Surely this is all theoretical conjecture for the good of science, like...? Cubase 13 and most all newer daw's turn up their noses at the sight of 32bit plugins anymore let alone attempting to run them on a 32bit platform. AS far as C13 goes there isn't even a version made to run on a 32bit hardware platform... All flavors of Cubase; Cubase Pro 13, Cubase Artist 13, Cubase Elements 13, Cubase LE 13, and Cubase AI 13 are all sporting 64 bit audio engines. No 32bit.

For the record, in the C5 days there were those who could run higher track counts and get away with it. In those days it was mostly the available hardware that limited things like high track counts and large numbers of plugins. Slow hard drives and ram, the ISA bus, AGP, PCI, single core processors, etc all contributed to the bottlenecks. However there were those with deep pockets and relatively unlimited resources (mostly big studios and mega-buck artist types) that could barely hope to approach those types of in-the-box feats of strength. Even with massive amounts of the then "state of the art" hardware (also assuming the system didn't just crash down around one's ears) it would still force one to raise the buffer size so high that the latency would eventually do them in... This all is assuming a relatively low (44khz) system sample rate and cubase being ultra-finely tweaked as well. For most folks though in the C5 days 128 tracks in the box was simply not done...

As to sound quality of C5 compared to modern daws - the quality of the hardware required to run C5 will be the deciding factor in this case. It would be difficult to impossible to even get C5 installed on a modern hardware platform to do a proper A/B comparison and vice versa. So this is really comparing apples to oranges. There WILL be a difference in quality since C5 with its limitations both software and hardware wise will be the underdog compared to a modern base hardware system that will run Cubase 13 at 96Khz plus and record and play back in almost real-time (comparatively) latency wise. There WILL be a difference in sound quality. It's obvious.

 

Last edited: Jan 29, 2024

Let's see the spectrographs.

 

A listening test is only useful when there actually are any differences. Else it doesn't make sense. It's not suitable to check whether there are differences or not.

 

Not really. You can install 32bit applications on a 64bit computer, just not the other way around

It was. It could be done and was. The latency was horrendous and you had to adjust the buffer to maximum when bouncing and allow around 2-4 bars or 8-12 seconds for disk caching, and at least 4 seconds out, but it was doable.

 

DAW to DAW Quality wise comparison = no differences.

if you wanna make some quality, Add some analogue to Digital gears.

When i was using Protools 6 with Digi 001, and compare with Cubase 4, Protools had an upper hand, why?

its because of Digi 001 - the hardware.

When i plug a Presonus Tube pre to the Cubase, Scenario changed.

 

Ears are different, Curious i wrote a song in Cubase 10 and wanted to hear what it would sound like in Studio One ( as it was developed by former Steinberg Engineers. the construct of the song was recorded in stems in Logic and then imported the dry tracks into both Cubase and S1 with identical plug ins settings and so on the final result was Cubase sounded warmer to my ears as well as musician friends i did the Pepsi challenge with all 12 said the Cubase mix sounded wormed and full while studio one sounded thin even with added tweaking in studio one was i able to get it even close to Cubase maybe i need to revisit this test again with Cubase 13 and some other daws and see what happens if anything

 

"this test is not to be a scientific research in any way."

However the goal was to find out if there is any sonical difference between DAWs.

IN ORDER TO FIND THAT OUT, THE TEST MUST BE SCIENTIFIC.

One can NOT find out if there is any "sonical" difference between DAWs, unless the testing is done using scientific methodology.

The answer to that is undoubtably: IMPOSSIBLE TO DETERMINE, as the test is not scientific.

And THIS kind of illogic is the reason that people THINK there is a "sonical" difference between DAWs.

