Can you prove it to us (null test) or do we just have to believe you because you say so? If you can't prove it with facts, it doesn't seem pro to me...

 

I use Ableton & Presonus Studio One I find I`m able get a good flow using these because they are simple, quick and uncomplicated unlike other DAW`s I`ve tried in the past. They get the job done and they do it well.

Out of the 2 It has to be Ableton for me

 

Ok, to get over the nonsense about 'my DAW sounds better than yours':

I took a song, opened it in Ableton ($400?) and I opened it in reaper (€45), saved both versions in wav 44.1 Hz/24 bit. The source was also 44.1 Hz/24 bits of course.

I opened both results in reaper and nudged the ableton version 1 sample to the right, inversed the phase and here is the result:

http://www27.zippyshare.com/v/5561290/file.html

The difference between both songs is zero.

P.S.: the music you are hearing in the video isn't the one you are looking at, I had AIMP playing in the background, but the graphs say enough.

 

use your ears thats my tool! i did the testing with my girlfriend and both of us did hear a difference between the DAWs so load the same song in different daws play it for some of your friends and ask them what of them they like more just simple as that!

im not the one who is joking and talking words which i heard by someone else i did the testing... and i can hear differences as my girlfriend does and she is an musician... plays in band and this for many years....

 

I just proved you wrong with the video in the post above yours...

 

play both versions in vlc player and hear if there is a difference... for a musician his ears are the important tool...

 

Dear Professor,

Here's some reading that should alert you to the fact that you still have some things to learn. Most of it is written in french, sorry, but some interesting parts and many links are in english (including a very informative article written by Ableton Live's project manager...). And there are also those nice screenshots that will not need any commentary to be understood by your professional expertise...
I'd be quite surprised if you can introduce me only one (yes, ONE) serious publication (even in Chinese) proving the invalidity of this following demonstration.
Good luck.

http://fr.audiofanzine.com/mao/forums/t.179681,tordre-le-cou-au-moteur-audio.html

http://fr.audiofanzine.com/logiciel-musique/forums/t.310298,les-moteurs-audio-enfin-du-concret.html

 

Well, what can I say? I just posted the objective proof of a null test but you want to believe the subjectiveness of your ears... How's that for playing the pro?

 

i dont need a publication as long as i have my ears.....

maybe you guys should start using your ears too... and not believing in some texts someone has written, who is maybe payed by ableton.

 

Here is the article written by the guy from Ableton :


"The whole "audio engine" thread is a myth. I know that you are not going to believe this, but maybe then you should read some basic books about computer music. It will not only help understanding digital audio but also give tons of ideas about what to do with all these great tools !!!!!

Digital A versus Digital B:

In case 1 it is obvious that there are huge differences. An analog mixer contains some hundred transistors and each of them has a nonlinear transfer curve. The result is very complex distortion. On a good mixer some engineer did a great job adjsting the circuits in a way that this nonlinear behaviour sounds great. Also each D/A converter has an analog side and the same rules apply for it. Playing back a mix using one stereo converter will sound different from playing back each track with it`s own converter and then adding the resulting signal in a mixer.
We do not need to discuss here that there is a difference since this is obvious.

A summing bus in software is:

A* a + B * b + ...

and if this is done with 32 bit or more the potential error is very low. Each software using 32 bit floating point math sound the same in this regard. Filters are a complete different issue. There are lots of concepts and they all sound different. Same goes for other DSP processing algorithms like timestrech, sample rate conversion etc. But the whole "audio engine" thread is a myth. I know that you are not going to believe this, but maybe then you should read some basic books about computer music. It will not only help understanding digital audio but also give tons of ideas about what to do with all these great tools !!!!!

A vew statements to sound quality of Live:

1. the timestrech changes the sound. this is true for every timestrech.
2. playing back a 44.1 kHz sample at any other sampling rate then 44.1 needs interpolation. this changes the sound. the HighQuality button allows for using a state of the art algorithm for this task if desired. the same is true for transposing a sample.
3. playing back an unwarped 44.1 kHz at 44.1 Hz with no transposition and no gain change and no FX will result in an unchainged signal passed to the soundcard. this will sound 100% the same in each audio application.
4. adding two or more sources in a digital system can result in slight differences if the system uses floating point or integers. most software use floats and i personally do not believe that anyone can actually hear the difference. Lives busses sound like any buss which does not contain EQ or compression.
4. Live´s delays use the simplest possible algorithm. if you think they sound fine- cool, but they will not sound different in Reaktor or MAX/MSP or Protools.
5. Live`s EQs in most cases are standard ones, nothing special but also not bad. you may or you may not like the sound, it may or may not be sufficient for your work, but that's why there are VST plugins giving you every kind of EQ you want. Some EQ`s in Live, like the Autofiler are using more sophisticated algorithms - more CPU, but more analog-like.

