based on the history , i think they translate gong rather with flood ,less with genius historical releases.imo

 

You can search for tutorials for Samplitude. Both programmes have so many features in common that you can easily learn how to use Sequoia with the tutorials from Samplitude. User "DAW" has always recommended the YT channel from Kraznet. Wish you success!

 

Last edited: Sep 24, 2024 at 9:22 PM

I think the Kong saga is over. I don't know if it translates to Gong, but the Kongs (bros) were the two Sequoias. That's fine

 

Only few went as deep as Marco.
I think he was working at Magic North America many years ago.
Don't mind the versions, they are pretty much all the same since it became ProX

Kraznet though is the absolute authority on the subject.

https://youtube.com/@kraznet

https://youtube.com/@marcoprimeau

 

no
---
didnt read that nfo's ...where does this kong thing come from ? kong audio ?www dynamics ?
seroius question.pls

 

From official R2R NFOs:

After Cryptlex fall:
"The first phase of the gong - THE END OF THE CRYPTLEX - is now over. The witch's terrible magic made the cryptT-REX extinct in the audio scene."

From Sequoia 16:
"KONG BUSTING JUST STARTED!
--------------------------
Witches knows this King Kong had the younger brother."

From today's Sequoia:
"RIP King Kong bros..."
End of the Kong Saga.

 

Spoiler: Widescreen

 

Last edited: Sep 24, 2024 at 9:57 PM

Let's hope the extermination continues, maybe with the "Pterodactylus" iLOK.
Although I fear that iLOK is the "Neanderthal man", so... uhm...

 

I want to try Sequoia out, but i'm so tired that it gets me lazy to learn a new DAW... There are so many features that other DAWs don't have, it just feels like learning a new instrument. Maybe when i get bored, somehow

 

Same here I am using FL Studio for so long but I still able to find new things to try out. So for Sequoia is like going from windows to Mac for me. So as of now its no no for me. Again may be in future if i have to try something i will use it.

 

I only tried it for an hour or so before going back home last night. Must say it's gonna take a month at least to learn all the extra functions it has compared to other DAW. You can only find 2 or 3 in a day. I tried few of its built in FXs and must say it sounds surprisingly good. Not sure if it's just me being excited but I think the DSP engine is next level and it.... kinda sounds better which is weird thing to say for a DAW, I never felt this way before. lol. Let's just say the stupid analog emulation compressor alone sounds nice. You know when you try to smash everything to death just to check the artifacts, Sequoia though seems like having its own way of managing that without making things too ugly. Idk for sure man, it's just a feeling, but kinda an obvious one. Those old mfs that swear this is the ultimate DAW for mastering, apparently (almost, for now at least) telling the truth.

 

Thanks for the feedback and for your observations Stevo, I generally love the goodies when witches drop them like rain. But considering changing whole environment is another task for me.

"Those old mfs that swear this is the ultimate DAW for mastering, apparently (almost, for now at least) telling the truth"
If that is the case then i think (I am not sure if they have a small plugin to try first for mastering with DSP engine you specified) coz if i have to change my whole rig and setup just for mastering task then its a huge deal for a lazy person like me. lol

 

For sure, that's why got so curious to try it. Never heard such a thing like x DAW sounds better, this is the first time. They also don't let it clear if it's something on the DSP or the rendering. If it really sound better just by using the DAW, we will have DAW wars again, because the devs will need to figure out why they sound 'inferior' compared to Sequoia.

If the reason behind 'sounding better' is the built in functions of the software, or a workflow thing, this would be pure marketing bullsh*t.

Of course, if it really have a better output how they claim to have, it will be a interesting tool to have on the arsenal, at least until the other devs start using the same kind of algos to deliver such 'quality'.

But, speaking by myself, i'm happy with the ecosystem i have now, so finding out those unclear things will be time spending and i'm not doing it now

 

"If the reason behind 'sounding better' is the built in functions of the software, or a workflow thing, this would be pure marketing bullsh*t."
Yes i mean i will wait for others feedback, Let the community try it first and if its giving the change in results what other DAWs are not able to offer then i will see. But if the claims by Magix are just a marketing strategy than i will not waste my time.

In reality I am not a huge fan of Magix products since beginning, I use to use Sony Vegas in 2009-2011ish years but it was a buggy software. Then when Magix aquire it. I was like they will rewrite the code from scratch. But i found vegas still buggy and not going with flow as i was expecting. So i kinda don't trust the developers of Magix when they are marketing like the audio engine is better than other DAW as whole.

 

I'm not sure of any Sequoia marketing strategy, because I never see any ads for it. Most people who are targeted by youtube-style marketing campaigns are not the real end-user market for a $2500 DAW. Or whatever they charge now. Comparing Vegas to either Samplitude or Sequoia is not relevant unless you know Magix re-wrote the programs. Magix originally acquired these software titles by buying them, not by creating them. When Vegas was initially introduced, it was little more than Acid with added video functionality. It took quite a while for it to gain a good sized user base, and to become a more serious and better programmed application. The earliest full versions were full of bugs.

I'm not saying anyone needs to use Sequoia. But if you are given a chance to learn it for free, I'm not sure why you wouldn't. I can't even find a book for it on Amazon.

 

Last edited: Sep 25, 2024 at 7:04 AM

Orchestral Tools SINE Player and libraries.

 

"It sounds better" is quite a bold claim in Digital Audio,
specially when talking about fundamental aspects of audio itself, recording, mixing, summing..


If it's true they found a way to better process audio, it would have to be patented,
because Audio DSP being based in science/maths means it could be easily replicated by anyone..
(and then patent will be published, and we'll know about it..?)

But how much of a difference can it be?

Most ppl is incapable of distinguishing between a 320/KB MP3 and Wav, or between 24bit and 16bit Audio..
also for that you need good professional equipment, very Subtle differences, we're not talking about the average listener..

So how much of a difference can this make?
How much better and in what way does Sequoia sound better? Is it quantifiable?

But yeah, we will have to try it out,
let's see if on the next master my ears can reach..!

 

Exactly my point - As you said "I can't even find a book for it on Amazon"
The issue here is more of a time rather than the offering itself. Which is why i said, because i dont believe companies when they present stuff, offcourse they will put in a good way only. I believe more on audioz community because i will get a 2 way feedback those who like it or those who will not.
This is also one of the reason i stick to audioz for so long now. The community we have here is the most genuine towards products or in general in everything. So yeah i will wait few days and i will see if people are getting good results. If they would, then yes i will try and get some R2R potion as well.

 

This is what my thinking is, DSP and all stuff involves science and maths and years of research to be produce a decent quality enhancements. A company like MAGIX cant just claim it like that. Sure the quality may be good but if they can explain their working of how the signals and all stuff is getting better in their DAW not in other DAWs, then only it will be more of a acceptance.
I would happy to see all raw DSP results of their software in RAW form samples to compare.
Yes people generally are not able to feel difference between 320kbps and wave unless the hardware is good enough to make a difference. So how they can claim it that the results will be good, still if i use potato hardware lol

 

its just marketing. From what i understand, is that they have good time stretching algos, resampling algos etc, but they have not re-invented the wheel.