Topic: Are There Any Sonic Differences In DAW Software?

[Chuck]

Oppps... took too long to save....

I don't happen to agree that excessive bit-rates and sampling rates make as much of a difference as some people perceive. The playback equipment, room shape, listeners frame of mind weigh much more on the perceived sound than the bit-rate/ samples rates used.

Back in the old days, 1980's etc... when digital first started creeping into more widespread audio use, things like 8-12 bit samplers and delays sounded god awful. But, with modern at a minimum 44.1 kHz, 16 bit gear that horrible low bit rate sound is no longer heard. At least by me...

[Chuck]

Sorry about the multiple posts I was eventually getting to the actual question asked.

I work in audio, I've used most of the major and much of the minor DAW editing software over the years. Though I haven't actually done repeatable tests, I think it's safe to say that most modern DAW editing software out there doesn't add audible distortions to the audio during processing. Unless, of course you do something wrong, like add too much gain and get digital clipping or you intentionally add distortions.

The over sampling used when processing digital EQ for example, using modern software is a good thing. As it help ensure that that type of distortion is processed under the best possible conditions.

Does WaveLab DAW processing sound better than than editing using Audacity? I can't say for a scientific certainty either way.
But the linear difference is much less than the difference than running the same signals through old analog gear.

[Gutbucket]

I couldn't agree with you more about being pragmatic, although for some reason that position feels at odds with the fact that I'm a professional engineer.   

Applied engineering is determining the most optimal compromise of all applicable idealized systems!  What could be more pragmatic? 

[stevetoney]

I couldn't agree with you more about being pragmatic, although for some reason that position feels at odds with the fact that I'm a professional engineer.   

Applied engineering is determining the most optimal compromise of all applicable idealized systems!  What could be more pragmatic? 

Well, ever since becoming a taper, Ive subsvribed to the concept that if I can't hear a sonic difference on a macro scale then I really don't care much about the particulars on a micro scale.  That concept doesn't translate well in say chemical engineering....lol

[Matt Quinn]

I know people have their software preferences based mainly on features and/or workflow tendenices, but I've always wondered if there have been either empirical or anecdotal comps done to determine if any of the software's processing has been shown to affect sound quality any better or worse than another package? 

To perhaps clarify this question a bit, I'm not talking about whether one package has a better sounding set of special features, like effects packages...say reverb or whatever.  I'm talking about some of the basic functions we do here on probably close to 100% of our recordings...dithering, normalizing, and for some people EQ.

They all sound the same when performing the typical functions you're asking about. This has been discussed at nauseating length on the Ableton forum after a number of famous producers complained about Live's sound quality. Here's a link to an interesting and informative test between Live & Logic, performed by a professional mastering engineer:

http://tarekith.com/sound-quality-live-versus-logic/

[DigiGal]

IDK, here's a link that will allow you to compare SRC of many different DAW setups and software.

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

[Chuck]

Good reading. Thanks Digi and Matt.