Skip to main content
Pro Audio Community

If You're not using Samplitude...

You should be.

I've spent the last few days working within Samplitude Pro X Suite, and it is simply fantastic.

Those of you who follow the general mindset that all DAW's are the same should give this program a try.. because once you do, you won't think that way anymore.

I've been using Sonar for a hundred years now, I started using Cakewalk Pro back in the mid 90's when I was doing quite a bit of MIDI production and at that time, Pro Tools was shaky on the integration of audio and MIDI. In fact, my engineering peers at that time who used PT had to also use Digital Performer just so that they could work on the midi end of their productions.

I went with Sonar because it did integrate audio and midi very well. As the years went by, I got to know it inside and out. I also continued to work with PT quite a bit as well, because I had clients who had projects in that format, who would bring their tracks in to me to either mix or add tracks to.

Several months ago, I decided to give Samplitude a try. There was a thirty day trial period, so I figured I had nothing to lose.

What I didn't realize at that time was that besides having nothing to lose, I had everything to gain.

I decided to do an apples to apples comparison.

I took tracks - exactly the same tracks - and imported them into Sonar, PT, and Samplitude.
The difference was like night and day.

In comparison, here is what I found:

Sonar "does something" to the audio... and not in a good way. I don't know what it is technically, but I can tell you that the result is a "smeared" and "phasey" sound..

Pro Tools wasn't much better, except it seemed that I needed to use more of a particular processor (stock PT Plugs) to get the desired results I was seeking... so if I wanted to add sparkle on top, I needed to add more of the desired frequency range than I did in Samplitude.

When listening in Samplitude, the difference was immediate - as if someone had flipped some kind of "sonic truth" switch. The audio was crystal clear, defined, tight... imaging was beautiful.
It is incredibly accurate, sonically tight, defined - and without adding the "clinical sterility" that I've experienced in PT.

(Sonar didn't add any of this sterility, in fact, it went the opposite direction and added smeared frequencies, and overall sonics were ill-defined. Imaging was also smeared...)

(I know I keep using that word but it's the only descriptive term I can come up with that describes what I'm referring to)

I have no idea as to why this is...whether the difference is in the coding, or the architecture of the busing, or what... I don't know enough about the technical side of program development to know "what" code can cause "which" issues.

All I can say is that since I began working with Samplitude, it's as if someone "cleaned" my audio playback with some kind of "sonic Windex"... LOL... I think Tim Dobear from Magix described it in similar fashion when he was trying to explain the differences between Samplitude and other DAW's to other engineers who were skeptical.

This is not the result of a suggestive psychology, it's not a "placebo".
The difference is there. It's true, and I'm here to tell you that it most certainly is very real.

I'm not trying to sell anyone anything. I don't work for Samplitude, I get no commissions from them... and neither Sonar or Avid has done anything to me personally to make me turn against them out of spite.

This is strictly about the quality and accuracy of audio, and the power and efficiency of the programs that help us to achieve what we want as engineers.

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't believe me take Samplitude for a test drive.

http://pro.magix.com/en/samplitude/overview.459.html

Yes.. okay... there's a learning curve... as there is with any new platform. But those of you who are experienced with DAW-based production shouldn't have any trouble getting used to it after a few days. Also, the internet is filled with great instructive how-to videos for Sampitude.

So far customer service has been fantastic. Queries are answered within minutes, problems solved in a very respectable time span. Go ahead and tell me truthfully that you've had the same experience with Avid. ;)

Also, the stock plugs and processors are fantastic. Also included are many VSTi's, one of which has really impressed me - Vandal - which is a guitar amp/cab simulation, with a full range of foot-pedal/stomp box effects. The modeling in this VSTi has really impressed me, and that's not an easy thing to to do, considering that for the most part, I pretty much HATE all guitar amp sims. LOL

But Vandal is pretty sweet. As of this writing, I have yet to open or experiment with the other VSTi's that come with the package... there's a whole collection of synths I haven't even opened yet.

Great sounding Reverbs, Delays, Compressors, Limiters, BSC, vintage processing emulation... is all included in this package, and all of these processors were coded for this platform.

Based on what I've experienced thus far, I'm fairly confident that I can get rid of pretty much all the plugs/processors that I've accumulated over the years... and that includes libraries like Voxengo, Waved Diamond, Blue Cat, etc. I simply don't need them anymore.

That's it... you can believe me or not, I understand your potential skepticism... as I used to be quite the skeptic myself in terms of DAW platforms and "differences".

But I urge you to give this program a try.

PT has become the standard in digital audio production... but it shouldn't be.
It should be Samplitude. There's simply no comparison in terms of quality, fidelity, processing and efficiency.

