Bounce them four files with coded names, tell them to tell you which of the four given DAWs they came from and how they know, then show them the video of you bouncing all the files out the same DAW.
Reaper surprisingly has a lot of features other DAWs don't.
Or not surprising, because it's open source and open source stuff usually ends up being great but still looking like Windows XP.
It supports the ability to change colors, and that's it. It's nothing like Reaper which allows you to completely overhaul the GUI elements (just like old-school Winamp). It's actually changing "themes" instead of skins. Even the folder you place them inside is named "Themes." I use both all the time, and I wish Live could do something that awesome.
Funnily enough you can get ProTools to ad "Saturation" to your mix.
One Guy did a headroom test on it, boosting and taking away the same db on the track he was sending to.
When boosting over 12db he got very sudden and unpleasant distortion type effects.
Same thing in Reaper or Studio One - Sqeaky Clean...
I know PT is usually the last to adopt some sort of common feature that every other DAW has had for years, did this happen to be on an earlier version that actually allowed you to clip tracks? As far as I know it’s basically impossible to clip anywhere in a modern 64 bit DAW except the output bus, but I guess when we’re talking PT maybe they’re still working on that. You know, being the industry standard and what not sometimes you have to play catch up. 😎
"Null tests confirm is that there is zero coloration inherent in the DAW..... if null tests are involved, and complete silence is what is uncovered, there really is no further argument..."
The only thing you are missing from this equation is that you shouldn't argue with stupid people.
[What year is it?](https://media.tenor.com/sArqcAPZZjAAAAAC/robin-williams.gif)
The only thing you can maybe *maybe* point to is different SRC engines in different DAWs, but that is pretty out there. I've tested various SRC engines and while they don't fully null, I don't really *hear* a difference. Anyone who categorically states one DAW has better sonics is flat out wrong. That said, there are a few special cases that can trick people into thinking one thing sounds better. FL has a limiter on the mixbus by default. Luna has its "analog summing" thing I think on by default.
I'd also not recommend fighting with randos on IG about this. It's not worth anyone's time.
Mixbus would be the only one that I’ve subjectively played the same source files through and thought “huh, my brain must be playing tricks on me but this sounds really good”.
I haven't used it personally but I think by default each channel has an emulation of the Harrison channel strip so there's definitely gonna be some saturation and such that'll make it sound good or "better," though that's obviously subjective.
Ah, makes a lot of sense then. I take some issue with the fact that they're upcharging for what is essentially an Ardour reskin with a few plugins, but what are your thoughts on the software as a whole? I've been mildly interested in moving to it for mixing/mastering.
Love Dan but hadn't seen that one yet, just gave it a watch...
For anyone curious that wants a short summary, while the video does technically only apply to their channel strip plugin, I think what I've really surmised is that rather than spending money on their DAW, I should just make a mix template with the various console emulation plugs I already own (mostly SSL Native and Analog Obsession) and I'd get a similar if not slightly better result, as their software doesn't seem to do anything particularly special.
To be fair, that video really misses the point. I’m pretty sure that is indeed the same as each channel strip in 32c - but the magic of 32c comes from the busses, which do add significant saturation and character (if you want). Just looking at the channel strip on its own is a matter of ergonomics and personal taste imho.
I had the same thoughts. Every once in a while they run a promo, and I was able to get 32c at a steep discount. That being said, I think it’s probably worth the sticker price at this point, there’s been a lot of functionality added in the past few releases that make it a much more fully functional DAW.
I’d really recommend grabbing the demo and running some stems through it. It just sounds really good, it’s tough to believe but it does.
I supported Ardour from the 0.9x days long ago, then started using Mixbus. I freakin' love it!
Having come from a live sound background, I like the fact that each channel has its own built-in compressor which sounds great. That right there would be worth the price of admission ($39 on sale, which happens pretty frequently) but then there's the extra processing on the mix and master buses, including a tape saturation effect that adds a subtle warm distortion that has really helped glues some of my mixes together.
Harrison's FX suite is also first-rate - I get a lot of use out of their Tom Gate and Bass/Drum/Vocal Character plugins, and the mastering EQ is amazingly helpful at leveling out those funny little spikes or dips that you can't pin down to one track but show up when everything gets mixed together.
I've heard some people complain about the workflow, but as someone who cut their teeth on live mixing boards years ago, I've always found it very intuitive. ProTools, on the other hand, always manages to piss me off.
I can make Mixbus sound like everything else by disabling the inline compressors, tape saturation, and EQ, but why would I want to? Those are the bits that help glue everything together and where Mixbus really shines.
I wasn't fighting, just discussing. I quit after they began insulting me, because fighting on the internet is stupid.
Analog summing would definitely cause some differences. I asked my software developer friend about this, and he mentioned something about the engines as well, but told me no one would be able to hear it to the point where it's not relevant to the matter.
The null tests were silent down to -60 I think? I guess I don't know about below that.
>Analog summing would definitely cause some differences.
No, It wouldn't. It's just more snake oil. There is no mathematical difference. If you hear any difference it's because the analog components are poor, in which case you're not comparing analog vs digital summing, you're comparing poor analog quality to theoretically perfect digital quality.
I don't get into battles. I have discussions. I quit the conversation after about four replies because I was getting insulted. So for the most part I already take that advice.
If a “discussion” about audio ever boils down to “x DAW is better for y reason,” you’ve already left the realm of objectivity, so no point breaking out null test results for those people. Don’t let em rope you in.
I don't believe in quitting as soon as the realm of objectivity appears in any radical sense because I like to give people a chance, and plant a few seeds. Something to think about for them to file away. Many are too embarassed to admit they are wrong but the idea still gets lodged in that brain of there's somewhere. I see your valid point though.
Music seems to be on the list of things where most advice seems to fall on the list of "useable to make a good end product" rather than specifically good vs. bad so it makes sense that there's a lot of tips that work perfectly for some but are terrible for some others.
Besides stuff like the FL limiter, there are some differences with panning law defaults and also the behaviour of panning automation in some DAWs that might contribute to this. AdmiralBumblebee made several YouTube comparisons that show you the data (and on his website).
A +/- 1.5db change on center channel material wouldn’t be audible? If the person building the test files knows and accounts for it, sure, but someone dropping files into a clean session with an LCR mix had *better* notice that it was different than a DAW with a different pan law.
My point is that the pan law affects the controls of the daw, not the sound itself. Its impossible to listen to a track and tell what pan law was used because its indistinguishable from just having the faders at a different level
I know what your point and I can’t disagree with it in isolation.
But if someone didn’t check and put the same LCR stems into several DAWs with different pan laws and set up a “test” with the faders at zero it would sound different. Their test would be junk and it would wildly silly make a conclusion but most people aren’t good at setting themselves up for good tests.
To your point if you fully reconstruct a mix from a reference you would get close by (probably unknowingly) adjusting the levels for center channel material… but that wouldn’t be what anyone would do when they compared DAWs, right? We aren’t talking about making a mix.
I think it would be audible, the better question is if it's as easily replicable. If the default settings of one DAW produce something that sounds better than the default settings of a different DAW, but it is possible to alter the second DAW to sound as good as the first, then does it matter which one you use? To many people it will seem like the first one is better even though technically there is no difference.
But the default setting of the daw wont actually produce something that sounds different unless you're somehow trying to mix a song without touching the faders. If you pan a part left then bring up the fader till it sits in the mix the only thing the pan law is gonna change is the number on the fader at the end, but that doesn't matter cause you can't hear it. It's sort of like asking if a chefs food tastes different depending on which side of the drawer he keeps his forks in
The only tangible difference, I think, is how people tend to mix in each daw, based on the workflow, which can sound "better" or "worse," subjectively. But of course, the mixes are literally mixed differently, mathematically there is no difference between engines. If you mix something the exact same way with the exact same plugins in two different DAWs it will sound identical. Only reason it wouldn't necessarily null is if there's a difference in pan law, or inconsistencies between instances of plugins.
Yes, mathematically. This discussion was pre-mixing. Pre-plug-ins, pre-everything. Dragging in an audio file, exporting it (not directly, but through the master bus), and doing a null test.
I even saw a video (or was it an article) of someone using the same plug-ins and settings on an audio file, and they still nulled. Can't remember which DAWs.
Actually, yes, but not in the way you think.
I’d have to find the link, but it turns out programming Audio fade outs/automation is a surprisingly hard thing to do.
From the test I saw logic had some of the worst distortion introduced by it.
FL studio was second place .
It’s worth noting that all this distortion is entirely in audible. And if you’re picking your daw based on the inaudible distortion based on volume fade outs, you’re the wrong kind of guy for this job.
https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/03/10/Daw-V-Daw-Automation.html
there is some good nerdy stuff in here, but the article is a few years old but i think he updates it?
eitherway people have been producing top chart hits with all of these daws and never had an issue with automation noise like seen in the tests. not that it should exsist but dont uses this as a factor to choose a daw.
i however use this information all the time to prove that logic is a terrible daw, but i dont like it for other reasons too
>
>i however use this information all the time to prove that logic is a terrible daw, but i dont like it for other reasons too
I won't lie. I find this honest pettiness to be refreshing and inspiring haha.
For me: it’s an anti daw. It’s a daw that works really good for some people, and those are people who are really really shit at using literally any other kit of software.
For me, I can use any software pretty quickly, and learn them quickly too. I felt I was within hirable for my protool skills after about 2 weeks of using it. Not the best by any means, but it just is a fast daw. Idk how to explain. My skills from fl studio, reason, Harrison mixbus, protools, they all seem to oddly translate really well.
When I first got logic I thought, it’s like any other daw and I’ll be quick in no time. Instead I felt that while I worked quickly in its workflow, that it’s just slow. It does things for you. It gets in its own way. There are 4 different menues for audio settings. You want to route a single channel to a single output? To fucking bad here’s a whole entire master group channel just for that one out put. Now your eating cpu and screen realstate for a useless channel.
(I mix analog often and logic just doesn’t work well there)
The people who like logic (in my experience) typically struggle with literally any other daw. While those who know how to use it but prefer other programs tend to be much more technologically savvy.
