MOTUnation.com

Geez. The test was primarily intended to figure out whether or not DAWs indeed sound different. To be more precise, if they sound different on playback. (The way the test was set up, that was the only measured and relevant variable.)

And the most important result of the test was that yes, they do sound different on playback, even after adjusting for level and pan laws.

If, as some here argue, any notion of an audible difference had been indeed completely based on group-think, the bias would not have been consistent in favor of MPB1. This was a double-blind test, so the spread would have been more random if group-think had been a factor in determining whether or not there was a difference in sound. Ditto if there had been zero actual difference in sound - again, in a double-blind test the spread would have been more random, not reliably favoring or disfavoring one over the others. That is why one conducts tests double-blind in the first place.

The very personal, yet apparently unanimous opinion in the room that made DP everyone's favorite, was a, let's call it, "added bonus." That part by design is subjective. The intention was to lay to rest the question whether or not native DAWs sound different. That was laid to rest. They apparently do. QED.

[RANT]
Now that this double-blind experiment has been conducted, anyone wanting to dispute the result that DAWs sound different has to first set up their own experiment, with as much or more scrutiny. That's how it's done. --- Also, why people think from a photo that the room was not good for listening is a mystery to me - it's a recording studio and it's 30 audio engineers. Ya think they would have accepted a listening environment that was beyond suspect to all of them? These are professionals who set out to answer a question and put their professional association's name on it - not laptop owners hanging around in internet forums between Fruityloops sessions. But in the age of "everyone with a modem is an expert", there's little respect for professional associations left - respect like that would indeed put into question every amateur's high opinion of themselves. So instead they just assume the Swedish Audio Engineering Society is ignorant on both pan laws and room acoustics. Ya know, what do they know compared to some kid with 35 posts on Gearslutz? Hey, I read Bob Katz' book! And I went to Berklee...! Online!

[/RANT]

I posted a photo of a listening room. Wasn't that 'nuf? We need more photos? LOL! j/k

Now that we know they sound different, the next question is - do the printed mixes null?

If they do, that means the DAWs sound different while printing the same. That of course would bring up a whole different set of questions.

If the printed mixes don't null and the audible difference indeed carries through to the printed result, then that of course just let's you pick the "tape machine" you like best.

(In fact we kinda already know that DAWs play back the same stereo file differently - the "Jazzy" piece in the Swedish test proved precisely that. Question is, do they print the same stereo mix despite playing back differently? The following is conjecture by a composer, not a software engineer, but I'd venture to say that's not only possible but even likely - if for no other reason than that native DAWs go constantly between 24bit fixed and 32bit float. Wouldn't that have to be accompanied by algorithms that do the rounding, and of course those would likely be designed differently by the different engineers that make the different DAWs?)

Hmmmm... interesting stuff! I have been really busy so not around here a lot. I'm pleased to see that the person who attacked our dear Trish with the most enthusiasm apparently edited his posts and removed it.

I think one salient point here is that whether it is argued as being scientific or not, had PT or Logic come out on top I agree with RG that it would've been met with less skepticism, but because Digital Performer did, I think it sort of helps remove the "stigma" that DP endures. It's a stigma, by the way, largely manufactured by people who have a vested interested in maintaining the perceived superiority of their Pro Tools studios. There's a financial incentive to be able to take that phone call from a prospective client and pooh-pooh your competition who uses Digital Performer or another DAW. We see it all the time, and in a way I think the Pro Tools guys know it's bunk but they've been milking it for all the $$$ it's worth.

That song I did... if any of you missed it... "It Goes To Eleven" was 100% tracked and mixed and mastered in Digital Performer 7.24 from start to finish. I've had people comment about how great it sounds. Me, I can't take credit for the mix. I have a my good friend, Jim Watson, mix it. He also played drums on the tune. It really proves more than anything that in the hands of a skilled person probably ANY modern DAW is more than capable.

Unscientifically, I've felt I heard a difference between Logic and DP in terms of sound, but I've kept such opinions to myself since I knew they can't necessarily be supported with hard data and who has the time to do tests. Really, DP's workflow is what wins out for me. I'm just WAY faster in it than other DAWs. It's not perfect... what DAW is? Tell you what though, every time I'm using the Comp Tool in DP, I just love it!

