Best Recording Software

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:36 am

2. I've heard a lot of complaints on the users forum about real-time effects and latency during recording/tracking. I don't work with it that way, and I can't comment on it specifically. If this is an issue for you, you should know about it.

3. Same with MIDI. I never use Samp/Seq for MIDI (I fire up Cakewalk the rare times that I do...) I"ve heard it's a LOT better in V8 for both Samp & Seq., so one can only hope. God knows it would go a long way to shut up the chronic complainers on the Samplitude Users forum about it. There is a new MIDI feature in V8 called "Robota" that looks like a lot of fun, as well...if you need that sort of thing.

[/quote]

Thanks guys for the informative responses!

I'm not interestd in recording with effects in real time. Although I haven't had a chance to use it yet due to crashes Nuendo 3 has a new feature where you can create an FX plugin out of an external fx box and use it as an effects send right in the program. I have a Kurzweil KSP8, some old upgraded LXP15s and some old delays etc I'd like to use in this way. Got the idea maybe Samp/Sequoia can do that but not sure.
Does it work like that?

For midi I also have Cakewalk proaudio 9 and would porbably upgrade it to Sonar 4 and use that. How easy is it to transfer midi files from say Sonar into Samp/Seq?
cheers!
Dave

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:57 am

You can absolutely use your outboard boxes. The routing takes a bit of doing, but it is certainly possible. I use a Lexicon 300 in a fair amount of my mixes...

As for midi, you can import from other programs, but being on the audio end of things, I don't know much about how to do it. In Version 8, they did massive MIDI improvements and a number of my more midi-inclined friends tell me that they can finally do the whole process in Samp/Sequoia... I'll take their word as I'm kind of a midiot here...

--Ben

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 2:53 pm

With multi-track classical stuff, do you guys mix to stereo first, then edit, and apply effects, mastering, or do you multi-track edit?

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 3:09 pm

I always edit multitrack then mix... Doing stuff in the 2track domain doesn't always work. For classical it usually isn't a problem, but for jazz it almost never works. The nice thing about editing multitrack is when acoustics change due to an audience, I can compensate for it in the edits (especially if I have ambience mics).

--Ben

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:00 pm

Downloaded the demo of Samplitude 8 tonight. Wasn't as bad as I thought it might be to figure out how to do anything, though it will obviously take me a bit of study to really be able to use it.

Are there any good books or videos or online courses in Samplitude or Sequioa?

How bad is the manual?

I did a little test tonight with the demo, not sure if it was valid or fair. I ripped a track of a CD into both Samp and Nuendo3.
I played the track from the CD, then from the wave file in Samp, then from the CD then from Nuendo

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

Is this a fair test and does this corroborate what any of you hear in the difference between Samp and Nuendo or other programs?

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:04 pm

By the way, can you tell me what midi interface 8x8
y'all are using with no problems with Samp/Seq?

I just discovered a lot of the problems I've had with Nuendo 3 stemmed from a USB midi interface - specifically the Midiman USB midisport 8x8, though it is my understanding this may be an issue with P4 and USB?

Thanks
Dave

Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:37 pm

violindave wrote:

Downloaded the demo of Samplitude 8 tonight. Wasn't as bad as I thought it might be to figure out how to do anything, though it will obviously take me a bit of study to really be able to use it.

Like most programs, once you figure out the logic behind it, it is pretty doable...

Quote:

Are there any good books or videos or online courses in Samplitude or Sequioa?

As of now, none, but I'm thinking about changing that... We shall see, no guarantees, though...

Quote:

How bad is the manual?

Don't know, there is a complete rewrite for the Version 8 release. The last one had a ton of information, but not much was useful and it was hard to navigate. The new one is supposed to be improved. The online help, though, is usually pretty good.

Quote:

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

That has been my experience. I dont' have Nuendo, but I have A-B'd against other programs. Samp usually comes out on top with the best engines out there. Don't know if it is voodo or something more, but I like the sound I get in Samp and Sequoia.

--Ben

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:29 am

Quote:

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

Quote:

That has been my experience. I dont' have Nuendo, but I have A-B'd against other programs. Samp usually comes out on top with the best engines out there. Don't know if it is voodo or something more, but I like the sound I get in Samp and Sequoia.

I think a good external DAC and a null test will confirm these hunches to be false. 1+1=2 in the digital domain in all workstations. If a modern DAW is not using 32bit IEEE math, that all of the leading products are, then it would be well known.

Same WAV, same sound.

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:00 am

DavidSpearritt wrote:

Quote:

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

Quote:

That has been my experience. I dont' have Nuendo, but I have A-B'd against other programs. Samp usually comes out on top with the best engines out there. Don't know if it is voodo or something more, but I like the sound I get in Samp and Sequoia.

