim that DAWs play back files "differently" without resorting to all of this. This is clearly nonsense, as anyone who works in post will tell you - files get imported and exported all the time, and it's easy to bounce and check. Until people agree on a starting point, this argument goes round and round.

MY point is that you need a starting place for comparison. You seem to want to talk about different points all at once, and never actually analyse anything. A significant part of what you're attributing to "differences between DAWs" is actually differences between people, or even the same person on a different day. To be able to have a meaningful conversation, you need to lose this and talk solely about the tools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
You guys keep saying all DAWs sound the same then leave out all the other parts of the DAW that are relevant to people. Just differences in time stretch algorithms used between DAWs can affect your sound. Are people not using time stretch in their projects?
Plenty of people don't use timestretching in their projects! You sound like you're taking your way of working, and applying it to everyone. Why would you need to timestretch things in classical, folk, world, jazz, or most forms of rock? I use timestretching for a couple of reasons - fixes that can't be done any other way, and for special FX. I don't do it as a matter of course, and plenty of my tracking and mixing never goes near it. Quite a lot of the time, if I use it I use SPEED by Soundtoys, or in post Pitch n time, because they sound better.

Again - do I dodge the "sound" of the DAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoclypse View Post
I'm not saying the OP is right about the thinness of Studio One I'm saying that not acknowledging that the tools are fundamentally different and that will affect how you mix and what sound you get out of the DAW, whether good or bad, is not a genuine way to look at the issue, imo.
OK - you're now back to talking about the human element. The tools ARE fundamentally different - but not sonically - just in the interface. One DAW is not inherently "thin", which was the original point here. I think you're getting to the point where you're arguing against something that no-one is disagreeing with.
Old 8th August 2019
  #80
Here for the gear
 
kieil's Avatar
 

..DAW sound difference..?

I was a logic x user for 10 years and a studio one for the last 2, now Iv got cubase 10 and Im so confused about the sound.....I can say that if i import a sample or a loop into cubase 10 it sounds fantastic..whats going in it comes out, but in logic the same sample or loop will sound kinda saturated ,rounded, with less dynamic...I just cant explain to my self...regards
Old 8th August 2019
  #81
kdm
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanC View Post
Have you guys actually tried null tests though?

Not to add fuel to the fire here, but the issue is that different DAWs actually don't null.
Yes, and they do, and this can be confirmed, without worrying about pan law differences, just by summing the same set of stereo audio files in each. When you use mono, you must consider any pan law (or panning function/plugin) differences. When you add plugins, you have to consider potentially even more vast differences.

The only difference between DAW "sound" is in users who don't really know digital audio, mixing and/or objective testing as well as they might think. I've used and compared Nuendo and Cubase, ProTools, Samplitude/Sequoia, Digital Performer, and now Studio One.
Old 10th August 2019
  #82
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kieil View Post
I was a logic x user for 10 years and a studio one for the last 2, now Iv got cubase 10 and Im so confused about the sound.....I can say that if i import a sample or a loop into cubase 10 it sounds fantastic..whats going in it comes out, but in logic the same sample or loop will sound kinda saturated ,rounded, with less dynamic...I just cant explain to my self...regards
You are not crazy regardless of what the null police try to tell you. Not to belittle anyone here but most of the professionals that I know and work with hear the same sort of things you are hearing.

IT REALLY DOESNT MATTER IF SUMMED FILES NULL OR NOT.

What matters is how the audio is presented to you as that affects the choices that you make which in turn affects your final product.

I find the presentation of audio files to be very different between daws and have struggled with switching between daws for years for that very reason.

Ej
Old 11th August 2019
  #83
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejsongs
IT REALLY DOESNT MATTER IF SUMMED FILES NULL OR NOT.
Yeah it kind of does.
It's called Physics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ejsongs
What matters is how the audio is presented to you..

..I find the presentation of audio files to be very different between daws
What exactly are you saying here? What do you mean by 'presented'?
Are you suggesting that the same cake tastes different if it's blue as opposed to green?
Old 11th August 2019
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
Yeah it kind of does.
It's called Physics.



