Sound quality of Reaper

[Bubbagump]

Originally Posted by mr jkn

It feels like I have wasted precious time, well now off to make some music instead.

We done told ya.

[With an E]

I don't really know enough about much of this to get deeply involved, but...

isn't all of this null testing stuff about 1s and 0s; the bounced files?

Cited differences in DAW sound quality are about listening to sound in the air.

What about the stuff that happens just beyond the point of final summing?

Out of mere interest and curiosity, I wonder does DAW A interact with audio drivers and thus DACs differently to DAW B and might those subtle differences (in the interaction of app and driver) be rendered even less subtle by other components in the chain (DAC filters for example) that lead eventually to the air hitting our ears?

In short; are there differences BEYOND the null test?

There may have been discussion already which clears this up but I haven't seen it.

Originally Posted by mr jkn

Well ok, i understood that the different digital summing engines nulled when everything was set at unity.

I also have samp and always thought that it sounded "smoother" than reaper when I mixed with it. Always believed it was how the programs handled effects differently. So i set out a test today.

8 same identical wav.files at unity in both reap and samp AND a sonitus compressor with the same preset on resp. masterbuses - very hard compression btw. Well damn, I thought, if not samp sounds smoother anyway, when the plug was crushing this hard. So I rendered them both at 24bit, with no dither.

Listened to them in mediaplayer and found the samp a bit smoother.

BUT, loading them into reaper, and phase reversing one of the files - COMPLETE null (-inf.)! Nothing, there was nothing! Did the same thing in samp, same-same..

I have no proof to upload, you have to take my word for it.
So, goodbye summing-anxiety and extensive reading of discussions on this topic. It feels like I have wasted precious time, well now off to make some music instead.

[ngarjuna]

Originally Posted by With an E

I don't really know enough about much of this to get deeply involved, but...

isn't all of this null testing stuff about 1s and 0s; the bounced files?

Cited differences in DAW sound quality are about listening to sound in the air.

What about the stuff that happens just beyond the point of final summing?

Out of mere interest and curiosity, I wonder does DAW A interact with audio drivers and thus DACs differently to DAW B and might those subtle differences (in the interaction of app and driver) be rendered even less subtle by other components in the chain (DAC filters for example) that lead eventually to the air hitting our ears?

In short; are there differences BEYOND the null test?

There may have been discussion already which clears this up but I haven't seen it.

From post #40:

It is possible to do null tests or bit for bit comparisons which compare the original audio master against the final pressing, assuring that the audio data had not been altered after it left the mastering house.

emphasis author's
From Bob Katz, Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science, 2nd Edition, 2007, Burlington, MA, page 36.

Bit for bit accuracy means the two files are identical.

[With an E]

Thanks for your reply ngarjuna, but the words 'null test' or 'bit for bit' should not be used in a reply to my post.

I have specifically tried to prompt people to think beyond this.

Originally Posted by ngarjuna

From post #40:

emphasis author's
From Bob Katz, Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science, 2nd Edition, 2007, Burlington, MA, page 36.

Bit for bit accuracy means the two files are identical.

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by With an E

Out of mere interest and curiosity, I wonder does DAW A interact with audio drivers and thus DACs differently to DAW B and might those subtle differences (in the interaction of app and driver) be rendered even less subtle by other components in the chain (DAC filters for example) that lead eventually to the air hitting our ears?

In short; are there differences BEYOND the null test?

There may have been discussion already which clears this up but I haven't seen it.

it's been discussed already. if you're using ASIO there is very little that can go wrong (or even be configured) apart from buffer size. the last time i used it, as an API there is like one function you call to do your audio IO. other APIs might be different though but you really should be using ASIO (on PC) anyway.

the only other ASIO variable is the sample rate and bit depth that the device is open at, and you can usually check that in the DAW. in reaper it's in the top-right hand corner of the screen.

if software is talking to a driver incorrectly, the results are usually catastrophic, not subtle.

