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

21 years

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.

Member for

8 years 9 months

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.

Member for

8 years 9 months

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. ;)

Member for

5 years 2 months

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?

Member for

8 years 9 months

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

Member for

8 years 9 months

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.
;)

Member for

12 years 1 month

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.

Member for

8 years 9 months

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



;)

Member for

12 years 1 month

kmetal Mon, 07/18/2016 - 08:07
Awesome my man! Just what I was hoping to hear. I'm not a huge fan of switching DaW's but have switched for one reason or another every 2-5 years since '00.

I'll be sure to check out this vids, I'm gonna start watching them soon, to get prepared for when things are set up around here.

Member for

4 years 7 months

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

Member for

5 years 1 month

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.

Member for

4 years 7 months

Johnny Blade Thu, 01/26/2017 - 12:04
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.
Attached files Product Comparison [2015].pdf (341.4 KB) 

Tags

x