What's the best *sounding* DAW?

[Lee Flier]

 

You quoted me but you're adding things to my statement alter my point. I said same settings, panning and DB levels the results will be the same after the music is mixed down. I specifically left out gain changes, automation, Plugins panning changes, etc for a reason. When you use those items you are "remixing" what you imported so obviously they will alter the sound. If you import the same tracks into just about any daw then just mix down, the sound will be virtually the same between them.

 

 

Again... not strictly true. Panning is a gain change - to pan a signal, the signal is split into two channels and gain changes are applied to each channel. Setting the initial dB level is a gain change. Different DAWs handle gain changes differently, so they can very well sound different even if all you've done is bring the faders up to the same levels and pan them the same (assuming pan laws are the same). Not to say you will or won't be able to hear the difference at that point, but the more DSP is applied (initial level setting and panning being only the first in a long chain of DSP that will happen over the course of a mix), the more likely it is that you'll start to hear the differences.

 

You are already "mixing" the minute you apply initial volume (of each track) and panning. So it is not likely that tracks will sound exactly the same between DAWs unless you import each one leaving all of the faders at 0, and with no panning.

 

 

I'm no expert in code writing but I have worked in the computer industry since 1976 and know many who do write code. Software manufacturers for a DAW program dont all use totally different codes to do the same thing. Someone may have come up with a code for adjusting volume of a sound card, something thats been used by every sound card made and works in conjunction with windows.

 

 

Yes but this doesn't have any bearing on DSP during mixing. If you use the same computer and the same sound card and the same driver, two different DAW programs are still likely to sound different due to differences in software/DSP. The software does not interact with the driver during mixdown until the final stereo output hits it. All volume levels on individual tracks etc. are set in the software. Although there's a lot more interaction with hardware during tracking, at mixdown it's actually very little unless you are sending each individual track out to a hardware mixer, which is not what we're discussing here.

 

 

In other words, if you use two different remotes to adjust the volume of a TV your TV isnt going to sound better with the volume adjusted to 50% up using one remote or the other. Its the TV that makes the sound the same way as your sound card makes sound from a computer.

 

 

Yes, but this is not a comparable analogy to what happens during an in-the-box mixdown.

 

You could test this yourself easily enough. Just import a good quality commercial track into two different DAW programs then mix them both down to a stereo wave file (no dithering, no sample rate changes, no effects etc) Dollars for donuts you wont hear a difference.

 

 

If you're talking about a 2-track stereo mix that has already been mixed elsewhere, then yes, that's likely to be true. But that's not what the OP was asking.

 

 

You also have the fact, is there "were" great differences, studios would be totally {censored}ed importing material from all different sources because every DAW program would add its own colorations, just through the import process which I know is not true.

 

 

No, it is not likely you'll hear a difference between DAWs just by importing the same files into two different ones, as I mentioned. But in the real world, that is, when you actually mix the tracks, you will.

 

 

Everything else is purely perceptual and what you feel works for you. Some may be productivity or work flow differences, some may be the plugin packages included, but just keep in mind. You arent manipulating the files with analog gear and transistors here. Its all ones and zeros and no more.

 

 

Yes, but different DAWs process those ones and zeros differently during mixdown. That's not just perceptual.

[Lee Flier]

Lee and WRGKMC, These are exactly the types of differences I was getting at in the OP, and was looking for subjective opinions on which DAWs do what best, from a sonic perspective, and with some objective argument to back that up. So, it seems that the sonics are affected by numerous variables between DAWs, not least what way they handle the various codecs.

 

In my subjective, personal opinion, I don't like the sound of Pro Tools compared to most other DAWs. The sound stage seems narrower and it seems to shrink even more as you add more DSP in a mix. I suspect that other DAWs are ahead of it because they've gone to full 64-bit engines several years ago, and most other DAWs have also had PDC for some time now, whereas PT has just recently added it. Once PT goes full 64 bit, it will probably sound more similar to the competition.

