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
toodamnhip
Posts: 3839
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

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

Post by toodamnhip »

williemyers wrote:
James Steele wrote:... I have no doubt that Jimi Hendrix, if he were alive today, could pick up the cheapest damned Epiphone in Guitar Center and make me weep. That's the ultimate bottom line in music.
Epiphone? hell, he could do it with a Silvertone!! :D :D
While these types of comments about how Jimi hendrix and other real musicians are one the one hand, very very true, and, also, the most important "truth" musically, these type of arguments also serve absolutely NO purpose in this type of forum and are only a distraction from the discussion at hand. If we are going to go there then why not just stop talking about any of this. For of course, Jimi could play without all these technical advancements.... so why bother even being in this forum at all lol?...yikes.

This is a discussion about the technical qualities of technical equipment.
It is a totally off the subject to dive into the "art" of it all.

Of course Jimi could play anything.
And I could go beyond that with John Coltrane.
Rachmoninov, Mozart, Charlie Parker, etc...

But that type of discussion is not what this is about.

We all could massage our musical egos about great musicians we love. And of course the music IS the most important thing.

But amidst a technical discussion like this, it is out of place and a pointless distraction from the discussion.

By the way, Hendrix was a total technical junkie.
He would have loved all the technical advances and been in here bitching excited about the next triple decker, echo-flanga magigger....
And he'd have taken DPs technical advances and made even greater music with it.

Which is what this forum is about for the most part, making DP better so that the music can be even better, Either better duplicated in a pure form or, better to serve producers and artists as an artistic paint brush. which is how I use it.
Mac Pro (Late 2013
2.7 GHz 12-Core Intel Xeon E5
64 GB 1866 MHz DDR3
Mojave
DP 10.13
MOTU 8pre, MTP AV, 828 mkII
Tons of VIS and plug ins. SSD hard drives etc
User avatar
Phil O
Posts: 7231
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Scituate, MA

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

Post by Phil O »

Good scientists know that bias is your worst enemy, and next in line is probably assumptions. What I've heard is a lot of bias and a lot of assumptions. Here are the facts:

A listening test was conducted in Sweden.
Radiogal did an excellent job reporting the results. Among those results - DP was the most liked by the observers.
What can we conclude from this?
Radiogal is an excellent reporter.


What else?:
Was the test a perfectly designed double blind study? No.
Did the test clearly show that DP sounds the best? No.
Did the test clearly show that all DAWs sound the same? No
Did the test clearly show that all DAWs sound different? No

I think the person that called it a wine tasting was probably spot on. And if you read RG's post, what she said was DP was the "most liked." She drew no conclusions. I think that one needs to consider the possibility that this group of engineers was not a bunch of idiots, that they set up conditions that were a reasonably good test, and that they did actually perceive a difference. The best one can do without more experimentation is speculate as to the reason for this. Beyond that it's all assumptions and bias.

BTW, the results made me smile. (bias)

Phil
Last edited by Phil O on Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
DP 11.23, 2020 M1 Mac Mini [9,1] (16 Gig RAM), Mac Pro 3GHz 8 core [6,1] (16 Gig RAM), OS 14.3.1/11.6.2, Lynx Aurora (n) 8tb, MOTU 8pre-es, MOTU M6, MOTU 828, Apogee Rosetta 800, UAD-2 Satellite, a truckload of outboard gear and plug-ins, and a partridge in a pear tree.
User avatar
Gravity Jim
Posts: 2005
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:55 am
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

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

Post by Gravity Jim »

I think introducing the idea that "it's not the arrow but the archer" does have a place in a discussion like this.

It marks the point when the discussion has crossed the line into the model railroading / speed shop / casemod world of arguing minute and meaningless details.

None of these objects - DAWS or guitars or mixers or mics - have any intrinsic value. Their only value is in the service of the art.

Remembering that can prevent folks like us, who are making music and other pleasing sounds, from degenerating into the kind of jelly-donut people who endlessly debate the difference between "maple and rosewood." (You guitar players will recognize the trope.)

Because it simply doesn't matter. If it sounds good, it is good. Obviously, great records get made with DP, with ProTools, with Logic, with Sonar, with 16-track tape machines. Knowing your tools is more important than owning the right ones.

