# Do DAWs sound different ?



## nuyo (Jul 4, 2020)

Why do people like Junkie XL and Hans Zimmer say that Cubase sounds better then all the other DAWs ? They wouldn't say it if there is nothing behind it.


----------



## Consona (Jul 4, 2020)

Really?


----------



## doctoremmet (Jul 4, 2020)

My guess: they’ve used pretty much all of them, have great ears and to THEIR ears Cubase sounds best. So they use the one THEY like.

Please hide this thread from @Ashermusic


----------



## doctoremmet (Jul 4, 2020)

I’d argue any differences are so small they’d be hardly noticeable to us lower-tier composers, let alone normal mortals (the ones you’d like to listen to your compositions). So I wouldn’t worry about it too much. Also: I’m on Ableton and a mate of mine swears it “warps” audio tracks. So I’m screwed


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jul 4, 2020)

GarageBand has the best out of the box sound in my opinion... it's has that beautiful warm lush tone, you now? With other DAW's, I always feel the need to EQ my rendered tracks afterwards.


----------



## Geoff Moore (Jul 4, 2020)

nuyo said:


> Why do people like Junkie XL and Hans Zimmer say that Cubase sounds better then all the other DAWs ?


100% true, if Hans made his scores in Logic they'd sound like trash. /s


----------



## doctoremmet (Jul 4, 2020)

Geoff Moore said:


> 100% true, if Hans made his scores in Logic they'd sound like trash. /s


I heard one I liked slightly less than usual. Turns out he used Logic that time. So yeah. Also all you Logic guys will be running on ARM chips soon. So good luck hackintoshing together your future systems using Raspberry Pi’s /s


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 4, 2020)

Confirmation bias.


----------



## wst3 (Jul 4, 2020)

If the only thing a DAW did was record numbers and then spit them back out again then there would be no difference, but of course that is not all a DAW does.

There are differences. They are ridiculously small, and I'd argue inaudible to all but the most well trained listeners in the best possible critical listening spaces. There are hundreds of factors that will play a bigger role in the sound of a production. Thousands probably... or more.

What does happen inside a DAW to cause it to sound different?

We can start with how they represent the data - word length, fixed or floating point, and even sample rate (of course the user has control over at least two of these). It isn't even so much how they represent the data, as how that representation affects errors. And there are errors!

And of the errors, it is errors in the summing process that probably account for most of the differences, and these are a direct result of (a) how the data is represented, and (b) how the user mixes individual tracks - yup, back to that human thing.

I think there is also an issue with workflow. Depending on the DAW you are likely to make some decisions, and those decisions will differ depending on the workflow. I'm not sure how much of an effect his has on the final sound, but I imagine it real.

If you can not hear the difference between two DAWs (I can't) try this experiment:

Take a handful of tracks from an existing project and add them to different DAWs.
Do NO processing, just use the naked tracks!

Set each channel to -6 dB on the channel fader and feed them to the master bus
 depending on the number of tracks you may need to use even more attenuation

Save the "MIX" as an audio file, use the same word length and sample rate for each DAW.
Do the old NULL test.
I've done this with Sonar, Studio One, Digital Performer, Reaper, and one of the LE versions of Cubase. There are small differences between any two of them. The two that were closest, in my test, were Sonar and Studio One. In no case could I hear what I saw!

Now if an A-list producer or composer prefers a specific DAW or plug-in I will not argue with them, and I don't even care why. That's there preference. They've earned the right to say so.

If you can't hear a difference that is just as valid!

For example, I am quite certain that I can hear differences between different emulations of a handful of processors, the LA-2 and 1176 spring to mind. In fact I own a couple different emulations of each specifically because they are different.

Those differences have nothing to do with the quality of my work, and I could (and probably should) live with only one of each. But I think it is cool that there are differences.

A more extreme example - when I play out these days I take my Line 6 Helix and a JBL Eon (as a monitor). It sounds good. It certainly sounds good enough for my band mates, and the audience. Can I tell that I am not playing through an amplifier and a ton of pedals? Sure. Are the differences real? Probably. Do they matter? no.

BUT!!!!!

In the studio I still chain together a bunch of pedals and plug them into amplifiers and then stick microphones in front of the amplifiers. I find it more satisfying. I think it sounds better, but better is a silly word. I know it sounds different, but then Line 6 did not model my specific amplifiers and pedals, so of course it will be different.

At that point it comes down to comfort level, familiarity, habit, foolish attachment to old gear, and taste (maybe). Since I already own the stuff I might as well use it, right?

Except, and this fascinates me, the UA models of the Fender 5E3 and various Marshall amplifiers sound really good. In some cases better (meaning different in a good way) than my amplifiers (I've got a home built 5E3 clone and an oddball home built Marshall clone that falls somewhere between the old 18W and 50W designs. I like them, but they don't sound the same as the emulations.) So sometimes I will plug the pedals into the emulations.

Bottom line, for me, it is good to have choices. And it is good to recognize that things can be different without necessarily being better or worse, except for in that moment.

The same thing applies (for me) to the DAWs that I use.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 4, 2020)

If you choose the wrong DAW:

1. You will go to hell;
2. Your wife/husband/partner will be 20% less attractive than those using the _other_ DAW;
3. Everyone will privately chuckle at your counterpoint;
4. People in the future will look back on your disastrous selection and shake their heads sorrowfully.


----------



## doctoremmet (Jul 4, 2020)

JohnG said:


> If you choose wrong:
> 
> 1. You will go to hell;
> 2. Your wife/husband/partner will be 20% less attractive than those using the _other_ DAW;
> ...


And eventually centuries from now they’ll tear down statues of famous Cubase users


----------



## nuyo (Jul 4, 2020)

wst3 said:


> If the only thing a DAW did was record numbers and then spit them back out again then there would be no difference, but of course that is not all a DAW does.
> 
> There are differences. They are ridiculously small, and I'd argue inaudible to all but the most well trained listeners in the best possible critical listening spaces. There are hundreds of factors that will play a bigger role in the sound of a production. Thousands probably... or more.
> 
> ...



