Proposed Test for Kurt (or anyone else)

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 3:56 pm

For years we've been hearing claims that SAWStudio sounds better than Nuendo, Cubase, Sonar, PT, etc.

Yet to my knowledge, no one has objectively tested those claims.

I wonder if Kurt or anyone else would be interested in performing such a test. I'd help out in any way I could.

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 6:47 pm

How do you propose to conduct this "test"?

Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:14 pm

Hold each one up to your ear and listen carefully Laughing

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:46 pm

Jeemy don't forget to make sure they are in tune first! Laughing

Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:30 pm

AndrewSteingrebe wrote:

How do you propose to conduct this "test"?

You'd have to have two computer systems running at the same time. The computers wouldn't have to have the same specifications, but each one would have to have the same soundcard. It wouldn't have to be a fantastic sound card; an M-Audio Audiophile would be fine. One system would have Nuendo installed; the other, SAWStudio.

You would then record a short song, with acoustic guitar, vocals, and something with a high frequency such as a tamborine. (You would have to have multiple tracks to test the summing engine on the respective programs.) You would record the same source, and would split it so that the Nuendo system receives the same signal as the SAWStudio system.

It's not complicated; you just have to have two computers and two identical soundcards.

Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:58 pm

So, you would just switch the monitors between the two as an A-B test? That sounds like it would work, but then only those involved with the test would hear the results first hand and the rest of us would be stuck reading about it in a review, or something.

What if you just rendered to mix in each system then spliced the same section of song from the different systems together in A-B fashion, then have the resulting wave file available for download somewhere similar to Kurts mic pre and mic comparisons. That way others could hear any differences first hand aswell.

As far as the specifics of the test, for the sake of consistency, you could have each person download the same set of tracks from rawtracks.com. Then just render the raw tracks (no processing of any kind), with levels set to nominal, within each daw. Cut out output conversion entirely.

If this sounds like a good way to go, I can contribute rendered files from SAWStudio, Samplitude7, N-Track, Tracktion1 and a light version of Cubase and maybe PTfree.
---------------------------------------------

Now thatI think of it, I'm going to go ahead and do it this way. Are you, Michael, or anyone else interested in contributing the files for Nuendo, Sequoia, PT and any other daw software available?

I need to check, but I think it only costs something like $8 to download a set 16/44 tracks from rawtracks.

Any other takers?

Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:38 pm

Just realised there would probably be legal issues with posting the results using source tracks from rawtracks, so I'll record some tracks instead, then send them to others who are willing to provide renders from other daws.

Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:40 pm

I would have to decline doing such a comparison myself, for the following reasons ...

I don't have 2 matching computers ...

I do not have the computer expertise that I feel I should have to do such a comparison. I am old to the world of recording but I waited until native power was good enough to venture into DAW recording .. As such, I still don't really know my way around the computer well enough to have the competence I feel I should have to perform this type of test.

However, i give my "blessing" (such as it is) Rolling Eyes

to this idea and if someone wishes to perform such a test, I would be happy to place the results on my MP3 account and edit, facilitate and post in the E Mag, a review if one is written ...

I think it's a great idea.

This topic sponsored by: