quadcore64, Don't waste your time debating with someone who has no knowledge about the "huge" difference in conversion quality, noise near zero, and the amount of headroom that applies to a $300 interface vs a $3000 interface. There's nothing "roughly" the same about them.

 

Last edited: Nov 30, 2017

Looking at the plot, there are definate differrencces. Enough to have an audible effect because the analog wave pattern is changed.
One thing I learned early on is that low & highs effect each other in very subtle ways which in turn, have an overall affect on the mids.

Keep in mind that good recording mixing and are best done with small moves to effect tonal relationship & harmonic balance. Especially in mastering.

 

And when it comes to full mixes inside different DAWs, there is even more of an offset than that. It effects the perception of depth, transparency, and color. And those whose ears don't detect any bit of difference conveniently resort to using analyzers with a much higher floor so it won't show up in their null tests.

 

Last edited: Nov 30, 2017

Thank you for your affirming input. For me, it is not about being right, just correct.
We do not all have the same visual or audio perception. This applies to other areas of existance outside the scope of this topic but, are nonetheless related.

Everything is related, everything is the same.

Finding these relationships is the journey we are all on.

 

For those who missed it. There are more comparissons on the SCR site as well as, links from some
of the other info posted by me.

I will post my own analysis with the installed DAWs on my personal computer. Reaper & Studio One 3.
Sometime this weekend most likely.

 

OFFS! Again you don't understand what you're looking at.
TL;DR: After doing what DAW manufacturers specifically tell you not to do (using different sample rates inside a single project) & picking the worst rates to transcode, you still don't get audible results. 120dB down is not audible, way below (as in orders of magnitude) the noise floor/THD of the rest of your gear + speaker distortion + room resonance. Please understand what numbers mean before hitting ctrl-v.

Edit: Here's a nice simple video that will introduce you to digital audio basics. A simple show & tell, no maths learningz (or dark gypsy majiks) required

 

Last edited: Nov 30, 2017

Thanks for the video. I actually have an electronics background so I do understand the concepts presented.

The SCR plot posted is just one of many choices from the site. In the real world if you create tracks at a higher bit rate & then convert down, you get artifacts thus we use dithering to mask this side-effect.

Even staying at 44.1kHz, there are measurable differences. Whether digital (in the box) or analog (out of the box), there are differences.
The makers of high end interfaces such as RME acknowledge this point.

The remaining question is whether you notice vs. someone who does and, whether it is actual or pshycho-acoustic.

As it is with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

Last edited: Dec 1, 2017

From a mastering engineers perspective:

and

 

Last edited: Dec 1, 2017

We know what SCR artifacts are, I even mentioned them before you started this shitshow about something you keep clinging on to prove a point that is not even what the whole topic is about.
To stay on topic, are they part of the "audible" differences between DAWS?
NO.
End of story.

I swear people that claim DAWs sound different are the flat-earthers of music production

 

Those with the ability to detect meticulous changes that "you can't" are more meticulous when it comes to engineering their music as well. In the digital domain I steer to tools that offer 0.000 increment changes or beyond. At times I use a small paint brush against the knobs and/or faders of the outboard gear to lock right on what I'm listening for. I'm not yet famous. But there's no flat earth about it.. it's my religion. And I'm telling you, it's what's subliminal to the average listeners that makes so many of them fall in love with the same song. It's because they in fact hear it as well.. even if they aren't aware of it. And to be honest man, it's in the nature of a flat earther to assume others senses are restricted to the margins of your own.

 

If you knew who I am associated with you would probably adjust your thought. I have not even fully responded to all of your ramblings. Just trying to point out facts that you keep dancing around.

You keep trying to separate digital and analog as an example but, digital at some point has to go through some kind of process to get to our ears. Whether the material is altered digitally or in the analog field.

 

Last edited: Dec 1, 2017

Harrison Mixbuss is really Ardour with "mixer" software component added to it. It would be interesting for someone to do tests to see whether the Harrison augmentation poses a difference in sound from Ardour.

