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 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

audiokid Thu, 12/31/2015 - 00:56

DonnyThompson, post: 434799, member: 46114 wrote: Chris ( @audiokid ) generally isn't a fan of "modeled" compression or EQ plugs; he prefers to use the real thing(s)

No, not quite accurate. I am not a fan of broad compression in the mix session. I love tracking with them (UA LA2A. ) and I appreciate them in the second DAW (ITB) most of all. I avoid using compression whenever possible because I don't like destroying the dynamics. But I love them ITB, in a side chain application lot!
I avoid analog compression OTB all together. ITB comps are much better today. But, that doesn't mean I think we should use them all the time. Subtle amounts are tolerable. They definitely smear audio.

DonnyThompson Thu, 12/31/2015 - 01:49

audiokid, post: 434801, member: 1 wrote: ITB comps are much better today. But, that doesn't mean I think we should use them all the time. Subtle amounts are tolerable. They definitely smear audio.

This is one of the main reasons I've grown to like parallel compression, using aux sends/returns to control the amount of reduction in the mix; by using this method, you can adjust how much compression each track is getting individually, simply by backing off the level of the aux send to the return where the gain reduction is inserted ... unlike "blanket" compression ( compression inserted into the master 2-bus), which will compress everything the same ( stated in "general" terms of course, knowing that the low end gets wacked the hardest) and which so often results in dynamics being destroyed across the board.

DonnyThompson Thu, 12/31/2015 - 01:55

edit: let me re-state this:

DonnyThompson, post: 434803, member: 46114 wrote: you can adjust how much compression each track is getting individually, simply by backing off the level of the aux send to the return where the gain reduction is inserted

More accurately stated: you can control how much an individual track is being fed forward into the compression detection circuit on the Aux Return where the GR is inserted, by adjusting the aux send level on that particular track; so you could send a lot, a little, or even none at all if you'd like to keep a certain track out of the compression circuit altogether.

I felt the need to adjust, as my original statement might be misleading. ;)

Craigster Fri, 07/15/2016 - 15:09

DonnyThompson, post: 434771, member: 46114 wrote: And, after working with Samp's Object Based Editing for a few days, it became glaringly apparent to me that Samp was exactly where I needed to be.

Donny, in addition to such common things as volume changes per object (which can reduce need for compression), pitch alterations and cross-fading, what functions of the Object Editor do you use that reduces plugin usage? (I know Samp lets us use EQ, compression and VSTs at the Object level. But I'm not thinking of that as reducing the need for plug-ins. I find I prefer to use my plugs at the track level.) Anyway, can you detail how you use the Object Editor?

DonnyThompson Sat, 07/16/2016 - 00:06

Craigster, post: 439916, member: 49924 wrote: Donny, in addition to such common things as volume changes per object (which can reduce need for compression), pitch alterations and cross-fading, what functions of the Object Editor do you use that reduces plugin usage? (I know Samp lets us use EQ, compression and VSTs at the Object level. But I'm not thinking of that as reducing the need for plug-ins. I find I prefer to use my plugs at the track level.) Anyway, can you detail how you use the Object Editor?

I'm not sure that I ever implied that the OBE was a way of reducing plug use.

If you like using effects and processing on the entire track, then there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I do like that I can add a one -time effect or processor to just a specific section of a track without effecting the entire track.

As opposed to me listing all my reasons, here's an SOS explanation that pretty much covers what I use it for:

http://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/samplitude-object-based-processing

DonnyThompson Sat, 07/16/2016 - 02:07

kmetal, post: 439926, member: 37533 wrote: I'm wondering if I was under a false impression that it was more cpu efficient.

You can freeze objects once you've done whatever you want to do with them, and in that regard, it would save CPU processing.

OBE is just one of the cool things that Samp does. It's a feature-rich platform, and often deep and complex, but once you get to know it, you'll be wondering why you didn't make the switch sooner.

Any DAW can be efficient - or not - depending on your system's specs, and what you are doing with the program.
I'm not sure I'd quantify CPU efficiency as being Samp's main feature, Kyle ... to me, it was mostly an audible thing.
I've said it here several times before, and several of my engineering colleagues - both locally and here on RO - have agreed, that Samp sounds better than other programs they've used.
I'm assuming it has to do with the coding of the audio engine, but, I'm not an expert in software design, so that's only a guess.

Chris ( @audiokid ) might know more about why this is.

I do know that many professionals have switched to Samp and Sequoia over the past few years, and I've yet to talk with anyone who has said that they regretted doing so.
Once they learn what the program is capable of, they generally don't look back at whatever platform they've switched from.