[With an E]

Originally Posted by dub3000

it's been discussed already. if you're using ASIO there is very little that can go wrong (or even be configured) apart from buffer size. the last time i used it, as an API there is like one function you call to do your audio IO. other APIs might be different though but you really should be using ASIO (on PC) anyway.

the only other ASIO variable is the sample rate and bit depth that the device is open at, and you can usually check that in the DAW. in reaper it's in the top-right hand corner of the screen.

if software is talking to a driver incorrectly, the results are usually catastrophic, not subtle.

Right. I had to look up API, but I see what you mean.

Still, while I understand the idea of two identical files canceling when one is out of phase ie the null test, and I understand the packeting of output data by the driver, I often wonder whether there are elements beyond the output of the DAW (as I said).

Apart from ASIO, is there anything affecting audio prior to conversion to analogue? My Lynx2 card for example, has quite a few variables. Will all DAWs necessarily interact exactly the same way with this 'stuff'?

I would love to see the results of a test with an unmovable full spectrum mic on a stand in an anechoic room where the files are played all the way to the analogue domain (sound from speakers) again.

There would be absolutely no arguing about a positive null test in THAT scenario!

All of this is of course just idle curiosity (to me); it was after all a weak signal from a pirate radio ship, coming through a 2" speaker in a tiny transistor radio under my pillow which turned me on to music in the fist place!!!!

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by With an E

I would love to see the results of a test with an unmovable full spectrum mic on a stand in an anechoic room where the files are played all the way to the analogue domain (sound from speakers) again.

....or instead of doing that: you could build yourself some bass traps and actually make a serious difference to the quality of the sound bouncing around in your room, instead of worrying about whether the driver is truncating the 64th bit of your wave data.

seriously, have you bothered measuring your monitor/room response with a decent mic? go get roomeqwizard (it's free) and stop worrying about the DAW. we all have much bigger problems than the digital side of things.

(edit: if you are interested in wasting time doing that original test, get a sound card with a digital out and record that into a separate system with a digital in. you can do your null test like that, that's all post-driver on the source machine and it *should* cancel out providing there isn't a jitter problem on your digital i/o - spdif has known {minor} jitter problems under some situations, apparently. but i feel dirty just reading this thread now, it's that pointless)

[With an E]

Useful post dub.

With regard to room anomalies, I think you are right; these can have a more deleterious affect on your sound than DAW differences (if they exist).

Most (other people's) music I play to reference the sound in my room sounds great, both in the room and in adjacent rooms with doors open. I don't have any treatment other than incidental furniture which has the convenient effect of absorbing low end boominess and flutter echo as well as scattering early reflections. All the same, I must try Roomwizard!

As you imply; perspective in these things is essential.

Hope the OP isn't annoyed with the shift in focus of the thread

Originally Posted by dub3000

....or instead of doing that: you could build yourself some bass traps and actually make a serious difference to the quality of the sound bouncing around in your room, instead of worrying about whether the driver is truncating the 64th bit of your wave data.

seriously, have you bothered measuring your monitor/room response with a decent mic? go get roomeqwizard (it's free) and stop worrying about the DAW. we all have much bigger problems than the digital side of things.

(edit: if you are interested in wasting time doing that original test, get a sound card with a digital out and record that into a separate system with a digital in. you can do your null test like that, that's all post-driver on the source machine and it *should* cancel out providing there isn't a jitter problem on your digital i/o - spdif has known {minor} jitter problems under some situations, apparently. but i feel dirty just reading this thread now, it's that pointless)

[apozaf]

just read through that thread, really crazy opinions there.
"daws don't sound - they do math" ??? ever thought about how computers actually do math? they cheat whereever they can, therefore also when rendering. that's why saw studio mixes sound way better than many others. sound quality differs so much between different daws, there is really no need to discuss this fact.

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by apozaf

just read through that thread, really crazy opinions there.
"daws don't sound - they do math" ??? ever thought about how computers actually do math? they cheat whereever they can, therefore also when rendering. that's why saw studio mixes sound way better than many others. sound quality differs so much between different daws, there is really no need to discuss this fact.

you're trolling, right?

[Kainer]

Originally Posted by apozaf

sound quality differs so much between different daws, there is really no need to discuss this fact.