 

I really, really like the sound of Reaper and I have done a number of comparisons between Reaper and PT. I've also done quite a bit of mixing in Sonar, Nuendo and Vegas although it's been a few years since then. In general I liked Nuendo and Vegas pretty well, and Sonar a bit less so. Again this is totally subjective and I couldn't begin to tell you why I have these preferences, because although I am a programmer I am not privy to how these companies process their audio. The only differences I am aware of are Pro Tools' engine vs. everyone else's. I think that Reaper's advantage may be due to its small footprint - it uses much less resources than any other DAW and so may be less subject to minute timing errors. But I don't know or particularly care - it sounds good, so I use it. And at the end of the day I still prefer to mix down through an analog console anyway.

 

From a practical standpoint, I suppose the non-sonic differences are just as important:- managing workflows, ease of editing etc., and can probably have as much of an influence on the final sonics of a project as much as the other variables..

 

Definitely. That's why I'm not interested in getting too deep into the actual sonic differences - a DAW is a complete package, and if the combination of sonics and workflow appeals to you, you might sacrifice a bit of one for the other and still come up with results you like better overall. But I just wanted to point out that there are actual sonic differences between DAWs. Whether or not they matter to you depends on your personal taste, type of source material, how much processing you tend to use, etc.

[gubu]

You'll find thats the #1 biggest difference between them all. All have the same basic tools but some make you jump through hoops to use them and some make them a simple feature. An example of one is filer cleanup. a nessasary chore you dont even think about till its time. For some daw programs its a nightmare and some its a one button job. In my older version of Cubase this is a huge chore. If I didnt build specific folders and save projects to them, it was impossible to find the specific wave files from a project to delete them when cleaning up a drive. In sonar, you delets the picture file which is in the open menu, then you use a one button cleanup. (after you've emptied the recycle bun on the desktop) The program will scan for all wave files in the folder not associated with a sonar project and allow you to delete them all with a single delete. You dont appreciate this feature till you get maybe 20 projects on the drive and maybe 300 separate wave files from all those tracks on a drive. Another cool thing in somar is you can right click all kinds of cool things. If I have say three copies of the same project and I like the instruments on one and the vocal on another and I want to find that one vocal track on the wave file drive, I can open the project and right click on the tracks and the track name of the wave file will appear. I can jot that down then open the other project, select import, navigate to the wave file drive and select the exact wave file out of that 300 or so wave files and click to import it into the current project. Big time saver. Imagine if you had to play back all three hundred to find the right one to import? There are buttloads of other differences between DAW programs you just dont get to know till you use the programs. I made my choice to use Sonar because its windows friendly. I use a computer all day at work and I'm used to looking for things under certain menus and finding theins with left and right clicks. Sonar got it right for placing things under thses clicks and menus right, plus it allows you to build your own menus in your own order for convenience, even the shortcut buttons. Others are fine too but you may need to reeducate yourself to find things. Some make sence and sone are just plain wierd. By the way, you mentioned logic as an option. Logic only runs on a Mac. If you're a mac user, many like it. I used an old win version and its was a flucking nightmare for me to get it to work well. I quickly dumped it because you couldnt use VST plugins, and because they switched to mac only.

 

 

Ya ProTools automatically writes your audio to an 'audio files' folder within whatever session folder you're using, so finding/deleting audio files is dead easy.

On the thing I'm mixing at the moment, I've got 40+ stereo and mono files, and have neither the DAW voices nor the CPU power to run/process them all at once - so I've got 4 copies of the session:- 1 for making drum stems, 1 for vocal stems, 1 for synth stems, and 1 master session, on which I'll pull together the stems along with some more mono elements. Whatever I print in either of the first 3 is there in my 'audio files' folder, ready for a 10 second import into the master session.

It's pretty well put together that way.

 

Sonar sounds great - the notion of being able to make up custom menus seems like it should make life a hell of a lot easier. Like all DAW's, learning the shortcut keys and right-clicks is essential anyway.

I only discovered last week that right-clicking the track name in mix view in PT gives you an option to split any stereo track into dual mono tracks If I'd known then what I know now!

