Sonic advantage of SawStudio [Archive] - SAWStudio / SAC User Group

Jesse Skeens

06-03-2004, 11:41 PM

Hi,

I have recently been reading and demoing SawStudio. I've heard quite a few comments suggesting that it has better summing etc... over other DAWs.

Havent had time to put it through its paces yet but was wondering if there is any technical info on how it might sound better. Either that or has anyone done any critical a/b test with other DAWs etc that would like to chime in?

I mainly do electronic based music that is tracked from live midi sources along with some vocals as well.

One of my questions would be whether summing alone would make any difference or are there other areas where the sonic difference is noted, for instance in how plugins are handled. The Leveliser looks really intriguing especially with the way peaks are handled. Obviously the plugins themselves, Leveliser, the Eq etc... have their own sound. But what I'd like to know is if the DAW itself lends its hand into any improvements in sound quality.

Jesse

matt

06-04-2004, 12:18 AM

Simply do an A/B test with the SAWStudio demo and any other application with a professional monitoring system and you will hear the difference... but if you want a quick answer, everything including plugins sounds better!

Jesse Skeens

06-04-2004, 12:30 AM

Bob L

06-04-2004, 01:24 AM

In designing all of the SAW product line, I always used integer math throughout the entire mixing engine... I have found it to sound much smoother, in my experience, not to mention the performance benefits.

The new SAWStudio Eq routines do use hand-coded assembly floating point math and the results obtained in that design have delivered an honest noise floor of -118db... the deisgn is using FIR filters and has a very analog smooth sound like the best mastering Eq's we have all experienced as audio engineers.

Much attention to sonic quality has been a major design focus throughtout the evolution of the SAW system and SAWStudio is the best yet in the entire development cycle, as far as I'm concerned.

Besides the focus on using floating point math completely in most other systems, I don't know what technical differences other DAWs have in common that give them their sound signature, but I have been hearing over and over again how users experience SAWStudio as simply sounding better.

Fine by me... let's all keep SAWin'. :)

Bob L

Jesse Skeens

06-04-2004, 01:54 AM

Bob,

Thanks very much for the info. I have read that integer math is supposed to be better for mixing so I'm eager to see what SAW sounds like once I can get some more time on it. I have noticed the EQ has a very nice quality to it as well and I'm sure that has something to do with the overall sound just as much as summing or other paths in the mixing chain could.

Jesse

AudioAstronomer

06-04-2004, 06:36 AM

I think the main sound improvement comes from being able to make easy decisions and get what yo want done right away. No hesitations to make you lose ideas or lose your first instinct. Fine quality tools that dont require 5-6 button clicks to get to a horrible and complicated UI for a compressor or EQ. A mixer that has a proper fade on the faders.

Of course I've noticed even with nothing done the tracks sound much clearer. More depth it feels like, similiar to the sound of the sony oxford console. In fact, saw and the oxford sound like twins, if anyone here's done much work with both im sure you'll agree. And it's been my opinion as well as many others that sawstudio just plain is better. forget "summing" as the point where quality lies, it's being able to do what you need to do without anything getting in the way. No other software can say that.

Jesse Skeens

06-04-2004, 06:46 AM

Yes I agree that workflow makes a big difference. Analog mixers with hands-on control etc... Saw does seem to give the same feel. It reminds me a lot of my old Paris system, there is something more immediate and "alive" about it. Must be the lightning fast response and low latency thats part of it. So far I have my Creamware Pulsar II card running at 64 samples and 3 buffers.

I have to say the eq is pretty amazing sound. Has a killer bite to it and nice deep low end. Also was impressed to see that my UAD plugs seem to work without a hitch, even on busses (outputs=buss).

All in all Saw has me feeling more like I'm working with hardware, just like its supposed to.

Couple of questions (I know I probably need to go through the manual more...)

Is the Graphic EQ plug the same algo as the built im EQ on the channel strips?

And why is there a "gap" when using loop mode, its not seamless when looping around.

Anyways need to start thinking if I can get by with Basic or Lite to start out with.

Jesse

Carl Mateo

06-04-2004, 06:56 AM

Hi Jesse and hello to the rest of you as I am new here,

I have been spending a lot of time comparing the sound of various apps. It has been an eye opener for me to realize that they can indeed sound different from each other. I had narrowed my choices down to Cubase SX2 and Samplitude. Then i discovered Sawstudio. From what i can tell between the God Awful Beeps in the SawstudioBasic Demo, Sawstudio sounds richer and more natural than both Cubase and Samplitude. I think that Cubase with the Nuendo audio engine sounds pretty amazing but Sawstudio sounds better, again more natural with great spacing and depth in the simple mixes I have done. This is not a scientific test but from hours of critical/subjective A/Bing(anyone hear a Bing out there?)