U should check your informations. maybe do tests for yourself.
I would say what u said right now is b***s**t.
sorry.

[ngarjuna]

This thread should be stickied: maybe we can use it sort of like the spam trap, as a catch all for the DAW conspiracy threads.

So I'll contribute:

Not only did REAPER sound inferior to ProZorz DAW, it also killed my mother and raped my father. True story. Anyone who doesn't believe it is either a deluded fanboi or in on the conspiracy.

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by ngarjuna

This thread should be stickied: maybe we can use it sort of like the spam trap, as a catch all for the DAW conspiracy threads.

So I'll contribute:

Not only did REAPER sound inferior to ProZorz DAW, it also killed my mother and raped my father. True story. Anyone who doesn't believe it is either a deluded fanboi or in on the conspiracy.

it's okay now though, they fixed that bug way back in v2.41.

[apozaf]

no, i'm not trolling, sorry if it seemed like that.
some of my friends are learned audio engineers and i told them bout some opinions here and they said that it is absolute b...shi...t that daws only do math and all sound the same. well, to be honest i would not hear any difference but if you check rendered mixes (same input, same effects ect.) and make a checksum of the wavefile there are differences. not that i could hear them (well, i do in some older daws and i am sure saw-mixes have brilliant quality)
don't want to start a flaming war in this great forum, so everyone his own opinion. gtx.

also "merge" is right in his opening post that in a project daws sound different as it is just a preview, like video in a videocut software.

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by apozaf

no, i'm not trolling, sorry if it seemed like that.
some of my friends are learned audio engineers and i told them bout some opinions here and they said that it is absolute b...shi...t that daws only do math and all sound the same.

no comment on their mixing skills (and i've heard really weird crap come out of the mouths of incredibly talented mixers) but your learned audio engineer friends need to read up on their math. what they're saying might have been partly true more than a decade ago but it's FUD now.

Originally Posted by apozaf

well, to be honest i would not hear any difference but if you check rendered mixes (same input, same effects ect.)

exactly

Originally Posted by apozaf

and make a checksum of the wavefile there are differences. not that i could hear them (well, i do in some older daws and i am sure saw-mixes have brilliant quality)

can happen due to different WAV file header information (different DAWs pad metadata differently - e.g. track author, ACID looping info etc, this isn't audio data though and won't affect the actual audio being played), or silence at the beginning/end of a track.

Originally Posted by apozaf

also "merge" is right in his opening post that in a project daws sound different as it is just a preview, like video in a videocut software.

no, it's not a preview. it's full resolution data, unless you're explicitly turning features down (e.g. in reaper you can run the playback engine with a lower quality resample or time stretch mode for better performance and a higher quality one for rendering, but you can set those to anything you want so it's a bit of a moot point).

[apozaf]

well, i'm a physicist and quite into math and i know how coumputers handle math. maple for example really gives out good integrals and differntials (and that is what rendering is about), cause it has very expensive algorythms in it. still they do interpolation. most other calculators or whatever cheat cheat alot depending acuracy, they just do an approach with more or less accuracy. no daw out there has the math of a really expensive industry-standard like maple for example.
rendering a project is an incredibly demand on how those algoryhthms handles all that stuff. there ARE differences. not that we could hear them more or less, but they are definately there.

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by apozaf

well, i'm a physicist and quite into math and i know how coumputers handle math. maple for example really gives out good integrals and differntials (and that is what rendering is about), cause it has very expensive algorythms in it. still they do interpolation. most other calculators or whatever cheat cheat alot depending acuracy, they just do an approach with more or less accuracy. no daw out there has the math of a really expensive industry-standard like maple for example.
rendering a project is an incredibly demand on how those algoryhthms handles all that stuff. there ARE differences. not that we could hear them more or less, but they are definately there.

i think you'll find that calculus isn't used anywhere in the mixer path in any DAW except in effect plugins. if we ARE talking about plugins there are situations where that statement holds - e.g. anything that's doing analog hardware emulation is going to be doing lots of tricky math, like what you described. but if you want to talk about plugin quality, that's totally unrelated to this particular topic, since non-broken plugins will sound the same in any host.

the mixer path is basically just floating point adds (summing) and floating point multiplies (gain/pan), with delays for PDC (potential for error here but works fine in reaper and most other hosts). there isn't anything else in there to murk up the sound.

