Skip to main content

If You're not using Samplitude...

Member for

21 years
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

Member for

8 years 9 months

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

Member for

6 years 9 months

rjuly Tue, 12/23/2014 - 02:53
audiokid, post: 422634, member: 1 wrote: (NOTE: I'm not in my multitrack studio now to test this)

I'm not quite following you here most likely because I've not tried to record into a subgroup. Just a guess, Subgroups bypass the AD or midi input as it can contain multiple tracks bused into it. Just curious, when trying to record into a bus, is the input AD the same as the pre assigned to it?

... sorry... I didn't address the first part of your response...

The process I am describing is internal to the DAW. the signal does not traverse any D/A or A/D. It is quite common among various DAWs to be able to send signals to a channel and record them internally. I just haven't figured out how to do so with Sequoia - likely to be pretty obvious once I know how :-)

Member for

21 years

Member Tue, 01/06/2015 - 01:59
rjuly, post: 423237, member: 48681 wrote: It does have a steep learning curve, and will not appeal to those are not willing to take some pains over learning its intricacies, and are willing to conform to its workflow, but if you care about pristine sound and yearn for a professional grade toolset, this DAW delivers in spades.

I strongly suggest that you check out videos by Kraznet on YouTube. His videos are clear, concise, and have helped me countless times in understanding many aspects of the platform.

To date, I have yet to find any Sam subject left uncovered by him. He's a mountain of knowledge, and the way he explains things is fantastic.

Here's a sample... one suggestion, he was making many of these videos back when S11 was popular, so you might want to temporarily change your menu layout to that of 11, it makes it easier to follow his instructions.

In fact, I'll post the link to the directions on how to do that first:


[=""]View:[/]=""]View:[/]


Here's the example... I just started with Fundamentals Part 1 so you could see how intuitive he is:

=tkWPzcX0Kbk;list=PLD6E5E2507875724E
[[url=http://="&index=1&list=PLD6E5E2507875724E"]View:&index=1&list=PLD6E5E2507875724E[/]="&index=1&list=PLD6E5E2507875724E"]View:&index=1&list=PLD6E5E2507875724E[/]

Member for

6 years 4 months

Brian Van Tassel Sat, 05/02/2015 - 10:56
ChrisH, post: 428638, member: 43833 wrote: If I compared a stereo render of raw unprocessed tracks in Cubase 7 vs Samplitude, will I hear a difference just from the audio engine? Like Chris Perra said

To rephrase my response :
Yes ! You will hear a big difference.
If you then fully engage in a remix you should soon discover the beauty of that difference :-) Imho

Member for

16 years 5 months

thewonders Thu, 08/07/2014 - 12:05
DonnyThompson, post: 418147, member: 46114 wrote: Chris... watch the video you posted ... this is the same video I watched.

At 0:55, the narrator tells the user to go to the TEMPO menu at the top menu bar. But as I stated previously, I don't HAVE a tempo menu on the top menu bar...

I do have a TEMPO function that appears in the Edit pull down menu, but there is no Detect Transient command in it.

Donny, quite a few of kraznet's videos were done with Samp 11, and you probably have Samp 12. I haven't looked to find the function you're wanting and you may have to ask at the Samp forum.

Member for

5 years 9 months

obs4me Sun, 12/06/2015 - 13:16
DonnyThompson, post: 417915, member: 46114 wrote: I've spent the last few days working within Samplitude Pro X Suite, and it is simply fantastic. 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/
Thanks for the great news about Pro X Suite. As sound quality is everything to the both of us, and with your extensive experience using it and PT, Sonar and/or other DAWs, I'm so glad that I made the upgrade from Samplitude 10. However, I am merely an audio enthusiast; don't do any live recording or multi-track mixing. Indeed, I sprang for Samplitude initially as I needed the most transparent pitch & time quality I could afford, as well as the ability to edit out to the millisecond parts of songs from uncompressed WAV files of CD track rips. Beyond this, I have yet to take time to learn more of Pro X Suite's features, which are clearly huge.

Questions: This is probably a silly question, but as software algorithms and CPUs get more powerful every month.....is there a utility in Samplitude-or in a certain plugin that you would VERY highly recommend-that could mask or otherwise process distortion in a recording to where it would not be fatiguing on a high res system like this http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel-1356.html ? If not, have you ever been able to use this DAW's EQ utilities to at least partially accomplish this?

I just now tried to upload a WAV file but the site couldn't recognize the extension. If I pm you would I then be able to upload the file to you? Maybe you could show me how to clean it up? Thank you.

Member for

21 years

Member Tue, 12/16/2014 - 06:39
rjuly, post: 422327, member: 48681 wrote: I think I will limit myself to only using the stock plugins, to see what they can do.

I think that this is a solid initial approach, at least during the "shakedown cruise" you're talking about.

(FWIW, I'm 4 months into using Pro X Suite, and I'm still "shaking it down".) LOL

I always prefer to use plugs/processors that have been coded for a particular platform, as opposed to third-party. I'm not saying that there aren't some great third-party plugs out there, I'm just suggesting that, at least initially, until you get more familiar with the new platform, limiting your processing to plugs that are specifically designed and coded for that program is not a bad idea.

Member for

12 years 1 month

kmetal Sun, 12/06/2015 - 16:08
Samplitude has built in spectral editing. Which basically identifies pitches and intensities by color. Since it's built in, it should be easy on cpu resources.