James Steele wrote:...It really proves more than anything that in the hands of a skilled person ....

Stop right there. Just that much applies to enough things in life that it could easily end any debate about probability. For me, what you've said is the essence of it.

Frodo wrote:

James Steele wrote:...It really proves more than anything that in the hands of a skilled person ....

Stop right there. Just that much applies to enough things in life that it could easily end any debate about probability. For me, what you've said is the essence of it.

Yeah... seriously... it's like the question "How's THAT guitar sound?" The best answer is and always has been: "That depends who's playing it." 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.

No need to wonder, James. Just go into any Guitar Center and spend a few minutes listening to some of the folks trying out instruments. It may bring you to tears as well - albeit for a different reason.

James Steele wrote:Unscientifically, I've felt I heard a difference between Logic and DP in terms of sound, but I've kept such opinions to myself since I knew they can't necessarily be supported with hard data and who has the time to do tests.

That was my unscientific observation as well. It's the only "DAW test" I've ever done. I just had a couple dozen stereo tracks, hard panned, no plugs. Logic (8) seemed more "in your face", with no depth behind it, compared to DP (6). I felt like I could poke holes in the Logic mix.

I have PT 9 in here, but I don't have the time or inclination to compare them. WTF cares? DP is my workstation of choice, for so many reasons. Would they "null?" I'm thinking that anyone who cares about that is not doing music for a living.

I attacked the guy over there because his brand of "educated" arrogance makes me ill and angry. When he removed, I removed.

But remember gang, and especially you Radiogal, most of those kids over there have no clue about anything, and they're angry because of it. When they post, their top row of teeth are showing, but they're not smiling. I'm so glad we don't have that here..

The funniest part about that thread is when they figured out that it was posted for our amusement. I think they figured out that they'd been had.

Of course, there are always the ones that will keep going and going.

Anyway, back to work- we're making another album here!

Radiogal wrote:Imagine this:
5 DAWs 5 MBP Optical O/P

"Hurray PT 10 was the most liked DAW!! 30+ audio pro engineers. Man! That many?? So cool!!! PT10 Sounded the fullest deepest and most complete. Hurray hurray!!! Fanfare!!! Yeah buddy! I´ve been using PT since I was born. You too.. ?? Love this DAW. Love you guys. We´re rocking!!! Let´s spread the news about this! Let´s tell the world!!! Let´s post on GS......"


What really happens right now on GS:
"Whut? No, really... DP ... are you kidding??? Oh No!!!! That´s not.. eh..true.. eh? No the test must be wrong. All DAW sound the same! Must be something wrong with the set up!!! Those stupid swedes must be totally nuts. All must be deaph so called engineers and audio slaves following their leaders, MOTU dictators probably.
Man, all swedish music sounds crap. DP??? This just can´t be true...!! Must check RG post on GS.. See!!! She writes about DP in other posts too!!! Man, she´s to DP friendly. No wonder!!! Stupid girl to post this BS. Knows nothing about anything about what GS is all about"..."

People get "Vested".
Especially when they spend more and more money.
Any person wants to be "RIGHT".
If a person spends 12000+ on Pro Tools, and has 10 yrs of projects recorded on it, they really are VESTED.
Meaning they are INVESTED, they have a VESTED interest in having their DAW win!
DP beating their vested interests makes them personally feel wrong.
So one must have empathy for these poor souls.
It is human nature.
They are not being very scientific when they complain because DP isn;t the fancy-dancy DAW they've grown to know and love.

But they are being human.
Personally, I'd hate to find out I spent 12000 on ANYTHING and later find out a 600 product beat it..
Yikes.

Gear Sluts, land of the average human for sure.

Killahurts wrote:

James Steele wrote:Unscientifically, I've felt I heard a difference between Logic and DP in terms of sound, but I've kept such opinions to myself since I knew they can't necessarily be supported with hard data and who has the time to do tests.

That was my unscientific observation as well. It's the only "DAW test" I've ever done. I just had a couple dozen stereo tracks, hard panned, no plugs. Logic (8) seemed more "in your face"...