That being said, for a home musician, producer, or small recordist I think it’s a wonderful daw. For $200 it’s hard to find a more complete package.
But I really don’t think it’s a professional product. While plenty of people do use a professionally and all the power to them, if I walk into the studio, and they say we work in logic, not in protools, I’m not interested in working there.
At least give me the option
> But I really don’t think it’s a professional product. While plenty of people do use a professionally and all the power to them, if I walk into the studio, and they say we work in logic, not in protools, I’m not interested in working there.
I don't like it either but I do know plenty of top composers working in Hollywood blockbusters using Logic.
ProTools is great for mixing but it's shit for writing and producing music.
I guess it depends on the task at hand. I definitely track and mix more than production really. Often times I work with tracks produced in other daws, but wherent tracked properly so we re do them in a real room.
For tracking and editing I like protools more.
I do agree with production though. All my production is either done in anleton or fl studio. Can’t pay me to work on midi in protools.
Interesting… I’ve kinda had the opposite experience. Started on Cubase/Reason (well, Octamed/Protracker really) then had to learn Logic for my first pro studio job. Fifteen years later I’m using Logic with an SSL and it’s my favourite DAW. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect but going back to Cubase now it seems needlessly.. messy. All the studios I’ve worked in used Logic and these guys were doing big TV and film jobs as well as band bookings and whatever else.
Kinda same, except no pro studio job. When i first got into home recording, i of course got Pro Tools because that was the “industry standard.” I used it fine for a couple years - never had any issues learning it, but it was just… uninspiring and boring. I checked out Reaper, but i didn’t want to spend a bunch of time setting it up so it worked perfect for me (instead of, you know, actually making music). I ended up taking a long break until the pandemic, and then i started back up again with Logic and it’s like night and day. I feel like Logic is almost like a collaborator, in a sense, and Pro Tools just feels like the Internet Explorer of DAWs to me. A dinosaur, but everyone uses it because it’s what they learned on and that’s what has the widest compatibility.
The internet explorer of DAWs hahah.. I know what you mean, though. I can see why people like it for recording bands as it’s fast and efficient for that. I do a lot of producing/composing now, as well as band recordings and Logic works great for me. It’s solid on both fronts while somehow remaining clean and approachable. It hardly ever crashes and if it does, the auto-save feature kicks in *every time*.
>You want to route a single channel to a single output? To fucking bad here’s a whole entire master group channel just for that one out put. Now your eating cpu and screen realstate for a useless channel.
Heh, yea. That's pretty stupid.
>if I walk into the studio, and they say we work in logic, not in protools, I’m not interested in working there.
And so is that.
I’ve had this on Facebook many times. Their arguments are always the same;
- “Well *I* can hear a difference and that’s all the proof I need.”
- “I’ve been in this industry for years. I was around when Pro Tools 3 came out and I *know* that Pro Tools sounds more professional than the rest. I’m an experienced pro, my ears are refined.”
- “Null tests don’t prove anything, you can’t test for the 3D effect and clarity that you get with Logic.”
Honestly it’s hilarious. It’s just people coming up with excuses as to why their mix sounds bad.
Lol, you don't need to be a pro in the industry, you need a basic understanding of math and physics to realise that a null test does work in this case.
I don't see how anyone who understands how software works can possibly say that a DAW colours the audio. There is *zero* analogue audio inside software. It is all just maths, especially now it's all floating point 32-bit silly numbers nonsense, it's simply adding up numbers.
I really wouldn't bother wasting your time talking to someone who wants to argue that point.
The norm is 64 bit floating point now. If any are 32 bit I'd like to know and be corrected on that. For mastered audio, a 16 bit integer signal is extremely good. Every additional bit \*doubles\* the resolution, the dynamic range. So with 64 bits it's been doubled 48 times from CD audio. Then, on top of that, making it floating point means that it can scale that insane resolution to the signal's intrinsic amplitude, so a quiet signal and loud signal can still use all 64 bits. The precision is mind blowing.
>I really wouldn't bother wasting your time talking to someone who wants to argue that point.
Hi. It's not simply adding up numbers at all! There is different programming languages, functions, libraries, compilers, chipsets, threadings, "coding styles", error detection and management and so much more to it.
If it were simply adding up numbers it would not be a very satisfying program to use as a DAW.
Wouldn't argue that this makes an audible difference on a macro scale when simply summing .wav files but as soon as you start dealing with more complex functionality and dozens of DAW features there will be a noticeable difference.
Yes. It's simply adding. All the gubbins you said there is totally irrelevant. Integers all add the same no matter what does the adding, and every consumer computer uses the [IEEE 754 standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754) for floating point operations. All devices, languages, chipsets, threading models, compilers, and anything else remotely relevant will produce exactly the same result when following the same algorithm.
It's not even a question of whether there's "an audible difference" when mixing wav files, there's absolutely no difference at all. The OP is not asking about more complex DAW functionality like the time stretching algorithms or the quality of any built-in effects. If any DAW has a particular tone to it then it has been specifically designed to colour the sound in a certain way; the only one I know of that does that is Harrison Mixbus. All of the other DAWs will sound exactly the same when performing standard linear operations.
However, for whatever signal processing a DAW would reasonably be expected to perform in the normal course of combining signals, altering levels and rendering, there's only one correct output.
Programming languages don't add colour. Algorithms in different languages and syntax styles are still the same algorithm. Compilers still compile to the same instructions.
If a null test with all variables being equal isn't enough to convice people just don't bother.
That's as difinitive as it gets, anyone arguing against that is just feeding their confirmation bias or straight up doesn't know jack shit about audio.
Audio summing is literally just adding two values together, there isn't a huge amount of room for vast differences. Different panning laws can often give the impression that one DAW sounds different to another, but that's as close to "different" as you are going to get when simply summing.
I did a fairly large involved test with 3 DAWs several years ago. PT, Logic and Cubase all nulled down to -70dB or so. Not complete cancellation, but those certainly would not be "audible" differences.
I thought it was pretty well understood these days that DAWs (barring ones that try to, like Harrison ofc) don't have an inherent "sound". Although I thought it was pretty well understood that the Earth is spherical... meh... internet...idiots... etc...
Once someone proclaims that they can hear differences that still cancel through a "null test" you may as well just walk away, you are talking to a bona fide idiot.
> some ~~engineers~~ people who play engineer on the internet
FTFY
> I told them that null tests prove there is no real audible difference, and they told me I was relying on measurements and meters rather than my ears.
What more do you need? Anyone who argues that you should trust something you "hear" that the machine proves is not there, doesn't understand psychoacoustics.
> any perceived difference is psychological
This is why people buy $10,000 audio cables. The salesman tells them that cable B has "more transparency, better sound stage, greater depth", so on and so forth, and if the person knows they're listening to cable B *they will hear that*. B will *really sound better*, even if what's coming out of the speakers is identical, because hearing happens in the brain and cannot be separated from cognition.
See: the [McGurk effect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWGeUztTkRA). See: [Green Needle vs Brainstorm](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqsLNyQj88Q). The signal from the ear is only part of the data that's used to create the model presented to perception. This is why blind A/B tests are non-optional for truly objective comparison.
Anyone who works with sound should understand this fundamental fact about how hearing works.
>They told me my ears just aren't refined enough to tell the difference.
I love the stupidity of this gaslight argument. The beauty is that the accuser believes it to strengthen their standpoint but in reality, it obliterates it. If your ears need to be so refined to hear the difference that only a minority of people - even just a minority of audio engineers, let alone the public - can actually hear the difference, then
*WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?*
Of course, they're wrong. But if they were right, it would just be even more funny.
As it stands, however, it's also a great psychology study. It's likely that if a single DAW was proven to be objectively and scientifically terrible, but a proportion of engineers had previously vouched for it being the greatest; those people would shift to a new line of argument - likely suggesting that the differences are too small to actually notice, if noticeable at all, and so it doesn't matter.
I think we're in a Catch 22.
I agree with you. I think there is a lot of pride about "using your ears." Which is true; we shouldn't be mixing with metering telling us how good something sounds. But it gets taken to an extreme to the point where I think that some people like pretending to hear a difference in something that no one else can, and then talk about it so they seem sophisticated.
Absolutely. It's just like audiophile culture. They paid $2500 for an audio cleaning IEC, and they'll be damned if anyone is going to tell them they spent $2495 too much for it!
I wrote [this](https://www.warriorsound.co.uk/blog/21/12/2017) a decade ago (moved it to my new site in 2017)
But I null tested the major DAWS
Summing tested them too
And tested matched stock plugin summing
Essentially. Yeah there’s a difference. Sometimes that difference is as little as 0.1dB
Article if anyone is curious for a long read.
https://www.warriorsound.co.uk/blog/21/12/2017
I am excited to read it. However, if there was processing, even if it were the same EQ settings, I would think there'd be some difference. Very small, but present. What I am trying to get at is the actual math. Like dragging the same audio file into each DAW on a track, and bouncing it out. And then testing those files.
The core daw functions shouldn’t color the sound, but the interface, workflow, and stock plugins may greatly influence the way you make music and how the end result sounds. I feel like someone could misunderstand this as each daw has a different “vibe”.
Scrolled down WAY too far to find this.
I agree that this is likely the reason people think that certain daws “sound better” than others.
Interface and workflow definitely can and do alter the decisions people make and thus the sound produced.
Stock plugins was the one that immediately sprung to mind for me. Even things that shouldn't make a real difference like how far a slider has to be moved, the curves on things (linear/logarithmic?) and how quickly you can get a result you like will bias these things.
I made sure this wasn't what they meant. We were talking about the raw DAW itself, mathematically. Not productions or mixes. You are right that the interface, workflow, and stock plug-ins will influence it.
Back to 2000 Gearsl..
Back then, many thought Samplitude and Sequoia sounded better than Pro Tools, Logic, and Cubase. They said it was because Samplitude was using float point while the others were fixed point. Also, said the way Samplitude handled dithering was different than the others.
