there is no no1 DAW ,you cant compare renoise with bitwig / live with kubase or pro loolz
and here are nough ppl on able to achieve better mixes with reaper and freeware + low price stuff than the avarage pro tools user...
you dont come along as pro to me not even mentioning project compatiblity reasons and pherepherie behind all that in and outs in bigger studios ...
also its a satus symbol....

 

why nobody opens a thread about mix tricks or arrangment shizzle he found out after years and years of learning...?
thought sharing is caring eh eh....
and wtf since when has community something to do with what peak top reversers choice to do...
half of community makes fun posts in supply thread is what i see...
and treser and r5e were the first after decades to choose a targed based on az req section imho

 

I d like to see a new cracked version of pro tools, people can stubbornly insist that all daw's sound the same and it 's simply not true, PT has the best sound engine

 

The question is...
Is the community worth the effort and headache?

That poise makes more sense to me in why they haven't release.

..or not releasing/leaking their PACE exploits.

 

they will come and say do a null test but why are there no material on this topic out there at all ?
all i kno is that reaktors sound engine surpased a shitload of competitors and all suxesful products of ni sit on that engine...and i think yeah reaktor has a cut thru great sound in compare with arturia or so ...

what me interests in pt is the audio editing possiblities and workflow in the arrangment

 

You would like to believe that, but in reality it has religious overtones.
As proof, I have copied the following file for you: an excerpt from a bachelor's thesis with the source cited.

Sound differences between the engines of different digital audio workstations

The Engine of a professional musicsoftware should not effect the sound of a musical work. This topic is highly discussed by the users of DAW´s. The question “Does a DAW`s soundengine have an own soundcharacter?” will be answered here. After a short technical basics part there will be aural examinations as well as some measurements to figure that out. 3 musical works that come from totally different musicstyles are compared later.

There will also be a load test with one of these pieces to figure out if its possible to force the engine to make mistakes while summing. The DAW´s ProTools, Logic and Reaper will be tested. The aural examinations were all done and commented by professionals. The measurements as well as the aural examinations bring it out clearly. Todays DAW´s engine´s are working absolute precisely. Even the load test could not bring out any mistakes of it.

Conclusion

The processes described in the technical basics which are carried out within the DAW by the engine, the heart of the DAW, are purely arithmetic. Mostly simple addition processes, shift operations or similar are the main part of their work. The calculation of factors for further processing of the signal is probably one of the most complicated processes here. Rounding errors and errors which occur due to clipping of the values are extremely small and can therefore be completely ignored. Due to the advances in computer technology, word widths within the DAW are now sufficient so that values are clipped in non-relevant areas.

The DAWs tested had internal processing of the signals at 64 bits. Even with very large projects, no summation errors should arise here. It can be assumed that as software efficiency improves, larger bit depth values will be available for internal processing in the future. At the moment, however, the processor and hard drives are more likely to reach their limits. No differences could be found in the listening tests either. Whether real-time or offline bounce, all systems behaved absolutely identically. The measurement results further confirm this. The signal strength of the resulting errors was so low that they are not worth mentioning.

No medium or converter currently available on the market is able to deliver such a high dynamic range to reproduce these errors. Even the human ear is not capable of this. The noise component added to the signal by psychoacoustic effects such as noise shaping or dithering is above the error signal from the differences in the engines. However, as already mentioned at the beginning, professional software for processing audio signals should offer exactly this. A separate sound character would simply not be appropriate here and would severely limit the software in terms of user scope.

The sound of a piece of music should always be designed by the sound engineer using microphones, preamplifiers, compressors, equalizers, reverb and similar effects. It can therefore be said that sound creators today should no longer worry about the quality of the audio software they use.

Source: https://curdt.home.hdm-stuttgart.de/PDF/Maluschke.pdf

 

Listen folks, I'll make it real simple:

It's PRO TOOLS because it's for PROFESSIONALS.

Because of this us poor plebs will not get our mittens on it because we can't afford to be REAL PROS. So unless you're a REAL PRO you can't afford PRO TOOLS which means you will never turn out a REAL PROFESSIONAL MIX.

Maths? Get fucked. The only mathematics here is the price tag on PRO TOOLS, since that's all that matters. And since AVID gets all the REAL PRO BUCKS they can afford to pay for the crackers to stay away.

You don't get it, I see. That's why you're not a REAL PRO.

 

You probably have Pro Tools tattooed on your arm.
Do you pray three times a day like other Pro Tools users and ask for blessings and forgiveness?

I think you're taking credit for other people's work, but you can't create a hit yourself, or can you hear something you've produced? There are a lot of people who buy glasses that they don't need because they think they make them look smart.

There are also guys who have guitars on the wall to show off a little, but they can't play.

 

Last edited: Dec 10, 2024 at 7:25 PM

I've got a goddamn SHRINE that points towards Massachusetts and a pray to the OLD GODS (Digidesign!) and THE NEW (AVID!!!!)

But seriously, I find all of you DAW fetishists funny, keep it up! (well, not like that you perverts!)

 

You need to practice insulting people a bit more, it comes across as a bit stupid and clumsy.
Take a course on how to successfully insult your fellow human beings.

 

All the sound engines sounds the same. In the end its the same 0s and 1s. You may argue they may have the best native plugins or something like that (and that's not the case). But your sound engine thing is just plain bullshit.

 

slowly i begin to think he cant even detect plainest sarcasm/irony in his own language

 

why everyone agree arturia cant compete with u-he , isnt that also sound engine related ?

 

No, that's a completely different thing altogether.

 

It's different. Those aren't DAWs'. A DAW should be providing the most transparent sound possible and that's how it is. The coloring of audio should be totally in the hand of the user. Read-

Audio Myths & DAW Wars

 

As a current user of PT 12.5HD I can say that protools has its place in the universe. Personally I use it to do final mixes. MIDI Tracking with PT is a fucking nightmare. Probably always will be. Hence, I track and record with other DAW's that are years ahead of ProTools in that respect. But the PT engine just has a particular hardness and clarity to it that makes it desirable for final mixes.

I will go on to say that UA is a piece-of-shit corporation (avid is too obviously). However, the UAD plugins are the gold standard by which others are measured. If the core UAD stuff were released it would reduce my plugin count by 75%. That is to say I would dump at least 75% of the junk I normally have on tap that the UAD stuff would just outright replace. Same goes for certain Sonnox and/or SoftTube stuffz.

 

Last edited: Dec 10, 2024 at 11:32 PM

i mean i dont think DAWs have different sound. i may be wrong but i just came to the conclusion that every synth has a sound engine and there must be differences in coding quality appart from that analog/coloring (or is it yet integrated into the engine ?)
...and appart from that daws could have coding differences in their engines or do they all have a standart set ?

...aaand couldnt it be that very simple tests eg just a sine isnt compareable to how a more complex whole arrangement get put out ?

 

and why is that ? are their coders on an unreachable level ? ....or is just this sharc shizzle , which correct me if im wrong ,are not so super fast and strong processors since its old tech ?

 

Last edited: Dec 10, 2024 at 10:02 PM

sorry may be not related but this brought me to think bout : my blofeld did never sit good in the mix , akai5000 printed out in blocks and it was always easy to get a godd mix with em ,.......you know similar statements on other stuff im sure .

...

i kno this a bit and yet diva sounds better than arturia ,why ? (appart from AD/DA shizzle) i think better coding and thats my critism on all that articles they never go into coding part ,dont they ?