why does samplitude cost so much?

[djclueveli]

why does samplitude 9 cost so much when it can't even do simple things like put a direct x plugin after a vst plugin and automate direct x effects? it cost $1,249. it seems like no one even uses this program. also it doesnt even let u bus a track to more than 1 bus so what's the big deal with this program. also what's the difference between samplitude and sequoia because sequoia cost $3,449.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by djclueveli

why does samplitude 9 cost so much when it can't even do simple things like put a direct x plugin after a vst plugin and automate direct x effects? it cost $1,249.

First, if someone is charging anything more than $999 for Sampitude, they are *really* ripping you off, as $999 is the common street price for V9.

But the answers are A) audio quality and B) brand positioning.

Re A), Samplitude simply sounds better than just about any other NLE software on the market. The difference is not super huge, but it's enough to matter to those golden ears who are more than just home hobbyists. Which leads right into...

B) Samplitude perhaps has some of it's stronger followings amongst the classical music and acoustic instrument communities, or at least it seems that way just based upon the anecdotal evidence. Whether or not the difference in sound between Samplitude and Cubase is worth twice the price is a subjective judgement, but the judgement in those musical communities - where even small differences in recording and summing quality can make or break the recording much more than they can in most other genres of music - is mouh more than elsewhere that, yes, every ounce of sound quality is worth it.

Given that, along with the fact that your average orchestral or string quartet or spansih guitar mixer is not going to be all that interested in VSTs anyway (what minimal processing they actually apply will prbably be analog), and you wind up with a niche product sold mostly to a niche market. Niche products require higher pricing because they have lower sales volume.

It's similar to (but for different reasons) the Nuendo story. After all, Nuendo is just the Cubase audio engine with some extra features for the post-production crowd*, yet it costs almost three times what Cubase does and twice what Samplitude costs. That's because most audio engineersus are not interested in the extra stuff that Nuendo offers, it's targeted mostly to the post-productionsuites and houses. That's a much smaller subset of the market than the general audio engineering market, meaning fewer sales. Fewer sales means jacking the price. It's up to the end user to decide if it's worth the cost or not.

G.

[djclueveli]

thanx for the help glen!! i thought all recording apps sounded the same. is there any difference between apps such as cubase and pro tools?

[NL5]

Not to disagree with Glen, but is there anyway to prove that the summing algorithms are really that different? I was under the impression that they all used basically the same math. Maybe I'm completely wrong though......

[Sonixx]

Originally Posted by djclueveli

it can't even do simple things like put a direct x plugin after a vst plugin and automate direct x effects?

this is no longer a limitation. plugins can be arranged in any order VST and DirectX. Plugin parameter automation is available. Similar to Volume Curves.

it seems like no one even uses this program.

I use it and have for about 8 years. I'm not sure of the issue here.

it doesnt even let u bus a track to more than 1 bus

Samplitude has a two Buss architecture scheme, Aux and Submix. Similar but different. Aux bussing allows more than one destination. I have never found this to be limiting. The Aux and Submix Buss is very flexible. The Submix Bussing allows very efficient use of plugins.

also what's the difference between samplitude and sequoia

I am not totally versed in the differences, but Sequoia has a significantly enhanced Crossfade editor. Maybe more.

I'm also wondering if there is actually a difference between the summing engine, or at least one that would cause a noticeable difference. As far as I know, the algorithm is the same, the only things that come into play are bit depth and sample rate which is independent of the software.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by NL5

Not to disagree with Glen, but is there anyway to prove that the summing algorithms are really that different? I was under the impression that they all used basically the same math. Maybe I'm completely wrong though......

Originally Posted by danny.guitar

I'm also wondering if there is actually a difference between the summing engine, or at least one that would cause a noticeable difference.

