Damn, I can spend only one like per post. @Thor.HOG I would offer you a virtual beer! 
No that is absolute b------t. The ear stays almost the same (if nothing unusual happens), your brain is changing, and it is very easy to fool your brain.
Hearing is a combination of the ear and the brain.
Example? > Phantom center!
Of course, they can.
Thatâs awesome.
EDIT: I deleted the rest. Over and out, yo.
Damn, I bet it was funny! 
Tonight, I will trial Magix Sequoia and I expect to be dancing with protons. Nothing less. My ears are ready and so am I.
Seriously, I cannot believe that Magix pulled this ancient advertising trick out of their hats letting John Greenham (Mastering Engineer Billie Eilish) say that their DAW acutally sounded better. LOL, this is the year 2025 and yet we are having the exact same argument people had in the 1990s when Logic and Pro Tools allegedly sounded better than Cubase.
In all fairness, if you are new to the game and a company throws such a tempting claim at you - itâs easy to fall for it! Maybe my younger self would have fallen for it, too. Now, that my ears are fully developped I can say in all honesty that this is bollocks nonsense 
Excellent post, @Thor.HOG 
Meanwhile, this is still happening. 
Fair enough, each to their own. You are entitled to have your own opinion on that matter and I am totally fine with it. Of course, I am. Whatever suits you best to make music - thatâs all that matters at the end of the day!
In the meantime, the scientistâs heart inside of me is bleedingâŠI will try to mend it in silence⊠
Please allow us to have some fun. In this summer heat, scientific arguments are making me sweat, so I wanted to laugh a little.
Additionally, if this internal sound phenomenon were purely a marketing ploy, why would Grammy engineers still call it the best sound? Would such important engineers use their own names just for marketing purposes? Iâm just curious, and if this is science, how come engineers at this level arenât aware of it?!
YES!!
I wouldnât take testimonials too serious. Look at any other ad: celebraties are claiming all sorts of things about products. I wouldnât go so far and say that they are all lying. However, the level of integrity might vary and sometimes promises are phrased in a way that they are cleared for legal reasons but they might still be far away from the actual truth. Itâs advertising - as simple as that.
is all this advertising?
It sounds convincing to me that he favours Magix Sequoia over other DAWs. But thatâs not for me to say whether or not he truly believes it and if these words are his own. Itâs all good - I am not in a position to judge and I wonât.
He also claims that it sounded better âfor whatever reasonsâ. From a scientific standpoint itâll be highly unlikely to prove that Sequoia sounds any different from another DAW. Maybe itâs the way someone interacts with the DAW, the workflow, the graphic design - everything has an impact on our judgement.
As I said earlier - each to their own. If you feel that this DAW gets you to places like no other DAW does - then thatâs the DAW to go with! No hard feelings whatsoever
Indeed. The whole thing just boils down to PT/Samplitude/etc applying 24-bit dithering by default to the 64-bit internal format during playback monitoring. Thatâs literally the entire point the paragraphs of âChatGPTâ are meant to articulate, and what this entire troll-a-thon is about.
Of course, Cubendo does the exact same thing during mix down, and if you want it on playback monitoring, just stick the dither into Control Room:
Done. You now have bit-perfect playback monitoring with âthe magic none of the Grammy Winning Engineers want you to know about!â 
I brought up this topic because Iâm just trying to understand it. For years, the same things have been said not only about Sequoia but also about Pro Tools, and over the years, all other DAWs, including DOP, have added item FX and event FX features, so now, apart from the rumors about sound quality differences, there is no real superiority of one DAW over another. In this situation, itâs frustrating that they still claim to offer better sound quality without explaining why. I didnât come to this forum to impose my views; I just wanted to see how people here view this issue, hoping someone might come forward and technically prove that itâs not true. Because itâs claimed that Sequoia and Pro Tools sound different from others because they preserve phase integrity along the signal path, Now, if we believe that, then a question comes to mind: do Cubase and Logic, for example, not preserve phases? I donât know.
A very interesting approach. Iâm curious, Iâll give it a try.
thanks
As far as we can tell all the DAWs preserve the phases on playback. For a DAW an audio signal is just numbers with a time stamp attached to them. As long as they donât actively change the time stamp the phase is preserved.
Of course there are plugins who introduce a phase movement, like EQs. Thatâs how EQs work in the first place. But that is not what the Sequioa endorsing gentleman referred to. He said he just loaded an audio file into it and played it back.