 

"Base on my ears in depth of some daw i tested on yamaha hs5 without audio interface, just using standar jack cable to my macbk with 441/24 bitrate.."
1. Live; in high freq it sounds like plasticly, n i lose the solid sound especially on low-lowmid, more i crank it up it so noisy n digitaly, again it so digitaly,, u can hear it how what i mean, just listen the decap beats
2. Fl studio; i like this guy how it sounds! all freq is good, solid, little bit dreamy, but more i crank it up little bit bump on low mid.
3. Logic pro; in high freq it sounds sometime like glass n sometime like plate but solid, in low freq is solid too but more i crank it up its like grenade!
4. Protool; i dont tested it a lot, but it sounds just solid.
5. Cubase; i dont test it yet..

"About workflow i like the ableton"

"About soundstage, what i mean a soundstage is the songs position we hear beetwen 2 speaker is equal around the eyes, and i feels the ableton is around middle to below the eyes, fl is around middle to high the eyes, logic is around the high above the eyes, protool im forgot.."

"More i tested with phase cancellation, how i tested is;
1. Load drumloop without any effect also uncheck the warping or timestretching
2. Set input gain to 24db
3. Set volume fader -24db
4. Bounce it, and then open new project
5. Load that two drumloop in 2 track, one is where we bounce it
6. Set phase cancellation one of 2 track

yes it should be no sound! But...idk, test it. Also is weird too if im just do some random cut/split on that drumloop in fl studio without change length n compare with the original with phase cancellation.."

"Conclusion with some stressed i feel of the weirdness on each daw i choose fl studio, n the reason is weird they never change their stock plugin lol.."

*sorry my bad english

 

Yes I can hear there is not the same on each daw if i load drumloop without any fx, warping/ timestretch, fader 0db. Just focus on low freq, especially on the soundstage..

 

Last edited: Jan 30, 2024

Cubase 5 is from a different era and invariably expects a different kind of hardware and OS architecture. This is what I was referring to when citing the 32bit-ness of C5. It's 32bit, but a 20+ year old vintage program that would be difficult to impossible to get installed and working correctly on a modern OS/hardware platform... It's just old code. Hell we have enough trouble now just getting 5 year old apps to install on the newer windows systems due to the "compatibility assistant" trying to out think everyone. Really don't even see why anyone would bother trying as it's still an apples to oranges comparison...

 

No argument - However, the thread author wants to know and that is the main thing.

 

If you take a sound file, load it into any number of DAWs, pan central and bounce to same file format from each DAW you will find all the files will null with each other and also the original file.

 

Yes true,,, hmmm this kind of topic makes me curious in all its strangeness lol
in some daw they will not, if change the gain/ volume in (+) & out (-) with same value, like i said.. but okkay i know the gain and volume is not the same but hmmm
Anyway what i feel is like,, have you hear with the same file play on different music player like winamp, groove music player, apple music/ itunes, etc. is not the same vibe
also,,of all the differences, they have their own distortions??
or maybe why the null test is worked because we dont touch any setting then it saved to engine while we bounced but the sounds engine of what we heared are not inclueded n still we hear as like it play??

what about if we use 2 daw for recording it from 1 of daw to test it null test?? ived never tried it becouse dont have tools..

 

I do not use Cubase I work in reaper ,but I do use WaveLab and although it is not a DAW
and for some reason I cannot put my finger on ,It sounds better ,more musical if you will
so I would guess Steinberg audio programming produces a better sound ,maybe not in the way the bits come out
but the underlying programming. As has been mentioned many times on this site It really does not matter,
what really matters is the sound ,the DAW ,the out board processing equipment , the amps, the speakers
how they combine to produce the music
Have you ever played in a bar ,and one night when the humidity , temp , number of people ( bags of water)
is just perfect, the sound is fantastic, but the next night, same set up, but there is something missing in the
sound, I can never figure out what that something is and where it went

 

Essentially, if you hear a difference in a music player it's because it's using some different DSP either on the decoder or adding some EQ/other effect (or both). Thats the same as adding some plugin to the DAW channel with your test file, and not doing the same to the DAW channel you're comparing it to.

I think maybe the discrepancy between DAWs is heard when people add a stock EQ or other processor that is not the same in both DAWs being compared.. Similar maybe but not identical. As soon as you begin to add different algorithms to alter the sound then the colour of one will begin to diverge from the other.

