There are two forms of DAW rendering in the VST spec: online mode (which you listen to) and offline mode (which is used when you bounce a file). All DAWs (within a vanishing point) offline render the same. This is what NULL testing reveals. Offline rendering between DAWs is to all intents and purposes identical. The VST specification allows plugs to cut corners when rendering for audio playback. That’s why some DAWs can ‘sound’ better than others, but all DAWs print the same.

In my opinion, Reaper does not perform online rendering as well as many DAWs unless you configure its deep engine to do so. Samplitude ‘sounds’ good, so does Studio One 3 when driving PreSonus converters. This is generally of less importance to quality than the room or the monitoring system, but it can have an enormous impact in special cases. For many years back in the day, Cubase would silently truncate 32 bit converter drivers down to 16 bit mode, if a generic 24 bit interface was not available. This lead to a lot of people thinking some DAWs ‘sounded’ better than Cubase. That was because, in this case, at that point in history, they undoubtedly did.

So, the fact that somebody says this DAW sounds better than the other DAW, is not inherently silly. It just demands a full knowledge of what any specific installation of a DAW is actually doing when you use it.

 

That's exactly my experience with daws. They print the same. But yeah, online rendering I really enjoy samplitude more than reaper. It's ironic since now I tend to use more reaper than sam, but well...What kind of options should I mess with in Reaper to get a better online rendering, if you have any tips ?

 

Keep in mind I'm not saying you're wrong, I just believe you're talking about something else.
The thing is, you're talking about VST plugins.
If you run a VST in eco mode in Logic, Cubase or any other DAW it will sound different from what you eventually render but its eco mode will be the same across all DAWs. Shortly put, if Harmor's online mode is shit on Cubase, it will be shit in S1, Logic, Live and so on.
What the DAW does is simply being the frame where the plugin is loaded into, if it sounds different from the others during real time rendering then there is something wrong with the daw at a macroscopic level.
I believe your comment (almost in its entirety) isn't related to how a DAW actually treats audio, because how it sounds during playback is completely related to how the VST (third party software, if it isn't then we're talking about different plugins altogether, which brings us back to the comparison premises) works.

That's another story as well.

Simple: your DAW is supposed to take any signal and perform simple mathematic operations when summing or panning these inputs.
If it doesn't it means it's either designed to do things differently (in which case they would make sure to specify it) or it's a broken piece of software.

And rest assured that if DAW did sound differently the ones that supposedly would sound better would have another selling point to advertise around, because it would be a BIG deal. Especially in a working environment where people want to track at stupidly high sample rates even when it's not necessarily important because it "sounds better" and "it's more precise".

 

i Agree 2 m8...

Coz i run a few...
and there are indeed tonal differences ,..

Maybe not so completely obvious to alot of people ,but i too hear pros ,tryn to tell me ts'sall the same........
It Fukn aint...."pardon my language"....

Compare ableton to fl?...

way diff....way different tonally i mean......." i m not suggesting that theryre all worlds apart ,obvs the diffrnces r vry subtle"

But subtle ,dosnt mean non existent!
Its a personal thing tho too ,..taste-preference etc..

Juuust my opinion...

 

Placebo effect. And, as already said, the differences are in stock plugins, sample rate conversion (inaudible) and different pan laws.
They all sum signals the same way unless they are designed to do it differently.
Run null tests and see by yourself.
And please, we are not on twitter and there is no letter limit, so can you type normally and not like dis m8 plz kthxbye

 

I'd largely agree with a lot of that, but I think you're splitting hairs. The issue is how musicians perceive a DAW to be, when they start making remarks such as... this sounds better than that. Whether or not the issue is plugs, or hardware, or simple bugs getting to anotherwise good DAW, doesn't invalidate the claim that there's a particular difference between this and that.

The proper conclusion is that DAWs shouldn't sound different, but sometimes do.

 

IMHO this is a battle of engines inside DAWs: 32 bit float, 64 bit float, 80 bit float, all these double precisions, extended precision etc.
Summing is everywhere the same. BUT there are some nuances you can see/here:
- You can't null same mixes with same plugins and same blahblahblah made in different DAWs, because of:
a) PDC algorithms anywhere mightbe buggy/don't work proper/work slightly not same = different delay/compensation/timing/phasing problems due to latency etc is the result of slight difference;
b) same mix, plugins etc. may give different results even making 5 renders in same DAW, it is due to some "analog randomness", "analog "movement" such as wow&flutter, phaser starts to work from another place etc.
c) insert 2 same synths on different channels, choose same preset and play midi - phasing problems, you can't null them neither by inverting phase nor by non-inverting phase. Both playing give you various results. So it will be again different results of same project in same DAW.