If you load an audio file into an empty project and play it back, what the DAW does is to relay the values of the samples from the file to the driver of the audio interface.
The thing that might happen: audio singals that are stored in an integer format (e.g. 16bit, 24bit) might get transformed to a floating point format (in Cubase you can select whether you want to use 32bit float or 64bit float). The signal will then be converted back to an integer format on its way to the speakers. I am not sure at this time whether that last conversion happens in the DAW or in the audio driver.
Many DAWs seem to offer a little fade in/out for engaging playback or stopping it. These DAWs would defintely alter the played back signal, albeit just for a small duration and then we are talking about a volume level change, which does not introduce phase problems.
All in all - it takes a bigger effort for a DAW to introduce changes to the original audio signal than to just play back the signal as it is.
When recording with Samplitude Pro X9, full-bit transparency and floating point calculations are used to preserve the clarity, neutrality, transients, and spatiality of the sound even after intensive digital processing.
Donât other DAWs use full-bit transparency and floating point calculations ?
Can you describe what âfull-bit transparencyâ means?
As per my knowledge all DAWs use floating point calculations at this date. Cubase uses it since the 90âs with the VST versions. I think Pro Tools was the last to switch somewhere in the 2000âs.
To be honest: The sentence that you wrote sounds like it comes from the magix marketing department. They have a tendency (like other marketing departments) to wrap some common things into fancy words to make it sound special.
I didnât use this argument anyway. This is what they wrote. I asked what it meant because I was curious. So what is meant here?
I would phrase it by saying âthe audio integer format is converted into 32bit float or 64bit float every time.â This just âadd zerosâ to the numeric format while retaining the value. If the audio file is already in 32bit float and the DAW internal processing is also 32bit float, nothing should happen. In any case, the amplitude value represented shouldnât change.
It could be both, and it depends. I obviously donât have the code, but on your Windows system using ASIO, my guess is that the ASIO driver tells Cubase âhey man, this interface is 24 bitâ and Cubase will then convert to 24-bit so the driver gets what it wants. On my Mac, Core Audio tells Cubase âjust give it to bro, Iâll convert itâ and Cubase (again, presumably) just hands it over in 32bit float.
The distinction being made here is that some DAWs choose to convert to 24-bit all the time before sending audio to the interface, and will dither it. All the DAWs I know (not that Iâm a global expert by any means) always do this on bouncing/rendering/mixdown/exporting. Some DAWs (like Cubase) do NOT automatically dither when monitoring playback in the DAW. For samples, my opinion is that this wonât matter because the sample should already have been dithered when it was created. The potential concern (I believe) is that not dithering before handing off the bitstream to the audio driver could potentially round down (truncate) the least significant bit of a 32bit float amplitude value when converted to 24bit, which (if the math is correct) would result in a .00001 dBFS reduction of that sample.
Ever since using Cubase, Iâve never had any reason to actually use the dithering for playback monitoring. I canât hear .1 dBFS, much less .00001. But I can if I want to, even if the people ultimately listening to my productions will mostly likely be doing do on bluetooth headsets from a cell phone streaming on WiFi.
You might want to consider citing your references, because you posted that as if you wrote it. Further, you might find it more valuable to ask Magix that question. Youâre in the user forum for Steinberg products, so if the answer is actually important to you, getting opinions from people - who may not even use the product youâre talking about - as to what Magix may or may not mean by something they posted on their website seems rather specious.
I think the same goes for the âhundreds of people,â you referenced. Maybe, just maybe, you might consider asking them what they are hearing, rather than asking random people in some other forum what we think they are hearing. Pursuant to that thought, it seems like youâre forgetting that YOU are one of those people - now may be the chance for you to âthink about what you hearâ since YOU are the one hearing it, and you have 40-years of ear training behind you. My guess is that your own personal experience will be slightly better than asking people here why they think you hear what you claim to hear. Right?
Itâs not a question of what I think, itâs a question of people who know very deeply, and to learn from them, because if you ask them, they will not answer, itâs a magic that is not clear what it is, but it can be heard, and if you are bored to talk about what it means, you may not write in this thread. Because this is not a topic about this, this is not a topic about that, this is a topic about discussion, there should be consensus and opposing views and all kinds of views, thatâs what discussion is all about, if you donât like the topic, you shouldnât have gotten involved! I didnât come with a claim, I just wanted to see people who know to give their opinions in depth and I wanted to see that, thatâs all.
