Well, you are right, if this sentence "In future please STFU about things you clearly know very little about" had been reported, I would have taken action too. I cant read each and every comments here, so I heavily rely on reports.

Psychological would have been saying that a DAW may seem to sound different to different users, because of subjective factors, like appearance etc ..
But adding a debate religion into a question about DAW sounds ... this is not about psychological, this is simply off topic.

One thing does not take the off the other.

 

The lower quality of your gear, different DAWs would more 'sound' the same.
The lower your hearing acuteness, different DAWs would more 'sound' the same.
So, just let a simple null testing do the job.

 

When Oly takes the time to repeat these arguments - it is a courtesy. We should just say 'thank you'.
He does not not need to repeat these arguments - they are pretty straightforward.
All the comments about religion in this thread were intelligent, non-insulting, harmless, and even funny,
but they were obviously totally OFF TOPIC and Oly appropriately deleted them.
We should be grateful that he has the courtesy to bother explaining it again and again and again!

I also think that any of us arguing with the cop is unwarranted
(Oly - please excuse me labelling you crudely as 'the cop' in this context)

Where we could (and maybe should) have a fruitful debate is about the legislation that the cop correctly follows.
As a personal-only opinion I think there could be big improvements if the forum rules were explicitly different
for 'in lounge' versus 'not in lounge'
I think there would be good arguments for...
- when 'not in the lounge' - be even more strict about censoring any off topic comments
- when 'in the lounge - consider removing all the restrictions - off topic is ok and is just normal intelligent conversation.

I would have lots more to say in a debate like that. (but all of this is OFF TOPIC here)

 

Well, now we are not going to add more off topic comments in this thread by commenting moderation.
So please feel free to pm me if you wish.

 

Exactly, so please, let's get back to the topic.

 

Yes, let's go back to the topic (although I can't see how moderation of this topic can be off topic?).
As far as I can see, it's not resolved at all. It is a well known fact that every DAW treats plugins somewhat differently even when loading, playing or rendering (can't load, stutter, chop, cut short, insert garbage, slow down, hang, do not display properly, etc.) I guess, they do the chaining somewhat differently too.
So, if the question is if they all 'sound' the same when used as a player - even based on these remarks they probably don't.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2020

I don't "believe" that daws sound different. The practical demonstration is MUCH more complicated than one would think, because (most)daws are actually "load" (i.e "interpret) a file in order to perform their (non destructive) processing(s) and in order to ease the load on performance. Meaning that the test "subject" is arguably already "altered" so... no meaningful ( or truthful) results could be drawn from there.

Ofc IF we talk about real science and not just "if it nulls is the same" nonsense. Because the content very well maybe (actually it is) the same but the "packaging" could make ( perhaps) a LOT of difference. Add to that the fact that listening to music is a subjective experience and then the problem(s) could rapidly multiply.

 

This is actually good. But is still incomplete. When one listens to even one track in a daw is still affected by pan/balance. Which is depending on some certain conditions is a multiplying operation( i.e gain/volume changing), which by definition should require dithering, in order to perform it adequately. Summing is an addition which does NOT (at least theoretically ) But, again, listening to the master bus, panning still get involved

 

I don't "believe" there is some extra 'real science' (?!) not involved in null testing.
You just compare the output WAVs two by two, so there is no difference in "packaging".
And as just there are no two software audio players that 'sound' the same (I did ABX testing on about two dozens of them), the same should be valid for DAWs playback section, but you should have at least half a dozen DAWs installed to do the testing. And I don't know anybody that does.

