# DAW Audio Playback (The hotly debated - Sound of a DAW question - Logic - Cubase - Ableton)



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 15, 2013)

I did a few tests with a friend on three different DAW's. We got a feedback on a score that some pieces were sounding less open and the imaging was not as wide as the other tracks. 

We traced them back to being the ones coming out of Ableton. 

This prompted us to conduct a few informal tests.

We used the same sound cards and headphones simultaneously:

1. RME Fireface 800

2. Sennheiser HD 650

The comparing sound card (the one used earlier) was Apogee Duet 2. 

We then imported the same audio file into Cubase 6.5 and Ableton 8. 

These were 16-bit 44.1 Khz Masters. Of course, we level matched, keeping the headphone out level the same on the both the RME sound cards. No level adjustments were made inside the DAW's. 

We did precise comparisons and also blind tests. 

In our tests (to our ears anyway), we found that Cubase consistently had a more open sound, better imaging and a pronounced low end. 

We also did the same test with Logic 9.1.8

Still, Cubase in our honest opinion fared better.

But Ableton was not as good compared to both. So we placed Cubase higher than Logic and then Ableton. 

Apogee Duet 2 sounded quite inferior compared to the RME Fireface 800.

But, even with the same equipment in question and after level matching, the sound itself seemed better in Cubase.

We also then used Imagine the Fire track from Hans Zimmer's TDKR soundtrack. 

This was a lossless import from a CD I bought in the UK. 

We came to the same conclusion. The difference was clear in terms of imaging and low end once again.

Logic and Cubase wereclose but Ableton did not fare so well. Still, Cubase was better and at times, it was not hard to tell after a few listens.

I never used to believe that DAW's had a different sound but this test has made me question that.

I just thought, I would share this with you guys.

I am open minded and still trying to figure out if there is something we are doing wrong and therefore unfairly putting Ableton and Logic down.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 15, 2013)

*Re: DAW Audio Playback (The hotly debated - Sound of a DAW question)*

This is a very interesting topic Tanuj, and one that crops up ever so often on the Ableton forum (or at least it used to do, when I still browsed it with some regularity). 

Did you try rendering out the audio track with the same settings from each DAW as well and comparing the end result? I mean one naked audio track with the Master fader at 0dB rendered as 16/44.1?

Another idea would be to record the headphone output of the track coming from each daw for comparison as well (not that I don't trust your ears, but that would enable visual comparison, correcting for the noise introduced by that method).

so long
Andreas


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 15, 2013)

Andreas,

Thanks for replying. Well, the files we tested were mastered 44.1 16-bit tracks which were simply imported with no DAW conversion involved and no level changes from inside the DAW. I did this because, some people say the fader behaviour is different in different DAW's.

We used the same equipment. Two identical systems. One was Mac, the other PC. 

We even exchanged headphones even though they were the same, but came to the same conclusion with repeated tests.

I am not sure what rendering a track through the DAW will achieve because, if we can simply hear the difference upon importing. 

I also a little busy with two scores but it is very interesting. I have read through NULL tests and I always believed there was no difference. 

I mean, equally big artists work on all of these different platforms and they sound pretty good. But, it is interesting.

I will try your method when I have more time.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to hear from the users here if they have experienced similar results.


Tanuj.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 15, 2013)

vibrato @ Tue Jan 15 said:


> Meanwhile, it will be interesting to hear from the users here if they have experienced similar results.
> 
> 
> Tanuj.



Tanuj, there is a big/long thread here on VI exactly about this theme and there are good reads..... . I have no time, but use the search function here.... .


----------



## windshore (Jan 15, 2013)

There have been VERY long threads/ debates, examples etc on Gearslutz. This is kind of a no-win analysis. Creating a truly equal playing field is nearly impossible.... or at least difficult enough that any particular conclusion will be hotly contested by many.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 15, 2013)

Agreed Gentlemen!

I am going to repeat a few more tests to see if it wasn't a fluke.

And use the search feature, of course!


Tanuj.


----------



## mathis (Jan 15, 2013)

You're certain that Ableton plays back unwarped?


----------



## TGV (Jan 15, 2013)

You shouldn't trust your ears that much (unless you're doing 20 runs with each DAW and everything double blind). Logic (ha, word pun!) suggests that you capture the audio that's sent to interface and compare that. That'll allow you to just see subtle difference in amplitude, but also in other aspects.


