You can't hear the difference ?
Well yep. Change hobby.
Become a scientist.

 

What's the "checks and balances to ensure phase throughout the mixing path" then? Because I say bullshit and you can just as easily check yourself and move audio around. I'd be *really* surprised if MAGIX were moving clips around without your knowledge.

I'm yet to see anyone use MAGIX software in a studio environment here in Europe. Seems like Pro Tools is the standard in actual facilities, and Cubase is more of a home studio thing, probably because it was available in different languages back in the 90s and it just spread through word of mouth.

They kind of aren't, to be quite honest. Phase is time. Delay. Latency. If you're having an issue and things start getting out of sync (which they definitely shouldn't because of plugin delay compensation - btw, someone mentioned Ableton which struggled with it for *years*, so good on you), you just adjust the compensation manually (if your DAW lets you) or move your clips so they play a tiny bit earlier. There are also automated plugins to do this. And it isn't that important for anything that isn't drums.

Lots of people also deliberately will not line things up especially for multitracked drums, since it makes sense that the room mics will start later than the close ones. This would be out of phase, but the "out of phase"ness is what gives it depth and a sense of space. If anything, I'd be highly suspicious of anything that "ensures phase"

Well, this is just plain dumb and arrogant. You're presented with measurable facts and fail to acknowledge them, using your judgment as the ultimate authority. You've seen the signal that comes from your computer to the audio interface and is sent to the speakers is exactly 100% the same.

So, if you really insist you can hear the difference, the *only* reason for it is:
- your amplifier/speakers are crap and mess with the sound, or
- your ears are crap and tell you things that don't exist at all, or
- your brain is crap and you got audiofooled.

None of these prove there's a difference that's measurable and repeatable. And if you fail to acknowledge this, well yep. Change hobby. Become a local audio wankery dealer and go selling directional cables.

 

TL;DR . No this is dumb and arrogant.
Learn how to have a conversation without acting like a damn child.
Cheers.

 

TL;DR

 

BTW.
Last word : theories in "science" are just words on a piece of papers if you can't back them in reality through experimentation.
Any one printing mixes on two different daws mixed with the same non stock plugins and the same settings (also on volume, panning, routing, ect), will see (spectogram, not voodoo), hear and be able to null test the huge differences between them.
Anyone not doing that, is an obscurantist hanging to the branches of the tree of its believes rather than testing and observing something perfectly testable.
So actually people throwing their theorical words without simply putting them to the test, can't even postulate to be scientist.
They should create their sect. Well it seems it has already been done.

 

You see, human ear is a pretty skookum choocher when it comes to interpreting complex baseband signals. But it makes for a really lousy audio measurement tool.

Firstly, there's this uneven frequency response, which to make matters worse, changes with age, aldosterone levels, fatigue, mood etc. So you calibrate it in the morning, and by noon, it's again off the scale. The precision is pretty bad, you get 1% frequency error below 1kHz and up to 10% above 10kHz. But you can't even center it properly, unless you get the perfect pitch model, which are quite rare and cost big bucks.
On volume level scale, it's not even average, only 1dB precision and Automatic Gain Control you can't turn off, so all your measurements are worthless above 80dB SPL, where it starts to overload.
Noise performance also isn't stellar - as the receiving transducers transfer the signal using water as a medium, there's always this 8dB rumble below 500Hz. It resonates all over the place, with most distortion happening around 3kHz.

THD+N and Stereo Crosstalk are both rather abysmal.

The QC on them is really a blind shot into the lake, sometimes you get models where left and right channel doesn't even match in terms of sensitivity or frequency response.
Measuring phase is impossible, due to compensation in DSP you can't turn off. It's prone to frequency masking.

The DSP inside is closed-source and quite impossible to reverse-engineer, so we're not seeing it Rockboxed anytime soon. Also when the transducers wear out, you can't exchange them easily without permanent damage to the system. Friggin' planned obsolescence I say.
And to top it all off, the bloddy thing doesn't even have a proper backlit screen, so all your readouts are worthless.

Can you believe more than 108 billion pairs of them were made (7.6 bilion pairs are in active use)? It's really puzzling how the company hasn't gone bankrupt at this point.
I mean before you can really test your new pair if it's not DOA and is built to specs, it's already out of warranty and nobody offers returns.

Solution? We should all listen using our scopes.

 

Pretty aware of most of those theorical points.
The theory saying all daws "sound the same" doesn't stand the test of practice at all. And indeed what's left for us to evaluate that, is what we trust.
Our hardwares, our ears, our monitoring tools....and, for some, theory.
I wonder who makes any decision in mixing, or producing based on theory (not the music theory). Choose compressor or eqs in regard to the equations that can explain how they work. No one does that nor say "it's digital and my ears aren't trust worthy, I'll choose which compressor I use according to the theory".
People doing sound application at some level do trust their ears (albeit amongs other things), and reading people in audio smearing that basic evaluation is basicaly laughable.
At the end of the day anyone dissmissing what they hear and see, to hide behind formulaic generalities, well they should do what they feel.
They just don't have anything to convince anyone doing things differently as they can't prove their points.
So yeah. The solution is to trust what work for you as ultimately this will be a subjective decision.
It's like the debate do some digital fxs manage to emulate analogue ones. Some people claim it's dellusional and fairy dust. Which is a ridiculous statement.
They still have the right to believe an unproved statement, or to believe anything in the world really.

