Poll #1: SAW sound quality - am I crazy? (the horse refuses to die!)

[alchemist]

SawStudio sounds better to me than any other DAW out there.

But ... I am officially obsessed with the why.

You know, I can't sleep well thinking about this.

I am serious.

I know, I know, this is the 1,000,000th post about the engine's sound quality.

You might think this is futile. There seems no logical explanation to the percieved great sound quality of SAW. Nulling tests have been done. SAW nulls -inf when compared to other DAWs. But I swear I can hear the difference. Crystal-clear highs and lows. Sure. Call it off as "expectation bias". Whatever. SAW sounds (to me) like a console that is flat up to 200kHz.

I've done the tests. I mean, I believe in the scientific method. I expect to hear no differences. Today I matched a small mix that I did in SAWStudio with only fader moves in REAPER. I tried another one with VST plugins and fader movements (no internal effects). ABXed them with Foobar2000. No contest. I could pick up the SAW mix consistently. .. What the hell is going on?

I am going MAD.

SawStudio sounds like heaven.

But this makes me uneasy. Afraid. I mean ... what if something happens to Bob? (God forbid). How can the audio community continue without this software?

You see, I have become dependent on the program to create a mix that satisfies me. I can try mixing in another DAW, sure ... but the results are always lacking 'something'. That's probably why so many people obsess with plugins and summing boxes. There's 'something' missing.

See ... I really wanted to cry when I heard the mixes that Bud Johnson posted two days ago. They were mixed bone-dry. There were some overlapping frequencies. But it sounded so organic. When I heard the mixes I said "yup, this is the sound of SAW". Listen to SAW radio ... "it" is there in every mix.

But then again ... I could be NUTS. But then why can't I create mixes in other DAWs that that rival the ones I have done in SAW? What? are you going to attribute this to "workflow"? really?

Ok ... what about this theory:

What it phase cancelation tests do not tell all of the story?. Why are we using nulling tests when we can use bit-level comparisons?

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

Yep. I am nuts.

Shoot me.

What do you think about this? (go ahead, answer the poll).

[DominicPerry]

Without wanting to be rude, it's not a very objective list of answers. How about, "No, I prefer Samplitude but it falls over a lot so I use SAW". Or, "Pro Tools has better plugins and so my mixes sound better but I prefer to choose my own hardware". All of your answers are yes SAW sounds better (except the first) and not everyone will agree, that isn't why all of us are here.

Dominic

[DominicPerry]

My answer is "Yes it sounds better to me than Cubase, Audacity, ProTools LE and the same as Samplitude, but I have no idea why".

Dominic

[AudioAstronomer]

It's workflow and Available tools.

Every daw makes certain processes easier than others, and the user will usually lean towards those. Quickest availability of dsp processes as well will make a very large difference in the style, quality and sound of the mixes as well.

[Himhui]

Someone told me that the sound quality of SAWSTUDIO version 1.0 had already been that good. :D

[Microstudio]

I have recorded in many different DAW's and SAWStudio sounds the best.

My ears tell me and it was my ears that made me buy SAW.

[MikeDee]

SawStudio sounds better to me than any other DAW out there.

But ... I am officially obsessed with the why.

You know, I can't sleep well thinking about this.

I am serious.

I know, I know, this is the 1,000,000th post about the engine's sound quality.

You might think this is futile. ..........

And therein lies The Answer...as prophesied long ago, back in the SAWPro days, by MaXimum BoB, himself (remember the ads?).......

Resistance is Futile

Yep, Bob has us all under his spell...there are subliminal messages embedded in all o' his hand-coded assembly language routines. I keep studying the graphics during recording and playback, looking very closely for subtle (or not-so-subtle) images and icons to pop up here & there...like the subliminal Coke popups in the movie theaters.

Why, even Jeanne is in on it! It's all over the website...and on SAW Radio...even while it's down!!!

Is there no escape?!?! I-I can't................

