pucho812
Well-known member
So a good engineer I know was telling me at the aea 50'th birthday bash, yes aea mics, was that presonus studio one sounds more analog then other daw's? has anyone used it? any comments?
discuss.
discuss.
presonus studio one
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
etheory
Well-known member
The idea that DAWs sound different is about as believable as Unicorns and Magic fairy dust.
There are innumerable tests done by various people showing that ALL DAWs (Ableton Live, Cubase, Studio One, Logic, etc. etc. etc.) ALL null to be EXACTLY the same (given the same settings and plugins - i.e. a fair comparison).
Much like the various "audiophile" suggestions out there, and much the same way that coat-hanger wire really can beat monster cable in a blind test, it's all voodoo.
A DAW is a DAW. Effectively, their main difference is the way they look.
I saw a study recently (I can dig it up if people are truly interested, but it might take a while) comparing the way DAWs made people feel emotionally.
The outcome of the study was that the way the DAW looks did more to impart preference than the sound did.
In a blind test not a single person could tell which DAW they were listening to.
Golden ears or otherwise. Because, there is no difference.
Well, that's my2c on it anyway ;-)
However I can say this from experience.
And I know enough math to tell you that, regardless of what anyone else might tell you, a digital null test is flawless.
If it nulls, it is the same, 100%, no margin for any error at all.
I tried every DAW out there, more than once.
From Madtracker, to Logic, to Cubase, to Live, there is not one scrap of difference between how they sound, and neither should there be.
Adding two numbers together is as programmatically atomic as you can get.
With architectures now almost always Intel, addition is addition is addition, as is multiplication.
The only potential difference is your choice of output dithering, and the internal resolution.
DAWs are either 32bit or 64bit if they support VST (either float or double precision).
They can choose to switch between either depending on what the plugins at any point in the signal chain decide to support (i.e. you can switch between float or double constantly depending on the implementation).
This cannot be avoided.
The signal is as strong as its weakest link - i.e. the first 32bit plug-in you have.
There is a difference also between 32bit and 64bit as commonly referred to by memory bandwidth. I am talking instead about the sound buffer bit width being 32 or 64. Even a 32bit app can support 64bit double width audio.
This along with the dithering choice determines if there is any difference to the output.
The reason this is void is that the highest lossless format I am aware of is 32bit raw .wav files. Hence once you save the file, they are all the same. Also dithering is really a job for a program other than a DAW. You can't expect every DAW manufacturer to implement the worlds best dithering option, so, long story short, in reality, the idea that Presonus Studio "sounds more analog" is tantamount to the idea that the Loch Ness Monster is real.
There are innumerable tests done by various people showing that ALL DAWs (Ableton Live, Cubase, Studio One, Logic, etc. etc. etc.) ALL null to be EXACTLY the same (given the same settings and plugins - i.e. a fair comparison).
Much like the various "audiophile" suggestions out there, and much the same way that coat-hanger wire really can beat monster cable in a blind test, it's all voodoo.
A DAW is a DAW. Effectively, their main difference is the way they look.
I saw a study recently (I can dig it up if people are truly interested, but it might take a while) comparing the way DAWs made people feel emotionally.
The outcome of the study was that the way the DAW looks did more to impart preference than the sound did.
In a blind test not a single person could tell which DAW they were listening to.
Golden ears or otherwise. Because, there is no difference.
Well, that's my2c on it anyway ;-)
However I can say this from experience.
And I know enough math to tell you that, regardless of what anyone else might tell you, a digital null test is flawless.
If it nulls, it is the same, 100%, no margin for any error at all.
I tried every DAW out there, more than once.
From Madtracker, to Logic, to Cubase, to Live, there is not one scrap of difference between how they sound, and neither should there be.
Adding two numbers together is as programmatically atomic as you can get.
With architectures now almost always Intel, addition is addition is addition, as is multiplication.
The only potential difference is your choice of output dithering, and the internal resolution.
DAWs are either 32bit or 64bit if they support VST (either float or double precision).