I can't speak as to the actual algorithms used, as I don't know what they use; I can only speak to A/B comparisons I've witnessed (and performed) on the same system with the same source files but different editors. Even after taking into account any differences that might be caused by panning laws, there are subtle but audible differences to the discriminating ear.

if you want proof, try it. Same system, same source files, same monitoring environment, etc. No plugs, no automation, no nothing. Pan laws set as equivalent as possible, and source files and mixestested at various panning locations.

On one occasion I ( and a couple of other trusted ears, all equally sober) could hear fine A/B differences between Guitar Tracks, Audition and Vegas. On another occasion on someone else's DAW system, it was an A/B between Vegas, Cubase and Samplitude, and a seperate one between oSound Forge and Wavelab. On each occasion, subtle differences could be heard in each comparison except the ones between Sonic Foundry and Steinberg, which seemed pretty much a dead heat to us in each case. I would liken the differences as similar to the subtlest of differences between mid level mic preamps of similar design type. Or as one of my cohorts put it, it was like varying "amounts of dust on a video screen". The difference betwen the worst and the best was like the difference between a CRT video screen that was dusted a week ago and one that was dusted an hour ago. They were pretty similar, and all pretty good, but there is a slight veil of definition in between.

I can't explain why, as I wasn't in on the coding of each package. But I will swear that the difference, while small, is there. Or at least it was as of about 3 years ago or so when we did these comparisons.

I suggest you try it yourself if you're lucky enough to have access to a system where you can install more than one software package and make the comparisons yourself. If you hear what we heard, you'll have drunk the same Koolaid as I.

G.

[flatfinger]

Samplitude has many "wavelab " type features included, so , instead of mixing in cubase and then going to WL to master and burn a CD you can do it all in one program.

They are MUCH bigger in europe than the U.S. and only have one real distributor here. (Orange Hill Audio) who also sells stuff like Algorythmics $1k eq plugs. It IS A dongled programm, and I've heard That OHA is very good at getting you another if yours breaks. I have'nt had any I-lok type issues at all , very stable.
Why do people pay more?? same reason people pay more for a benz. status symbol. It does have some unusual tricks (object oriented editing and fx) and nice pluggs (sascha E.of blockfish fame does one of the dynamics vst's). The include convolution reverb comes with a boatload of fine impulses too.

You won't find allot of tricks and tips articles on it, and there are no books like for cubase or sonar. I have the neutred classic version (8.3) That only allows 6 FX tracks . I can't say it sounds better than cubase or the others. (Not World Class monitoring here though)I got it on a cross grade for cheap and am not blown away enough to buck up for the full version 9. The fee to go from 8.3 Classic to ver9 is very reasonable but I just was'nt motivated to upgrade. I use it as a mastering suite now. Lately for tracking and mixing I'm learning Reaper ; sounds dam good(64 bit mixing engine) and cost $950 less!!! It also is MUY more flexible from a routing point of veiw ( side chaining, muti- out VSTI's ect. or almost anything you can dream up!!))

Don't automatically assume that something that cost an arm and a leg is so much better.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by djclueveli

why does samplitude 9 cost so much when it can't even do simple things like put a direct x plugin after a vst plugin and automate direct x effects? it cost $1,249.

Try putting a DX plug after a VST plug in PT which can easily cost you 15 to 30 TIMES as much as samplitude

[pipelineaudio]

Samplitude is an AWESOME app. After Version 7 most of what you could do in Vegas could be done in Samplitude, and with its ASIO DM integration was very tempting for me to switch to.

I still wanted a much more flexible routing scheme, so I never went there, but if the app was 1k$, compared to the other stuff out there, its more than worth it.

About the difference in sound?

Prove it. Only 5 trillion scientifically conducted tests have been done which show them all nulling. Not one test to the contrary has ever shown up.

[cusebassman]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

Why do people pay more?? same reason people pay more for a benz. status symbol. It does have some unusual tricks (object oriented editing and fx) and nice pluggs (sascha E.of blockfish fame does one of the dynamics vst's).