I also like the layout of Sawstudio... I can envision my project taking shape in the Sawstudio environment.

I am close to purchasing Sawstudio Basic as soon as I overcome my concerns about growth, compatability with plug ins, and the cost of expanding with Sawstudio.

I am actually very close even with some doubts that I still have... The sound and the ability to envision my current project taking shape in Sawstudio are the winners for me.

All the best,
Carl

AudioAstronomer

06-04-2004, 08:08 AM

Compatibility with plugins is top notch. Supports 3 plug-in formats, more than most hosts.

Cost is great, order through TSM or other affiliates and save big $$.

And where's the concern about growth? Many people are starting to come to saw just like you. I just moved from samplitude to protools to saw and can be no happier and will never go back.

TotalSonic

06-04-2004, 08:29 AM

Couple of questions (I know I probably need to go through the manual more...)

Is the Graphic EQ plug the same algo as the built im EQ on the channel strips?

Yes - it is the same algorithm. It just gives you 7 more bands in a different gui so you have more options to work with.

And why is there a "gap" when using loop mode, its not seamless when looping around.

This gap only occurs when looping in the Multitrack View. afaik this occurs because the buffers have to be reloaded when it goes back to the top of the marked area - Bob could probably provide the more technical reasons for this. You can loop a single soundfile seamlessly in the Soundfile View by Ctrl-Right Clicking a marked area. You can also play a marked area to its end point in the Sound File View by Shift-Right Clicking. These are very useful for making edit decisions or locating loop points. The Multitrack looping is more useful for auditioning a single area while making decisions for things like eq's or other processing changes.

Anyways need to start thinking if I can get by with Basic or Lite to start out with.

Jesse

Total Sonic Media can provide a substantial discount for SAWStudioLite at $900 ($300 off of direct pricing). I also include 60 days free email support & if you're in the continental USA a free CD-ROM containing over 50 useful freeware utilities and plugins all tested for compatibility with SAW and up to 3 hours of free telephone support.

Email me at steve@totalsonicmedia.com if you're interested in this.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

TotalSonic

06-04-2004, 08:43 AM

I am close to purchasing Sawstudio Basic as soon as I overcome my concerns about growth, compatability with plug ins, and the cost of expanding with Sawstudio.

SAWStudio in all its versions is fully compatible with DX, VST, VSTi, and Native plugin formats.

I've run plugs by major developers like Waves, Sonic Foundry/Sony, PSP Audioware, Voxengo, Anwida, etc. along with tons of plugins by freeware and lesser known developers with absolutely no problems. Plus the complete seamless automation capabilities of the native plugin format plus the ultra high quality releases by 3rd party SAW native plugin developers like JMS Audioware and Anwida makes SAW excellent in regards to plugin variety and capability to me.

As far as growth - I think Bob has demonstrated over the past 12 years of SAW's development extreme commitment to continue making SAW the best product he possibly can. While some may argue that corporate development leads to more stable or better growth I would argue that the single person with capabilities as excellent as Bob's can come up with a more streamlined better focused and functioning product and can keep it going longer than a corporate structure can. A few cases in point - the total abandonment of Opcode products after it was bought by Gibson, the long interuption of development in Deck when Macromedia abanoned it (before BIAS bought it), the end of PC support for Logic when Apple bought emagic, the demise of Gadget Labs, and the end of support for TC's Spark. Another case in point - a friend of mine who works as a ProTools Alpha tester was lamenting to me that Avid corporate actually has PT code developers spending time filling in spread sheets on how long it will take them to write a particular piece of code instead of actually just using all their time to just go ahead and code!

Best regards,
Steve Berson

mghtx

06-04-2004, 09:25 AM

I have Sonar 2, Cubase SX 1, and the SSbasic demo. I just loaded the same song in all 3 programs a while back and was blown away by SAW. The depth and clarity and quickness of SAW was far and away the best of the three.

Now, I'm a nobody. Just a regular joe with a job and a dream of a small studio for me and my wife someday. But I am a musician with good ears and know great sound when I hear it. SAW has great sound. Even on my VERY modest equipment.

