Skip to main content

If You're not using Samplitude...

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 TI'm 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

Brian Van Tassel Thu, 05/07/2015 - 16:31
There are many great solutions these days. Life is good. To me , Samplitude is the Boss DAW, for my music. Cubase earned it's place in my creative tool box, and yet Samplitude will ever be my finishing tool. Samplitude is the true all in one solution for me. Last month, I got my first cassette tape restoration client. I thought about opening Specral Layers2 and/or Wavelab 8.5, which are both great programs. Instead, I uploaded the speech to Samplitude. The work was quick and easy , with superb results. My client was so happy, that she quickly grabbed another cassette tape for me to restore. Last time it was her Grandfather's speech, this time it was her Grandmother's church organ performance. This work is inspiring inspiring me to finally dig out my own cassettes, and get to work :-)

DigitaLWizarD Thu, 05/07/2015 - 17:00
Good to know! I have a lot of old cassete to restore.

And I agree - there are many strong solutions nowadays! Beside the very interesting Harrison Mixbus, I would put REAPER. Both offer a good price range and both are rich in features.

Audacity is a successful multitrack audio editor, but not enough to be a DAW itself.

If the criterion is price, Harrison and REAPER are great choices.

DonnyThompson Fri, 05/08/2015 - 04:10
Kurt Foster, post: 428803, member: 7836 wrote: i've been following all these threads re; Samplitude /Magix and i must admit the thought it sounds better is appealing. i couldn't give a rats ass about editing features other than paste and cut and i really don't care about midi implementation. i prefer to record it right in the first place using real instruments or at least playing in real time.

i have difficulty overcoming the price point. not that i can't afford it but i hate buying anything that expensive that i know will be obsolete in a few tech cycles (2/3 years at best?). the high price point does make that difficult to choke down. MixBus costs only $40. much more palatable. @DonnyThompson how does the sound between Samp and Mixbus compare? do you think Samp sounds $500 /$600 better?

My answer to you would be different than for anyone else, Kurt, because I know that there are many features to Samp that you wouldn't really care as much about as others would. As you mentioned, features like seamless Midi integration, object editing, pitch correction, spectral restoration... these are things that aren't important to your individual workflow. And, the reason that Samp's price is so much higher than MixBus, is because Sam can do so much more, in regard to these things mentioned, than MixBus can.

Personally, with what I've come to know about you, I think you'd be happier with Mixbus. The layout, the GUI, and even the sound, are far more reminiscent of an analog workflow than Sam, which is really geared towards a more modern style workflow, production-wise.

DAW choices are based on personal preferences, which are based on one's own personal criteria and production style(s). I think that Sam would be overkill for you. The title of this thread was really targeted more towards those who are currently using Sonar and Pro Tools, or other modern DAW's, that claim to be "the best" for modern styles of production. But, you are really more interested in trying to achieve on a PC that which you used to do in the analog realm, and because of your criteria, by spending the money for Sam, you'd be spending a lot of money on its features that you would likely never even use, so again, I think that you'd probably be happier with MixBus.

I think you are wrong about it being 64 bit though. It will run on a 64 bit OS/system, but I don't think that the program itself is 64 bit - unless you are running a Linux OS on your computer.
See your quote below, which I'm assuming you copy-pasted from Harrison's site:

Kurt Foster, post: 428819, member: 7836 wrote: Audio:
Any system soundcard should work. High-quality ASIO-based soundcards with modern drivers
On Windows and OSX, Mixbus is delivered as a 32bit application which works on both 64bit and 32bit systems.

And, I think you need to double check and make sure that Mixbus will record at rates higher than 96k, because you've mentioned in other threads that this is something that you can hear.

FWIW ;)

d.

DigitaLWizarD Fri, 05/08/2015 - 07:00
kmetal, post: 428729, member: 37533 wrote: Does sequoia and sam share the same audio engine and drivers? Is there a subjective difference between that aspect of the two programs?

@audiokid have you heard a difference between the two Chris?
I have. It's really very subjetive, anyway, but my new version of Samplitude (Pro X2) sounds clearly better than my old version of Sequoia (v12).

In my tests with same version of both programs (Samplitude Pro X / Sequoia 12 - both are version 12), the quality is exactly the same - and better than other DAW (REAPER) I used to take the identical tests! But I noticed, yes, an audible difference between the version 12 of Sequoia to version 13 of Samplitude, and this is the reason why I do now my projects preferably in the new Samplitude.

