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.
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.
Hmmm....I'm not sure how or why it would "alienate" anyone... I
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.
whoop! are missing my point. :love: Its positive you posted t
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
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" ?
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
One of my greatest concerns migrating from Pro Tools to Sampliti
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.
I've been hearing from you guys about SampX. My question is: C
I've been hearing from you guys about SampX. My question is:
Can I export my audio .wavs from Cubase into SampX and get good results? Is it worth it to finish everything up in SampX? I don't mind a learning curve, I thrive on them.
I know I can start new music on SampX no problem, but what about existing stuff?
Indeed Zero it and go. Prepare it the same way I import and mix
Make sense? For those interested in trying this like john just
For those interested in trying this like john just asked,
In order for your tracks to line up to a grid, you zero them and (check your daw terminology) save/export each track or stem so they can be imported into any DAW start point. Zero is zero for all DAWS.
Make note of your BPM. Create a session in Samplitude, set the SR, BPM and start importing each track (Control W) into your new lanes. Be sure your always at zero for each lane. It will line up perfect.
You will need to do some homework on how to import and use this new daw but that's the skinny of it
I'm in my boat fishing in northern Bc right now! Hard to see my text in the sun
Hope that helps
Go for it!
Continued: Save your tracks as wave file. NOTE: Don't src in
Save your tracks as wave file.
NOTE: Don't src in your old daw either. (n)
Leave the SR at what your old session was tracked at! If you forget during the import to Sam, Sam will tell or ask you what sr you want to do if it's different from your current settings. Don't SR right now. You do that at the very end, (mastering)
Follow these steps, you can't go wrong.
Coolness. I'll give SampX a try.
Any questions, don't hesitate to ask us. Cheers!
Tons of tutorials here: View: http://youtu.be/X3XPTJrodog Rena
Tons of tutorials here:
also... don't use any dithering when exporting tracks. You don'
I'll have to check it out again I tried it around 5 years ago..
I'll have to check it out again I tried it around 5 years ago.. at that time the midi wasn't happening.
A buddy of mine swears by it. He was a rep for them. Not sure if he still is..
it can do multiple sample rates at the same time.
and it's more robust stability wise as its a machine code. At least it used to be..
I can do some Uad vs samplitude comparisons If you guys want. .
pick the track and the parameters and we can to some more scientific tests.. regarding plug ins.
A Chris Perra, post: 417963, member: 48232 wrote: I can do som
Chris Perra, post: 417963, member: 48232 wrote:
I can do some Uad vs samplitude comparisons If you guys want. .
pick the track and the parameters and we can to some more scientific tests.. regarding plug ins.
Its not that UAD is bad! UAD, Waves etc. (many third party plug-ins) are redundant and distracting.
SAMPLITUDE is very capable of getting the job done without UAD or mass third party plug-ins that do the same thing over and over. You really need to pay attention.
You can't even hear the difference between a budget converter. Now you are purposing to be a credited source between SAM and UAD and with what DAW and how? You are missing the ball on this.
How am I missing the ball? I can use Samplitude. With whatever
How am I missing the ball?
I can use Samplitude. With whatever tracks and do a comparison between Samplitudes built in plug ins and Uad. Setting whatever parameters you like..
You pick a track. Set up a samplitude plug in that you like the sound of. Write down the settings and I can set up a comparison between a samplitude plug in and a Uad one inside samplitude using your settings.
Won't have anything to do with my apparent lack of hearing or knowledge.. Or my inability to hear a difference between a budget converter and something more high end.
How am I purposing to to be a credited source between Sam and Uad?
Chris, I'm really trying to be calm with you but its wearing on
Chris, I'm really trying to be calm with you but its wearing on me which isn't bringing out the best of me. Would you please take a break, reflect what you just said and look at this all again.
Donny, you are so good with wording, can you please explain this to Chris so we get him at least on track (less distracting god willing) . Its not that I or anyone is trying to convince you into investing in good, better, best or that UAD is under attack as being bad code! On the contrary, however, you may find you don't need third party code (UAD, Waves etc) with SAM or Sequoia.