Aahh...fugghedaboudit...I can't even type with a straight face...lmoao!! :D

Ahem...my two-part answer is:

1. I do hear a big difference between SAWStudio and AcidPro...and the first time I heard so, I was not expecting it and was, thus, blown away by the silkiness and fullness of SS...AcidPro sounds much thinner and harsher.

2. I do not hear a noticeable difference between SAWStudio and SoundForge. I might if I listen hard enough for differences, but that's when personal preferences and/or other subjective things might get in the way of pure objective listening. Besides, if I have to actually listen that hard for a difference...is it really worth doing so? At that point, I guess I'd better start A/B'ing sound cards, monitors, cables, the room......huh...music, what music? Oh, yea, I was mixing a tune about an hour or two ago...or was it last night......??? :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, the guy with the PortaStudio is busy putting out a record and getting signed.....ok, maybe I'm reaching...or am I? At this rate, he has a product to remix...and I have a clean and silky sound, which I've A/B'd to death...but no product. :eek:

Bottom line: I'm already satisfied with SAWStudio and the other tools I have. I'm gonna start A/B'ing my output, my products! I'll worry about which DAW is better once I've made enough ka¢hing to afford the time to do so...and even then, my answer will most likely remain the same. :)

Awright, I'm done...put a fork in me. :p

[Ian Alexander]

I have never compared the sound of SS to another DAW. I bought SSB because it offered some features I liked, but didn't have on SawPlus32. I bought SawPlus years ago because it would run on my Pentium 100 from Zeos. I already had WordPerfect and QuickBooks, so I wanted to stay on the PC side. [shrug]

I've stayed because the features work for me, it sounds fine to me, and the support is very good.

[CurtZHP]

Here's my limited experience. I recorded a song years ago on 1/2 analog. I later transfered the tracks to my PC using SAWPro. Years later, I remixed the song in Sony Vegas. I was never really satisfied with it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on why.

A year later, I got a Tascam DM-24 digital mixer. I tried remixing the song on the DM-24, using Vegas as nothing more than a playback deck. The result was much better.

Then I acquired SAWStudioLite. It was around this time that I started hearing a lot about the whole "Mixing In The Box" debate. I also joined this forum and heard about how SS was supposed to sound the best, especially when mixing ITB. (I had also heard the same thing on other forums.)

So, I took the same song and mixed it again in SAWStudioLite, basically copying as many parameters from the DM-24 mix as possible. (The EQ's are slightly different, and I had to use a different reverb.)

I A/B'ed the two mixes for weeks, often leaving several days between listens. I kept coming back to the SAW mix. For reasons I'm sure Bob could tell me, the high end was ever-so-slightly cleaner, the bass was tight, and the stereo imaging was the best I'd ever heard.

[Sam C]

yes, you are crazy.

[HapHazzard]

I haven't been with the digital side of recording for very long and what I do with my projects would make most of you gag and lose your lunch.

But...
I must say that after having Digital Performer 3, Cubase SX3, Cakewalk Project 5 and Guitar Pro that SSL's workflow is the best for speed and real feel. All the GUIness of the others was cute but it was like a freeway accident everytime I worked. I've only crashed a few times with SSL and I can surely say it was "my" fault. And even then I was able to recover my sessions in SSL with ease ( should have seen the client's face :eek: ). Native Plugins work great, VST are smooth and don't use up to much CPU. Patching is a breeze and mixing is like that of real world analog feel.

The Sound....

There is a difference. I don't what it is but everything doesn't have all the clutter around it. So now I have only "one" recording software because it's so hard to trust the other programs I have.

So for me it's Workflow first and Sound....OK it's a tie!:D

Hap

[jarvissound]

I have never compared the sound of SS to another DAW. I bought SSB because it offered some features I liked, but didn't have on SawPlus32. I bought SawPlus years ago because it would run on my Pentium 100 from Zeos. I already had WordPerfect and QuickBooks, so I wanted to stay on the PC side. [shrug]

I've stayed because the features work for me, it sounds fine to me, and the support is very good.