It was not my interest to convince anyone but myself. The tests were performed for 5 days at different times, but in completely favorable conditions - with my well rested ears. My tests were hard and honest. I was careful to not rush me and not utter a reckless judgment.

My goal was to choose a main platform (my old pal Sequoia 12 vs newest Samplitude Pro X2 Suite).

I did a lot of tests with many different projects, but in the same way in boths programs. In Samplitude Pro X2 (v13) all my projects really sounds cleaner than the Sequoia 12.

Am I crazy? No, really no! Is this strange? I don't think so.

I do believe Magix has improved a lot the core (audio engine) of their programs.

What was great is now excellent.

DonnyThompson Fri, 05/08/2015 - 09:09
Hmmm... I've been under the impression that the core engine was exactly the same for both programs... perhaps I'm mistaken. It's possible. I've been wrong once before in my life. ;) LOL

Maybe we should ask Tim Dolbear...

@TimDolbear

Tim:
Is there any difference between the audio engine(s) in Sequoia 12 vs Samp Pro X2 ?

-d.

Brian Van Tassel Tue, 05/12/2015 - 09:13
DonnyThompson, post: 428851, member: 46114 wrote: My answer to you would be different than for anyone else, Kurt, because I know that there are many features to Samp that you wouldn't really care as much about as others would. As you mentioned, features like seamless Midi integration, object editing, pitch correction, spectral restoration... these are things that aren't important to your individual workflow. And, the reason that Samp's price is so much higher than MixBus, is because Sam can do so much more, in regard to these things mentioned, than MixBus can.

Personally, with what I've come to know about you, I think you'd be happier with Mixbus. The layout, the GUI, and even the sound, are far more reminiscent of an analog workflow than Sam, which is really geared towards a more modern style workflow, production-wise.

DAW choices are based on personal preferences, which are based on one's own personal criteria and production style(s). I think that Sam would be overkill for you. The title of this thread was really targeted more towards those who are currently using Sonar and Pro Tools, or other modern DAW's, that claim to be "the best" for modern styles of production. But, you are really more interested in trying to achieve on a PC that which you used to do in the analog realm, and because of your criteria, by spending the money for Sam, you'd be spending a lot of money on its features that you would likely never even use, so again, I think that you'd probably be happier with MixBus.

I think you are wrong about it being 64 bit though. It will run on a 64 bit OS/system, but I don't think that the program itself is 64 bit - unless you are running a Linux OS on your computer.
See your quote below, which I'm assuming you copy-pasted from Harrison's site:



And, I think you need to double check and make sure that Mixbus will record at rates higher than 96k, because you've mentioned in other threads that this is something that you can hear.

FWIW ;)

d.
DonnyThompson, post: 428851, member: 46114 wrote: My answer to you would be different than for anyone else, Kurt, because I know that there are many features to Samp that you wouldn't really care as much about as others would. As you mentioned, features like seamless Midi integration, object editing, pitch correction, spectral restoration... these are things that aren't important to your individual workflow. And, the reason that Samp's price is so much higher than MixBus, is because Sam can do so much more, in regard to these things mentioned, than MixBus can.

Personally, with what I've come to know about you, I think you'd be happier with Mixbus. The layout, the GUI, and even the sound, are far more reminiscent of an analog workflow than Sam, which is really geared towards a more modern style workflow, production-wise.

DAW choices are based on personal preferences, which are based on one's own personal criteria and production style(s). I think that Sam would be overkill for you. The title of this thread was really targeted more towards those who are currently using Sonar and Pro Tools, or other modern DAW's, that claim to be "the best" for modern styles of production. But, you are really more interested in trying to achieve on a PC that which you used to do in the analog realm, and because of your criteria, by spending the money for Sam, you'd be spending a lot of money on its features that you would likely never even use, so again, I think that you'd probably be happier with MixBus.

I think you are wrong about it being 64 bit though. It will run on a 64 bit OS/system, but I don't think that the program itself is 64 bit - unless you are running a Linux OS on your computer.
See your quote below, which I'm assuming you copy-pasted from Harrison's site:



And, I think you need to double check and make sure that Mixbus will record at rates higher than 96k, because you've mentioned in other threads that this is something that you can hear.