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 16, 2013)

TGV @ Tue 15 Jan said:


> Logic (ha, word pun!) suggests that you capture the audio that's sent to interface and compare that.



Exactly, my suggestion was merely a simpler solution without hijacking the audio stream, as the effect of the audio interface should be the same across all tests.



Vibrato said:


> I am not sure what rendering a track through the DAW will achieve because, if we can simply hear the difference upon importing.



The idea here is to see if the DAWs are up to any shenanigans internally (that might either come from importing or from the rendering process). The naive assumption is that importing at 16/44.1 and rendering back at the same format with no changes in levels and no processing should result in a perfect copy of the imported file. If it doesn't, you know that *something* is up, and you have solid evidence that what goes in doesn't come out unchanged. Again, I'm not saying that you're not hearing right, it's just one more way of getting visual evidence. 

MATLAB is a beautiful tool for analyzing wave files btw., though it might be a bit overkill, especially if you don't happen to have an edu license lying around or acces to uni computers running it 

so long
Andreas


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 16, 2013)

Thanks for the replies guys.

I agree, further blind tests need to be performed to be certain. Ears can be a little funny at times. Another informal test by a friend came to similar conclusions this morning.

But, of course this has to be done properly and logically. 

Its a good idea to render a track out from Cubase, Ableton and Logic.

Any other ways to analyzing audio files without spending too much money?


Thanks.

Tanuj.


----------



## Tatu (Jan 16, 2013)

Mind can also do that one final trick that makes A "slightly" better than B. I assume you're a Cubase user, Tanuj? 

Blindfold a friend, who has no idea what's going on and see what he/she thinks. Preferably someone not involved in the music making business. That could end up with some interesting results.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 16, 2013)

Tatu,

You are right, the mind does play tricks. But, I was not the one who came up with this idea. In fact, I always believed DAW's could not have any sound to them. 

We got a remark from the final mix guys and we investigated. 

I am a Cubase user but my friend works on Ableton. All of this was done for him actually and he currently believes Cubase sounds better.

But of course, we are not making any final conclusions as this is a deep topic and I dont want to put any DAW unfairly down. 

I think Ableton is fantastic and have many friends who work on Logic who make really good sounding music.

As of now, I am just curious to find out what is going on and whether this is a trick the mind is playing. 

Later today, we are going to render the same tracks from various DAW's. Perhaps, I will post it here as well for a good feedback.

I did it on Cubase and did not find any changes to the track rendered from it.

We are going to do the same on Ableton and Logic. 

May be after all, we were just inclined to believe that it was Ableton that caused the sound to change whereas this could be a programming or production issue.

Deep topic indeed.

Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 16, 2013)

Be really careful about pan law. This can change the sound of a mix dramatically.

D


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 16, 2013)

Trust YOUR ears, they're usually right.
The reason I don't trust spec. sheets, and claimed S>N Ratios is I have an Analog meter, like a hardware Channel Strip that operates in Summed Mono or Stereo, and on the advice of a Hardware studio owner here bought it with a db meter to better understand SPLs, etc.
But I have Reaper, Cubase and my kid has Abletons Barely Alive and FL Studio.
I measured each apps Meters and compared them to the real hardware and none of the DAWs are accurate. Close, but Cubase and Reaper are only -1db off, where as FLS and AL9 can be -3db off.
This makes no difference in the way I use these DAWs as I trust my ears and find that recording 3-4db higher than the -6db suggestions works better for me.
They seem to all have digital clipping at zero naturally, but my Meter tells me at what true db level this occurs. 
Ears are like a Penis, they usually know what they're doing...


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jan 16, 2013)

Link will speak for itself. 

http://www.motunation.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=48306


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 16, 2013)

It is true that DAWS have a somewhat different sound but on a top ten list of "things that affect the quality of the music you produce" it is app.#303.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 16, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> It is true that DAWS have a somewhat different sound....



It is* NOT *true that DAWS have a somewhat different sound.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 16, 2013)

So, I thought I will update you guys on a little test we did.

Imported files into the said DAW's and exported the audio back out without any touch ups - as is.

We cannot make out any difference whatsoever. 4 guys here.

All of them sounded the same. We did not spend too much time but after a few listens, there was no difference that anyone could make out.

Perhaps, recording the outs through the same sound card (level matched) could reveal something more.

But then again, it will recorded onto some other DAW.

Bouncing the audio back out seems to have no effect on the audio.

