Maybe this thread should be on a different forum, but I'm interested in Samplitude for classical music alone.

For complex multitracking I'm sticking with Sonar, as I love the interface.

Thanks
John

John,
I am only an amateur at this. But when I use Samplitude 7 I find that it sounds better than I was able to make it sound in Protools LE. This might be only me though.

I find that the workflow suits me very well for what I do, recording acoustic performances and then mixing. (All on an amateur level, mostly for the fun of the musicians).

Once the packet arrives, we can help you out to find if it is a fake or not. The Samplitude people generally is very helpful. If you live in the US, another place to visit might be http://www.synthax.com, which I believe to be the US distributor.

By the way, the Samplitude manual for version 7 is one of the worst manuals I have ever seen. Not doing a good job in helping you in using the program. Said to be improved in the upcoming version 8 (which is not quite delivered yet).

Gunnar

I have Sonar 3 Producer on my computer but use it only for MIDI/GigaStudio stuff when I need to.

For tracking and all post stuff Samplitude is my preferred software. I find it to be very comfortable to use and good sounding as well. My money is in for v8 upgrade and hopefully I'll soon know what benefits the new version will bring to me. :D

I've been a long time user of Sequoia and it is a product that I strongly believe in. I think I started with Samp at verision 5.5x and I was a Sequoia beta tester before it was released in 5.9 which was its first official release.

I don't even know where to start glowing, but for me, Sequoia is really the only product that I use seriously for classical work. Between the ability to mix at the object level and the quality of the crossfade editor and to do 4-point edits. The summing engine in Saplitude and Sequoia is also very good. I've been quite happy with the results I've gotten with my mixes. Now, that I have a remote computer so I can record directly into Sequoia, I'm doing the best work I've ever done.

--Ben

I first started using Red Roaster (a sub-application of Samplitude) back in the mid 90's to make my first CDrs, and soon moved to Samplitude Producer and Samplitude Professional starting with V5. This past month I moved up to Sequoia V8 (although I will keep Samplitude 7.0 around as well on other machines.)

I'll try to limit my superlatives and stay focused on a few key things without gushing, but anyone who knows my preferences knows that I tend to get up on a soapbox and preach when it comes to Samplitude/Sequioa. :-)

I'll also state up front that I've used Sound Forge, Cool Edit, Fast Eddie (remember that one that came with the DAL cards?), DART, Cakewalk 8, many many others, and most recently Sony Vegas (mostly for video, using the audio mainly for AC3 conversions and last minute tweaks.) They and many others have their good points, and they will get you where you want to go, with some degrees of plus and minuses. I am also not a MAC user and never plan to be, I feel no need to be. I'm sure Pro Tools is just fine, and from what little I know about it, it surely must do a lot of good things to keep so many people happy. (The cost, among other things, always kept me away.)

All that aside, if you've never tried out Samplitude/Sequoia, you owe it to yourself to check it out and do some work with it. Years ago, it was considered "Deep" and "Daunting" by people who were (like most of us) new to all things computer-driven and digital-audio based.

It is indeed VERY deep, but most of today's computer-savvy audio folks will have little trouble getting up and running with it, whether mucking around on their own, running a few tutorials, or sitting in on a few sessions with someone who knows the terrain.

I can't honestly say it is "intutive" or "user friendly" because I have been using it too long. My learning curve with it stretches back too far to be objective.

But I can say I will use NOTHING else for serious audio, and as I've stated elsewhere recently: I would seriously consider getting OUT of my line of work if I didn't have this product to use. I am that passionate about it. It does EVERYTHING. (Well, ok, it's not a midi monster app, but I wouldn't use it for that anyway......Cakewalk or something else is much better suited for that.) And, latency can be an issue if you're doing tons of hard-core overdubbing with lots of effects. (But then again, it wont cost what PTs costs, either...)

MIDI & Latency limitations aside, Samp/Sequoia sounds like NOTHING because that's what it's supposed to do. Until you MAKE it sound like something with EQ, plugins, VST's, MBCs., etc.

One of my favorite things is to sit down with staunch PT users, and show them what's already included under the hood. (The most common utterance is: "Wow, PT's has that as a plug in, but they make you pay extra for it!") Same with SADIE; I know a few folks who now virulently HATE them (SADIE) for the overpriced, ridiciulously expensive things in their turnkey systems that are already included with Samp/Seq.

Samp/Seq. is an unbeatable application for recording, overdubbing, mixing, editing, mastering and restoration. V8 also claims to have better AVI implemenation, so I expect to be able to work with audio-for-video projects more and more in Samp instead of shelling back out to Vegas for some things.

You can also mix in stereo or surround, at any bit depth and sample rate, with the track count going as high as your host PC will allow.

There are room sims to die for (and users on their forum are always creating more, offering them to members for free) as well as time/pitch correction (independent of each other, if nec) and all kinds of powerful tools, including declipping, noise reduction, FFT analysis (and waveform redraw), dehissing and other goodies on the fly, multiband dynamics, compression, limiting, amp modeling, and some new goodies I've barely scratched the surface on in Sequioa (Elastic Audio, reNOVAtor plugins from Algorithmix, to name two). All of these tools are available on individual tracks as well as the main outputs, and they can be used offline or in "real time" (again, as long as your CPU can handle it...which in most cases, it can.)

best of all is the sound (or lack thereof) when doing mixes and bounces. (Something to do with the algorithms that Samplitude uses to sum the buses, I"m told.) Transparancy is a good way to describe it; but I prefer "uncolored" and accurate, which is vital in the classical/jazz/acoustic music world. The 24 bit 2-mixes I end up with sound EXACTLY like the multitrack playback, another one of Samp/Sequoia's strong points.

Ben mentioned the object-oriented editing system, and like a few other "pro" apps, this is truly the heart of the matter. All editing is non-destructive (Unless you decide otherwise) and you can always back out of just about any changes you make. Once you know your way around the app, you can work incredibly fast with this product, and in addition to great mixes, you can do astounding repairs and fixes to thing that are usually considered goners.

I have had clients literally in tears of JOY over things we've fixed or resurrected or simply polished with this app. Perhaps those other apps can do similar things, but IMHO nothing does it as elegantly as Samplitude/Sequoia.

I have used it in my studio for years, and in the last 3 years now, I've moved it to my laptop as well (with an assortment of interfaces, the latest is the Mackie ONYX) to record live remotes. Hardware and PC problems aside, the app never crashes, and I am almost tempted to stop running backup MDM tapes. Truly, if you're running a CDr safety and Samplitude/Sequoia on a stable machine (PC or laptop), you're as safe as you can be, the app really IS that stable.