[gubu]

In my subjective, personal opinion, I don't like the sound of Pro Tools compared to most other DAWs. The sound stage seems narrower and it seems to shrink even more as you add more DSP in a mix. I suspect that other DAWs are ahead of it because they've gone to full 64-bit engines several years ago, and most other DAWs have also had PDC for some time now, whereas PT has just recently added it. Once PT goes full 64 bit, it will probably sound more similar to the competition. I really, really like the sound of Reaper and I have done a number of comparisons between Reaper and PT. I've also done quite a bit of mixing in Sonar, Nuendo and Vegas although it's been a few years since then. In general I liked Nuendo and Vegas pretty well, and Sonar a bit less so. Again this is totally subjective and I couldn't begin to tell you why I have these preferences, because although I am a programmer I am not privy to how these companies process their audio. The only differences I am aware of are Pro Tools' engine vs. everyone else's. I think that Reaper's advantage may be due to its small footprint - it uses much less resources than any other DAW and so may be less subject to minute timing errors. But I don't know or particularly care - it sounds good, so I use it. And at the end of the day I still prefer to mix down through an analog console anyway. Definitely. That's why I'm not interested in getting too deep into the actual sonic differences - a DAW is a complete package, and if the combination of sonics and workflow appeals to you, you might sacrifice a bit of one for the other and still come up with results you like better overall. But I just wanted to point out that there are actual sonic differences between DAWs. Whether or not they matter to you depends on your personal taste, type of source material, how much processing you tend to use, etc.

 

I hear ya on ProTools. Things start to get pretty 'small' sounding the more plugins you're using. Perhaps this isn't an issue on PTHD systems?

[BushmasterM4]

Here is another DAW debate. Do some sound better with different AD/DA converters. Would PT sound better on a Cirrus Logic chip than Reaper ? Or maybe Reaper sounds better than Cubase on a Wolfson chip. To many variables !!!!

[BushmasterM4]

I hear ya on ProTools. Things start to get pretty 'small' sounding the more plugins you're using. Perhaps this isn't an issue on PTHD systems?

 

I use PT10 (native) and I use Tracktion 3. Ive mixed the same tune in both and didnt notice anything getting smaller sounding. And I find the sonic differences extremely small between the two. Meaning, I can record and mix in one, save my plugins settings, load the same thing up in the other DAW and the sound is very, very close. Maybe a hi-hat of another instrument sticks out a tad more. But its so close your average Joe couldnt tell the difference. But the "Small" thing I dont hear. Maybe a converter issue But like I mentioned above, thats another debate.

[gubu]

I use PT10 (native) and I use Tracktion 3. Ive mixed the same tune in both and didnt notice anything getting smaller sounding. And I find the sonic differences extremely small between the two. Meaning, I can record and mix in one, save my plugins settings, load the same thing up in the other DAW and the sound is very, very close. Maybe a hi-hat of another instrument sticks out a tad more. But its so close your average Joe couldnt tell the difference. But the "Small" thing I dont hear. Maybe a converter issue But like I mentioned above, thats another debate.

 

Well, Lee isn't the first person I've heard mentioning this about ProTools. A mentor of mine that I talked about further up in the thread tried to talk me out of buying PT a few years back for more or less the same reason. 'Bittiness' and a narrower sound stage being a problem the more plugins you used. And it might not be all that noticeable until you after you bounce it down and start listening on a different playback engine. He was able to demonstrate it to me by playing back a range of material that he'd produced going back to his analogue days.

 

Also, I've noticed it myself when collaborating recently with someone who uses Sonar - the Sonar mixes just sounded 'bigger' - hardly a scientific critique, I know, but I can only speak from my own experience.

 

Anyway, as Lee said, this is with an older, native version of PT...

[BushmasterM4]

Well, Lee isn't the first person I've heard mentioning this about ProTools. A mentor of mine that I talked about further up in the thread tried to talk me out of buying PT a few years back for more or less the same reason. 'Bittiness' and a narrower sound stage being a problem the more plugins you used. And it might not be all that noticeable until you after you bounce it down and start listening on a different playback engine. He was able to demonstrate it to me by playing back a range of material that he'd produced going back to his analogue days. Also, I've noticed it myself when collaborating recently with someone who uses Sonar - the Sonar mixes just sounded 'bigger' - hardly a scientific critique, I know, but I can only speak from my own experience. Anyway, as Lee said, this is with an older, native version of PT...

 

 

I'll have to try loading it up with plugins and see what happpens. I'm still in the learning stages of PT (just got it a few months ago). Hope its not a problem

[Lee Flier]

I hear ya on ProTools. Things start to get pretty 'small' sounding the more plugins you're using. Perhaps this isn't an issue on PTHD systems?