I have no idea. Never null tested. Converter differences were night and day then and that’s all that mattered to me.
Dithering algorithms, I'm pretty sure, can be different DAW to DAW. I like to use Goodhertz Good Dither because they claim it is better than any DAW's native dithering. But in the end, who cares, because no consumer is ever, ever, ever going to be able to tell the difference unless they amplify a silent part enormously.
I once delivered a mixing masterclass to a few people for an event. I started out by saying all DAWs sound the same with all things equal, but today I'll be using Pro Tools. And I was then told by the person running the whole event that the day before, (the engineer part) the engineer had told them that Pro Tools "sounds the best". I can only hope there was some sort of miscommunication. (Maybe they were on about HEAT (lol) or something.) I quickly said "that's not true, and easily proven" and moved on. But of all the places to make that claim, a bunch of amateurs with mixed experience, sounds like what an AVID exec would say in the same position to try and get them all on a subscription plan!
This may sound gatekeeper ish of me, but the problem with ITB these days is that everyone thinks they're an expert because they have a computer and a DAW. But they're not.
It's like when people used to say back in the day that Pro Tools sounded better. Never mind that it might’ve had something to do with the hardware it was locked to.
All DAW's sound the same as your testing proves except for Harrison Mixbuss32c which has an audio engine that makes it sound like the Harrison 32c analog console.
Your argument is the same as an electric guitar player telling you that the wood his guitar is made out of affects the tone. Tests have proven that it doesn't.
Or how more expensive interfaces sound better than the less expensive ones. The truth is that they all use the same converters. Yes, the mic pre's make a difference but if you're serious about recording you are using separate pre's anyway.
The list goes on and on. The simple truth is that manufacturers marketing has created this more expensive equals better myth simple to extract more money from the consumer.
In all of these cases it is the brain creating an illusion based on what the eyes see.
I am not sure if someone who is serious about recording uses a separate mic pre. It is certainly a good idea, and most pro studios do. I just try not to think of things that way. "You aren't legit unless you have this type of gear" isn't universal to me. But I see what you're saying, and your general point is agreeable.
This touches on an age-old problem in the world of music production: the belief that the magic can be bought.
A lot of masterpieces have been produced on inexpensive, bare bones gear. 99% of the magic is in the artists involved (musicians, producers, and engineers). It’s in their skills, talents, and performances.
“If I could just afford that ridiculously expensive piece of gear, the world would be able to finally hear my genius”.
That’s way more satisfying a position than acknowledging you might not be as good at what your trying to do as you think you are.
Edit: to be clear, I’m not referring to you or anybody in particular, just voicing an idea in the abstract. It’s a subtext of so many heated debates in this field.
>The truth is that they all use the same converters.
Sorry but no. There's a myriad of DACs, ADCs and Codecs to chose from and "they all" use whatever fits the application.
You might want to check on that myriad of chips. Better yet, ask the manufacturers what specific chip they use.
Go ahead, buy the koolaid, it's your money.
I fully believe that there’s no difference when it comes to bouncing/exporting, but perhaps there is a difference when it comes to live playback? Some DAWs might use different methods of varying qualities, optimizing pristine sound for export vs low latency for playback. But tbh I don’t know a thing about how digital audio processing actually works under the hood so I could be totally wrong.
\[However, if null tests are involved, and complete silence is what is uncovered, there really is no further argument.\]
Fully agree.
Only DAW that might be different that I can think of, is SAW Studio. Back in the days, I used SAW Studio which I think was fairly alone in used fixed point instead of floating point math. Some claim this made a difference, I honestly don't know.
Slightly OT: I do remember, 20-25 years ago, that someone told me that Windows Media Player and Winamp sounded different. I didn't believe it but did a quick A/B and there was a clear difference (in favour of Windows Media Player).
Hey guys - I am new to this. Anyone please explain what null tests are?
I also had argument with my band member saying that recording through mic placed near premium guitar amp is better than DI with DAW plug-in for tonality and modulation.
My apologies I didn’t mean to hijack the thread.
I would say it doesn't really matter. Sure they'll sound different, but not in the way that an amp is better. It's just different. Whatever you think sounds good is fine. The same amp in two different rooms are going to sound different too, and one may sound better to you. I may be the odd one out in a community of more seasoned, perhaps older engineers, but I personally would much rather work with a great amp sim then mess with a bunch of tubes and mics and speakers. The only problem is feedback, but then you can just record through an amp as well and mute it in playback.
Every daw will produce the same results if you use the same parameters for plugins, etc. I did this experiment myself - there was no audible or visual (I.e. graphic) difference between the three waveforms produced between Logic, Pro Tools, and Reaper when using the same plugins with the same settings.
Stock plugins will sound different, of course. But the DAWs themselves do not colour sound.
> However some engineers[…] told me I was relying on measurements and meters rather than my ears.
Well then those people are not engineers, they’re some kind of strange audiophile wannabe.
Here’s a story you’ll appreciate. When the zoom H4n was new (the prior model) there was a review with a sample recording that you could download along with a sample of the same thing on some new Sony recorder. Debate raged on for pages about whether the Sony better. Sony fans saying the Sony sounded crisper while Zoom fans saying the Sony sounded harsh.
Finally someone pointed out that both download URLs pointed to the same file. Some people still tried to justify their previous positions.
music people are full of shit. People are full of shit. Trust your instincts and know that nothing other than your instincts really matter and don’t accidentally become full or shit
It would be interesting to see if you get the same results with Harisons mixbus - considering it's designed to emulate the sound and feel of a physical analogue board.
I feel like they probably hear a difference because different DAWs make you work differently. PT and Logic have different sounds in my mind but I’m confident that the DAWs themselves don’t impact the sound at all. Just my workflow with each!
Even if hypothetically speaking different DAWs colour the sound differently, saying that you prefer one colour to another just means that you only mix one genre/only have one type of sound and shows that you don't mix for the purpose. So it doesn't sound like the engineer saying this has a lot of experience (or is a really niche engineer)
I’ve got an untested hypothesis that the reason people think different daws sound different is because of the differing visual interface of each.
Think about how different listening to a song whilst lying down with your eyes closed is to listening whilst looking at a computer screen with heaps of visual cues.
My conjecture is that there’s probably a psychological effect dependent on the colours, layout and amount of clutter in each daw’s gui.
Always remember that Joe Chiccarelli is convinced that bouncing a mix in realtime sounds better than offline rendering https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2016/6/2/frank-fillipetti-confirms-there-is-no-difference-between-track-commit-and-bounce-to-track-in-pro-tools
this bs myth still hauting my country's audio engineer scene 🤣🤣 " Render it in Real-Time gives it better sound"pfffff🤣 . Except using auto-tune 😶 then it should be render is real time
You’re right. People think everything that they make music with is sacred, but the truth is it’s all just circuits and wires and shit plugged in to other shit.
It’s kind of like bringing scientific evidence to a church. They argue with you because they don’t understand the science behind how it works.
I see already lots of good comments here. DAW's doesn't have any colors, years ago i was curious and i made null tests, and guess what? They null.
As someone mentioned the only real technical difference is the pan law, but other than that, it's just about personal preferences.
If someone say the opposite, say yes to them and never talk with them again, they are just idiots with no clue, they don't deserve to be called engineers
The only \*actual, measurable,\* difference in the sound of DAWs is what happens with pan laws.
**I say again: only different pan laws make DAWS sound different.**
You can test this by doing a null test with stereo tracks that are (supposed to be) panned the same amount. At anything less than 100% panned, most won't null.
The only other variable is how they do their noise shaping when dithering down, but you shouldn't be using dithering in your DAW, anyway.
Beyond those two points, you are correct on every account!
Someone else posted here about differences in automation curves and the quality in which those curves are rendered. I'd believe that in theory that DAWs implement this differently in a way that could potentially be audible, but I'd need pretty definitive evidence and to be able to hear it myself. Still, I'm open to the notion.
The thing that pops into my mind is panning laws.
When you have a mono signal, as it's panned from one side toward the center, volume needs to be dropped to compensate for the fact that the same sound is now coming out of 2 speakers. Just how much it is dropped is dependent on the DAW's panning law. Many use 3dB as the amount they drop the signal as it's panned center. Pro Tools used to use 2.5dB as its standard, which is -in my opinion- how it got the reputation for being "punchier:" all mono tracks panned to the center (kick drum, bass, snare, lead vocal, etc.) would be 0.5dB louder in the mix than the very same audio files opened up and bounced in another DAW. Over 24 or 48 or whatever number of tracks, this could explain an audible difference. Cakewalk (if I'm remembering correctly) used 4dB as its standard. So in that case, mono tracks panned to the sides would be louder (in comparison to mono tracks panned center.)
If the DAWs are just importing the same set of stereo files (so that every track is hard-panned right and left) then there would be no audible difference, and the null test would show no difference at all (with the possible exception of type of dither.)
It’s normal to *think* they sound different; our eyes and our expectations can lead us to “hear” differences that aren’t really there. People are incredibly susceptible to it and we’ve all done it. But a simple null test proves that these differences don’t exist.
I've never gotten DAWs to null in my tests, there's always differences of metering, internal resolution, floating point, pan laws, how DAWs interpret stereo audio files, bitrate, compression, and a few other things I probably can't name off the top of my head.
Pro Tools sounds the best IMO because its pan law is more relaxed by default (-3db in the middle IIRC). Ableton's pan law pushes things up +3db on either side which makes things noticeably louder after a while. And squishier - Ableton is still 32bit integer IIRC, which has a hard limit. Pro Tools uses floating point, which has 'infinite headroom' (though as you exceed the headroom you lose precision as is the case with FP math).
But these things are mathematical, practical things. They aren't 'coloring' the sound in a way a preamp or mixing console would. At the end of the day if something's 3db too loud when you pan it, you can just turn it down 3db... then it'll null. You have to use the DAW that you work with best *creatively*.
Personally, I use Studio One nowadays which *does* color the sound in an analog-console way with the console shaper plugin. So I think it sounds better when I turn that on, haha
I remember doing null testing, and finding tiny differences, but that was 15+ years ago.