I know there are other apps out there that do a fine job, but for me it's all about the sound, the stability, the flexibility in the studio, and the workflow from start to finish for any project.

IMHO, there's nothing better out there, not for this kind of serious music and production work.

Considering that many of us here are "Lone Wolves" in this genre of (acoustic) music recording, I find it to be a natural application to use INSTEAD of what the rest of the pack is using. (PTs). Throw away your preconceptions and give it a try, this is the app that will puy you in a class by itself, above and away from the pack. (Anyone passing through the Philadelphia area is welcome to contact me for a free demo, onsite or here at my place.)

Sorry, I'm gushing again...... :roll:

So tell us what you really think, Joe!

I have used e-logic, Steinberg, Soundforge, and Sonar. Now that I use Samplitude I feel that I have 'arrived'. If I am rich some day, maybe I'll get Sequoia.

Okay, so I'll admit to being a criminal. I'll probably rot in hell for admitting it. I've used pirated software. :evil:

I don't know about the rest of you but I don't have $15,000 to buy the various versions of the crap on the market just to find out I don't like it. So, during the glory days of Kazaa, before it became a festering sespool of viruses and spyware, I downloaded:

Kool Edit Pro
Pro Tules
Samplitood
Vegass
Wayvlab
Q-Bass
N-YewEndo

and numerous others that I can't spell :wink:

For the longest time, I used Cubase (and purchased it, based on my "free" evaluation copies) and toyed around with the rest. It wasn't until recently that I began trying various versions of "Big Boy" software such as Pyramix (which I bought a version of Pyramix Native off of Ebay - much like John, I'm sure it was pirated, but was led to believe otherwise during the sale.), Sequoia, and various turnkey systems from people such as Sadie, iZ RADAR, and Genex. So here's my thoughts on the little guys:

Nuendo, Cubase, ProTools (yes, on Mac- though I'm a die hard PC dude), Cool Edit - they all sounded the same. During a multi-track mix, I could get everything sounding the way I wanted it, but then eventually, when I summed it to 2 channels, it sounded wierd. Levels weren't the same as the output bus meter showed from the multi-track, various distortions began creeping up, and panning relationships just seemed a bit off.

On to the big boys:

Genex - awesome sounding system. I truly felt I could get top notch results from this system. However, I would still have to own editing software as the Genex is EXTREMELY limited in its edit capabilities.

Sadie - something just didn't feel right about Sadie. I don't like proprietary crap. It did a fine job, but I just couldn't justify the $$$.

Pyramix - love it. sounds great and the native stuff is cheap - pretty limiting though - 8 channels only. :(

iZ RADAR - love hate relationship. This system, as well as the Genex and the Sadie were systems that I've only gotten to use a little bit in other facilities, but out of all of them, the RADAR was my favorite in terms of flexibility, editing, etc. There was something about the sound though. I can't put my fingertips on it, but it just didn't work on classical for me. I think I could be blindfolded in a room with a mix played back on the RADAR and I could tell you it was a RADAR that did the recording and editing.

Samplitude (Sequoia): Perhaps one of the companies that I exploited the least in my younger, less scrupulous days. I had an older version of Samp and I didn't dig it too much. However, I was a little green at computer based stuff when I heard it/used it. That being said, I downloaded the free sample of Samplitude a few months ago, and even though I can only do 1 minutes worth of work at a time and can't save, I have had more fun playing with it that any other piece of software.

John, as you mentioned, there is something wierd about how it just sounds cleaner.

I just purchased my full Sequoia this week and will be anxiously awaiting it and V8s arrival.

I don't like spending money, much less $2500 on software, but I do feel extremely confident that this was money well spent!

Just a couple more thoughts...

J...

Heh, heh... 3 moderators, 3 Sequoia users....

Excellent..... :twisted: (said in my best Mr. Burns voice...)

:D

Today, I get to deal with the insanity of different DAW formats. Got a project coming in- recorded in DP, Percussion overdubs in PT to the rough DP mixes. Have to export OMFs from DP, broadcast wav's from PT and going to mix in Sequoia after everything has been manually re-sync'd. Ugh...

--Ben

What a response! My ears aren't lying to me after all.

I appreciate all of the responses. It's a pity I can't afford Sequoia, but I've been blown away messing around with the free demo of version 7.

The room simulator is great. Even the EQ sounds good!

Thanks everyone,
John

Get Samplitude then. I cannot afford Sequoia either but Samp is very advanced and sophisticated software. Nothing wrong with it at all!

Ask Joe. He has been using Samplitude and is just now making the leap to Sequoia.

I'm going to download the demo of samplitude.

Here's my scene. I just bought a custom PC, plus Nuendo and a ton of other studio equipment. Have my own band and am ready to record my next album - it's eclectic, world fusion, mix of influences from classical to middle east, afro-cuban, blues, you name it. violin, acoustic guitar, plus 'lectric, fretless bass, drums, percussion and plan to throw a bit of keyboards, banjo, accordian, trumpet and trombone on the album just for the heck.

I just upgraded to Nuendo 3. I'm getting crashes and weird stuff and it's making me play computer engineer which I just ain't.

here's some questions for you samplitude folks:
1. is it truly truly stable?
2. if I like the demo how can I go about getting a complete setup with computer and probably sequoia [I do plan to do video / film work also] that will truly WORK, no fuss no muss?
3. Does it have the capability of using external hardware effects as plugins and does this really work?
4. I'm starting to feel pretty comfortable with Nuendo after just a few weeks. How long will it take me to learn Sequoia. I'm smart but not the most literate on computers. I want to be able to produce music and not get stuck in mechanics.
5. How is the support, forums etc?

look forward to your reponses, sorry to highjack the thread, but it came up on a google search on samplitude.
cheers
Dave
http://www.violindave.com

here's some questions for you samplitude folks:
1. is it truly truly stable?

Like any program out there, there are of course a few bugs here and there, but in general, it is very stable. I almost never have crashes and I'm including beta software in there. You'll find some issues still with Effect monitoring while recording. If you record dry, though, you'll be styling...

2. if I like the demo how can I go about getting a complete setup with computer and probably sequoia [I do plan to do video / film work also] that will truly WORK, no fuss no muss?

http://www.sequoiadigital.com The only approved (by Magix) turnkey operation out there. I own two of them for my recording and in the interest of disclosure, I also help Jeff provide support and demos to some of the potential clients. I don't get anything if you go that direction, but I do have a connection with them...

3. Does it have the capability of using external hardware effects as plugins and does this really work?

Sure... You need to route it out rather than just insert like you would in Pro Tools or similar software, but it certainly is possible (I use a Lexicon 300 on a lot of my stuff). You will need to record the returns back or do a hardware loop for bouncing (bouncing is an offline process so you need to record at some point).