Haha Ian thats funny same here except mine was a Zeos Pentium 90--the 100MHz wasn't out yet. :p

Its been a great ride, and I've played with other software, only to come back home to SAW everytime. Its not so much a sound thing for me, its the sheer fluidity of the enviornment. This software is truly a work of art in my view....

Its funny, I almost switched to Mac and Logic about a year ago because I'd had it with Gigastudio and Bill Gates. The only thing that kept me in PC land was SAW, I just couldn't walk away from it. Last month we were sitting in a theatre and I was mixing and editing music and sound cues on a 16 point, 75 speaker surround system with my assistant, who is a MAC/Logic guy. After watching me work for awhile, he said, "this is the only piece of software I have ever watched someone use that I couldn't figure out how to use it just by watching them work with it. What I can tell you though is that if you'd switched to Logic you would be very, very frustrated right now..." He was blown away...he couldn't figure out how I was working so fast. Hehe.

I'll never look back again.....

Brett

[jarvissound]

Hey Bob, why do you think it sounds better? Or is that a secret?

Brett

[Ollie]

I have no idea if it sounds better than others. I have heard good music off of many a daw. I think the poll is a bit over-da-top. Micro you tag line mentions the Behringer ADA8000's. Now I hope your ears do not tell you that these sound better than many real good pres out there?

Either way, I think Saw is a friendly,easy program to use and it is extremely robust for the load I put it under. The sound is as good as what I put into it.

O


I have recorded in many different DAW's and SAWStudio sounds the best.

My ears tell me and it was my ears that made me buy SAW.

[shanabit]

Click on "Doubleplay"

http://www.sawstudio.com/support_videos.htm

I just cant get over what the live recording BOB did sounds like.
I believe he told me it was some bcheapo Behringer ADA8000 and the internal plugs from SAW. It sounds like I have BOSE speakers up in here HAHA

I went to their website,Steven Lee Group and BOB's live mix sounds better than the recording IMO. Im listening on CRAP speakers as well BTW, just cheapo mutimedia boxes. Ive listened to a lot of stuff TROCK has sent me from Roland VS2480,Cubase, Sonar, Reaper and the SAW stuff just sounds better and more ALIVE. I just sent Mat some money so I can check out the VIDEOS some more:cool:

[Microstudio]

I have no idea if it sounds better than others. I have heard good music off of many a daw. I think the poll is a bit over-da-top. Micro you tag line mentions the Behringer ADA8000's. Now I hope your ears do not tell you that these sound better than many real good pres out there?

Either way, I think Saw is a friendly,easy program to use and it is extremely robust for the load I put it under. The sound is as good as what I put into it.

O

Ollie my sig mentions the ADA8000 and what Bob did with them and my ears tell me from buying the CD and listening to it that they do sound great in the hands of Bob. You listen to it and tell us what your ears tell you.

My response to the poster here has nothing to do with my sig link.

[mako]

>snip<
doesn't have all the clutter around it. >snip<

My experience too.

Bob's mentioned before about 24 bit fixed point versus 32 bit floating point for audio.

Plus it flat-out works - even on a not-so-monster laptop.

cheers

mako

[SawItWantIt]

Bob's mentioned before about 24 bit fixed point versus 32 bit floating point for audio.


I thought the summing bus was 64-bit. Not sure where I read that. Either way, I tried most of the pc daw's and have decided to go with SAW.

[magicchord]

I use SAW Basic to feed 16 channels of D/A and I mix through an analog console. SAW has clearer highs and punchier lows than other apps I have, when used in that manner. There is a measurable difference in the mixes. So I'm convinced SAW Plays Back nicer. In the realm of in-the-box mixing, I don't know.

I think Bob knows what the difference is; he just sees no benefit to himself in telling us :D

[Bob L]

We have had this discussion many times... and each time it seems to turn into an argument... I no longer offer reasons why SS might sound better.

There are many message threads with my comments about how the SS mix engine is coded, and obviously handled quite differently than most other DAWs... beyond that... its really up to each individual to like or dislike the sound quality and features of whichever DAW he decides is right for him.

Bob L

[Rabbit]

Bob's right; we've been down this discussion road many times and those of us who believe SS sounds better than other recording software will continue to do so (unless something comes along to change minds), while those who don't won't based on anything said here. I'd say it's a matter of agreeing to disagree pretty much.

That said, I love how it sounds. ;)

[HapHazzard]

We have had this discussion many times... and each time it seems to turn into an argument... I no longer offer reasons why SS might sound better.

There are many message threads with my comments about how the SS mix engine is coded, and obviously handled quite differently than most other DAWs... beyond that... its really up to each individual to like or dislike the sound quality and features of whichever DAW he decides is right for him.

Bob L

True!
Now it's time to get back to work.

Cheers

[Tim Miskimon]

I mix through an outboard console and do stereo submix pairs of vocals, strings, brass, etc.
I've tried this with several other Daws over the past 10 years and personally think Saw sounds a bit better.
I first noticed this back in the late 90s while doing several sessions with Cakewalk Pro 6.
The top end in Pro 6 sounded brittle & the bass sounded looser than when I played the files back in Sawpro -
the sound of Sonar got worse every time I added another plugin - never did figure out why but there was definitely a difference.
Since then I have noticed that the newer versions of Cakewalk Pro audio (now Sonar) sound a lot closer to Saw but I personally hate doing sessions in Sonar.
Nuendo sounds pretty good but I really don't like the look or feel of it's work surface.

[MikeDee]

We have had this discussion many times... and each time it seems to turn into an argument... I no longer offer reasons why SS might sound better.

There are many message threads with my comments about how the SS mix engine is coded, and obviously handled quite differently than most other DAWs... beyond that... its really up to each individual to like or dislike the sound quality and features of whichever DAW he decides is right for him.

Bob L

Hence, my previous post (no extra charge for the tounge-in-cheek humor). :)

[jarvissound]

Just about every power Mac/Logic user/composer I know also has Giga on a PC. Same for many PT guys.

Mark

Mark,

I was trying to run SAW and Giga on the same laptop. Most of these guys run Giga on dedicated machines--supposedly that makes a difference. It would run great until the quicksound database would get corrupted and no number of uninstalls/reinstalls of Giga would fix it, only Windows reinstall. Google searches confirmed that many were having these same problems...I just couldn't afford the downtime, it was costing me bigtime money. A reinstall of Windows and all of my software literally takes DAYS....I'm now running Kontakt 2 and I wonder why I ever used Gigastudio. Its stable, powerful, easy to use and renders with Build to Mix in SAW, so its much much faster to work with. Gigastudio is, quite frankly, garbage--in my humble opinion. I've been running PC DAWS for 13 or so years and I've never had a piece of software give me that much trouble.

FWIW,
Brett

[mako]

Mark,

>snip< Gigastudio is, quite frankly, garbage--in my humble opinion.>snip<
FWIW,
Brett

My experience also - I tried hard for a couple of weeks but, in the end, it went to eBay.

mako

[fxPoint]

There was a very interesting thread at KVR regarding the difference between fixed-point and floating-point implementations of the “same” filter. After a somewhat blind test (not quite double-blind) a particular user strongly preferred the sound of (are you ready for it) the 32-bit fixed-point implementation. The other two filter designs were float double and 64-bit fixed point (!)

Much discussion ensued and one possible explanation was a preference for a particular kind of error…

It seems to me that with a relatively small word (24 bits), Saw Studio emulates the kind of error (noise, if you will) that an analog desk generates. It is just a theory but I think perhaps that (from a psychoacoustic standpoint) the ear wants to have the audio signal bounded by noise only slightly below the apparent threshold of hearing.