They can choose to switch between either depending on what the plugins at any point in the signal chain decide to support (i.e. you can switch between float or double constantly depending on the implementation).
This cannot be avoided.
The signal is as strong as its weakest link - i.e. the first 32bit plug-in you have.
There is a difference also between 32bit and 64bit as commonly referred to by memory bandwidth. I am talking instead about the sound buffer bit width being 32 or 64. Even a 32bit app can support 64bit double width audio.
This along with the dithering choice determines if there is any difference to the output.
The reason this is void is that the highest lossless format I am aware of is 32bit raw .wav files. Hence once you save the file, they are all the same. Also dithering is really a job for a program other than a DAW. You can't expect every DAW manufacturer to implement the worlds best dithering option, so, long story short, in reality, the idea that Presonus Studio "sounds more analog" is tantamount to the idea that the Loch Ness Monster is real.
pucho812
Well-known member
interesting point. I have come to the conclusion that it's all a matter of what you like work flow wise. I may consider taking it for a test drive just to see what is what... Who knows.
etheory
Well-known member
pucho812 said:
Absolutely. That's why I went with Ableton Live for 99% of my work, and then scoring on Sibelius.
I find both fast, simple to use, and they stay well out of the way of my creative process, letting me just get the job done as quickly as possible.
I recently opened up Logic on a friends computer to help them with some issues they were having and felt completely lost. It was the most unintuitive complex thing I'd seen for ages. I hated it immediately. Really got in the way of getting stuff done. But yeah, it's all up to the user.
Haha about Logic. Similar emotions here.
But yeah, if you want the fat German tone, go for Cubase/Nuendo. No dillema here (except that Nuendistas think they have the best sound in the known universe). If you want a mix that already sound mastered, use Samplitude.
But the paradox is that since kids started having hits done with Fruity Loops, I observed the itch in the old farts wanting to emulate that Fruity electro sound.
Like wanting to make their "expensive" daw doing the tone of the cheap fruity loops.
But yeah, if you want the fat German tone, go for Cubase/Nuendo. No dillema here (except that Nuendistas think they have the best sound in the known universe). If you want a mix that already sound mastered, use Samplitude.
But the paradox is that since kids started having hits done with Fruity Loops, I observed the itch in the old farts wanting to emulate that Fruity electro sound.
Like wanting to make their "expensive" daw doing the tone of the cheap fruity loops.
etheory
Well-known member
With all due respect, unless you are joking, you are suggesting that Fruity Loops sounds different to Samplitude and Cubase and Nuendo.
By sounds different I have to assume you mean that the files they generate when given the same input are somehow different.
I've seen comparative tests that scientifically show they are identical.
If you want to talk about the inbuilt instruments and effects, absolutely, the quality of those varies immensely, but if you talk about the DAW itself, I can't see how you could honestly say things like "If you want a mix that already sounds mastered, use Samplitude." - it just sounds like marketing speak - and it doesn't really mean anything.
Because of this type of illogical stigma, I stick well clear of the instruments that come with a DAW and exclusively use hardware synths and VST Instruments and effects. This way I can transport my basic ideas between any DAW with VST support (with a little work), and free myself from "sounding like everyone else using Fruity Loops", or what have you. Having done this a few times, I've experienced first hand the complete and utter lack of difference between all the major DAWs. I can bounce stuff in any of them and null it down to any precision you care to mention.
It just worries me that people read things like "fat German tone" and believe there is some sort of truth to a statement like that with no evidence for it. It's binary numbers, not analog gear. Every piece of analog gear sounds different. No two analog music devices can ever sound exactly the same. But computers are the opposite, by their very nature we DEMAND perfection of them. This is another reason why even on a broad logical basis, the idea of DAWs sounding different wouldn't fly. You want them to be utterly transparent. And there's really only one way to do this. It's the same way every time.
If you want to talk about which DAW LOOKS best, that's a perfectly valid conversation. How they "sound different", without any scientific or measurement-based evidence, at least from my experimentation, isn't.
(EDIT: on second read it appears you were joking, the innate humour in your post just hit me ;D, however I'm pretty happy with my rant, so I'm going to leave it anyway with this footnote
).
By sounds different I have to assume you mean that the files they generate when given the same input are somehow different.
I've seen comparative tests that scientifically show they are identical.
If you want to talk about the inbuilt instruments and effects, absolutely, the quality of those varies immensely, but if you talk about the DAW itself, I can't see how you could honestly say things like "If you want a mix that already sounds mastered, use Samplitude." - it just sounds like marketing speak - and it doesn't really mean anything.
Because of this type of illogical stigma, I stick well clear of the instruments that come with a DAW and exclusively use hardware synths and VST Instruments and effects. This way I can transport my basic ideas between any DAW with VST support (with a little work), and free myself from "sounding like everyone else using Fruity Loops", or what have you. Having done this a few times, I've experienced first hand the complete and utter lack of difference between all the major DAWs. I can bounce stuff in any of them and null it down to any precision you care to mention.
It just worries me that people read things like "fat German tone" and believe there is some sort of truth to a statement like that with no evidence for it. It's binary numbers, not analog gear. Every piece of analog gear sounds different. No two analog music devices can ever sound exactly the same. But computers are the opposite, by their very nature we DEMAND perfection of them. This is another reason why even on a broad logical basis, the idea of DAWs sounding different wouldn't fly. You want them to be utterly transparent. And there's really only one way to do this. It's the same way every time.
If you want to talk about which DAW LOOKS best, that's a perfectly valid conversation. How they "sound different", without any scientific or measurement-based evidence, at least from my experimentation, isn't.
(EDIT: on second read it appears you were joking, the innate humour in your post just hit me ;D, however I'm pretty happy with my rant, so I'm going to leave it anyway with this footnote
).Mannnnnnnnnng ...
My experience tells me that probably the most important factor in "how a DAW sounds" is the equivalent of UE (user experience). IOW, when you tweak a knob in Fruity Loops it will result in a slightly but nevertheless important difference compared to the result you get when tweaking a knob in Cubase.
You know, the Bling is different, the vst-plugin may be interfaced in a slightly different manner, the audio drivers may skew the picture ever-so-slightly, and there may also be a different weather influence. Say, the difference in air pressure may skew the sonic waves propagating your studio.
It all adds up.
However, Nuendistas, as always, have the upper hand. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr11/articles/it-0411.htm
My experience tells me that probably the most important factor in "how a DAW sounds" is the equivalent of UE (user experience). IOW, when you tweak a knob in Fruity Loops it will result in a slightly but nevertheless important difference compared to the result you get when tweaking a knob in Cubase.
You know, the Bling is different, the vst-plugin may be interfaced in a slightly different manner, the audio drivers may skew the picture ever-so-slightly, and there may also be a different weather influence. Say, the difference in air pressure may skew the sonic waves propagating your studio.
It all adds up.
However, Nuendistas, as always, have the upper hand. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr11/articles/it-0411.htm
etheory
Well-known member
"I’ve done tests comparing the sound of the same session in different DAWs, and Ableton sounded terrible, Logic and Pro Tools were OK, and Nuendo sounded incredible."
He's sponsored by Steinberg. Of course he is going to lie about how good the DAW is that he gets for free....
Free things are AWESOME.
He's sponsored by Steinberg. Of course he is going to lie about how good the DAW is that he gets for free....
Free things are AWESOME.
Kingston
Well-known member
etheory said:
He then goes on to market Cubase 6: "I recently compared Cubase 5 to Nuendo 5, and even though they supposedly have the same software engine, I found that Nuendo sounded better. But with Cubase 6 the sound is amazing, exactly the same as for Nuendo 5."
What a complete liar. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a full page Cubase 6 ad right next to this article in the printed edition. Certainly fits the time frame.
