Yes, but that’s not ALL I said. It’s just all that interests you. Get it? I think we’ve reached the end of useful discourse here.
You think there’s no difference at all in how Samp and Nuendo sound. I disagree. Do we need more?
“Sound” of daws doesn’t interest me for at least 7 years.
Cheers
Then why did you bother?
Why do ask about it?
I didnt. I reported what I heard while asking for feedback about Samp. Have you worked in Samp?
Yes I did. Not so much because I didn’t like it… Anyway, I am leaving this thread.
HAve a nice day
Guys …
Ever since Nuendo was supposely “the best sounding DAW in the world” (Elliot Sheiner is/was one of them), I have defended the objective explenation and scientific proof that Nuendo does not sound better than any other DAW.
Now I am very surprised that this is coming up again, but in the opposite way.
First of all, there is a fundamental difference between Fixed point and Floating point DAW’s, but when used correctly and excluded all variables, they sound exactly the same. No difference, proved over and over again. (BTW, “I trust my ears” doesn’t count)
There are a million reasons why you might think that one DAW sounds better than another one. For example, a floating point DAW is much more forgiving than a fixed point. In floating point, no need for gain staging, you can burn the input of an internal plugin by 100dB, it won’t make a difference. While doing the same in a fixed point mixer, you would be producing square waves. Then there is Pan Law and a million other things that need to be identical before you can make any objective comparison.
Setting up such tests was a hughe task, and the procedure was very strict. Lynn has done a great job setting up the blind test. My point is that none of the people who claim that they can hear a difference have never bothered to iron out the variables, making their “test” as flawed as can be.
If there is anything that Lynns’ test has proved, then it is that when comparing DAW’s objectively, and under scientific conditions, there is absolutely no difference. Which makes that any other argument (as we are reading them here again) is subjective. Lynn has proved that -when ironing out the variables- every DAW sounds exactly the same. In other words: that a skilled engineer can (and will) obtain equal results in each and every DAW.
It might very well be that the plugins sound better in another host, that the provided content is “better”, that the “feel” is better, that … fill in what you need/want …
If a specific DAW makes you feel better, and makes you think that it sounds better, then no-one will ever argue with you, because you simply can’t argue subjectivity.
I don’t care if you feel like your car is running better after visiting the Carwash, but I do have a problem when you try to make it look like a scientific fact.
Fredo
Fredo, I really don’t disagree with what you’ve said. I’m perfectly willing to entertain that there may be a difference in the way I use one over the other so, hopefully we can put this to rest. Again, I was reporting what I experienced, that’s all.
It might be interesting to have a different conversation about how useful it really is to “iron out the variables” since variables are an integral part of all work, but that’s not what I wanted to discuss here and again I regret that my observations derailed this thread.
Anyway, the reason I started using Samplitude was during the Cubase 4 cycle. I ended up with all kinds of trouble with Cubase 4, especially with 5.1 automation. I had Samplitude 8 which was mainly used as burning app, but I ported some projects over and started working with it. It seemed convoluted at first, but bit by bit it showed it’s qualities.
There is something appealing with the Cubendo workflow and gui, but all the bugs and issues have made me use it less during the recent years. I hoped that would change with Nuendo 5, but video and AAF issues still makes it difficult for me to depend fully on it. Sequoia on the other hand, has been incredibly solid, even with various video formats. I know both applications pretty well now and don’t mind using both depending on what kind of project I’m working on.
I still prefer tracking in Nuendo or Pro tools, but the object oriented editing capabilities of Sampliquoia is hard to beat in the mixing and mastering process.
Ola
+1
I really just don’t see the issue here:
While I don’t believe that DAWS have a sound (although Paris may have had purposefully), it is impossible to argue that features and workflow are not part of what makes one cater to some uses and another to other uses.