Thank you. Well explained and everything make sense to me.
I think I will stick to what I'm used to for now and try a few other DAWs from time to time.


----------



## NoamL (Jul 4, 2020)

Confirmation bias + maybe they have developed an ear for hearing certain stock plugins.

There are good reasons to use any of the three main DAWs.

With ProTools you get the advantage of truly seamless integration with the rest of post-production. I have worked for two composers who would never, ever leave ProTools for that reason alone.

With Cubase there are powerful arranging & sample editing features and you're not locked into Apple.

With LogicX you get a built in Javascript environment that lets you process MIDI & CC information in almost any way you can imagine, provided you learn some basic programming.

Personally I'd find it very hard to leave LogicX. I got too used to Scripter and the ability to quickly whip up "magic spells" to do whatever I want. For example when I installed Hollywood Strings Diamond the very first thing I did was:

Make vibrato controlled by CC2 instead of CC1, and make dynamics controlled by CC1 instead of CC11 (in other words make HWS work like most other libraries)
Ignore all CC7 messages on MIDI regions (I need this because I often import MIDI sketches that have CC7 data).
Make CC104 a replacement controller for CC7 just in case I ever want to alter CC7 myself.
That took literally 3 minutes to do, and this kind of rewiring is only scratching the surface of what the Scripter can do. Another thing I did with Scripter recently was completely reprogram the modwheel of Berlin Brass horns (for Horns 1, 2, 3 individually) so they exactly match the dynamics of CSB Solo Horn, and thus also match each other. This was not just a matter of drawing a new CC1 "line" for each horn but rather each horn has completely unique ("jagged") data at each modwheel point.


----------



## Jay Panikkar (Jul 4, 2020)

The only objective measures of audio quality are signal-to-noise ratio and level of distortion.

A null test, as explained by @wst3, will reveal any differences in sound output between DAWs. And in almost all cases, if there is a difference, it's because the export/render settings are not the same across DAWs. There may be hidden settings that you can't toggle as a user, or there may be differences in algorithms/rendering.

There is a lot of common code between the DAWs, especially when it comes to the rendering engine, so claiming differences in quality is a bit dubious; unless there is clearly audible distortion and noise in one DAW output as compared to the other.


----------



## Paul Grymaud (Jul 4, 2020)

nuyo said:


> Why do people like Junkie XL and Hans Zimmer say that Cubase sounds better then all the other DAWs



Probably because they know I'm a Cubase user myself...


----------



## jononotbono (Jul 4, 2020)

It’s really strange timing this conversation has been started. I was having this exact conversation yesterday with a few people I work with. Two of them are adamant that the Pro Tools engine sounds better than Cubase’s and I’ve never tried a test so I have no idea. I am definitely going to do a test though because I really want to know if that is just nonsense or if there is something in it. The test will be listening to audio renders on a Cubase machine using an Antelope interface and the second test will be listening to those same renders but in pro tools using the same interface (on a different machine). I also want to see if there is a difference with audio recording via Cubase onto a Pro Tools HDX system.

I’m really curious about this. I understand the need and want to edit and mix audio in a Pro Tools HDX system compared to any other DAW but I thought there wasn’t a difference in the Sound of the audio engines between the two in this day and age. 

Would love to hear what @Rctec could say about this?


----------



## dgburns (Jul 4, 2020)

I prefer LPX on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

I prefer Cubase, especially on Sundays, when I'm inclined to wear my BBC lab coat and take great pleasure in smoking my tobacco pipe while fiddling with the dials.


----------



## nuyo (Jul 4, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> It’s really strange timing this conversation has been started. I was having this exact conversation yesterday with a few people I work with. Two of them are adamant that the Pro Tools engine sounds better than Cubase’s and I’ve never tried a test so I have no idea. I am definitely going to do a test though because I really want to know if that is just nonsense or if there is something in it. The test will be listening to audio renders on a Cubase machine using an Antelope interface and the second test will be listening to those same renders but in pro tools using the same interface (on a different machine). I also want to see if there is a difference with audio recording via Cubase onto a Pro Tools HDX system.
> 
> I’m really curious about this. I understand the need and want to edit and mix audio in a Pro Tools HDX system compared to any other DAW but I thought there wasn’t a difference in the Sound of the audio engines between the two in this day and age.
> 
> Would love to hear what @Rctec could say about this?



Would be awesome if you could share the files or your opinion after the test.


----------



## nuyo (Jul 4, 2020)

Jay Panikkar said:


> A null test, as explained by @wst3, will reveal any differences in sound output between DAWs. And in almost all cases, if there is a difference, it's because the export/render settings are not the same across DAWs. There may be hidden settings that you can't toggle as a user, or there may be differences in algorithms/rendering.



But a basic Null Test without any processing wouldn't reveal if there is something between the communication or handling of plugins and the DAW.


----------



## Jeremy Gillam (Jul 4, 2020)

jononotbono said:


> It’s really strange timing this conversation has been started. I was having this exact conversation yesterday with a few people I work with. Two of them are adamant that the Pro Tools engine sounds better than Cubase’s and I’ve never tried a test so I have no idea. I am definitely going to do a test though because I really want to know if that is just nonsense or if there is something in it. The test will be listening to audio renders on a Cubase machine using an Antelope interface and the second test will be listening to those same renders but in pro tools using the same interface (on a different machine). I also want to see if there is a difference with audio recording via Cubase onto a Pro Tools HDX system.
> 
> I’m really curious about this. I understand the need and want to edit and mix audio in a Pro Tools HDX system compared to any other DAW but I thought there wasn’t a difference in the Sound of the audio engines between the two in this day and age.
> 
> Would love to hear what @Rctec could say about this?