What exactly are you saying here? What do you mean by 'presented'?
Are you suggesting that the same cake tastes different if it's blue as opposed to green?
What I am saying is that if you take the same audio file...let’s say Bruno Mars That’s what I Like and listen to it in different daws the song will sound different to you. No plugs or anything else going on. That being the case how the audio sounds to me during playback will affect the creative decisions that I make.

I use studio one and pro tools daily and always need to load a ref song in the actual session in order to get my baring on how the target mix sounds within the daw itself. Then I can make my creative decisions while compensating for how the daw is presenting the ref mix to me.

Dude...iTunes and quick time sound different on playback of the same file as does pro tools, logic, studio one etc. that is why the summing thing doesn’t matter as much. It should be mainly be about how things sound on playback and once you do bounce does your mix translate well.

Before you discount what I am saying and start quoting some white paper, try it and listen for yourself.

Ej
Old 11th August 2019
  #85
Here for the gear
 
Jesper Dahlstrom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ejsongs View Post
What I am saying is that if you take the same audio file...let’s say Bruno Mars That’s what I Like and listen to it in different daws the song will sound different to you. No plugs or anything else going on. That being the case how the audio sounds to me during playback will affect the creative decisions that I make.
Have you tried having someone playing the same song to you from different DAWs, without you knowing which DAW is actually playing? A blind test that is?

If you were able to identify differences while doing that, say making a video of it and posting on youtube, it would be very interesting - since I think most people here, myself included, don't think it's actually possible.

That being said, it is very likely true that one can perceive audio differently while in front of different DAWs, making it feel like they are different sounding. It doesn't necessarily mean they are though.

/Jesper
Old 11th August 2019
  #86
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesper Dahlstrom View Post
Have you tried having someone playing the same song to you from different DAWs, without you knowing which DAW is actually playing? A blind test that is?

If you were able to identify differences while doing that, say making a video of it and posting on youtube, it would be very interesting - since I think most people here, myself included, don't think it's actually possible.

That being said, it is very likely true that one can perceive audio differently while in front of different DAWs, making it feel like they are different sounding. It doesn't necessarily mean they are though.

/Jesper
fortunately or unfortunately I really dont have the time to shoot such videos and do this kinda of test for you guys. Check it out for yourself. Just start off listening to you favorite record in Itunes, then in quick time, then in your daw of choice then another. all 4 will sound different. You might be surprised if quicktime is the best out of them all
Old 11th August 2019
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Quetz's Avatar
The test isn't for us, it's for you.
So you can identify your biases.

iTunes and QuickTime players have audio enhancements on by default, so unless you're disabling everything first they will sound different.
And are you using your interface audio for all or are iTunes etc playing through on-board audio.

I'm sure they're all going through the interface but it's worth checking.

If you rendered your Bruno Mars song from the different daws at the master out with no processing and dither off, they will null, which means you were hearing exactly the same thing.
Even if you don't think you were.
Bias is incredibly strong. It's a survival tool.
Even seasoned pros have admitted to using an eq for a few seconds and making adjustments until they realised it wasn't on, for example.
Old 11th August 2019
  #88
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetz View Post
The test isn't for us, it's for you.
So you can identify your biases.

iTunes and QuickTime players have audio enhancements on by default, so unless you're disabling everything first they will sound different.
And are you using your interface audio for all or are iTunes etc playing through on-board audio.

I'm sure they're all going through the interface but it's worth checking.

If you rendered your Bruno Mars song from the different daws at the master out with no processing and dither off, they will null, which means you were hearing exactly the same thing.
Even if you don't think you were.
Bias is incredibly strong. It's a survival tool.
Even seasoned pros have admitted to using an eq for a few seconds and making adjustments until they realised it wasn't on, for example.
You are missing the point. For sure they will null as
It’s basically the same audio file. I’ve been at this long enough to know to turn the enhancements in iTunes off and I have the capability to run everything thru the same converter or not. I’m comfortable with my thoughts as I work on these everyday for a living.

Lastly you are mistaken. Just because you rendered the files and they nulled does not necessarily mean that what you are hearing on playback sounds the same when listening outside the daw or with another daw. You are assuming here.

Last edited by ejsongs; 12th August 2019 at 03:38 PM..
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump