Jump to content

All DAWs sound the same. Stop asking!


zircon
 Share

Recommended Posts

It should be known that tin foil hats are extremely fashionable.

Also, features and workflow are what set these apart. I suppose this thread satisfies the simplified n00b question of which sounds better or rather which handles sound better, but not which one is going to satisfy someone's personal needs in the production process.

They handle sound file processing with similar capabilities, but they are different programs with different features and workflows.

And also, different bit depth performance capabilities:

http://www.dawbench.com/blofelds-xp-v-vista.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does FLStudio sound worse than Reason? Does Pro Tools make all your songs sound better? People ask this crap all the time and somehow even some audio professionals buy into it.

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2749054

This puts the topic soundly to rest, when it comes to 'audio quality'.

THANK YOU! It had to be done.

Also, Reason rulz. ... ... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it looks like the guys at DAWBench are putting together some universal benchmark tests to test respectively Cubase, Reaper, SONAR, et al's audio engine and how it handles VSTs under stress conditions.

Preliminarily speaking, there are some serious differences in performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically, what this is saying... is that if you only use third-party software (VSTs) to make your songs then it doesn't matter what DAW you get or use? Since they all process and export audio in almost the exact same way?

Well, VSTs != audio, necessarily. This test is primarily important for people that are dealing with pre-recorded audio. He's saying that the mixing engine is identical across the board, which is what many of suspected, but some dumbasses have called into question (PRO TOOLS SOUNDS SO MUCH BETTER THAN FL.) VST handling, that COULD be a different story, but since most hosts support variable samplerate and run at 64-bit float, it probably doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not sure if it's fair to call them dumbasses, and they're not the ones clamoring about one sounding better than the other, they're not even the kinds of people who would make such an unspecific and uneducated statement. The people creating these benchmarks have a real investment in the answer because they are largely pro-audio system builders and users. Their clientele expect a learned and scientific response to these kinds of questions and as far as I'm concerned, their benchmark tests are a service to the audio community in general--they're putting time into these tests without agenda or affiliation. They just want a fair performance evaluation.

With that said, it doesn't appear that FL is on the table for consideration, though they will likely release their findings and the benchmark method for anyone else to make their own tests. I'm not sure exactly why FL seems to have problems earning the respect of pro audio users. I personally don't have any issue with it, though, I don't use it because long, long ago when I was selecting my DAW of choice, FL was largely a tracker and I had no need for that functionality.

Nonetheless, I don't really think it's fair to call them "dumbasses." They're doing a good thing, just like the KVR guy--testing to see how performance variations pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly why FL seems to have problems earning the respect of pro audio users. I personally don't have any issue with it, though, I don't use it because long, long ago when I was selecting my DAW of choice, FL was largely a tracker and I had no need for that functionality.

My guesses as to why FL seems to have problems earning the respect of pro audio users:

1) It used to be a tracker.

2) It's named Fruity Loops. (Now a part of this complete breakfast!)

EDIT: 3) It's not expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could also be publicity.

For example, I had no idea it was MORE than a tracker until I joined OCRemix. I just hadn't heard anything about it for the last 7 years that didn't have to do with making techno remixes ;)

Not that there's anything wrong with techno remixes :D

EDIT:

There is definitely an unfortunate symptom when it comes to valuing a product and its price. I remember reading an article about bargain game software and pricing models and how new AAA games CAN'T actually release under $30 because they'll actually sell fewer units. Consumers automatically associate value and price, which is really unfortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonetheless, I don't really think it's fair to call them "dumbasses." They're doing a good thing, just like the KVR guy--testing to see how performance variations pan out.

The only people who I have seen making broad statements about one DAW sounding "better" than another pretty much do so on completely unfounded assumptions and misconceptions, with no basis in reality or any form of scientific testing. They're just following a group mentality or buying into hype/branding. That IS dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey hey, take a chill pill, people. First off, the actual AUDIO you hear can differ from program to program. Sure, when working with a soundblaster, FL will sound like ProTools, but ProTools is made to work with very VERY high end hardware audio interfaces and all kinds of things that FL will never be able to use. So yes, you WILL hear a difference between FL and ProTools, if ProTools is being used in its optimal environment. If you're using an Audiophile 24/96 with FL and ProTools M-Powered, you will not hear an audible difference in the quality.

Always keep in mind that (generally) the more high end the DAW is, the better it will handle audio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey hey, take a chill pill, people. First off, the actual AUDIO you hear can differ from program to program. Sure, when working with a soundblaster, FL will sound like ProTools, but ProTools is made to work with very VERY high end hardware audio interfaces and all kinds of things that FL will never be able to use. So yes, you WILL hear a difference between FL and ProTools, if ProTools is being used in its optimal environment. If you're using an Audiophile 24/96 with FL and ProTools M-Powered, you will not hear an audible difference in the quality.

Always keep in mind that (generally) the more high end the DAW is, the better it will handle audio.

SnappleMan pretty much nailed it.

Also, everyone should know that the deciding factor when buying a DAW is not the audio quality. It's what you're planning to use it for, what environment you work in, what gear you have and many other factors. Just find a combination that suits you.

..that was lame. but hell, it's true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...what?

I think you two just missed the point of this thread completely. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN AUDIO BETWEEN DAWs. THEY ALL HANDLE AUDIO GENERALLY THE SAME. THAT WAS THE POINT OF THIS TEST. IF THE AUDIO FROM TWO DIFFERENT DAWs CANCELS EACH OTHER OUT TO NEGATIVE INFINITY, THEN THE AUDIO IS THE FUCKING SAME.

Now if you're referring to the actual interfaces themselves, and NOT the DAW, then I can see your point. Some high-end ProTools console is definitely gonna have much better SNR than a piece of shit soundblaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must be part of the population that cleans their ears and eyes by cramming them full of shit.

The point is that all DAWs do NOT handle audio the same. Every DAW has its own engine for handling audio, some really ARE better than others. And no, I did not and will not read the link, those kinds of things are idiotic.

If you want to check up on it, I urge you to do so. Go locate some technical documents from Cakewalk, Steinberg and whoever makes FL studio. They will all handle audio differently. Eat a dick etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm talking about stress testing the actual audio engine and how it handles resources. Basic audio processing (ie: Levels) isn't going to quell any debate except the one that starts with the naive statement that one "sounds" better than the other without regard to the actual specifics involved.

But if changing the levels was all we ever did with these programs, then there'd be no real debate.

Unfortunately, or rather fortunately, we do much, much more with these than just audio leveling and inverse phasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing this test asks you to turn dithering off. Dithering really does make a difference in how good your music will sound, so if you use a DAW with crappy or no dithering vs. one that uses a good noise-shaped dither, the latter will sound better. I guess you could buy a separate app to do your dithering FOR you, but you might as well buy a DAW that does it right. Do all these DAWs support POW-R or something of similar quality? (Not a rhetorical question, I have no idea).

There's a pretty strong degree of truth in what the guy in the KVR thread is saying though -- I think most DAWs have reached a level of parity in terms of how they handle level boots/cuts, panning, and that sort of thing. Four years ago that wasn't the case at all. I don't know if FL has a 64-bit engine in it yet. Obviously that would be a relative weakness if it didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...