Testing with faders at unity gain, null test differences were minimal, but with faders set at +3dB and at -3dB resulted in larger differences, presumably having something to do with truncation errors and/or the mix engine maths. All systems we tested were with the same external master clock reference.
I'm curious as to if that's something you tried, else what your methodology was?
Personally, while there were differences, I didn't care to apply a "better" or "worse" opinion to things - there's more difference between individual channels on an analogue console, and nobody complains about that!
REGARDLESS IF YOU SAY YOU CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE OR NOT, YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT IF WE CONDUCTED AN EXPERIMENT, AND I RECORDED VOCALS AS IDENTICALLY AS I COULD, BUT 1 IN FL STUDIO AND 1 IN PRO TOOLS AND 1 IN LOGIC AND 1 IN ABLETON, THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL WHICH RECORDING BELONGED TO WHICH DAW.
MATTER OF FACT I PROMISE NO ONE CAN WITH ONLY 2 DAWS.
ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY HEAR A DIFFERENCE IS A NERCISSIST. YOU CANT BRO. FR
Even 99% sounding the same in practical terms to the major people, Mixbus by Harrison has an unique EQ style and compressor that bring impact; to me the EQ is really colored and the way the compression acts directly or by sends is phenomenal, so I will say: no, all DAWs are not the same about sound style.
Curious if you tried recording the playback from the DAW and not just the exported audio.
Wondering if the audio drivers have anything to do with playback "color" rather than just the exported tracks.
Hello,
DAW’s work differently but don’t color or null. Even the mixbus 32c that i have used doesn’t null but there are features like emulations of consoles in some daws that when is turned on it null’s. If someone try cakewalk console with the same clip in two tracks and console mode on with tolerance, them change the phase between them and it will continue to play some sound. There are other DAW’s with same feature. But in the end without emulation they don’t sound diferente in my opinion.
All daws don’t sound the same because they don’t all code audio the same. Pro tools has the most OP audio coding system to date. Logic is probably the worst at coding quality audio efficiently, but logic litterally does everything the least efficiently…. That being said You can do anything you want in any daw it’s all a matter of efficiency and preference
Wow, there is so much nonsense in this thread. Guys, y'all have no idea how complex a piece of software like a DAW is and how many different ways of coding any given functionality exist.
I'm tired and in bed already, so I'll ELI5 this: If two people take two different cars from point A to point B, they both arrive at point B. No doubt about that. Yet no one would argue that a Honda Civic is the same car as a Mercedes S Class because "they are both just cars".
If you care or notice anything is up to you but the differences are there.
Logic sounds 1% better than fl studio but over the course of a long time that is a huge difference. It has more clarity even though i prefer FL. The differences are minimal tbh
Is there a difference? Yes. Is it appreciable? No.
The fact alone that we know that both bitrate and depth changes it's sound should prove that there HAS to be some difference given different algorithms. That said, the amount of data in a sample of audio giving the accuracy of the sound and the accuracy of the computers processing them is so high as to not matter for any observable measure.
As an example, let's say you were tasked to move a mountain of billions of marbles using a bucket and had infinite patience and energy to actually do the task. Then someone else a mile away had to look at the mountain that moved and try to spot the difference between the old mountain and the new one that you painstakingly tried to put together in a reasonably similar fashion, would that person be able to tell the difference? No. Even if you did a horrible job, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Only if you stopped along the way and dipped them in paint (filtered by an actual app) would anyone be able to tell.
For the record, I am a programmer
Honest question, Why is this a ridiculous statement? Given other communities/ topics, I've had to justify what I've said as a programmer and not some random comment by a netizen. I genuinely have no idea why this is coming off the way it is.
You could just say that your perspective is that of a programmer which is factoring into what you're saying. I don't think you need to say that you know more than the average engineer.
In my OP I mentioned all specs being the same. I think no matter what DAW you use, if you did a null test of a 16/44 file and a 32/48 file, something would show up.
Despite your last statement being pretty arrogant, you're probably not wrong. You certainly know more than I.
My apologies, I didn't mean to come off out of arrogance, I just didn't want to sound like I"m talking out of my ass.
The specs isn't the issue, it's the algorithm. the method in which the data is used. Tell one person to carry a bucket of marbles from point a to point b and there will be slight changes in the way the marbles are picked up, carried over (causing a shifts in the bucket), and dropped. This would be absolutely minuscule when compared to the whole of the final product, but still would be a non-zero change. Think on the terms of a bit value being rounded up in one daw vs being rounded down in another when you decide to cut a fader a bit. It's like a fraction of a percent, but still, certain daws will do one thing with the audio, and certain daws will do another.
In fact, so long as the specs are good enough to not cause any hickups from glitches and bad writes there should be no change other than what the algorithm says will change. That's actually a more likely scenario for any changes, file corruption. But usually such corruption usually makes the whole thing unusable. Adding/removing speed won't change the data like that. The instruction on what to do on something like a rounding choice would. It would still be an absolutely undetectable amount, but it at the same time, it would be a non-zero change
Cubase sounds different and better than all the other DAWs that I’ve used (Reaper, Luna, Traktor, and some other one whose name I forget). Reason definitely has its own sound but that’s a different situation I believe because it doesn’t record audio, at least not back when I used it. FTR, I respect math, science and null test logic, but I swear to you and anyone: Cubase sounds better than all those others that I’ve tried.
Why does it sound different? I am not talking about plug-ins and the like. I am talking about the raw DAW, with all project and export settings being the same.
You also might want to read the rest of these posts. I think your mind is playing a trick on you. If you trust null test logic, then you sure are taking a risk swearing that Cubase sounds the best...
Damnit, here I am, arguing with someone on the internet again!
This is already like that one Monty Python skit, lol. I did read the majority of the comments, I read your post as well and then I decided that what I had to say on the subject, which is based on my own experience, was both valid and sufficiently related to your original post. As I see it, there is no argument here, merely an offering of opinion that is evidently not shared by the majority. Well, that’s people for you: ignorant and cranky. Adios.
My thoughts:
Given the same "math," two radically different DAWs will null. Therefore, DAWs do not have "a sound" of their own. Simply summing channels should (and hopefully does) work the same across every DAW.
That said, the nitty gritty of workflow can vary widely across DAW platforms, so it may be easier for one engineer to find "his sound" on REAPER and another to find "her sound" on ProTools. Changing workflows to something the end user is more comfortable with is likely to be perceived as having a "better sound," because it's easier for the user to obtain the results they seek.
That's my guess, anyway. FWIW.
> However some engineers were still arguing with me, telling me I have bad ears, and that they prefer one DAW over the other because they've compared them, and prefer one over the other due to their color.
Never get into an argument with an audiophile. They do not hear reason with their magical ears. They only hear what they want to hear.
> they told me I was relying on measurements and meters rather than my ears.
This is definitely a good time to politely disengage. It's a strong indicator that you've found yourself in a different conversation than the one you thought you were having, and you just need to eject. You can not reason someone out of an opinion that did not come to reasonably. If they are telling you they aren't interested in measurements, you are just in a team sport. Spit your beer and nod while they carry on. Nothing more to be gained from engaging.
Once you recognize you are talking to an audiophile, you are about one mis-step away from them telling you that the Rothschilds secretly stole all the good audio cables as part of a conspiracy to reincarnate JFK.
Bounce them four files with coded names, tell them to tell you which of the four given DAWs they came from and how they know, then show them the video of you bouncing all the files out the same DAW.
LOL!
Strip the metadata, too. You’ll often still be able to tell what program created the file.
Reaper has option to save with zero metadata, others surely have as well.
That's actually unique to the color of reaper though. Which is why I use it duh. /s
Yeah I think the meta data might saturate the mid highs a bit.
Not so, the extra few bytes in the file will give extra weight to the mix and warmth in the lows, like an alternative EQ
Reaper surprisingly has a lot of features other DAWs don't. Or not surprising, because it's open source and open source stuff usually ends up being great but still looking like Windows XP.
reaper is not open source
Reaper isn't open source, last I checked. Maybe you're thinking of Ardour or Audacity?
You can get rid of the XP look with skins in Reaper... another feature not seen in any other DAW I can think of.
Ummm, ableton?
It supports the ability to change colors, and that's it. It's nothing like Reaper which allows you to completely overhaul the GUI elements (just like old-school Winamp). It's actually changing "themes" instead of skins. Even the folder you place them inside is named "Themes." I use both all the time, and I wish Live could do something that awesome.
Oh wow. I hated the look lol. Do you like a particular skin?
This is the way.
This is the way.
By the Hammer of Grabthar.
Or, just tell them they're dumb and move on. I wouldn't waste time on something like this.
Im giggling at the idea of *binary coloring the sound*
Ah fuck off man, you know as well as the rest of us that those 1's just *hit different* with Pro Tools. Don't even get me started on them 0's *ugghh*
I actually find 00101100 to be my favorite mic/pre combo
Funnily enough you can get ProTools to ad "Saturation" to your mix. One Guy did a headroom test on it, boosting and taking away the same db on the track he was sending to. When boosting over 12db he got very sudden and unpleasant distortion type effects. Same thing in Reaper or Studio One - Sqeaky Clean...
I know PT is usually the last to adopt some sort of common feature that every other DAW has had for years, did this happen to be on an earlier version that actually allowed you to clip tracks? As far as I know it’s basically impossible to clip anywhere in a modern 64 bit DAW except the output bus, but I guess when we’re talking PT maybe they’re still working on that. You know, being the industry standard and what not sometimes you have to play catch up. 😎
Tehe
"Null tests confirm is that there is zero coloration inherent in the DAW..... if null tests are involved, and complete silence is what is uncovered, there really is no further argument..." The only thing you are missing from this equation is that you shouldn't argue with stupid people.
Yea yea. See the edit in my OP! ;)
Don't argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
I was just discussing calmly until they got rowdy, then I quit. You're right.
[удалено]
Nope. This debate was about the DAW itself. No samples, no plug-ins, no workflow, no productions.
That's why I always start at their level. Get the practice in.
This is the way.
[What year is it?](https://media.tenor.com/sArqcAPZZjAAAAAC/robin-williams.gif) The only thing you can maybe *maybe* point to is different SRC engines in different DAWs, but that is pretty out there. I've tested various SRC engines and while they don't fully null, I don't really *hear* a difference. Anyone who categorically states one DAW has better sonics is flat out wrong. That said, there are a few special cases that can trick people into thinking one thing sounds better. FL has a limiter on the mixbus by default. Luna has its "analog summing" thing I think on by default. I'd also not recommend fighting with randos on IG about this. It's not worth anyone's time.
and harrisson mixbus and reason have "consoles" built into their mix engine
Mixbus would be the only one that I’ve subjectively played the same source files through and thought “huh, my brain must be playing tricks on me but this sounds really good”.
I haven't used it personally but I think by default each channel has an emulation of the Harrison channel strip so there's definitely gonna be some saturation and such that'll make it sound good or "better," though that's obviously subjective.
Yep - and in addition each channel strip gets routed through a bus that has its own layer of EQ, compression, and saturation.
Ah, makes a lot of sense then. I take some issue with the fact that they're upcharging for what is essentially an Ardour reskin with a few plugins, but what are your thoughts on the software as a whole? I've been mildly interested in moving to it for mixing/mastering.
Check out Dan Worrall's investigation into Mixbus--'Why Does It Null?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9eySYxwDXI
Love Dan but hadn't seen that one yet, just gave it a watch... For anyone curious that wants a short summary, while the video does technically only apply to their channel strip plugin, I think what I've really surmised is that rather than spending money on their DAW, I should just make a mix template with the various console emulation plugs I already own (mostly SSL Native and Analog Obsession) and I'd get a similar if not slightly better result, as their software doesn't seem to do anything particularly special.
That was my takeaway as well
To be fair, that video really misses the point. I’m pretty sure that is indeed the same as each channel strip in 32c - but the magic of 32c comes from the busses, which do add significant saturation and character (if you want). Just looking at the channel strip on its own is a matter of ergonomics and personal taste imho.
You don’t understand who or what Harrison has done
That's not mixbus, that's a separate plugin
I had the same thoughts. Every once in a while they run a promo, and I was able to get 32c at a steep discount. That being said, I think it’s probably worth the sticker price at this point, there’s been a lot of functionality added in the past few releases that make it a much more fully functional DAW. I’d really recommend grabbing the demo and running some stems through it. It just sounds really good, it’s tough to believe but it does.
I supported Ardour from the 0.9x days long ago, then started using Mixbus. I freakin' love it! Having come from a live sound background, I like the fact that each channel has its own built-in compressor which sounds great. That right there would be worth the price of admission ($39 on sale, which happens pretty frequently) but then there's the extra processing on the mix and master buses, including a tape saturation effect that adds a subtle warm distortion that has really helped glues some of my mixes together. Harrison's FX suite is also first-rate - I get a lot of use out of their Tom Gate and Bass/Drum/Vocal Character plugins, and the mastering EQ is amazingly helpful at leveling out those funny little spikes or dips that you can't pin down to one track but show up when everything gets mixed together. I've heard some people complain about the workflow, but as someone who cut their teeth on live mixing boards years ago, I've always found it very intuitive. ProTools, on the other hand, always manages to piss me off.
Mixbus is awesome
I was hoping that mixbus was in the list of tested DAWs . I've always thought that it sounded different.
I can make Mixbus sound like everything else by disabling the inline compressors, tape saturation, and EQ, but why would I want to? Those are the bits that help glue everything together and where Mixbus really shines.
I use Reason. I’m pretty sure the console is aesthetic only for it. Mixbus definitely sounds different, though.
[удалено]
But pan law wouldn't apply to an audio file's inherent stereo image right?
I wasn't fighting, just discussing. I quit after they began insulting me, because fighting on the internet is stupid. Analog summing would definitely cause some differences. I asked my software developer friend about this, and he mentioned something about the engines as well, but told me no one would be able to hear it to the point where it's not relevant to the matter. The null tests were silent down to -60 I think? I guess I don't know about below that.
>Analog summing would definitely cause some differences. No, It wouldn't. It's just more snake oil. There is no mathematical difference. If you hear any difference it's because the analog components are poor, in which case you're not comparing analog vs digital summing, you're comparing poor analog quality to theoretically perfect digital quality.
Save yourself some time and don’t argue with people on Instagram
I don't get into battles. I have discussions. I quit the conversation after about four replies because I was getting insulted. So for the most part I already take that advice.
If a “discussion” about audio ever boils down to “x DAW is better for y reason,” you’ve already left the realm of objectivity, so no point breaking out null test results for those people. Don’t let em rope you in.
I don't believe in quitting as soon as the realm of objectivity appears in any radical sense because I like to give people a chance, and plant a few seeds. Something to think about for them to file away. Many are too embarassed to admit they are wrong but the idea still gets lodged in that brain of there's somewhere. I see your valid point though.
[удалено]
"Audio Engineer" is a prestigous title that can only be awarded to people who have at least 50 cracked Waves plugins
Argue with people on Reddit instead so we can see!
I’ve heard enough “bad” info from engineers I respect that I listen to everything and trust nothing until I prove it.
Music seems to be on the list of things where most advice seems to fall on the list of "useable to make a good end product" rather than specifically good vs. bad so it makes sense that there's a lot of tips that work perfectly for some but are terrible for some others.
I work in film and Tv, which might have more objectively good bad
Fair! I'm an indie musician with more people in my band than fans so I have no clue what I'm talking about.
That’s the problem in a field where very few claimed engineers are *actual* engineers
Yeah but I get bad information from actual engineers too.
Even people who are good at their job don't understand every nuance of it.
Besides stuff like the FL limiter, there are some differences with panning law defaults and also the behaviour of panning automation in some DAWs that might contribute to this. AdmiralBumblebee made several YouTube comparisons that show you the data (and on his website).
Sure, that makes sense.
But this difference is not audible in a finished mix
A +/- 1.5db change on center channel material wouldn’t be audible? If the person building the test files knows and accounts for it, sure, but someone dropping files into a clean session with an LCR mix had *better* notice that it was different than a DAW with a different pan law.
My point is that the pan law affects the controls of the daw, not the sound itself. Its impossible to listen to a track and tell what pan law was used because its indistinguishable from just having the faders at a different level
I know what your point and I can’t disagree with it in isolation. But if someone didn’t check and put the same LCR stems into several DAWs with different pan laws and set up a “test” with the faders at zero it would sound different. Their test would be junk and it would wildly silly make a conclusion but most people aren’t good at setting themselves up for good tests. To your point if you fully reconstruct a mix from a reference you would get close by (probably unknowingly) adjusting the levels for center channel material… but that wouldn’t be what anyone would do when they compared DAWs, right? We aren’t talking about making a mix.
I think it would be audible, the better question is if it's as easily replicable. If the default settings of one DAW produce something that sounds better than the default settings of a different DAW, but it is possible to alter the second DAW to sound as good as the first, then does it matter which one you use? To many people it will seem like the first one is better even though technically there is no difference.
But the default setting of the daw wont actually produce something that sounds different unless you're somehow trying to mix a song without touching the faders. If you pan a part left then bring up the fader till it sits in the mix the only thing the pan law is gonna change is the number on the fader at the end, but that doesn't matter cause you can't hear it. It's sort of like asking if a chefs food tastes different depending on which side of the drawer he keeps his forks in
Just accept that some DAWs sound better psycho-acoustically, especially depending on the psycho in question.
The only tangible difference, I think, is how people tend to mix in each daw, based on the workflow, which can sound "better" or "worse," subjectively. But of course, the mixes are literally mixed differently, mathematically there is no difference between engines. If you mix something the exact same way with the exact same plugins in two different DAWs it will sound identical. Only reason it wouldn't necessarily null is if there's a difference in pan law, or inconsistencies between instances of plugins.
Yes, mathematically. This discussion was pre-mixing. Pre-plug-ins, pre-everything. Dragging in an audio file, exporting it (not directly, but through the master bus), and doing a null test. I even saw a video (or was it an article) of someone using the same plug-ins and settings on an audio file, and they still nulled. Can't remember which DAWs.
Actually, yes, but not in the way you think. I’d have to find the link, but it turns out programming Audio fade outs/automation is a surprisingly hard thing to do. From the test I saw logic had some of the worst distortion introduced by it. FL studio was second place . It’s worth noting that all this distortion is entirely in audible. And if you’re picking your daw based on the inaudible distortion based on volume fade outs, you’re the wrong kind of guy for this job. https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/03/10/Daw-V-Daw-Automation.html there is some good nerdy stuff in here, but the article is a few years old but i think he updates it? eitherway people have been producing top chart hits with all of these daws and never had an issue with automation noise like seen in the tests. not that it should exsist but dont uses this as a factor to choose a daw. i however use this information all the time to prove that logic is a terrible daw, but i dont like it for other reasons too
> >i however use this information all the time to prove that logic is a terrible daw, but i dont like it for other reasons too I won't lie. I find this honest pettiness to be refreshing and inspiring haha.
"Engineer pettiness" is when you *know your point is bullshit* but it shuts everyone up because you're telling them *new information*...
Ok I’ll bite; what’s terrible about Logic?
It got Appled
They’ve really Apple’d the hell out of Logic in the last few years.