In the days before HDX Pro Tools HD used a 48-bit fixed summing engine which could be "driven" to create subtle clipping that was pleasurable to some ears. With HDX they switched to a 64-bit floating point summing engine in all versions of Pro Tools, which should sound the same as the 64-bit summing engine in Cubase barring the usual caveats regarding pan law, slight automation timing differences, etc.


----------



## jononotbono (Jul 4, 2020)

Jeremy Gillam said:


> In the days before HDX Pro Tools HD used a 48-bit fixed summing engine which could be "driven" to create subtle clipping that was pleasurable to some ears. With HDX they switched to a 64-bit floating point summing engine in all versions of Pro Tools, which should sound the same as the 64-bit summing engine in Cubase barring the usual caveats regarding pan law, slight automation timing differences, etc.



Well this is really interesting to me because the reason I previously said




jononotbono said:


> Two of them are adamant that the Pro Tools engine sounds better than Cubase’s



Is because I asked the main mix engineer (after speaking with the two people mentioned) about this and he said he doesn’t think there’s any difference anymore. He did also say he hasn’t personally tested it in recent years so I’m hoping he will be up for a private blind test (after I’ve done it so there is no influence or bias) and say what he thinks. I’d trust his ears more than mine to be honest 😂


----------



## Tim_Wells (Jul 4, 2020)

My DAW sounds different. Every project I do turns out different from what I was going for.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 4, 2020)

*Write Good Music*

It's hard enough to compose music, especially with samples and electronics, so whatever suits your workflow is the best choice. Put another way, you hear music written on every kind of DAW and quasi-DAW and some is great and some is not; the audio quality honestly seems to be a negligible contributor or detractor.

*Who Cares (Besides Us)?*

Besides, how is it consumed? The "best" setting on Spotify is 320k. If you're streaming audio with a movie, who knows? Sometimes Netflix' picture is pristine, sometimes it comes in pixilated, so what does that mean (if anything) for the audio?

I listen to movies through this fancy Sennheiser sound bar that seems to be the cat's pajamas, but I don't think Mozart himself could tell which DAW produced the music.

*Never Ends*

I've seen "sounds best" comparisons over the years but I can't get excited about them. Pro Tools always came out number one, and Digital Performer came out top of the DAWs, but that's going back 10 years at least.

Eventually everything ends up in Pro Tools for most production companies, though not 100%.


----------



## nas (Jul 4, 2020)

IMHO there are just way too many variables that go into tracking / creating a final mix that will basically render (pun intended) any minor differences between DAW's practically irrelevant. I wouldn't give it too much thought.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 4, 2020)

nuyo said:


> Why do people like Junkie XL and Hans Zimmer say that Cubase sounds better then all the other DAWs ? They wouldn't say it if there is nothing behind it.



Because Steinberg pays them, or they're doing Steinberg a favor?

I think it's a bunch of hooey, and even if it's true on some level, it's so infinitely insignificant that nobody should ever be spending any thought on it.


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 4, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Personally I'd find it very hard to leave LogicX. I got too used to Scripter and the ability to quickly whip up "magic spells" to do whatever I want. For example when I installed Hollywood Strings Diamond the very first thing I did was:
> 
> Make vibrato controlled by CC2 instead of CC1, and make dynamics controlled by CC1 instead of CC11 (in other words make HWS work like most other libraries)
> Ignore all CC7 messages on MIDI regions (I need this because I often import MIDI sketches that have CC7 data).
> ...



My first thought reading that was "3 minutes seems long to do that". Doesn't Logic have a CC Mapper like Reaper has? 






I would have thought such things are standard by now in all DAWs, but I only use Reaper, so I have no clue obviously.


----------



## BVMusic (Jul 4, 2020)

@Bluemount Score Was one of the reasons that I reverted back to it. I always thought that it sounded more, how can I say it, upfront in audio quality? . It has it's limitations, like you cannot keep two plugins open.But this may be helpful, as it encourages you to use more your ears and lets you focus on making and recording music even more.


----------



## greggybud (Jul 4, 2020)

Endless discussions and irrational arguments could be grouped together. It might make it more entertaining. Personally I still believe in binary math and things like 1+1=2, but there are disagreements about that too. 








Is Protools the best sounding DAW? - Gearspace.com


Hello there! I, as many, compose, produce and mix. I've worked for probably more than 10 years with Logic. I hate Logic X but I'm still happy with Logi



www.gearslutz.com


----------



## KerrySmith (Jul 4, 2020)

But if a composer writes the track in Cubase, records the orchestra at Air, using Pro Tools, and it's mixed by Alan Meyerson, using Pro Tools, and then mastered/dubbed on a stage with Nuendo or Pro Tools... what's making it sound great?


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 4, 2020)

Steinberg invented VST and Asio so I can only imagine they have some exclusive technology/algos that might make it sound better than other DAWs. HZ being so close to them might have some inside knowledge on that.


----------



## nolotrippen (Jul 4, 2020)

JohnG said:


> If you choose the wrong DAW:
> 
> 1. You will go to hell;
> 2. Your wife/husband/partner will be 20% less attractive than those using the _other_ DAW;
> ...



On 3., it's not so private that chuckling.


----------



## NoamL (Jul 4, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> My first thought reading that was "3 minutes seems long to do that". Doesn't Logic have a CC Mapper like Reaper has?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is this possible in Reaper?


----------



## NoamL (Jul 4, 2020)

KerrySmith said:


> But if a composer writes the track in Cubase, records the orchestra at Air, using Pro Tools, and it's mixed by Alan Meyerson, using Pro Tools, and then mastered/dubbed on a stage with Nuendo or Pro Tools... what's making it sound great?



The musicians!


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 4, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Is this possible in Reaper?