I think a good external DAC and a null test will confirm these hunches to be false. 1+1=2 in the digital domain in all workstations. If a modern DAW is not using 32bit IEEE math, that all of the leading products are, then it would be well known.

Same WAV, same sound.

Dave,

I understand exactly what you mean, and partially agree with you. If there were some tragic problem with the engine of any of the software packages, there would most definitely be a way, scientifically, to prove this.

But... how do we technically account for the considerable sound difference between Sequoia and other packages. Believe me, I wouldn't have dropped $2500 on it if it were just for the better editing capabilities.

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:05 pm

I really do not want to get into another spat about this, but the same principals apply to this argument. Jeremy, we have already got off to a bad start, you and I, lets just be friends. Sad

1. How do you account for the differences, and don't just say the engine is better. Detail is required, not just heresay from some name or other or repeating received marketing opinion.

2. What definitive scientifically rigorous tests have you done to compare WAVS coming from each master section of the DAWS you have tested, eg null tests, same high quality external DAC, recording AES output of 2 DAWS playing the same WAV, and then comparing digital streams.

3. Plugins are plugins, not the DAW, so we are not interested in debating these.

4. Where is the evidence, other than the typical anecdotal stuff that seems to pervade the audio industry and does no one any good. (Similar to 1)

We had this discussion thrashed out on the Wavelab forum awhile ago, mainly between Sadie and WL and some prominant users who actually had both systems and actually had listened and compared carefully, said there was no difference.

I think the money some pay for their software, tends to produce justifications which are not supported with real evidence.

Sequoia is a great bit of software, you get what you pay for in features, power and a great user interface. But the digital math part of it, common to all the leading DAW's, is math and all done with a rigorous approach and a Microsoft IEEE 32 bit floating point C++ compiler, and these are necessarily, deterministic processes that give the same answer every time and fortunately are not subject to human intervention.

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:36 pm

DavidSpearritt wrote:

With multi-track classical stuff, do you guys mix to stereo first, then edit, and apply effects, mastering, or do you multi-track edit?

I stay multi-- up to 16tks. I cannot see any advantage in bouncing first.

Rich

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:47 pm

Jesus Dave, what the hell is your problem. I said I agreed with you and then supplied an opinion.

Simply put, if I sum 4 channels of waves together in Cubase and then in the same process in Sequoia, I can hear an obvious difference. And in case you're wondering, my hearing is fantastic, but even my wife, who's hearing has not been tested to be as good as mine, can hear a clear and obvious difference.

First, I made no mentions about plug-ins.

Second, the microsoft C++ compiler has little to do with the output summing buss of a DAW. And the aspects in which it does affect the output a DAW are highly subjective to how they were called by the programmer. (Which, in case you're wondering, is the very definition of human intervention.)

Third, scientific tests HAVE been done to prove this - sure, I didn't do them, but why don't you research this instead of proclaiming they haven't been done. Why don't you check with the University of Illinois, U/C campus and find out the scientific reasoning behind their purchase of Sequoia. I'm sure they won't just tell you "it sounds better," as a means to justify their purchase.

This forum has a record of being a very positive one. Why do you feel the need to constantly attack individuals with baseless claims of their ignorance?

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 3:25 pm

Cucco wrote:

Jesus Dave, what the hell is your problem. I said I agreed with you and then supplied an opinion.

Yes I undesrtood, and I said I didn't want another fight. But I need to express my view as well, and it always seems that we disagree violently, not sure why that is. Its certainly not meant to be personal.

Quote:

Simply put, if I sum 4 channels of waves together in Cubase and then in the same process in Sequoia, I can hear an obvious difference. And in case you're wondering, my hearing is fantastic, but even my wife, who's hearing has not been tested to be as good as mine, can hear a clear and obvious difference.

I am not questioning your hearing, no doubt it is excellent. But this is not a valid test. If you hear a difference you have to find out why. Are the master sections the same, start with a simpler test, play the same WAV in both first. Actually record the output of both digitally and null compare the WAV's. Are they different? One cannot just say it sounds better and leave it at that, one has to get to the bottom of why? If they sound different, then the WAV files coming out are different, one then has to find out where they are going different and why?

Quote:

First, I made no mentions about plug-ins.

True, I just referenced that as a general point in this debate as something that may be influencing the sound coming out of the final stages of the DAW. I was not accusing you of depending on plugs.

Quote:

Second, the microsoft C++ compiler has little to do with the output summing buss of a DAW. And the aspects in which it does affect the output a DAW are highly subjective to how they were called by the programmer. (Which, in case you're wondering, is the very definition of human intervention.)