FWIW ;)

d.
Kurt and Donny,
So yous guys got me so curious about Mixbus , that I gave it a go. $40 was worth it to me to satisfy my curiosity. It sounds great ! The Cubase project that I mentioned before, sounded amazing after remixing in Sam, & sounded worse when opening that mix in Sonar . . . Well , that Sam mix sounded good in Mixbus ! Sam & Mixbus both have a great analog tape sound to them. I still prefer Sam, but Mixbus also sounds great. I found myself searching for how to access those pristine Sam plugins into Mixbus, and then I realized that I should just simply work in Samplitude. Mixbus is cool though , and highly recommendable !
FWIW
JRR SHOP has Samplitude Pro X2 on sale for $209 . . . Ahh . . . Life is Good :)

Brian Van Tassel Tue, 05/12/2015 - 09:14
Brian Van Tassel, post: 428951, member: 49039 wrote: Kurt and Donny,
So yous guys got me so curious about Mixbus , that I gave it a go. $40 was worth it to me to satisfy my curiosity. It sounds great ! The Cubase project that I mentioned before, sounded amazing after remixing in Sam, & sounded worse when opening that mix in Sonar . . . Well , that Sam mix sounded good in Mixbus ! Sam & Mixbus both have a great analog tape sound to them. I still prefer Sam, but Mixbus also sounds great. I found myself searching for how to access those pristine Sam plugins into Mixbus, and then I realized that I should just simply work in Samplitude. Mixbus is cool though , and highly recommendable !
FWIW
JRR SHOP has Samplitude Pro X2 on sale for $209 . . . Ahh . . . Life is Good :)

DonnyThompson Wed, 05/13/2015 - 02:18
Brian Van Tassel, post: 428951, member: 49039 wrote: Sam & Mixbus both have a great analog tape sound to them.

Personally speaking, I don't hear Samp as having an analog sound... actually, I don't hear it having any "sound" in particular at all. I find it to be honest and transparent with audio. That's not to say that you couldn't get "that" sound, by processing the audio with Samp's Analog Suite plugs, or through the use of other 3rd party plugs - those which are meant to emulate "that" sound.

But for raw, honest, unprocessed audio, it doesn't sound like anything to me, which is exactly why I like it as much as I do.

Mixbus, on the other hand, has a definitive "analogy" vibe to it... or at least to my ears it does.

I don't believe you can really compare the two platforms, or, even put them into the same category ... as one ( Mixbus) wasn't really designed to be a DAW in the sense or expectations as to how most people consider modern DAW's to be; with flexible editing, correction, restoration, midi integration - VSTi's, etc.

Mixbus is pretty much meant to emulate a Harrison 32 Series desk, and to that end, I think they did a really nice job of bringing that vibe into a computer program, and, at a ridiculously affordable price.

But ... there are really very few similarities between them. I'm only mentioning this, because I don't want someone to get the mistaken idea that they are the same type of platform, or even similar, that they can get Mixbus for under $50, and that it will do everything that Samp can do, for a lot less. It is a lot less. And that's because it can't do what Samp can. We're talking about two completely different platforms here.

One of them ( Mixbus) is like a '65 Buick - comfortable, classic, familiar... gets you where you want to go in a classic style, reminiscent of an attractive - yet bygone time.

The other (Samp) is like a BMW - finely crafted in its engineering, with modern - even cutting edge - technology under the hood, using tight tolerances, and with many features and potential power and capabilities... some perhaps even beyond what many would ever even think to need or use ...

Mixbus is great for those who enjoy the "feel", the "sound", and layout that is similar to that of a classic analog desk. But, it has very little editing ability, very little flexibility, and is also very limited in its support and integration of 3rd party plug processors. No midi integration whatsoever (unless you happen to be using the Linux version). But, it's very easy to use, and has a comfortable familiarity to those who came up using actual mixing consoles.

Samplitude is built for those who have modern production and engineering needs... editing and restoration features that are cutting edge, giving the user the ability to edit in as wide or as tight of a detail as they wish, or to restore damaged or less than perfect audio... Seamless midi integration and VSTi support. It can load virtually any third party plug processor, and also has its own stock selection of great processors as well, (I love the 116 EQ), and, with a collection of included Analog Suite plugs that can get you "the sound" of Mixbus very easily, if you know what you are doing with them. It also supports MS processing on both the track level and the Master Bus. The newer ProX2 version also has VCA's, multiple routing, and improved pitch correction features. Samp's limitations are virtually non-existent. With very few exceptions, ( and at this moment, off the top of my head, I can't even give an example of any limitations) if there's something you need or want to do, Samp can do it.

I'm not knocking Mixbus. For what it was designed to do, for what it's intended, it's a great little program, and very affordable, too. Perfect for those who just want to mix audio, and who don't care about all the other stuff.