Harrison Mixbus. Yes! Another DAW which gives you 1+1=2, and gives you THIS "2", not ANOTHER "2" and not other variants "2", i.e. same summing. Uniqueness of this DAW: it includes analog built-in saturators, console vibe plugins, crosstalk shit, old eqs and other console-style effects. Reaper is anti-Harrison Mixbus, it doesn't have these tools. Download any analog VST consoles and tape and your DAW becomes like analog console inthebox. The question is how close "your plugins and you" do this analog workflow on pc.

Difference in sound will be: SRC. Almost all DAWs will give you average/not so bad/good quality. But special SRCs (some editors, standalone, command-line) will work much better up to "almost ideal" SRC quality, even better than any hardware SRC. The best SRC in DAW was implemented: Ableton Live (since 9.1 or so, and higher versions). It is based on SoX library.

Might be other nuances that specially set by developers, like here is pan law will be THIS, there is pan law will be THAT.

Some conclusions: I do not believe that different implementation of summing/mixing with different languages (C/C++/Java/JUCE/other stuff) using different methods will give you different results. Different implementation, different code, but result is same. You can't implement/invent "another math calculator" with other any language, because there is nothing new to achieve, but can be done in different ways/methods in different program languages.
Here we sum phases. Cubase will not behave like Neve, Reaper will not behave like SSL. The quality of clipping or truncation is everywhere the same: don't wait for analog vibe and mojo from them, it is digital limitation and antimojo))
Another question is emulating gear, emulating details, technologies etc.

 

... and when they do sound differently it's because they are designed to so (mixbus), or they are simply misbehaving and not doing things properly. So I can agree on that to some extent, because some daws have obvious flaws in certain aspects, like FL Studio with PDC.

The differences are mostly due to a psychological factor, or they are led by how the human factor is relevant when approaching different graphical interfaces (just think about different meters) and different workflows in different environments.

This guy gets it, even if SRC are not really audible with something that isn't a test signal nor in a finished mix they are the only factor that is intrinsically related to the daw engine.
But again, the thread talks about audible differences, and not imperfect nulls.
Same goes with the analog randomness you mentioned, you could take two exports of the same project and the same daw and claim they come from different ones, and people would run to null them and say "yes they are from different daws, you can hear that".

 

Wow. I couldn't believe this is real so I actually extracted the audio and listened to the audio only. And he does in fact say "bar" in every instance where your brain tells you "far". Amaaaazing.

 

I trust my ears over my eyes, every time. I think I would rather be blind than deaf. If I were a painter, most likely not, but the world would dissapear without my sense of hearing. I guess I would have to start skulpting or seriously write if there was not the ability for me to hear. It would probably be concerned about endless stories about phantom noises that I imagined, and epics of ears of clay or stone. I had a friend years ago, a fantastic artist whose leg was amputated up to near the hip after breaking his leg playing soccer at the age of eight years, the resultant x-ray showing the massive malignancy in his femur. He created a bronze of his missing limb which was one of the most incredible pieces of art that I ever had the pleasure to hold in my hands. It moved me to both sad tears and triumphant joy simultaniously.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2018

You might like this (it's cued up, watch ~2 mins)

A touch more heavy-handed

Spoiler

the cow on the left is asking "are you here to move," a vox sample included in Fruity Loops

 

Last edited: Dec 11, 2017

Is audible difference between two daws is greater than two 1176 hardware comps? Or it is greater than two different rooms? Answer is in my questions.

 

Well take a listen first and make up your mind (oohps placebo opinion) THEN see the NULL test.

 

If null test shows -inf dB, it means mixes done in both DAWs (in this case Mixbus and Reaper) are both equal, same. No any difference.
-inf dB in Reaper shows levels below -144dB, even if it would be -145dB it is almost nothing. You can't hear such difference. Even with super monitoring. But usually people use from earbuds/phones up to usual monitoring, rarely it is Bob Katz' mastering grade monitoring. And almost all listen to mp3.
It all depends on recording, mixing, editing, mastering, performance, plugins, gear. I don't think it is better with mixing engines at - 145dB and below.
Do good music and recording, mix well etc. Don't looking for micro subtleties at such invisible levels. In any case we get final 100dB range with 16 bit quality, dithered or not, mp3 or flac/wav.