It's sh*t like this that is the plaque of modern day audio engineering.
usekgb
Well-known member
Kingston said:etheory said:
He then goes on to market Cubase 6: "I recently compared Cubase 5 to Nuendo 5, and even though they supposedly have the same software engine, I found that Nuendo sounded better. But with Cubase 6 the sound is amazing, exactly the same as for Nuendo 5."
What a complete liar. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a full page Cubase 6 ad right next to this article in the printed edition. Certainly fits the time frame.
It's sh*t like this that is the plaque of modern day audio engineering.
This is also why I let my subscription to Recording magazine lapse. Objective opinions are a thing of the past!
gemini86
Well-known member
Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine!
Going back to the original subject, but not commenting on how it sounds, I know a number of people around me who have given up with the crasy PT rabbit-chase and are now happy users of Studio One.
I have their demo version. For the moment, I will stay with Samp (10.2.1) because of the Spectral cleaning and mastering tools.
I have their demo version. For the moment, I will stay with Samp (10.2.1) because of the Spectral cleaning and mastering tools.
pucho812
Well-known member
well lets discuss the chase. I just got a new laptop replacing my beat to death old laptop, jumped from mac os 10.6.X to 10.8. Even with migration assistant and almost dayly back ups with time machine, I lost so many programs as those versions are not compatible with 10.8 I am now stuck in the upgrade chase mode just to get back to having a working system. I guess the bright side is I really think hard about which ones I really need and which ones I can do without and save some cash.
MartyMart
Well-known member
pucho812 said:
Pucho, I had the same situation towards the end of last year, I took my MacBook Pro 8,2 BACK to 10.6.8 to avoid all that hassle.
Was not easy, as they decided to NOT give you DVD's anymore and I needed a specific version minimum to do the "downgrade"
Found a mate with a 10.6.7 DVD and off I went.
Works great and all my programs are AOK - just one issue, the screen management software doesn't work, ( the auto switching
between the two graphics cards ) so it has to stay in "high Q" all the time, which is fine but a little heavy on the battery.
It was only possible because that was the last model before "Retina" and was at one point sold with 10.6.8 installed.
..... sorry to be so boring
Logic - used it for years ( since V 2.5 on floppy disk! ) so I know it backwards, would not know where to start with a new
DAW , also use Poo Tools and Reason... inside Logic for the sample player.
Marty.
warpie
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,580
I'm in exactly the same situation. Got the new machine last week so I don't think I can go back to 10.6 as it came preinstalled with 10.8.
I'm very tempted to try to downgrade but I can't see it working properly due to drivers.
I've been using PT and Logic for many years. I was also using Cubase for nearly 10 years but I don't think I'm going back to it.
I've spent the last couple of days checking out Reaper and it looks pretty good.
Maybe I have to check out Studio 1 too but I hate trying to learn new DAWs...
I'm very tempted to try to downgrade but I can't see it working properly due to drivers.
I've been using PT and Logic for many years. I was also using Cubase for nearly 10 years but I don't think I'm going back to it.
I've spent the last couple of days checking out Reaper and it looks pretty good.
Maybe I have to check out Studio 1 too but I hate trying to learn new DAWs...
MartyMart
Well-known member
warpie said:
Mine was 10.7.* out of the box, it was an early 2012 model so I think it was the last that could run on 10.6.8
It's a quad 2.4 which shows 8 cores in Logic, pretty much as powerful as my main 8 core tower - scary stuff !
MM.
Dobrilo
Member
I tried to mix down and null same project under cubase 4, 5,6, &7 and they don't null. Period. Recording under different Daw's sounds same (nulls) but mix engine algorithm is not the same. Tried, proved.Kingston said:etheory said:
He then goes on to market Cubase 6: "I recently compared Cubase 5 to Nuendo 5, and even though they supposedly have the same software engine, I found that Nuendo sounded better. But with Cubase 6 the sound is amazing, exactly the same as for Nuendo 5."
What a complete liar. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a full page Cubase 6 ad right next to this article in the printed edition. Certainly fits the time frame.
It's sh*t like this that is the plaque of modern day audio engineering.