I do not agree with this. The floating point arithmatic used in these DAW's has everything to do with the sound, it determines the accuracy of the final waveform at all sound levels.

Secondly, if you are saying that Sequoia programmers are calling a sum function properly and the others are not, then this would be well known and quite a claim. There are no inbetweens in calling a sum function. Its correct or it isn't. Programemrs don't make mistakes as fundamental as this, they make plenty of others but not this. They don't get a chance as the language syntax they use prevents it.

Quote:

Third, scientific tests HAVE been done to prove this - sure, I didn't do them, but why don't you research this instead of proclaiming they haven't been done.

Where, when, who?

Quote:

Why don't you check with the University of Illinois, U/C campus and find out the scientific reasoning behind their purchase of Sequoia.

It may not be a "scientific" reason. I wonder if they did benchmark testing, ie some null tests playing same WAV's from different DAW's, gain checking etc.

Quote:

I'm sure they won't just tell you "it sounds better," as a means to justify their purchase.

They may do, but I would argue with them as well, over that descision. I would ask them why and if they gave me a good reason and some test results I would be happy to stand corrected. I would probably buy it then as well.

You have to ask yourself why nobody ever goes into print about this stuff.

Quote:

This forum has a record of being a very positive one. Why do you feel the need to constantly attack individuals with baseless claims of their ignorance?

I am sorry this is the feeling. I suspected this might happen. I want to be proven wrong. I would love someone to tell me what I am saying is incorrect, because this published data exists. I would immmediately correct my thinking and stand down, humbled. But I see no evidence, and I simply refuse to take marketing gumpf or anecotal experiences as gospel and a reason to make a purchasing descision.

Please do not take any of this personally. I am trying to debate ideas here.

Posted: Sun Jan 30, 2005 4:15 pm

Dave,

The funny thing is, you pointed out that we disagree violently. I didn't disagree with you.

You do however, make some agregious statements often referring to the lack of scientific evidence. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for scientific, you don't need a scope to conduct a scientific experiment. If you listen to two wave forms that are prepared in the same method, and one sounds significantly different, congratulations, you have done a verifiable scientific experiment! This is the concept in which science is rooted.

And yes, a programmer can call the code at different points within the programming, or may opt to ignore the code altogether and create their own summing instructions. This could have a profound impact on the sound. It's not considered a programming error, rather a "choice."

When you make these kind of comments, you don't come off as "knowledgable," you come off as arrogant! The burden of proof doesn't lie on the person making the claim - it lies on the person disputing the claim. So, instead of you throwing up the smoke screen of "science," why don't you provide irrefutable "scientific" evidence which "proves" your cynicism or negativity.

I don't mean to sound angry - as a matter of fact, despite our disagreements here on the forum, I think you and I would get along quite well personally.

FWIW, I hold no animosity towards anyone here for ever expressing their opinions or for any other reason.

Olive branch extended.

J...

Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:03 am

DavidSpearritt wrote:
With multi-track classical stuff, do you guys mix to stereo first, then edit, and apply effects, mastering, or do you multi-track edit?

It often depends on what direction I'm going with the project, and whether or not I'm going to be working on it alone, or with a client's "Help" (or god forbid, even a "comittee" coming over to edit.

In every case, I keep the multitrack around until it's completely finished. I'll save everything separately as well, including all 2mixes and VIPs (EDLs) so I can always go back and redo anything. Very often changes are needed that involve going back to the unmixed tracks.

I can't imagine too many scenarios in which I'd do mutlitrack editing with a client present, though. (too dangerous, and too much control lost, IMHO! Wink

Only the younger and hipper of my clients realize we are starting in multitrack before the stereo mixes. Of course, I'm fine with anyone who's willing to pay by the hour to come in and redo hours of mixing and tweak it death. If it's their $ and their work, they're welcome to go for it. Otherwise, I give them a mix & rough edit of the whole thing, and we then do the final edits with everything sonically in place.

Once it's mixed to 2-track, the small details have been adressed in the mixdown - with occasionally some basic edits like long pauses removed, channels muted or drawn to "Off" when they're not needed, etc. (Obviously, if I'm in control of the recording from start to mix to edit, things go much smoother.)

By the time we're sitting down to editing, we've already mixed it to 2 tracks and edit that way - unless of course, there's a specific problem to be dealt with or worked-around. We may have to undo reverb levels, or make a tweak that's dependent on the multitrack, but it's rare for most classical stuff.

Works for me, anyway. YMMV. Laughing

This topic sponsored by: