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.