You mention Decap as an example. He smashes his stuff with a lot of DSP and, generally I gather, in Ableton. So you might assume he's using a lot of stock Ableton devices. These have a sound. Also it's about his aesthetic choices. He has a sound. But Ableton does not have a sound. It will null with Cubase or whatever.

But DSP can be extremely subtle. Pan law, for example, is DSP. It's not generally designed to add or alter harmonic content but it processes the relative volumes of two channels, giving a stereo output. If the pan law of one DAW is different to another then the same pan move in the first will produce a different balance to the other. At that point you have 2 files that will no longer null.

In the same spirit, if you set the fader to -6db but the actual attenuation done is -5.9db then, again, we have some 'character' creeping into that DAW.

But the most important thing to keep in mind is, essentially, if all things are equal, summing inside all DAWs is identical. The maths is the same. Unless it isn't, and when that is the case you are either working with a badly coded DAW or one that has some deliberate colouration. But none of the major DAWs will do anything characterful to the sound unless you ask them to.

The other major possibility is cognitive bias.

 

Last edited: Jan 31, 2024

The real issue I see with all of the null testing, playback, and summing "identical" features of each DAW software, are not the only features of each DAW that anyone uses. Otherwise, it would be 100% meaningless which DAW you choose to use. None of the developers of the software are ever going to agree with that assertion.

Even if all of the null tests show no differences between each DAW, it would only be meaningful if the user workflow was to just import stems for mixing, application of plugins, summing groups, channels, sends, and all other sound origins exactly the same. For users who are just "mixers", maybe this is an accurate picture. But anything being worked on by someone who is only an ME or "mixer", do they not all agree that in such situations, they are still not the last person to work on the file? Someone else is going to master it anyway, in most cases. The musician who actually creates the song before it is handed off for mixing, is going to make a different track than they would using another DAW. They will make a different track simply by using different versions of the same DAW.

You can all discuss null testing until you are blue in the face. What you cannot do is open up your DAW software and a different DAW, or even different major versions of your DAW; create a project from scratch as the musician/artist, and end up with an identical result. It is not going to happen.

For "mixers only", watch the MWTM with Jaycen Joshua and Dave Pensado. When Jaycen piles a few plugins on a channel and asks " It sounds like Fruity Loops. Doesn't it sound like Fruity Loops? " please explain how he is wrong and you are the one to be believed with your null test. Simple homework assignment for you.

 

I don't disagree with you, and believe my post covers this comprehensively. To sum up, if you do something different then it will be different.

 

replying with a user quote is not always disagreement with their post; but made in addition to, without rehashing the entire post... On some forums, you will actually get your post edited for quoting another users post in it's entirety.

 

Don't understand, why you mix up audio engine vs platform vs binaries.

Audio engine can be 64 bit float, but may exist as x86 (32 bit) plugin in x86 (32 bit) DAW. Example: DMG Audio EQuilibrium (32bit plugin with 64 bit audio) in Reaper (32 bit DAW with up to 64 bit float engine) on Windows XP x86 32 bit

Audio engine can be 32 bit float, but may exist as x64 plugin in x64 DAW. Example: fabfilter Pro-Q3 x64 has 32 bit float audio engine running on almost any 64bit DAW with 32 bit float (samplitude, FL, reaper set in 32 bit float mode etc)

 

its actually all in the cabling, I only use pure copper, with gold plating, double sheilded 193 bit (1 extra bit for parity)
rated cabling and all my cables are 8 inches long or shorter to minimize RF and quantam feedback. Sure all my gears piled on top of each other cause the cables are short,but man I can hear the difference and it really makes the workflow flow.

Try it .
i call it the pyramid of sound, once you get a stable stack of gear, it don't matter if you use Cubase .0031 alpha, or Cubase 100 double platinum with Oxyibits for cleaner sound, it all comes out like Delicous Ear Honey waiting to drive your ear drums into sugar hysteria.

yeah so cabling dudes...