Yea, I too aspire to own a Benz one day because of its object oriented editing and nice plugins

[therage!]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

About the difference in sound?

Prove it. Only 5 trillion scientifically conducted tests have been done which show them all nulling. Not one test to the contrary has ever shown up.

I'm interested in that too

Not just in regards to Reaper but Sonar with it's 64bit engine.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Only 5 trillion scientifically conducted tests have been done which show them all nulling.

That's only testing one aspect of the system.

A single WAV file will null itself. Yet when you take that WAV file and play it back on GT and then play it back in Sound Forge (no effects, no nothing) there is a subtle difference in sound quality.

I have no explanation for why that happens, it doesn't quite make sense to me. But my first-hand experience and testing resulted in that personal conclusion (I'll grant you that the testing was single-blind and subjective only, so it wasn't scientifically perfect. But I'll stand by the results.) The kicker was when we had two different mixers on two different systems in two different locations working on different aspects of the same project, which involved converting a project that was tracked in GT over to Audition (with finalizing in SoundForge). During the work, both parties independantly noticed a difference in playback quality of the original source tracks, but thought they were nuts until the subject came up in a phone call and they confirmed each other's feelings.

Again, I'm not claiming scientific purity with these tests, nor am I offering up an explanation for them. It goes against my understanding as well. I will also point out that this was with older versions of software (GT2, AA1.0/CEP 2.1, SF6, etc.). But I do stand by them as being solid enough to trust as there being something there more than just psychosomatic. Add in the anecdotal stuff from the classical community (FWIW), and I think it worth considering.

Now, does this have a direct effect on the resulting mixes? If the difference is in the playback engine and not in the summing engine, then perhaps not so much. It might be argued that the quality of monitoring is affected somewhat, though, which might have an indirect effect on the way the engineer mixes it. If he mixes identically in two packages, the results may null. But if subtle differences in the monitoring causes the enginer to make subtle changes in the mix, or perhaps moreso, premastering, then yeah, the results will be different.

Will they be THAT different? Maybe not. You don't see me rushing out to buy Samplitude . Even if the difference were real, I personally don't see it as being big enough for my home rec situation to be worth the price. I'd rather spend the extra money elsewhere in the studio (or better yet, save it for sometihing that is actually important in life.) But if/when I move the quality of my project studio up to the next step - requireing a heavy 5-digit investment - a few hundred extra for the best in NLE software would probably be worthwhile...whether it soudns better or not.

G.

[mshilarious]

Then send the digital out from the sum to another box to record the mixdown, and null that.

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by therage!

I'm interested in that too

Not just in regards to Reaper but Sonar with it's 64bit engine.

REAPER and Sonar have 64 bit engines, but I think Vegas may have had it all along. Not that that is as much for sound as for protection and preservation.

[pipelineaudio]

If the same file sounds different on two different apps, assuming that there are no buffer issues, disk access, or plugins involved, one of the apps is broken

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

If the same file sounds different on two different apps, assuming that there are no buffer issues, disk access, or plugins involved, one of the apps is broken

Yeah, broken/programmed very poorly.

The subtle differences in audio summing (and I'm not sure how you're testing summing by running a (single?) WAV file through a program) are unlikely to be audible by any human unless the algorithms used are wrong or made very poorly.

But I would assume some basic digital audio theory would pretty much be a prerequisite for writing audio software...

There are different floating point summing algorithms, but like I said, it usually doesn't matter a whole lot about the algorithm, as much as what bit depth the audio is at and what bit depth the audio engine processes data at.

[Robert D]

Count me in as another of the no one's that use Samplitude. There was a time when it was a clearly better sounding app. I think that gap has closed considerably, but there are so many aspects other than the summing algorthm, I wouldn't get too hung up on that. As far as it being a status symbol...... that's a good one. I'd say it's more like the best program that no one's ever heard of. I think it will always be an obscure app, but when I sit down and start working on someone's music with it, they get very impressed very quickly. SAW is another one like that; fantastic sounding app, rather obscure, and slightly quirky. In both cases, the users are quietly fanatical about their secret weapon. As Glen pointed out, they tend to be people who are doing rather organic stuff, though not always.