Tanuj.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 16, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jan 16 said:
> 
> 
> > It is true that DAWS have a somewhat different sound....
> ...



Among others industry heavy weights I respect, Eric Persing, who has the best ears in the business, says they do. Hans Zimmer says they do. That is good enough for me.

But either way, it is an insignificant difference compared to so many other things.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 16, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> Among others industry heavy weights I respect, Eric Persing, who has the best ears in the business, says they do. Hans Zimmer says they do. That is good enough for me.



Eh, that's not good enough for me. Null tests are. Null tests render the opinon of any "heavyweight" null and void. if _so and so _says that DAW a has a different sound than DAW b, and both null, that proves_ so and so _is incorrect - regardless of who thay are and what they have accomplished.

Cheers.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 16, 2013)

> Trust YOUR ears, they're usually right.



Yes yes yes yes yes.

I trust my ears way before I trust someone else on the internet who tells me I didn't hear what I know perfectly well I did hear.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 16, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> > Trust YOUR ears, they're usually right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



o-[][]-o 

o=<


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 16, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jan 16 said:
> 
> 
> > Among others industry heavy weights I respect, Eric Persing, who has the best ears in the business, says they do. Hans Zimmer says they do. That is good enough for me.
> ...



Null tests, as performed by 90% of the people who do them are inherently flawed. I won't debate it, a simple google search will reveal tons of discussions about it. In fct, I believe Eric posted here about that a couple of years ago far better than I can.

Either way, once again, it is IMHo way down the list of significant factors so if Cubase inherently has a lightly better sound than Logic, as Hans maintains, or ProTools does, as Eric maintains, I don't give a large rodent's posterior.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 16, 2013)

I remember Eric's statements on Logic and the sound of DAW's. 

I passionately followed that thread back in the day. I found one of his statements most interesting that is, perhaps, we have not yet invented instruments that can measure what the ears can hear. 

This thing really made me think about things in a different way.

Both Mr. Zimmer and Persing are veterans and I cannot conclude anything at my age with the lack of experience compared to these guys.

Of course, I dont have to blindly believe anything but I am not in a position to conclude anything at the moment. I have much to learn and I am very curious about these things.

So far, the bouncing the audio via DAW's has had no effect on my ears. It sounds the same.

But perhaps, while bouncing without any fader movements or plug ins rendering the DAW simply creates an exact copy whereas if you moved any fader, it would change the response in some way. It is possible but I am not sure how to correctly conduct any meaningful test.

Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 16, 2013)

I have no interest in a debate here either (although, I guess that is in a small way what I am doing, but...)



EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jan 17 said:


> Null tests, as performed by 90% of the people who do them are inherently flawed.



I dont know where that comes from. If two files don't null, then either they are not the same, or the test was flawed. If they do, then they are the same. There is no way you can get two identical files to accidentaly null. If you get them to null, the test is not flawed.

Eric made some statements some time back in that PTools thread, about how all DAWs sum differently. That is inaccurate and false information.

Back to work with me.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 16, 2013)

RiffWraith, one suggestion: Record the result from the nulling tacks and boost it up with many db. ...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jan 16, 2013)

As I say, I don't care, but for those of you that do:
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16851


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 16, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> As I say, I don't care, but for those of you that do:
> http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16851



Ha ha, you found it. 

o-[][]-o


----------



## mark812 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> > Trust YOUR ears, they're usually right.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True.

I really couldn't care less if there's an 0,000001% improvement in sound quality in Pro Tools over Cubase etc. I don't care..composing in Pro Tools sucks, at least for me. 
Average listener will notice that difference in sound quality? Yeah, right.

BTW, I love how people get nervous and combative in these discussions as if they were programming those DAWs.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 16, 2013)

mark812 @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> BTW, I love how people get nervous and combative in these discussions as if they were programming those DAWs.



:-D


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 16, 2013)

vibrato @ Wed 16 Jan said:


> So, I thought I will update you guys on a little test we did.
> 
> Imported files into the said DAW's and exported the audio back out without any touch ups - as is.
> 
> ...



Tanuj, that is what I was thinking of: there seems to be a difference simply in the internal audio playback. The interesting thing is: Does the bounced file sound notably different from the internal playback?

so long
Andreas


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 16, 2013)

germancomponist @ Thu Jan 17 said:


> RiffWraith, one suggestion: Record the result from the nulling tacks and boost it up with many db. ...



I have done that - but TBH, only with files local to Cubase. I have not tried that with different sequencers. 