 

Wouldn't it be better to render one sample within several DAWs and make a blind test?

 

It has been done. In those specific conditions (one sample, no panning, no volume variation, no fxs) it confirms the theory, null test passes. In all logic if you only do that in a daw, none of others things that all daws do are sollicitated, so...Not really the point though, since no one only does that in a daw.
The test is a faillure when you don't only process one sample without touching volume, pan, adding fxs....
When daws work in practice, in reality, when you mix, it sums, add fxs... Then it's not the case. Even if you do exactly the same stuffs in several daws.
The theory works only...in a limited scenario which is irrelevant for anyone processing audio (several tracks, etc) in daws. Completely boggus....Imo.

 

There might be an audible difference between DAWs, why not..
But the outcome is not whether that difference is better or worse. Better choice of adjectives would be transparent and colored.
I can verify that REAPER in its current version, provided all settings are correct, and when there's no resampling, produces truly transparent result, that nulls with the original.

In regards to mixing and mastering, yes (that's fully subjective anyway).
In regards to choosing or evaluating gear or setup, no. Sticking to numbers there has much better chance of arriving to informed conclusion that to rely on very unreliable method of comparison, which cannot hold it's reference for more than 200ms.

 

Wow.
Didn't think we'll get there so quick. Then we agree. I never talked about better, or worst, just owned that I hear a difference between daws, and some are more pleasant for me than others. Others apparently can't hear it nor see it on a simple analisys tool, now that worried me a bit.
Personaly I like the colors samplitude brings when using it. I relied on it a lot before using other daws more, and one of the most annoying thing for me was that audible difference. To me Reaper was "cold". Badly. It took me a while to adjust. All in all I think it's good. Daws are differents and I have different needs, so all is good in the world.

Kind of disagree on that. Transparency in hw or in daws isn't the only relevant factor, which is the only facor taken in consideration by maths.
A choice of gear or setup can be made on other factors than the evaluation of the noise floor.
Probably why there are a lot of disagreements when people talk about their choices of monitors or headphones or mics. They do resort to number to justify their choices, but not just that, in fact it's often marginal (maybe except for the sound card). Usually and very logically they choose according to taste too.

 

Yes, I meant more the amp, dac, adc, crossover, needle, ... part of gear, not necessarily hps, monitors or mics.
There are so many variables it's much easier to try it on, and see/hear how it performs. But if a dac, adc or amp measures well, then it's bound to be good (transparent), because it's easier to introduce colors on a different spot in the audio chain.

I dunno, for me transparency works and worked best, because coloring can be always called upon, but an inherently colored chain does not have a bypass switch..
Also the colored devices might conflict with each other.

 

I agree with that too. Which is also why I rely less on Sam lately. Transparency is good cause it's reliable to build upon. No way to control what's done to the sound when it's done on that level.
But I figure, what I do is both building upon something I can trust, while ultimately coloring it and putting taste into it.
The neutralization of undesired colors ultimately and ironically are only here for me to do a controlled and reliable work (for the end result) at coloring things down the road.

 

Colour me impressed

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/subjective-vs-objective-debate.html

I just have to post this again to the wild. Very interesting thoughts

 

Awesome post indeed. He makes some solid point in favor of objectivism....
Lol, it reminds me of my university years (huamn science, sociology first, then poli sci), there is this exact division Obj/subj in those fields too.

In this area I'm more an objectivist, I feel people are mostly unaware of what weight on them, specialy in the social world, so better trust numbers and facts about their behaviors rather then what they have to say about it.
But my favorites authors and researchers are all a bit of both. At least usually they start by establishing a few objectives facts about what people do, then they include their motives (and rely on objectives datas to analyse those too) for deepening the understanding of a number of phenomenons.
People beliefs do paticipate in the structuration of reality, as idiotic or subjectives as they may be, so any analysis of reality should include them, even if they are meant to be "objectified" by the researcher.

 

I won't bother explaining how you're failing to have a conversation "without acting like a damn child"

Then they're not magic and they don't "fix phase problems". All EQs and filters, including analog, work by adding a phase shift. Linear phase EQ is a digital-only thing that uses the fact digital, unlike analog is able to "look what's coming", just like lookahead on limiters. It introduces latency because of that. If the EQ doesn't introduce latency, then it has no way to do any EQ without changing the phase. So Samplitude EQs aren't any more magic or phase correcting than any other EQ plugin on the market.

What's your definition of "weight" then? Have you looked at what the *actual* difference is? Have you level matched? Have you tried duplicating the track and putting the EQ on only one of them then flipping the phase to see if there's any difference at all? Have you checked what, if any, latency is introduced by the EQ that might put your track in phase with other tracks? Have you bounced the EQd track and moved it back to the left to compensate for that and listen objectively? Because if not, then again, you're failing to have a meaningful and informed conversation.

