I tested Studio One, and i must say it is an amazing program so far. Verry stable and interesting becouse if you run it on a 32bit os, you can activate 64bit processing inside the program.

I'll need to test it some more, and maby i'll buy it.

Best DAW atm how things run.

 

why buy it AiR did a perfect job. i use it too the audio engine is excellent.

 

why is everyone talking about audio engines in DAWs? it's like saying "WOW, your new car has even a steering wheel! amazing!"

 

^ This.

People using the "audio engine card" should really know better. Just stop.

 

@ Dan01,

Maybe because some users have a conscience and that they think that buying a 'legitimate' version is not only fair, logical,... but also contribute, even if at a small scale, to the future developments and updates done by the developers of an application/program, but also for rewarding the involved staff in a fair basis, don't you think ?

___________________________________________​

@ Trakuna,

You can apply this same fact to the cars. Why are users (and eventually technicians) often comparing the different models of motors available ?
Simply for their performances...

Here, the 'steering wheel' can be seen more like an option, that you can change in some cases. It's far more complicate to fully change a motor, don't you think ?
It's more or less like comparing the forms and colors of the 'Faders', or 'Knobs' (--> the steering wheel) versus the 'Audio Engine' (--> the motor) of a DAW.
Personally, I can acomodate myself with 'Faders' or 'Knobs' that are eventually not totally at my taste... but if the Audio Engine (the motor !) is lame... you can guess my opinion !
Is like if you have the choice between a Mercedes, Porsche, BMW,... with a 'regular' steering wheel, simple seating, and even a pity color, or a Skoda, Fiat, Dacia,... with a 'sport model' steering wheel, 'bucket seats', and even a beautiful metallic color...

Make your choice between these two proposals, mine is done since long time ! *yes*

 

Oh i so like to see someone upload a couple of soundfiles so people will hear if any Daw sound different to eachother or if they not..

And even better if any Daw sounds BETTER than another Daw..

An imported soundfile will do maybe a drum beat or whatever..

But even better if someone record one take say a guitar riff in every different Daw and then just bounce to file without any plugins or eq just a plain and simple and clean soundfile..

And of course it must be in the same bitrange aswell 24/41000 or whatever and its importent that it has approximately
the same volume as all other files when bounced..

Then you will truly know if all Daw:s sounds different

I have experienced over the year that some Daw:s do sound a little different not much mostly a little color change one might sound a little brighter than another..

But non i have tried have EVER sounded bad and i can also say that non has ever make me go WOW thats sound awesome..

 

I'll buy what is good to support the software engineers who created this product.
Without them, there would be no "air"

Think again

 

i like the company, i would buy it next year. decent price.

 

All audio engines are not the same once you do something more complex than mix unprocessed audio streams. It's sample-level differences and a whole bunch of other obscure technical things that take a long time to explain. Some DAWs are better with those things than others. The more processing you do, the more VSTs you use the more errors its going to create. Every time you alter a waveform you are adding digital errors to it. Now, say you have 100 tracks with automation going, compressors on half of them, all kinds of other processors, your signal is now getting convoluted dozens of times, ending up like digital diarrhea that sounds dull and artificial. But you know, you can believe whatever you want. Maybe you hear it sounds dull, so you compress it even more, now you f'd the transients and you got mutant transients. They sound loud, but they are not pleasing, they got mutated with digital aliasing and jitter making them sound like a dentist drilling in your ear. You know the sound of a bitcrusher? Or the compression of an MP3? Well, think of it that way, it's just much more subtle. Some DAWs crush your sound worse than others. Some handle headroom better than others. 64-bit engines are higher resolution and more sample accurate (they still could completely fail at other things!). That's a scientific fact. How well can you hear the difference? I don't know, but if you have to do less processing to get a mixdown it's going to sound better than a mutated, aliased mix. More digital processing = more digital errors.

 

unless you do a whole lot of 'proper' processing that is... i assume?