I was a Sonar user for more years than I can count, ( and PT, too) and after using Samp, I'd never go back to using either one, (unless a client insisted upon it).

But, that's just me. Everyone's workflow and expectations are different. For some, Samp might be too feature rich, and offer capabilities that they'd never use - at which point, something like Reaper might allow them to be more productive, and in the end, that's what a DAW should do as its main selling feature.

Pick the one that you think works best for what you do .... and only you can determine what that is... or isn't.

IMHO of course.
;)

kmetal Sat, 07/16/2016 - 17:24

Sweet deal. Obe is great looking I had tondo something similar in DP for a metal project. Instead of automation, I used clip gain to level off the volumes of tons of things. It was painstaking in DP because you could only I just it on a DB level By manually typing it in a dialog box, like plus one DB, for instance. The awful part was DP would not remember whatever the initial gain setting was, So you were always adjusting relative to what you just did, it was very obnoxious, but at least the waveform changed size so I was able to visually edit. So if you wanted an edit 2db louder you'd type +2db, but if that wAs too much, you had to type +1.5, instead of sliding a fader down. But there was no way to return to where you started lol, like simply typing 0db in would just leave its at +1.5, if that's were you left off. It sounds confusing in print and was completely unintuitive. I enjoyed the control, I had over everything, and just wished that sample tube was Mac compatible.

Audio programs aren't easy on CPUs anyway with reaper probably being the most efficient, while also sounding better than a lot of them.

I'm super excited about Sam because I always found automaton clunky with too many different modes. And obnoxious to edit manually the in betweens of say a filter sweep.

I think while it may seem a bit slower at first, trying to match obe type precession with automation wouldn't be faster at all.

DonnyThompson Mon, 07/18/2016 - 01:31

kmetal, post: 439953, member: 37533 wrote: @DonnyThompson

I've been meaning to ask, is there anything from the other DAW's you've used regularly that you find 'missing' or more difficult in SAM? Workflow or feature wise?

Nothing missing, if anything there's more features than in other DAWs I've used. Yeah, it's a bit difficult at first - but that's to be expected, as there's always a new learning curve to deal with when switching up from any DAW you've grown accustomed to over time.

Mostly it's a nomenclature thing, or a location thing, as in certain tasks being named something slightly different from the previous DAW you were on; and being able to find them under the correct menu pull downs.
One of the things that helped me when setting up Pro X Suite was to revert back to Menu Version 11 ( this only changes the menu layout and not the features accessible), and I did that first, using one of Kraznet's vids, as many of his instructional vids were based on that menu layout..

I can't stress this enough, Kyle... use the Kraznet instructional vids on youtube. Martin's vids are a Godsend to the Magix community... they are clear, concise, ( and free) and will get you knowing the program and running smoothly a lot faster.
He gets right to the point with these vids: "Do this, now do this, then do this." There's no, "Yo dawg, wassup!" BS. There's nothing I've wanted to do that he hasn't explained perfectly, step by step.
Plus... his voice is like valium, and will calm you down during those difficult transitions. LOL

;)

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

Brother Junk Thu, 01/26/2017 - 11:36

pcrecord, post: 446950, member: 46460 wrote: Both the same, but Sequoia has more gravy.. is it ? ;)

I just toured the site. Both of them look insane. I would be happy to learn'em. Sequoia especially, the screen info looks incredible. Really easy to read, the stuff I want to know is right in front of me. I'd happily learn another DAW, just to say I did lol. Plus I'd really love to compare sound between Logic, PT, and this.

I just got a whole lot more interested in that Samplitude give-away if it happens.

But even the list price is $599 for Pro X3 suite (iirc). So, where does the $1200 figure come from? Is there a piece of equipment you need to run with it that I don't see?

**Edit, I see, Sequoia is listed at $1299. They do a good job with the visual interface...that looks incredibly nice to deal with. And actually pretty easy to understand from the couple screen shots I can find. I've heard of Samplitude in my travels, but never looked into it. I already had too many daws to deal with.

But I've never even heard of Sequoia till coming here. It looks really nice. They both run on Windows though. But I have a sweet lil windows machine right here that I just reclaimed. I had let my grandmother borrow it. Funny, but true. She loves her Pogo.

Brother Junk Fri, 01/27/2017 - 07:54

Johnny Blade, post: 446952, member: 50338 wrote: See the attached PDF I put in this reply. It's old, from 2015, but it's still very useful:

Complete (2015) differences between Samplitude Pro X2 / Suite / Sequoia 13
.

