Trying Samplitude Again....

Steinberg Lounge
#1

It’s been a long time since I even tried Samplitude. I’ve been pretty frustrated with the editing in Nuendo, the length of time between upgrades, the lack of mastering. A cross-grade to Samplitude would cost more or less the same as Wavelab so I’m going to try the 30 day demo.

My impression of Samplitude previously was that it was too inflexible. It had some amazing features, but Nuendo let me create my own workflow to a greater extent. I have a friend who swears by Samplitude though and claims it’s a whole different app now than a few years ago. So, we’ll see… As always, it would be a lot easier if Steinberg were simply more competitive.

Again, the fix to edit groups (when a necessary function is missing, THAT’S a fix, not a feature) should be implemented immediately in a maintenance release for Nuendo. This is a glaring flaw in the product and I think the leading cause of attrition to PT9. A little uncharacteristic responsiveness from SB in this case would be a welcome change to business as usual.

#2

Working with the Samp demo.

So far I see a host of features missing in Nuendo from Playlists to hybrid latency projects which are in addition to the ones that were always there like true object-oriented mixing, mastering, real abilities to deal with mono/stereo files, etc.

The most obvious difference though, right off the bat, was that Samplitude simply sounds better. There’s been TONS of BS over the years about all DAWs sounding the same and Lynn Funston’s shoots out and whatnot, but I put up a very simple acoustic guitar/vocal recording that I was working on in Nuendo and there’s no way around it. The phase is tighter in Samplitude and overall it’s just more clear and true to life. Exact same hardware, same tracks, etc.

I think I’m closing in on my decision. Any one here have experience with Samp 11 and can offer a compelling reason NOT to switch?

#3

You are obviously wrong and any proper blind test will prove it.

#4

Pretty defensive. Why don’t you download the free samp trial and test it yourself?

#5

I’m pretty tired of dealing with a company who is splitting their energies between the film world and music and blatantly telling us that film comes first. I held out hope that Yamaha’s acquisition of SB might turn things around, but N5 was a spit in the eye of every music user. I’m seriously expected to lay out $400 for an upgrade that doesn’t even address what is a completely dysfunctional multi-track editing model? A crossgrade to Samp Pro is only $500.

Magix is a perfect example too. SB has always cried about being the little guy who doesn’t have Avid/Digi’s resources, but here is Magix writing clean software, addressing music needs, without waiting 2 + years for an upgrade. It was certainly an improvement that N5 hasn’t taken until 5.3 to deliver a stable version, but it’s too little, too late, for too much money.

I’ve been using Nuendo since 2002. I’m VERY comfortable on it. I have loads of old projects on it. I would LOVE to not feel the need to change and it’s for this reason that it’s taken me so long. Until now, no DAW has really answered all the needs of music production, but we’re quickly getting to the point where EVERY DAW is slowly adding whatever innovations the other has missed. Avid is finally going Native, Nuendo is addressing editing, albeit at its usual glacial pace. Until the most recent upgrade Samp was missing a lot too, but comparing Samp 11 to N5 you see a clear distinction between one company who is solidly focused on the needs of the music community and one who is trying to please too many with one product.

I still haven’t had time to do a full mix on the Samp Demo but I’m looking forward to trying it.

#6

I’m a Sequoia/Samplitude 11 user and yes, it has a lot of strength so won’t argue :wink:
Nuendo is filling a gap in the MAC post pro world for me, but also as a midi tool.
For hardcore mixing/mastering it’s mostly Sequoia/Samplitude.

And yes, some of the big industry guys choose Samp for the sound, as do I.
If someone doesn’t believe it - who cares? :smiley:

#7

Magix release Sequoia (top line version - equals Nuendo + Wavelab) and Samplitude ( with different cheaper variants) at the same time, restricting features by license. No leapfrogging and Nuendo is for post and Cubase for Music marketing BS.

#8

Really? They’ve been saying for a while now that leap-frogging will continue and that Cubase is for music. So why not just switch over the app that’s supposed to do what you want to do, plus gets all the upgrades first?

You hear the phase being tighter listening to one track?

Seriously, this isn’t a matter of opinion but fact: There is no significant difference between the daws as far as summing / playback goes. You could argue that the plugins sound different, or that you end up working differently based on the software and that that yields a different sound, but in terms of simple summing / playback there’s no difference to worry about.

Other than that I agree with some of what you say…

#9

It’s a waste of time trying to get inside SB’s head and figure out their motivations, but the simple fact is the time span between N4 and N5 was really 2 release cycles by even a generous accounting. The year that both Avid and Magix introduced automated pitch correction SB released nothing at all. So now it should be no surprise that SB has fallen behind and we’re still dealing with grouping that belongs on Garage Band.

Time matters. And this problem is only made worse by the lack of focus. How are you going to offer the best solution for music, MIDI, film, etc all at once when you are producing upgrades at 1/2 the rate of competitors who are either twice your size or far more focused on their market?

The lag between N4 and N5 was a serious blow to the product overall. Whatever will be in N6 should’ve been released last fall.

#10

It was 3 tracks. 2 mics on the guitar and one on vocals. Phase can be affected by many issues other than summing. Samp/Seq have a very different signal path than Nuendo. If you’ve never seen the object-oriented mixing really put to a test it’s pretty mind-blowing. You can dice an object into 100 pieces and put dufferent plugs on each one and it will seamlessly load/unload all of them. It’s a whole different beast under the hood.

No one would try to sell a DAW that can’t pass a null test, but that’s not all there is to the story in terms of real usage. Seriously, I defy anyone to put up the samp demo and not be specifically impressed by the sound. It’s just better. While you’re at it, try out the FFT EQ on the master channel. Crank it up to 10,000 filters. Astounding!