Of course – differing pan laws have been at the root of several “my DAW is better than your DAW” thread wars ….

peace,
pj

[studio-c]

[QUOTE=fxPoint;70696Of course – differing pan laws have been at the root of several “my DAW is better than your DAW” thread wars ….

And I'm sure that with the artistic quality of the work all these people create, and the budgets of their clients, nothing but the very best esoteric gear will do.

Always reminds me about the Calvin and Hobbes "Ford/Chevy" pissing sticker you see on construction workers' trucks. That's a useful thing to have occupying the front and center of your brain space, isn't it?

Cheers,
Scott

[lofi studios]

unfortunatly i am doing something wrong, i mix everything in SAW and get really nice results, pans where i want them and all the other shizzle, but if i build mix it seems to loose something, even on the same speakers.

before anybody goes off at the hip, i know its me, just asking for a bit of advice on how you guys do the final bounce?

many of my freinds and local engineers have been in and seen SAW, the only ones who dont like it are the lazy ones, those who are prepared to put in hours, like it, just that most of them are using MACS and dont want to run windoze progs at all.

getting a few bookings off them due to how easy it is to track in SAW.

Iain

[Bob L]

The buildmix should give you the exact results you are listening to as you the playback. The mix file is created in the exact same loop as the playback... so I am not sure what you would be hearing that changes.

How do you then listen to the final mix file... thru SAWStudio... or using a wav player? Which one?

Bob L

[lofi studios]

tried both, and they always seem a little bit more muffled, not a big deal, very very slight. its me somewhere, so dont worry about it. to tell you the truth they are still way better than i managed in other daws but if your used to vintage wine, why have don perignon? its so small as to not worry ...

but if you do read this sir Bob, i really would love an option to set the multitrak to a mixerchanel and all the mixer channels to inputs and have flip buttons, i know about tape style monitoring, but on a console i would flip with buttons, oh and the right click thing to pull up the groupes in the Fmixer, any chance of having a key sequence for them? oh, and is there any way to lock the emixer to the default place even if i am stupid enough to double click on one of the tracks?

[Bob L]

Well... you can start playback while pressing the Shift key for an instant manual flip button for all channels assigned to live devices... it wil force playback from the Multitrack data without loosing your device assignments... but, the Tape Style monitoring does this automatically and seems much more useful... and it is one menu click to turn that off when you don't want the flip.

The E Mixer can be locked to the left side of the MT by double-clicking one of the chan zones on the left edge of the MT.... make sure to create an FKey with this setup and everytime you press the FKey, the EMixer will snap back into place no matter where it is on the current view.

Bob L

[lofi studios]

most of my requests are from whatching others in my studio, i just muddle through, crossed my mind on the fkey thing assoon as i posted, will try the shift later, thank you bob!!!

[Rabbit]

The buildmix should give you the exact results you are listening to as you the playback. The mix file is created in the exact same loop as the playback... so I am not sure what you would be hearing that changes.

How do you then listen to the final mix file... thru SAWStudio... or using a wav player? Which one?

Bob L

I've noticed that my mixes sounded a bit blurred or hazy when played back through Windows media player 11. Often I'd also hear glitching towards the end of tracks that are longer than about 4 or 5 minutes. I never noticed either of these issues with older WMP versions but now use WinAmp for .wav playback and my mixes sound just like they did when I mixed them in SawStudio.

[mOjO Fet]

Try Foobar2000.

Michael

[Bob L]

My point exactly... you are hearing differences because of the players you are using... if you playback the mix file in SAWStudio... it should be exactly the same as your original MT playback.

In many cases, the players are using DirectSound drivers as defaults... most soundcards do not have real DirectSound drivers, so you are hearing a Windows emulation mode layered on top... try using WAV drivers if you have the choice... WinAmp gives you the choice between DirectSound and WAV... the difference can be very eye (ear) opening. :)

Bob L