Master of Zen

 

Dude, I'm developing audio software, I know what a FIR filter is

And we almost never use it in audio because you need to introduce additional latency for it to work. That's linear phase EQ and we don't use those 99% of the time.

Sample rate is not "determined". You set it for all your gear and that's it. It doesn't get calculated or guessed which is what "determined" means. Again, learn the meaning of the words you use before you use them.

And honestly the fact you're not using grammar and keep copy-pasting huge blocks of text without even basic understanding of it should be all the proof we need to realize you don't know what you're talking about.

You know, the problem is that lowpass filter is not introduced by the DAW. That filter is there to smooth out the "stepped" (or more precisely, discrete) digital response. Digital audio files, WAV, MP3, all of them - are kept stored as discrete files. The lowpass filter is actually a hardware, analog one, and it's in your audio interface. Your DAW has *absolutely nothing to do with it*. Again, learn your stuff before you talk on it.

So what? We're not comparing EQ plugins here, I thought we were talking about DAWs. Also as I've mentioned there's no point comparing stock EQ plugins from different DAWs since they very likely are implemented differently.

Took the time. The difference between DAWs has nothing to do with FIR filters.

Which again has nothing to do with DAWs

Funny you mention it because there's a whitepaper from I believe people at Native Instruments about making digital EQ plugins with ready to use formulas. FL Studio's Parametric EQ 2 even lists that paper on the credits screen, but plenty of other developers just copy-pasted that code. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Ableton or some other DAW did this too.

 

Then you're not comparing the audio engine or summing of your DAWs, but the plugins it comes with. For an objective test you need to have as few variables as possible.

Nulling identical files proves everything that needs to be proven. If it nulls there's no "actual freq manipulation". It's 100%, down to the quietest sound of a fly pooping, accurate and exactly the same.

 

They do sound the same.

Here is a video demonstrating it:

 

All these summing test's are proving is each company implemented the same API correctly... woohoo!!

Put a stock EQ inline even with a subtle +2 HiShelf at 8k .

Because not one person in the whole history of this debate thought there DAW was better sounding because there DAW
did a correct pass of the data using for example: CaptureSharedEventDriven without touching it ...


Seriously people this example you seem to rely on so much is a joke. All it's really doing really is checking if your daw is mucking around when your not specifically making it do so . And OMG!!! year after year they pass!!

The amount of time you people have spent double checking the implementation was correct in each DAW ...

WoW... Good Job!! go have a cookie.
\

For those who would like to actually try doing a real world test , devising the test won't be so hard the hardest part will probably be the bed tracks everyone would use. I think applying predefined fx chains at exact settings should be good enough for a blind listen test...

But heck according to Qrchack they are all probably using the same code so they probably gonna null out anyway ...\

And btw the DAW isn't the audio engine in the sense that it defines the max possible recording channels or playback channels. Other then specific version limits placed by the manufacturer or exclusive functionality it's really just the graphical interface you chose to install in your engine

The total amount of plugins/synths etc you can use in your daw at one time. Represents how optimized the engine they package really is .

 

Last edited: Dec 1, 2018

Makes sense to compare when we're talking about *DAWs* sounding different and not *plugins* sounding different, don't you think?

Put a non-stock EQ and there's absolutely zero difference between the DAWs. So the difference is not in the DAW, it's in the plugins it comes with.

And what does crappy WASAPI reference bring to the talk? Because no one sane will use that API for professional audio, the whole point of ASIO is to throw WASAPI out the window.

Which proves there's no magic difference between DAWs and there's no "superior" DAW that sounds better.

That's the point. The implementation doesn't differ, so there are no audible differences. There's no "better summing", "more headroom", "clarity and punch", "wider soundstage" and "higher quality export". They all sound the same, so there's no point in switching.

So you're suggesting to use stock plugins and compare presets in them now? Wow, what a great idea to compare "audible differences between DAWs"

For filters that aren't analog emulations... yes, they do. Read up on what a biquad filter is.

 

opsi

 

But biquad which falls under iir comes from analog where as fir doesn't perhaps I'm reading your answer wrong..



Anyway if your done posturing perhaps you have something constructive and positive to add . Remember since the beginning I've always been in the position that to do the test for real it would have to be done this way. Again I have to thank you and everyone else once more for all the time and effort you all gave proving time and time again that without a doubt .

this would the only way to actually test and really judge a DAW .