FWIW
d/

Tags

Comments

ChrisH Mon, 05/04/2015 - 12:39

Man, this is exciting!

Is the audio engine to blame (after converters) in sub-par D.A.W.'s when your live-monitoring audio sounds better than recorded playback?
I've always noticed that when monitoring in Cubase the audio would sound great and then when I played back the same audio, it wouldn't sound the same.

kmetal Mon, 05/04/2015 - 16:33

Brian Van Tassel, post: 428723, member: 49039 wrote: True.
After a few years of developing Samplitude for Mac , the project was abandoned. I do hear of people "bootcamping" in Windows, so they can run Samp on their Macs.

I've also heard of people having general good results doing this. I will be giving it a go by the end of the year.

audiokid Mon, 05/04/2015 - 19:48

ChrisH, post: 428718, member: 43833 wrote: I've always noticed that when monitoring in Cubase the audio would sound great and then when I played back the same audio, it wouldn't sound the same.

I had this issue with Pro Tools for years. I just accepted thinking I was incompetent at finishing a mix. Like I needed a mastering engineer to do something I could never get right.
Then I tried Sequoia and I instantly heard a difference. Every mix I finish sounds exactly to how I expect it to sound.
I put Pro Tools and my Mac in the closet and never looked back.
Maybe this DAW sums better.

audiokid Tue, 05/05/2015 - 10:00

where I think Samplitude rivals the rest is put as simple as this:

Smart programmers and end users know what software works best for the the right computers.

When you learn how important this is, it easier to program and demystify things you should stay clear of.

I never trust software that is good for Apple and Windows.

DonnyThompson Wed, 05/06/2015 - 05:12

I think its fair to mention that, with the exception of the full version of spectral editing, the addition of the 116 EQ on the channels as opposed to the old 4 band, and an improved coding for Elastic Audio ...and VCAs, Samplitude Pro X Suite also has all the features you listed in 2.

All the "AMM" processors , 116 EQ (although you haveto insert it to use it) FFT EQ matching, de-clicker, noiser etc, independence, Vita, revolver, everything but the exceptions I mentionedabove are all part of Pro X Suite.

I haven't upgraded yet, for what I'm doing at this time Pro X Suite gives me what I need.
And... that's not to say I won't upgrade to 2 (Suite) at some point. But I really don't want to do it smack dab in the middle of this album I'm producing. Call me superstitious. Lol. But right now everything is working perfectly. I'm just not crazy about tempting fate until this project is in the can. ;)

D.

DonnyThompson Thu, 05/07/2015 - 05:28

audiokid, post: 428727, member: 1 wrote: had this issue with Pro Tools for years. I just accepted thinking I was incompetent at finishing a mix. Like I needed a mastering engineer to do something I could never get right.
Then I tried Sequoia and I instantly heard a difference.

Chris's experience was the catalyst for me giving Samplitude a try. He had suggested it to me several times to me over a period of several months - and it's not that I doubted him, it's that I was hesitant to face a new platform - and the inherent learning curve that goes with any new, unfamiliar platform. I had grown so accustomed to the way Sonar was laid out, and how to do things, that it had become a second nature thing for me, and I knew it was going to take many hours getting used to a platform I wasn't the least bit familiar with.

I finally downloaded the trial, and I had the exact same experience with my platform (Sonar PE) that Chris had with his PT. Listening back, after the fact, I could hear the exact same audio I'm working on in Samp as sounding smeared and phasey in Sonar. To be honest, when I first heard the difference - when I was A/B'ing audio between platforms - the difference was so apparent, and so striking, that it really wasn't as much of a good kind of "wow" moment, as it was an "Oh crap" kind of feeling, because the audio in Sam was so honest, it was revealing things in the sonics that I hadn't been able to hear in Sonar, and at first it was actually a bit disconcerting - thinking about how many past mixes I had done in Sonar, and wondering if those mixes really were all that good, once they translated to more accurate playback situations.

In the end, I looked at it as more of a blessing, and once I got used to the integrity, it was like the audio had been washed clean. Tim Dolbear ( @TimDolbear ) used the analogy of it being similar to being forced to view things through a dirty window for a long period of time, and then one day, the window is cleaned, and immediately everything looks clearer, sharper, more vivid. Tim said that it was as if Samp was acting as a sort of "Windex" for audio - and that with Samp, he could hear things with clarity and accuracy, after hearing things for so long without that clarity and integrity when using other DAW's.

I'd have to agree that my own experience with Sam was very similar... the only difference is that Tim described it better. ;)

I won't say that Samplitude has been the easiest-to-learn DAW program I've ever worked with - but I can say that it has been the best.