[Sonixx]

I sure hope you're not going to decide on Samp based on this discussion of summing.

Samp will do everything you mentioned that it can't.

as for it being over priced, you'll have decide. I don't think so. IMO, one has to experience Samp to appreciate it's design.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by danny.guitar

The subtle differences in audio summing (and I'm not sure how you're testing summing by running a (single?) WAV file through a program) are unlikely to be audible by any human unless the algorithms used are wrong or made very poorly.

Note that I never mentioned summing, I only said that the apps "sounded different". It's everybody else that seems to assume that the issue is in the summing engine. It may be, it may be elsewhere, I don't know. All I know is that I first noticed it when I exported (saved) a WAV file from GT2, imported it into Audition, and re-imported that same file back into GT2. With just that track active and playing, there was a subtle but noticable sonic difference. When I mentioned that over the phone to the other guy also working on the same mix on his own system, he acknowledged that he thought he heard the same thing. That's what got the ball rolling on the (admittedly informal) testing I did on further software on my own and a third different system (that third system by a guy who actually had Samplitude).

As I said, it doesn't make sense to me either that it should happen at all. I agree with you guys on that. I can only say that I have witnessed it with no explanation I can think of outside of the apps themselves, as everything else I could think of was set equal or was tested around.

And whether one wants to call it "wrong", "made poorly", or "broken", does that make it impossible? I've seen a LOT of poorly-designed or poorly-written software in my career, probably more than I've seen well-written software.

Originally Posted by danny.guitar

But I would assume some basic digital audio theory would pretty much be a prerequisite for writing audio software...

That would be a wonderful world, wouldn't it? Where all the software architects, development managers, and front-line developers were actually experts in the field for which they were writing software. Man, I can tell you first-hand that is disturbingly often not anywhere near the case.

I've known people to be in charge of accounting software projects for nationwide banks who were still learning just what their software was for two years after development started on the project, with line developers who didn't answer one single question right when quizzed on what the difference was between a debit and a credit. I have an associate who is currently doing battle with a supplier of software for running their type of retail business (in fairness to those people, I won't go into detail as to just what kind of business, but it's a fairly common and simple one that we all have used at least once in our lives.) But the software developers not only don't even know that POS meant point-of-sale, but they couldn't run one of those businesses their software was mant to run if their lives depended upon it. How could we tell? Because the software just plain didn't include key functionality. And we're not talking alpha or even beta versions here. We're talking about mature production versions. And don't count on the QC/QA staff. Those folks often know even less about the industry the software is being written for than the developers do. They often are just given a list of specific metrics to test for; metrics whose meanings are well outside their realm of expertise.

Originally Posted by danny.guitar

There are different floating point summing algorithms, but like I said, it usually doesn't matter a whole lot about the algorithm, as much as what bit depth the audio is at and what bit depth the audio engine processes data at.

Agreed. Again, I said the differences were quite subtle, and unless I was working on extremely tight-tolerance stuff like a Telarc production recording of the Berlin Philharmonic, I personally don't care that much. My Subaru pres and Chevy converters just don't make the BlueCoral polish of a Samplitude over the Simonize paste of an Audition worth the cost.

G.

[billyshuler]

I still use version 6, although I have versions 7 and 9 also. I like the workflow of samplitude better than other programs. There is alot to samplitude that you won't see at first glance.

