Skip to main content
Start a topic JOIN NOW!

If You're not using Samplitude...

Member for

21 years
You should be.

I've spent the last few days working within Samplitude Pro X Suite, and it is simply fantastic.

Those of you who follow the general mindset that all DAW's are the same should give this program a try.. because once you do, you won't think that way anymore.

I've been using Sonar for a hundred years now, I started using Cakewalk Pro back in the mid 90's when I was doing quite a bit of MIDI production and at that time, Pro Tools was shaky on the integration of audio and MIDI. In fact, my engineering peers at that time who used PT had to also use Digital Performer just so that they could work on the midi end of their productions.

I went with Sonar because it did integrate audio and midi very well. As the years went by, I got to know it inside and out. I also continued to work with PT quite a bit as well, because I had clients who had projects in that format, who would bring their tracks in to me to either mix or add tracks to.

Several months ago, I decided to give Samplitude a try. There was a thirty day trial period, so I figured I had nothing to lose.

What I didn't realize at that time was that besides having nothing to lose, I had everything to gain.

I decided to do an apples to apples comparison.

I took tracks - exactly the same tracks - and imported them into Sonar, PT, and Samplitude.
The difference was like night and day.

In comparison, here is what I found:

Sonar "does something" to the audio... and not in a good way. I don't know what it is technically, but I can tell you that the result is a "smeared" and "phasey" sound..

Pro Tools wasn't much better, except it seemed that I needed to use more of a particular processor (stock PT Plugs) to get the desired results I was seeking... so if I wanted to add sparkle on top, I needed to add more of the desired frequency range than I did in Samplitude.

When listening in Samplitude, the difference was immediate - as if someone had flipped some kind of "sonic truth" switch. The audio was crystal clear, defined, tight... imaging was beautiful.
It is incredibly accurate, sonically tight, defined - and without adding the "clinical sterility" that I've experienced in PT.

(Sonar didn't add any of this sterility, in fact, it went the opposite direction and added smeared frequencies, and overall sonics were ill-defined. Imaging was also smeared...)

(I know I keep using that word but it's the only descriptive term I can come up with that describes what I'm referring to)

I have no idea as to why this is...whether the difference is in the coding, or the architecture of the busing, or what... I don't know enough about the technical side of program development to know "what" code can cause "which" issues.

All I can say is that since I began working with Samplitude, it's as if someone "cleaned" my audio playback with some kind of "sonic Windex"... LOL... I think Tim Dobear from Magix described it in similar fashion when he was trying to explain the differences between Samplitude and other DAW's to other engineers who were skeptical.

This is not the result of a suggestive psychology, it's not a "placebo".
The difference is there. It's true, and I'm here to tell you that it most certainly is very real.

I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. I don't work for Samplitude, I get no commissions from them... and neither Sonar or Avid has done anything to me personally to make me turn against them out of spite.

This is strictly about the quality and accuracy of audio, and the power and efficiency of the programs that help us to achieve what we want as engineers.

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't believe me take Samplitude for a test drive.

http://pro.magix.com/en/samplitude/overview.459.html

Yes.. okay... there's a learning curve... as there is with any new platform. But those of you who are experienced with DAW-based production shouldn't have any trouble getting used to it after a few days. Also, the internet is filled with great instructive how-to videos for Sampitude.

So far customer service has been fantastic. Queries are answered within minutes, problems solved in a very respectable time span. Go ahead and tell me truthfully that you've had the same experience with Avid. ;)

Also, the stock plugs and processors are fantastic. Also included are many VSTi's, one of which has really impressed me - Vandal - which is a guitar amp/cab simulation, with a full range of foot-pedal/stomp box effects. The modeling in this VSTi has really impressed me, and that's not an easy thing to to do, considering that for the most part, I pretty much HATE all guitar amp sims. LOL

But Vandal is pretty sweet. As of this writing, I have yet to open or experiment with the other VSTi's that come with the package... there's a whole collection of synths I haven't even opened yet.

Great sounding Reverbs, Delays, Compressors, Limiters, BSC, vintage processing emulation... is all included in this package, and all of these processors were coded for this platform.

Based on what I've experienced thus far, I'm fairly confident that I can get rid of pretty much all the plugs/processors that I've accumulated over the years... and that includes libraries like Voxengo, Waved Diamond, Blue Cat, etc. I simply don't need them anymore.

That's it... you can believe me or not, I understand your potential skepticism... as I used to be quite the skeptic myself in terms of DAW platforms and "differences".