I have no idea if PT has improved their coding or audio engine - or not. With the exception of using client's DAW's - and 99% of them are using some version of PT - I haven't seriously worked wit PT ( or Sonar) for quite some time now, so maybe they have gotten better. I guess we would have to talk with a regular ( and professional) PT user to find out if things have improved.

The last time I heard from peers of mine who were using - or had been using - Sonar X, the reviews were pretty bad, mostly from a user-friendliness POV.

Brian Van Tassel Thu, 05/07/2015 - 09:18

DonnyThompson, post: 428787, member: 46114 wrote: Chris's experience was the catalyst for me giving Samplitude a try. He had suggested it to me several times to me over a period of several months - and it's not that I doubted him, it's that I was hesitant to face a new platform - and the inherent learning curve that goes with any new, unfamiliar platform. I had grown so accustomed to the way Sonar was laid out, and how to do things, that it had become a second nature thing for me, and I knew it was going to take many hours getting used to a platform I wasn't the least bit familiar with.

I finally downloaded the trial, and I had the exact same experience with my platform (Sonar PE) that Chris had with his PT. Listening back, after the fact, I could hear the exact same audio I'm working on in Samp as sounding smeared and phasey in Sonar. To be honest, when I first heard the difference - when I was A/B'ing audio between platforms - the difference was so apparent, and so striking, that it really wasn't as much of a good kind of "wow" moment, as it was an "Oh crap" kind of feeling, because the audio in Sam was so honest, it was revealing things in the sonics that I hadn't been able to hear in Sonar, and at first it was actually a bit disconcerting - thinking about how many past mixes I had done in Sonar, and wondering if those mixes really were all that good, once they translated to more accurate playback situations.

In the end, I looked at it as more of a blessing, and once I got used to the integrity, it was like the audio had been washed clean. Tim Dolbear ( @TimDolbear ) used the analogy of it being similar to being forced to view things through a dirty window for a long period of time, and then one day, the window is cleaned, and immediately everything looks clearer, sharper, more vivid. Tim said that it was as if Samp was acting as a sort of "Windex" for audio - and that with Samp, he could hear things with clarity and accuracy, after hearing things for so long without that clarity and integrity when using other DAW's.

I'd have to agree that my own experience with Sam was very similar... the only difference is that Tim described it better. ;)

I won't say that Samplitude has been the easiest-to-learn DAW program I've ever worked with - but I can say that it has been the best.

I have no idea if PT has improved their coding or audio engine - or not. With the exception of using client's DAW's - and 99% of them are using some version of PT - I haven't seriously worked wit PT ( or Sonar) for quite some time now, so maybe they have gotten better. I guess we would have to talk with a regular ( and professional) PT user to find out if things have improved.

The last time I heard from peers of mine who were using - or had been using - Sonar X, the reviews were pretty bad, mostly from a user-friendliness POV.

Yes , the similar "Oh Crap" feeling is indeed part of the revelation. PT was my first DAW purchase. It was unusable on my PC , even with my "Pro Tools Ready" interface. Avid support asked me to pay for tech support, then said , "Read the manual". Others told me I needed to have a special PC built to run PT, and that I should have no other programs on that computer. Also , I was told to buy a Digi interface/controller, ect. Crazy, because Samp is a paradigm shift. They actually optimize their Software to work properly on a Windows PC !?! What a concept !?!
Anyway Cubase is what I switched to , and fell in love with. The ,'oh crap' for me is that there are now many of my acoustic projects that I want to rerecord in Sam ! Also, Cubase has so many cool tools , tricks, and features that I like, and yet, I get the sense that Samp can do everything I need to do , just in a different way of doing them. I upload a Cubase project into Samp , and it sounds better. I open that Sam mixdown in Sonar , and it sounds worse. So Sonar sits on my desktop, rarely opened. Cubase and Sonar are creative tools that I will keep around for their own special gifts and talents, and yet I find that Samplitude is the first program I open now, when I sit down to work. Somehow their is a sadness attached to the joy of it all, and yet , such is the see//saw ride of Life.Samp is Best for me. I know people doing great work in Reaper, Logic, Sonar, Cubase, PT, Studio One , ect. & they are so happy, they would never consider anything else . I am thrilled to have Samplitude as my good friend and buddy :-)

DonnyThompson Thu, 05/07/2015 - 09:27

Brian Van Tassel, post: 428799, member: 49039 wrote: I open that Sam mixdown in Sonar , and it sounds worse. So Sonar sits on my desktop, rarely opened.

Yup. I feel the same way.