4. I'm starting to feel pretty comfortable with Nuendo after just a few weeks. How long will it take me to learn Sequoia. I'm smart but not the most literate on computers. I want to be able to produce music and not get stuck in mechanics.

You can get up and running in an afternoon... There is a lot to learn and you'll be learning and figuring out better ways of doing things for months, but to get started is pretty easy. I've been using it for years and I'm still learning about features I never knew existed.

5. How is the support, forums etc?

From Sequoiadigital, first rate (24 hour support is available). From Synthax, very good... From Magix, well... sometimes not so good, sometimes great. There is a user forum that you'll get developers answering your questions directly, but some of the discussions can get a bit heated sometimes.

Those that know me know that I'm quite the cheerleader for this software... I really believe in what it can do- even when things frustrate me sometimes. I do try to be unbiased, though, when people talk with me about it. If it isn't the program for you, you shouldn't use it. Try the Samplitude demo and you'll likely find some of the bugs- don't worry about them for the time being, but rather look at the interface and listen to the sound. Sequoia uses the same engine, but adds functionality. If you like Samp, you'll likely love Sequoia (especially with editing). If you don't like Samp, you may have issues with Sequoia... Keep in mind where the differences between the programs lie. If it is a feature in both that you absolutely can't stand, then that means you should probably look elsewhere... If it is a feature (like editing) that is much better in Sequoia, then reserve judgement.

Hope this helps some...

--Ben

Ok, I'll jump in here as well. (anyone who's bored or sick of hearing about Samp/Sequoia at this point, just click past!)

I'm one of the "East Coast" cheerleaders for Samp/Sequoia, and have recently moved up to Sequoia from Samplitude. My own take on the differences between the two is that Sequoia is the very "Ultimate" audio software from Magix, while Samplitude is essentially the same product with a few features disabled. Perhaps I'm overstating the case, but it sure seems that way. (I'll list some of the featurs/differences below...)

Samplitude is fairly expensive, while Sequoia is over the top, price-wise. Not sure why such a big gap in the cost, but we'll leave it at that for now. (They claim Sequoia is also multi-user ready for file sharing and multiple user environments, etc. - Very big in Europe, they say - but you only get ONE dongle per purchase, so you can only use it on one machine at a time - the software can be installed anywhere you like, on multiple machines. Having said that, it still costs quite a bit PER DONGLE. So, unless I'm missing something, it would seem to cost a small fortune for an entire business - a radio or tv station, for example - to equip multiple workstations all over the place.)

Both Seq. & Samp are now Dongle-protected with V8. (Fair enough, then...) Use it on any machine you like, but don't lose the dongle, or you're SOL. (Mine has a BIG keyring on it now, so it's not going to fall out of a shirt pocket or carrying case. The times that I DO move it, (location recording, etc.) I immediately string it on the power supply cord of my Firewire Hard Drive, so one doesn't travel without the other, and both get VIP treatment as well. (Hey, I made a funny there...as any Samp/Seq would get the joke! :? )

But you're still looking at two choices: Samp or Sequoia. Either can be installed on home or laptop computers, or dedicated work stations. They are native applications, and you don't need much more than that, although like with any of these apps., you're wise to disable things that rob resources or not use any other Windows stuff when doing audio. Of course, it's always recommended you get the fastest machine you can, but it'll run on a fairly "slow" P4....even a P3 in a pinch.

I've used both Samp 7 & Seq 8 out on location with my Firewire interfaces (for Preamps and HD storage) and it all works rock-solid, seemlessly. (the only problems I've ever had were cables, power cord issues - as in: kicked out of the wall! - and the usual pilot error things early on, like turning off HD & Laptop power saver features, etc.)

I will say that if I had to start clean, with $ as no object, I'd sit down with Sequoia Digital and find out what they can do for you, with a turnkey system that does it all right out of the box. (I am NOT affiliated in any way with them, other than my emails and posts here with Ben, I get nothing out of this recommendation...I just know excellence when I see it.)

I met them all at AES SF last fall, and the product they turn out - both the host computer & the software - Sequoia - is second to none. Their tech support is phenomenal, as well. I saw a LOT of slack jaws at their booth, and I'm sure hoping they'll do well in the future. (Magix - the European/German parent company of Samp & Seq. doesn't do ENOUGH promotion in this country, IMHO. It's up to Synthax & Tom Sailor, or Jeff at Seq. Digital to carry the banner, I guess....)

Now, on to the features, some of which Ben has already covered:

1. it's just about bullet proof for tracking & mixing. You can auto-save when doing edits and mixes, so in the rare times you do encounter a crash, you're usually safe.

2. I've heard a lot of complaints on the users forum about real-time effects and latency during recording/tracking. I don't work with it that way, and I can't comment on it specifically. If this is an issue for you, you should know about it.

3. Same with MIDI. I never use Samp/Seq for MIDI (I fire up Cakewalk the rare times that I do...) I"ve heard it's a LOT better in V8 for both Samp & Seq., so one can only hope. God knows it would go a long way to shut up the chronic complainers on the Samplitude Users forum about it. There is a new MIDI feature in V8 called "Robota" that looks like a lot of fun, as well...if you need that sort of thing.

4. Users Forum. As Ben already mentioned, there is a PRIVATE, closed users forum for Samp & Sequoia., and it's an odd place. It's of course run by and screened by the Magix dev team, but it's anyone's guess how often they read it and comment. Sometimes they're spot-on, sometimes they're slow to respond. And even then, the responses are not always what you want to read. (As Ben can attest). To be fair, there is a HUGE language gap between all the users around the world expressing themselves in English, and that's ok, it's always worth learning something new that way from a user who's got a completely different perspective. However, there are often huge time-wasters bitching about a feature or a function that doesn't quite do exactly what THEY want it to do, and then the whining & sniping (and time wasting) begins. It's a bit Orwelian too, in that you're never quite sure who's reading, who's responding, and who's going to CENSOR you if you go too far. For now, it's fairly quiet and calm over there, since the V8 is just about to hit everyone's doorstep, if the latest promises of delivery are true. (We'll see!)

The delay over the arrival of V8 has been VERY VERY hotly debated over there as well, and it's been one big disfunctional international family for a while now, since the summer of '04. Hopefully, that's done with V8....for now.