But I urge you to give this program a try.

PT has become the standard in digital audio production... but it shouldn't be.
It should be Samplitude. There's simply no comparison in terms of quality, fidelity, processing and efficiency.

FWIW
d/

Comments

Member for

8 years 9 months

DonnyThompson Fri, 05/15/2015 - 01:49
Kurt Foster, post: 428985, member: 7836 wrote: i find that an uncalled for slam.

I wasn't slamming MixBus. I own it, and use it myself from time to time.

For what I do, for what my current clients need, Samp is the better choice, because there is quite a bit of midi involved. I think it's great that MixBus is looking to expand the feature-set in their platform, but... they haven't yet, so that doesn't help me now.

I was pretty clear about how I felt about the program. For those who want a more "console" style of mixing, I don't think that there's a better program for that.

Kurt Foster, post: 428985, member: 7836 wrote: but you do have it right when you point out MixBus is a USA(y) company and the "other" one is made in Germany (n)

I'm a bit puzzled by your inference to things being made in Germany being substandard to those that are made in the U.S. - after all, most studio's mic cabinets are well-stocked with microphones that are made in Germany and Austria.

Kurt Foster, post: 428985, member: 7836 wrote: it's a good thing to learn to record with only 4 tracks. limitations drive creativity and force you to learn to play an instrument, not edit on a computer.

Well, if we're imposing limitations like that, then perhaps we should just all go back to recording direct to 2 Track, and call it a day.

Kurt Foster, post: 428985, member: 7836 wrote: btw MixBus is getting better. updates will address the MIDI issues and 3rd party plugs. modern isn't automatically good.

Okay, now I'm really confused... first you say that, "modern isn't always good", and then you follow that up with "Mixbus is getting better by addressing MIDI issues and 3rd Party Plugs".... which to me, is the same as saying that MixBus is becoming more like other modern DAW's that already offer those features - features that you seem to feel should be done without... ??? :confused:o_O

Again, I wasn't slamming MixBus. I downloaded my copy almost two years ago when it first became available. If you would go back through my posts, I think you might find that I've continued to be an advocate for it. ;)

Member for

6 years 1 month

Sean G Sat, 12/19/2015 - 15:26
I have Izotope RX4 which can be used stand-alone or as a plug-in and it has a declip feature.
I have never used the declip feature before, so I took the opportunity to give it a road test with 2 of the 3 tracks you uploaded, tracks 1 and 3.
I found when using the declip feature, when previewing the audio RX4 suggests how much declipping to apply, then allows for make up gain, so I did just that as suggested.

Anyway, here are the results. My apologies to Donny the OP as I know this is a Samp thread, but it may be a good comparison to compare the feature in Samp compared to other stand-alone applications like RX4.

As someone who has been following this thread and others on Samp with great interest with an ear to maybe using it in the future, I would be keen to hear any results from the Samp declip feature also.;)

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.org/atta…

[MEDIA=audio]http://recording.org/atta…
Attached files Bernie's Track 11 by Dom Frontiere '93 GNP CD album (RX4 declip).mp3 (12.6 MB)  Look of Love by Brasil '66(RX4 declip).mp3 (6.3 MB) 

Member for

19 years 2 months

Kurt Foster Fri, 05/15/2015 - 01:58
DonnyThompson, post: 429027, member: 46114 wrote: I'm a bit puzzled by your inference to things being made in Germany being substandard to those that are made in the U.S. - after all, most studio's mic cabinets are well-stocked with microphones that are made in Germany and Austria.

simple. i like the USA. i like USA workers. i don't like sending money out of the country. i didn't say German stuff was inferior, i said MixBus is American made.
DonnyThompson, post: 429027, member: 46114 wrote: Well, if we're imposing limitations like that, then perhaps we should just all go back to recording direct to 2 Track, and call it a day.

ok

DonnyThompson, post: 429027, member: 46114 wrote: Okay, now I'm really confused... first you say that, "modern isn't always good", and then you follow that up with "Mixbus is getting better by addressing MIDI issues and 3rd Party Plugs".... which to me, is the same as saying that MixBus is becoming more like other modern DAW's that already offer those features - features that you seem to feel should be done without... ??? :confused:o_O

i don't need that stuff but i know there are others who do .... so i mentioned it. btw i'm considering Samplitude .... i heard of a deal for about $200 ....

Member for

6 years 9 months

rjuly Wed, 12/17/2014 - 01:46
So, let me understand this... you are dithering in two places in your chain presumably...?