Yes, but I'll admit it's not a feature that comes shipped with Reaper and a beginner would never stumble over it, you need to specifically search for stuff like this:







The Midi CC Mapper I showed you first comes with Reaper. This advanced "Midi CC Mapper *X*" has to be downloaded via the Reaper package manager. Took me a couple of minutes to figure out how that's done:


User guide



You download it there, put it in the right folder in Reaper, restart Reaper, open the package manager (or rather it autostarted in my case), search for Midi CC Mapper X, click install, and then you can load it like other installed plugins or scripts. So, not hard to do, but not something you could possibly discover just from browsing through all the menus.

P.S.: If I'm not mistaken you could do this directly in Kontakt as well:





Kontakt Scripts: Add Custom Curves to Mod Wheel


Orchestral Tools Capsule has a feature that lets you draw a custom curve that remaps the mod wheel values: I am wondering if there is a way that I can do this type of thing that is based in Kontakt (rather than Capsule), and that I could apply to other non-Orchestral Tools instruments. For...




vi-control.net





I'm not using the most recent version of Reaper, it's possible they started including the package manager with Reaper. It would make a lot of sense to do that imho.


----------



## NoamL (Jul 4, 2020)

Wow, that's pretty cool! Guess it was unfair not to include Reaper with the main 3 if it's that moddable.

Yes it's possible in KSP as well... but KSP is less accessible for self teaching than JS. Plenty of good KSP programmers out there though!


----------



## Kent (Jul 4, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Confirmation bias + maybe they have developed an ear for hearing certain stock plugins.
> 
> There are good reasons to use any of the three main DAWs.
> 
> ...


Or, if you don’t want to bother with JS, just use transformers in the Environment!


----------



## MartinH. (Jul 4, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Wow, that's pretty cool! Guess it was unfair not to include Reaper with the main 3 if it's that moddable.
> 
> Yes it's possible in KSP as well... but KSP is less accessible for self teaching than JS. Plenty of good KSP programmers out there though!



I know so little about scripting in Reaper, I just assume everything is possible and most things I might need have probably been done already. 

Regarding KSP, if I understood post #2 in that thread correctly, you only need KSP if you want a user-facing version of that table that would work in kontakt player too. In full kontakt you should be able to add the curve as a CC modulator without any scripting I think.


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 4, 2020)

JohnG said:


> If you choose the wrong DAW:
> 
> 1. You will go to hell;
> 2. Your wife/husband/partner will be 20% less attractive than those using the _other_ DAW;
> ...


Usually it doesn’t matter anyway as these days everything gets mixed in Pro Tools on the dubbing stage so any differences in tone are most likely too subtle to notice especially given how low music is mixed behind dialogue and sound fx. Even if you are in the music biz it all ends up compressed for iTunes, YouTube, Amazon, Pandora and Spotify, etc. I just don’t this it matters what DAW one uses.


----------



## VinRice (Jul 7, 2020)

There are differences - Cubase IS slightly brighter than Logic and Logic doesn't dither its 24bit imports/bounces properly (there's a whole tread about it on Gearslutz, be prepared for maths) and ProTools does sound the best/smoothest/whatever to me - but its all so insignificant in the greater scheme of things as to be irrelevant. I use Logic as I find it the quickest and easiest to use.


----------



## nuyo (Jul 7, 2020)

VinRice said:


> There are differences - Cubase IS slightly brighter than Logic and Logic doesn't dither its 24bit imports/bounces properly (there's a whole tread about it on Gearslutz, be prepared for maths) and ProTools does sound the best/smoothest/whatever to me - but its all so insignificant in the greater scheme of things as to be irrelevant. I use Logic as I find it the quickest and easiest to use.



1. Cant you work around that by just applying a slight high boosting eq whenever you work in Logic ?
2. It there no option do disable the build in dither by Logic and use your won plugin ?


----------



## Dietz (Jul 7, 2020)

KerrySmith said:


> But if a composer writes the track in Cubase, records the orchestra at Air, using Pro Tools, and it's mixed by Alan Meyerson, using Pro Tools, and then mastered/dubbed on a stage with Nuendo or Pro Tools... what's making it sound great?


Ears, time, and routine.


----------



## VinRice (Jul 7, 2020)

nuyo said:


> 1. Cant you work around that by just applying a slight high boosting eq whenever you work in Logic ?
> 2. It there no option do disable the build in dither by Logic and use your won plugin ?



Of course. As I said the differences are trivial.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jul 7, 2020)

Over at Gearslutz, they null tested all the DAWs and found all but one sound the same. Harrison Mixbus runs through an emulation of the Harrison Mixbus 32C board. As such it has color built in. It is not necessarily better, but it is different.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 7, 2020)

VinRice said:


> There are differences - Cubase IS slightly brighter than Logic



This is completely false - please stop spreading misinformation.

Do the outputs of Cubase and Logic null when the pan laws are the same? Yes they do. Therefore, Cubase IS NOT brighter than Logic.

A simple listening test will also prove that Cubase IS NOT brighter than Logic.


----------



## Rctec (Jul 7, 2020)

Jimmy Hellfire said:


> Because Steinberg pays them, or they're doing Steinberg a favor?
> 
> I think it's a bunch of hooey, and even if it's true on some level, it's so infinitely insignificant that nobody should ever be spending any thought on it.


Do you really think that Steinberg can pay us enough? That’s a pretty insulting accusation.
i love John Powell’s work. We’ve done many projects together. He works in Logic, I work in Cubase. I like the way his stuff sounds. And even if we use the same plug-ins, it sounds slightly different. Something you’ll never notice once it’s dubbed into a movie with every scene having a blanket of Athmos noise over it. JXL used to work in Logic and then moved over to Cubase. 
if there wasn’t a difference, neither company wouldn’t have to ‘improve’ their code. And the difference I hear is just enough to effect my writing. And I’m pretty sure John Powell will say the same...


