Best Sounding DAW

[AceLuby]

The best sounding DAW is...



... whichever one you can produce the best sounding music in for the way you work.

And that may even mean several DAWs for different parts of the job.

/end thread
/end discussion forever



The irony in all this is that I wouldnt mind betting that after all DAW companies have put so much effort into making them all as transparent as possible, that very soon now we will see the introduction of 'character mixers' in DAWs to try and capture the essence of renowned consoles etc (Well if truth be told its already started - Propellerhead's Record). So next year wen we have this discussion again - it might have some merit and which mixer is actually the best in the same DAW - the SSL simulation or the Neve simulation or the TL Audio M4 simulation etc and wether the SSL summing in logic pro x is better than the SSL summing EQ, dynamics etc in Cubase 7 or props record etc blah blah

But that is exactly what I have been saying!! Who needs transparency..well the type of production I do, I certainly do not. I need character. All wind instruments dont sound the same. So why should a DAW?
And if all DAWs sounded alike, what gave rise to the market for DAWs?

Features... workflow... built in devices... marketing... uses... CPU load...

If all fryers fry food the same, what gave rise to the market for fryers?

[H20nly]

So next year wen we have this discussion again - it might have some merit

this is one of those cases where your long term goal is completely unreasonable.

So next thread this month wen we have this discussion again - it might have some merit, but its doubtful.

fixed

[evon]

The best sounding DAW is...



... whichever one you can produce the best sounding music in for the way you work.

And that may even mean several DAWs for different parts of the job.

/end thread
/end discussion forever



The irony in all this is that I wouldnt mind betting that after all DAW companies have put so much effort into making them all as transparent as possible, that very soon now we will see the introduction of 'character mixers' in DAWs to try and capture the essence of renowned consoles etc (Well if truth be told its already started - Propellerhead's Record). So next year wen we have this discussion again - it might have some merit and which mixer is actually the best in the same DAW - the SSL simulation or the Neve simulation or the TL Audio M4 simulation etc and wether the SSL summing in logic pro x is better than the SSL summing EQ, dynamics etc in Cubase 7 or props record etc blah blah

But that is exactly what I have been saying!! Who needs transparency..well the type of production I do, I certainly do not. I need character. All wind instruments dont sound the same. So why should a DAW?
And if all DAWs sounded alike, what gave rise to the market for DAWs?

Features... workflow... built in devices... marketing... uses... CPU load...

I expected that....so therefore we would opt for whichever of these features mattered most to us; which is irrelevant to the point we are discussing here. We are talking about reality that some DAWs do sound better than others, and as research has shown, there has always been a popular consensus on this.

If all fryers fry food the same, what gave rise to the market for fryers?

So you agree that all fryers fry food are not the same.

[AceLuby]

But that is exactly what I have been saying!! Who needs transparency..well the type of production I do, I certainly do not. I need character. All wind instruments dont sound the same. So why should a DAW?
And if all DAWs sounded alike, what gave rise to the market for DAWs?

Features... workflow... built in devices... marketing... uses... CPU load...

I expected that....so therefore we would opt for whichever of these features mattered most to us; which is irrelevant to the point we are discussing here. We are talking about reality that some DAWs do sound better than others, and as research has shown, there has always been a popular consensus on this.

If all fryers fry food the same, what gave rise to the market for fryers?

So you agree that all fryers fry food are not the same.

Research has not shown that, if it did you would have presented it, and there isn't a 'popular consensus'. There are two groups of thought, those who look at objective scientific analysis, and those who swear their subjective ears can tell the difference. It has been shown that Live is quieter than other DAWs, but in the end a song rendered in live will phase cancel the same song rendered in another DAW, or itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wj ... r_embedded
http://forum.ableton.com/viewtopic.php? ... 3&start=45

And yes, I agree all fryers that fry food are not the same, however, they all do the same thing and create the same product. It was an example showing you that even though there is a market for something and many products to fill that market it's not any kind of 'proof' that any of them are better or worse at their core functionality, frying food. Fries will be fries whether fried in fryer A or fryer B. The market is created due to options, size, etc... just like the DAW market.

[evon]

My research has shown that the same DAW comes up as market leader year after year. Isn't this consensus? And with all the phase canceling and scientific experiments they are just that, scientific experiments into trying to represent the physically identifiable characteristics of the human ear. Just like how digitally represented sound can never be exactly like analog

[ze2be]

The best sounding DAW is the one you are the most experienced with.

[AceLuby]

My research has shown that the same DAW comes up as market leader year after year. Isn't this consensus? And with all the phase canceling and scientific experiments they are just that, scientific experiments into trying to represent the physically identifiable characteristics of the human ear. Just like how digitally represented sound can never be exactly like analog

No, that's not consensus, that's simply who sold the most and has nothing to do w/ the product. The market leader for OS's is Windows, does that mean the consensus is that Windows is the most reliable and best OS on the market? Using your logic, it does.

