We have and they don't null, we traced it to the fact PARIS was custom DSP based

Lets start with some basic logic.

Sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave.
Hearing, or auditory perception, is the ability to perceive sounds through an organ, such as an ear, by detecting vibrations as periodic changes in the pressure of a surrounding medium.

Thus NOBODY here has ever heard a DAW without a processor computing math, or converters turning computed math into voltage, that's then converted to vibrations via headphones or speakers of some sort, that are perceived through ears. So do all DAWs sound the same... no, do all DAWs compute math the same, yes if coded properly.

The logical fallacy here is simple, we don't hear math being computed, we hear the sum of converters, processing, coding,and some sort of headphones or speakers. The sum of all this makes a sound we hear.

Yes, DAW's sound different.
Yes, DAW's compute math the same.
No, not all DAW's are coded the same.

Zero of this has anything to do with musical expression.

 

Impulse Tracker (1995) source code, previously made open source on BitBucket in 2014 but now gone, is now hosted on GitHub by its creator Jeffrey Lim --> www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1dh1dsh/impulse_tracker_1995_source_code_previously_made

Impulse Tracker was remarkably advanced for its time (1995–1998). It offered:

High-quality interpolation: Impulse Tracker used sinc interpolation or similar algorithms, which minimized aliasing and artifacts during pitch shifting. Many hardware samplers of the era (e.g., early AKAI or Roland models) used simpler linear interpolation, which resulted in audible artifacts at extreme transpositions. Flexibility: As a software application, Impulse Tracker was not bound by the hardware limitations of samplers (e.g., limited RAM or processor power).

 

It is well known that digital audio waves (samples) can sound different depending on the context, DAW, signal processing, or even playback engine, even if they should theoretically be identical. Factors such as resampling algorithms, dithering, aliasing, internal signal flow architecture, or even minimal differences in the DAW engine can cause samples to sound different.

Digital audio waves (samples) can indeed sound different even if they should theoretically be identical, as various technical factors such as resampling algorithms, dithering, aliasing, and the internal signal flow architecture of DAWs or playback engines can influence the sound.

Resampling algorithms are particularly influential: Since audio data often needs to be converted to a uniform format (e.g., 48 kHz/16 bit), the signal is recalculated (resampled).

This can lead to minimal changes in the sound and even rounding errors – even if no audible artifacts arise, the data no longer corresponds exactly to the original. Even volume changes in the mixer can influence the sound due to constant resampling. Depending on the quality of the resampling algorithm, artifacts and tonal differences can arise, especially when the sampling rate is changed and is not an integer multiple.

Dithering is used when the audio format reduces the bit depth (e.g., from 24 to 16 bits). It helps to psychoacoustically minimize rounding and quantization errors by adding noise that masks disturbing artifacts. Dithering should be used especially during format conversion, as internal DAWs often work with longer word lengths (e.g., 32-bit floating point) to minimize quality loss.

Aliasing occurs when frequencies above the Nyquist frequency (half the sampling rate) are not filtered correctly and have a negative impact on the sound. Anti-aliasing filters are built in by default, but when selecting the sampling rate, the filter's slope plays a role in sound quality. Oversampling during processing can help reduce visible/audible aliasing by temporarily increasing the sampling rate before downsampling the sound.

The internal signal flow architecture and engine implementation of a DAW or playback software can cause minimal differences due to different calculation precision, rounding mechanisms, or plug-in implementations. Some DAWs calculate with more bits internally and use different summing and processing methods, which can result in slight sonic variations.

In summary: Even theoretically identical digital samples can vary due to technical factors such as resampling, dithering, aliasing filtering, or different software engines. These influences are usually minor and often only detectable in critical listening situations or with high-quality comparison methods.

 

of course, different versions of DAWs sounds different

 

Here's the definitive test that will with absolute certainty prove that all DAWs sound different. Say each slowly and succinctly three times. If you hear any DAW sound the same as any other DAW on the list then you need both your hearing checked as well as a good psychiatrist.

Studio One
FL Studio
Pro Tools
Cubase
Reaper
Abelton
Sequoia
Logic
Reason
GarageBand
Audition

Case closed!!


PS .. I didn't watch the video.

 

There are actual ppl who say they can hear a difference between WAV and AIFF.

 

don't pan the channels and dont use (nonlinear) plugins. they will null. old debate

 

Talking of vintage ... ever heard Steinberg12?

Seriously: in the 00 years somewhere was an experiment, Cubase (I think vst32) was presented playing the same file, but the DAW was skinned in various colors. The file sounded by far the best when played in the blue skinned Cubase. According to the contestants.