----------



## Fitz (Jul 7, 2020)

Rctec said:


> Do you really think that Steinberg can pay us enough? That’s a pretty insulting accusation.
> i love John Powell’s work. We’ve done many projects together. He works in Logic, I work in Cubase. I like the way his stuff sounds. And even if we use the same plug-ins, it sounds slightly different. Something you’ll never notice once it’s dubbed into a movie with every scene having a blanket of Athmos noise over it. JXL used to work in Logic and then moved over to Cubase.
> if there wasn’t a difference, neither company wouldn’t have to ‘improve’ their code. And the difference I hear is just enough to effect my writing. And I’m pretty sure John Powell will say the same...


Hans when was the last time you wrote a track in Logic and what made you switch to Cubase? As a composer who switch over to Cubase two years ago, I do agree with you. I also wanted to be with a music company who pushes things forward, not with one that rarely updates and often has to play catchup. So even if Cubase did sound exactly like Logic, I want to be with Steinberg for innovation.


----------



## StefanoM (Jul 7, 2020)

As I wrote some time ago, I did several tests in the past. It is clear that if you do a very simple TEST without using effects, without using plug-ins, without using anything, you import 10 tracks, export this material and then repeat everything with different DAWs, and send the various TEST files in inverted phase, the result will be a total cancellation. But as soon as you start inserting any plug-ins ( also the same, for example, some 3rd part plug-in ), the situation changes. Each DAWs has small differences in the audio engine. How do they manage latencies, latency compensation for example... So it is fair to say that a DAW can behave differently in "real" work situations, with many tracks and many plug-ins. Of course, we are talking about very very little differences...


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jul 7, 2020)

I had to install a noisy portable AC next to myself because of this disgusting weather, so I'm fairly certain all DAW's will sound like crap to me...

But I really wonder if there is any series of publications on this matter in AES or similar journals. I don't feel that poorly structured, anecdotal forum posts will provide any relief or conclusive result to most people even if some are absolutely true. Although people give way too much credit to this subject than it really needs, it's just not very important overall.

Although based on my own research and some experience in coding, I'm heavily inclined towards saying that the DAW's do operate differently (there are too many notions to try to explain here but Wikipedia is your friend) and that yes they sound different, depending on how good your ears can pick up those differences.

Cheers


----------



## Loïc D (Jul 7, 2020)

The most important question is : on which DAW does N sound better ?


----------



## zigzag (Jul 7, 2020)

Summing algorithm is exactly the same in (nearly) all of the DAWs. However, as soon as you start modifying audio by other means (fade in/out, automation, panning, time stretching, resampling etc) there can be subtle (mathematical) differences, depending on the algorithm implemented in the specific DAW.

AdmiralBumbleBee recently did a series of tests that show some differences between DAWs https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/12/08/Daw-V-Daw-Pan-Curves.html

However, most of the time these differences will be inaudible to humans or so small, that it is not worth your time.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 7, 2020)

Rctec said:


> i love John Powell’s work. We’ve done many projects together. He works in Logic, I work in Cubase. I like the way his stuff sounds. And even if we use the same plug-ins, it sounds slightly different.



But that's due to plugs, how they are used, other mixing techniques, and so on. Not the DAW itself - no, sorry.


----------



## Joakim (Jul 7, 2020)

zigzag said:


> Summing algorithm is exactly the same in (nearly) all of the DAWs. However, as soon as you start modifying audio by other means (fade in/out, automation, panning, time stretching, resampling etc) there can be subtle (mathematical) differences, depending on the algorithm implemented in the specific DAW.
> 
> AdmiralBumbleBee recently did a series of tests that show some differences between DAWs https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/12/08/Daw-V-Daw-Pan-Curves.html
> 
> However, most of the time these differences will be inaudible to humans or so small, that it is not worth your time.



Was about to ask why no one had posted that yet and I find it on the last page


----------



## Locks (Jul 7, 2020)

I think these kinds of differences are so minute that preference for the sound of one DAW over another comes down entirely to cognitive bias. E.g. if you use a product with a brand name that you perceive to be of high quality, it will probably appear to sound better to you than an alternative brand. We're all wired to do this and honestly, I think it's a perfectly valid reason to have a preference for one product over another (if it sounds better to YOU it sound better to YOU).

Dan Worrall recently did a really good video on this concept. He summed it up very nicely at the end when comparing different sample rate conversion algorithms.


> I continue to use the Izotope algorithm because when I see the brand name, I perceive it as sounding better. Even though I know perfectly well that this is probably just cognitive bias.


----------



## jbuhler (Jul 7, 2020)

Loïc D said:


> The most important question is : on which DAW does N sound better ?


N always sounds just as you imagine it should. The DAW literally doesn’t matter.


----------



## StefanoM (Jul 8, 2020)

zigzag said:


> Summing algorithm is exactly the same in (nearly) all of the DAWs. However, as soon as you start modifying audio by other means (fade in/out, automation, panning, time stretching, resampling etc) there can be subtle (mathematical) differences, depending on the algorithm implemented in the specific DAW.
> 
> AdmiralBumbleBee recently did a series of tests that show some differences between DAWs https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/12/08/Daw-V-Daw-Pan-Curves.html
> 
> However, most of the time these differences will be inaudible to humans or so small, that it is not worth your time.



exactly ...

that this not means that one Daw sounds better of another Daw ( in term of Audio Quality ), but it means that there are some little differences in term of " audio" processing.


----------



## el-bo (Jul 8, 2020)

JohnG said:


> If you choose the wrong DAW:
> 
> 2. Your wife/husband/partner will be 20% less attractive than those using the _other_ DAW



20%? Not sure my wife has that much to spare :(


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jul 8, 2020)

Rctec said:


> Do you really think that Steinberg can pay us enough? That’s a pretty insulting accusation.



It wasn't meant as an insult or accusation, but just something that might sound plausible. I don't see anything bad about endorsing something or doing someone a favor. 

In any case, I still think that even if there's some kind of a difference at some macro level, it would have to be absolutely insignificant and probably not even audible for 99% of music makers. 

