TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Discussion of Digital Performer use, optimization, tips and techniques on MacOS.

Moderator: James Steele

Forum rules
This forum is for most discussion related to the use and optimization of Digital Performer [MacOS] and plug-ins as well as tips and techniques. It is NOT for troubleshooting technical issues, complaints, feature requests, or "Comparative DAW 101."
Post Reply
User avatar
MIDI Life Crisis
Posts: 26254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by MIDI Life Crisis »

Larry Mal wrote:Right, but persuading one's self that Digital Performer sounds better based on this test only makes you the same as all the myopic people you complain about on Gearslutz, only myopic about different software.

That's what I'm trying to tell folks. Don't like the Gearslutz Pro Tools bullies and their attitude towards Digital Performer, based on nothing except opinion? Don't become them in the opposite direction. That's why this site is better in a lot of ways to that one, because it has a more knowledgeable user base over all. I'm surprised to be reading this here.
Well the difference is that this (MOTUNation) site clearly states its "bias" up front. We are DP users (for the most part) and shamelessly admit to that. I don't frequent GS at all after my first few visits there. It has no value to me personally whatsoever. I'm happy with my work and tools and really don't have time for more internet BS at GS or any other sites.

Funny thing is (and please correct me if I'm wrong here Radiogal) the test in question was not intended to lambast any app. It was an exercise, an experiment, wine tasting for a select set of ears and not a thesis on which is the best. If folks want to get their knickers in a knot over at GS - or even here for that matter - that is their problem.

I accept the anecdotal evidence as presented and have no reason to disbelieve it. Neither do I condemn nor condone the results: I just enjoy them. There are no solid "realities" at this point and to take such a strong view one way or the other, based on this relatively simple test, is simply childish. Again: take it for what it is. The sky is still above our heads.
2013 Mac Pro 32GB RAM

OSX 10.14.6; DP 10; Track 16; Finale 26, iPad Pro, et al

MIDI LIFE CRISIS
User avatar
jloeb
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Philly

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by jloeb »

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:
jloeb wrote:
MIDI Life Crisis wrote:What may be irking the GS folks is that they can't tip the scales as there is no poll involved.
LOL.

"R•••••! It's R••••• that sounds the best!!! R•••••!!"
That's just grim!
:|
:shock:
:vomit:
User avatar
MIDI Life Crisis
Posts: 26254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by MIDI Life Crisis »

Oh you love it and you know it! :)
2013 Mac Pro 32GB RAM

OSX 10.14.6; DP 10; Track 16; Finale 26, iPad Pro, et al

MIDI LIFE CRISIS
User avatar
Frodo
Posts: 15597
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: The Shire

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by Frodo »

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:Well again, it is what it is. It was a taste test and there is no quantifying a taste test.
That's what I was thinking. It's nice that DP "won" even a non-scientific test.

Thoughts:

1. Is there an *indisputable* scientific test out there that does the same comparison? That's only a partially rhetorical question. I'd be most interested if there were.

2. Music and music production are not 100% scientific anyway. Sometimes, the visceral perception is as valid as anything else. If anyone here has ever asserted that one should not use their ears, raise your hands.

3. DP won this particular test. Congrats to Radiogal for going to bat for DP to be included. I must also ask if it's not in some way poignant that she had to push to get DP into the test at all where it might have otherwise have been excluded, and that it found even visceral favor as a result?

4. It reminds me that MOTU did some updates of its audio algorithms. I don't have all of the details nor the documentation at hand right now, but I remember reading the official blurb to this effect. Was it DP6.0 or DP7.0? Don't know. Point is, there were users here on this forum who either said that their older DP projects sounded "better" or at least "different" when running in the later version(s) of DP. If different versions of DP could sound differently, then wouldn't it follow that how different audio engines in different DAWs interacting with Core Audio could likewise present at least the possibility of giving different results?

5. For the sake of science, it would also be necessary (if it were at all important) to prove that all DAW audio were the same. But most polls are not that scientific, either, yet we continue to rely on them as some barometer for a variety of different reasons in a variety of different contexts.