I keep Sonar around only for the potential clients who may have started something on their end in Sonar ( I keep a version of PT around for the same reason, but I can't tell you the last time I opened either program.

But even if this scenario did happen, I'd still transfer all their audio from their Sonar or PT projects over to Samp.

Unless I'm hired in as a consultant to a client's home recording space, and am asked to record and mix in their format, I work exclusively in Samplitude these days. There's nothing that those other platforms can do that Samplitude can't, and by the same token, there's a lot more that Sam can do than what those other two platforms can.

IMO of course.

d.

Kurt Foster Thu, 05/07/2015 - 09:41

i've been following all these threads re; Samplitude /Magix and i must admit the thought it sounds better is appealing. i couldn't give a rats ass about editing features other than paste and cut and i really don't care about midi implementation. i prefer to record it right in the first place using real instruments or at least playing in real time.

i have difficulty overcoming the price point. not that i can't afford it but i hate buying anything that expensive that i know will be obsolete in a few tech cycles (2/3 years at best?). the high price point does make that difficult to choke down. MixBus costs only $40. much more palatable. @DonnyThompson how does the sound between Samp and Mixbus compare? do you think Samp sounds $500 /$600 better?

DigitaLWizarD Thu, 05/07/2015 - 09:46

I agree with everything said here. The notes of the intrinsic qualities of Samplitude abound in this topic.

I do not understand why this program did not become the "standard of music production" yet ...

I believe that MAGIX does not care fames and praise. Just do the (excellent) their job and that's it. I know Samplitude is more famous in some European countries, but overall is far from being the most considered. In Brazil, my country, Samplitude is very famous, but still not as much as Pro Tools, for example.

The impression is that MAGIX is satisfied with this situation and will remain so. Strange ... mainly because they have a top line product in their hands... :confused:

Brian Van Tassel Thu, 05/07/2015 - 11:42

Kurt Foster, post: 428803, member: 7836 wrote: i've been following all these threads re; Samplitude /Magix and i must admit the thought it sounds better is appealing. i couldn't give a rats ass about editing features other than paste and cut and i really don't care about midi implementation. i prefer to record it right in the first place using real instruments or at least playing in real time.

i have difficulty overcoming the price point. not that i can't afford it but i hate buying anything that expensive that i know will be obsolete in a few tech cycles (2/3 years at best?). the high price point does make that difficult to choke down. MixBus costs only $40. much more palatable. @DonnyThompson how does the sound between Samp and Mixbus compare? do you think Samp sounds $500 /$600 better?

Kurt,

I have a friend that uses Reaper with MixBus and great boutique mod mics and he gets great results. So , $60 for his DAW, $40 for MixBus, & How much is Waves Gold/Diamond?
Anyway, Audacity is Free ! Studio One has a Free version, as well. Cubase Le5 came free with one of my purchases, and perhaps Le5 plus MixBus would be a great team. If you don't need
any of Samplitude's deep feature set, then don't get it . I would suggest downloading the 30 day trial and see for yourself. Also Magix is running great crossgrade specials right now. So if you check out
trial version, and decide that you like it, you can then shop around for a great deal on Samplitude. Cheers ;-)

Kurt Foster Thu, 05/07/2015 - 11:55

thanks Brian. i've been running Cubase and have Audacity as well as Ardour, for quite some time. i already bought MixBus and have it installed on my newest computer ...
i'm going for the Harrison plug suite for the reverbs. i'm a bit disturbed more people aren't jumping on MixBus. i wish there was as much buzz on it here as there is for Samplitude ... I think it's much more of a VALUE than it's competition.

perhaps when they upgrade it so it has MIDI ... i hope Harrison continues to support it even if a lot of people don't go for it.

Brian Van Tassel Thu, 05/07/2015 - 12:07

DigitaLWizarD, post: 428804, member: 48955 wrote: I agree with everything said here. The notes of the intrinsic qualities of Samplitude abound in this topic.

I do not understand why this program did not become the "standard of music production" yet ...

I believe that MAGIX does not care fames and praise. Just do the (excellent) their job and that's it. I know Samplitude is more famous in some European countries, but overall is far from being the most considered. In Brazil, my country, Samplitude is very famous, but still not as much as Pro Tools, for example.