From the day you came here you having been driving with the peddle to the medal missing all the cues to less is more.
Do the faders work differently than in Cubase? On SampX, I go f
Do the faders work differently than in Cubase? On SampX, I go from not loud enough to really loud in a short throw of the faders. In Cubase it's more graduated. Or is it just me?
And YAY!!! for FFT Sound Cloner programmers!. Their motto: "For when John Todd's dumbass decides he needs to punch-in 3 days later." :eek:
Whatever, I just offered to do some tests.. You don't have to ta
Whatever, I just offered to do some tests.. You don't have to take that as a personal attack on your workflow or process. Which for some reason you think that defending Uad or wanting to do tests is. It's not. It's just to see if it is worth the money like you suggest.
Testing some tracks just now Samplitude sounds really good.
JohnTodd, post: 417969, member: 39208 wrote: Do the faders work
JohnTodd, post: 417969, member: 39208 wrote: Do the faders work differently than in Cubase? On SampX, I go from not loud enough to really loud in a short throw of the faders. In Cubase it's more graduated. Or is it just me?
I've never experienced this. The faders are super smooth. Where does it start to get really loud?
Just a guess but this sounds like your CP is not able to process bits with SAM loaded. We should ask Tim to chime in here.
PC. We might as well have the best guy to help on this. I've
While we wait for Tim, It could be your CP is lagging, unable t
While we wait for Tim,
It could be your CP is lagging, unable to make smooth processes because something else is running in the background.
Check your General Settings in the preferences John. I can't load Sam in where I am so I might have the wrong terms to advise.
In General Settings you can optimize the DAW. There are some important steps/options there that might need to be tweaked.
Just curious, what else is loaded while you are testing Samplitude? What have you done so far ? How many tracks are loaded...
Other than this, how are you doing so far?
This DAW is no toy, it needs to be loaded into an optimized PC.
I exported COmfortably Numb from Cubase into Sam. 31 tracks. O
My PC is very much optimized. I'm a former Prof. of CompSci., e
Right! being said, Weather is usually always running in the ba
Very true. The Mrs. has said she wants to buy me a PC for "ever
Happy Wife, happy life! JohnTodd, post: 417977, member: 39208
Happy Wife, happy life!
JohnTodd, post: 417977, member: 39208 wrote: My PC is very much optimized. I'm a former Prof. of CompSci., etc. I built this PC and have it tweaked to the hilt. Except that I have a browser on it to check the weather.
you now have 31 tracks, all mono?
Create 2 Aux track too - (Reverb, Delay)
In a few I'm going to email you a link to a test run I just did.
FWIW I'm running an HP quad core/2.8g processor with 8 meg of R
I'm running an HP quad core/2.8g processor with 8 meg of Ram. I also have several other DAW platforms residing on the same PC (Sonar, StudioOne, Harrison MixBus, PT, as well as Sound Forge and a few other 2 track editing progs...)
And Samplitude runs seamlessly and effortlessly on my system.
My latest go at this re mix ( again but this time in Samp) involves 48 tracks... and not one hiccup... not even a sniffle.
It runs great.
8meg of ram ?? or 8gig ? ;)
Mine is a quad @3.8Ghz with 8Gig of RAM, and Sam runs much bette
JohnTodd, post: 417998, member: 39208 wrote: Mine is a quad @3.8
JohnTodd, post: 417998, member: 39208 wrote: Mine is a quad @3.8Ghz with 8Gig of RAM, and Sam runs much better than Cubase.
How in the HECK can Samplitude Pro X boot in about 4 seconds while Cubase takes about 3 minutes?
Yup. I found the exact same thing as well, compared to Sonar.
Although it might be that I haven't directed Samplitude to load every single plug on my computer. Just a guess.
