Why every DAW sounds different?

[antiClick]

Hi!
In the last years I'v come to try almost every DAW in the market, and I allways felt that every one had it's particular sound. I said to myself that it was plugins, settings, or placebo effect.... who knows!

I'v just found a thread comparing the mixing engine of almost every DAW. I'm overwhelmed by the big differences. Definetly not subtle.

So I did a short test on my own, and discovered that by simply recording one vocal track there was a difference in different DAWS.
Sorry to compare but... this is about comparisions. So my felling tell me that:
-Nuendo sounds bodied but blured
-Sonar sounds crisp and nasal
-Logic sounds electro-funny (in a good sense)
-Protools sounds very balanced
-SAW sounds with punch and very detailed dinamically
-Reaper sounds transparent, but tracks fall in the mix easily.
-Samplitude sounds very transparent, deep and detailed. Awesome mixer (the 50K$ sound).

Maybe this are just divagations, but my main topic is..... WHY? Isn't the DAW supposed to catch the 0's and 1's from the soundcard AD?
Maybe this differences are related to the playback engine only?
Why are this differences rendered to file?


I know you will tell me that there are test that nulls what I'm saying, and that I'm ill or felt in a placebo effect.
The differences are BIG, nothing subtle IMHO.
Listen some examples here
-samp vs cubase
http://www.hispasonic.com/tema141359-0-asc-45.html
http://www.hispasonic.com/tema141359-0-asc-60.html
http://www.hispasonic.com/tema141359-0-asc-75.html
-samp vs analog summer
http://www.hispasonic.com/tema141359-0-asc-90.html
-samp vs protoolsHD
http://www.hispasonic.com/tema141359-0-asc-105.html
-samp vs reaper
http://www.hispasonic.com/tema142205.html

[schwa]

(chorus)
... did you control for pan law? ...
(/chorus)

[mahasandi]

Hahaha


I just came to reaper from tdm pro tolls

and you know i noticed alot more depth and detail in tracks

mixes in reaper !LOL

its alot of placebo .

The thing is things can sound different when you "think"

something has changed.

If the test isnt doubble blind abx AND you don't get higher then an %95 accuracy EVERYTIME

I highly doubt we are sure we can hear "the" difference.

I work with all sorts of high -end gear and can hear lots of

details and textures in say the difference between pre-amps

double blind , so its not like I'am deaf.

I just think digital summing is not the issue, pan law

has some effect and dither.

using some outboard gear and good mics will get you more

mileage, i do have a summing mixer and it's good for adding a

sound but......

[antiClick]

Originally Posted by mahasandi

its alot of placebo

The thing is things can sound different when you "think" something has changed.

If the test isnt doubble blind abx AND you don't get higher then an %95 accuracy EVERYTIME
I highly doubt we are sure we can hear "the" difference.

I swear I can hear the difference using on a crappy iPod headphones. 100% of the time. For sure!

Originally Posted by schwa

(chorus)
... did you control for pan law? ...
(/chorus)

How many of this laws exists? One per DAW? x)
How can I calculate the pan-law from a given DAW??

Are you sure it's pan-law related only? I can hear differences even in one mono track.
No bullshit here.
Please test if for yourself.

[Sam C]

hello anticlick. i remember you from SAW.

i have also tested many DAW's and I do not hear the difference you do. I have A/B'd SAW, Reaper, Podium, Samplitude 7, Tracktion 2, Sonar 4, and Cubase SX2. i think it is placebo. Justin commented on this on Gearslutz and appeared to agree with me, that the placebo effect might be the main cause.

i really wanted to find a difference to maybe justify the expense of SAW. i have had multiple musicians listen with me and we just could not hear what some folks hear.

so for me the issue has become which DAW am i most comfortable with and which developer thinks more like i would if i could write code.

YMMV!

[Youn]

so, one-by-one you opened up each DAW, recorded a mono track of vocals, then played back the results, and it sounded different each time....

I did this test and it INDEED sounded different each time. WOW, although for me it was Samplitude that sounded washed out, not transparent at all... oh wait, maybe that's because I was singing more off-axis on that take... yesh

I should redo the tests with a little bit more common sense, no?

[Tallisman]

Without a doubt the one you bought and sunk hours into learning sounds the best! That is always the way it is. Even more so, if you paid through the nose for it.

IMHO I believe that anyone with good ears and a decent knowledge of dynamics, mixing and engineering can get a usable product from any of these major contenders. In fact... I bet there are folks on this forum that could get a better sound out of Krystal, or garage band than I could from PTHD, or Saw or Samplitude.

These threads are so amusing! how ways are there to split a hair.
you knowledge of compression or EQ will more than make up for the difference in the final Null-able out put from these DAWs.

maybe a stick could be added to this forum: "Before you post and Which DAW sounds better threads, Read this"

and add all this crap here.