What a great forum like MOTUNation does best is help its users get the most from the tools they've chosen. I'm not saying there isn't some fun in a discussion like this, but don't let's start thinking it really makes any difference in our work.
Jim Bordner

MacPro 5,1 (3.33Ghz 12-core), 32g RAM, OS X 10.14.6 • MOTU DP 10.11 • Logic Pro X 10.2.5 • Waves Platinum, UAD-2, Slate Digital, Komplete, Omnisphere 2, LASS, CineSamples, Chipsounds, V Collection 5[color]
User avatar
Phil O
Posts: 7231
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Scituate, MA

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

Post by Phil O »

Gravity Jim wrote:I think introducing the idea that "it's not the arrow but the archer" does have a place in a discussion like this.
My son donated his old Squire bass to the studio. I sent it out to a guitar repairman to get it set up right and it now lives in a corner of the "lounge" area. There's a bass player who has done a lot of session work here and now he just uses the Squire. "This will work fine," he says. "It ain't elegant but it plays well and it sounds a lot like my P-bass." This guy is a meticulous musician. He could make an elastic band and a Dixie cup sound good. I defy anyone to go through my recordings and pick out the Squire. You are so spot-on, Jim.

Phil
DP 11.23, 2020 M1 Mac Mini [9,1] (16 Gig RAM), Mac Pro 3GHz 8 core [6,1] (16 Gig RAM), OS 14.3.1/11.6.2, Lynx Aurora (n) 8tb, MOTU 8pre-es, MOTU M6, MOTU 828, Apogee Rosetta 800, UAD-2 Satellite, a truckload of outboard gear and plug-ins, and a partridge in a pear tree.
User avatar
Shooshie
Posts: 19820
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Dallas
Contact:

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

Post by Shooshie »

Dan Worley wrote:
Larry Mal wrote:Sorry, Radiogal. There are a lot of problems with this "test" of yours, and I can't accept the results. I know I'm raining on the parade here.

But it's not scientific, which means it's only anecdotal. There's enough of that already regarding the "sound" of DAWs. I fight against that a lot on Gearslutz, and just because software that I enjoy has been said to "win" doesn't mean I can accept the answer.
The question "which sounds better?" or "which do you prefer?" can never be answered scientifically because the answer has to be based on subjective reactions and opinions from sentient beings who are all calibrated differently.

Could the preparation and presentation have been more scientific? Sure.

Experience has taught and served me more than science, and my experience tells me that if 30+ professional audio people agree on something, it would be wise to pay attention to that.

c-ya,

Dan Worley

Agreed. Also, I participated in a DAW shootout in Las Vegas about 11 years ago. Not as extensive as RG's, but each of the people listening were high-level professionals in the music, recording, and/or audio industries in LV. It was a blind test; the panel could not tell which DAW was playing. DP won, but what was really interesting about it was that DP won unanimously, and I was the only actual DP user in the room.

Another thing of interest in that shootout was that during the creation of the files, everyone could see that I finished all my tasks anywhere from several seconds to several minutes before the competition. (I made certain to relax with my head leaning back in my hands as soon as I completed each task. Just driving home the point, you know!) DP was clearly easier and faster to use. That it also ended up winning unanimously in the listening contest was proof-positive that DP is a DAW to be reckoned with.

Also interesting is that the fellow who set up the shootout did so because he was sure I was going to be the ruin of the pianist who was paying me to record an album. He was a pianist beloved by everyone in the Las Vegas community, and I was seen as the interloper using an unproven DAW in a professional situation, thus the protective attitudes of other pro's. He was sure that failure was imminent, so he was doing the shootout as much to protect the artist as to satisfy his curiosity. He had one more trick up his sleeve. He convinced the artist to go into a big studio and do one song on a big rig. After 3 days, the artist called it off with the song about 80% complete. The engineer dropped off a CD for me to hear, and I set up my tracks of the same song and mixed it in 4 hours, copying their sounds and moves, and completing what they had left undone. When the artist heard it that night, just four hours after leaving the big studio, the result left him in awe. Never again did he -- or the other fellow -- doubt DP or my ability to use it.

Congratulations to Radio Gal for getting DP included in what will no doubt be a hotly debated event for some time to come. I really expected it to win as soon as I read enough to realize what had taken place. RG should be proud of the results!

Shooshie
|l| OS X 10.12.6 |l| DP 10.0 |l| 2.4 GHz 12-Core MacPro Mid-2012 |l| 40GB RAM |l| Mach5.3 |l| Waves 9.x |l| Altiverb |l| Ivory 2 New York Steinway |l| Wallander WIVI 2.30 Winds, Brass, Saxes |l| Garritan Aria |l| VSL 5.3.1 and VSL Pro 2.3.1 |l| Yamaha WX-5 MIDI Wind Controller |l| Roland FC-300 |l|
User avatar
Renaissance Man
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Ohio
Contact:

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

Post by Renaissance Man »

Thanks for the thread Radiogal, and for your resolve in getting DP into these listening tests.
I can now go back to work knowing that DP has indeed performed well and that PT-10 isn't necessarily the “game changer” its poo poo’d to be on Avid's site.

I agree with so many here that there are those with “vested” interests in seeing ProTools come out on top. They are so vested in fact, that anything that contradicts their belief system simply must be wrong.

Audio professionals are in a technology driven profession; one that requires we stay on the “bleeding edge” or risk being relegated to yesterday’s news. There’s a certain inherent anxiety that casts a long dark shadow- one that can only be driven back by spending some ungodly amount of cash on the "latest and greatest".
It’s reassuring to know that just because DP doesn’t cost some ridiculous amount of money, doesn’t make it an inferior DAW. Point in fact, according to the esteemed audio professionals involved in this test, DP sounds best.
Mac Pro Early 2008 8-core 2.8, 16GB RAM, SSD, El Capitan, DP9.5.4; Waves Mercury V9.6 + SSL 4000 Collection, SyncroArts VocAlign Project 3, EastWest Quantum Leap Pianos & Voices of Soul, Nomad Factory Integral Studio Pack, BBE D82 Sonic Maximizer, Slate Digital VCC RC Tube and Trigger, MOTU PCIe 424, 3-2408Mk3's, 24io, MTP AV USB, Apogee A/D & Big Ben, CraneSong HEDD 192, ATC monitors, racks full of outboard, 90 microphones, MIDI/keyboard rig, house drums & tuned percussion etc...
User avatar
bayswater
Posts: 11923
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:06 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Vancouver

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

Post by bayswater »

Phil O wrote: Was the test a perfectly designed double blind study? No.
What I saw reported is that the judges were not told which was which, and the people conducting the test and asking the questions did not know. That makes it double blind. Whether it was a perfectly designed double blind test is something that could be debated forever.
2018 Mini i7 32G 10.14.6, DP 11.3, Mixbus 9, Logic 10.5, Scarlett 18i8
User avatar
Phil O
Posts: 7231
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Scituate, MA

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

Post by Phil O »

bayswater wrote:
Phil O wrote: Was the test a perfectly designed double blind study? No.
What I saw reported is that the judges were not told which was which, and the people conducting the test and asking the questions did not know. That makes it double blind. Whether it was a perfectly designed double blind test is something that could be debated forever.
I think I covered that.
Phil O wrote:I think that one needs to consider the possibility that this group of engineers was not a bunch of idiots, that they set up conditions that were a reasonably good test, and that they did actually perceive a difference.
Phil
DP 11.23, 2020 M1 Mac Mini [9,1] (16 Gig RAM), Mac Pro 3GHz 8 core [6,1] (16 Gig RAM), OS 14.3.1/11.6.2, Lynx Aurora (n) 8tb, MOTU 8pre-es, MOTU M6, MOTU 828, Apogee Rosetta 800, UAD-2 Satellite, a truckload of outboard gear and plug-ins, and a partridge in a pear tree.
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 »

Shooshie wrote:I participated in a DAW shootout in Las Vegas about 11 years ago. Not as extensive as RG's, but each of the people listening were high-level professionals in the music, recording, and/or audio industries in LV. It was a blind test; the panel could not tell which DAW was playing. DP won, but what was really interesting about it was that DP won unanimously, and I was the only actual DP user in the room.
This result has now been promoted from "isolated anecdote" to "multi-site study." :mrgreen:
User avatar
James Steele
Site Administrator
Posts: 21068
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: San Diego, CA - U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by James Steele »

With all due respect toodamnhip, as far as whether my comments about Hendrix meet with your approval or not, my point is that unless we're talking about individuals who are just so damned talented in terms of their compositional skills that minor differences between DAWs is the last remaining roadblock to improving their end result, then the point remains. I'd bet my bottom dollar that for most of us, it's not the "sound" of a particular DAW that's standing between us and our musical goals and vision. Oh-- and I'll discuss what I want to in this topic, just as you always do.
JamesSteeleProject.com | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Mac Studio M1 Max, 64GB/2TB, MacOS 14.4.1 Sonoma, DP 11.31, MOTU 828es, MOTU 24Ai, MOTU MIDI Express XT, UAD-2 TB3 Satellite OCTO, Console 1 Mk2, Avid S3, NI Komplete Kontrol S88 Mk2, Red Type B, Millennia HV-3C, Warm Audio WA-2A, AudioScape 76F, Dean guitars, Marshall amps, etc., etc.!
User avatar
Gravity Jim
Posts: 2005
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:55 am
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: Santa Rosa, CA

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

Post by Gravity Jim »

James Steele wrote:With all due respect toodamnhip, as far as whether my comments about Hendrix meet with your approval or not, my point is that unless we're talking about individuals who are just so damned talented in terms of their compositional skills that minor differences between DAWs is the last remaining roadblock to improving their end result, then the point remains.
Man, I wish I'd said it that well. Precisely. I have a pantload more between me and my perfect vision than the teeny differences between DP and something else.
Jim Bordner