And truthfully, after hearing Samp's processors, I don't even need to have it load all those vst's; waves, voxengo, fabfilter, or any of the other plugs I have. I'm more than happy with what comes stock in Samp.
pcrecord, post: 417992, member: 46460 wrote: 8meg of ram ?? or 8gig ? ;)
LOL... my bad... 8 GIG
LOL... 8 meg... as if I could even run a calculator app with that.
Ok guys, I took time to import the same tracks to Sonar X3 and S
Ok guys, I took time to import the same tracks to Sonar X3 and Samplitude Pro X
[[url=http://[/URL]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]
Don't say it's not mixed right, it's not a mix, just the plain tracks, no volume changes, just panning.
Let me know it you hear a difference and please let a side the placebo effect ;)
BTW, those tracks were made in a 10x11 room with the Liquid Safire 56, an Octopre and a ISA 2
No discernible difference to me, at least not that I can hear in
No discernible difference to me, at least not that I can hear in these tracks. The again, you were using X, and I based my findings on Sonar 7.2.5, and PT 8.
Yours is also not nearly as dense of a mix as I'm used to working with either, especially in relation to the current tracks of "Still See You", which incorporates several electric guitars, a B3, 3 synths, multi layered backing vox, lead vox, bass, piano, acoustic guitars, etc.
Perhaps this is where the difference lies, in that the more tracks the project has, the more Sonar was smearing the sonics, and the more clearly Samp played them.
Or, it was an issue related to the version of Sonar I was using.
As a side note, I have to say I liked the song that you used, PC... very hooky, fun.
We should have a workshop in a while. I'd like to see you guys u
I'll try to mix the song in both DAW next week
Does Sam have an "Arranger Track" like Cubase does? Maybe it ha
I'm not sure what that is, John... could you elaborate?
OK, let's say I'm creating a new song. 1. I get an idea for a r
OK, let's say I'm creating a new song.
1. I get an idea for a riff. I play it a few times on my guitar. I figure out the tempo and set it on Cubase.
2. I record the riff with the click track running so it all lines up on the grid.
3. I repeat all this a few times creating the chorus, verse, intro, and changes/breakdowns, the outtro, etc.
4. I go to the various places on the timeline and create the drum parts, then the bass guitar parts, and some synth.
I now have a completed rhythm section for the song, but it's all scattered and out-of-order and does not repeat.
5. I call up an Arranger Track on Cubase, which sits on the timeline like any other track.
6. I go to the various sections, say, the Verse, and on the Arranger Track I draw a box with the pencil, and label it "Verse".
7. Same thing for all the other parts: Mark and label the Intro, Bridge, Chorus, changes/breakdowns, outtro, etc. Just whatever the song needs.
8. Now everything is labeled and Cubase knows what each and every section is, according to how I have labeled them, but they are still scattered.
9. I call up the Arranger Track's Inspector. This is the place where you would put plugins if it were an audio track. But on the Arranger Track I tell it the order I want things put in, like this:
2/ Verse X2 (play it twice)
5/ Verse X2
8/ Chageup #1 X2
9/ Changeup #2 X2
11/ Chorus X16 (for a fade-out later on in mastering)
So now Cubase knows the order and repititions I want.
10. In the Arranger Track Inspector, I push the magic button and:
11. The entire timeline is wiped clean, and all the sections are cut/copied and pasted onto the timeline in the correct order with the correct repetions. I can now play the entire song from start to finish! Every musical item I have programmed in so far is now on the timeline. In this example, that would be a scratch guitar, perfect drums, perfect bass, and perfect synth parts.
I save it all to a new file, open the new file, and begin the long process of perfecting the song, adding parts, tracking vocals, and putting in the official guitar parts, solos, etc.
I've been planning to embed a direct Samplitude link at the top
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…"]kraznet [/]and [[url=http://="https://www.youtube…"]Tim's[/]="https://www.youtube…"]Tim's[/] youtube tutorials.
[GALLERY=media, 13]Samplitude in the studio: Mixing by TimDolbear posted Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM[/GALLERY]