As for the features...there really isn't enough room here to list them all, so please feel free to email me privately to know more. Here's just a few:

1. Four-point editing. Sequoia has this, Samp does not. (See the Sequoia web page for more info). Tough to explain this in a few lines, but it's a "Source/destination" editor setup where you can quickly (with keyboard/shortcuts) select in and out points for a wav file, and just as quickly "Paste" the selected material on a new timeline, with pre-selected (and infinitely adjustable) crossfades. Those who work with it regularly can FLY with tedious editing tasks like VOs, or long session takes - removing lulls, false starts, and anything else you can imagine. It's a really amazing feature, something you have to see in action to truly appreciate. (Oh, you can do this with MULTIPLE tracks as well, so you can also pre-edit 5.1 or stereo mixes this way, too...it's not limited to just a single or stereo wav file. Stunning!!!!)

2. Object-oriented editing. (This has been covered quite a bit elsewhere...you can search this forum for more info, as well.) In essence, you're working on a represenation of a wav file, NOT the actual wav file itself. It's non-destructive edting; you can always undo what you've done. (You can also work on the wav file directly in a different view screen, and this is of course DE-structive editing.) (BOTH Samp & Seq)

3. Tons of Room sims, DSP, stereo (to/from Mono) enhancement, advanced dynamcis, multiband Dynamics, EQ, FFT (real time and offline, etc.) BOTH S&S) New Amp sim and other goodies in both, as well.

4. Elastic Audio. (I THINK this is offered with both Samp & Seq). A real god-send for anyone who's got to fix a pitch change - droopy choir recordings, etc. You get a separate view area to redraw the pitch curve to bring it back to pitch - without changing tempo. The new algorithms are great; within reason, it's totally clean and undetectable, even for a lot of classical stuff. You can also change tempo without pitch, in the "Resample" features...with both Sam & Seq.

5. DVD-A creation is now incluced in V8 (in BOTH products, I THINK...) 5.1 and stereo mixing, of course, plus so much more...tons of restoration tools, too: Noise reduction, dehissing, declicking, and it will of course work with most plugins. (Check out Algorithmix.com for what THEY offer...including the reNOVAtor plugin - for Sequoia only).

Out of time for how, there's SOooooo much more to list, this is really everything you can possibly use for tracking, mixing, editing and mastering. I honestly can't think of anything that comes close to it. (SADIE and PT users really flip out when they find out what's under the hood with this software - INCLUDED - instead of pricey add-ons.)

And best of all, if you've got any PC/digital audio chops, you'll probably be up and running with it fairly quickly, as Ben said... plus you've spend a career getting to know all the ins and outs of it. (plus you'll have plenty of folks you can ask for tips and tricks, right here.)

We're ALL still learning more about it every time we use it, it's that deep and powerful.

Ok, I'll jump in here as well. (anyone who's bored or sick of hearing about Samp/Sequoia at this point, just click past!)

I'm one of the "East Coast" cheerleaders for Samp/Sequoia, and have recently moved up to Sequoia from Samplitude. My own take on the differences between the two is that Sequoia is the very "Ultimate" audio software from Magix, while Samplitude is essentially the same product with a few features disabled. Perhaps I'm overstating the case, but it sure seems that way. (I'll list some of the featurs/differences below...)

Samplitude is fairly expensive, while Sequoia is over the top, price-wise. Not sure why such a big gap in the cost, but we'll leave it at that for now. (They claim Sequoia is also multi-user ready for file sharing and multiple user environments, etc. - Very big in Europe, they say - but you only get ONE dongle per purchase, so you can only use it on one machine at a time - the software can be installed anywhere you like, on multiple machines. Having said that, it still costs quite a bit PER DONGLE. So, unless I'm missing something, it would seem to cost a small fortune for an entire business - a radio or tv station, for example - to equip multiple workstations all over the place.)

Both Seq. & Samp are now Dongle-protected with V8. (Fair enough, then...) Use it on any machine you like, but don't lose the dongle, or you're SOL. (Mine has a BIG keyring on it now, so it's not going to fall out of a shirt pocket or carrying case. The times that I DO move it, (location recording, etc.) I immediately string it on the power supply cord of my Firewire Hard Drive, so one doesn't travel without the other, and both get VIP treatment as well. (Hey, I made a funny there...as any Samp/Seq would get the joke! :? )

But you're still looking at two choices: Samp or Sequoia. Either can be installed on home or laptop computers, or dedicated work stations. They are native applications, and you don't need much more than that, although like with any of these apps., you're wise to disable things that rob resources or not use any other Windows stuff when doing audio. Of course, it's always recommended you get the fastest machine you can, but it'll run on a fairly "slow" P4....even a P3 in a pinch.

I've used both Samp 7 & Seq 8 out on location with my Firewire interfaces (for Preamps and HD storage) and it all works rock-solid, seemlessly. (the only problems I've ever had were cables, power cord issues - as in: kicked out of the wall! - and the usual pilot error things early on, like turning off HD & Laptop power saver features, etc.)

I will say that if I had to start clean, with $ as no object, I'd sit down with Sequoia Digital and find out what they can do for you, with a turnkey system that does it all right out of the box. (I am NOT affiliated in any way with them, other than my emails and posts here with Ben, I get nothing out of this recommendation...I just know excellence when I see it.)

I met them all at AES SF last fall, and the product they turn out - both the host computer & the software - Sequoia - is second to none. Their tech support is phenomenal, as well. I saw a LOT of slack jaws at their booth, and I'm sure hoping they'll do well in the future. (Magix - the European/German parent company of Samp & Seq. doesn't do ENOUGH promotion in this country, IMHO. It's up to Synthax & Tom Sailor, or Jeff at Seq. Digital to carry the banner, I guess....)

Now, on to the features, some of which Ben has already covered:

1. it's just about bullet proof for tracking & mixing. You can auto-save when doing edits and mixes, so in the rare times you do encounter a crash, you're usually safe.

2. I've heard a lot of complaints on the users forum about real-time effects and latency during recording/tracking. I don't work with it that way, and I can't comment on it specifically. If this is an issue for you, you should know about it.

3. Same with MIDI. I never use Samp/Seq for MIDI (I fire up Cakewalk the rare times that I do...) I"ve heard it's a LOT better in V8 for both Samp & Seq., so one can only hope. God knows it would go a long way to shut up the chronic complainers on the Samplitude Users forum about it. There is a new MIDI feature in V8 called "Robota" that looks like a lot of fun, as well...if you need that sort of thing.

4. Users Forum. As Ben already mentioned, there is a PRIVATE, closed users forum for Samp & Sequoia., and it's an odd place. It's of course run by and screened by the Magix dev team, but it's anyone's guess how often they read it and comment. Sometimes they're spot-on, sometimes they're slow to respond. And even then, the responses are not always what you want to read. (As Ben can attest). To be fair, there is a HUGE language gap between all the users around the world expressing themselves in English, and that's ok, it's always worth learning something new that way from a user who's got a completely different perspective. However, there are often huge time-wasters bitching about a feature or a function that doesn't quite do exactly what THEY want it to do, and then the whining & sniping (and time wasting) begins. It's a bit Orwelian too, in that you're never quite sure who's reading, who's responding, and who's going to CENSOR you if you go too far. For now, it's fairly quiet and calm over there, since the V8 is just about to hit everyone's doorstep, if the latest promises of delivery are true. (We'll see!)

