why does samplitude cost so much?

[Bulls Hit]

I mean, accurately, what sort of *distortion* would this be? Frequency? Dynamics? Timing?

Don't different apps implement different dithering algorithms?

It's entirely conceivable that the distortion added by the Samplitude's dithering is more sonically pleasing than the distortion added by one of Sonar's dithering algorithms.

It's totally subjective of course as to which sounds 'better', but the point is they would sound Different

 

[Sonixx]

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.

High quality digital summation is no less a trivial matter than is high quality analog summation.

 

[Bulls Hit]

Digital summing far and away exceeds the precision of analog summing.

Yes but rounding errors will accumulate even in 64 bit floating point calculations.

It's conceivable that even with this level of accuracy, 2 different 64-bit summing engines performing different calculations on the same audio data will accumulate different levels of errors/inaccuracies that could well creep into the final result when rendered back to 24 bit.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Its possible, when you add dither to come up with some differences for sure. Theres more than one third party dither plugin floating around too and that could make a huge difference.

But if you put the same dither plug in both apps, excepting for the random generator function in some of the dither algos, theyll still null

Even with different dither algos, often the difference between two files is lower than the ability of the digital to analog player to convert it back

 

[danny.guitar]

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.

Analog consoles are hardware, and they are not digital. So it's kind of moot to try and compare it to a digital system.

I can record a track in Windows Sound Recorder and the best DAW and the result will be the same.

The interface's D/A converters, or plugins, are completely independent from the software, and of course they're going to sound different.

 

[NL5]

High quality digital summation is no less a trivial matter than is high quality analog summation.

Ummmm, I beg to differ. Perfect digital summation is pretty easily accomplished. Perfect analog summation is impossible. (not to mention WAY more expensive to purchase)

I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise.

Why does this feel like Deja Vu?!?!?!?!?

 

[Bulls Hit]

Perfect digital summation is pretty easily accomplished.

I'm not sure about this. You've only got a finite number of bits to work with, 32, 64 whatever. When you're adding or multiply big numbers together, sooner or later the 64 bits will overflow which means truncation and rounding errors creeping in. Once you hit the first error, you no longer have perfection

 

[Sonixx]

Ummmm, I beg to differ. Perfect digital summation is pretty easily accomplished. Perfect analog summation is impossible. (not to mention WAY more expensive to purchase)

I'm not sure why you would argue otherwise.

Why does this feel like Deja Vu?!?!?!?!?

what are you begging to differ... reread my post... I stated High Quality. high quality and perfection are not even remotely related.

my point is that "perfect digital summation" is not the end-all be-all and shouldn't be a goal at all.

a DAW is really an Analog Console Emulator and should be designed as such. perfection when trying to replicate analog behaviors is not the main goal. sonic quality should be, which does not require perfection. actually it requires just the opposite, some degree of randomness

 

[danny.guitar]

what are you begging to differ... reread my post... I stated High Quality. high quality and perfection are not even remotely related.

my point is that "perfect digital summation" is not the end-all be-all and shouldn't be a goal at all.

a DAW is really an Analog Console Emulator and should be designed as such. perfection when trying to replicate analog behaviors is not the main goal. sonic quality should be, which does not require perfection. actually it requires just the opposite, some degree of randomness

 

[Sonixx]

put in another way...

"Perfect Digital Summing" is touted as a worthy the design goal... why?

it's well established that early digital has a cold harsh feel/sound and why? while the math was well understood, there's a lot more.

the goal should be the same as in an analog console... a very pleasing sonic summation. the designers stamp.

I'll take a warm pleasing "non-perfect digital" summation over "perfect summation" any day.

again, I've developed real-world simulation for over 25 years, and we have to take strides to code in the real-world non-linearities that add to realism. clients often feedback that the simulation response is too repeatable... analogy "Perfect Summation"

 

[Robert D]

Arghh!!

Ok, let me try this again. How many of you use your recording software strictly to record tracks, and then sum them, using no EQ, or performing any edits, crossfades, etc.? Is that really how everyone else mixes? I'm the only shmuck who hasn't achieved the perfect mic locker, placement techniques, room acoustics, instrument and vocal tone, and only records flawless performances, such that no other aspect of the DAW need be used? Just summing?
Or is it that everyone else besides me uses plugins for everything on every track, never using any of the host app's EQ or other processes, and again never doing edits or crossfades?

 

[pipelineaudio]

what are you begging to differ... reread my post... I stated High Quality. high quality and perfection are not even remotely related.

And again, which type of *distortion* are you defining as "high quality"?

It is possible to add a distortion algo to the summing of apps and its something I've actually been looking into as an option where I am involved

 

[pipelineaudio]

Ok, let me try this again. How many of you use your recording software strictly to record tracks, and then sum them, using no EQ, or performing any edits, crossfades, etc.? Is that really how everyone else mixes?

Again, thanks to the standards of DX and VST, this is largely irrelevant, unless you are claiming that some hosts handle plugins better (which is true, but not to get into a major flamefest over here lets just say that Samplitude and most others DO handle this correctly, but there are some that dont)

Since you can use whatever, wherever, an equal sound can be created using the same plugs and the same settings

Or is it that everyone else besides me uses plugins for everything on every track, never using any of the host app's EQ or other processes, and again never doing edits or crossfades?

Personally I DO use the host's plugs, but most of those are available wherever, and those that arent are functions that can be found in others. But the second parts about edits brings up some issues

Edits and crossfades CAN be handled equally across the board but often arent.

Add to this the variety of fade and x-fade shapes some hosts have. I suspect they ALL include linear though so that should null.

More importantly to your point though, there ARE apps where editing becomes such a time consuming task that sloppy edits are allowed thru, THAT would make a difference in the output and you can hear the results anytime you turn on the radio