 

Yes, biquads are building blocks for creating IIR filters. The "filter in DAWs" you're referring to, although it isn't used anywhere important (as in: if you're using your own plugins, there are no "FIR filters" in any DAW), if you're asking for stock EQ plugins that come with DAWs - no, they aren't FIR filters, either. FIR filters *always* introduce latency which nobody wants 99% of the time, hence special linear phase EQ plugins which use FIR filters are available and rarely used. All the other EQ plugins use IIR filters, and 9 times out of 10 they're implemented with a biquad. And I bet top dollar that *every* single EQ plugin that comes stock with your DAW that isn't labeled as "linear phase EQ" or analog emulation is an IIR filter using biquads.

Perhaps you first learn your stuff then spread misinformation?

Nope, using stock plugins is not the only way to test and judge a DAW. Especially if you already have your selection of plugins that you're using either because you've been doing audio for long or because you need to be able to move sessions around different studios. Comparing just the DAW's "sound" (or lack thereof, but people insist there is an audible difference, hence why I'm explaining) that you can't bypass is way more of a valid, "real" test. With DAWs you're kind of expected to bring your selection of stuff. Basically, your point is like, Logic is better than Pro Tools because it comes with better virtual instrument samples and guitar amp simulations. To which I reply: what if I already have Komplete and I've got Guitar Rig and a bunch of instruments in Kontakt? Then I have the exact same sounds in both Logic and Pro Tools so there is no longer a difference between the two. So comparing what comes included is not so much of a deal. Comparing the actual DAWs themselves, the workflow, the handy features and whatnot is way more important.

TL;DR you don't judge a hifi audio system by how good the bass/treble control sounds. You judge by how the speakers and the amplifiers sound, because you can always bring your own EQ if you need, and for the high-tier stuff you're kind of expected to already have one if not more laying around.

 

Yeah regarding samplitude, the differences with other daws, even if using the same plugs....clear as a sunny day.
I had previously posted an interview of the creators of Samplitude who explain why samplitude does "sound" different then other daws, in a previous similar thread, too lazy to search for it.
A guy who worked at Magix for a while on both sequoia and samplitude gave this explanation as a comment on another yt video by M.primeau.

Tim Dolbear :

" I was the Product specialist for Samplitude and Sequoia for 6 years (2010-2016) and I ask development why DAWs sound different and Samplitude sounds so good. They said one reason is Samplitude has Checks and balances to ensure Phase through out the processing path. So the more changes that happen (vol/pan, plugins...) the more the sound can become smeared and phase issues creep in, Samplitude is Phase Coherent through out."

 

tl;dr they're not doing any crazy AI phase cancellation detection voodoo, it's simply that the stock EQs are linear phase, and so are probably any multiband things it has

 

It's amazing that this got to 15 pages.
I'll just say that my zeros and my ones sound much better than any of all-y'alls.
And if you believe that...

 

Today it's possible to use slightly larger bits which combined with ordinary bits will give you analog sound, but pristine. Ableton discovered these larger bits first and since V10 Ableton Live sounds BETTER than ANY wannabe daw (Pro-Fools, Cubarse, Bitfick, LoopyFruiter). They are a bit ashamed of this breakthrough and keep quite about it mostly.

Edit: Dark matter has also to be taken into account, again Ableton does it best.

 

I don't know wtf you're talking about. He didn't use sam stock eqs in his example. And by default the stock eqs in samplitude (yeah those linear phase eqs that according to you we never find in any stock eqs' daws) aren't in linear phase mode.
I never use those stock eqs, and I've always ,noticed the weight Sam adds to the sound when you mix in it.
I use half a dozen other daws btw. I'm not in any god damn sects like most here.
At the end of the day, I trust my ears not the "theoriticals" some display.
Cheers.

 

Samplitude, is that the company that makes magix? I guess 5 year old kids do need a clean daw, with no phase issues.

 

Yep one of the first daw ever created with Cubase. Very popular in Europe. Do kids use it ? Who knows ? Do kids work in studios ?
Phase issues are indeed a problem...But if you're good with that well, good for you kiddo !

 

My DAW sounds better than yours

 

yea, if i can hear the difference in my biased human ear then why would i believe hard evidence??? people are so sciency