Are you suggesting that if you boost many db, you will see something on the op bus? You use Logic, no? If you are up for a little test, so am I....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 16, 2013)

That was a great thread!


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Jan 17, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> I have no interest in a debate here either (although, I guess that is in a small way what I am doing, but...)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the correct answer. I love and respect the work of Eric and Hans (of course!) but nobody, and I mean nobody, is immune to the placebo effect and a host of other psychological effects associated with listening to audio. The following video on audio myths breaks it down far better than I ever could in a single post, complete with the actual science behind these things and many tests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

Anyone that is human is susceptible to these effects and biases. It isn't a criticism. We all have them. Like Ethan mentions in the video above, we have ALL tweaked EQ settings meticulously only to find the EQ was bypassed, while we were SURE we heard something.

The thing is, people on the other side of this discussion are also right. It's quite possible that when you listened to the same exact audio coming out of your speakers from two DAWs, you heard something different. That can be true even if there was no objective difference. The idea of a placebo or psychological effect (confirmation bias and such) is not that we're LYING about what we perceive, it's that we really DO perceive things differently than objective reality. We should just be mindful of this fact, given the facts we know about the physics of sound, how digital audio works, etc...


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 17, 2013)

Sometimes I have to play Rooms where we are on top of the Pit. The Waittail Cocktresses love that but the Pit Boss's have to ensure gamblers conintue losing, so they must survive the fine line of Alchohol, Gambling, Music and babes.
We have a Big long GHOST FADER so when some whiny bastards loses a 1000 bet he snaps his fingers for a drink and then wants even more attention by telling the Pit Boss he's losing because the Band is too loud, so the degenerate gambler wants to see the waittail cocktress fetching his drink and the Pit Boss taking care of that damn loud band that is causing a lack in his concentration, hence the Ghost Fader Technique.
Pit Boss tells FOH to turn down and the FOH looks at the Pit Boss and makes sure he sees the BIG FADER moving a few inches in the downward direction, then gives the Pit Boss the thumbs up, and then FOH gets the Nod as if something actually happened.
This is similar to the Ameba effect described above, I think, except the band doesn't nullify.

FWIW, this discussion is not fair unless you include the best sounding DAW which is Reaper. It runs at 64bit Float and 48bit Integer and during tests where several people after after water boarding, they chose Reaper.
The demonstrator only had to say Reaper sounds the best right..........Yes, Yes, it's that 3rd track you call Reaper, that's it... o=?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jan 17, 2013)

The psychological tendency for someone to feel absolutely confident accusing someone else of falling victim to the placebo effect - when he hasn't even listened himself - is exponentially more powerful than any audio placebo effect.

In reality the placebo effect is almost always in the "I *think* I may have heard xxxxx" range, because it's always very subtle.


----------



## chimuelo (Jan 17, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 17 said:


> The psychological tendency for someone to feel absolutely confident accusing someone else of falling victim to the placebo effect



Aww, shucks, sorry bout dat chief, it's the placebo effect. I thought it was one a 'dem 'dair sahntific critters.. 8) 

BTW That's a great explanation, of the explanation.
Similar to the Native Reverbs being emulations, of the emulation.

Cheerz


----------



## wst3 (Jan 17, 2013)

There are so many issues...

Start with the fact that different software platforms can use different algorithms for each step along the way, even something as 'trivial' as summing.

Add to that the fact that there are literally dozens of analog summing circuit approaches out there... cause this isn't complex enough already.

Add to that the currently accepted belief that the human ear-brain has very poor memory, and is not a very good test instrument.

Add to that the fact that some of these differences are so subtle as to be immeasurable... not JUST because we don't know how to measure them, but because they really are that subtle.

Add to that the irony that many of the folks with the most experience as audio professionals have severely damaged their hearing while gathering all that experience.

Do some people, even people with well undamaged trained ears, sometimes fall prey to placebo effects, even in the most carefully crafted tests? I think they do... I know I do.

Is the "null" test necessarily conclusive? Is it demonstrably unreliable? I think the jury is out on this.

One thing I can tell you, at least from my perspective... there are very few critical monitoring spaces with sufficiently low background noise and sufficiently accurate monitoring systems where one could hear these subtle differences.

And that's really the key to me. Forget the end users, listening to our carefully crafted work on earbuds after squashing the snot out of it to fit it into an MP3 - or listening in a theatre that didn't spend the money to actually create a good listening environment. 

