Sound quality differences between DAWs.

dirty · Post by **dirty** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 6:18 pm

I couldn't find any consensus on this with the search engine:

A friend just told me that he was thinking of switching from DP 3 to Nuendo because he'd heard that it sounds better/renders sounds more accurately etc...

Is this something that anyone out there has heard (other than you, Joe, if you're reading this?) If so, why? Shouldn't the sound/quality of a digital signal be determined by the hardware that actually does the conversion? I just got Audiodesk bundled with an 828 and I have no idea where that would rank...

knmy · Post by **knmy** » Sun Sep 12, 2004 7:16 pm

Check this out: http://www.3daudioinc.com/catalog/produ ... ucts_id/32

Everybody's X · Post by **Everybody's X** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:16 pm

I swear shit sounds better in Nuendo, even if it was tracked in another program. I have no idea why

spankenstein · Post by **spankenstein** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:53 pm

Everybody's X wrote:I swear shit sounds better in Nuendo, even if it was tracked in another program. I have no idea why

There was a thread about this on the Cakewalk forums. Once everythng was bounced to disk the wav file from Nuendo and the one from Sonar would be silent if you flipped phase on one. Meaning identical. Cakewalk did find some difference with regard to the panning law and something with teh rewire stuff that did make a difference.

I'm just going to say that if it works for you use it but it is strange how often that comment comes out.

Everybody's X · Post by **Everybody's X** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:46 pm

yeah its weird, Ive actualy just switched to sonar3 because its more flexible for me and my particular hardware setup (wmd drivers)

so I'm using a proggy that I believe sounds inferior but theres no explanation for it other than I just think it does.

I tracked my drums originally in vegas and I guarantee it sounded better coming out of nuendo, but I was using vegas 1 and nuendo 2, so I dont know if that made a difference or not.

this has to be Spankenstein from the Argument Machine right?

wazzup man?

-dave/ex

spankenstein · Post by **spankenstein** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:42 am

Yes, the same. I saw Celt make a post in the Mp3s forums and CMEZ is on here as well.

maz · Post by **maz** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:50 am

ok- I always get confused about this, so just help me out-

if you bounce a file in to DAW's and then flip the phase and they cancel out, that still doesn't account for the DA converters of the interface, does it?

I mean, could that be some of the reason we hear a difference?

I think that 99% of it is psychological, but I was just wondering if that could be a crucial part that is left out of the test.

spankenstein · Post by **spankenstein** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:10 am

Correct but if they are on the same system they are going through the same convertors. And what ever they get moved (or burnt) to they should sound the same.

There is no dispute that there are a lot of pshycological aspects to all of this.

Mr. Dipity · Post by **Mr. Dipity** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:37 am

spankenstein wrote:
Everybody's X wrote:I swear shit sounds better in Nuendo, even if it was tracked in another program. I have no idea why
There was a thread about this on the Cakewalk forums. Once everythng was bounced to disk the wav file from Nuendo and the one from Sonar would be silent if you flipped phase on one. Meaning identical. Cakewalk did find some difference with regard to the panning law and something with teh rewire stuff that did make a difference.

I'm just going to say that if it works for you use it but it is strange how often that comment comes out.

I use Nuendo, and things always sound better to me >after< the bounce, regardless of the application I am playing the file back in.

maz · Post by **maz** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:15 am

spankenstein wrote:Correct but if they are on the same system they are going through the same convertors.
There is no dispute that there are a lot of pshycological aspects to all of this.

yeah, I thought of that, but what if you're talking a PT system comparing to Nuendo? Can you use Nuendo through PT hardware?

Or are you saying the tests are done with an additional DA converter on each system?

This stuff always confuses the crap out of me, and in the end I know I'm probably not going to change my system so I tend to just kind of glance at it and forget it!

kcrusher · Post by **kcrusher** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:02 pm

Anyone that can't get a great sound out of any modern DAW needs to go back to school....

The differences we're talking about are so minor as to be irrelevant - and probably only relevant if you happen to be in a room full of recording engineers who like to talk shop all the time.

There's a fine line between 'raising the art' and getting pedantic or, worse, miring yourself in the details that you lose sight of the bigger picture.

Wilkesin · Post by **Wilkesin** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:12 pm

Not to derail this thread, but i was always under the impression the phrase "bounce to disc" was an anathema in the "pro audio" world... and with that in mind should it technically "sound better" for me to run my finished mixes out of my computer and record them into stereo tracks on my roommates before burning them to a CD (as opposed to just bouncing them)?

sorry for all the ""

hehehe

stillafool · Post by **stillafool** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:46 pm

I think if you just record a stereo track, and don't process the track, every DAW is going to sound about the same. A .wav file is a .wav file, unless you process it (add fx), or sum the tracks using the software (as opposed to the mixer). If you, for instance, record 8 tracks, sum the tracks using a hardware mixer, and use an outboard fx unit, there won't be any difference between the DAWs, unless I'm mistaken. If however you sum the tracks using the DAW's software mixer, there will be a difference, because each DAW program uses different summing algorithms. And if you start using a programs native processing (fx, fades, etc), then there will obviously be some difference, if subtle. To me, the summing algorithms in Pro Tools LE actually sound better than either Nuendo (which alot of people prefer, I know) or Sonar -- although I can't say way.

stillafool · Post by **stillafool** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:22 pm

Another thing that might affect the sound of a DAW is the internal resolution of edited files. You could record a track at 24 bit, 44.1, or whatever, but internal processing might be done at 32 bit floating point, or 48 bit fixed point or whatever. If you did alot of destructive editing, this could theoretically affect the sound. I still don't think you'd notice much difference, though, if you used an outboard mixer to sum the tracks, and outboard fx. Moreover, so much editing is nondestructive now that you probably won't notice much difference even if you edited alot.

dirty · Post by **dirty** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:19 am

Obviously my current method (mixdown in the box) uses that summing algorithm. What are other options that would be cheaper than buying a tape machine. (Buying much of anything is a stretch right now.)

Back out of my interface (828 mkII) to... ?

Message Board

Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Re: Sound quality differences between DAWs.

Who is online