Samplitude Pro X3 Suite has now some other features from Sequoia 13.

If you go with Samplitude, you won't go wrong!

Johnny.

It seems like x3 Suite and Sequoia are extremely similar. Aside from those unchecked boxes, do they sound the same? Meaning the recording quality?

audiokid Fri, 01/27/2017 - 08:24

Brother Junk, post: 446962, member: 49944 wrote: It seems like x3 Suite and Sequoia are extremely similar. Aside from those unchecked boxes, do they sound the same? Meaning the recording quality?

Yes, they crunch the numbers the same but do not nessesarily share the same bugs software can share.. Samplitude is all most studios need.
Sequoia has all the options Samplitude offers plus a few extra A/V addons that only come in Sequoia.

Kaan Tue, 02/07/2017 - 08:20

audiokid, post: 446966, member: 1 wrote: Yes, they crunch the numbers the same but do not nessesarily share the same bugs software can share.. Samplitude is all most studios need.
Sequoia has all the options Samplitude offers plus a few extra A/V addons that only come in Sequoia.

Do you know how is intercomparability between SeqSamp through PT?

I'm just thinking If i were to get a job in film tv series postproduction do I have to learn PT?

pcrecord Tue, 02/07/2017 - 12:59

Kaan, post: 447285, member: 50244 wrote: Do you know how is intercomparability between SeqSamp through PT?

I'm just thinking If i were to get a job in film tv series postproduction do I have to learn PT?

As far as I know, the only compatibility lies in the recording files format between DAWs. 99% of them for say!

What I always do (or ask to do) is export each tracks to wave files while making sure the starting point is the same for each tracks.
That way when I load the waves in any DAW, they will align perfectly.

BTW, many pro facility are fading away from PT. Some keep it only for compatibility with other studios.
At some point, it'd be interesting to see convertion Tools being written. But I doubt, it will happen. No DAW use all the same plugins (onboard EQ, comp etc.. ) It would be futil to open a project with settings that are invalid due to different plugin conceptions.

DonnyThompson Thu, 08/10/2017 - 16:14

I think that the most important thing a musician / songwriter can do, is to get to know their DAW program as much as possible. Get to a point where commands and functions become second-nature.
(Actually, I think it's important to hire someone who knows what they are doing so that the musician can be a musician and focus on the song, but I understand that many songwriters are now recording themselves ).
Knowing your platform allows you to be more creative, be more of a recordimg artist, because you're not spending boat-loads of time trying to figure out how to do a particular technical thing, which can take precious time away from music creation... and which can interrupt the flow of your creativity. We all know there's that cool thing that happens as a writer/musician when you're in "the zone". Once you interrupt that, it can be tough to get back there again.

While I love and use Samplitude almost exclusively these days, and I've come to know it pretty well, there are still things about the program that I don't know. But the more I get to know it, the more time I find myself actually creating music. And I would recommend getting familiar with your platform of choice to anyone, regardless of the DAW platform they use : be it PT, Sonar, Cubase, Logic, S1, Mixbus, whatever....
Now... I do think that there are some platforms that may be better-suited towards writers and home recordists, some that have easier learning curves; DAWs that may not be as feature-rich as Samp or Avid - which in their full blown versions are progs that are geared more towards audio professionals - and as such, have steeper learning curves, because they can do more...
But, for those who want to work quickly and efficiently, or just do simple recording to get their ideas down, to work out arrangements, harmonies, instrumentation...they should consider a program that is targeted more towards that type of simple recording, than those platforms that offer multitudes of features and commands - that most beginners don't know about, or how to use, or for that matter, even care about - or want.
Getting to know your DAW - really getting to know it - regardless of which you use, will result in more time being spent actually recording ... than spending hours trying to figure out why you aren't.
IMHO of course. ;)
-donny

Johnny Blade Thu, 08/10/2017 - 20:44

It is very well placed. Does someone "dominate" your DAW? To know is not to dominate - I know the English language but I do not dominate it.

I swallowed the Samplitude manual countless times and I believe I have already used almost all the possibilities offered by the program. Currently I do not work more directly with music, but audio management continues to be a pleasurable hobby. If a simple need to record a CD to listen in my car is the order of the day, then Samplitude is a click away from my presence.

Donny checked the question: the important thing is to master a work tool - whatever it is.