Science always starts with a visceral question. Even Einstein's e=mc2 raised as many questions as it answered. The only conclusion I can draw is that before we can find the right answers we must ask the right questions.... and we must keep asking.
Last edited by Frodo on Thu Nov 17, 2011 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
6,1 MacPro, 96GB RAM, macOS Monterey 12.7, macOS 10.14, DP9.52
User avatar
cloudsplitter
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:54 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Everett , Washington
Contact:

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by cloudsplitter »

Now, back to the business of making music....!!
Mac Pro 3,1 8 core 12 gigs ram Mavericks. DP-8.05 Fractal Audio Axe-FX Ultra, motu traveler, motu MIDI express, 2-24" LCD monitors, Yamaha HS80M,Yamaha NS10M's JBL28P monitors. Mackie control universal, BFD-2, Omnisphere,Trilian Ozone 4, Melodyne Studio/Editor, . Alesis Masterlink. Avalon 737sp. PCM 90. MikTek C4V. Korg Triton Extreme. Paul Reed Smith guitars, MPC-2500 there's more..but that's the heart of it.
User avatar
MIDI Life Crisis
Posts: 26254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by MIDI Life Crisis »

Frodo wrote:...most polls are not that scientific, either...
We're actually talking swedes here, not polls...

:)

Have a seat... LOL!

Image
2013 Mac Pro 32GB RAM

OSX 10.14.6; DP 10; Track 16; Finale 26, iPad Pro, et al

MIDI LIFE CRISIS
User avatar
Frodo
Posts: 15597
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: The Shire

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by Frodo »

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:
Frodo wrote:...most polls are not that scientific, either...
We're actually talking swedes here, not polls...

:)

Have a seat... LOL!

Image

"Page not found".
6,1 MacPro, 96GB RAM, macOS Monterey 12.7, macOS 10.14, DP9.52
Tritonemusic
Posts: 2730
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by Tritonemusic »

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:
Frodo wrote:...most polls are not that scientific, either...
We're actually talking swedes here, not polls...

:)
LOL!
DP 10.13, OS 13.6, iMac Pro (2017) 3.2 GHz 8-Core, 32 GB RAM, MOTU M4
User avatar
MIDI Life Crisis
Posts: 26254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by MIDI Life Crisis »

LUNCH!
2013 Mac Pro 32GB RAM

OSX 10.14.6; DP 10; Track 16; Finale 26, iPad Pro, et al

MIDI LIFE CRISIS
User avatar
Dan Worley
Posts: 2778
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:03 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Northern CA

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by Dan Worley »

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:
Larry Mal wrote:Right, but persuading one's self that Digital Performer sounds better based on this test only makes you the same as all the myopic people you complain about on Gearslutz, only myopic about different software.

That's what I'm trying to tell folks. Don't like the Gearslutz Pro Tools bullies and their attitude towards Digital Performer, based on nothing except opinion? Don't become them in the opposite direction. That's why this site is better in a lot of ways to that one, because it has a more knowledgeable user base over all. I'm surprised to be reading this here.
Well the difference is that this (MOTUNation) site clearly states its "bias" up front. We are DP users (for the most part) and shamelessly admit to that. I don't frequent GS at all after my first few visits there. It has no value to me personally whatsoever. I'm happy with my work and tools and really don't have time for more internet BS at GS or any other sites.

Funny thing is (and please correct me if I'm wrong here Radiogal) the test in question was not intended to lambast any app. It was an exercise, an experiment, wine tasting for a select set of ears and not a thesis on which is the best. If folks want to get their knickers in a knot over at GS - or even here for that matter - that is their problem.

I accept the anecdotal evidence as presented and have no reason to disbelieve it. Neither do I condemn nor condone the results: I just enjoy them. There are no solid "realities" at this point and to take such a strong view one way or the other, based on this relatively simple test, is simply childish. Again: take it for what it is. The sky is still above our heads.
+1. You nailed it.

c-ya,

Dan Worley
DP10.13
User avatar
jloeb
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Philly

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by jloeb »

MIDI Life Crisis wrote:
Frodo wrote:...most polls are not that scientific, either...
We're actually talking swedes here, not polls...