(just for clarity - if we're bringing up credentials, i'm a qualified elec eng, have been working professionally as a software engineer for a decade, using computers for making music since '91 and as a hobbyist have contributed to or released a couple of different niche audio tools. nothing compared to the serious pro guys, but i do have some background, i'm not just talking out of my butt)

edit: i think these sorts of threads are REALLY dangerous. people are always looking for a reason why their mixes suck, and blaming the tools is an easy way. someone with no experience is going to look at this post:

Originally Posted by apozaf

well, i'm a physicist...

and think: "wow, a physicist reckons DAWs are crap", post it on other message boards, and go out and drop loads of cash on an external summing box or whatever. and their mixes will still suck.

[TheArchitect]

Originally Posted by apozaf

well, i'm a physicist and quite into math and i know how coumputers handle math. maple for example really gives out good integrals and differntials (and that is what rendering is about), cause it has very expensive algorythms in it. still they do interpolation. most other calculators or whatever cheat cheat alot depending acuracy, they just do an approach with more or less accuracy. no daw out there has the math of a really expensive industry-standard like maple for example.
rendering a project is an incredibly demand on how those algoryhthms handles all that stuff. there ARE differences. not that we could hear them more or less, but they are definately there.

If files null, they null. I have yet to see an example where they didn't that wasn't easily explained by something obvious. The math may not be "perfect" but it appears they are identically imperfect as far as I can tell

[apozaf]

ok guys, if you are so certain about this i believe you. it's just i talked to two of my friends that made the audio enginering school and they have another opinion. maybe they are wrong. and from what i know that math isn't exactly math on different computerapps i thought they may be right.
why that immensive price for saw studio?

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by apozaf

ok guys, if you are so certain about this i believe you. it's just i talked to two of my friends that made the audio enginering school and they have another opinion. maybe they are wrong. and from what i know that math isn't exactly math on different computerapps i thought they may be right.
why that immensive price for saw studio?

it's been that expensive forever - it's an old app. most of the audio path in there is hand coded assembly apparently, which made a lot of sense on when everyone had 486s, less so now. must be a nightmare to debug.

[apozaf]

Originally Posted by dub3000

and think: "wow, a physicist reckons DAWs are crap", post it on other message boards, and go out and drop loads of cash on an external summing box or whatever. and their mixes will still suck.

lol - no, thank you - i just studied that crap - never wanna have something to do with it again
(good this tread is in the spam-trap)
i never stated DAWs are crap, really, how could i.

[apozaf]

i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.
i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.

i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.

so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....

[ngarjuna]

Originally Posted by apozaf

i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.

Your awesome data that you have provided aside, I can only say: your null test was incorrectly setup.

i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.

Summing != effect handling. If you had started a thread saying "DAWs seem to handle effects differently", you'd probably get an interesting discussion. This discussion, however, is about the summing/mix engine. If your "it didn't null" test involved "lots of effects", then you didn't test the summing engine.

i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.

This tells me conclusively that your null test is not sound. Or you're using effects which are time-variable effects (not the same each render), in which case the difference you're seeing is in your apples and oranges test and has nothing to do with comparing one summing engine with another. Rendering the same track/song 3 times with no time-variable effects will get you the same file 3 times; that behavior is so basic that if it didn't work, you'd see a LOT of complaining about it on the forums. Just further evidence that your supposed "null test" involves way too many moving variables.

so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....

Are you serious? Do you really not understand why there are different rendering options?

[apozaf]

Originally Posted by ngarjuna

Are you serious? Do you really not understand why there are different rendering options?

no, i don't
cubase doesn't have this. some daws can only bounce. reaper is the first daw i used with so many rendering options.

if this thread is only about the mixingengine i agree completely. no need to discuss this.

[Blastrio]

That message was posted by Samplitude's CEO.
He might be right though. I mixed down a one track mix down to a stem of one track in Samplitude, and it sounded better in my home system than the same Reaper mix sounded on the subway station speakers.