But... if you are looking at working in the modern realm of audio production, Samp is the clear winner, giving the user countless production and engineering tools and features that Mixbus cannot.

IMHO of course.

d.

Kurt Foster Wed, 05/13/2015 - 10:04
DonnyThompson, post: 428974, member: 46114 wrote: One of them ( Mixbus) is like a '65 Buick - comfortable, classic, familiar... gets you where you want to go in a classic style, reminiscent of an attractive - yet bygone time.

The other (Samp) is like a BMW - finely crafted in its engineering, with modern - even cutting edge - technology under the hood, using tight tolerances, and with many features and potential power and capabilities... some perhaps even beyond what many would ever even think to need or use ...

first MixBus is not a '65 Buick not that it would be a bad thing. i would put a '65 Buick up against a "modern" BMW in a head on any day. lol.

MixBus is a modern DAW and it does have editing abilities and definitely not a product of a bygone time. i find that an uncalled for slam. everyone, do yourself a favor. look for yourself at the [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.harrison…"]MixBus manual, [/]="http://www.harrison…"]MixBus manual, [/]chapter 13. then watch the video. you might save several hundred bucks.



while your on that page, look at the other MixBus videos too ....

..... 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) .... btw MixBus is getting better. updates will address the MIDI issues and 3rd party plugs. modern isn't automatically good. climate change is a modern phenomenon but nothing says it's a good thing. just cause your kids like it, doesn't automatically make it good. in fact it chances are your kids have no idea what good music really sounds like. their judgements are skewed by their lack of exposure to decent music.

almost every engineer / producer interview i have read in the past year or so laments the lack of decent recording chops and most of it is attributed to over processing / editing and this whole "let's fix it when we mix" mentality. you don't need 10 tracks to record a single guitar. do we really need all that editing power to make a record? if you can't make a good recording on something like MixBus, give up. this level of turd polishing is just a bit much. 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.

Tim@Harrison wrote: (from another site).
Just an update - we are heavy in development on v3, which will bring many improvements including:

- MIDI on all OS versions (Mac, Windows and Linux)
- Virtual instrument support
- 64-bit compatibility
- Expanded controller support
- Multi-core support

We will release more information closer to launch.

Best,

Tim

Brian Van Tassel Wed, 05/13/2015 - 11:36
DonnyThompson, post: 428974, member: 46114 wrote: Personally speaking, I don't hear Samp as having an analog sound... actually, I don't hear it having any "sound" in particular at all. I find it to be honest and transparent with audio. That's not to say that you couldn't get "that" sound, by processing the audio with Samp's Analog Suite plugs, or through the use of other 3rd party plugs - those which are meant to emulate "that" sound.

But for raw, honest, unprocessed audio, it doesn't sound like anything to me, which is exactly why I like it as much as I do.

Mixbus, on the other hand, has a definitive "analogy" vibe to it... or at least to my ears it does.

I don't believe you can really compare the two platforms, or, even put them into the same category ... as one ( Mixbus) wasn't really designed to be a DAW in the sense or expectations as to how most people consider modern DAW's to be; with flexible editing, correction, restoration, midi integration - VSTi's, etc.

Mixbus is pretty much meant to emulate a Harrison 32 Series desk, and to that end, I think they did a really nice job of bringing that vibe into a computer program, and, at a ridiculously affordable price.

But ... there are really very few similarities between them. I'm only mentioning this, because I don't want someone to get the mistaken idea that they are the same type of platform, or even similar, that they can get Mixbus for under $50, and that it will do everything that Samp can do, for a lot less. It is a lot less. And that's because it can't do what Samp can. We're talking about two completely different platforms here.

One of them ( Mixbus) is like a '65 Buick - comfortable, classic, familiar... gets you where you want to go in a classic style, reminiscent of an attractive - yet bygone time.

The other (Samp) is like a BMW - finely crafted in its engineering, with modern - even cutting edge - technology under the hood, using tight tolerances, and with many features and potential power and capabilities... some perhaps even beyond what many would ever even think to need or use ...

Mixbus is great for those who enjoy the "feel", the "sound", and layout that is similar to that of a classic analog desk. But, it has very little editing ability, very little flexibility, and is also very limited in its support and integration of 3rd party plug processors. No midi integration whatsoever (unless you happen to be using the Linux version). But, it's very easy to use, and has a comfortable familiarity to those who came up using actual mixing consoles.

