Testing record with three DAW. Cubase, Sam & PT

[deanrichard]

Stop using logical arguments. Clearly this thread is being perpetuated by those who can even "hear the difference" between files that null perfectly.

Originally Posted by JFreak

SPDIF and all digital cables transmit 100.0% perfect or 0.0% non-working signal. Such is the nature of digital cabling. You can spend a million for a cable if you want to (I can sell you one for that price, buy two and get 25% discount) but it doesn't make a difference

Clocking and especially jitter is another thing. You can hear a difference if you change anything in playback. But unless you hear loud spikes, pops and crackles, digital transfer is just fine.

[ryanstewartguitar]

It's a useless discussion to have on an internet forum. Like any decision in audio, do your own tests, follow your own ears, and take everything anyone says with a grain of salt. I could post a test showing files that don't null, only to surely be accused of altering the files. Not worth anyone's time.

It's always frustrating to hear no difference while people insist that there is one.
It's always frustrating to hear a difference while people insist that there isn't one.

[nigelpry]

I started to become skeptical sbout posts on this thread when it was suggested that different DAW's might produces files that were indistinguishable using measurement tools, and yet you'd be able to hear a difference because of inherent ways that each DAW exphasises frequencies differently.

If they emphasise certain frequencies differently, sufficiently that you can hear it, then I find it impossible to believe that, with the right measurement tools, you would not also be able to measure those differences.

[ryanstewartguitar]

+1 Any difference between two files is absolutely measurable and a null test is an objective way of debunking bogus theories which are everywhere in digital audio.

[b1daly]

I suspect that most difference people perceive between DAWs are attributed to how their GUI works. Controls, both virtual and physical, have a major effect on the choices made, and could tend to cause things to sound different in different DAWs. For example, Sony Vegas had a default pan mode with a single slider that moved one side of the channel, blending it to the the other. No pan law. So if you had a stereo track, hard panning simply summed it to mono, making it a lot louder, and causing any stereo effects to sound weird.

Pro Tools has a similar scheme, but more flexible with individual pan knobs for each side of the channel, and a pan law in effect.

Logic, at least the last time I checked, had a simple balance style pan control. On a stereo track, moving the knob to the left simply reduced the right side level (and vice versa).

This would tend to leave you with very different sounding mixes if you had stereo tracks in your project!

[studioj11]

Originally Posted by nigelpry

I started to become skeptical sbout posts on this thread when it was suggested that different DAW's might produces files that were indistinguishable using measurement tools, and yet you'd be able to hear a difference because of inherent ways that each DAW exphasises frequencies differently.

If they emphasise certain frequencies differently, sufficiently that you can hear it, then I find it impossible to believe that, with the right measurement tools, you would not also be able to measure those differences.

My theory was that these differences were only audible during playback and the differences were not imparted on the digital summing of the files. But i don't have any data to back that up. :) I remember thinking I could hear a distinct difference between Logic and Digital performer ages ago though when switching between them.

[JFreak]

Playback and bounce are the same, no?

For a really reliable summing test you cannot rely on anything that might have been implemented differently, such as panning law.

So...

Have three mono tracks, send pne to hard left, one to dead center, and one to hard right. Have all faders at unity and bounce it out.

Then do the null test and you'll know how much (little) difference there is in summing.

[nigelpry]

Originally Posted by b1daly

I suspect that most difference people perceive between DAWs are attributed to how their GUI works. Controls, both virtual and physical, have a major effect on the choices made, and could tend to cause things to sound different in different DAWs. For example, Sony Vegas had a default pan mode with a single slider that moved one side of the channel, blending it to the the other. No pan law. So if you had a stereo track, hard panning simply summed it to mono, making it a lot louder, and causing any stereo effects to sound weird.

Pro Tools has a similar scheme, but more flexible with individual pan knobs for each side of the channel, and a pan law in effect.

Logic, at least the last time I checked, had a simple balance style pan control. On a stereo track, moving the knob to the left simply reduced the right side level (and vice versa).

This would tend to leave you with very different sounding mixes if you had stereo tracks in your project!

The thing is .... all these explanations are genuine reasons why the mix would be different, and that's perfectly valid. It also means that you would be able to measure the difference with appropriate measurement tools.

The suggestion being made in a earlier post wasn't this. There was a suggestion made that somehow there was a difference that was not measurable, that files would null, but that, nevertheless, each DAW had its own 'sound' that was imparted into the audio when playing back. Even playing back the very same file.

Your suggestions are a few of many good reasons why different daws might sound different, but they would all be measurable.

[soybalm]

Originally Posted by cmbourget

Perhaps. But Steinberg says it's the same audio engine.

I think I remember that announcement when SX came out. It's supposed to be the same but I heard different results with version 4 of Cubase and version 3 of Nuendo. I can only assume that I missed some settings and defaults somewhere.
Anyways, I like my Pro Tools. I'm used to it and it does what I tell it to do most of the time.

[cmbourget]

Originally Posted by ryanstewartguitar

While I haven't done any tests of my own involving the sounds of different DAWs, I do believe it is naive to think that just because it's 0's and 1's everything will sound the same. Not that anyone here has said that, just a common argument I've heard.

I do know this, I can absolutely confirm hearing a significant enough difference between 2 cheap S/PDIF cables and a Mogami cable to make me spend 10x for the latter. I was legitimately disappointed to discover this. But obviously that's a different thing altogether than the sound of a DAW.

I think you are right. There reasoning, always important. And listening to it. If the ear indicates a difference, there is a difference that science (or systematic analysis) should explain then. But to say that the ear tube is nonsense in music, where everything ear. I say that PT is superior in recording. I did not think it at first, but I heard that. I did a test and the test confirms. That's enough for me to return to PT. After I make music.