If You're not using Samplitude...

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

 

So does object based processing save on cpu by 'freezing' type methods? Relative to say creating a new track for the snippet and using channel inserts?

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.

 

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

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

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

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

 

@DonnyThompson

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

 

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.

 

Chris, myself and the other Samp users here on RO will be here for you. Just let us know.

But understand that your best advice and instruction will come from those Kraznet vids.

You may also want to join the Samplitude user's forum as well.

 

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

 

Welcome to recording.org Johnny,
Samplitude is a well thought and designed DAW and many of the users here make it their first working tool.
We like to speak about many recording subjects, feel free to join in the discussions

 

Speaking of which - Magix released their latest update for Pro X2 and Pro X2 Suite today.
The program should offer to perform the update when you start it up.
If not, under the Help menu, use the auto update tool.

Nice to see they are still supporting the last version!

Terry

 

Thanks a lot, guys!!!

 

So which is better, Samplitude or Sequoia?

and are you saying Samplitude costs $1200?

 

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.

 

See the attached PDF I put in this reply. It's old, from 2015, but it's still very useful:

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

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

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

Johnny.

 

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

 

Do you know how is intercomparability between SeqSamp through PT?

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

 

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

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

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