PC1 dither to D/A(what sample rate & bit depth?) -> analog realm -> PC 2 A/D (what sample rate and bit depth inbound?) -> PC2 mastering processing -> PC2 dither to D/A(what sample rate & bit depth - 44.1 / 16 bit?) -> CD burner?

Member for

15 years 5 months

Boswell Wed, 12/17/2014 - 02:34
Dither is only needed where you are digitally reducing wordlength, for example, making a 16-bit CD image from a 24-bit stereo master track. It should not be used at other stages in the process, including going from 32-bit floating point to 24-bit integer, as this is (roughly speaking) a change of number format rather than wordlength.

Member for

5 years 9 months

obs4me Sat, 12/19/2015 - 16:38
Done. In comparing them I really can't be sure about what I'm hearing. Is the RX4 processed Bernie's track giving me headaches through my Sennheiser 650 headphones? Does the so processed Brasil 66 track sound better than the original?
Would the uncompressed WAV files of same have to be so processed to indeed make accurate comparisons?

Member for

6 years 1 month

Sean G Sat, 12/19/2015 - 16:51
I would convert the originals to Mp3 / 320 kbps so that you are comparing like for like, otherwise you are comparing WAV lossless files to Mp3 which would not be a fair comparison.

I don't know why the processed RX4 track would be giving you a headache...unless you have the volume too loud...

- I always find the Sennheiser headphones I have are too tight for my head, they make me feel like my head is in a vice with the way they clamp down on my head, so much so that I cannot use them anymore....Maybe I just have a overly large mellon...:D

I listened to both and compared them to the originals after processing, although they are old recordings I thought that it did remove some of the distortion caused by clipping, especially in the louder parts like the start to the first track. But I'd like to hear what other members think too.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Thu, 07/31/2014 - 09:41
I've been planning to embed a direct Samplitude link at the top of the forum for 3 years now. The problem is, we know this but so many wouldn't want to see their investment drop so its a difficult process to educate and not alienate.

It will happen sooner or later.

Everything you need to know about Samplitude and Sequoia can be found between [="https://www.youtube.com/user/kraznet"]kraznet [/]="https://www.youtube.com/u…"]kraznet [/]and [[url=http://="https://www.youtube.com/u…"]Tim's[/]="https://www.youtube.com/u…"]Tim's[/] youtube tutorials.

[GALLERY=media, 13]Samplitude in the studio: Mixing by TimDolbear posted Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM[/GALLERY]

Member for

6 years 1 month

Sean G Sat, 12/19/2015 - 17:01
I think its worth noting also that all the audio parts that were below the threshold of the declipping process have not been affected in any way, so it may be worth putting both tracks into your DAW, matching the gain, then reversing the phase on one therefore you would be able hear exactly what the difference is.

- I could be wrong, and I'm happy for anyone else to chime in here if I am, but that way you would be able to determine exactly what effect the declipping has had as a result.

- of course, both files would have to be in the same format, but your DAW should automatically convert these to the default setting...usually WAV file format.

Member for

5 years 9 months

obs4me Sat, 12/19/2015 - 17:22
Sean G, post: 434597, member: 49362 wrote: I would convert the originals to Mp3 / 320 kbps so that you are comparing like for like, otherwise you are comparing WAV lossless files to Mp3 which would not be a fair comparison.
That's what I did, of course. I listened comparatively to the before and after mp3s, not the WAVs.

Sean G, post: 434597, member: 49362 wrote: I don't know why the processed RX4 track would be giving you a headache...unless you have the volume too loud...
Hardly, as I've been forever fanatical about protecting my hearing from even moderately high SPLs. That's one reason why I prefer using even less than great speakers over headphone listening whenever possible; too many opportunities for accidents. As I mentioned above, it's not impossible that even good restoration software may create artifacts, particularly if its used in its higher processing mode (i.e. some pitch & times software), not that I'm saying that this actually happened in this case.

Sean G, post: 434597, member: 49362 wrote: I listened to both and compared them to the originals after processing, although they are old recordings I thought that it did remove some of the distortion caused by clipping, especially in the louder parts like the start to the first track. But I'd like to hear what other members think too.
Capital idea. Please everyone take the listening test and chime in with your reviews.

Member for

21 years

audiokid Tue, 05/05/2015 - 10:00
where I think Samplitude rivals the rest is put as simple as this:

Smart programmers and end users know what software works best for the the right computers.