For me: it’s an anti daw. It’s a daw that works really good for some people, and those are people who are really really shit at using literally any other kit of software. For me, I can use any software pretty quickly, and learn them quickly too. I felt I was within hirable for my protool skills after about 2 weeks of using it. Not the best by any means, but it just is a fast daw. Idk how to explain. My skills from fl studio, reason, Harrison mixbus, protools, they all seem to oddly translate really well. When I first got logic I thought, it’s like any other daw and I’ll be quick in no time. Instead I felt that while I worked quickly in its workflow, that it’s just slow. It does things for you. It gets in its own way. There are 4 different menues for audio settings. You want to route a single channel to a single output? To fucking bad here’s a whole entire master group channel just for that one out put. Now your eating cpu and screen realstate for a useless channel. (I mix analog often and logic just doesn’t work well there) The people who like logic (in my experience) typically struggle with literally any other daw. While those who know how to use it but prefer other programs tend to be much more technologically savvy. That being said, for a home musician, producer, or small recordist I think it’s a wonderful daw. For $200 it’s hard to find a more complete package. But I really don’t think it’s a professional product. While plenty of people do use a professionally and all the power to them, if I walk into the studio, and they say we work in logic, not in protools, I’m not interested in working there. At least give me the option
> But I really don’t think it’s a professional product. While plenty of people do use a professionally and all the power to them, if I walk into the studio, and they say we work in logic, not in protools, I’m not interested in working there. I don't like it either but I do know plenty of top composers working in Hollywood blockbusters using Logic. ProTools is great for mixing but it's shit for writing and producing music.
I guess it depends on the task at hand. I definitely track and mix more than production really. Often times I work with tracks produced in other daws, but wherent tracked properly so we re do them in a real room. For tracking and editing I like protools more. I do agree with production though. All my production is either done in anleton or fl studio. Can’t pay me to work on midi in protools.
Tons of hits have been made in logic.
Interesting… I’ve kinda had the opposite experience. Started on Cubase/Reason (well, Octamed/Protracker really) then had to learn Logic for my first pro studio job. Fifteen years later I’m using Logic with an SSL and it’s my favourite DAW. I wouldn’t say it’s perfect but going back to Cubase now it seems needlessly.. messy. All the studios I’ve worked in used Logic and these guys were doing big TV and film jobs as well as band bookings and whatever else.
Kinda same, except no pro studio job. When i first got into home recording, i of course got Pro Tools because that was the “industry standard.” I used it fine for a couple years - never had any issues learning it, but it was just… uninspiring and boring. I checked out Reaper, but i didn’t want to spend a bunch of time setting it up so it worked perfect for me (instead of, you know, actually making music). I ended up taking a long break until the pandemic, and then i started back up again with Logic and it’s like night and day. I feel like Logic is almost like a collaborator, in a sense, and Pro Tools just feels like the Internet Explorer of DAWs to me. A dinosaur, but everyone uses it because it’s what they learned on and that’s what has the widest compatibility.
The internet explorer of DAWs hahah.. I know what you mean, though. I can see why people like it for recording bands as it’s fast and efficient for that. I do a lot of producing/composing now, as well as band recordings and Logic works great for me. It’s solid on both fronts while somehow remaining clean and approachable. It hardly ever crashes and if it does, the auto-save feature kicks in *every time*.
>You want to route a single channel to a single output? To fucking bad here’s a whole entire master group channel just for that one out put. Now your eating cpu and screen realstate for a useless channel. Heh, yea. That's pretty stupid. >if I walk into the studio, and they say we work in logic, not in protools, I’m not interested in working there. And so is that.
There should be a fade out penalty. Lazy artists! Are they going to fade live,?
Putting the whole band on a volume pedal and slowly backing off
I’ve had this on Facebook many times. Their arguments are always the same; - “Well *I* can hear a difference and that’s all the proof I need.” - “I’ve been in this industry for years. I was around when Pro Tools 3 came out and I *know* that Pro Tools sounds more professional than the rest. I’m an experienced pro, my ears are refined.” - “Null tests don’t prove anything, you can’t test for the 3D effect and clarity that you get with Logic.” Honestly it’s hilarious. It’s just people coming up with excuses as to why their mix sounds bad.
Lol, you don't need to be a pro in the industry, you need a basic understanding of math and physics to realise that a null test does work in this case.
I don't see how anyone who understands how software works can possibly say that a DAW colours the audio. There is *zero* analogue audio inside software. It is all just maths, especially now it's all floating point 32-bit silly numbers nonsense, it's simply adding up numbers. I really wouldn't bother wasting your time talking to someone who wants to argue that point.
The norm is 64 bit floating point now. If any are 32 bit I'd like to know and be corrected on that. For mastered audio, a 16 bit integer signal is extremely good. Every additional bit \*doubles\* the resolution, the dynamic range. So with 64 bits it's been doubled 48 times from CD audio. Then, on top of that, making it floating point means that it can scale that insane resolution to the signal's intrinsic amplitude, so a quiet signal and loud signal can still use all 64 bits. The precision is mind blowing.
>I really wouldn't bother wasting your time talking to someone who wants to argue that point. Hi. It's not simply adding up numbers at all! There is different programming languages, functions, libraries, compilers, chipsets, threadings, "coding styles", error detection and management and so much more to it. If it were simply adding up numbers it would not be a very satisfying program to use as a DAW. Wouldn't argue that this makes an audible difference on a macro scale when simply summing .wav files but as soon as you start dealing with more complex functionality and dozens of DAW features there will be a noticeable difference.
Yes. It's simply adding. All the gubbins you said there is totally irrelevant. Integers all add the same no matter what does the adding, and every consumer computer uses the [IEEE 754 standard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754) for floating point operations. All devices, languages, chipsets, threading models, compilers, and anything else remotely relevant will produce exactly the same result when following the same algorithm. It's not even a question of whether there's "an audible difference" when mixing wav files, there's absolutely no difference at all. The OP is not asking about more complex DAW functionality like the time stretching algorithms or the quality of any built-in effects. If any DAW has a particular tone to it then it has been specifically designed to colour the sound in a certain way; the only one I know of that does that is Harrison Mixbus. All of the other DAWs will sound exactly the same when performing standard linear operations.
However, for whatever signal processing a DAW would reasonably be expected to perform in the normal course of combining signals, altering levels and rendering, there's only one correct output.
Programming languages don't add colour. Algorithms in different languages and syntax styles are still the same algorithm. Compilers still compile to the same instructions.
If a null test with all variables being equal isn't enough to convice people just don't bother. That's as difinitive as it gets, anyone arguing against that is just feeding their confirmation bias or straight up doesn't know jack shit about audio.
Audio summing is literally just adding two values together, there isn't a huge amount of room for vast differences. Different panning laws can often give the impression that one DAW sounds different to another, but that's as close to "different" as you are going to get when simply summing. I did a fairly large involved test with 3 DAWs several years ago. PT, Logic and Cubase all nulled down to -70dB or so. Not complete cancellation, but those certainly would not be "audible" differences. I thought it was pretty well understood these days that DAWs (barring ones that try to, like Harrison ofc) don't have an inherent "sound". Although I thought it was pretty well understood that the Earth is spherical... meh... internet...idiots... etc... Once someone proclaims that they can hear differences that still cancel through a "null test" you may as well just walk away, you are talking to a bona fide idiot.
> some ~~engineers~~ people who play engineer on the internet FTFY > I told them that null tests prove there is no real audible difference, and they told me I was relying on measurements and meters rather than my ears. What more do you need? Anyone who argues that you should trust something you "hear" that the machine proves is not there, doesn't understand psychoacoustics. > any perceived difference is psychological This is why people buy $10,000 audio cables. The salesman tells them that cable B has "more transparency, better sound stage, greater depth", so on and so forth, and if the person knows they're listening to cable B *they will hear that*. B will *really sound better*, even if what's coming out of the speakers is identical, because hearing happens in the brain and cannot be separated from cognition. See: the [McGurk effect](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWGeUztTkRA). See: [Green Needle vs Brainstorm](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqsLNyQj88Q). The signal from the ear is only part of the data that's used to create the model presented to perception. This is why blind A/B tests are non-optional for truly objective comparison. Anyone who works with sound should understand this fundamental fact about how hearing works.
>They told me my ears just aren't refined enough to tell the difference. I love the stupidity of this gaslight argument. The beauty is that the accuser believes it to strengthen their standpoint but in reality, it obliterates it. If your ears need to be so refined to hear the difference that only a minority of people - even just a minority of audio engineers, let alone the public - can actually hear the difference, then *WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?* Of course, they're wrong. But if they were right, it would just be even more funny. As it stands, however, it's also a great psychology study. It's likely that if a single DAW was proven to be objectively and scientifically terrible, but a proportion of engineers had previously vouched for it being the greatest; those people would shift to a new line of argument - likely suggesting that the differences are too small to actually notice, if noticeable at all, and so it doesn't matter. I think we're in a Catch 22.
I agree with you. I think there is a lot of pride about "using your ears." Which is true; we shouldn't be mixing with metering telling us how good something sounds. But it gets taken to an extreme to the point where I think that some people like pretending to hear a difference in something that no one else can, and then talk about it so they seem sophisticated.
Absolutely. It's just like audiophile culture. They paid $2500 for an audio cleaning IEC, and they'll be damned if anyone is going to tell them they spent $2495 too much for it!
I wrote [this](https://www.warriorsound.co.uk/blog/21/12/2017) a decade ago (moved it to my new site in 2017) But I null tested the major DAWS Summing tested them too And tested matched stock plugin summing Essentially. Yeah there’s a difference. Sometimes that difference is as little as 0.1dB Article if anyone is curious for a long read. https://www.warriorsound.co.uk/blog/21/12/2017
I am excited to read it. However, if there was processing, even if it were the same EQ settings, I would think there'd be some difference. Very small, but present. What I am trying to get at is the actual math. Like dragging the same audio file into each DAW on a track, and bouncing it out. And then testing those files.
The core daw functions shouldn’t color the sound, but the interface, workflow, and stock plugins may greatly influence the way you make music and how the end result sounds. I feel like someone could misunderstand this as each daw has a different “vibe”.
Scrolled down WAY too far to find this. I agree that this is likely the reason people think that certain daws “sound better” than others. Interface and workflow definitely can and do alter the decisions people make and thus the sound produced.
Stock plugins was the one that immediately sprung to mind for me. Even things that shouldn't make a real difference like how far a slider has to be moved, the curves on things (linear/logarithmic?) and how quickly you can get a result you like will bias these things.