Dingo

06-04-2004, 04:38 PM

Carl,
I was just in the same boat as you regarding samplitude and SAW. I bought SAW and I don't regret it at all.

soundtrack2life

06-04-2004, 05:58 PM

I have used SAW DAWs since about 1997-1998. Anyway its been an awsome ride to Studio (lite). A little over a year ago I purchased Nuendo, thought I'd give that a shot.

Beyond prefering SAW Studio for sound quality I hated the interface and editing with it. Things that are a snap in SAW Studio seemed almost cumbersome. I finally came to my senses and sold it on ebay. My plan is to one day own the full version of Studio. I kick myself in the a$$ for wasting my money on Nuendo. I should have upgraded Lite.

Joe

Oz Nimbus

06-04-2004, 06:44 PM

Carl Mateo

06-04-2004, 08:42 PM

Hey,

Thanks for all your feedback and clarity about Sawstudio.

Carl

Jesse Skeens

06-05-2004, 02:11 PM

One thing I've noticed, apart from how much faster my mix/edit time goes, is how much more bass I can put in a mix without it turning to mud. I worked with Cakewalk Pro Audio/Sonar for years, and the bottom end was always an issue. Not so with SAW. I can get things into the "downright ****-kicking" bass category with no worries.

-0z-

In my prelimenary tests I have experienced the same thing. Experimented with some multing on a hiphop loop and was able to get insane deep low end by stacking multiple bands of eq around 45hz/15db.

The sound of SAW was very tight and extended on the lows, not fluffy or whooly like I've experienced with other DAWs.

canipus

06-05-2004, 03:07 PM

"very tight and extended on the lows, not fluffy or whooly like I've experienced with other DAWs"

Just wondering which DAWs?
I've tested the latest Samplitude and the bass sounds just as clear rich and deep to me as it does on SAW. In fact the Samplitude Linear Phase mastering Eq sounds incredible just as the built in SAW EQ sounds very clean and transparent. I have test several apps and noticed particularly Sonar as not sounding up to par but certainly Samplitude sound quality is way up at the top with SAW Studio IMHO - unless you know something I don't know.

AudioAstronomer

06-05-2004, 03:20 PM

Jesse Skeens

06-05-2004, 03:23 PM

I own Samplitude 6.0 and have done some decent work with that. I'm not familiar with the linear phase eq, is this in 7.xx?

I have also tested Logic 5, SX 2 and Paris.

It might not be the sound of the DAW but the eq's, hard to say. Now I have got good results from those DAWs too, don't get me wrong. I was just very impressed with SAWs eq, it seemed to sound like hardware to me.

I belive that will all the current DAWs you can get a good sound (lows included) but so far I like the color and extra depth that it seems SAW is giving me over them.

I have a feeling that Samp 7 (and soon to be 8) would probably compare well to SAW. The eq in Samp 6 is clean but not as nice as SAWs for sure. I cant comment on 7 though.

Jesse

Jesse Skeens

06-05-2004, 03:26 PM

I think I agree with canipus. Samplitude is certainly "right there"in terms of very high quality, but Sawstudio is way over the top. And the difference in working between the two is HUGE. Samplitude just plain sucks when you want to get something done.

Agreed, something feels weird in Samp, the interface just seems kinda detached. SAW feels very tight and in control. And like you said this is a big part of sounding better, workflow.

I like the object orientated work on Samp, nice feature but for me SAW is nice and simple and to the point. For me its less features but more efficient to use SAW, so far. Damn there are a lot of key commands and modifiers :)

Jesse

AudioAstronomer

06-05-2004, 03:44 PM

Only thing you cant do in SAW directly that you can do in samplitude is Cd burning. And There's a native plugin that allows this in a much much more powerful manner. After long discussion with steve, I can honestly say there's nothing you cant do in saw (MUCH faster, and with better results) than with samplitude.

Jesse Skeens

06-05-2004, 03:52 PM

Well I already have the Steinberg Producer Pack 5/32 with Wavelab 4 so I'm covered there as far as CD burning.

AudioAstronomer

06-05-2004, 04:03 PM

Well I already have the Steinberg Producer Pack 5/32 with Wavelab 4 so I'm covered there as far as CD burning.

Btw jesse, nice seeing you on the tapeop forum too :) I live about 1.5 hours from you (tampa/st. pete), maybe we could get together. Or if you wanna stop by and see sawstudio over here, feel free to contact me :)

canipus

06-05-2004, 04:11 PM

"I own Samplitude 6.0 and have done some decent work with that. I'm not familiar with the linear phase eq, is this in 7.xx?"