Blastrio

[musicbynumbers]

You will not have much luck trying to null vst files as they randomize stuff as well as midi not being synced to samplerate (sample accurate) in most daws. You need to use audio files and not mp3's just pcm standard.

Null files are the shining light of truth in this witchery summing thread!! lol

Originally Posted by apozaf

i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.
i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.

i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.

so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....

[Blastrio]

Originally Posted by daveyboy

Couldn't the original poster just put up the 3 "versions" of the same file as bounced from the different daws so everyone could hear the difference?? For me it's so much more about the content (song/performance ) then the actual daw anymore. Who cares. A great song is a great song and crap is crap, no matter how high the fidelity.

Absolutely right. That's what I always thought. You just have to listen to most of the radio stuff today to understand that. It's all been done on the best analog equipment, by the best people in the best listening environments, but it's (for the most part) absolute crap. An average sounding amazing song will give you the shivers, while a super sounding pop piece of dung will go by unnoticed. That goes for all forms of art.
I really don't think that the average listener will be listening to your song, going: "Hmmmmmmmm, yeah it could have been an amazing song, but that excessive half of a dB at 12.534 khz on the vocal is killing me. Maybe that would've been ok if the ratio on the compression would be a little higher, maybe 3.6 instead of 3.4"
Believe me. I've heard so much crap posted on forums by people debating meaningless aspects. "Yeah, I've re-recorded the song with this preamp, a lot more clarity now, listen for yourself..." Dude, forget the preamp and go get some emotion and songwriting/playing/singing skills instead.
I totally love Reaper. I've been making music on the PC for 12 years. I've tried almost every DAW out there, except for the "only Mac" ones (I've only worked with ProTools on a Mac), so far, it's the best I've used, and at 225$ / 60$, it's an absolute steal. I think that's one of the reasons why some people don't take it too seriously (also the name maybe). I'm in the process of switching from Ableton Live, which costs a lot more. I know that it's kind of a specialized tool, but for my needs, which are less DJish and more multitrackish, it looks like a toy compared to Reaper.

Reap on guys, Reap on.

Blastrio

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by apozaf

i tied the null test for myself and i can only say: the do not null.
i tried with fl vs cubase, same input, same vsts with exactly the same settings and the rendered files don't even sync! the timing algorythm is not accurate in different daws. and i can tell you, the outcome was total mud. no, i did not make any mistakes, i checked a hundred times.
did the same with cubase and reaper, there they did null.
then i made the test with energyXT vs cubase and again, they don't null, you can even hear that the rendered files of eXT and fl suck.
rendering is not just summing up, specifically if you have many tracks with lots of effects and panning.

i have a thread in the forum called "rendering problem with reaper". the rendered files miss some snare hits, some vocal parts and so on... how should such a file null?
also when i render a project with reaper two times consecutively (same settings again of coures) sometimes the file size differs. i checked that on 3 different pcs.

so, and why are there so many rendering options in reaper? from slow to fast over bouncing and so on... and you're telling me daws all sound the same? come on....

Confucious say, educate yourself, lest you get schooled in public...

[With an E]

I personally, keep an open mind and would be happy to hear either side of this debate proven.

It strikes me though that people defending the idea that there is no difference in daw sound quality sound just a little zealous sometimes; as if it was a religious belief.

Pardon my ignorance, but how do we know the null test cancels completely?

Is it that we hear nothing or see no activity on the meters? Or is the resulting file a completely flat line?

Does all the harmonic content of the phase inverted files cancel?

Does the resolution of our video and audio gear allow us to be certain?

I'm minded of the discussion regarding super harmonics and how they might or might not (in spite of their very small energy levels) influence sound in the audible spectrum. I know hard filtering in A to D converters chops the super harmonics. I wonder whether very subtle artifacts from the A to D conversion might produce very low level distortions which are further altered within the daw when any actions are performed (beyond simply flipping the phase)?

And of course, if the only thing we did was flip the phase there would be no point in a test would there, ha ha?

[dub3000]

Originally Posted by With an E

I personally, keep an open mind and would be happy to hear either side of this debate proven.