The impression is that MAGIX is satisfied with this situation and will remain so. Strange ... mainly because they have a top line product in their hands... :confused:

DW,

Como vai Voce`? Com'e'que'ta !?! Voce` fala a verdade.
Magix is one of the top software companies in Europe, with many successful products . Samplitude/Sequoia have a "Best kept Secret" mystique, and a "word of mouth" marketing method.
They take their code and quality to the Highest of standards, and their marketing has been tertiary . I found out about Sam on the Forums ! Pro Tools is the opposite.
. They are currently marketing "Pro Tools 12" & "Pro Tools First". They started their expensive media blitz campaign well before their product was even completed, and well before it is ready for release.
Avid is Marketing First, and quality control, research and development, and everything else, seems to be an afteryhought for them. They established themselves first, in many markets, and they seemed to have "rested on their laurels" , for quite some time now. I see Samplitude on the rise. Quality is Quality , and the word Is getting out there. Avid is in panic mode, with so many other platforms, getting better, cheaper, and more accessible every year.

Imho

DigitaLWizarD Thu, 05/07/2015 - 12:17

Brian Van Tassel, post: 428816, member: 49039 wrote: Magix is one of the top software companies in Europe, with many successful products . Samplitude/Sequoia have a "Best kept Secret" mystique, and a "word of mouth" marketing method. They take their code and quality to the Highest of standards, and their marketing has been tertiary . I found out about Sam on the Forums ! Pro Tools is the opposite. They are currently marketing "Pro Tools 12" & "Pro Tools First". They started their expensive media blitz campaign well before their product was even completed, and well before it is ready for release. Avid is Marketing First, and quality control, research and development, and everything else, seems to be an afteryhought for them. They established themselves first, in many markets, and they seemed to have "rested on their laurels" , for quite some time now. I see Samplitude on the rise. Quality is Quality , and the word Is getting out there. Avid is in panic mode, with so many other platforms, getting better, cheaper, and more accessible every year.

It was very interesting to read this! It makes sense, for sure! Obrigado! :)

DigitaLWizarD Thu, 05/07/2015 - 12:32

Kurt Foster, post: 428814, member: 7836 wrote: i hope Harrison continues to support it even if a lot of people don't go for it.

Harrison Mixbus has a very nice layout and very good features, but it doesn't run on 64 bit system, at least for while.

Unfortunately, this nice DAW has - for now - a lot of problems with third party plugins, extensively debated [[url=http://[/URL]="https://www.gearslutz.com/boa…"]here[/]="https://www.gearslutz.com/boa…"]here[/], but I know they are working hard to fully upgrading the DAW. I would like to see the changes.

Its aesthetics is seductive and it almost led me to opt for it, but the functionality and compatibility of Samplitude strong yelled in my decision. I am happily married with Samplitude/Sequoia. We are soul mates ... :love:

Kurt Foster Thu, 05/07/2015 - 12:51

DigitaLWizarD, post: 428818, member: 48955 wrote: [="http://harrisonconsoles.com/site/mixbus.html"]Harrison Mixbus[/]="http://harrisonconsoles.com/s…"]Harrison Mixbus[/] has a very nice layout and very good features, but it doesn't run on 64 bit system, at least for while.

not true. MixBus supports both 32 and 64 bit os. [[url=http://="http://harrisonconsoles.com/s…"]Harrison MixBus requirments[/]="http://harrisonconsoles.com/s…"]Harrison MixBus requirments[/]

CPU Architecture:
Intel or AMD, 64bit or 32 bit
2+ cores/processors required

OS Version:
Windows XP or newer

Audio:
Any system soundcard should work. High-quality ASIO-based soundcards with modern drivers
On Windows and OSX, Mixbus is delivered as a 32bit application which works on both 64bit and 32bit systems.

On Linux, the package includes 32bit and 64bit applications. The correct version is automatically installed for your system.

OS Feature Comparison Chart:

Windows OSX Linux
All OS-Supported Soundcards Yes ( ASIO / PortAudio ) Yes ( CoreAudio ) YES ( JACK )
MP3 Import Coming Soon Yes No
LV2 Plugins Yes Yes Yes
VST Plugins Yes Coming Soon Coming Soon
Audio Unit Plugins No Yes No
MTC / MMC Transport Control Coming Soon Yes Yes
MIDI CC Controls Mapped to Any Knob Coming Soon Yes Yes
Mackie "Logic" Fader Controller Support Coming Soon Yes Yes

DigitaLWizarD, post: 428818, member: 48955 wrote: Unfortunately, this nice DAW has - for now - a lot of problems with third party plugins, extensively debated [="https://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/841680-list-plugins-not-working-harrison-mixbus.html"]here[/]="https://www.gearslutz.com/boa…"]here[/], but I know they are fully upgrading the DAW. I would like to see the changes.:love:

for me that's not an issue. it already has a very good compressor and when i get the [[url=http://="http://harrisonconsoles.com/s…"]Essentials delay / reverb package[/]="http://harrisonconsoles.com/s…"]Essentials delay / reverb package[/] i think i'll be set.