Yes with 7.0 they upgraded the mixer engine and the mastering plugs. The DX/VST plugs are now real time non destructive (incl the Room Sim). Plugin automation has been added. They added a few extras to the object orientated editing and I gather re-wire is being released in 8.0. I'm not sure how much these features are important in the long-term. Maybe the plugin automation is tho' I haven't really got around to playing with that. One thing I do like is having the latency compensation built in and not having to worry about making the compensation work by adding a plugin. No big deal - just one less thing to worry about.

canipus

06-05-2004, 04:17 PM

"Well I already have the Steinberg Producer Pack 5/32 with Wavelab 4 so I'm covered there as far as CD burning".

I've never really understood the attractiveness of having CD burning incorporated into the DAW. CD (and DVD authoring) is a specialist functionality and unless the built in functionality has the feature depth of application specific products like CD Architect and the Steinberg stuff then I just don't see the point. If you want CD burning get a specialist app to do it. Plugins and applets just don't cut it for me but I guess I'm somewhat old fashioned.

Jesse Skeens

06-05-2004, 04:22 PM

Btw jesse, nice seeing you on the tapeop forum too :) I live about 1.5 hours from you (tampa/st. pete), maybe we could get together. Or if you wanna stop by and see sawstudio over here, feel free to contact me :)

Cool thanks for the invite. I might be down there sometime to see my Redsox play. What is your screen name on TapeOp, the same?

Jesse

BJ McKay

06-06-2004, 10:54 PM

Hi,

I was offered this link to a discussion on the Sonar forum about precisely this issue. There are FFT and other plots to support the tests they along with other data and comments about panning law by one of Cakewalk's employees.

http://www.cakewalk.com/forum/tm.asp?m=82511&mpage=1

This is an important issue for me because some of my work involves documenting vintage instruments and traditional performances with these instruments. What I want is the most uncolored audio print possible.

If those of you knowledgable about SAW, Samplitude, and Sonar could weigh in here it would be greatly appreciated.

BJ

ps- It would be great if the midi capabilities of Sonar could be combined with the audio from SAW

Perry

06-07-2004, 01:50 AM

Just to chime in here.. I have Samp 7.1 and it has some neat features about it, for certain things. I use it primarily as a glorified CD burner/final mastering app.
I also have Wavelab 4.0, as well as Cubase SX1.

However!!! I personally wouldnt' dream of doing my multi-track tracking/mixing anywhere other than SAWStudio! No way!!! :) Nothing that I know of has the kind of work flow and incredibly friendly "feel" of SAWStudio.... not for me anyway! :cool:

All the best,

Perry

TotalSonic

06-07-2004, 07:20 AM

Hi,
ps- It would be great if the midi capabilities of Sonar could be combined with the audio from SAW

This is already possible - just slave Sonar to SAW's MTC via physical midi port or the freeware Maple Virtual MIDI Cables available from http://www.marblesound.com

I think this would give you the best of both worlds without having to wait for developers to change their codes.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Oz Nimbus

06-07-2004, 07:47 PM

BJ McKay

06-07-2004, 07:56 PM

Hi Oz,

Thanks for the reply to my message.

Man, that's priceless. It's amazing how many Sonar guys get uppity when you start questioning the quality of the actual sound. As a former, and extremely dedicated Sonar user, I can honestly say, without a doubt, Saw Studio blows Sonar's mix engine off the planet.

While I have detected some issues with the CW approach to the audio engine that are a little disturbing, in all fairness to them, is there any data to back up what you're saying? Saying that SS blows away Sonar is pretty subjective.

What I like about Sonar is that is great for composing. It would be great if there was a composer version of SS with some of the same features as Sonar.

I have noticed that the Sonar people enter their message board only on rare occasions unlike here with SS. Apparently the audio engine is a sore pont with them.

Can you elaborate on the audio quality of SS? The most important part of my work is documenting vintage instruments and I want that to be as uncolored as possible.

Thanks,
BJ

AudioAstronomer

06-07-2004, 09:28 PM

Jesse Skeens

06-07-2004, 11:18 PM

Sonic quality is very subjective and personal. You need to try the software for yourself.

There is no need to turn this into an "arguement", as it will go no where. This is obvious by the result of this question on other forums.

True and there are too many variables to truly say one app sounds better than another in all cases. The DAWSUM test showed me that straight summing sounds pretty much the same across DAWs and even consoles. This leads me to belive that any quality difference lies in other factors (although perhaps tied to summing as well)

Jesse

BJ McKay

06-07-2004, 11:20 PM

Sonic quality is very subjective and personal. You need to try the software for yourself.