From the moment I connected with Samplitude, I practically established a marriage. I can say that I know the sensibilities and robustness of Samplitude. I found my soul mate. I do not live for it, but I do not live without it. It is a great companion for moments of reflection, and since my vocation is monogamous, it is the only one who I love to see by my side, always.

Well, many (many!!!) wine glasses aside, the most important thing is to find a tool to get accustomed and, from there, master it. And that's what I meant.

Be happy with what you want. I am happy with Samplitude. :)

kmetal Thu, 08/10/2017 - 21:45

I've done a ton of freelance work over the years, finding myself in front of just about every Daw out there, on macs, tablets, phones, laptops, and pcs.

What I've found is, if you've got the hang of one of them pretty well, you'll have a fairly easy time on any of them as at as the basics of tracking and editing. The vocab will change as well as the menu structure and shortcuts, but the basic funtions of any of them are straightforward.

It's when you get past the basics that the mastery of certain programs comes into play. That's where being proficient can save time and make money, and daw selection is important.

Having been messing w sam for a little bit, it's the program's stability, efficiency, and lack of coloration that's most important to me. The object editing, and frequency based editing are high on the list too, tho I've not jumped into that yet. High track count, fair licensing policy, and affordability are things that not every program of this quality level offer.

One quirk I dislike is the pluggins don't seem to be re-arragneable, and the first plug seems to always default to the first slot. This could be my mistake, or a setting...? For example I'll usually toss a compressor and/or limiter on the master bus when all the elements are in the mix and the rough eq and balance and auxes are somewhere reasonable. I'll typically put the limiter on the bottom slot, and the comp above (before) the limiter, leaving the first two slots blank for potentially another eq and/or comp. this seems to not be possible in Samplitude (pro x3), and is sort of annoying, and borderline counter-intuitive. Again I'm assuming it's something I'm doing wrong, but if not, that would be my first and so far, complaint about sam. Second would be the in-ability to get rid of the eq section on the channel. Since I'm trying to keep things as easy as possible to move between platforms and daws, the built in eq settings would not move into say PT or Media Composer. Again this could be my mistake.

Since I'm not über fancy when I'm working, things like reliability and small CPU hit have become much more important to me than they have in the past. Object based editing is probably the only feature that truly seperates sam from other daws in the class, and they are years ahead of the competition in that reguard.

Samplitude runs smoothly on machines/devices that have no buisness running a daw. I've never really mastered a particular program, nor am I particularly slow on any of them. I tend to learn on an as needed basis, or from tricks and tips mostly. I've undoubtedly taken the long way around only to watch someone do it in a couple keystrokes lol.

Sound quality and reliability aside, I feel the daw selection is one of the least important things relative to recording technique, gain staging ect. They all pretty much do the same thing in similar ways. That makes it easy to pick the one that's most comfortable or caters to your style of engineering/writing best. I don't find any of them "missing" anything and most of them run solidly. There isn't much of a compromise between them all which allows you to pick your fav without feeling like your sacraficing something.

That said sam is my favorite so far along w pt (which is love/hate) since Adobe audition 2, back in the early 2000's. With reaper right up there for quality, ability to run on a thumb drive, reliability, and price.

I think there is a serious lack of hardware integration in all the daws, leaving people who are used to a mixing board and control knobs, with nearly no options. Softube is offering a pluggin controller that's compatible with softube and UA stuff, so perhaps a truly integrated daw and control surface is just beyond the horizon for mortals unable to pay the avid price.

Eventually they'll be a system similar to radar or the standalone hardisk recorders, or the mackie hdr/D8B recorder and mixer system, that will rid the daw of the software and hardware bloat associated with the basic PC/Mac. There's no reason in this day of digital, a system like that couldn't be successful and vastly outperform the computer systems we all use right now.

With a lot of the digital mixers offering direct recording to a thumb drive, we can't be too far off.

For example look how efficiently 'apps' work on devices VS how programs run on computers. The ability to start from a clean slate and code from the ground up for the devices OS really shows what you can get out of relatively modest hardware. A smartphone can do 24 tracks w pluggins reliably, something a desktop would somewhat struggle with, just over a decade ago.

I think it really is time for a dedicated audio/video platform or format or OS or whatever you wanna call it. Perhaps more daws will catch on to Linux.

As complex as Samplitude can be, I was able to jump in without much manual hunting for like a few basic mastering style sessions, start to finish. I'm very happy with sam.