The human ear is fallible, phase cancelling experiments are not. That's the whole point. Your ear is not a reliable source for objective analysis. Also, the experiments aren't there to 'represent the human ear' they are there to show objectively that two sources of sound are audibly equal, something the human ear has a lot of difficulty doing, even trained ones. Again, your ear is not a reliable source for objective analysis and if that's all you got then you've got nothing.

[Rationalizer]

@AceLuby I respect your intentions but I'm afraid they are a bit futile. Some people insist that they know better than science. And from that view point there is nothing that can be said to change their minds.

"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell

[AceLuby]

@AceLuby I respect your intentions but I'm afraid they are a bit futile. Some people insist that they know better than science. And from that view point there is nothing that can be said to change their minds.

"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell

It's like trying to convince a creationist that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Forget science, it's all about what you 'believe'... lol.

[evon]

My research has shown that the same DAW comes up as market leader year after year. Isn't this consensus? And with all the phase canceling and scientific experiments they are just that, scientific experiments into trying to represent the physically identifiable characteristics of the human ear. Just like how digitally represented sound can never be exactly like analog

No, that's not consensus, that's simply who sold the most and has nothing to do w/ the product. The market leader for OS's is Windows, does that mean the consensus is that Windows is the most reliable and best OS on the market? Using your logic, it does.

The human ear is fallible, phase cancelling experiments are not. That's the whole point. Your ear is not a reliable source for objective analysis. Also, the experiments aren't there to 'represent the human ear' they are there to show objectively that two sources of sound are audibly equal, something the human ear has a lot of difficulty doing, even trained ones. Again, your ear is not a reliable source for objective analysis and if that's all you got then you've got nothing.

Again you are straying from the topic. The criterion we are discussing here is "Best Sounding". Sounding...having to do with the ear and hearing.

Why do you need to do all this objective analysis? Hearing is not objective. It is only for each person to admit that this sounds better than that.

This shouldn't be so hard to conceive. This is the domain of hit music: thousands (and millions) of people showing their consensus on the likability of a musical project.

[evon]

@AceLuby I respect your intentions but I'm afraid they are a bit futile. Some people insist that they know better than science. And from that view point there is nothing that can be said to change their minds.

"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell

It's like trying to convince a creationist that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Forget science, it's all about what you 'believe'... lol.

Yes and the frontiers..or I should say the pillars of science/physics have constantly been shaken as humans develop and a lot of the fundamentals that science used to base their assumptions on continue change/evolve. A few weeks ago science proved that this was good and this week we hear that it is now bad.

We are talking about something subjective and are asking for opinions. And come to think it is a good thing that hearing is subjective and not stereotypical because I would hate to be hearing what some of you guys are hearing. Or look on it the other way, if you guys were hearing what I was hearing you would change your argument.

However, that is a completely different topic that we can discuss on another forum when I am feeling good, if you like.

[ollyb303]

if you guys were hearing what I was hearing you would change your argument.

You're an idiot.

[innerstatejt]

The best "sounding" Daw is the DAW you can be the most creative in. Who wants perfect sterile & uninspiring music? I'd rather listen to a 3rd generation cassette of good old blues than perfect sounding soulless music. If the goal is to have an impact of your audience, create with whatever inspires you. The math behind it will sort itself out.

Any time everyone agrees on the one way to get the most pristine sound, we get so burned out on those clean recordings that the new trend is to record on the ugliest sounding stuff just to get a little grit back into things. God bless the Strokes for bringing back a lo fi sound in the 90's. That brick wall of heavy distorted guitars that was in EVERY rock song just sounded terrible, no matter how pristing the production.

Soul . Inspiration . Fun . are what will always create the best sounding tunes.

At least that's my take....

[evon]

if you guys were hearing what I was hearing you would change your argument.

You're an idiot.

And I guess you arrived at that conclusion by a scientific analysis. Well it seems to me you arrived at that subjectively, and maybe also by consensus.

So you seem to have your stuff all mixed up. You dont know what you are hearing so you analyze it scientifically and then you determine that I am idiot without showing how you arrived at that conclusion.

And my friend that leaves me to conclude that you are even a bigger idiot than I..my conclusions have determined that you are a fool.

[AceLuby]

@AceLuby I respect your intentions but I'm afraid they are a bit futile. Some people insist that they know better than science. And from that view point there is nothing that can be said to change their minds.

"Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell

It's like trying to convince a creationist that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Forget science, it's all about what you 'believe'... lol.

Yes and the frontiers..or I should say the pillars of science/physics have constantly been shaken as humans develop and a lot of the fundamentals that science used to base their assumptions on continue change/evolve. A few weeks ago science proved that this was good and this week we hear that it is now bad.

We are talking about something subjective and are asking for opinions. And come to think it is a good thing that hearing is subjective and not stereotypical because I would hate to be hearing what some of you guys are hearing. Or look on it the other way, if you guys were hearing what I was hearing you would change your argument.

However, that is a completely different topic that we can discuss on another forum when I am feeling good, if you like.

That's the whole problem w/ your argument, you're trying to say it's subjective when you can objectively test it. You just ignore that because it doesn't fit w/ what you believe. That's why the word 'ignore' is in the word 'ignorance'.