Is it that we hear nothing or see no activity on the meters? Or is the resulting file a completely flat line?

i've opened a rendered null-test file and it's all 0's. not sure what other proof you need.

Originally Posted by With an E

Does the resolution of our video and audio gear allow us to be certain?

the resolution of the software is much much better than the resolution of your hardware (and the quality of your room treatment, probably).

[With an E]

Originally Posted by dub3000

i've opened a rendered null-test file and it's all 0's. not sure what other proof you need.

Well if you are not sure, I'm definitely not sure

Originally Posted by dub3000

the resolution of the software is much much better than the resolution of your hardware (and the quality of your room treatment, probably).

You are of course right.... probably

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by With an E

Pardon my ignorance, but how do we know the null test cancels completely?

Physics. Science. Etc......

[With an E]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

Physics. Science. Etc......

I'm listening.......

[evanrabby]

hahahahahahaaaaaaa....

zee is here to make sure we waste valuable time explaining logic to an irrational being...

remember his first long time ago post on this stuff....

hahahahahhaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!

i believe zee should be BANNED from posting about sound quality, seriously. its not really humour, its a WASTE OF TIME. someone should CLOSE this thread.

[walsh350]

sorry for bumping an old thread.

just started using reaper and i absolutely love it.

the only thing that came into my mind was the issue of sound quality differences in different daws.

i didnt read the whole thread but i seemed to get a jist that its just math.

do all daws use the same algorythms for their audio summing?
even if they dont does it actually make a difference?
do some daws have some sort of warming programmed into them ontop of the basic math?

sorry if these questions are ignorant but i dont go for the whole esoteric differences in sound quality shabangle. i take what guys in "pro studios" say about such things with a pinch of salt.
just because you have crazy expensive equipment doesnt inherently make your ears any better, although i except that high end studio monitors in a properly treated workspace gives you an advantage.

these questions seem logical to me.

i`m blown away by the amount of common sense in reapers` workflow and i`m trying to pick faults before i become a full blown missionary!

i understand that this debate must have been had time and time again and again i apologise to the regulars.

as i say, have only just started using reaper and am new to this forum.

the way things are looking at the moment though i`ll be sticking around.

take care chaps

[Xenakios]

Originally Posted by walsh350

do some daws have some sort of warming programmed into them ontop of the basic math?

Some have been speculated to have, some are known to have done that like Propellerhead's Record. It's however considered a flaw in the DAW, not a desirable feature. The idea of a DAW isn't to polish bad recordings automatically or something, but rather act as a "garbage in, garbage out" kind of tool. (Equally the principle "diamonds in, diamonds out", will apply... )

[Per Lichtman]

Just a thought: the "Awesome DAW-Sum" comparison files can be downloaded for under $15 (probably under $13) and provide a very "apples to apples" comparison of several DAWs and expensive outboard mixing desks.

Instead of lots of debating, you could just do a blind listen to the empirical data and form a conclusion based on that. The DAWs are not the most recent versions, but it does a good job of showcasing the "range" in which summing differences can take place.

I'm not affiliated with the company in any way (in fact my VIP forum membership expired) but here's a link to that particular resource.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=12977

[Diogenes]

Originally Posted by Per Lichtman

Just a thought: the "Awesome DAW-Sum" comparison files can be downloaded for under $15 (probably under $13) and provide a very "apples to apples" comparison of several DAWs and expensive outboard mixing desks.

Instead of lots of debating, you could just do a blind listen to the empirical data and form a conclusion based on that. The DAWs are not the most recent versions, but it does a good job of showcasing the "range" in which summing differences can take place.

I'm not affiliated with the company in any way (in fact my VIP forum membership expired) but here's a link to that particular resource.

http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=12977

LOL...

Umm... NO!

D

[Tedwood]

Originally Posted by Xenakios

(Equally the principle "diamonds in, diamonds out", will apply... )

Nail, head, and hammer spring to mind Xen, what you don't want is "Bananas in - cucumbers out"

[mygodmypantsaremadeofjam]

oh noes I can't believe I just read every post in this thread all the way to the end.