I know why I like Nuendo - I came from tape and a console and I wanted software that seemed most like that and of all I tried, Nuendo was most comfortable. At the time when I first tried Nuendo, I had had Sonar for since it was Cakewalk, Samplitude since 4.x, Cubase VST32 maybe, some lame version of Logic, an O2R and Tascam DAX8s, and fresh back from a Roger Nichols ProTools class mixing Steely Dan tracks. And Nuendo 1.52 was it for me after about a week of testing. And I still like it best for what I do.
Not that any of those other tools would not have worked or would not work now - sure they would …
Pick what works best for you - or a few - that’s all that makes sense. We are so lucky we have such amazing choices.
I own both Nuendo 5 and Samplitude 11. I won’t saying that one sounds better than the other but I will say that I can accomplish better sounds in one over the other. I can definitely hear a difference, but I can’t say why other than one is easier to get a better sound out of. I’ve used Samplitude since version 7 and am new to Nuendo within the year.
The thing I like about Nuendo is the automation and how easy it is to mix with especially using my Houston controller. Nuendo allows me to turn off my left brain and mix. Samplitude seems more scientific to me, more left brained… but the editing is second to none. I miss stuff like ripple edits in Nuendo and still don’t get why there is no mono button in the mixer.
Mono button + a zillion downmix options are available within Control Room.
Fredo
… and where is the problem to make the mono button available in Mixerpage? My ControlRoom is off mostly …
Euh … don’t know what to answer … really.
When you switch off the complete monitoring toolset (comparable with those in regular mixers/controllers), it is pretty obvious that you won’t be able to take advantage of any of the included features.
Youare putting yourself into a position where you need to use a workaround.
For example, insert Mixconvert into your master output, set to mono and use the bypass button to toggle between mono/stereo.
Fredo
i hate how people have no understanding of proper methodology. the whole BS about daws having a basic sound (as opposed to different plugins, mixing techniques and levels of inspiration that may result from the particular UI) is nothing more than a product of people not getting a handful of principles that are the very foundation of the scientific method.
and time and again, when its time for audio examples and properly applied blind tests, it all falls apart. its so embarassing for our profession as a whole, i dont know what else to say.
sorry, but thats the way i see it.
(edit: i like samplitude very much. but it doesnt have “a sound”. it has a nice suite of plugins that come with it. wouldnt take them over most of the UAD2 stuff though, so that doesnt really make a difference to me)
Derek, I was the only person on here who said anything of the kind and I qualified it strongly that it could be because of methodology. If you have to bully the topic into me saying it’s DEFINITELY because of methodology, then fine, it’s DEFINITELY because of that. Happy? This topic has moved on.
I find the extra floating window of the Control Room cluttering and I don’t use it either. If you only work in stereo, Totalmix is a much better solution than the CR. I have a mono button in Totalmix but it would be nice to have it on output buses in general.
Bassman is talking about what he would prefer, you’re telling him what it is.
Could you elaborate on why you prefer tracking in Nuendo? I’ve been playing with Samp and it’s more the mixing that’s given me pause about leaving SB. The horrible multi-track editing in Nuendo was my biggest problem with it.
The automation in Samp 11 doesn’t seem fully fleshed out. Tim at Magix says they’re fixing it in v12 this summer. I admit tho that I haven’t had time to really get comfortable with the object oriented approach. It’s cool on the surface, but real time automation is so fast and of course the workflow that I’ve had my entire career.
It’s just interesting to see you saying the opposite of what I was feeling.
YES! You captured what I’ve been struggling with , which is the left/right brain appeals. Still trying to carve out time for mixing on Samp, although I have done a little mastering.
Tim didn’t seem to know how you automate recalling snapshots. I’m assuming there’s a way to do it otherwise it’s not really so much a snapshot as it is a preset.
Well, that doesn’t solve the problem with an extra floating window though, right?
I’m also curious as to why CR is a much better solution. What is it that it does that CR doesn’t do, or what is it that it does much better?
He did give a solution to the problem though…