The delay over the arrival of V8 has been VERY VERY hotly debated over there as well, and it's been one big disfunctional international family for a while now, since the summer of '04. Hopefully, that's done with V8....for now.

As for the features...there really isn't enough room here to list them all, so please feel free to email me privately to know more. Here's just a few:

1. Four-point editing. Sequoia has this, Samp does not. (See the Sequoia web page for more info). Tough to explain this in a few lines, but it's a "Source/destination" editor setup where you can quickly (with keyboard/shortcuts) select in and out points for a wav file, and just as quickly "Paste" the selected material on a new timeline, with pre-selected (and infinitely adjustable) crossfades. Those who work with it regularly can FLY with tedious editing tasks like VOs, or long session takes - removing lulls, false starts, and anything else you can imagine. It's a really amazing feature, something you have to see in action to truly appreciate. (Oh, you can do this with MULTIPLE tracks as well, so you can also pre-edit 5.1 or stereo mixes this way, too...it's not limited to just a single or stereo wav file. Stunning!!!!)

2. Object-oriented editing. (This has been covered quite a bit elsewhere...you can search this forum for more info, as well.) In essence, you're working on a represenation of a wav file, NOT the actual wav file itself. It's non-destructive edting; you can always undo what you've done. (You can also work on the wav file directly in a different view screen, and this is of course DE-structive editing.) (BOTH Samp & Seq)

3. Tons of Room sims, DSP, stereo (to/from Mono) enhancement, advanced dynamcis, multiband Dynamics, EQ, FFT (real time and offline, etc.) BOTH S&S) New Amp sim and other goodies in both, as well.

4. Elastic Audio. (I THINK this is offered with both Samp & Seq). A real god-send for anyone who's got to fix a pitch change - droopy choir recordings, etc. You get a separate view area to redraw the pitch curve to bring it back to pitch - without changing tempo. The new algorithms are great; within reason, it's totally clean and undetectable, even for a lot of classical stuff. You can also change tempo without pitch, in the "Resample" features...with both Sam & Seq.

5. DVD-A creation is now incluced in V8 (in BOTH products, I THINK...) 5.1 and stereo mixing, of course, plus so much more...tons of restoration tools, too: Noise reduction, dehissing, declicking, and it will of course work with most plugins. (Check out Algorithmix.com for what THEY offer...including the reNOVAtor plugin - for Sequoia only).

Out of time for how, there's SOooooo much more to list, this is really everything you can possibly use for tracking, mixing, editing and mastering. I honestly can't think of anything that comes close to it. (SADIE and PT users really flip out when they find out what's under the hood with this software - INCLUDED - instead of pricey add-ons.)

And best of all, if you've got any PC/digital audio chops, you'll probably be up and running with it fairly quickly, as Ben said.

You could spend a career getting to know all the ins and outs of it, plus you'll have plenty of folks you can ask for tips and tricks, right here.

We're ALL still learning more about it every time we use it, it's that deep and powerful. As you can tell, I can't recommend it highly enough.

2. I've heard a lot of complaints on the users forum about real-time effects and latency during recording/tracking. I don't work with it that way, and I can't comment on it specifically. If this is an issue for you, you should know about it.

3. Same with MIDI. I never use Samp/Seq for MIDI (I fire up Cakewalk the rare times that I do...) I"ve heard it's a LOT better in V8 for both Samp & Seq., so one can only hope. God knows it would go a long way to shut up the chronic complainers on the Samplitude Users forum about it. There is a new MIDI feature in V8 called "Robota" that looks like a lot of fun, as well...if you need that sort of thing.

Thanks guys for the informative responses!

I'm not interestd in recording with effects in real time. Although I haven't had a chance to use it yet due to crashes Nuendo 3 has a new feature where you can create an FX plugin out of an external fx box and use it as an effects send right in the program. I have a Kurzweil KSP8, some old upgraded LXP15s and some old delays etc I'd like to use in this way. Got the idea maybe Samp/Sequoia can do that but not sure.
Does it work like that?

For midi I also have Cakewalk proaudio 9 and would porbably upgrade it to Sonar 4 and use that. How easy is it to transfer midi files from say Sonar into Samp/Seq?
cheers!
Dave

You can absolutely use your outboard boxes. The routing takes a bit of doing, but it is certainly possible. I use a Lexicon 300 in a fair amount of my mixes...

As for midi, you can import from other programs, but being on the audio end of things, I don't know much about how to do it. In Version 8, they did massive MIDI improvements and a number of my more midi-inclined friends tell me that they can finally do the whole process in Samp/Sequoia... I'll take their word as I'm kind of a midiot here...

--Ben

With multi-track classical stuff, do you guys mix to stereo first, then edit, and apply effects, mastering, or do you multi-track edit?

I always edit multitrack then mix... Doing stuff in the 2track domain doesn't always work. For classical it usually isn't a problem, but for jazz it almost never works. The nice thing about editing multitrack is when acoustics change due to an audience, I can compensate for it in the edits (especially if I have ambience mics).

--Ben

Downloaded the demo of Samplitude 8 tonight. Wasn't as bad as I thought it might be to figure out how to do anything, though it will obviously take me a bit of study to really be able to use it.

Are there any good books or videos or online courses in Samplitude or Sequioa?

How bad is the manual?

I did a little test tonight with the demo, not sure if it was valid or fair. I ripped a track of a CD into both Samp and Nuendo3.
I played the track from the CD, then from the wave file in Samp, then from the CD then from Nuendo

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

Is this a fair test and does this corroborate what any of you hear in the difference between Samp and Nuendo or other programs?

By the way, can you tell me what midi interface 8x8
y'all are using with no problems with Samp/Seq?

I just discovered a lot of the problems I've had with Nuendo 3 stemmed from a USB midi interface - specifically the Midiman USB midisport 8x8, though it is my understanding this may be an issue with P4 and USB?

Thanks
Dave

violindave wrote: Downloaded the demo of Samplitude 8 tonight. Wasn't as bad as I thought it might be to figure out how to do anything, though it will obviously take me a bit of study to really be able to use it.

Like most programs, once you figure out the logic behind it, it is pretty doable...

Are there any good books or videos or online courses in Samplitude or Sequioa?

As of now, none, but I'm thinking about changing that... We shall see, no guarantees, though...