[deva]

from my reading, and I have never conducted such tests myself, I have come across many tests methodically carried out, taking into account pan laws, working from the same audio files, and not using plug-ins, that every host sums to digital null. that means identical

from my perspective, if the discussion is still going without definitive conclusion after all this time, then there is no meaningful difference and I need not give it any more thought.

every daw I have tried sounds great and any limitations are in my skills, not the daw.

now some daws just click more for some people than others. the workflow fits their way of working, and it might have its own plug-ins that someone really likes the sound of, and so on. there are certainly reasons why someone likes one daw over another, and those reasons are valid.

my 2cents

[Fausto]

Originally Posted by deva

I have never conducted such tests myself

Me neither...

Anyway... Youn said he compared different takes. I was thinking maybe it would be worth for folks who really want to test this out to place a mic in front of a speaker and play the same source (like Deva said, same audio file would be cool but you'd loose the "capturing" process comparison) over and over and record each time with a different DAW.

I'm cool with reaper!

F.

[antiClick]

Originally Posted by Tallisman

Without a doubt the one you bought and sunk hours into learning sounds the best! That is always the way it is. Even more so, if you paid through the nose for it.

IMHO I believe that anyone with good ears and a decent knowledge of dynamics, mixing and engineering can get a usable product from any of these major contenders. In fact... I bet there are folks on this forum that could get a better sound out of Krystal, or garage band than I could from PTHD, or Saw or Samplitude.

These threads are so amusing! how ways are there to split a hair.
you knowledge of compression or EQ will more than make up for the difference in the final Null-able out put from these DAWs.

maybe a stick could be added to this forum: "Before you post and Which DAW sounds better threads, Read this"

and add all this crap here.

There IS difference in sound, and Samp does it better.
Don't ask me why, as this was my main question.

I'm sure this is not placebo, very obvious differences.
Some said it's about the PAN-LAW.

My next question is: Is there any way to emulate the Samp's sound in Reaper? Pan-law settings, please?
[EDIT]In other words... Is there any way I can guess th Samp's pan-law so as to set it up on reaper and repeat my tests? [/EDIT]

Thanks!

[cAPSLOCK]

Properly set up test mixes either cancel completely or within an amazingly small tolerance across as many DAWs as I have tested.

I think it's placebo. Period.

[Sam C]

it is always amazing how this constantly goes on!

read Justins comments on Gearslutz and you might understand why he does not respond to "give me pan laws to sound like Samplitude!"

btw, is Bob L working on that for you too?

[Tallisman]

We already have this thread - multiple pages of it. Reaper Nulls with them all. There is no difference, period. The science, when tested properly and methodically proves that there is nothing left, when the outpout of one daw is added to the phased inverse of the same material outputed from another daw (add reaper to this).

Originally Posted by antiClick

There IS difference in sound, and Samp does it better.
Don't ask me why, as this was my main question.

I'm sure this is not placebo, very obvious differences.
Some said it's about the PAN-LAW.

My next question is: Is there any way to emulate the Samp's sound in Reaper? Pan-law settings, please?

Thanks!

Find out what Samplitudes default pan law is -3.0db, -4.5db, 0.0db, -6db are the most popular pan laws, and then set that to the same in Reaper.


Pan law can play into it no doubt. It can make the same projects take on very different characteristics when ported to different daws - brighter, duller, distortion... much of this due to the characteristics of pan law... Google search it for more info.

and place you mics right!

[Diogenes]

My own unscientific experiments yielded total confusion. I used the same .wav files in each DAW and played the projects without effects for several family members. There was no general consensus. None.

The DAW's in question were;

Cubase VST 5.1
n-Track STudio V4.x
Sonar 3
Cubase LE

This was before I found Reaper. Now I have Sam 8 SE and I added that one to the mix. I had fewer family member "guinea pigs" this time but the results were the same. No general consensus on one sounding "better" than the other.

Totally unscientific, using real people and their ears.

Reaper rocks.

D

[Jae.Thomas]

i think its less

"what DAW sounds better"

and more

"which DAW fits your workflow best so you can get the best sound possible in the least amount of time"

which varies of course.

and of course, pan-law, dither, etc....

for the last time, if a DAW makes your music sound better (in a process that is beyond your control), there is something wrong with it.

[Diogenes]

Yep.

D

PS Superfluous words to satisfy the freakin forum software...

[Tallisman]

Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill

for the last time, if a DAW makes your music sound better (in a process that is beyond your control), there is something wrong with it.

I don't know if I agree with that... given the technological advances in hardware and software... it may be possible to improve upon the current audio engines and algorithms and slip them into the DAW without fanfare other than New and Improved Audio Engine

I was just thinking... Schwa's New dither sounds better to me. Is that placebo or is that an advance in the science - innovation. I have the ability to add that to my FX chain, But if it were built into Reaper, automatically called when exporting to a lower bit rate than the project bitrate, would we have been daying Reaper is Broken? Or would we have been saying Reaper Sounds better?

[Jae.Thomas]

if it inserted a dither without you knowing, it would be broken. whether or not it sounds better is irrelevant.

[LOSER]

Originally Posted by Tallisman

I was just thinking... Schwa's New dither sounds better to me. Is that placebo or is that an advance in the science - innovation. I have the ability to add that to my FX chain, But if it were built into Reaper, automatically called when exporting to a lower bit rate than the project bitrate, would we have been daying Reaper is Broken?