Samplitude is built for those who have modern production and engineering needs... editing and restoration features that are cutting edge, giving the user the ability to edit in as wide or as tight of a detail as they wish, or to restore damaged or less than perfect audio... Seamless midi integration and VSTi support. It can load virtually any third party plug processor, and also has its own stock selection of great processors as well, (I love the 116 EQ), and, with a collection of included Analog Suite plugs that can get you "the sound" of Mixbus very easily, if you know what you are doing with them. It also supports MS processing on both the track level and the Master Bus. The newer ProX2 version also has VCA's, multiple routing, and improved pitch correction features. Samp's limitations are virtually non-existent. With very few exceptions, ( and at this moment, off the top of my head, I can't even give an example of any limitations) if there's something you need or want to do, Samp can do it.

I'm not knocking Mixbus. For what it was designed to do, for what it's intended, it's a great little program, and very affordable, too. Perfect for those who just want to mix audio, and who don't care about all the other stuff.

But... if you are looking at working in the modern realm of audio production, Samp is the clear winner, giving the user countless production and engineering tools and features that Mixbus cannot.

IMHO of course.

d.
. . . Poke the Bear , & the truth will out . . .
Thanks Donny . . . I concur . . . ;-)

DonnyThompson Thu, 05/14/2015 - 00:52
Kurt Foster, post: 428985, member: 7836 wrote: almost every engineer / producer interview i have read in the past year or so laments the lack of decent recording chops and most of it is attributed to over processing / editing and this whole "let's fix it when we mix" mentality.

...they say as they boot up their Macs and open their latest Pro Tools projects... LOL

Kurt Foster Thu, 05/14/2015 - 09:28
DonnyThompson, post: 429000, member: 46114 wrote: LOL.. I didn't really expect anything else from Kurt than what he posted, he flies his analog flag pretty high. ;)

not analog, just good sound. doesn't matter to me how, just sound good and price effective. a large portion of my work is digital ... dats & ADAT. in fact i don't have any analog masters .... all dats & cdr's. ....i don't like buying anything that is worthless in a few years so the value comes into question. i learned that with the ADATS. thank god i didn't buy into a o2R like everyone told me to. i am probably the only one around here who never invested in PT. too expensive for something that will be worthless in 48 months.

Brian Van Tassel Thu, 05/14/2015 - 10:32
Kurt Foster, post: 429012, member: 7836 wrote: not analog, just good sound. doesn't matter to me how, just sound good and price effective. a large portion of my work is digital ... dats & ADAT. in fact i don't have any analog masters .... all dats & cdr's. ....i don't like buying anything that is worthless in a few years so the value comes into question. i learned that with the ADATS. thank god i didn't buy into a o2R like everyone told me to. i am probably the only one around here who never invested in PT. too expensive for something that will be worthless in 48 months.

I hear about people who are still on PT7.04 , because it still does what they need it to do. I also hear PT users freaking out because some new updates have required new hardware, and PT11 required the repurchasing of plugins for the new AAX format. I jumped ship on PT after just eight long months of agony, trying to get PT9 to even slightly function on my up to spec system. I really can't speak much more about PT, except that I am impressed when I see it in action on a very expensive PT system , with the right engineer at the helm. I just don't have the kind of money to blow on a PTHD system , nor do I need to .

Samplitude is a Joy and a blessing. $209 for Smplitude Pro X2 ( @ JRR Shop ) is actually ridiculously cheap for the pristine hybrid sound engine and stock mastering quality plugins , alone.
Sam does everything I need , and I will grow into the many , many, many other features on a need to do basis. Sam is so supremely engineered that it will run on 2GB of RAM (32bit version), and 4GB of RAM (64bit version ).
Tremendously flexible, Sam works with every different kind of audio interface that I have plugged into it , so far ( none of which worked in PT ). You can load WAV , Ogg Vorbis , FLAC, WMA , ect. ect. all onto the same project, all in different sample rates , and Samp will play them all , without even having to convert them ! Of course it's about what you need, and how you want to go about achieving your sound and your goals. I'm just saying that Samplitude IS an amazing program. & If your curiosity is still tickled , then download the trial ;-)

Kurt Foster Thu, 05/14/2015 - 12:51
Brian Van Tassel, post: 429015, member: 49039 wrote: Samplitude is a Joy and a blessing. $209 for Smplitude Pro X2 ( @ JRR Shop )
@Brian Van Tassel
now that's affordable to me. so what if it's obsolete in 24 months? i can take a hit like that. is this the latest version? and could you please post a link to that? i'll go for it at that price.

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. ;)

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 ....

Tags

x