billyshuler
New member
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
Well-known member
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...
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
New member
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!
And FYI, look around the net for the crossgrade version @ $499 . Same as the full version. That's quite a discount!
R
Robert D
New member
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!
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
Well-known member
Theres no "think" about it, there is only the easily falsifiable claim that they DO sound the same
And they DO
Strawman/Moving the goalposts. That wasn't the claim made
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.
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...
strawman (not that you arent right about that of course, you certainly are)
R
Robert D
New member
I'm sorry, but I haven't smoked anything today to enable me to make sense of that statement. Are you saying they do sound the same, and it's easy to prove that they don't?
I don't know what goal post I'm moving, or what the claim was. I'm refering to the generalized claim that it doesn't matter, sonically, which recording software you use, because they all "sound" the same. I'm not refering to anyone in particular, but it's a statement I've heard floating around a few times. My point is that the null tests "proving this" have little to do with real world music production, which is where the goal post belongs. Samplitude, the thread topic, is an end to end recording, editing, mixing, mastering, and CD authoring solution. So the goal post is here is all the way down the field.
NL5
Unpossible!
I think you are mis-understanding the question. The argument is whether or not the actual app has a sound. Not what works better, has better plugins available, or whatever. The app should have no sound, they should just sum the audio. The plugins, the settings, the tracks themselves should alter the sound. The great thing about digital is the PERFECT summing. Some people may prefer analog summing (me included), but nobody will ever say it is summing the audio better. (did that make sense? I find it's flaws to be preferable to the perfection of digital summing) Anyway, what Pipeline is saying is the summing can be accurately measured in an empirical way, and has been, and all the summing algorithms either completely null, or damn near.
D
danny.guitar
Guest
A recording app doesn't have a "sound". Not when recording audio and not when playing it back. Only in processing like effects. Audio going into the computer will sound the same regardless of what software is recording it. The software just basically tells the interface what sample rate/bit depth to record at, and streams the audio to disk.
If the audio sounds different on recording or playing back, it is either doing it incorrectly doing some sort of processing on the sound. Don't know about anyone else, but I don't want my sound messed with.
D
danny.guitar
Guest
Also, some people say playback sounds different because of the summing algorithm used. If one summing engine sounds drastically different enough to be noticeable, then it it's probably not doing something right. Summing is really dependent on the bit depth the audio is at and the bit depth the software processes audio at.
Sonixx
New member
sounds all good, but not so fast...
short of just handing the data off, yes, but there's a lot more under the hood... the D/A has a sonic stamp, every plugin does, the D/A flavor's... why not the Digital console. that's what it is. analog consoles have flavor, why not Digital? vendors use different algorithms, so they will sound differently.
if all you are talking about is summing, that's a very small piece of the pie.
NL5
Unpossible!
Nope. Sorry. It's not like analog gear at all.
Why should it have a sound? What kind of sound should it have? I like the fact that it has no sound, and I can change the overall sound via plugin (which can easily be changed), or by sending it thru some analog gear.
Like Pipeline said, it's been empirically proven to have no sound. If your summing engine has a "sound" then it is broken.
NL5
Unpossible!
That is all we are talking about, and it is not a piece of the pie at all......
There are many reasons to prefer one app over the other. Better plugins is one (although most will run just about any plugin I believe). Workflow, editing, layout - all good reasons. The "sound" of the app just ain't one one of them.
NL5
Unpossible!
If you are trying to perfectly sum audio, then you should simply sum the audio, right? It's not a too terribly hard thing to do mathematically. If it imparted some sort of sound, then EVERYTHING you did would have that sound. Why not make the sound interchangeable? Maybe make some sort of system where you could put interchangeable effects into the loop? You could call the "plugins" or something. Brilliant!
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
Yeah, I could have written it better.
The claim "These apps have a different sound" or more specifically "the summing of these apps sound different" is a scientific claim
One of the tenets of making a scientific claim is that the claim MUST be falsifiable - there must be some set of conditions by which the claim can be disproven if those conditions are met.
For instance, lets say someone made the claim that "2+2=4". The condition for falsifiability would be that you would get something besides 4 when you add 2 and 2. This is a falsifiable claim.
The falsifiable condition for "different apps' summing sound different" would be to do a summing test and see if indeed they sounded the same. Therefore the claim that different apps summ diferently is false
If we accept the conditions that we are NOT just talking about summing then I wholeheartedly agree with this last paragraph
pipelineaudio
Well-known member
Then I go back to here https://homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=2698023&postcount=22
What POSSIBLE modification to the sound could an app make that made things "better" always?
I mean, accurately, what sort of *distortion* would this be? Frequency? Dynamics? Timing?
I personally cant think of anything but transparency which would always be acceptable.
Sonixx
New member
I have over 25 years writing simulation SW, and what seems like a trivial notion to the layman is not to the designer, especially elegant mathematical solutions that have some basis in reality (analog summing, not perfect digital summing). There is no real-world counterpart to perfect summing. If the case you put up is so trivial, then apply this to designing the "perfect" (to coin a phrase) preamp... a fairly trivial notion wouldn't you say.If you are trying to perfectly sum audio, then you should simply sum the audio, right? It's not a too terribly hard thing to do mathematically. If it imparted some sort of sound, then EVERYTHING you did would have that sound. Why not make the sound interchangeable? Maybe make some sort of system where you could put interchangeable effects into the loop? You could call the "plugins" or something. Brilliant!
perfect summing is not a physical possibility... so why should the DAW summing buss strive for something that's not a physical reality. maybe a good academic exercise, but reality dictates a different solution.
NL5
Unpossible!
I have over 25 years writing simulation SW, and what seems like a trivial notion to the layman is not to the designer, especially elegant mathematical solutions that have some basis in reality (analog summing, not perfect digital summing). There is no real-world counterpart to perfect summing. If the case you put up is so trivial, then apply this to designing the "perfect" (to coin a phrase) preamp... a fairly trivial notion wouldn't you say.
perfect summing is not a physical possibility... so why should the DAW summing buss strive for something that's not a physical reality. maybe a good academic exercise, but reality dictates a different solution.
Huh?
I think you misread what I said.
Digital summing far and away exceeds the precision of analog summing. I said digital summing is not that complex of an algorithm. I never claimed that analog summing could be made perfectly - I, in fact, said the opposite. It is terribly unperfect.