That should give you something to think about. It's not that easy as to laugh all this discussion off with "It's digital, it's ones and zeroes, so it all sounds the same ..."

Bruhahahahaha ... people are idiots. That's the explanation for almost everything. ))

 

They could tell you about the blue skin at the next party; they'll make themselves very popular because everyone will laugh...!
That's precisely why there are scientists who measure and test it so we can get usable, reliable results.

 

YES!
In 8-bit universe

 

Of course the blue skinned Cubase sounded the best, and now it's usually the color I designate for both mixing and mastering. Blue is the color of the sky and what I think flies it home in my mind is the expansive, airy vibe that it imparts on the high end. The sound stage has a wide horizon and at times feels boundless. When I mix Dubstep I use brown because I like the gritty, earthy sound. For when I record covers, green is my go to, and all woman bands (even if they have a dude drummer) no matter the genre is pink.

Shit just works!

 

just...why?!?

 

daws do sound different. just like cars are different

 

Depends on what you mean?

If you play the same single WAV in all DAWs, I bet you it measures the same or at least SOUNDS the same, you won't hear any difference.

But if there's a whole song, yes it can sound different because there are many more factors, many of which depend on the DAW itself - even if not using stock plugins.

Again, if you just mean the sound engine, the same single wav played clean will sound the same, I feel I can claim that very confidently.

Speaking of sound engines, you have FLAC or WAV players. Winamp, VLC and about 1000 others. Why is there never any talk or issue about these players sounding different? Because they dont - so why would DAWs

 

youtube and spotify does not sound the same.. for example. spotify sounds way better and richer

 

If they are using them as Apple Loops in Logic, they can actually be correct. The same way you could hear the difference in a project you make with auto-warp enabled and everything stretching as a full waveform instead of hitpoint-detected files. One file, probably not a chance, but over the course of a whole project the stretchy one will lose more fidelity.

Spoiler

Here’s the breakdown:

1. Built-in metadata & better stretching

• Apple Loops (in AIFF format) aren’t just plain audio — they contain embedded metadata about tempo, key, and transient markers.
  
  
• Logic can use that data to time-stretch and pitch-shift more intelligently than it can with a plain WAV.
  
  
• WAVs with no transient map rely on Logic’s general-purpose algorithm, which may smear transients or cause subtle phasing.
  
  
• Because Apple Loops already have pre-tagged slice points, stretching often sounds cleaner and less “rubbery.”

2. Optimized transient alignment

• When you drag an Apple Loop into a project with a different tempo, Logic can slice and align it to the grid without heavy continuous stretching.
  
  
• A WAV of the same loop might undergo full elastic processing from start to end, which degrades quality faster.
  
  
• Think of it like: Apple Loops can be cut and rearranged in tempo, while WAVs often get pulled like taffy.

3. Automatic sample rate handling

• Apple Loops are typically 44.1 kHz AIFF with Logic’s preferred bit depth, which means no real-time sample rate conversion in most projects.
  
  
• If your WAV is at 48 kHz, 96 kHz, or even 44.1 but with different metadata, Logic may apply background SRC or dithering — small quality losses can creep in.

4. Preview engine differences

• In Logic’s Loop Browser, Apple Loops preview tempo-matched to your project, using the same high-quality stretching as during playback.
  
  
• WAVs in the browser may preview with a quicker, lower-quality algorithm until you actually place them in the project — which can make the AIFF seem “better” during auditioning.

5. Pre-processed source material

• A lot of Apple Loops have already been carefully prepared for looping by Apple’s sound designers — normalized, transient-snapped, phase-aligned — so they may just start with a sonic advantage over raw WAVs.

If you want your WAVs to behave and sound like Apple Loops, you can convert them into Apple Loops via Logic’s Apple Loops Utility — that will give them transient and key metadata so the stretching engine treats them the same way.

If you want, I can give you step-by-step instructions for converting a WAV into an Apple Loop so it benefits from the same processing advantages. That way, you can make your own loops behave like the “good-sounding” factory ones.

 

I was really hoping someone would ask!

Green is for covers because of my envy of the bands and songs that I try to emulate, though with my own spin on them. Pink is for woman bands, it matters not which race or creed, because in the words of Vivian, our housekeeper after our mother left my brother and I, and upon my jumping down the whole flight of our basement stairs (I was like a grasshopper in my youth), turning to my right and seeing a hugely buxum butt naked 300 pound African American lady in full frontal, my eyes as I'm sure as big as grapefruits and in her matter of fact tone..."Hey boy, all the pussy's pink!".

So now you know the rest of the story.

 

Wise man said: in mix, nobody hear you daw.