Okay... so, I downloaded a trial version of Samplitude Music Studio 2013.

I've been using Sonar for years, thought I might check out something else.

I have to say, and I'm not sure if this is simply a placebic reaction to a new platform, thinking that it sounds better just because of what I've been told or, just because that it's new... But I think Samplitude sounds better.

More 'defined", less dramatic changes in EQ and GR to get the desired processing or effect, seems to work better with my current OS and specs.

I don't know if this is due to a panning law of some kind, or a processing function(s), but Sonar, to my ears, comparing apples to apples (same exact song, same exact effects and processing) sounds, well, for lack of a better term, "smeared", where Samp seems to have more definition. I'm hearing it most noticeably in the bottom end.

So the question is, am I crazy? Or is Samp truly better sonically?

Downside: I like Sonar's editing features better. Not a deal breaker, just sayin'.

fwiw
-d.

I have heard a difference between 24 bit/32 bit float and 64 bit mix engines. FWIW I liked the Samplitude trial a few years ago when I was nosing around different DAW's.

DonnyThompson, post: 403037 wrote: Okay... so, I downloaded a trial version of Samplitude Music Studio 2013.

I've been using Sonar for years, thought I might check out something else.

I have to say, and I'm not sure if this is simply a placebic reaction to a new platform, thinking that it sounds better just because of what I've been told or, just because that it's new... But I think Samplitude sounds better.

More 'defined", less dramatic changes in EQ and GR to get the desired processing or effect, seems to work better with my current OS and specs.

I don't know if this is due to a panning law of some kind, or a processing function(s), but Sonar, to my ears, comparing apples to apples (same exact song, same exact effects and processing) sounds, well, for lack of a better term, "smeared", where Samp seems to have more definition. I'm hearing it most noticeably in the bottom end.

So the question is, am I crazy? Or is Samp truly better sonically?

Downside: I like Sonar's editing features better. Not a deal breaker, just sayin'.

fwiw
-d.

Well that's hardly a scientific measure. You'd have to be absolutely sure all settings are exactly the same on each DAW. Almost impossible. If you had raw tracks and no panning and still found Sam to sound "Better" that would be something else on it's own.

If you had raw tracks and no panning and still found Sam to sound "Better" that would be something else on it's own.

I apologize. I should have been more clear. I was basing my opinion on using raw tracks, no level changes, no processing, no effects, no stereo imaging, all tracks at center detente pan-wise.

The statement I made regarding smaller and less dramatic processing settings was based on what I didafter I initially compared the two DAWs dry, using the same exact raw files.

I was pretty clear that I was willing to accept the possibility that it could be a placebo/phantom perception based upon the fact that it was a different program, or perhaps based on what I'd heard others mention. Hardly scientific. ;)

It was only my opinion. I didn't state anything as unequivocal. I simply stated what I found, based upon the parameters used, apples to apples, so to speak.

You did mention effects and processing so to me, that is not raw. I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just telling you what I read.

I don't believe you are being argumentative, I believe you are being justifiably objective.

It was my fault for not specifying that the processing I implemented was after listening to the raw mono tracks, and that was simply to determine how the program handled the processing functions.

But my initial perception on the detail and definition was based solely on first listening to each program's playback of dry, mono, raw tracks, apples to apples. I didn't even alter any playback levels in either program. I played them strictly as they were imported, and compared the two programs sonically.

And again, I'm willing to say that it's just my perception. I could be completely wrong, as I have no specific numbers to back it up.
I was merely stating what I heard.

fwiw
-d.

Well, you all know my preference for DAW's. Pro tools is clearly the winner !

Attached files

hehe! Kidding.

I've done mild comparisons and Samplitude ( Sequoia for mastering/finishing music) is by far my DAW of choice. It sounds better to me and the plug-ins and mastering suite are all I need. They work and don't goof up the music. Sonar sounds grainy to me. I hate it but try and like it.

2 DAW's that I don't mention much, that totally impressed me is Fruity Loops and Ableton Live. I wouldn't use them for tracking and mixing, Samplitude, is king but the sound quality I heard right out of the box is stellar. Its no wonder those are the new gen choices.

And then there is Studio One 2. look out Avid.

I read a few things the last few day and analog is coming on like a heart attack. 100% ITB is loosing speed. I look at Samplitude as the brain behind the gear now.

Samplitude is the ultimate hybrid DAW.

Don't get me wrong. I like and use Samplitude. I also hear a difference between DAWs but that is purely subjective I think. It may be placebo. I don't know.

Good point. Here's my thought process:

Does your DAW use third party plug-ins well? If it does, then you have no reason to be looking further. Or, is it what everyone else is using, that allows you all to share and work together? If so, you don't need to look any further.