See, you're using everything yet you see the only correct option and fail to find a positive of any other option. Isn't this what a "sect" is like? Also, the fact you're using "half a dozen other DAWs" doesn't help anyone trying to believe you know what you're talking about since people who are actually good and do their job professionally use as few tools as possible but learn them inside out

At the end of the day, your ears are not really to be trusted when doing comparisons because they make it too easy to make differences up when there are none.

And that's why the experimentation has been done to prove the science, "words on a piece of paper" is actually true, which you fail to acknowledge. Let me remind you:

Yeah, moving on...

Well, the spectrogram, not voodoo, measurement tools, null tests, and everyone's hearings show there are no "huge differences" and what's more, there are no tiny differences, either. They are no differences whatsoever which was a theory, "words on a piece of paper" backed in reality through experimentation. Again:

If you claim there are "huge differences", then you're welcome to present your theory of how two waveforms that are 100% identical can sound different. Or in other words, how a signal which is a straight like can carry a signal that your ears can hear. Because there'd be plenty of scientists shocked and interested in your findings, plus likely a big award for your discoveries, if that's true. So please explain how this is so so we can soak up the golden knowledge you have that thousands of scientists couldn't figure out, but you, the chosen one, could. Oh master, please explain to us the secrets of how the same thing can be different. We're listening.

We didn't hang to the branches of "my ears tell me I'm right" like you did and went to actually test and observe. And your ideas failed the test. What's your response?

The only person throwing theoritical words without putting them to the test and creating a sect is you. You fail to show evidence that proves your golden ears are right. We did the test and it told us you're full of bullshit. Again, your response is "but my ears are the best and I'm right, you're dumb if you disagree"

It just did as proven by the test of practice. Please show us your test that proves the first one wrong, because for now it's just you bragging about how great you and your ears are and how everyone actually testing in practice is dumb.

I wouldn't trust human ears as a tool for measurements and doing scientific research, ever. You would?

Perhaps the reason is you can't have an equation that describes music because there's too many variables? That said, there is a degree of theory in how the devices work and based on the sound of the song you pick the right device with an educated guess. You know that LA-2A won't work with drums because it's too slow. So yes, I'll choose which compressor I use according to the theory.

Again, they need other things because ears are kind of crap for objective comparison.

Which is why they can trust their ears. If it was an objective decision, ears would be the worst tool for the job. Why do you insist on saying your ears are the ultimate judge in objectively deciding if there is a difference between DAWs?

So why are you saying it sounds different? Decide on a single version before talking further

It is the point, since we're comparing DAWs, not default export settings, pan laws and fader scaling

It will still pass if you do it properly. Pan is just applying different volume for the left and right channel. It's literally L * 0.8, R * 1.2 for panning 20% right. The differences come from different pan laws, because doing the formula I showed the volume will change when panning. To preserve the volume, a pan law is used. And different DAWs use different pan laws, so different "makeup gain", if you will, by default. But you can always change it to the same for all your DAWs and then it passes the null test. Even analog consoles do pass the null test then.

As far as adding FXs is concerned, there is literally zero difference since once you put a plugin, it's not done by the DAW anymore. The plugin does 100% of the calculations by itself and by definition works exactly the same in all DAWs, period. Again, the only "difference" would be in pan law, fader scale (as in: fader at 50% will mean different dBs in different DAWs, but it you set the same dB value it is 100% the same) and pre/post fader (which might be different between DAWs by default, once you set it to the same everywhere again there's no difference).

Summing is just that. Summing. A + B + C. Nothing more complex than that. No DAW has "different summing" than any other DAW. You literally can't do it any other way. Effects are irrelevant since they always sound the same no matter the DAW as they work outside the DAW and do their own thing. So it is the case. It will sound 100% the same. If you think it's different please provide your idea of an alternative way to "sum" or "add FX" that would be different from the one everyone uses.

As we've already established, "the theory" is proven by experimentation. And you claim it works only in a specific limited scenario without providing any tests that prove this, giving "my ears tell me I'm right" as the only reason.

We never did, either

Well we can't hear it nor see it on a simple analysis tool, because there's no sound and analysis tools show zero activity. Now I'm worried a bit because you claim to see stuff on analysis tools that isn't there. Is everything okay with your vision?

Maybe let your computer warm up and burn in so Reaper starts doing warmer punchier mixes?

 

Actually that could be a great research angle. I'm pretty sure it's possible to discover the objectives reasons between this irrational dichotomy between objective and subjective approach regarding the audio. Find common points in trajectories of people who fit in each categories.
Probably something to do with the capital repartition, social background.
I'm pretty sure I could find someone from my old life who would enjoy do this type of weird research. Would be fascinated by the results.

 

I'm using the Abbey Road Auld Codger's Gander Bag 12345, myself.

 

The same types think the world is flat. The more evidence put forward the further they dig their heels in.

 

Fifty years from now when we literally produce music in our brains I'll bet some enterprising bio-engineers will be selling neural implants that capture the coveted tones of those classic vintage DAW's.