When you learn how important this is, it easier to program and demystify things you should stay clear of.

I never trust software that is good for Apple and Windows.

Member for

21 years

Member Thu, 07/31/2014 - 10:20
Hmmm....I'm not sure how or why it would "alienate" anyone...

If you're talking about sponsors, I wasn't aware that Avid or Sonar were current advertisers.(?)

As far as alienating members, I just don't see why that would be an issue. Right now there are a multitude of members using all kinds of different platforms, from Reaper to Sonar to Cubase to PT to Samplitude....and probably a few I've left out, and the bottom line is that people use what they want for whatever reasons make the most sense to them - whether it's because one is better at another doing a certain thing, or even as simple as them having used a platform for so long that there is a familiarity, and a hesitancy to take on a new DAW and its inherent learning curve.

My only motivation for posting what I did was to tell others of my own experience - and after 34 years in this business, my experience is pretty widely-defined. Over the years, I've used PT, Sonar, Cubase, MixBus, and Samplitude ( and probably a few others that I've forgotten about LOL).

And all I was saying - or trying to say - is that out of all those platforms, Samplitude sounds the absolute best to me, and that it's WAY above every other DAW platform that I've personally ever used in terms of sonic integrity, imaging, definition, clarity, efficiency... everything that matters to me as an audio professional.

I had no idea just how badly Sonar ( and to an extent, PT as well!) was negatively effecting my audio, until I had a chance to work with Samplitude.
It was if I was able to see - for the first time - through a crystal clear window that I didn't even know I had.

I don't believe that there is any harm in publicly stating what it is that we find, what we use, and how improvements can or should be made to the tools that we use - the tools that we spend a pretty serious dollar on with these manufacturers - and if they are falling down in any way, not only do I think that we should mention it, but further, I think it's our responsibility as professionals to post these findings.
There's no need to cram it down anyone's throat; you post your comments, your findings, and in turn the reader considers the comments and findings, puts it ito a context that they can relate to (or decides that it doesn't effect them at all) and they decide for themselves. No one gets hurt. It's simply sharing information. What people choose to do with that information is up to them. ;)

If someone decides to keep using Sonar or PT, or whatever DAW it is that they currently use - for whatever reasons those might be - then that's up to them... if those platforms are working for them, and they are happy with them, then by all means, they should use what they feel is best for their particular an individual workflow.

PT and Sonar simply aren't working for me anymore. I have my reasons, they're stated above in my original post, and so I've chosen Samplitude.... that's just me.

What others find to work best for them, is... well... up to them.

Personally, I don't think that there's any harm done by trying the program for the 30 day trial period offered. What's to lose? If you end up not liking it, or not hearing a difference, then let the trial period lapse and simply uninstall all remnants of it from your system... no harm, no foul... it's not like Magix is asking you for your Visa number or checking account info... they've made it very easy to download and try.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

IMHO of course.

d/

;)

Member for

21 years

audiokid Thu, 07/31/2014 - 11:28
whoop! are missing my point. :love: Its positive you posted this. Nothing to do with advertisers.
FYI NEVER bend over for advertising here! If something sucks or remotely looks like something redundant or useless, I NEVER EVER advertise it. ;) Why do you think there are NO Plug-ins advertised here lol! For tracking acoustic music , mixing and mastering, Samplitude is all I think we really need. For and loop based, I like Ableton but as you get to know Samplitude, you will see the Midi is really well thought out too.

You know that you made it when you got a bunch of haters breathing down your neck

Generally speaking....

I couldn't agree more. I would never go back to the DAW's I used before. imho, everyone should use Samplitude and start saving loads of money and making better sounding music (y)
And we thought all DAW's are equal all these years? 1's and 0's ?

When people invest $10,000 or more in PT and UAD, ( like I did too) mentioning this software and a PC rivals ( which it does) , doesn't sit well lol. I mean, who wants to hear they could have saved 10 grand after that fact? And so it goes, we support our purchases at the cost of advancement more than we realize. Thats what I mean, "alienate" ;)

Its hard not being excited about this and wanting others to discover the joy. I mean, think of how much money everyone could save and how good their music would sound! You just want to scream " Samplitude !!!!!!!!! "

On my personal front line: Do I question and support UAD when I hear how good Sam is on its own. I mean, how many EQ's do we need. DUH And, A BAX plug-in, A Pultec plugin. But, who here has ever owned one of the real deals but me right now? So, I test this shit and tell the truth and some guy who just invested in a UAD Pultec calls you arrogant and turns the forum discussion backwards.