We think digital is so clear and accurate up until we start adding and compounding third party plug-ins.
Something everyone should try more than once. Load one of your third party plug-in on a clean reference track and see if it does something bypassed. Take time to listen to what its really doing. Do it with all the plug-ins you use. Test them!

If you hear a change especially when bypassed, at this point of realization, you start wondering who is zooming who and what is this thing actually doing to the image of this track. How is it reacting with other tracks? Is the phase in line or are things getting smeary? Do you hear a tiny loss in smoothness?

Why does one engineer like something you think sucks? Does your DAW actually function like the next guys? How come there are so many bugs? Updates? Its never ending. Is this really what music is all about?

It starts looking like we are all testing software.

At this point I started looking for a DAW that had what I needed. I choose a DAW that was tried and tested and ultimately approved over and over by mastering engineers around the world. Even though I'm not an ME, I want something that is at least concidered to be accurate that's stands on its own. This is what Samplitude is.

the worst of the bunch, Avid is/was the shopping center for everyone to build a plug-in store around. No wonder it got so big and messy. Its like we are all leasing of DAW's.

There is a (Dead Link Removed)

I tested Samplitude years ago - I think it was version 5. I had been with Sonar for a few years and had read several reviews that indicated that Samplitude was an amazing program, so I tried it out. The thing I remember about using it then was that there seemed to be a configuration menu available just about anywhere I clicked! I liked the way Samp worked, but at the time the price tag was more than I could do, and I wasn't sure I wanted to learn a new DAW. And at that time Sonar was improving with every version. Fast-forward to Sonar X1 - it's full of features, but Cakewalk lost me with the workflow. Going from Sonar 8.5 to X1 was, for me, like learning a new DAW. I own X1, but I found myself using 8.5, or even going to my Mac and using Logic, rather than using X1.

A short while ago a mastering engineer I know did a comparison test between Sonar and Samp - a instrument file rendered from Kontact, one in Samp ProX, and the other in Sonar X1. Both files were 24/44.1 with no dither, no SRC, eq, or anything, and both exported via the master bus. He then made the resulting WAV files available for listening, and the difference was immediately noticeable. With my previous experience with Samp and my current experience with X1, that listening test was the final straw that lead me to purchase Samp. Plus the nice cross-grade price from Florida Music. :)

But besides the technical stuff, how a DAW "feels" to the user is an important part of which software someone uses. This part is rarely, if ever, quantifiable, but it has a big impact and is a valid consideration.

exactly,

without going on too much more, I participated in a recent shootout on GS comparing a new converter with others and it was such a gong show of files being submitted and wrongly compared by so may misinformed. The bottom line relating to what you and I just finished mentioning already is:

I found reverb bleed on one side of tracks that should never have been there. There are even ghost noises that somehow hang over when you disable them or even turn them off. Like a stench of crap still lingering in the background long after you tried something and decided it wasn't right for the track.

You could clearly hear crud sitting on tracks that were not supposed to have anything on them. And people swear to you that this can't be possible.
So, indeed, DAW's leave a lot to be desired. I do not hear that with Samplitude. But, I don't use many 3rd party plugs anymore. I don't need them or want them. And if I do, I will often close the program off just to clear it all. And I will save a song with and without just in case I corrupt it by trying some stupid plug-in. Often its too late as well.

I get offers to use plug-ins for free here and I wouldn't waste my time with most of it. They look pretty, but are like a virus plaguing our music. I know there are some really great ones, ( Love a few indeed!) but I think the cheapo's are total garbage and some that are wonderful still may not be 100% transparent no matter how much they cost.

Glad you brought up the bleed issue. I thought it was all in my head but I certainly hear bleed issues with some plugins. I makes me wonder what other anomalies are making their way into the master bus. Now I have a strong desire to test and weed out all of my plugins. Even the ones I paid good money for.

That all being said, all of these are good reasons to go hybrid. It's just so much easier to sculpt your sound with real hardware. No messing around. Mixing old school.

Few things to be carefull about when comparing DAWs.
1- you should compare exported wav files and not the live sound : some DAWs will save ressources when doing playback to be sure you don't have any glitchs and so the live sound won't be accurate as the final product. Some DAWs use special rendering and upscale processing but only when exporting and others do it live.
2- Be carefull how the software handle imports : Some will simply link the file, some will convert them to the present project format and even if the file is in the right format it will recompile it. Also, be carefull, the default import format is not 16bit 44khz as I have seen.
3- many options in sound processing are present in the background of many software. You sometime need to dig deep before finding you've been tricked ;)