MacPro 5,1 (3.33Ghz 12-core), 32g RAM, OS X 10.14.6 • MOTU DP 10.11 • Logic Pro X 10.2.5 • Waves Platinum, UAD-2, Slate Digital, Komplete, Omnisphere 2, LASS, CineSamples, Chipsounds, V Collection 5[color]
User avatar
James Steele
Site Administrator
Posts: 21068
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Location: San Diego, CA - U.S.A.
Contact:

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

Post by James Steele »

jloeb wrote:This result has now been promoted from "isolated anecdote" to "multi-site study." :mrgreen:
:rofl: I dare you to go use that term on GS... no really... I dare ya! :rofl:
JamesSteeleProject.com | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter

Mac Studio M1 Max, 64GB/2TB, MacOS 14.4.1 Sonoma, DP 11.31, MOTU 828es, MOTU 24Ai, MOTU MIDI Express XT, UAD-2 TB3 Satellite OCTO, Console 1 Mk2, Avid S3, NI Komplete Kontrol S88 Mk2, Red Type B, Millennia HV-3C, Warm Audio WA-2A, AudioScape 76F, Dean guitars, Marshall amps, etc., etc.!
User avatar
toodamnhip
Posts: 3839
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

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

Post by toodamnhip »

Renaissance Man wrote:Thanks for the thread Radiogal, and for your resolve in getting DP into these listening tests.
I can now go back to work knowing that DP has indeed performed well and that PT-10 isn't necessarily the “game changer” its poo poo’d to be on Avid's site.

I agree with so many here that there are those with “vested” interests in seeing ProTools come out on top. They are so vested in fact, that anything that contradicts their belief system simply must be wrong.

Audio professionals are in a technology driven profession; one that requires we stay on the “bleeding edge” or risk being relegated to yesterday’s news. There’s a certain inherent anxiety that casts a long dark shadow- one that can only be driven back by spending some ungodly amount of cash on the "latest and greatest".
It’s reassuring to know that just because DP doesn’t cost some ridiculous amount of money, doesn’t make it an inferior DAW. Point in fact, according to the esteemed audio professionals involved in this test, DP sounds best.
The funny thing is, being on the "bleeding edge", is really going BACK in time!!

What do you think I do all the time?

I buy emulations of great OLD gear. And, I buy VI's that replace all my hardware synths.
What is happening now is that all the old and great things about music, are all being re-emulated in an even better circumstance.

At the end, it will all be better.

Tape machines will be emulated, compressors, mics, synthesizers.

It is very interesting to see the front edge of music actually being a return to the best things of the past...and one day, it will all be available on my wrist watch...lol...
Mac Pro (Late 2013
2.7 GHz 12-Core Intel Xeon E5
64 GB 1866 MHz DDR3
Mojave
DP 10.13
MOTU 8pre, MTP AV, 828 mkII
Tons of VIS and plug ins. SSD hard drives etc
User avatar
toodamnhip
Posts: 3839
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 10:01 pm
Primary DAW OS: MacOS
Contact:

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

Post by toodamnhip »

James Steele wrote:With all due respect toodamnhip, as far as whether my comments about Hendrix meet with your approval or not, my point is that unless we're talking about individuals who are just so damned talented in terms of their compositional skills that minor differences between DAWs is the last remaining roadblock to improving their end result, then the point remains. I'd bet my bottom dollar that for most of us, it's not the "sound" of a particular DAW that's standing between us and our musical goals and vision. Oh-- and I'll discuss what I want to in this topic, just as you always do.
Of course my brotha...

But again, we all should already know that it is all about the musicianship, writing etc.
Stating it is just redundant, though well within your rights, especially as moderator.

Imagine if in the middle of a hot debate over DP's EQ's, or any of DPs features, I went in and said-"Well, a great mic doesn't need EQ", "the old guys didn't need 10 tracks so why complain that DP crashes above 10 tracks"..."the old guys got a great sound with mic placement so you needing eq is silly"...

These statements are a given.

Great is great, but this discussion is about technical greatness or lack thereof.
So, ok, Hendrix could get a great sound out of all the digital workstations.
Now what? Do we stop improving them because he didn;t have a DAW?

I suppose you mention Hendrix as a point to those that rely on technical stuff as a substitute for great music.

But anyone who continually tweeks software instead of making great music...well..they have problems...lol

p.s.

I am playing Purple Haze while typing this to you ... :surrender:
Mac Pro (Late 2013
2.7 GHz 12-Core Intel Xeon E5
64 GB 1866 MHz DDR3
Mojave
DP 10.13
MOTU 8pre, MTP AV, 828 mkII
Tons of VIS and plug ins. SSD hard drives etc
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 »

I would have gone with Foxy Lady or Red House. Nah. The Wind Cries Mary. (Eb-E-F; all double bars).

WWJD (What would Jimi Do?)
2013 Mac Pro 32GB RAM

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

MIDI LIFE CRISIS
Post Reply