 

Sure everyone might be doing the exact same thing when rendering BUT everyone has to employ some sort of fir in order to do real time manipulation to the audio and those would be different company to company ....

 

Oh GAWD.....not THIS again!! This topic has been flogged to death a thousand times on a thousand forums.
Right up there with Analog VS Digital & Hardware VS Software. IMHO it's an UTTERLY moot point. If it sounds good to
YOU and suits YOUR workflow then USE it....period....end of story. Personally, I used Steinberg Cub/endo for
years but switched to Studio One some years back. Because it sounds better? Maybe, but for me it was the workflow
plain and simple.

 

Without doubt my DAW is the greatest sounding DAW ever (or ever will be) developed. I have had it tested by experts from all fields of scientific expertise and it is unanimously agreed by marine biologists, astrophysicists, big game hunters, seamstresses and carpet salesmen that the audible difference, although minuscule, and after I offered them a bribe and threatened to send some lads around to rough up their kids, is slightly superior.

 

The point I failed to convey was if no processing of the audio other then summing happens 100% same across the board BUT do some processing and then each software WILL have it's own character because they ALL have to employ some sort of filter in order to allow manipulation of the audio.

There's no such thing as direct data manipulation

And 100% everyone who likes the sound of his or her daw better is AFTER some manipulation has been done.
Because that's when the character of what ever implementation of fir will come into play.

Like shit!!

just a simple amplitude adjustment:

"peak gain" is the sum of the absolute values of the coefficients ..
"DC Gain" If input is constant 1, then just the sum of the coefficients.
"AC Gain" you can take the fourier Transform of the FIR to get a set of (complex) coefficients

and on and on and on

next time someone says they all sound the same
do REAL comparative manipulation of the audio not just summing of the exact same file.


Now this thread can be locked

 

Plenty of people working in the audio industry who can not be a reliable source for information

Few people have noticed the differences, but honestly You must be able to hear and know if there is a difference ~ only then you will know

But yes, there is a difference, no it has not been established because most people can t hear it and no it probably won t be established for couple years at least.

Just export a file with the exact same instruments and same effects chains from one DAW to another

TIP:

If you can hear a difference in 96Khz audio file ( render of your own source ) and 320Kbps MP3 <•> You are able to hear the difference between the DAWs output ( some people can t hear it just just saying this so you can know where to start from.... you will need to do some investigating on your own because the Companies will not admit their sound engine is worse than others but by releasing fixed versions of sound engine like Bitwig did <•> their sound engine from Bitwig 1 to Bitwig 2 is Audibly different, for the greater improvement in the latter ~ they did this after multiple confrontations on their board )

FL Studio, Cubase and Bitwig are pretty much on par with the latest releases... so in 2018 they are all pretty amazing

Also too, if your instruments are out of tune ~ and you use the so called but not really equal temperament that has a misleading name for being less equal than other tunings in truth ~ none of the above matters

You must have your instruments in tune, and be able to hear it, before the sound quality of recording that quality of sound can have any meaning

So first step for any musician is Tuning...

And because of the way our Schools are ( not ) structured, I assume you ( OP ) have not been taught how equal temperament is not really a good compromise between scales and is less in tune when compared to other tunings playing different intervals

Which is why I am telling you, Yes there is a difference in the Audio Quality of DAWs but it is talked of just as little, as the horrible tuning of most commercial instruments ~ and that is not as important a subject as having your instruments in tune, before you have your instruments in tune

Once you have your instruments in tune, you can start to focus on the quality of rendering them, and what difference that makes

So take this to heart, and take a few steps back and focus on tuning your instruments

It will also enable you to hear the difference between the Sound Quality of DAWs ~ because Tuning your Instruments correctly Tunes Your Whole Being

It affects your eyesight, your digestion, your whole being <•> the reason why we listen to music <•> when done properly it enhances our lives <•> at that point, recording with proper sound quality is of the essence and you can hear easily the difference between 320Kbps and 96Khz

Other things have an effect too, but in terms of the Musical Matter of Digestion, this is what you want to be aware of

 

Last edited: Nov 30, 2018