Well... It depends on the components...
You can have a shitty computer with PCI interface, but when that interface holds an Hammerfall 9632, things change

 

No, it might only depend on the exact way a DAW's output is programmed/ compiled (compiler choice, optimization levels, target architecture, build options, conditional compilation, linking library choices...

 

I don't use Ableton as my main, but I always felt like it was easiest to get a good sound from that DAW without as much effort compared to others. It was clean and punchy with barely any effort.

This was like 8+ years ago though. Nowadays they all pretty much sound the same.

• I will say this though, all devs, whether for vst or DAW, program their DSP slightly differently and when you use the stock plugins or plugins from a certain dev, your material will usually gain the sonic characteristics of that certain dev's DSP choices.

• After adding everything up you will rarely get the same results in different DAW configurations, especially once you start stacking effects or channels, or using effects aggressively.

• Even if you were to use the same plugins from same dev on all DAW, no stock, results will most likely vary.

None of this really matters though, nor how recent or old your DAW is.
Finding what you like and fits your needs/specs is more important than anything.

I forgot which, but it was FL Studio 10 or 11 that was famous among Hip-Hop producers for a long time, even still some use them rather than 20 or 21, because of the "sound" it has.
The problem is that those old versions of FL do not have proper PDC (Plugin Delay Compensation). lol
Things can get messy really fast when you start adding a lot of fx in FL10/FL11.

There are people making music with trackers still. No rules for creativity.

Your choice of sounds or synths is what matters at the end of the day.

 

So what? If the computer housing it is 32bit then Cubase 13 will run like a DOG.
Win 7 32bit is limited to 4Gb RAM and it won't even give you all of it.
Try running 128 tracks for an Orchestral score even in v5. on 32bit. It will come to a grinding halt with multiple inserts so the inserts mean jack shit.

 

I'm being somewhat facetious

 

Most experts agree there is no perceptible difference in modern DAWs.
But there will always be some people who BELIEVE they hear a difference.

Of course there ARE HUGE differences in the way DAWs sound, but unless you can hear into the GHz range you can't hear it.

 

Most users will select a DAW to use based on price, features, performance, compatibility, availability on their OS, the included stock plugins, collaborative considerations, and training/familiarity with the software. When was the last time you noticed someone mention switching DAW for another, because of "better sound" ? Exclude any hardware related concerns with Protools or Luna. It's almost never.

 

No, please stop. This is nonsense.

The numbers bouncing about in a DAW are bog standard double numbers, conforming to the IEEE standard. Look at, for instance, the VST3 SDK. It's all doubles, baby. All optimizations on compiler level will not touch the way numbers are treated, unless someone is crazy enough to go out of their way to break this. No one does so. Feel free to check what libraries the DAWs link to, there's no magic number libraries they use that would change a damn thing.

So: if you don't dick about with the DAW settings, a raw file is played back exactly the same. If it doesn't, you're dealing with buggy software, say a faulty build, but these things are ironed out during development, pre-alpha level shit.

 

After I heard changes while EQ-ing with bypassed instance, I started questioning all my hearing convictions.

 

Ahh got it. We are talking about different things) you talk about memory and limit on x86 and x64, i talk about different audio engines (both 32 and 64 bit float or higher can be implemented in both x86 and x64, like I posted above)

 

I've never noticed anyone mentioning switching DAW for another, because of "better sound".
But the OP DID ask about sound quality. I was saying that there IS none.
Did i ever say anything about anyone switching DAWs?

 

The difference between daws are negligible. Nothing worh wasting a brain cell over.

 

No problem. Putting Cubase 13 on an older computer with 32bit and less than 4Gb RAM is like putting a porsche motor in a Volkswagen beetle. It will fit and it will sort of run if lots of things are tweaked, but the housing and suspension for it won't handle it for very long. Plugin wise there should never be too many issues unless they want to run some of the more intensive plugins. Cubase 13 like other recent competitor DAW upgrades is designed to run on a 64bit system. Besides that, the latest Cubase upgrade won't run 32bit vst's without jbridge or equivalent.

 

Whispering silent: While all others compare and fight, the Users of Sequoia/Samplitude don´t need to compare, because they know the truth ;-)

 

Cubase doesn't support 32 bit since version 9.

 

Correct - for a start - Theoretically, 64-bit software can address 18 quintillion bits of data (2 to the power of 64) or 16 exabytes (EB) which is around 16.8 million TB’s. If you could run Cubase 13 on Win 7 I should have said, it would run like a dog.
Actually, if you read their own compatibility list they made 13 for Win 11. This has never stopped anyone as Win 11 was also installed on computers that did not meet Microsoft's compatibility test.

 

This is clearly speculation.

 

They're out there...

They're the same ones you always see complaining about the tools that everyone else uses just fine, making them out to be completely unusable, and when you probe deeper into their issue, it devolves into poetry and perception. They want tools to make them feel a certain way, because they don't yet understand how to connect with the creative potential inside of themselves, so they want to project their inadequacies on the tools instead.

 

No, but it's the only reason a user of a DAW should even care. As an example, if someone was to prove that REAPER "sounds better" than Ableton. Would there be some mass exodus of Ableton users? Maybe some novice users would dump their entirely different workflow. Developers can make all the wild claims they want to attract other DAWs users. But if users aren't prepared to dump their DAW for a "better sounding" one, why even ask or care? Even with all the supposed "technical discussion" on the subject, it's nothing more than clickbait.

 

Return to the topic : To me yes, I hate to say that but Yes there is a deference between DAW sounds , Not Quality I found from long time ago 2011 in gearslutz.com a very interesting topic to me , here the screenshot and BTW you could easily do it yourself in no time !

-Try to get a drums stems for instance , Kick in and out ,Snare T and B ,Overheads (this is 5 tracks) should be good . open Cubase and render it without any plugins or any kind of processing all 0 fader !
- Go to Reaper and do the same ! now compare the tracks in any Daw !! not the same.