How bad is the manual?

Don't know, there is a complete rewrite for the Version 8 release. The last one had a ton of information, but not much was useful and it was hard to navigate. The new one is supposed to be improved. The online help, though, is usually pretty good.

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

That has been my experience. I dont' have Nuendo, but I have A-B'd against other programs. Samp usually comes out on top with the best engines out there. Don't know if it is voodo or something more, but I like the sound I get in Samp and Sequoia.

--Ben

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

That has been my experience. I dont' have Nuendo, but I have A-B'd against other programs. Samp usually comes out on top with the best engines out there. Don't know if it is voodo or something more, but I like the sound I get in Samp and Sequoia.

I think a good external DAC and a null test will confirm these hunches to be false. 1+1=2 in the digital domain in all workstations. If a modern DAW is not using 32bit IEEE math, that all of the leading products are, then it would be well known.

Same WAV, same sound.

DavidSpearritt wrote:

Maybe I'm imaging things but to me it sounded like Nuendo took off some off the highs and muddied them up. This particular CD sounds too digital for my liking and too compressed so Nuendo actually warmed it up but it also closed in the sound and muddied it up and more importantly altered the original. Samp sounded pretty much exactly like the CD to me.

That has been my experience. I dont' have Nuendo, but I have A-B'd against other programs. Samp usually comes out on top with the best engines out there. Don't know if it is voodo or something more, but I like the sound I get in Samp and Sequoia.

I think a good external DAC and a null test will confirm these hunches to be false. 1+1=2 in the digital domain in all workstations. If a modern DAW is not using 32bit IEEE math, that all of the leading products are, then it would be well known.

Same WAV, same sound.

Dave,

I understand exactly what you mean, and partially agree with you. If there were some tragic problem with the engine of any of the software packages, there would most definitely be a way, scientifically, to prove this.

But... how do we technically account for the considerable sound difference between Sequoia and other packages. Believe me, I wouldn't have dropped $2500 on it if it were just for the better editing capabilities.

I really do not want to get into another spat about this, but the same principals apply to this argument. Jeremy, we have already got off to a bad start, you and I, lets just be friends. :(

1. How do you account for the differences, and don't just say the engine is better. Detail is required, not just heresay from some name or other or repeating received marketing opinion.

2. What definitive scientifically rigorous tests have you done to compare WAVS coming from each master section of the DAWS you have tested, eg null tests, same high quality external DAC, recording AES output of 2 DAWS playing the same WAV, and then comparing digital streams.

3. Plugins are plugins, not the DAW, so we are not interested in debating these.

4. Where is the evidence, other than the typical anecdotal stuff that seems to pervade the audio industry and does no one any good. (Similar to 1)

We had this discussion thrashed out on the Wavelab forum awhile ago, mainly between Sadie and WL and some prominant users who actually had both systems and actually had listened and compared carefully, said there was no difference.

I think the money some pay for their software, tends to produce justifications which are not supported with real evidence.

Sequoia is a great bit of software, you get what you pay for in features, power and a great user interface. But the digital math part of it, common to all the leading DAW's, is math and all done with a rigorous approach and a Microsoft IEEE 32 bit floating point C++ compiler, and these are necessarily, deterministic processes that give the same answer every time and fortunately are not subject to human intervention.

DavidSpearritt wrote: With multi-track classical stuff, do you guys mix to stereo first, then edit, and apply effects, mastering, or do you multi-track edit?

I stay multi-- up to 16tks. I cannot see any advantage in bouncing first.

Rich

Jesus Dave, what the hell is your problem. I said I agreed with you and then supplied an opinion.

Simply put, if I sum 4 channels of waves together in Cubase and then in the same process in Sequoia, I can hear an obvious difference. And in case you're wondering, my hearing is fantastic, but even my wife, who's hearing has not been tested to be as good as mine, can hear a clear and obvious difference.

First, I made no mentions about plug-ins.

Second, the microsoft C++ compiler has little to do with the output summing bus of a DAW. And the aspects in which it does affect the output a DAW are highly subjective to how they were called by the programmer. (Which, in case you're wondering, is the very definition of human intervention.)

Third, scientific tests HAVE been done to prove this - sure, I didn't do them, but why don't you research this instead of proclaiming they haven't been done. Why don't you check with the University of Illinois, U/C campus and find out the scientific reasoning behind their purchase of Sequoia. I'm sure they won't just tell you "it sounds better," as a means to justify their purchase.

This forum has a record of being a very positive one. Why do you feel the need to constantly attack individuals with baseless claims of their ignorance?

Cucco wrote: Jesus Dave, what the hell is your problem. I said I agreed with you and then supplied an opinion.

Yes I undesrtood, and I said I didn't want another fight. But I need to express my view as well, and it always seems that we disagree violently, not sure why that is. Its certainly not meant to be personal.

Simply put, if I sum 4 channels of waves together in Cubase and then in the same process in Sequoia, I can hear an obvious difference. And in case you're wondering, my hearing is fantastic, but even my wife, who's hearing has not been tested to be as good as mine, can hear a clear and obvious difference.

I am not questioning your hearing, no doubt it is excellent. But this is not a valid test. If you hear a difference you have to find out why. Are the master sections the same, start with a simpler test, play the same WAV in both first. Actually record the output of both digitally and null compare the WAV's. Are they different? One cannot just say it sounds better and leave it at that, one has to get to the bottom of why? If they sound different, then the WAV files coming out are different, one then has to find out where they are going different and why?

First, I made no mentions about plug-ins.

True, I just referenced that as a general point in this debate as something that may be influencing the sound coming out of the final stages of the DAW. I was not accusing you of depending on plugs.

Second, the microsoft C++ compiler has little to do with the output summing bus of a DAW. And the aspects in which it does affect the output a DAW are highly subjective to how they were called by the programmer. (Which, in case you're wondering, is the very definition of human intervention.)

I do not agree with this. The floating point arithmatic used in these DAW's has everything to do with the sound, it determines the accuracy of the final waveform at all sound levels.

Secondly, if you are saying that Sequoia programmers are calling a sum function properly and the others are not, then this would be well known and quite a claim. There are no inbetweens in calling a sum function. Its correct or it isn't. Programemrs don't make mistakes as fundamental as this, they make plenty of others but not this. They don't get a chance as the language syntax they use prevents it.

Third, scientific tests HAVE been done to prove this - sure, I didn't do them, but why don't you research this instead of proclaiming they haven't been done.

Where, when, who?

Why don't you check with the University of Illinois, U/C campus and find out the scientific reasoning behind their purchase of Sequoia.