[pipelineaudio]

Id LOVE for someone to show me a formula for "good"

Even IF I were to concede that one app COULD possibly make things sound "better" I would have to say that no magic, not to speak of any laws of physics could possibly EVER be "better"

To illustrate, lets say this magical power of Samplitude, or more likely, the magical powers of PT which are bandied about so much are some sort of process that results in one of three things, three POSSIBLE things we could attribute to their sound

1. Timing. I submit that if the app doesnt play things when they are supposed to be played, at final render ( Im allowing for some disk read/buffering issues here) it is BROKEN

in NO WAY could distorting the time POSSIBLY make things sound "better" always. I can think of a few cases where it could sound better, but plenty where it would be worse. NO WAY would it ever be "better" across the board. Also see footnote number 1*.

I submit that no amount of magic could possibly make timing the "better" factor

2. Tone. This one has been suggested time and time again, and might possibly be closer to the truth (except for footnote number 1*). It is true that say a small wide boost around 12k might be cool on a lot of stuff, however are you going to say it ALWAYS does? I submit distortion of the tone is NOT a universal "better". Id also like my tone NOT messed with please.

3. Dynamics. Louder is better right? ALWAYS? If I put 3 in I'd like to get three out. In a case where reducing the dynamic range would bring up the noise floor, I'd say leave my stuff alone. Actually, just leave my stuff alone. Of course, accounting for footnote number 1* this isnt the case.






Footnote #1: I and countless others have rendered the same crap in every app you can name and come up with nulling near -160dbFS. If you can show me a converter capable of playing back a level that low, let me know. Actually, find some ears that can discenr the output of that converter in an ABX test...

[Daveg62]

I've been using Samplitude 9 for a few months now. Switched over from Cubase. I'm not going to argue about it sounding any better because I don't know all the technical details but I can say that to my ears it does sound different. I'm very pleased with what I hear. Plus the plug-ins that come with samplitude are very good. It's a totally different way of working also that takes awhile to get used to. The object editing that you can do in this program is just brilliant and very powerful IMO.
And FYI, look around the net for the crossgrade version @ $499 . Same as the full version. That's quite a discount!

[Robert D]

I really don't get the all apps sound the same argument, except for the straight record/playback of a file case. Do these people think that the code for an equalizer looks like (If knob x = y, gain x = x + y), and that that's the code that every program uses? Do they think all plugins sound the same? Does a Sony Oxford EQ sound the same as a freebie EQ? The EQ code modules for different recording apps can be just as different, and EQ is just one instance of many where the apps are going to sound different, right down to dithering. Then, after a long list of code modules that do indeed sound different between apps, there's the less definable human interface, and how the app facilitates the AE's talent. Great tools bring out great work.
Really, I think it's silly to say that a good engineer is going to output identical files from a mix session on Samplitude and then on Cool Edit, or any other program. Null that!

[pipelineaudio]

Originally Posted by Robert D

I really don't get the all apps sound the same argument, except for the straight record/playback of a file case.

Theres no "think" about it, there is only the easily falsifiable claim that they DO sound the same

And they DO

Do these people think that the code for an equalizer looks like (If knob x = y, gain x = x + y), and that that's the code that every program uses? Do they think all plugins sound the same? Does a Sony Oxford EQ sound the same as a freebie EQ?

Strawman/Moving the goalposts. That wasn't the claim made

The EQ code modules for different recording apps can be just as different, and EQ is just one instance of many where the apps are going to sound different, right down to dithering.

Happily, thats why rejoice in the standards of Direct-x and VST, if an eq sounds better, you can use it, no matter what the app. Unless its proprietary.

there's the less definable human interface, and how the app facilitates the AE's talent. Great tools bring out great work.

Yes, which is why I claimed above and elsewhere when this stuff comes up. If an app is easier/ more inspiring to use, its PROBABLY going to sound better.

This is why I campaigned so hard for what ended up being the compressor called "major tom", by scott stillwell ( stillwellaudio.com ). I believe that "the sound of an app" is 99% or more how easy it was to GET the sounds going in a rough way, quickly...

Really, I think it's silly to say that a good engineer is going to output identical files from a mix session on Samplitude and then on Cool Edit, or any other program. Null that!

strawman (not that you arent right about that of course, you certainly are)