I have wondered whether the difference perceived between the sound of on DAW's audio-handling results be subjective or objectively quantifiable. If I'm not overlooking something, there is no objective (in form of graphs or graphics?) proof of such, though I myself concur that Ableton doesn't sound quite "right." Different audio engines should, theoretically, yield differing results. One thing which might influence subjective opinion is the "user experience" of the GUI: visual relationships of graphic control elements to one another, the amount of 3D-ness of the pots and faders, the behaviors of selection tools, the accuracy of the visual representation of automation curves to how they behave sonically, and so forth.

This might be one factor in why, to me, Ableton doesn't sound quite "right" – the GUI is unaccommodating to me. Logic, Reaper, Studion One, Bitwig, and Pro Tools all have amenable GUIs, because of their graphics. It's about hand-eye-ear coordination. Thus, I come around to wondering whether the graphic elements of the Harrison augmentation to Ardour might hereby influence the results of the audio production in comparison to plain ol' Ardour at least as much as the augmentation of the audio-processing code.

 

This analogy doesn't seem right, as, in a certain way, the earth is flat.
The earth is flat in such way that we see it through our eyes at ground level.
So we perceive it to be flat, even though our brains know it is round.

Sound is also perceived the same way, just not with our eyes, but with our ears.
So in a certain way, our ears also perceive the earth as flat, even though our brains know it is round.

What I mean with this is:

No graph can compensate for the subjectivity in hearing.
If someone perceives a difference, then there IS a difference. If one doesn't, then there isn't!
Sound is subjective to the perceiver's ears.

 

Yes, digital cannot even be heard. It's a scripted language in which we can literally open a .wav file in a text document and read it like a book. And what can also be found when exporting the same source material from two different DAWs is, it's like opening and comparing two different versions of a bible. The bulk majority of what's written is the same, but they are certainly not word for word. Therefore, these digital interpretations handed to the analog converter to are not 1:1 identical things being converted to sound.

 

This is a good thing you brought up. The visual movements do add a sonic vibe to the listening experience. But it also equates to a heavier processing task when a plugin GUI is open vs closed. And some of us might even notice a slight color change, or a subtle loss of transparency in the audio when a GUI is open vs closed. It's funny you brought this up because the way I record my mixdowns: clocked to external recorder, minimize DAW to taskbar, turn off computer screen, hit record.

 

Enlighten me, please.

 

For a big chunk of my life, I worked with people who made similar claims. They could hear teh nuanced differences between carbon vs. metal oxide resistors, multistrand vs. single-core wire, black-plate RCA t00bs vs. etc., etc. Curiously enough, none of them could hear .01 vs 2% harmonic distortion in audiophool gear, and invariably picked the louder of test sources as "the most musical." You don't need to take this on trust, but please don't ask me to do the same with your claims.

 

You went a lot beyond what I meant with that. I was simply meaning that evidence is not to be ignored when served on a plate by somebody else, and in a mathematical field you can't throw things around trying to make some sense. And even if you do, but it's not relevant to the discussion, you're still failing at basic comprehension because again this is not a thread about the effects of SRC artifacts.
Proving they don't affect the ending result from an audible standpoint is the only proper way to relate it to the problem at hand.
Despite the thread is about audible differences, this quadcore64 guy up here keeps insisting on showing us what SRC artifacts are.

Don't look at the finger, but look at what it points to.

Yes, whenever the human factor is involved you can rest assured that results won't be perfect, especially if humans have to interact with an interface that isn't simply made by switches but have sliders.
But if you can reproduce the same settings in every DAW engine meant to be transparent the result will be the same.
Again, without taking into account native plugins and different pan laws.

And in conclusion

I think you missed something, "audible" doesn't inextricably relate to subjectiveness.
Yes the listening experience is obviously subjective and you can give me two identical pieces of audio saying that there is a difference, many would say that the difference is there even if there isn't.
But what the thread is about is, instead, differences within the spectrum of audible frequencies that "characterize" a certain daw compared to another.
Two completely different things. How so many people are able to miss this is beyond me.

Mathematical comparisons (like null tests) are just one way to demonstrate this (reductio ad absurdum) because direct proof, given how subjective the listening experience is, is not a reliable way to prove it.

 

There could be info like that in the Harrison MuxBus forum.