It may not be a "scientific" reason. I wonder if they did benchmark testing, ie some null tests playing same WAV's from different DAW's, gain checking etc.

I'm sure they won't just tell you "it sounds better," as a means to justify their purchase.

They may do, but I would argue with them as well, over that descision. I would ask them why and if they gave me a good reason and some test results I would be happy to stand corrected. I would probably buy it then as well.

You have to ask yourself why nobody ever goes into print about this stuff.

This forum has a record of being a very positive one. Why do you feel the need to constantly attack individuals with baseless claims of their ignorance?

I am sorry this is the feeling. I suspected this might happen. I want to be proven wrong. I would love someone to tell me what I am saying is incorrect, because this published data exists. I would immmediately correct my thinking and stand down, humbled. But I see no evidence, and I simply refuse to take marketing gumpf or anecotal experiences as gospel and a reason to make a purchasing descision.

Please do not take any of this personally. I am trying to debate ideas here.

Dave,

The funny thing is, you pointed out that we disagree violently. I didn't disagree with you.

You do however, make some agregious statements often referring to the lack of scientific evidence. Just because you haven't seen the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for scientific, you don't need a scope to conduct a scientific experiment. If you listen to two wave forms that are prepared in the same method, and one sounds significantly different, congratulations, you have done a verifiable scientific experiment! This is the concept in which science is rooted.

And yes, a programmer can call the code at different points within the programming, or may opt to ignore the code altogether and create their own summing instructions. This could have a profound impact on the sound. It's not considered a programming error, rather a "choice."

When you make these kind of comments, you don't come off as "knowledgable," you come off as arrogant! The burden of proof doesn't lie on the person making the claim - it lies on the person disputing the claim. So, instead of you throwing up the smoke screen of "science," why don't you provide irrefutable "scientific" evidence which "proves" your cynicism or negativity.

I don't mean to sound angry - as a matter of fact, despite our disagreements here on the forum, I think you and I would get along quite well personally.

FWIW, I hold no animosity towards anyone here for ever expressing their opinions or for any other reason.

Olive branch extended.

J...

DavidSpearritt wrote:
With multi-track classical stuff, do you guys mix to stereo first, then edit, and apply effects, mastering, or do you multi-track edit?

It often depends on what direction I'm going with the project, and whether or not I'm going to be working on it alone, or with a client's "Help" (or god forbid, even a "comittee" coming over to edit.

In every case, I keep the multitrack around until it's completely finished. I'll save everything separately as well, including all 2-buses and VIPs (EDLs) so I can always go back and redo anything. Very often changes are needed that involve going back to the unmixed tracks.

I can't imagine too many scenarios in which I'd do mutlitrack editing with a client present, though. (too dangerous, and too much control lost, IMHO! ;-) Only the younger and hipper of my clients realize we are starting in multitrack before the stereo mixes. Of course, I'm fine with anyone who's willing to pay by the hour to come in and redo hours of mixing and tweak it death. If it's their $ and their work, they're welcome to go for it. Otherwise, I give them a mix & rough edit of the whole thing, and we then do the final edits with everything sonically in place.

Once it's mixed to 2-track, the small details have been adressed in the mixdown - with occasionally some basic edits like long pauses removed, channels muted or drawn to "Off" when they're not needed, etc. (Obviously, if I'm in control of the recording from start to mix to edit, things go much smoother.)

By the time we're sitting down to editing, we've already mixed it to 2 tracks and edit that way - unless of course, there's a specific problem to be dealt with or worked-around. We may have to undo reverb levels, or make a tweak that's dependent on the multitrack, but it's rare for most classical stuff.

Works for me, anyway. YMMV. :lol:

...and as for that whole argument about Samplitude/Sequoia sounding "Better" than the rest, it's certainly something I keep hearing about from others. I don't get into it too much, because I just don't have the time (or the patience) for it, and I can't imagine using anything else anyway.

I've always felt confident and happy with the mixes I've done in Samp., esp coming from a fairly fanatical analog past. I worked my way up with various digital software packages over the years, and finally settled with Samp/Sequoia and haven't looked back.

I DO think there may be something to it; a lot of people claim to hear it, and I'm certainly not going to dissuade them from feeling so. (Wasn't there was some kind of shoot-out with Lynn Fuston and co., as well?)

It might be subjective, it might be just the result of the good solid feeling you get when you work with it. It's also very comforting to work in 32bit float or 24 bit mixes, and still hear that same sound when you bounce the final product down to 16bit CDs. Is that to Samp/Sequoia's credit, or just good workflow/practice? Greater minds than mine will have to sort it out; I've got other things to deal with in the meantime. 8-)

I DO think there may be something to it; a lot of people claim to hear it, and I'm certainly not going to dissuade them from feeling so.

But it serves no purpose to go on with a feeling based on faith instead of getting to the bottom of it and documenting it. The audio industry runs on so much faith as it is, so with something as deterministic and definable and immovable as the addition of two waveforms in a PC, its important to not cloud the issue with faith arguments.

Let me try this approach.

You have WavA and WavB and you add them together to get WavC. Now there is only one way to add A and B to get C, and that is "plus" with the full precision of a 32bit floating point IEEE compiler. There is no higher precision available on the PC at present. This gives mind boggling accuracy way above significance in audio perception and all the big DAW's use it.

So C from one DAW will equal C from another, if they are carefully setup the same, see below. A DAW is a calculator thats all. It has to give the same correct, consistent and rigorous answer to this equation each time. If this did not happen the world would fall apart, sky fall in etc. This is a computer, dealing with numbers.

Now if C is the same file in one DAW as another, then they will sound identical, this is beyond needing proof, it is certain. One of the great achievements and benefits of the digital domain.

If C from Sequoia is a different file to C from Sadie, for example, (the only possible reason for a sound variation), then, one of the following has occurred:

1. Dither settings are not set the same or truncation is occurring on playback, so one DAW is improperly setup, ie broken, needs to be fixed. Invalid test.

2. If Sequoia is adding a sweetener to the C, then they should declare this in the master or output section as a plugin and make it user selectable to on of off. Dissimilar plugins involved, invalid test.

3. The measurement or digital aquisition of file C is incorrect, bad clocking on recorder, incorrect bit truncation on recorder etc.

Are there any anomolies in this argument? Does this make sense? As I said, originally, I am sure a null test, and auditioning with a decent outboard DAC will dispell these hunches.

David, a few short very theoretical points.

1 - I´m convinced a few older DAW-s actually had bugs in the implementation. Those should be sorted out now.

The following is VERY THEORETICAL, probably has no bearing at all on real world. (?)

2 - adding a small number to a large number may make you may lose precision.

Assume adding eight numbers A to H together.