It isn't that they don't matter, but the the sake of this discussion, they don't really - they are not critical listeners!

We matter - those of us who ignore the obvious (that most people do not listen on carefully designed systems in properly designed critical listening spaces), and still strive to create the audio production we hear in our heads.

So it you really want to compare the audio output of different hosts, or sample players, or synths by all means go for it. You will be part of that group that is pushing the state of the art.

But if you just want to make music I'd argue that there is a wide selection of tools that can get the job done. And maybe that's where you want to focus.

I am satisfied that none of my current software tools are doing any damage. I am still wrestling with a lot of the stuff outside the computer. Microphones and preamplifiers are my current focus, and yes, one can become just as obsessed<G>.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 17, 2013)

For those who have two different daws on their computer. Try this: 

Export the audio from the 2 daws and rename the wav files to txt files. Compare what you see, if you do not notice a difference by listening. o/~


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 17, 2013)

Bill,

Of course making music is the most important thing and we sort of forget that at times. I am just curious about the tools that I use to put my music down so to speak.

I do not currently have a world class facility at my disposal nor the experience compared to many here. It is simply curiosity that has led me to this.

I have zero issues with Cubase. I know many people who make great music with logic as well and there is nothing in an of these daws tha will lead me to believe that the end result was compromised because someone used 'x' DAW. At least so far I cannot tell!

I would however like to work on a software that makes sense to me, is relatively easy to use and has a sustained future. This is a whole different topic.

I haven't made up my mind on any theories. I am out to learn and explore. This is very important to me personally but the purpose of this thread is an informal discussion on the effect of daws on production and whether they degrade the sound in a way that is less disirable than others.

The problem is because of my lack of skill in this area and in the absence of a high end state-of-the-art acoustic system (comprising of the room and the monitoring set up), I am unable to successfully arrive at any theory with enough certainty.

Such discussions on a public forum will always be informal and carry no merit but then again this is not your average music forum!

It's great to hear from everyone about their views and experiences.


Tanuj.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Jan 17, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jan 17 said:


> The psychological tendency for someone to feel absolutely confident accusing someone else of falling victim to the placebo effect - when he hasn't even listened himself - is exponentially more powerful than any audio placebo effect.
> 
> In reality the placebo effect is almost always in the "I *think* I may have heard xxxxx" range, because it's always very subtle.



It's not an accusation, it's a fact that such effects do exist and they affect all of us  

If you want to put your hearing to the test, I bet we could devise a very rigorous and scientific test on here. For example, we could take 20 tracks of audio. Import them into 5 different DAWs. Render the result as 44.1/16 from each DAW. Normalize the result and see if they null. If they do (which they will) then it is physically impossible that an objective difference exists between the renders. You might hear one, but it doesn't exist.

If you want to do it another way, we could take the renders and then two at a time do a double-blind A/B/X test and test a whole bunch of people on the forum. We could then see if anyone scored higher than 50% after a statistically significant number of tests. 

We could even do this with plugins! I could design Zebra and Kontakt patches and import the same MIDI sequence into multiple daws with the same patches loaded, render that, do the null test and A/B/X.

The thing is, tests like these have repeatedly been done, and they never find that there is any difference whatsoever between DAW renders, nor can anyone hear the difference once the test becomes double-blind. Thus if you DO hear a difference when you're actually going back and forth between DAWs, that is confirmation bias / placebo effect by definition.

But if you disagree, we can absolutely set up these tests and put the issue to rest.



> Is the "null" test necessarily conclusive? Is it demonstrably unreliable? I think the jury is out on this.



Yes, it's conclusive and reliable. If two audio files null out, they are identical. This is true 100% of the time, in all cases. 1 + 1 is always 2. 1 - 1 is always 0. It's an immutable fact of our physical (and digital) reality. If two audio files are not the same, they will never null 100%. If they are the same, they will always null. Therefore, if you are trying to compare two audio files to see if there are any differences, the first step should always be a null test.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 17, 2013)

didn't want to start a debate on test procedures... but for every psychologist you can find that defends A/B/X testing for audible stimuli I can find who doesn't... or vica-versa. We know so little about how we hear...

I phrased my remark about null tests poorly... it is true that if two files are bit for bit identical then the files are, by definition, identical. What you get when you pass those files through different D/A converters, or through the same converter at different times is a whole nother story.

This topic is still relatively young... don't forget the lessons of Dr. Diamond!!!