Well if REAPER would do that, I would consider it as broken, for the fact that you shoud NOT use noiseshaped dither if you want to applie additional processin to the (lower bit depth) rendered file later on, always use FLAT dithering for such purposes.

EDIT: To get back to the OG: Thing is ALL DAWs work the same (or at least should if the work correct IMO), i.e. summing is the same (if using the same data type, float vs. int), playback should mostly be identical, etc.. . The only aspects that there could be, well, likely there WILL be differnces, are SRC, pan-law, file output (dither? yes/no, what kind?, straight truncation?, etc..).

Also there *could* be some "jitter/dropout/clipping/andwhatnot"-reduction algos in some DAWs, but with out the user being aware (and also being made aware of them) and activly being able to disable those the DAW could be considered as being broken! That's a fact IMO.

[Tallisman]

ya... true indeed.

[Tallisman]

Originally Posted by LOSER

Well if REAPER would do that, I would consider it as broken, for the fact that you shoud NOT use noiseshaped dither if you want to applie additional processin to the (lower bit depth) rendered file later on, always use FLAT dithering for such purposes.

Does that hold true if you project was recorded in 64bit float, but you mastering application only supports 32bit Float?

[LOSER]

Originally Posted by Tallisman

Does that hold true if you project was recorded in 64bit float, but you mastering application only supports 32bit Float?

Well here is my thought on floating point dithering http://www.cockos.com/forum/showpost...3&postcount=21 .

[Tallisman]

Originally Posted by LOSER

Well here is my thought on floating point dithering http://www.cockos.com/forum/showpost...3&postcount=21 .

Hmmm. my science is to such that I could prove you wrong.. and your argument is sound (pun intended). Have you run that test again using the psycho dither (or other 64bit dither) to see the resulting noise at -150db? IS it still there? Do they still null? is the noise louder, lest flat? I am curious with the result would be.

[LOSER]

Originally Posted by Tallisman

Hmmm. my science is to such that I could prove you wrong.. and your argument is sound (pun intended). Have you run that test again using the psycho dither (or other 64bit dither) to see the resulting noise at -150db? IS it still there? Do they still null? is the noise louder, lest flat? I am curious with the result would be.

The psycho dither doesn't do 32bit float AFAIK!

[schwa]

Originally Posted by Tallisman

Have you run that test again using the psycho dither (or other 64bit dither) to see the resulting noise at -150db?

The answer to your question is yes. Don't dither (with dither_psycho, or with anything) when rendering a 64 bit project to 32 bit float.

- dithering idiot

[Tallisman]

Thanks! I'm sold.
where do I pay for it?

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill

"which DAW fits your workflow best so you can get the best sound possible in the least amount of time"

This by FAR is the determining factor to the sound of a final mix

[Andywanders]

[sarcasm mode]

I tested all the chords on my guitar and I can say without a doubt that A is the best chord. Fact..!

Try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

[/sarcasm mode]



Cheers,

[Jae.Thomas]

I vote for the open G5 ---

3
3
0
0
2
3

or,

if tuned well, the open E5

0
0
4
2
2
0


---- for power


as far as interesting chords theres always

2(0)
3
0
4
2
0

[magicchord]

Originally Posted by Andywanders

[sarcasm mode]

I tested all the chords on my guitar and I can say without a doubt that A is the best chord. Fact..!

Try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

[/sarcasm mode]



Cheers,

Nuh UH!

It's D!

[keyman_sam]

Correct. D is also the saddest key of all keys.

[Diogenes]

HEY!?!?

D

[todd24]

Originally Posted by keyman_sam

Correct. D is also the saddest key of all keys.

Uhhh no.........

That would be A minor. Didnt you ever watch Little House On The Prarie?

[Bevosss]

Originally Posted by Jason Brian Merrill

if tuned well, the open E5

Most untuned chords make me sad

[antiClick]

I'm stonian so I'll always preffer A minor

Of course reaper rocks and has a nice workflow, but this topic is not about that. I'm not saying A is better than D.
I just wanted to know WHY different DAWs sounded different.

Ho can I guess Samp's panlaw and repeat my tests?

Thank you
PS: Should a 64bit engine sound better than 32?

[Andywanders]

[antiClick]

ok, ok...
I promise I'll never comment about the un-pronunciable topic

Sorry for asking

[maa]

Originally Posted by antiClick

Ho can I guess Samp's panlaw and repeat my tests?

Its user definable but defaults to 0db.....



--

[Tallisman]

andywanders, your avatar is great, but it makes my eyes bug out. Weird!

[Bubbagump]

Originally Posted by antiClick

Ho can I guess Samp's panlaw and repeat my tests?

Easy. Use your favorite wav editor and generate a tone... maybe 30 seconds worth. Normalize this tone to 0db. Pull this into Samp. With all faders to 0 db, pan the wav hard right or left and on play back it should show 0db as the peak on the meter (make sure you are using peak metering and not RMS.) Then pan the tone dead center. Whatever the peak value is at dead center (assuming 0db panned hard right or left) is the value of the pan law.