Sum = A + B + C + D + E +F +G + H

Easy. But now lets look at the ordering. And remember that every adding operation includes a rounding to maximum 24 bits precision.

Sum = ((((((A + B) + C) + D) + E) +F) +G )+ H

Or you could do it this way.
Sum = (((A + B) + (C + D)) + ((E +F) +(G + H)))

This would give a different result in floating point math on a computer, unless you go up to a larger precision temporarily.

How any given DAW does it is not generally published.

Gunnar

Gunnar, you are correct that order can be important if the numbers are at the extremes of the representation scope.

I found this reference.
http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/floating_point/understanding_floating_point_representation.html
Note in particular, the smallest numbers capable of being stored accurately without loss of precision, in the table halfway down. But there are some good explanations of the gotchas with float in this article. With audio, most sums are additions and on extremely strong signals relative to the precision limits of 32bit float.

My point is that all DAW's will be doing things the same way, except if they have proprietory hardware and DSP on board. For PC programs they all should give the exact same answer, and therefore sound identical. If the sound is different then something else is the reason, not the DAW code.

Looking at the Sequoia website, the only reference I could find to its format was:

The 2 GB limit Windows places on the WAV format has been broken. Even using 32 bit float, Sequoia gives you over 10 hours of audio in just one file with 44,1 or 48 kHz. Even entire radio broadcasts can be recorded in just one take.

Seems to imply that 32bit float is the highest precision they use, as does Wavelab etc.

It would be good to generate a couple of WAVS, I add them up in WL and you guys add them up in Sequoia, then we issue each other with the result to null test. Any takers? :D

I'd be glad to be involved in any tests you would like to do.

I have to stress though, as a computer programmer, I'm familiar with calling code.

Yes, the code should all be the same, however, it can have a substantial difference on the quality of a product depending upon where and how the call to the code are placed in the software. This is a very important part of why we go to school to learn to program in the first place.

A very simple analogy is one of say, JavaScript. Say you put a call in for a pop-up window within the head of an html document - congratulations, the pop-up will now be created.

However, put the same call in within form tags and now you have a runtime error.

The same code is being called in both instances, but one works, the other doesn't.

Agreed, that is a far simplified version, cuz if the C++ compiler were called to a degree in which it failed, obviously, that would be front page news for that manufacturer. However, there are varying degrees of failure within C++, and I believe Microsoft's answer to programming is - "There is no 'right' way to program, only different and creative ways to program."

J... 8-)

Let me add my $0.02 here... In general, I can work on both sides of the argument. For playback of just a stereo wave without processing, if two DAWs play it back differently, than one is likely broken. (That is using a jitter-immune DAC and the same digital output) Since I changed to my DAC-1, many of the differences I'd hear between product have disappears.

Where I start to hear differences is when multiple waves are being summed. While it is all 32 bit floating math, each program has its own way of implementing it (ordering, rounding, etc...). In a mix situation, especially, things like the bit rate between plugins and other bottlenecks can have a pretty massive effect on sound.

The Magix folks are very tight-lipped about how they accomplish their summing. The little bits I have gotten out of them, though are basically as follows- the main engine is a 32 bit engine. However, many (or most) of the processes go way above 32 bits of resolution. In fact, at one point it was rumored that a couple of Sequoia (and Samplitude's) processes approached 80 bits of resolution.

The other thing we haven't even touched on is workflow- obviously different programs have a different workflow and we arrive at our results in the way we feel most comfortable. For myself (and obviously a number of other folks here), it is through Sequoia. For others, you may find that another program fits your thought process better. If you aren't comfortable with a program, your results won't be as good and you won't be happy with the sound. Is that the sound of the program or is that operator error?

I've given up on trying to justify what I hear in differences in sound. Instead, I use what I'm comfortable with and what I can get the best product to my clients with...

--Ben

I'm highjacking this thread again :wink:

Are the engines in Samplitude and Sequoia the same?
Do they sound the same?

Can you import a video into Samplitude and sync up music to it?

Does Samplitude automatically support Mackie Control, and does it support full functionality of MC?

Cheers
Dave

Hijack all you want Dave... The conversations here get rather Schitzo, but hey- it keeps things interesting. :?

Are the engines in Samplitude and Sequoia the same?
Do they sound the same?

For the most part- yes they are the same engine. There are some limits, for example, like editing and surround in Samp that aren't in sequoia, but the basic summing engine is the same.

Can you import a video into Samplitude and sync up music to it?

Yes- look for the Medialink if you download the demo. It is better in Version 8, but still requires some specific codecs to work at its optimal level (provided to you through Video Deluxe which is free when you purchase Samp or Sequoia).

Does Samplitude automatically support Mackie Control, and does it support full functionality of MC?

Control surface support is probably the weakest segment of Samp and Sequoia's feature set. The MC is by far the best supported of all of them, but it is still questionable at times. You may find, though, that with object-based editing, that you use the control surface less and less...

--Ben

But, in case you would like a really nice one, I'm selling my Radikal SAC 2.2 cuz I don't use it any more. Once I figured out this whole object editing thang, it gets in my way more than it helps. Believe me, in Cubase, I lived and died by the Control Surface.

Thanks for all of your very helpful responses!

Having now compared various things in Samp and Nuendo I gotta say I'm sold on the sound. Fuzzy math or not I hear the difference.

I do have a coupla concerns [minimal since sound is all], but please give feedback:

1. I hooked up my Mackie 'control and got the faders to work [vital] but compared to say Nuendo which I plan to switch from the functionality is very weak. Is this something that will be improved
soon, or should I just dump the Mackie?

2. Are there any other units [compact] like the Mackie that do work well with Samp?

3. What about the Berhinger [I didn't say it :roll: ] units?

4. Are there any simple shuttle wheel/transport units that work well?

5. Has anyone tried keyfax with Samp to add extra programmed keys for double commands [Alt +, Shift + etc] or macros?

6. I have a Lynx Two-c card and may get the Aurora plus AES-16. Any issues with these?

7. I can't get the Samp 8 demo to work with my UAD-1 card. any ideas?

8. Does Samp work best with Asio drivers or WDM?

9. Does it work fine with VST plugins or do Direct x work better?

10 When you say the engine is almost the same in Samp and Sequioa, I know there is extra functionality, but do they SOUND the same or does Sequioa sound better? [I understand it may have more mastering tools to enhance the sound, but just the pure sonic qualities of the program itself]

Cheers!
Dave

Knew I forgot something:

I might have already asked I forget, but are there any good books, tutorials, on line courses, videos or other materials for Samp?

Is anyone here in the Arlington VA area or close to it who knows Samp inside out and would consider getting me up to speed for a fee?

Cheers
Dave