I'm also sure that if we're looking at this kind of quasi-esoteric stuff, the visual design of things probably affects our work more. You write better music if your track colors are elaborate, your plugins have nice skins and your DAW doesn't look like ass, even if the audio engine is inferior. In fact, I'm ready to disclose that me using ugly Cubase is probably the reason why I write so much crap!


----------



## iwritemusic (Jul 8, 2020)

This musician wouldn't know if there are any technical differences that would make them sound different, but they certainly cause me to write different music, perhaps because of the different advantages or impediments they offer. For example, maybe one has a strong step editor, and another one has very fast/intuitive velocity or MIDI CC drawing.

If you like to use presets as a starting point, some DAWs will have a very 'premastered' sound with fairly intricate effects chains, while in other cases things are pretty barebones and you're on your own.

There's an easy way to find out though, bring out the stem files! 

- N


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 8, 2020)

I just think it boils down to whatever DAW you use. Logic guys think that's the best, Cubase guys think that's the best.
If i write a piece in midi then print the stems to audio, it sounds exactly the same. It only changes when i start using plugins.
I am pretty sure it's the same with all DAWS and also how you use them plugins.

I will give you an e.g. I have writen loads of pieces with loads of orchestral instruments.
So has Tom Holkenborg. My pieces sound shit, his pieces sound awesome. I have quite a few of the same sample libraries he has but the difference is, he knows how to mix and manipulate the plugins, i don't. We both use Cubase.

If he used logic, his sound would still be the same. I think they all sound the same untill you start using plugins and how you use them plugins.

If i'm wrong then fair enough but i really can't see there would be a difference between the DAW software itself.


----------



## chocobitz825 (Jul 8, 2020)

Isn’t this all just a matter of workflow? Most daws may not be colored or made to emulate consoles like mixbus, but their setup for audio chains may influence subtle parts of the sound. Beyond that, Any DAW can get you great sound, but either way it comes down the the workflow that works for you. If you can’t figure out the system to make it work the way you want, it can impact your final output.


----------



## Loïc D (Jul 8, 2020)

I’m pretty sure my DAW sounds better than most.

I feed him only with organic content, groom it with a comb filter, pick his colours carefully, take him for a walk on the laptop and check him for virus.
He’s in great condition and his Apple breeder told me he’s gonna live longer than me.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jul 8, 2020)

Do DAWs sound different? With basic numerical software summing - no. (Or, statistically and perceptually completelly insignificant) 
And if one does sound different (even for the better) it's a serious bug. A bug either in the software or a listeners perception.  (It's the later)


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 8, 2020)

If say you loaded the same midi file i had, you on Logic and me on Cubase, using the same sample library, and just pressed play, they would sound identical. Assuming we had identical speakers and audio interface.
Why would your DAW sound any different to mine?
That is a DAW. The rest comes from all different plugins and that is where the difference starts.


----------



## dgburns (Jul 8, 2020)

I sound different when I use different DAWS.

(your wednesday morning cute quote)


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jul 8, 2020)

zigzag said:


> Summing algorithm is exactly the same in (nearly) all of the DAWs. However, as soon as you start modifying audio by other means (fade in/out, automation, panning, time stretching, resampling etc) there can be subtle (mathematical) differences, depending on the algorithm implemented in the specific DAW.
> 
> AdmiralBumbleBee recently did a series of tests that show some differences between DAWs https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/12/08/Daw-V-Daw-Pan-Curves.html
> 
> However, most of the time these differences will be inaudible to humans or so small, that it is not worth your time.



This is exactly what I'd expect, presuming ABB's analysis is correct - it usually is, or he'll fix it if it's pointed out where wrong. Digital audio is digital audio (broad generalization of course!), but every time you touch it, it can change. It wouldn't surprise me if some DAWs were more gentle, aka mathematically or musically better at things even as "simple" as panning, let alone automation or rendering.

It also wouldn't surprise me if top professionals using some of the best equipment in the world, such as Mr Zimmer, could actually hear the tiny differences of audio that seemingly can accumulate when manipulated in a DAW and then have a personal preference for one or the other.


----------



## Locks (Jul 8, 2020)

vitocorleone123 said:


> It also wouldn't surprise me if top professionals using some of the best equipment in the world, such as Mr Zimmer, could actually hear the tiny differences of audio that seemingly can accumulate when manipulated in a DAW and then have a personal preference for one or the other.



I would imagine that if you did a blind test, even the industry legends would not be able to accurately identify which DAW was used at a rate greater than what you would expect from chance alone.

This could actually be a fun experiment to do in these forums actually.


----------



## Locks (Jul 8, 2020)

Locks said:


> This could actually be a fun experiment to do in these forums actually.



Actually, would anyone be interested in doing this? may day job involves a healthy amount of data analytics and stats so I could put together a proper analysis of the results.

Only thing is I only have one DAW. If someone has access to a few (5 would be ideal) and can provide me with an identical piece from each (using the same plugins etc. in each case) we can make a thread and do a little blind test. Could be fun.

Send me a DM if you can help.


----------



## NekujaK (Jul 8, 2020)

Perhaps there are minute sound differences between DAWs - I can't really say with 100% certainty one way or another. However, if there are differences, I'm pretty sure they are so minute as to be undiscernable to the average listener.

Besides, hearing a piece of music in its finished form and accepting it for what it is, is a very different experience than listening to side-by-side comparisons played through different DAWs. I've never listened to a film score and thought, "Gosh, that could've sounded so much better if only they used <fill-in-your-favorite-DAW>." I just listen at face value, as do most listenters.

Now having said all that, I'll relate an experience in which I was actually astonished by the profound difference in sound between DAWs, but this was about 12 years ago, and I haven't experienced anything like it since. I was working on a pop music project, co-writing/producing songs with a talented singer. I was building the backing tracks in Cubase/Reason rewired together, but when it came time to record vocals, she wanted to use her husband's studio, which was a familiar environment for her. He's a famous rock star who built a nice in-home studio with a great vocal booth, and not surprisingly, he used ProTools.