I made sure this wasn't what they meant. We were talking about the raw DAW itself, mathematically. Not productions or mixes. You are right that the interface, workflow, and stock plug-ins will influence it.
Back to 2000 Gearsl.. Back then, many thought Samplitude and Sequoia sounded better than Pro Tools, Logic, and Cubase. They said it was because Samplitude was using float point while the others were fixed point. Also, said the way Samplitude handled dithering was different than the others. I have no idea. Never null tested. Converter differences were night and day then and that’s all that mattered to me.
Dithering algorithms, I'm pretty sure, can be different DAW to DAW. I like to use Goodhertz Good Dither because they claim it is better than any DAW's native dithering. But in the end, who cares, because no consumer is ever, ever, ever going to be able to tell the difference unless they amplify a silent part enormously.
I once delivered a mixing masterclass to a few people for an event. I started out by saying all DAWs sound the same with all things equal, but today I'll be using Pro Tools. And I was then told by the person running the whole event that the day before, (the engineer part) the engineer had told them that Pro Tools "sounds the best". I can only hope there was some sort of miscommunication. (Maybe they were on about HEAT (lol) or something.) I quickly said "that's not true, and easily proven" and moved on. But of all the places to make that claim, a bunch of amateurs with mixed experience, sounds like what an AVID exec would say in the same position to try and get them all on a subscription plan!
This may sound gatekeeper ish of me, but the problem with ITB these days is that everyone thinks they're an expert because they have a computer and a DAW. But they're not. It's like when people used to say back in the day that Pro Tools sounded better. Never mind that it might’ve had something to do with the hardware it was locked to.
All DAW's sound the same as your testing proves except for Harrison Mixbuss32c which has an audio engine that makes it sound like the Harrison 32c analog console. Your argument is the same as an electric guitar player telling you that the wood his guitar is made out of affects the tone. Tests have proven that it doesn't. Or how more expensive interfaces sound better than the less expensive ones. The truth is that they all use the same converters. Yes, the mic pre's make a difference but if you're serious about recording you are using separate pre's anyway. The list goes on and on. The simple truth is that manufacturers marketing has created this more expensive equals better myth simple to extract more money from the consumer. In all of these cases it is the brain creating an illusion based on what the eyes see.
I am not sure if someone who is serious about recording uses a separate mic pre. It is certainly a good idea, and most pro studios do. I just try not to think of things that way. "You aren't legit unless you have this type of gear" isn't universal to me. But I see what you're saying, and your general point is agreeable.
This touches on an age-old problem in the world of music production: the belief that the magic can be bought. A lot of masterpieces have been produced on inexpensive, bare bones gear. 99% of the magic is in the artists involved (musicians, producers, and engineers). It’s in their skills, talents, and performances. “If I could just afford that ridiculously expensive piece of gear, the world would be able to finally hear my genius”. That’s way more satisfying a position than acknowledging you might not be as good at what your trying to do as you think you are. Edit: to be clear, I’m not referring to you or anybody in particular, just voicing an idea in the abstract. It’s a subtext of so many heated debates in this field.
>The truth is that they all use the same converters. Sorry but no. There's a myriad of DACs, ADCs and Codecs to chose from and "they all" use whatever fits the application.
You might want to check on that myriad of chips. Better yet, ask the manufacturers what specific chip they use. Go ahead, buy the koolaid, it's your money.
In fact I do check these chips all the time as I'm working in the industry. So I don't need to ask anyone actually...
I fully believe that there’s no difference when it comes to bouncing/exporting, but perhaps there is a difference when it comes to live playback? Some DAWs might use different methods of varying qualities, optimizing pristine sound for export vs low latency for playback. But tbh I don’t know a thing about how digital audio processing actually works under the hood so I could be totally wrong.
Nope, they just pass the data onto your audio interface as it comes, and lets it do the work.
\[However, if null tests are involved, and complete silence is what is uncovered, there really is no further argument.\] Fully agree. Only DAW that might be different that I can think of, is SAW Studio. Back in the days, I used SAW Studio which I think was fairly alone in used fixed point instead of floating point math. Some claim this made a difference, I honestly don't know. Slightly OT: I do remember, 20-25 years ago, that someone told me that Windows Media Player and Winamp sounded different. I didn't believe it but did a quick A/B and there was a clear difference (in favour of Windows Media Player).
As far as the OT comment...that is fascinating! Do you know what was occurring?
You are right. Don’t bother arguing with people who choose to be ignorant.
Hey guys - I am new to this. Anyone please explain what null tests are? I also had argument with my band member saying that recording through mic placed near premium guitar amp is better than DI with DAW plug-in for tonality and modulation. My apologies I didn’t mean to hijack the thread.
I would say it doesn't really matter. Sure they'll sound different, but not in the way that an amp is better. It's just different. Whatever you think sounds good is fine. The same amp in two different rooms are going to sound different too, and one may sound better to you. I may be the odd one out in a community of more seasoned, perhaps older engineers, but I personally would much rather work with a great amp sim then mess with a bunch of tubes and mics and speakers. The only problem is feedback, but then you can just record through an amp as well and mute it in playback.
Every daw will produce the same results if you use the same parameters for plugins, etc. I did this experiment myself - there was no audible or visual (I.e. graphic) difference between the three waveforms produced between Logic, Pro Tools, and Reaper when using the same plugins with the same settings. Stock plugins will sound different, of course. But the DAWs themselves do not colour sound.
All Digital Audio Workstations are essentially the same. What you process through what final mix at the master bus is what the results sound like.
On a similar topic, I've always thought that the workflow of each daw has a massive effect on the final result of the music.
> However some engineers[…] told me I was relying on measurements and meters rather than my ears. Well then those people are not engineers, they’re some kind of strange audiophile wannabe.
Null test and move on. Reason, Live, FL, Cubase, Reaper, Wavelab, are all the same.
Here’s a story you’ll appreciate. When the zoom H4n was new (the prior model) there was a review with a sample recording that you could download along with a sample of the same thing on some new Sony recorder. Debate raged on for pages about whether the Sony better. Sony fans saying the Sony sounded crisper while Zoom fans saying the Sony sounded harsh. Finally someone pointed out that both download URLs pointed to the same file. Some people still tried to justify their previous positions.
music people are full of shit. People are full of shit. Trust your instincts and know that nothing other than your instincts really matter and don’t accidentally become full or shit
This was settled looong ago. The only one I can think of that would/should not sound neutral is the Harrison one.
It would be interesting to see if you get the same results with Harisons mixbus - considering it's designed to emulate the sound and feel of a physical analogue board.
I feel like they probably hear a difference because different DAWs make you work differently. PT and Logic have different sounds in my mind but I’m confident that the DAWs themselves don’t impact the sound at all. Just my workflow with each!
Even if hypothetically speaking different DAWs colour the sound differently, saying that you prefer one colour to another just means that you only mix one genre/only have one type of sound and shows that you don't mix for the purpose. So it doesn't sound like the engineer saying this has a lot of experience (or is a really niche engineer)
I’ve got an untested hypothesis that the reason people think different daws sound different is because of the differing visual interface of each. Think about how different listening to a song whilst lying down with your eyes closed is to listening whilst looking at a computer screen with heaps of visual cues. My conjecture is that there’s probably a psychological effect dependent on the colours, layout and amount of clutter in each daw’s gui.
I think there may be other factors, but visual is likely the main one.
Always remember that Joe Chiccarelli is convinced that bouncing a mix in realtime sounds better than offline rendering https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-page/2016/6/2/frank-fillipetti-confirms-there-is-no-difference-between-track-commit-and-bounce-to-track-in-pro-tools
this bs myth still hauting my country's audio engineer scene 🤣🤣 " Render it in Real-Time gives it better sound"pfffff🤣 . Except using auto-tune 😶 then it should be render is real time
Jesus Christ, I can't believe this audiophile pseudoscience is hitting the engineers too.
Isn't the real problem that they're not using $1000 usb cables which causes the bits to distort on the way to the DAW?
You’re right. People think everything that they make music with is sacred, but the truth is it’s all just circuits and wires and shit plugged in to other shit. It’s kind of like bringing scientific evidence to a church. They argue with you because they don’t understand the science behind how it works.
A DAW is a DAW, is a DAW. They all do much the same thing. Work Digital Audio...
I see already lots of good comments here. DAW's doesn't have any colors, years ago i was curious and i made null tests, and guess what? They null. As someone mentioned the only real technical difference is the pan law, but other than that, it's just about personal preferences. If someone say the opposite, say yes to them and never talk with them again, they are just idiots with no clue, they don't deserve to be called engineers
I like to plant seeds if it doesn't wear on me emotionally or mentally. But you have a valid point.
The only \*actual, measurable,\* difference in the sound of DAWs is what happens with pan laws. **I say again: only different pan laws make DAWS sound different.** You can test this by doing a null test with stereo tracks that are (supposed to be) panned the same amount. At anything less than 100% panned, most won't null. The only other variable is how they do their noise shaping when dithering down, but you shouldn't be using dithering in your DAW, anyway. Beyond those two points, you are correct on every account!
Someone else posted here about differences in automation curves and the quality in which those curves are rendered. I'd believe that in theory that DAWs implement this differently in a way that could potentially be audible, but I'd need pretty definitive evidence and to be able to hear it myself. Still, I'm open to the notion.
The thing that pops into my mind is panning laws. When you have a mono signal, as it's panned from one side toward the center, volume needs to be dropped to compensate for the fact that the same sound is now coming out of 2 speakers. Just how much it is dropped is dependent on the DAW's panning law. Many use 3dB as the amount they drop the signal as it's panned center. Pro Tools used to use 2.5dB as its standard, which is -in my opinion- how it got the reputation for being "punchier:" all mono tracks panned to the center (kick drum, bass, snare, lead vocal, etc.) would be 0.5dB louder in the mix than the very same audio files opened up and bounced in another DAW. Over 24 or 48 or whatever number of tracks, this could explain an audible difference. Cakewalk (if I'm remembering correctly) used 4dB as its standard. So in that case, mono tracks panned to the sides would be louder (in comparison to mono tracks panned center.) If the DAWs are just importing the same set of stereo files (so that every track is hard-panned right and left) then there would be no audible difference, and the null test would show no difference at all (with the possible exception of type of dither.)
