Oh my goodness, I remember this. What a waste of a good effort...

From the FAQ:

I'm not saying the results are biased, but you just can't do that. BTW, iZotope products wipe the floor with all the others in almost everything (when I checked years ago). Not (one-of) the best results, the best results way too extremely utterly hands down.

Edited: yep, izotope keeps ruling

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2019

@Sinus Well IE: The link proves there are differences between daws.

 

Yes; this had occured to me when I first found the site a few years back, so you may well have a point! lol
Although, when I re-looked at it today, I did see some differences in certain newer iterations of daws which wouldn't necessarily concur with what we are suggesting.
Plus, I'd much rather challenge why Ableton Live has always been the initial daw on the page! lol

"which are co-developed by Alexey Lukin." But, wow! Thank u, @Xupito!

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2019

You should read carefully what I wrote before you answer.

 

It's still a good test suite.
But if one of the main DSP engineers is working for iZotope... just don't test iZotope products.
Not only is the designer of a misterious but at the very least big share of the tests, it uses his own/iZotope modified software to measure and visualize the results.

The ethical issue it's so obviously huge it's painful to read.

It's like Trump or Obama making the official accounts of the elections results. well, not that bad... at least he's not a politician...

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2019

Oh, really? Okay.
Here we go again! Hilarious!

 

Lol why the dislike?
The re-sampling accuracy at 2 daws must match to get the same result at a software downsampling. With a render-downsampling the converter must match. This is what the page shows. Nothing else.
The DAWs sound the same. Depending on the corresponding configurations or the accessibility to these configurations.

 

Because I really enjoy being told what to do, and the fact I read your comment perfectly is beyond you because you have thought I don't know what you are trying to say.
My point was that there have been, and still are, differences between daws.
But hey, after what Xupito has shown us re. that site, my point in particular seems kinda moot now! lol

If this is what you want to focus on, this is debatable too. And definitely was, back in Logic 7 times, before user-changeable pan law was introduced to that particular software. That's why we'd all mixdown in PT at that time. Logic was denser in the centre-point.
Nowadays, I agree, there is much of a muchness between most daws, if we ignore workflow and various other things.

 

What is "what the page shows, nothing else"? The sentence you wrote prior to that??
The page shows the differences with how different daws have coped with the downsampling from 96 to 48.
And, supposedly, there are differences. As we can both see.
Anyway. The site is suspect.

 

Wow, you must be having a really bad day.

Yeah, that's for sure. But not sound wise.

It is debatable, but the outcome of the debate remains the same. Two DAWs sound absolutely the same as long as the material is not manipulated in two different ways.

What Xupito said on the subject may be true, but it has little to do with the results (sry @Xupito ).

If you want to check two things scientifically for a match, then it is necessary that the test conditions match. Otherwise, you'll get 2 different results with no meaningful results.

 

If there is one thing I hate, it is transparent DAWs. I remember walking right through one once!

 

The page shows the downsampling results of different DAWs without correction.
This is like comparing the different "algorithms" of the logic compressor. The algorithm always remains the same and only different values are loaded. All compressor "algorithms" can be 100% matched.
So what is responsible for the results shown on this page? You will find the answer in my first post.
You can also perform self-tests as I did during my studies. Then its important that the test conditions match absolutely so that the results are not falsified.

With an odd downsampling (e.g. from 96 to 44.1) differences due to rounding errors may occur. With a straight downsampling, however, this is highly unlikely. In this case a bug report should be made.

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2019

Lol. Kind of!

Agreed. And I feel pretty sure I understand why you are saying this in regards, uh, the differences in daws in the first place.

Agreed. But will, not may. You'd have to filter the signal first with an LPF @ 22050Hz to avoid aliasing. But I only have limited knowledge and am open to being wrong.
BUT, the site I linked has supposedly done 96 to 48...so any daw that showed aliasing (many of them, yet admittedly older iterations) all needed bug testing? I'm unsure of that.
I thought it was just poor programming by devs?

 

Your pan-law example was good. If two DAWs are checked for sound differences, then this must be matched beforehand. If one mode is present in one DAW and not in the other, this can and should be noted. But it shouldn't flow into the measurement, because the measurement is falsified thereby. The pan-law must be the same during the measurement.


It's more about rounding up and down decimal places. Errors can occur here, but should not.
This has not always just to do with laziness of the programmer or poor programming, but can also be produced e.g. by a floating point calculation.

There are so many possible sources of error in the calculations and differences between the measurement results.
Is the re-sampling accuracy the same between DAWs? Is the re-sampling accuracy of the DAW the same as in the testfile? Does the bit depth of the internal DAW calculation match the source and the target medium? Dithering yes or no? If the dither of the DAW is used, this is processing. So if yes, which algorithm... internal or external? Noiseshaping? If yes, which noiseshaping?
Online or offline rendering?
Does the wordclock have any influence on the selected render mode?
All this can have a significant influence on the measurement result.

I compared logic, reaper, pro tools and live during my studies. Of course all DAWs had to be configured accordingly. Everything else would have been a mess. And you know what? With a sonographic analysis there were no anomalies between the DAWs.

 

Last edited: Nov 29, 2019

I saw the post TITLE on audioz and thought it was SUNNY's apology FINALLY.

Nah, thats not in a rat's nature
Oh well, quick post & get out.

 

yeah but is it a good song? is it exciting or calming or smooth or funky or groovy or does it remind you of something?

 

I'm a PC person, but one thing I've noticed is...
If i use a steinberg interface, on pc, the smallest buffer size i can use is... 64 samples (asio driver. ..)
Now, the exact same driver, on mac, it allows 32 samples

Does it have anything to do with the coreAudio /audioUnit thing, that allows more 'low level /to the metal) stuff ?


It is strange, i had the option '32 samples' on PC, with one old m-audio delta1010, +15 years ago...

I wonder what interfaces you guys have, and the lowest buffer size you can have, on Pc (and mac...)

 

My DAW is better than anyone's DAW! You know why ...because it's MY DAW! Duh!

 

you both could really meet each other in london and discuss this out