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 18, 2013)

Guys, guys, take a step back and think about what Tanuj wrote in his initial and later posts, because we're mixing up two different scenarios here:

First: Tanuj gets a remark on some tracks sounding more "wide" and "open" than others. I think it's fair to assume that the person from which these remarks come had rendered .wav files or similar to do this comparison.

Second: Tanuj and his friends import files into the respective DAWs and play that* FROM INSIDE THE DAWs*, not from WMP or anything else. They notice consistently different sounds. 

Third: Tanuj renders the audio from each DAW. The rendered files all sound the same. I think Null tests have already been done to prove that the summing across those DAWs is the same.

This leads to some conclusions:

- The original comment about the different sound in the rendered .wav files had nothing to do with the respective DAWs and was merely coincidental.

- The playback sound from within the DAW is not exactly the same as what you hear when you render the audio file. I've had this feeling before, but I wasn't yet inclined to investigate it further and put it down to level differences between Cubase and WMP.

I think the last part might be worth investigating, but as said before, major hits have been produced in any of the DAWs in question, so it's nothing to worry about. What was that other quote I read somewhere, there's always something more important to worry about than 24 bit...

However, feel free to discuss if you see any flaw in my logic further up in this post.

so long
Andreas


----------



## dog1978 (Jan 20, 2013)

In this article (at the end / bottom) you can hear 20 tracks summed with Logic, Cubase, ProTools...

http://recording.de/Magazin/Testbericht ... ml#article


----------



## dgburns (Jan 20, 2013)

dog1978 @ Sun Jan 20 said:


> In this article (at the end / bottom) you can hear 20 tracks summed with Logic, Cubase, ProTools...
> 
> http://recording.de/Magazin/Testbericht ... ml#article



Boy,I gotta say I'm having a hard time hearing any difference here... :?: 

Maybe OT,but I've been hearing talk of guys rendering out their soft synths at higher resolutions,and then bringing that back into the daw.I'm hearing claims of improvements-via sample rate conversion outside the daw.Any value to this for anyone here? I'm assuming not for sample player type vsti's.

To be more specific,I heard guys working at 44.1.but bouncing out at 192,sample rate converting using Izotope or something,importing the files back in to daw.Personally,I'm baffled by this but....maybe a place where daws are sounding different is because they might be running different sample rate type algo's..?


----------



## TGV (Jan 20, 2013)

I don't know if you read it, but at the end of the article, the author quotes a master's thesis that says something like: "after studying the internals of the different DAWs, I've come to the conclusion that none of them adds anything to the signal. Differences in output can be explained by rounding errors in the level settings, i.e. two DAWs show the same value, but represent them slightly differently due to rounding."

That is, if my German is good enough...


----------



## Daryl (Jan 21, 2013)

zircon_st @ Fri Jan 18 said:


> The thing is, tests like these have repeatedly been done, and they never find that there is any difference whatsoever between DAW renders, nor can anyone hear the difference once the test becomes double-blind. Thus if you DO hear a difference when you're actually going back and forth between DAWs, that is confirmation bias / placebo effect by definition.


As any proper DAW should be able to perform the null test (leaving aside things like Pro Tools dither), the most important thing is not whether on playback one DAW sounds better than another, it is whether or not the playback of the DAW is accurate. If playback somehow enhances the sound on playback, that DAW becomes fairly useless, because you are unable to trust that what you're hearing will translate to the final listening devices.

However, it must be stressed that there are many things which can theoretically give the impression that one DAW sounds better than another, but it is not the sound of the DAW, but rather all the little differences that are exposed during the mix process, such as pan law, filters, plugs, EQ etc.

D


----------



## yellowstudio (Jan 21, 2013)

> the most important thing is not whether on playback one DAW sounds better than another, it is whether or not the playback of the DAW is accurate. If playback somehow enhances the sound on playback, that DAW becomes fairly useless, because you are unable to trust that what you're hearing will translate to the final listening devices.



That's what I was referring to all the time Daryl, and if you think about it, the two points mentioned here are the same thing, aren't they? If playback "sounds better" in one DAW, it's either not accurate in that DAW or in the others where it "sounds inferior". Thus the idea of capturing playback audio (either via software of "by foot" re-recording the output) and comparing it to the original/rendered file. 

As I said above, this gives no merit to the original remarks from Tanuj's customer, as it doesn't concern playback of the rendered files outside the DAWs

so long
Andreas


----------