 

This topic is full of off topics. 99% off - 1% IN

 

That’s because the constructive dialectic is composed of thesis / antithesis, and synthesis. In this case the thesis was quite weak and no one was able to support it producing reliable data, we are just talking about “sensations”. The discussion is not going anywhere and therefore it begins to derail into offtopic. if anyone can concretely support the thesis that there actually is a daw that sounds better than the others, I would be very interested to hear it

 

Just saw this video from Audiofanzine (sorry it's in French) about that topic. For the non French, basically it doesn't say anything about which daw sounds better, but it just make a quick calcul that even (and it's just a supposition) if there are some difference, that would only count as 0,06% on the final product. At the end, they say that the coffee you'll bring to your singer could have more impact on the final result than your daw sound engine

(and all that is based on the eventuallity that DAW could sounds different, which doesn't mean better or worst, just different)

 

a dialectical model does not apply here -- especially not a tripartite dialectic. synthesis is not a a goal. the proposition is indicative of physical processes, it is not an intellectual exercise. unless you want to indulge cognitive relativists who are totally irrelevant here, and a waste of time. a definitive answer is sought and theoretically possible if given enough specific criteria. it would further have to have repeatability and consensus inside a set of defined parameters.

 

DAW stands for Digital Ass Whoopin

 

I'm kind-of agreeing with all the above comments...
But for @refix comment "a dialectical model does not apply here" I have to query what does 'here' mean?
If you say dialectic doesn't apply to the question "Do all DAWs sound the same?"
then I wouldn't contest that claim without digging into deeper philosophy that's not relevant here.
So I agree with you - just do the science that fits the probably intended interpretation of the question and be done with it.
(but see below)
However,when @recycle mentioned 'constructive dialectic' he was not directly answering "Do all DAWs sound the same";
He was addressing @Peek's comment that "this topic is full of off topics..."

I think questions like "Why do people continue to believe or not believe that DAWs sound different?"
and "Why, in this thread, do some people conceptually confuse 'what they hear' and 'what an audio device spits out'?"
and "Why is there so much off topic in this thread?"
are all questions that would be well placed for receiving the jaded tripartite dialectic treatment.
And as the many explicit yawns in this thread imply, they might also be more interesting interpretations of the OP's question.

 

Last edited: Oct 6, 2020

Considering Jade comes in all colours of the spectrum, please can you redefine this statement?

 

Perfect with Anaconda Malt Liquor...

 

Multiple colours of Jaded = somewhere between Infra-Bored and Ultra-Violated

 

All DAWs sound same?
I found that in Sylenth1 default bank, preset number 13 and 41 sound better (more warm) in Studio One than Ableton Live. But preset number 2, 7, 22 and 24 were better sounding in Ableton Live than in Studio One. Preset number 9 sounds best in FL Studio.

 

Daw output quality: it is not the first discussion I read about it, this is a recurring topic. It is easy to search the many audio forums to see how many times the topic has been discussed. In reality, no one has ever been able to prove with reliable data that there are substantial differences in sound between apps. Personally I have never noticed if one sounds better than another, in my opinion there is no difference at all.
What definitely determines my choice of the daw is not the sound, but its features: over the years I have tried many and this is what I think:

Reaper:
Simple, effective and solid: anyone who wants to start multitrack recording should start here. I consider Reaper as the affordable Logic

Cubase:
My first love: It was a must in the 90s, I used for years, then I finally abandoned it due to exhaustion: the Steinberg philosophy with its rigidity is really annoying and I don't miss it at all

Audacity:
I always thought it was an audio editor, but it's also a daw (audio only). In fact it is a little inconvenient to use in multitrack, but it's free

Protools:
Relic of the past, the ancient Romans used protools to record the music played in the colosseum. Just think it needs proprietary plugins ... (no, it doesn't work with vst and Au)

Logic:
The best for classic audio + midi sessions in multitrack recording, the right choice for any respectable studio. Only problem: it's annoying that it doesn't work with vst

Ableton:
A new way of performing live with the computer: It beautifully manages jam sessions with loops, recording on the fly, DJ set, autolooping etc. that's why it's called Live. Become unbeatable with the addition of Push / launchpad or any midi controller. A little weak in midi editing

Bitwig:
There is a lot of the Ableton concept in this app, I only tried it superficially but found it quite interesting

Fruity Loops:
If you are over 15 you are not allowed to use this app

Acid pro:
A loop oriented daw: the precursor of Ableton. It was a very good idea in the early 2000, outdated now

Audition:
Never tried it, I think it doesn't even record midi

Garage Band:
No way

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2020