"In your face" is a good way to put it. That's exactly how it felt to me. Might be good for dense rock mixes... I dunno... but it did seem different.

Anyway, back to work- we're making another album here!

THAT is the critical thing. I have a pet theory about why DP doesn't get as much cheerleading in a lot of these other forums. MOST of the people I know who are Digital Performer users are TOO BUSY WORKING to participate in the fan polls and such. Also, since their time is limited, many will lurk HERE or participate HERE, but have to prioritize their time and don't have time to be evangelizing or being present on many different listservs or boards.

One example: DAW-MAC. Great list and the intention of the list was pretty much what it sounds like: discussion for Mac-based DAWs. But DP users have MOTU-MAC and this board so over time DAW-MAC became pretty much a defacto ProTools list and that's far and away the main DAW discussed there.

Any way, I remember hearing some story (whether true or not I don't know, but I like it) that some interviewer was asking Neil Peart what type of snare he played, and brand and size of his hi-hats, etc. According to the story, Neil was weary of this sort of nuts-and-bolts minutia, and groused that when a carpenter builds something beautiful, do you admire the end result and skill that goes into it, or do you want to know whether he cut the wood with a Makita or Stanley? Does it matter?

Kubi wrote:Now that we know they sound different, the next question is - do the printed mixes null?

If they do, that means the DAWs sound different while printing the same. That of course would bring up a whole different set of questions.

If the printed mixes don't null and the audible difference indeed carries through to the printed result, then that of course just let's you pick the "tape machine" you like best.

(In fact we kinda already know that DAWs play back the same stereo file differently - the "Jazzy" piece in the Swedish test proved precisely that. Question is, do they print the same stereo mix despite playing back differently? The following is conjecture by a composer, not a software engineer, but I'd venture to say that's not only possible but even likely - if for no other reason than that native DAWs go constantly between 24bit fixed and 32bit float. Wouldn't that have to be accompanied by algorithms that do the rounding, and of course those would likely be designed differently by the different engineers that make the different DAWs?)

I think someone over at GS mentioned that it was proven some time ago that such printed mixes null using several DAWs...
Did this test include prints and 'nulling' ?

Klaus

Radiogal wrote:Monday 2011-11-14 The scene: Soundtrade Studios in Stockholm. Live room.

30 tracks multitrack projects all with equal panning and gain. (pan law etc were carefully compensated for)

I am curious about this?
How does one "compensate" for different pan laws?
Could this make a difference and lead to Dp sounding more open?
I think I would have preferred stereo files panned dead center so that no "panning laws" necessitated adjustments of any kind beyond fader straight up, center.
That way, there would be no adjustments.
I don;t know much about pan laws but I do know that DPs panning seems a bit imprecise being on a scale from 1 to 64.
To tell me that there are truly only 64 increments of adjustability between center and far right or far left seems limited. Why isn't DP's pan in DP?
What are the pan incremements of an SSL for examples? Are there more than 64?
None of this really matters except that if DP's pan was adjusted to right 15 and logics to right 17, and Pro Tools to right 18 or right 2.5db etc, there seems to be plenty of room for differences that are added by imprecise panning ballistics.

Food for thought.
I am perfectly willing to concede that DP sounds best though.

By the way, The next text I would like to see is 5 brand new computers, and lets put the 5 DAWS through their paces to see which one crashes more and which one eats up processor power most, adding one behemoth VI or plug at a time until BOOM, crash!

Pro Tools would have to be the native version of course.
But, fully expecting the power issue to beat DP, the HD version could also be compared for stability etc.

If that test were run, I think DP would not win, unfortunately.
But who knows, maybe it would win? But i doubt it.

toodamnhip wrote:If that test were run, I think DP would not win, unfortunately. But who knows, maybe it would win? But i doubt it.

Uh oh. Damn. I better switch DAWs. I don't know how I'm getting anything done or that last mix done on DP turned out so well. So much "dancing about architecture." LOL

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.

I think the thing here is to "listen" with your "ears"...
I don't listen to oscilloscopes... I LOOK @ them. In the end... your ears are the judge.

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!!