#11

I tried. Sounds identical.

#12

To each their own.

#13

Wow, I can get behind the preference of one software over another, but going back to the dark ages of DAW sound is hard to fathom in the 21st century.

As for a challenge - you know if you believe it sounds better and that makes you feel better and happier and more motivated, then who cares about math and science. Mind you in dismissing Lynn’s shoothout, you are dismissing the in depth exploration of many really good engineers as well as digital audio experts like Paul Frindle from Sony and Nika Aldrich who literally wrote the book on it. But again, so what, if you get better results or results you prefer, then so you do.

People believe all sorts of things that are not based on any science - this is a minor one in the grand scheme of things.

And you don’t need anyone’s blessing from here to do what you think you need to do.

We should all choose the products which suit our needs best - why wouldn’t we? :confused:

#14

I am sure you are not software engineer and do not know what is going on inside app. But if you knew digital theory good enough, you wouldn’t say what you said.

No one would try to sell a DAW that can’t pass a null test, but that’s not all there is to the story in terms of real usage.

There is nothing more in summing then summing. Null test means sounds identical.

Seriously, I defy anyone to put up the samp demo and not be specifically impressed by the sound.

I can say the same to anyone who say samplitude sounds better. Because the only thing it means, person has made mistake while testing or just doesn’t care about proper conditions… Total subjectivity.
I have tested Logic vs Samplitude vs Nuendo vs even behringer digital mixer. All the same. Just be precise.

It’s just better. While you’re at it, try out the FFT EQ on the master channel. Crank it up to 10,000 filters. Astounding!

We are not talking about plugins.


But I can agree with Steve - if your perception helps you make great mixes then it doesn’t matter.

#15
#16

Hi Steve,

I followed Lynn’s tests at the time very carefully. I’m not challenging that each DAW can pass data through its system that will null, which was all those tests actually looked at. Although time does matter and it’s been quite some since those tests where there’s been room to muck things up, but I’m fine with offering all DAWs the benefit of that doubt. In real world usage there are many more variables from how each DAW handles PDC (both in channels and groups) and how they handle things like memory leaks in the OS, multi-proc allocation, HD stress, etc. In the case I cited these were not a factor so there must be something else going on. It’s dismissive to say that just because I can’t point to the exact reason why something is,that it doesn’t exist. I’ve been using the same monitors since 2003 and Nuendo since 2002. I really know what things are supposed to sound like on my system. I’m in a very good position to know if things are sounding different. This isn’t a matter of faith. It’s a fact without an explicit explanation which is actually very scientific if you’re motivated to find the explanation. Lynn’s tests simply proved that all systems COULD sound the same. I’ve used the DAWs that do actually claim to sound better, Sonic Solutions and Samplitude. My experience with both of them is that they are right. Maybe their engineers could explain why.

I’m also not opposed to the notion that the differences may be in how various DAWs encourage their use. It may be in the gain structure or even in how the metering works, but in that very simple session, I very quickly got a sound that was better than I got with twice the effort in Nuendo. I shared my impressions of what I heard. You are certainly free to disregard them.

I’m not looking for blessings regarding Samp (that wasn’t clear?). I’m looking for information because changing DAWs is not a casual thing. So far the only person who actively uses both seems to agree that Samp might be a better solution for what I’m doing and that right there was worth the effort. There aren’t a lot of folks running around who really know both systems. To be sure I’ll be asking the same question on the Samp forum.

The last time I seriously looked at Samp was version 7. The limitations to workflow were great back then. What I’m seeing is that it’s really come a long way in that time. On paper Samp blows the doors the off Nuendo for straight up audio work, but I’m looking for insight into things that are not so obvious on paper. I like the feel of Nuendo better, but I’m not sure if that’s just familiarity or if the design is simply better.

Rustami has been an ardent defender of Nuendo on this forum for years and that’s fine for him. I’ve always felt it lacked what I needed but was the best of some poor choices. Right now I have sessions where I multi-mic amps or instruments and then sometimes pile up takes. This scenario is a nightmare in Nuendo. Editing in lanes is awful.

The answer may very well be that it’s worth it for me to drop $2600 on PT9, but if there’s a solution for $500 that also has mastering features…I’m gonna investigate that first.

I regret bringing up the sound issue. I stand by what I heard, but it’s not the main point of my interest. I’ve been getting pro results on Nuendo for years. I guess arguing a point that’s as old as the hills is a good distraction from the more obvious issues. Nuendo does certainly have something to be defensive about these days.

#17

Plugins don’t matter to the very limited scope of what interests you Rastami which is defending Nuendo’s capability. They matter very much in what I’m interested in which is which DAW will help me produce a better product, more quickly and easily. I’ve seen nothing in Nuendo or from a third party that can be used in Nuendo that matches what that particular plug-in does in Samp.

#18

I am not defending Nuendo. I am saying that hosts do not “sound”. And please, do not juggle with my words. I didn’t say plugins do not matter. I said this has nothing to do with “host’s sound”. Of course, using different plugins will make mix sounds differently.

#19

You said “We are not talking about plugins”

I am not specifically talking about “host sound”. A killer plug in that helps me reach a result faster/easier/better is of great significance to me and the topic of this post.

#20

This is what you said initially:

“The most obvious difference though, right off the bat, was that Samplitude simply sounds better. There’s been TONS of BS over the years about all DAWs sounding the same and Lynn Funston’s shoots out and whatnot, but I put up a very simple acoustic guitar/vocal recording that I was working on in Nuendo and there’s no way around it. The phase is tighter in Samplitude and overall it’s just more clear and true to life. Exact same hardware, same tracks, etc.”

:unamused: :question: I would say nothing against some plugin you like.