 

dose look nice i wish Cubase would have some of Studio One's fetcher

 

I think you're a bit confused, what you are describing has nothing to do with an 'audio engine' it's do with how plug-ins process audio. It really has nothing to do with the bit-depth of an 'audio engine' but rather the sample-rate at which the plug-in is operating and the lengths the developer has gone to to avoid aliasing. If the plug-in generates additional high-frequency harmonics (as non-linear operations do) that exceed the Nyquist limit then those harmonics may fold back down into the audible spectrum as in-harmonic content (as the harmonic relationship to the fundamental has been destroyed) and sound harsh and unmusical. The degree to which this occurs depends largely on the way the plug-in is coded. Over-sampling is an obvious solution for aliasing as it moves the Nyquist frequency higher, e.g. 2x over-sampling at 44.1kHz will move the Nyquist limit from 22050Hz to 44100Hz. Running your DAW session at a higher sample rate than 44.1kHz (88.2kHz or 96kHz is fine) is another potential solution for aliasing.

The reality is that aliasing is generally caused by bad processing choices with non-linear processors.. DAWs and plug-ins don't 'crush' sounds, people do. Let's take a compressor: If you are using extremely fast attack and release times you are most likely going to generate a lot of additional harmonics and if you are running your session at 44.1kHz and the compressor is not over-sampled then you are going to create a lot of aliasing. There's no mystery there, it's simple operator error.. using the tools in a bad way. You can see this for yourself with the free VST Plug-in Analyser: Open a compressor plug-in and start the 'Harmonic Distortion' measurement: you can easily see any aliasing introduced as you change compressor settings in real-time. This is a good 'guide' to get an idea of what sort of settings induce aliasing. Notice that this is putting the onus back on the operator and not on their tools.. this makes some people nervous *yes*

An equaliser, however, won't alias. If it's a minimum phase design it will cause phase shift but then so will an analogue EQ and that's the sound we are used to.

Maybe back in the 90's.. any DAW software that uses at least 32-bit floating point calculations will be capable of processing audio without introducing unwanted distortions, frequency response alterations or any other unwanted effects. What you are talking about is introduced by processors which are independent of the DAW and it's audio engine. Completely different topic..

Well again as far as aliasing goes it's down to operator error.. and not all plug-ins alias as I already pointed out, you're over-generalising.

Over-simplified and thus bad advice. Nothing wrong with simplifying things, I'm definitely doing it here.. but if you take it too far you end up with fallacies such as this one.

What on earth do you mean? Headroom isn't some intangible figure, in a DAW mix it's how far your highest peak is from 0dBFs. All DAWs 'handle headroom' identically! That is to say they 'provide' a dynamic range to work in and you define your headroom with your procedure/workflow. For example, I always have headroom in my mixes.. about 6dB on average. This is defined by me and not my tools.

No they are not necessarily more 'sample accurate'.. you're putting the cart before the horse. Bit-depth is independent of sample-rate. Resolution is not a good word to use if you're trying to understand digital audio as it confuses people.. parallels with digital imagery are more damaging to one's understanding of digital audio theory than they are helpful.

Again you're implying that the audio engine is somehow related to processing-induced aliasing?? Not true. This is defined by the processors themselves and the operator which are both completely separate from the audio engine. What you are thinking of are quantisation errors..

As far as hearing the difference between a 32-bit and a 64-bit audio engine.. well, 24-bit fixed point offers a huge dynamic range of 144dB which exceeds the dynamic range between complete silence and noise of enough intensity to cause immediate ear damage. If you can somehow hear beyond the whopping theoretical 1500dB of dynamic range offered by 32-bit floating point processing then congratulations; you are no longer part of the human race! You are a god!

 

Check this one out :

http://audioz.info/audio-software/pc/42446-download_harrison-mixbus-v21-win-mac-osx.html

Verry interesting

 

I always master in 88200, 32bit Float.

Cut it in half, and you have 44100 16bit ;)

 

Oh no... not a discussion about the "sound" of DAWs again...

@ Heisenberg

Read the rules please, and edit your post with the link.

 

erm ?

oh, and typing WWW is a waste of time ;)

 

What do you don't understand?

Rule No.2: "no warez on AudioSEX! no requests, no links sharing!"

 

funnily enough Reaper is lightest on ram and cpu, presonus is next and reason is heaviest..i use a bit of all 3.