DonnyThompson Fri, 08/11/2017 - 02:16

kmetal, post: 451957, member: 37533 wrote: One quirk I dislike is the pluggins don't seem to be re-arragneable, and the first plug seems to always default to the first slot. This could be my mistake, or a setting...? For example I'll usually toss a compressor and/or limiter on the master bus when all the elements are in the mix and the rough eq and balance and auxes are somewhere reasonable. I'll typically put the limiter on the bottom slot, and the comp above (before) the limiter, leaving the first two slots blank for potentially another eq and/or comp. this seems to not be possible in Samplitude (pro x3), and is sort of annoying, and borderline counter-intuitive. Again I'm assuming it's something I'm doing wrong

For third party plugs, you can drag and drop into any order, for stock plugs, If you click on the top of the insert section, ( either channel or master) it takes you to a menu where you can arrange the order, and also make thing pre or post.
:)

kmetal Fri, 08/11/2017 - 10:17

DonnyThompson, post: 451968, member: 46114 wrote: For third party plugs, you can drag and drop into any order, for stock plugs, If you click on the top of the insert section, ( either channel or master) it takes you to a menu where you can arrange the order, and also make thing pre or post.
:)

Awsome thanks D.

DonnyThompson Fri, 08/11/2017 - 11:56

Johnny Blade, post: 451969, member: 50338 wrote: It's correct. That 'plugin manager' is very flexible, with both native and/or third party plugins.

I find Samp's plug manager to be the easiest and most flexible out of any DAW I've used. To be fair, the last version of PT I had was back when it was still Digidesign, so maybe it's gotten better... I trust our resident PT users to tell us.
I found Sonar to be a kludge, non intuitive and confusing ... but again, in all fairness, the last version I used was PE 8, so perhaps they've gotten better too). I think most DAWs have come a long way, but Samp is my main platform now so that's all I can speak to.
However, Dave (@dvdhawk ) has been using S1 to capture for the OASIS project, and I certainly have no complaints about it.
FWIW
-d

Johnny Blade Tue, 12/19/2017 - 06:24

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/

I did a link to this well done argument in Samp's Official Forum, in the Public Area.

DonnyThompson Tue, 12/19/2017 - 09:42

Well, to be fair, the quote you used above is an older one, where I'm being very positive about Samp's platform. I was complimenting them, as they well deserve - but that quote isn't the point I'm hoping to get across to them now. My current feeling is that they arent doing enough to attract new users, of which I believe there will be more than a few of very soon, as soon as the dust settles over at Gibson.
There are going to be a lot of Sonar users looking for another platform, and I think that if Magix approaches this in a forward-thinking way, that they could gain a fairly good chunk of those people who are looking. No one needs to sell me - or any other Samp user - on how good the platform is; but there are a lot of people out there who simply don't know about it being a great DAW to work with, and accordingly, move up to.
I've already mentioned all of this here on RO in another post, and have sent Magix a message with these same thoughts.
I think this message needs to get bumped up to their marketing department; while our Magix guy here has always been helpful, he had told me that these are things he really has no control over; and I can understand that. If the message can get through to the people who do have control over PR, hopefully my thoughts will at least be read and considered. I can't really ask for more than that. ;)
-d.

Terry Leigh Britton Tue, 12/19/2017 - 11:53

DonnyThompson, post: 454599, member: 46114 wrote: Well, to be fair, the quote you used above is an older one, where I'm being very positive about Samp's platform. I was complimenting them, as they well deserve - but that quote isn't the point I'm hoping to get across to them now. My current feeling is that they arent doing enough to attract new users, of which I believe there will be more than a few of very soon, as soon as the dust settles over at Gibson.
There are going to be a lot of Sonar users looking for another platform, and I think that if Magix approaches this in a forward-thinking way, that they could gain a fairly good chunk of those people who are looking. No one needs to sell me - or any other Samp user - on how good the platform is; but there are a lot of people out there who simply don't know about it being a great DAW to work with, and accordingly, move up to.
I've already mentioned all of this here on RO in another post, and have sent Magix a message with these same thoughts.
I think this message needs to get bumped up to their marketing department; while our Magix guy here has always been helpful, he had told me that these are things he really has no control over; and I can understand that. If the message can get through to the people who do have control over PR, hopefully my thoughts will at least be read and considered. I can't really ask for more than that. ;)
-d.

Actually, Donny, the forum at Samplitude has been happily FLOODING with new Samplitude users coming over from Sonar, so the recent killer sale they did apparently got them noticed! :)

Good news all around.

Terry

Tbozaudio Thu, 11/21/2019 - 21:57

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/

Whole heartedly agree! Been using Samplitude since version 7

Tags

x

Register

Your recently read content