Conclusion : especially filters and compression does sound very different in different DAWs and everything else does sound the same.

Regards, Robert Henke / Ableton."

 

so you think a guy who gets his paycheck from ableton will tell you that ableton sounds crappy? so you still believe in santa?

 

That's right, I'm no comedian, I just proved you wrong and you can't deny. Proving that somebody is wrong hasn't anything to do with comedy. Nothing funny about that, but yeah, we live in a free world, you have the right to be wrong.

 

OMG !!! Can you READ ? : "Conclusion : especially filters and compression does sound very different in different DAWs and everything else does sound the same."
It means that the guy who gets his paycheck from ableton says that CUBASE, LOGIC, SAMPLITUDE and ALL OTHERS DAW's sounds AS GOOD (or bad) AS LIVE.
What's the problem here ?

Look, men, trust you ears if you want. I prefer to trust my BRAIN.

 

FL Studio has always been nice for firing out that hot new remix, especially if it's a trance/house track.

The lack of a step sequencer in REAPER keeps me going back to FL Studio, but REAPER's overall features (especially with the new Project Bay) keep me sticking to REAPER for most of my other projects. Now you can simply drag and drop "patterns" in REAPER just like FL Studio.

FL Studio is 32-bit and poorly handles 64-bit plugins with its wrapper. Its audio engine also suffers when many plugins are loaded at once. REAPER doesn't do this. It also features customizable hotkeys and track templates which are really easy to use. Most of all, it is under 10 MB and settings are portable. Great for a studio environment.

Funny how the cheapest of all the DAW is the best. I think we should all learn a lesson: more expensive does not mean better product.

Just my two cents

 

i have tried them all and

'studio one - sounds like paper',
'logic - sounds like paper',
'live - sounds like crap'
'protools - ok crashes to much',
'fruityloops - lol but getting better',
'sonar - sounds real good but its built for shitty windows and it shows by crashing to much',
'reaper - sounds like paper',

and i always go back to

cubase - 'stable as it gets and when you mix-down it still sounds the same'

to bad sonar has shitty code or it would be the top

i think so many use live because of the workflow its great but no matter how hard i try the sound blows just my opinion

 

started with cubase for windows in the early 90's and kept using cubase as my main DAW up to version 5...
(trying all the others to see if there was anything better suited to me)

also use live 8 (but 32 bit engine) and fruity loop (poor 64, OK 32) (or sometimes reason, though i hate the inability
to get a full screen GUI) depending on what I do....

but I recently switched to sonar X1 as it has a native 64 bits engine (very stable, good bridge)....and though I didn't like
(should I say hate!) sonar up to version 8.5 i must admit I'm taking to the new X1...it's been logic-ized and improved in many
ways..though it's of course a major pain to have to learn shortcuts and menu etc again.

though I like reaper's engine and performances, I could never take to it as I find it very difficult to work with on big projects....
they really really should improve the workflow and GUI (or maybe offer different versions so as to match different needs)

until cubase gets a better bridge and a better 64bits engine, I'll stick to sonar as it is to me the best compromise out there.

 

what version of sonar did you try???

cuz I'm a (VERY) long time cubase user who now uses Sonar x1B x64 and it's very very stable...
actually i didn't even have a crash since I began to use it, and it handles 32bit plug ins pretty
well (no prob so far)...so if it wasn't for the workflow which is a bit less convenient to me
than that of cubase, performance-wise I would in all honesty rate it higher than cubase actually

 

i just got sonar x1 i have not had a chance to properly try it 'no more then 20 min. mixing'. im basing it off of what i had before sonar 7 gave up on it and neverwent to 8 but people said x1 was it i will see tonight i guess

 

ok if you talk about sonar 7 or 8 I agree....
but X1 is a different story seriously...still has flaws and problems...but i can dig it *yes*
the only thing that bothered me so far when mixing is that it's impossible to move any bus next
to the track it belongs to...buses are quartered to the bus window...also, instead of crappy instrument plug-ings
they should provide more audio plugins (more compressors/EQs/delays etc) it'd be more useful in the end...
overall, a bit more flexibility here and there'd make of this new version of sonar an amazing tool.