:)

Have a seat... LOL!
:cry:

:unicorn: :smash:
User avatar
Frodo
Posts: 15597
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: The Shire

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by Frodo »

cloudsplitter wrote:Now, back to the business of making music....!!
Thanks, CS. I agree.
6,1 MacPro, 96GB RAM, macOS Monterey 12.7, macOS 10.14, DP9.52
User avatar
mikehalloran
Posts: 15132
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:08 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Sillie Con Valley

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by mikehalloran »

> I don't frequent GS at all after my first few visits there. It has no value to me personally whatsoever. I'm happy with my work and tools and really don't have time for more internet BS at GS or any other sites.<

I'm hip to that! (and old enough to get away with that phrase)
DP 11.31; 828mkII FW, micro lite, M4, MTP/AV USB Firmware 2.0.1
2023 Mac Studio M2 8TB, 192GB RAM, OS Sonoma 14.4, USB4 8TB external, M-Audio AIR 192|14, Mackie ProFxv3 6/10/12; 2012 MBPs Catalina, Mojave
IK-NI-Izotope-PSP-Garritan-Antares, LogicPro X, Finale 27.4, Dorico 5.2, Notion 6, Overture 5, TwistedWave, DSP-Q 5, SmartScore64 Pro, Toast 20 Pro
User avatar
MIDI Life Crisis
Posts: 26254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by MIDI Life Crisis »

Let's keep body parts out of it - especially the hips of us old 'geezers.'

LOL!
2013 Mac Pro 32GB RAM

OSX 10.14.6; DP 10; Track 16; Finale 26, iPad Pro, et al

MIDI LIFE CRISIS
User avatar
jloeb
Posts: 897
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Philly

Re: TEST: 5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P You better read this :)

Post by jloeb »

Larry Mal wrote:Right, but persuading one's self that Digital Performer sounds better based on this test only makes you the same as all the myopic people you complain about on Gearslutz, only myopic about different software.

That's what I'm trying to tell folks. Don't like the Gearslutz Pro Tools bullies and their attitude towards Digital Performer, based on nothing except opinion? Don't become them in the opposite direction. That's why this site is better in a lot of ways to that one, because it has a more knowledgeable user base over all. I'm surprised to be reading this here.
Larry in principle, I agree with your sentiments.

My personal estimation of this test is that, although there may well be problems with it, the result probably isn't due to groupthink. There are too many unknowns being tested. If this were A vs B, then possibly or even probably. But I think 5 unknowns is too many for the homogeneity of results; you can't attribute that reliably to a dominant personality signaling "this is best" given hours of random double-blind testing of five different unknown objects.

At the very least, what cannot be explained away is that there was a perceived difference, and it was detectable reproducibly. Regardless of whether it was detectable by all panel members independently or was the result of the amplified opinion of a subset of them, the difference was detectable, repeatedly, under double-blind conditions.

IF there were a problem, the place to look in this case would likely be the signal chain. RG describes:
All installed on 5 equal Macbook Pros running optical O/P to a switcher to two Genelecs.
The devil really is in the details, and the key term is "switcher." The only absolutely foolproof way to be sure there is no difference in the output resulting from circuitry is for there to be nothing at all between the DAC and the speaker output that could be distinguishing. Even parallel sets of analog components going from the DACS to the output could be dispositive. The only absolutely-free-even-theoretically-from-any-analog-artifacts chain would involve having the test administrator walk up and plug a single optical cable into the output of each Macbook in series. Of course, since the goal is not to be able to see the switching, this would make the testing very laborious.

This is exacerbated by the fact that human beings are incredibly sensitive to exactly the kinds of L/R comparisons that we refer to when we talk about stereo imaging and spatiality in audio. Oddly enough: back to Gearslutz, where Paul Frindle, one of the designers of the SSL E and G consoles, talks about that sensitivity and how it was revealed under remarkable circumstances:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... 5.html#144" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Having said all of this, there are definitely reasons to think that DAWS might output different signals from the same input. Most people here know that DP uses 32-bit fp precision throughout the mixing path and 64-bit precision during the mastering stage. Most DAWS do something analogous. That means that getting to 24 bit output requires wordlength reduction, which requires dither. It is well established that different dithering strategies do result in different sounds in very low amplitude portions of the audio. Whether that, or variations in analog components in the chain, or some other math-related difference, could account for the perceived difference during the test, I don't feel credentialed to say.


Nothing, however, is going to reduce my enjoyment of the monkeywrench this has thrown into the DP-hating goonhouse over at g-slutz.

ok jeez, i've spent way too much time on motunation for the past couple of days...
Post Reply