I exported stereo mixes of my tracks for the recording sessions, which he imported into ProTools. The first time I heard one of my tracks played through ProTools I nearly fell off my chair. There was a depth, width, and clarity that simply wasn't present in my own setup. And no, it wasn't the listening environment. I listened on both speakers and headphones, and the difference between what I heard coming out of ProTools compared to my Cubase/Reason setup was pretty astonishing regardless of the listening medium.

Now to be fair, I strongly suspect he must've had some kind of enhancer/finalizer plugin on the master bus, because whenever I'd ask him if he was doing any kind of processing, he became very evasive and would quickly change the subject.

Anyway, I eventually abandoned Cubase, and have continued to work exclusively in Reason, sharing files back and forth between several ProTools studios thru the years, and have never experienced any discernable differences in audio quality, and neither have my clients or the ProTools studio guys.


----------



## zigzag (Jul 9, 2020)

Locks said:


> I would imagine that if you did a blind test, even the industry legends would not be able to accurately identify which DAW was used at a rate greater than what you would expect from chance alone.
> 
> This could actually be a fun experiment to do in these forums actually.


Test that would require identifying which DAW was used would not be a good test IMO. It wouldn't just test if subject is able to hear a difference between DAWs, but if he can also connect characteristics of processing to a specific DAW, which is much much harder and frankly not very useful.

Question should be, is there any difference between two tracks. And a number of track pairs in test would be identical, so if subject would "hear" differences between many identical pairs his results could be marked as guesses.

Proper test is not easy to produce. Good test samples should contain processing that would result in most pronounced differences (but limited to processing that someone would actually do in practice). Because some difference may be apparent only in a specific circumstances and just random processing of audio would probably miss that. 

One interesting finding of AdmiralBumbleBee's tests was that a single DAW can produce different results with different buffer settings. So it's not just DAW vs DAW but also a buffer size vs buffer size.


----------



## NoOneKnowsAnything (Jul 9, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> If say you loaded the same midi file i had, you on Logic and me on Cubase, using the same sample library, and just pressed play, they would sound identical. Assuming we had identical speakers and audio interface.
> Why would your DAW sound any different to mine?
> That is a DAW. The rest comes from all different plugins and that is where the difference starts.


The other reality is what something sounds like to me is probably a totally different experience for every other person in the world. Hearing and perception are not global objectives. Everything in life is a constantly changing reality for each individual in the world. So what I think something sounds like today may sound different to me tomorrow and each person in the world hears and perceives uniquely in a constant changing state of life. Perception is not a constant about anything in the world as life blends illusion and delusion always with each of one’s senses. No one can really define the truth or what is going on, we all can only be earnest at the moment to what we perceive to be reality, which is in and of itself ephemeral, transitory and mysterious. 

Consciousness is constantly being unfolded and self-awareness is not some fixed point. As we change our beliefs so our perceptions are recalibrated too. I don’t see how anyone could ever figure out which DAW sounds best when communication is in and of itself a mysterious transaction. How one perceives is an ambiguous notion of understanding (taking in input), thinking (processing input) and expressing (communicating your evaluation of input). This is not only unique for each person but never a fixed constant for any individual. When someone speaks or expresses themselves, what they say is probably different from the subtext of what they mean to say let alone the meaning of what they say regardless of what they think they communicated. And how any of us perceive or analyze that communication is equally a mysterious event that is not quantifiable by some objective means.

Science itself is based on incomplete data, so science is at best selling a faith based notion with constant changing variables. It’s like describing what something looks like and claiming you have 100% certainty while you are blind and in a room that is completely pitch black. 98% of the universe is dark matter. No one knows what dark matter is. Perhaps the real answer is not 98% but 99.9999999999% of the universe is made of dark matter, which we have no understanding what that is. So science is coming up with ideas (like religion) from a test environment (the universe made up of at least 98% unknown matter) and yet boldly claims irrefutable and permanent truths. That’s ridiculous. Science is just religion like every other idea one can suggest. Astro-physicists see that matter is appearing and disappearing at the smallest level observable and have no clue why this happens. Yet, scientists make claims that are supposedly based on objective facts. Yet, all objective reasoning is based on an individual’s perceptions who is incapable of being anything other than subjective and biased. Finding the truth in anything is like swimming in a pool of emotion. Which emotion is good and which is bad? Better yet, which note on a piano is good and which is bad? That is about how confusing life is regarding any topic you can imagine.


----------



## Locks (Jul 9, 2020)

zigzag said:


> Test that would require identifying which DAW was used would not be a good test IMO. It wouldn't just test if subject is able to hear a difference between DAWs, but if he can also connect characteristics of processing to a specific DAW, which is much much harder and frankly not very useful.
> 
> Question should be, is there any difference between two tracks. And a number of track pairs in test would be identical, so if subject would "hear" differences between many identical pairs his results could be marked as guesses.



That's a really good point. That would be a much better and more useful test. You'd have to trust people not to do a null test for themselves of course as just a few people doing that could skew the results. 



zigzag said:


> One interesting finding of AdmiralBumbleBee's tests was that a single DAW can produce different results with different buffer settings. So it's not just DAW vs DAW but also a buffer size vs buffer size.



That's quite interesting! I wouldn't have expected that. Is it possible that those differences could just be phase differences introduced by the latency larger buffer settings can introduce?

Would you be able to link to these tests? I'd love to read more on this.


----------



## GtrString (Jul 9, 2020)

Subtle probably. We believe that plugins sound different, why not daws. Its basically one big plugin. We hear differences between soundcards and between speakers. Daws should be the same.

Will the end results be different for you? I think probably not, you will react to the sounds, and compensate with plugins and whatnot. Like when using soundcards and speakers, the daw becomes part of a system, you get used to react to it, and will end up creating the sound you want to hear.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 9, 2020)

Ok, lets look at it this way.
One composer has Logic and Cubase on his computer.
He composes a short piece exactly the same in both DAWS.
He mixes exactly the same in both DAWS.