You can also in some daws 'draw in' sections of the waveform with a pencil tool. So you zoom in, cut out the just the distorted bits, and mend it with the pencil tool. If it's super tiny, you might be able to get by with a basic edge edit. Which is when you just drag the edge of the region or clip to fill in the gap, and cross fade.

You can also take a similar approach with time stretch. Where you cut out just the distortion, and make another edit point right before that, so you have a little tiny section of the region/clip right before the part you erased. Then just time stretch it to fill the hole.

It really depends on how bad, how often the distortions occur, and how good the finished result needs to be. Most of the time with those tools you should be able to clean up the audio with no discernible differences besides the lack of distortions.

Member for

6 years 9 months

rjuly Tue, 12/23/2014 - 04:56
So, it seems that this cannot be done in real-time with Samplitude/Sequoia. Rather it must be done offline using 'Track Freeze' to sequentially freeze first the stems. then the master track, then the 'mastered' track. No problem, just a different perspective. The primary thing I need from Sequoia is the pristine sonics and the VCAs, and those, it delivers in spades.

Member for

6 years 5 months

JayTerrance Sun, 12/06/2015 - 17:57
kmetal, post: 434252, member: 37533 wrote: Samplitude has built in spectral editing.

You can also take a similar approach with time stretch. Where you cut out just the distortion, and make another edit point right before that, so you have a little tiny section of the region/clip right before the part you erased. Then just time stretch it to fill the hole.
.

Ha. You just helped me figure out how I can completely remove one persons breath while another singer is holding a sustained note in a duet I just recorded.

Thank you!

Member for

8 years 9 months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMHO of course.

d.

Member for

6 years 9 months

rjuly Tue, 12/16/2014 - 07:41
What advantages do you see from using these native-code plugins versus the rest? Is there a perceptible sonic difference or usability difference, or is it more of a matter of keeping your mental desktop tidy and free from distraction? This last thing is as valuable (if not more) for me as pristine sound, since I suffer from quasi-A.D.D like mindset. Very difficult for me not to get sidetracked by all the possibilities. Limits can be very liberating.

Member for

6 years 6 months

DigitaLWizarD Sun, 05/03/2015 - 16:55
25 Years Samplitude – Happy Birthday

Samplitude, the successful Digital Audio Workstation, has turned 25 and MAGIX is celebrating this occasion with many [="http://www.magix.com/gb/samplitude/upgrades/crossgrade-samplitude-pro-x2/"]incredible offers[/]="http://www.magix.com/gb/s…"]incredible offers[/].

Samplitude’s success story began in the summer of 1986 with two visionary Computer Science Students of the Dresden University of Technology in the GDR. Titus Tost and Tilman Herberger met while working at the Electronic Sound Production Studio of the Dresden College of Music. Limited budgets, the college’s conservative orientation, the fact that some hardware was only available to West Germans and the GDR’s slow and stagnating economy all hindered innovation in the field of electronic music production. Thus, the studio started with only two borrowed DX7 synths and a Commodore C64.

Under these special circumstances, the two students began programming MIDI software. This way they were able to focus on creating products with innovation at the very center – a principle that is shared across all Samplitude generations, beginning with the first lines of code in April 1990.

The first market-ready version of Samplitude was finished in 1992 and took the form of a sample editor with up to 28-bit audio processing for the Amiga platform. The first version for PC was released two years later. Samplitude’s codebase continued to evolve over the years and supplied the foundation for Sequoia, which was released in 2000. This high-end broadcast and mastering solution was used for the production of a total of 7 Grammy winners in 2015 alone and demonstrates MAGIX’ superiority in the audio sector.

The newest version, Samplitude Pro X2, is available since December of last year and sports impressive features such as VCA faders, free plug-in routing, zplane time stretching technology as well as countless new instruments.

Samplitude’s birthday will be celebrated by MAGIX with several [[url=http://="http://www.magix.com/gb/s…"]special promotions[/]="http://www.magix.com/gb/s…"]special promotions[/]. For a limited time only, Samplitude Pro X2 will be available for a price of £149 instead of the regular price of £406.80. Special deals in cooperation with hardware manufacturer Alesis will top off the celebration. This gives everyone the opportunity to use one of the most powerful DAWs and high-end hardware bundles to produce music at an unprecedented level.

Source - http://magazine.magix.com/en/25-years-samplitude-happy-birthday

The new Samplitude Pro X2 stands for excellence and technological precision. New high performance algorithms and optimized workflows combine with inspiring tools for creative music production in both small and large studios.

Read more: http://www.magix.com/gb/samplitude/upgrades/crossgrade-samplitude-pro-x2/

Member for

5 years 9 months

obs4me Sun, 12/06/2015 - 22:12
kmetal, post: 434252, member: 37533 wrote: Samplitude has built in spectral editing. Which basically identifies pitches and intensities by color. Since it's built in, it should be easy on cpu resources.....It really depends on how bad, how often the distortions occur, and how good the finished result needs to be. Most of the time with those tools you should be able to clean up the audio with no discernible differences besides the lack of distortions.
Hmmm, that's certainly a clever way to use PnT. I've always just used it to extend my favorite harmonies and fatten bass lines. That distortion slicing technique might well work with some of my tracks, but the track I had in mind had several big distorted chunks of the song, as if the "engineer" carelessly or deliberately cranked up the mic preamps and/or tape machine's record gain during the entire session done here, circa 1962 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Western_Recorders Of course, its possible that the distortion occurred instead due to the CD mastering "engineer" who had the tape machine's output and/or A/D converter's input gain cranked up too high Anyway, thanks for these techniques.

Tags

x