If you use PT, UAD blind leading blind is pretty convinced so, ( support for their purchase) continues. Who wants to hear me saying you really don't need that? How do you say that without being direct? It isn't my fort-ay.
But its still fun planting seeds for the future... just saying.... That's what I meant.

Interesting to see the money people are "investing" ?
http://recording.org/index.php?threads/uad-software-investment.57379/

Donny, wait until you've used Samplitude for a year! You will be flying along.
Glad to read this post and I hope others tune into it and try it for themselves. It really is a good as Donny describes. I'm starting to emulate my hybrid rig with it. You heard that last scratch mix, That was 100% Samplitude that good in a few hours.

I was thinking Magix should increase the 30 day demo to 100 days. It takes about a month just to get onto it.

Have you found all the tiny tabs that allow really quick object based editing? They were hard for me to see at first. There is so much in the GUI, I missed the special Fades, stretching, volume and double clicking to open the object up? Very cool!

Object based editing avoids "less accumulative aliasing distortions" down the pipe. This is where things get interesting for me , why I am such a Samplitude advocate and no longer follow Avid and UAD 6 steps to persuasion..

impo of course!! :D


[[url=http://[/URL]=""]View:[/]=""]View:[/]

Member for

21 years

audiokid Thu, 07/31/2014 - 13:42
One of my greatest concerns migrating from Pro Tools to Samplitide was overcoming the consensus, 'You need to have Pro Tools to be able to exchange Avid tracks and be globally connected". Pro Tools means you are Pro Audio is nothing but BS today.

So, I kept Pro Tools in the corner on stand-by for years. Last year I tossed it in the garbage and sold off my PCI cards a few months ago for a few hundred. Never once did I need Pro Tools to stay in business. In fact, not having Pro Tools has been an asset. Why? All my clients who use Pro Tools or some other DAW choose my work to sound better than what they are able to do. I could never produce music the way I can on another DAW.

Those thinking about getting into recording, mixing or mastering, don't be fooled by the dated consensus, that you need UAD or Pro Tools. The best years for these two companies are behind them. Samplitude or Sequoia imports all the audio files you need. And, you never need third party software to get it done. A simple PC and this software rivals everything I have used to date. And that my friends is a lot of years and money behind me.

I'm pretty certain I can now say I can go from this to just Samplitude and produce better sounding music ITB. Below is my cutting edge hybrid studio. I just beat what this sounded like ITB for $80,000 less.
:eek:. I'm hanging on to the core but its getting closer to being sold off. The vintage gear is being kept, but anything that I find that can be replaced in Sam, is heading to the classifieds. Now that hybrid is back on the craze, I'm moving back ITB. hehe. But, I am using a few tricks that cannot be duplicated on one DAW ;)

I will stand firm though, the best front end is where the difference is. But once its ITB, I don't require most of what you see below today.
Learning how all this worked was a huge asset. Now that I understand my process and what the real asset to analog was, I am able to emulate the tools in Samplitude better. The key is avoiding accumulative aliasing distortion and keeping and eye on phase and summing. Summing is where to look.





How much is Samplitude Pro X, $1200.00 !!! The basic is half of that. Its a no brainer.
Attached files

Member for

21 years

Member Wed, 12/17/2014 - 04:30
Yup. The only time I use dither is on the every rare occasion where I'm doing the mastering for a client who can't afford a true M.E and wants it sent to a CD manufacturing place.

I will then use Powr-1 on the final output - from 24 bit down to the necessary 16 bit - thus creating the CD image master from which copies will be made.

Member for

4 years 7 months

Johnny Blade Tue, 01/24/2017 - 13:54
DonnyThompson, post: 417915, member: 46114 wrote: You should be.

I've spent the last few days working within Samplitude Pro X Suite, and it is simply fantastic.

Those of you who follow the general mindset that all DAW's are the same should give this program a try.. because once you do, you won't think that way anymore.

I've been using Sonar for a hundred years now, I started using Cakewalk Pro back in the mid 90's when I was doing quite a bit of MIDI production and at that time, Pro Tools was shaky on the integration of audio and MIDI. In fact, my engineering peers at that time who used PT had to also use Digital Performer just so that they could work on the midi end of their productions.

I went with Sonar because it did integrate audio and midi very well. As the years went by, I got to know it inside and out. I also continued to work with PT quite a bit as well, because I had clients who had projects in that format, who would bring their tracks in to me to either mix or add tracks to.