Is the result going to be that much different that would be worth saying 'this DAW is better sounding than that DAW.
I can't see that it would to be honest.


----------



## GtrString (Jul 9, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> He mixes exactly the same in both DAWS.



I would think there will be a difference if he mixes with the exact same plugin settings, as the different algorithms would process the sound differently, but the mixer would probably make the mixes similar due to his/her preferences (if you catch the distinction?). Music is made by human activity, not by machines. The daw is just a tool.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 9, 2020)

GtrString said:


> The daw is just a tool.


So would one make of hammer knock in a nail better than another make? Does that make sense?


----------



## GtrString (Jul 9, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> So would one make of hammer knock in a nail better than another make? Does that make sense?



Yes, there are definitely differences in hammers


----------



## Dietz (Jul 9, 2020)

dgburns said:


> I sound different when I use different DAWS.



... which might be absolutely true, because the different interfaces invite you to approach a given task differently _(... not because the addition of Zeroes and Ones would lead to different results, though)_.


----------



## zigzag (Jul 9, 2020)

Locks said:


> That's a really good point. That would be a much better and more useful test. You'd have to trust people not to do a null test for themselves of course as just a few people doing that could skew the results.


Exactly. I wouldn't trust results test like this done over the internet as it's too easy to cheat.



Locks said:


> That's quite interesting! I wouldn't have expected that. Is it possible that those differences could just be phase differences introduced by the latency larger buffer settings can introduce?
> 
> Would you be able to link to these tests? I'd love to read more on this.


In some DAWs buffer size affects automation accuracy (response time).
In Part 1, Cubase test shows a difference of 12 milliseconds for automation response time between 64 and 1024 samples buffer size. I wonder how big of a diference 64 vs 4096 buffers would produce.

Part 5 has some nice explanations with animations.

All articles: part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6.


----------



## Locks (Jul 9, 2020)

zigzag said:


> Exactly. I wouldn't trust results test like this done over the internet as it's too easy to cheat.
> 
> 
> In some DAWs buffer size affects automation accuracy (response time).
> ...



Thanks ZigZag! I'm glad someone has done this so we don't have to. Cheers!


----------



## dzilizzi (Jul 9, 2020)

GtrString said:


> Yes, there are definitely differences in hammers


Actually this is true. Head styles and weights vary depending on what they are being used for. Just as nails vary in weight and size. 

I also sound different using different DAWs, but I think that is more of a competency thing than anything else. ProTools always sounds the best for me because I know a lot more tricks using it. I'm not going to claim anything sounds better though.


----------



## babylonwaves (Jul 9, 2020)

Once you bounce your mixes online (instead of offline) you will hear differences, maybe not with a single track but certainly with a project that makes use of the CPU power available. In Cubase as well as in Logic, Live, and S1. I'm always surprised that there are a lot of people talking about the quality of their insert effects and VIs while bouncing online. It's the one mistake that more or less guarantees a degraded result.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jul 9, 2020)

On the list of 10 most important things to how your delivered music sounds, IMHO, this is number 739.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 9, 2020)

Locks said:


> I would imagine that if you did a blind test, even the industry legends would not be able to accurately identify which DAW was used at a rate greater than what you would expect from chance alone.
> 
> This could actually be a fun experiment to do in these forums actually.



In theory, this is a great idea, but....

Alas, if the plan is to post on Soundcloud or any other free site like that, you can't run the experiment because of the fallibility of the upload / decode / transmogrifierizationistic nature of those hosts.

Besides, the export to a common format (WAV or whatever) from the DAWs may not be done perfectly and can introduce problems and imperfections.

Moreover, you can't control what people listen back through -- earbuds?

Consequently, at best, the result will be just another inconclusive mess; at worst, a finger-pointing, "you didn't do it right and my DAW is _still_ better!"

So I don't think such an experiment would result in "fun" after all, even though I completely hear where you're coming from.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 9, 2020)

JohnG said:


> transmogrifierizationistic



Not to sidetrack, but what is that? Sounds like a trans-gender cyborg from Joe's garage or something.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 9, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Not to sidetrack, but what is that? Sounds like a trans-gender cyborg from Joe's garage or something.



Exactly!


----------



## Locks (Jul 9, 2020)

JohnG said:


> In theory, this is a great idea, but....
> 
> Alas, if the plan is to post on Soundcloud or any other free site like that, you can't run the experiment because of the fallibility of the upload / decode / transmogrifierizationistic nature of those hosts.
> 
> ...



Great points John 👍. I think we should certainly give that idea the flick!


----------



## zigzag (Jul 17, 2020)

AdmiralBumbleBee has posted a new article with an audio sample that demonstrates one case of a clearly audible difference between DAWs.

See how big offset gets with a large buffer:






Many things are simple in theory, but implementations can vary due to tight realtime requirements and other practical limitations. Or it can just be a bug. And all software, not just DAWs, often have plenty of bugs.

While some bugs crash your DAW and are easily detectable, others can result in incorrect audio processing. The latter kind is much harder to diagnose and is less likely to be fixed. 

One of the problems is that discussing audio differences of DAWs is kind of a taboo topic and it's often difficult to have a constructive discussion. But by downplaying DAW differences, bugs like these can go unfixed for many years (8+ years in this case and still not fixed).

I'm not trying to single out any DAW or company. I'm just pointing out that discussions like these can be beneficial by making more people aware of these bugs and with more people complaining about them there is a much better chance that they will get fixed. Of course, people need to be more specific about differences (not just DAW X sounds better in general than DAW Y) for a discussion to be useful.


----------



## Kent (Jul 17, 2020)

zigzag said:


> AdmiralBumbleBee has posted a new article with an audio sample that demonstrates one case of a clearly audible difference between DAWs.
> 
> See how big offset gets with a large buffer:
> 
> ...


@Robert Randolph care to chime in?


----------

