One thing I wonder from my ignorance, is why all the arguments about the DAW sound are based on comparing daws playing an identical wave file.
What about a synth or a midi drum?
Does every DAW handle picks the same way? Will they all render the same way?
And about recording an external instrument?
Would they all sound the same in this situation?
Specially if pushed hard

 

the objective is somewhat adequately defined by OP. perhaps complicated by referring to subjectivity and 'discussion'.

"he was not directly answering "Do all DAWs sound the same"" it is clear what was being addressed -- recycle qualifies it in the next sentence. which is a flawed assessment in itself.

-- the thesis(?)[hypothesis] is not weak.
-- there is data that could be defined as reliable given specifics.
-- we are not "just talking about “sensations”"

*as a bonus, "concretely support the thesis that there actually is a daw that sounds better", is a logical improbability. it is also not what is trying to be determined.

this all suggests a misinterpretation of what is required. why introduce an intellectual model when more relevant logical models have not been exhausted? especially when a simple logical observation is offered in conclusion anyway. it virtually disproves itself.

your hypotheticals are irrelevant (but i am starting to get use to that).

 

it is just a pretty unlikely proposition, so my guess is they are trying to narrow the variables as much as possible. from what i have read in the past this is a plausible explanation. that is just trying to establish a working methodology. the actual arguments vary slightly but maybe significantly. you may have to be more specific which i am going to assume does not interest you. a lack of interest probably denotes good judgement in this regard.

just that is hard enough to determine without the other stuff.

assuming working in floating point and no advertised 'extras', it should not matter.

 

I did a couple of projects in MOTU's Digital Performer 10 and I could swear it sounded "better".

Granted, I used MOTU's included Masterworks plugins on the master channel (which, I think, are modeled after SSL/Neve type gear), but I also tried to recreate the exact same project in Logic using Waves plugs - and same EQ etc. settings obviously - and IMO it still ended up sounding marginally different.

 

Rendering MIDI uses additional paths. So, it's out of question here.
Generally, we should not confuse processing sound (DSP) from pure sound reproduction of a DAW (when it is reduced to just another software audio player).
This question is, in fact, if you load any sound file (the best choice for the sake of sound resolution being in a WAV format) created on any equipment, would it produce the same sound (send binary exactly the same WAV to the sound card) - /WAV because only raster formats can be actually played/ - on every DAW?

 

Maesuring and comparing of THD, IMD, IR (impulse response), TIM distortion, amplitude linearity, transient response... of DAW's audio streaming while playing back (recorded to a WAV you can also do null testing)... - Almost everything you usually measure in a hardware audio player (taking into consideration differences of a software player). Selbstverständlich.

 

(what you wrote here in blue)
> the objective is somewhat adequately defined by OP. perhaps complicated by referring to subjectivity and 'discussion'.
How gracious of you to describe the OP's question so condescendingly, and to focus on only the part that YOU think matters
whilst dismissing his other concerns as mere complications. Give us all a break your worship!

> -- we are not "just talking about “sensations”"
Who is this we ? It sounds like your 'personal royal we' designed to sidestep the empirical observation that
several other members are discussing sensations, even if you regard that as to be dismissed as irrelevant.

> this all suggests a misinterpretation of what is required.
of what is required to satisfy your myopic interpretation obviously.
But, again, how condescending of you to dismiss other commenters as having missed the point.
How dare they fail to notice the supreme validity of your over-simplistic perspective.

> your hypotheticals are irrelevant (but i am starting to get use to that).
Those alleged hypotheticals are not hypotheticals (but no surprises to see you misusing the word)
They are questions based on observations of what people in this thread are actually doing,
y'know all those contributors that are making contributions which you think have just missed the point.
To borrow your own style of tacky dialogue...
Your myopic perspective is irrelevant (but i am starting to get use to that).

----

Dear thread... tantrum alert, tantrum alert, tantrum alert

 

That would be if you use your DAW as a mixing / mastering machine only. So I understand your argument for engineers, but for composers, the sound a midi instrument and of a directly recorded instrument is as important, or more important as the one of simple wav file.

And why limit the judgement of a DAW sound quality about it's wav reproduction only? That's a genuine question, not rhetorical.

 

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts"

Often falsely attributed to Einstein - but who's counting?

 

OK, but which one sounds the best?
jk......

 

Aside from the subject,,, your English is Damn gooood my man

 

What should represent the 'sound quality' except reproduction ('sounding')?

 

The crystal oscillator, to name one.

 

And there is maybe a question of manufacturers' workarounds too. For instance, when I use Celemony Capstan I hear big difference in favour of Capstain "processed' sound against the 'original' sound. But when I save the processed file and compare it with the original in any other audio player, editor, etc. I can hear much less of a difference. I suppose it is done in order to make you hear the differences easier, and help you make up your mind.

 

Let's hear what this young aspiring guy is saying

 

I published the daw reviews to show why I choose a daw instead of another: for its features.
To whoever say there is a daw that sounds better:

Upload your proofs so we can discuss them

Otherwise you ain't sayin' nothing

 

Taken that the DAC and analog gear used remain the same, the way any audio software 'sounds' depends also on your OS, audio drivers and the intensity of non-audio parallel processing (services, applications active) during the playback.
No audio editor, player or DAW sounds the same, even identical twins differ in some 3% of genome on average. That's a general rule from experience.
Null test is the proof if playback rendering is the same, so if anybody has the opportunity to do the null test, he might do it at last and end this discussion. I have only one DAW. Choosing the best player took me some months, and that's enough for me. I don't intend to listen to the music through my DAW.

 

I agree on everything: despite his haircut, this guy knows what he’s saying.