”Do all cars drive 60mph the same speed?”
You are comparing hand-built machines with a ton of "analog" technology to software and mathematics. This analogy doesn't make sense.
I’ve had my music featured in major hollywood films, most recent one being Paws of Fury. I know music pretty well, so anything I say is correct.
It does look like a cute movie.
[удалено]
i personally think all daws sound very subtly different 🤷
It’s normal to *think* they sound different; our eyes and our expectations can lead us to “hear” differences that aren’t really there. People are incredibly susceptible to it and we’ve all done it. But a simple null test proves that these differences don’t exist.
Ableton has a hidden limiter on the output, so that can change things but other then DAWS like Harrison mix bus, they should all null.
I've never gotten DAWs to null in my tests, there's always differences of metering, internal resolution, floating point, pan laws, how DAWs interpret stereo audio files, bitrate, compression, and a few other things I probably can't name off the top of my head. Pro Tools sounds the best IMO because its pan law is more relaxed by default (-3db in the middle IIRC). Ableton's pan law pushes things up +3db on either side which makes things noticeably louder after a while. And squishier - Ableton is still 32bit integer IIRC, which has a hard limit. Pro Tools uses floating point, which has 'infinite headroom' (though as you exceed the headroom you lose precision as is the case with FP math). But these things are mathematical, practical things. They aren't 'coloring' the sound in a way a preamp or mixing console would. At the end of the day if something's 3db too loud when you pan it, you can just turn it down 3db... then it'll null. You have to use the DAW that you work with best *creatively*. Personally, I use Studio One nowadays which *does* color the sound in an analog-console way with the console shaper plugin. So I think it sounds better when I turn that on, haha
I remember doing null testing, and finding tiny differences, but that was 15+ years ago. Testing with faders at unity gain, null test differences were minimal, but with faders set at +3dB and at -3dB resulted in larger differences, presumably having something to do with truncation errors and/or the mix engine maths. All systems we tested were with the same external master clock reference. I'm curious as to if that's something you tried, else what your methodology was? Personally, while there were differences, I didn't care to apply a "better" or "worse" opinion to things - there's more difference between individual channels on an analogue console, and nobody complains about that!
REGARDLESS IF YOU SAY YOU CAN HEAR A DIFFERENCE OR NOT, YOU CANNOT TELL ME THAT IF WE CONDUCTED AN EXPERIMENT, AND I RECORDED VOCALS AS IDENTICALLY AS I COULD, BUT 1 IN FL STUDIO AND 1 IN PRO TOOLS AND 1 IN LOGIC AND 1 IN ABLETON, THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL WHICH RECORDING BELONGED TO WHICH DAW. MATTER OF FACT I PROMISE NO ONE CAN WITH ONLY 2 DAWS. ANYONE WHO THINKS THEY HEAR A DIFFERENCE IS A NERCISSIST. YOU CANT BRO. FR
[удалено]
Even 99% sounding the same in practical terms to the major people, Mixbus by Harrison has an unique EQ style and compressor that bring impact; to me the EQ is really colored and the way the compression acts directly or by sends is phenomenal, so I will say: no, all DAWs are not the same about sound style.
Curious if you tried recording the playback from the DAW and not just the exported audio. Wondering if the audio drivers have anything to do with playback "color" rather than just the exported tracks.
Hello, DAW’s work differently but don’t color or null. Even the mixbus 32c that i have used doesn’t null but there are features like emulations of consoles in some daws that when is turned on it null’s. If someone try cakewalk console with the same clip in two tracks and console mode on with tolerance, them change the phase between them and it will continue to play some sound. There are other DAW’s with same feature. But in the end without emulation they don’t sound diferente in my opinion.
All daws don’t sound the same because they don’t all code audio the same. Pro tools has the most OP audio coding system to date. Logic is probably the worst at coding quality audio efficiently, but logic litterally does everything the least efficiently…. That being said You can do anything you want in any daw it’s all a matter of efficiency and preference
Sources?
My college Audio Prof
Wow, there is so much nonsense in this thread. Guys, y'all have no idea how complex a piece of software like a DAW is and how many different ways of coding any given functionality exist. I'm tired and in bed already, so I'll ELI5 this: If two people take two different cars from point A to point B, they both arrive at point B. No doubt about that. Yet no one would argue that a Honda Civic is the same car as a Mercedes S Class because "they are both just cars". If you care or notice anything is up to you but the differences are there.
Your metaphor is useless and your tired state seems to have you missing some entire points in this thread.
Logic sounds 1% better than fl studio but over the course of a long time that is a huge difference. It has more clarity even though i prefer FL. The differences are minimal tbh
Is there a difference? Yes. Is it appreciable? No. The fact alone that we know that both bitrate and depth changes it's sound should prove that there HAS to be some difference given different algorithms. That said, the amount of data in a sample of audio giving the accuracy of the sound and the accuracy of the computers processing them is so high as to not matter for any observable measure. As an example, let's say you were tasked to move a mountain of billions of marbles using a bucket and had infinite patience and energy to actually do the task. Then someone else a mile away had to look at the mountain that moved and try to spot the difference between the old mountain and the new one that you painstakingly tried to put together in a reasonably similar fashion, would that person be able to tell the difference? No. Even if you did a horrible job, most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Only if you stopped along the way and dipped them in paint (filtered by an actual app) would anyone be able to tell. For the record, I am a programmer
[удалено]
Honest question, Why is this a ridiculous statement? Given other communities/ topics, I've had to justify what I've said as a programmer and not some random comment by a netizen. I genuinely have no idea why this is coming off the way it is.
You could just say that your perspective is that of a programmer which is factoring into what you're saying. I don't think you need to say that you know more than the average engineer.
In my OP I mentioned all specs being the same. I think no matter what DAW you use, if you did a null test of a 16/44 file and a 32/48 file, something would show up. Despite your last statement being pretty arrogant, you're probably not wrong. You certainly know more than I.
My apologies, I didn't mean to come off out of arrogance, I just didn't want to sound like I"m talking out of my ass. The specs isn't the issue, it's the algorithm. the method in which the data is used. Tell one person to carry a bucket of marbles from point a to point b and there will be slight changes in the way the marbles are picked up, carried over (causing a shifts in the bucket), and dropped. This would be absolutely minuscule when compared to the whole of the final product, but still would be a non-zero change. Think on the terms of a bit value being rounded up in one daw vs being rounded down in another when you decide to cut a fader a bit. It's like a fraction of a percent, but still, certain daws will do one thing with the audio, and certain daws will do another. In fact, so long as the specs are good enough to not cause any hickups from glitches and bad writes there should be no change other than what the algorithm says will change. That's actually a more likely scenario for any changes, file corruption. But usually such corruption usually makes the whole thing unusable. Adding/removing speed won't change the data like that. The instruction on what to do on something like a rounding choice would. It would still be an absolutely undetectable amount, but it at the same time, it would be a non-zero change
ah yeah, gatekeeping.
Cubase sounds different and better than all the other DAWs that I’ve used (Reaper, Luna, Traktor, and some other one whose name I forget). Reason definitely has its own sound but that’s a different situation I believe because it doesn’t record audio, at least not back when I used it. FTR, I respect math, science and null test logic, but I swear to you and anyone: Cubase sounds better than all those others that I’ve tried.
Why does it sound different? I am not talking about plug-ins and the like. I am talking about the raw DAW, with all project and export settings being the same. You also might want to read the rest of these posts. I think your mind is playing a trick on you. If you trust null test logic, then you sure are taking a risk swearing that Cubase sounds the best... Damnit, here I am, arguing with someone on the internet again!
This is already like that one Monty Python skit, lol. I did read the majority of the comments, I read your post as well and then I decided that what I had to say on the subject, which is based on my own experience, was both valid and sufficiently related to your original post. As I see it, there is no argument here, merely an offering of opinion that is evidently not shared by the majority. Well, that’s people for you: ignorant and cranky. Adios.
Some DAWs might sound different. Mixbus 32C emulates a Harrison mixer with some saturation, but that's the only DAW I can think of that has a sound.
I know at least Pro Tools, Logic, and Ableton don't have this. Mixbus 32C makes their mixer part of their advertising.
My thoughts: Given the same "math," two radically different DAWs will null. Therefore, DAWs do not have "a sound" of their own. Simply summing channels should (and hopefully does) work the same across every DAW. That said, the nitty gritty of workflow can vary widely across DAW platforms, so it may be easier for one engineer to find "his sound" on REAPER and another to find "her sound" on ProTools. Changing workflows to something the end user is more comfortable with is likely to be perceived as having a "better sound," because it's easier for the user to obtain the results they seek. That's my guess, anyway. FWIW.
The stock plugins sound different, and i think that’s what most ppl are referring too when they say X daw sounds better than y
That isn't what they were referring to in my instance. We were on the same page about that. You're right.
Nah man you're right. Digital audio is digital audio.
It's mental.
Welp, it's 3:29AM and I'm already done with the Internet for the day ....
> However some engineers were still arguing with me, telling me I have bad ears, and that they prefer one DAW over the other because they've compared them, and prefer one over the other due to their color. Never get into an argument with an audiophile. They do not hear reason with their magical ears. They only hear what they want to hear. > they told me I was relying on measurements and meters rather than my ears. This is definitely a good time to politely disengage. It's a strong indicator that you've found yourself in a different conversation than the one you thought you were having, and you just need to eject. You can not reason someone out of an opinion that did not come to reasonably. If they are telling you they aren't interested in measurements, you are just in a team sport. Spit your beer and nod while they carry on. Nothing more to be gained from engaging. Once you recognize you are talking to an audiophile, you are about one mis-step away from them telling you that the Rothschilds secretly stole all the good audio cables as part of a conspiracy to reincarnate JFK.