Hi all,
I have to advise my school about a new to build DAW. All over the net I read claims like "DAW A sounds much better than DAW B", escpecially since I read the ($2500) SAWstudio forum.
So I did this: I took 4 short 16/44 mono tracks, imported them in PT. Track 1 at -11 db, track 2 at -17, track 3 at -23, track 4 at -27.
I bounced them in PT. I phase-inverted that bounce.
I set up an identical mix in SX2. I imported the inverted PTbounce an added it to the SX2 mix. Result: silence, the inverted PTmix totally zero'd the SXmix.
PT summing and SX summing is identical.
So I took the PTmix to SAWstudio, same story there.. Identical 4 tracks, identical volumesettings, with the inverted PTbounce in the mix I again had the purest silence I ever heard.
Funny thing is that the coder of SAW claims that the 'superior sound' of his coding is because of his integer summing engine, well du'h, it does exactly the same math as ProTools and Cubase (Nuendo) since the result of the different DAW's zero eachother.
So I thought "maybe it's not just the mixing, it's the way the different programs handle the plugins".
I added a Waves C1 with preset#2 to the tracks (and learned in the meantime that PT doesn't correctly handle plugindelaycompensation, when I inserted a C4 and put it on bypass the mix didn't zero anymore) and repeated everything: again, total esoteric meditative silence.
I started this because I was interested in the claim of the SAWfolks that their DAW sounded so much better then all the other. Well, with mixing it didn't, with pluginhandling it didn't, so what's left of this claim is the quality of the onboard EQ.
So I took the pluginversion of the internal SAWeq from JMLlabs and put it in Cubase. Did the same phase inverting trick, imported the result in SAW and I could zero the mix again by setting SAW's onboard EQ at the same settings I did with the JMLplugin.
Maybe SAW is very good coded, maybe the eq sounds pretty good, but its claim of beeing sonically superior is BS.
Just as BS it is to claim Nuendo as a better sounding tool than PT and viceversa.
I'm a bit confused about the religious-like support some proaudioguys WANT to give to their DAW of choice since you can have 'amateur'stuff like Cubase/Nuendo sound exactly like SAW by adding the JMLlabs eq plugin..
And that NOBODY did this trick to confirm the (false) claim of the (any) coder is scary in the "do people really need to be this ignorant" way..
So its all up to proper eq'ing, dynamics, room and automation that makes a great mix. On which platform you do it doesn't seem to make any difference (if you have the same plugins ofcourse=).
Bye,
Nick Mulder
the Netherlands
I have to advise my school about a new to build DAW. All over the net I read claims like "DAW A sounds much better than DAW B", escpecially since I read the ($2500) SAWstudio forum.
So I did this: I took 4 short 16/44 mono tracks, imported them in PT. Track 1 at -11 db, track 2 at -17, track 3 at -23, track 4 at -27.
I bounced them in PT. I phase-inverted that bounce.
I set up an identical mix in SX2. I imported the inverted PTbounce an added it to the SX2 mix. Result: silence, the inverted PTmix totally zero'd the SXmix.
PT summing and SX summing is identical.
So I took the PTmix to SAWstudio, same story there.. Identical 4 tracks, identical volumesettings, with the inverted PTbounce in the mix I again had the purest silence I ever heard.
Funny thing is that the coder of SAW claims that the 'superior sound' of his coding is because of his integer summing engine, well du'h, it does exactly the same math as ProTools and Cubase (Nuendo) since the result of the different DAW's zero eachother.
So I thought "maybe it's not just the mixing, it's the way the different programs handle the plugins".
I added a Waves C1 with preset#2 to the tracks (and learned in the meantime that PT doesn't correctly handle plugindelaycompensation, when I inserted a C4 and put it on bypass the mix didn't zero anymore) and repeated everything: again, total esoteric meditative silence.
I started this because I was interested in the claim of the SAWfolks that their DAW sounded so much better then all the other. Well, with mixing it didn't, with pluginhandling it didn't, so what's left of this claim is the quality of the onboard EQ.
So I took the pluginversion of the internal SAWeq from JMLlabs and put it in Cubase. Did the same phase inverting trick, imported the result in SAW and I could zero the mix again by setting SAW's onboard EQ at the same settings I did with the JMLplugin.
Maybe SAW is very good coded, maybe the eq sounds pretty good, but its claim of beeing sonically superior is BS.
Just as BS it is to claim Nuendo as a better sounding tool than PT and viceversa.
I'm a bit confused about the religious-like support some proaudioguys WANT to give to their DAW of choice since you can have 'amateur'stuff like Cubase/Nuendo sound exactly like SAW by adding the JMLlabs eq plugin..
And that NOBODY did this trick to confirm the (false) claim of the (any) coder is scary in the "do people really need to be this ignorant" way..
So its all up to proper eq'ing, dynamics, room and automation that makes a great mix. On which platform you do it doesn't seem to make any difference (if you have the same plugins ofcourse=).
Bye,
Nick Mulder
the Netherlands
on.