Several months ago, I decided to give Samplitude a try. There was a thirty day trial period, so I figured I had nothing to lose.

What I didn't realize at that time was that besides having nothing to lose, I had everything to gain.

I decided to do an apples to apples comparison.

I took tracks - exactly the same tracks - and imported them into Sonar, PT, and Samplitude.
The difference was like night and day.

In comparison, here is what I found:

Sonar "does something" to the audio... and not in a good way. I don't know what it is technically, but I can tell you that the result is a "smeared" and "phasey" sound..

Pro Tools wasn't much better, except it seemed that I needed to use more of a particular processor (stock PT Plugs) to get the desired results I was seeking... so if I wanted to add sparkle on top, I needed to add more of the desired frequency range than I did in Samplitude.

When listening in Samplitude, the difference was immediate - as if someone had flipped some kind of "sonic truth" switch. The audio was crystal clear, defined, tight... imaging was beautiful.
It is incredibly accurate, sonically tight, defined - and without adding the "clinical sterility" that I've experienced in PT.

(Sonar didn't add any of this sterility, in fact, it went the opposite direction and added smeared frequencies, and overall sonics were ill-defined. Imaging was also smeared...)

(I know I keep using that word but it's the only descriptive term I can come up with that describes what I'm referring to)

I have no idea as to why this is...whether the difference is in the coding, or the architecture of the busing, or what... I don't know enough about the technical side of program development to know "what" code can cause "which" issues.

All I can say is that since I began working with Samplitude, it's as if someone "cleaned" my audio playback with some kind of "sonic Windex"... LOL... I think Tim Dobear from Magix described it in similar fashion when he was trying to explain the differences between Samplitude and other DAW's to other engineers who were skeptical.

This is not the result of a suggestive psychology, it's not a "placebo".
The difference is there. It's true, and I'm here to tell you that it most certainly is very real.

I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. I don't work for Samplitude, I get no commissions from them... and neither Sonar or Avid has done anything to me personally to make me turn against them out of spite.

This is strictly about the quality and accuracy of audio, and the power and efficiency of the programs that help us to achieve what we want as engineers.

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't believe me take Samplitude for a test drive.

http://pro.magix.com/en/samplitude/overview.459.html

Yes.. okay... there's a learning curve... as there is with any new platform. But those of you who are experienced with DAW-based production shouldn't have any trouble getting used to it after a few days. Also, the internet is filled with great instructive how-to videos for Sampitude.

So far customer service has been fantastic. Queries are answered within minutes, problems solved in a very respectable time span. Go ahead and tell me truthfully that you've had the same experience with Avid. ;)

Also, the stock plugs and processors are fantastic. Also included are many VSTi's, one of which has really impressed me - Vandal - which is a guitar amp/cab simulation, with a full range of foot-pedal/stomp box effects. The modeling in this VSTi has really impressed me, and that's not an easy thing to to do, considering that for the most part, I pretty much HATE all guitar amp sims. LOL

But Vandal is pretty sweet. As of this writing, I have yet to open or experiment with the other VSTi's that come with the package... there's a whole collection of synths I haven't even opened yet.

Great sounding Reverbs, Delays, Compressors, Limiters, BSC, vintage processing emulation... is all included in this package, and all of these processors were coded for this platform.

Based on what I've experienced thus far, I'm fairly confident that I can get rid of pretty much all the plugs/processors that I've accumulated over the years... and that includes libraries like Voxengo, Waved Diamond, Blue Cat, etc. I simply don't need them anymore.

That's it... you can believe me or not, I understand your potential skepticism... as I used to be quite the skeptic myself in terms of DAW platforms and "differences".

But I urge you to give this program a try.

PT has become the standard in digital audio production... but it shouldn't be.
It should be Samplitude. There's simply no comparison in terms of quality, fidelity, processing and efficiency.

FWIW
d/
Hi all, my first post here. I'm from Brazil and a Sampliquoia lover.
First off, I'm so sorry for my bad english, I'm still learning your native language...
I did a search about Samplitude in Google, since its oficial forum hasn't an active feedback for newbies, and I found this AWESOME ARTICLE!!!
It's not easy to find good forums about Samplitude, they are very rare! But as far as I'm browsing infos here, I'm pretty sure it is the more complete "non oficial" place to talk about Magix DAWs!
So, today is may lucky day!
Thanks for this place. Nice to meet you all!

Johnny

Tags