 

PTHD sounds about the same, actually.

[Lee Flier]

 

Here is another DAW debate. Do some sound better with different AD/DA converters. Would PT sound better on a Cirrus Logic chip than Reaper ? Or maybe Reaper sounds better than Cubase on a Wolfson chip. To many variables !!!!

 

 

I don't think you would find any cases where a converter that generally sounded better than another converter sounded worse with a particular DAW, unless there was something really wrong with the driver and the way the DAW interacted with it. And I doubt that is the case with any DAW these days.

 

Converters aren't really involved in mixdown anyway, except at the 2-bus, and that's not where the "problems" happen.

[UstadKhanAli]

I definitely agree with all of the above.

 

~~~

 

It will be interesting to hear how PT compares with the others when we get a 64-bit PT, which may be the next major revision (PT 11).

[BushmasterM4]

I don't think you would find any cases where a converter that generally sounded better than another converter sounded worse with a particular DAW, unless there was something really wrong with the driver and the way the DAW interacted with it. And I doubt that is the case with any DAW these days. Converters aren't really involved in mixdown anyway, except at the 2-bus, and that's not where the "problems" happen.

 

Disagree. There are so so many different variety of converters out there. Plus to say converters are not really involved in mixdown is strange. The unit I use has 16 ins and 16 outs that get sent individually to and from my DAW. If I choose I can do a 2 channel mix down in the DAW or I can send the INDIVIDUAL 16 channels from the DAW back to my Analog boards for "Analog Mix Down". Plus it is proven some AD/DA converters sound better than others. Especially in consumer gear . I just went through that issue with an Apple ipod. The newer iPod's use a cheaper chip then the 5.5 generation and earlier models. The sound is terrible on the new models !! Now fast foward to ProAudio gear and yes there is a difference in AD/DA converters. And if you believe DAW's, in a controlled test do sound different from each other, then why not chips ? Its all 1's and 0's Oh hell, never thaught about how different line level amps effect {censored}. Oh well, I give up !!! You say Toe-Mae-Toe, I say Toe-Ma-Toe, lets call the whole thing off. Peace

[Lee Flier]

Disagree. There are so so many different variety of converters out there. Plus to say converters are not really involved in mixdown is strange. The unit I use has 16 ins and 16 outs that get sent individually to and from my DAW. If I choose I can do a 2 channel mix down in the DAW or I can send the INDIVIDUAL 16 channels from the DAW back to my Analog boards for "Analog Mix Down".

 

Yes, but we're not talking about analog mixdowns, we're talking about mixing in the DAW. Of course the converters are involved in mixdown if you're sending each of the tracks out. The OP wasn't asking about that scenario.

 

Plus it is proven some AD/DA converters sound better than others. Especially in consumer gear.

 

Definitely! But I didn't say there's no difference between converters! I said that if you compare two converters on the same DAW platform, and you like converter A better than converter B, then if you switched to different DAW software and compared the same two converters, it's not very likely that you'll suddenly prefer B to A. Again, right answer, wrong question.

[BushmasterM4]

Yes, but we're not talking about analog mixdowns, we're talking about mixing in the DAW. Of course the converters are involved in mixdown if you're sending each of the tracks out. The OP wasn't asking about that scenario. Definitely! But I didn't say there's no difference between converters! I said that if you compare two converters on the same DAW platform, and you like converter A better than converter B, then if you switched to different DAW software and compared the same two converters, it's not very likely that you'll suddenly prefer B to A. Again, right answer, wrong question.

 

Never argue with a lady

[CME]

 

I definitely agree with all of the above. ~~~ It will be interesting to hear how PT compares with the others when we get a 64-bit PT, which may be the next major revision (PT 11).

 

 

FWIW PTHD 8.5 (a special release for the HD|Native Card) has a 64-bit float mix engine as does PT9 and PT10 when ran on native systems. The actual app is still 32-bit but the mix engine isn't. Only PTHD systems don't run a 64-bit float engine and that is obviously due to the HD cards being 48-bit fixed.

[UstadKhanAli]

Thanks. Didn't know that.