I have been and can't hear any difference- in demos that is.

There is no need to turn this into an "arguement", as it will go no where. This is obvious by the result of this question on other forums.

There is no argument. The test data should show one being more faithful than the other- or both the same- if test data exists.

Read my original post.

BJ McKay

06-07-2004, 11:28 PM

Hi Jesse,

Thanks for your input:

True and there are too many variables to truly say one app sounds better than another in all cases.

The case I'm interested in is vintage acoustic instrumental recording. My ears might not be sensitive enough to detect differences from program to program. However the musicians and potential listeners might notice the difference.

I'll be using Earthworks preamps and probably a Benchmark A/D to get a clean signal. Hopefully SAW is as equally transparent as these units. SS came highly recommended.

BJ

BJ McKay

06-07-2004, 11:31 PM

Hi Steve

This is already possible - just slave Sonar to SAW's MTC via physical midi port or the freeware Maple Virtual MIDI Cables available from http://www.marblesound.com

Thanks for the suggestion and link.

BJ

Oz Nimbus

06-08-2004, 06:55 PM

Hi Oz,

Thanks for the reply to my message.

While I have detected some issues with the CW approach to the audio engine that are a little disturbing, in all fairness to them, is there any data to back up what you're saying? Saying that SS blows away Sonar is pretty subjective.

Ok, here goes: I was a Twelve Tone user for SIX YEARS. I've used every version of Cake since Pro Audio Seven. I made the switch last winter, and I've been getting better mixes, FASTER. A whole lot faster. Not only that, they sound BETTER. There's much more bottom end. Sonar's mix engine crumbles when you start adding serious bass. It turns into a huge pile of steaming elephant dung. That's my observation.

The clients' oberservation from four weeks ago: "The new stuff you did for us (recorded on SS) is way better. There's a night and day difference in qualtiy from last year's stuff (Recorded and mixed on Sonar 3)"

One more oberservation: I'm getting more work. My schedule is booked solid until 2005. I've got one client flying in from freakin' Sweden this summer! How's that for data to back up what I'm saying?

But if you can't take my word for it, read this: http://www.rane.com/note153.html

A very interesting article on floating point vs. fixed point math for DSP. Saw is one of the very few DAWs to use Fixed Point DSP for summing. Kudos to Steve from TSM for pointing this article out on the tape op board initally.

-0z-

mghtx

06-08-2004, 07:39 PM

Oz, other than SS, what other apps. use fixed point math?

TotalSonic

06-08-2004, 07:50 PM

Oz, other than SS, what other apps. use fixed point math?

Sonic HD & ProTools HD both use 48bit fixed point math. Many hardware dsp boxes, such as the Waves L2, also use 48bit fixed point math for their calculations.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

Studio de' Lara

06-09-2004, 01:36 PM

I did listen to the DAWSUM cd but dont remember hearing any difference there but then again I don' think I gave the SawStudio one much listen. In fact I can't even remember if it was an older version of Saw on there or not.

Jesse

I did some extensive listening to the DAWSUM CD (CD A). I did hear differences between some the platforms. One of my favorites was the Paris mix. The mixes using the hardware (Sony Oxford and Yamaha 02R96) sounded better (to me) as well. The bottom line though, it's all personal preference. My wife didn't like the Paris mix as much as I did. :rolleyes: I do think SS has a more detailed sound overall. By the way, the version on the DAWSUM was SAW PRO.

Regards,
Rich

AudioAstronomer

06-09-2004, 02:36 PM

It's my understanding protools HD only uses a 48-bit data path, with something like a 128bit accumulator. that's dithered in every last step.

and yet it still doesnt sound nearly as good as SS imho. Law of diminishing returns rears it's ugly head.

Jesse Skeens

06-09-2004, 03:49 PM

I did some extensive listening to the DAWSUM CD (CD A). I did hear differences between some the platforms. One of my favorites was the Paris mix. The mixes using the hardware (Sony Oxford and Yamaha 02R96) sounded better (to me) as well. The bottom line though, it's all personal preference. My wife didn't like the Paris mix as much as I did. :rolleyes: I do think SS has a more detailed sound overall. By the way, the version on the DAWSUM was SAW PRO.

Regards,
Rich

Ok that might explain it then if they used the older SawPro. A lot of people seemed to like the Paris mix. I used to use Paris but got out of it right before the used prices dropped. It was a great system but didn't quite fit the way I work well enough.

Jesse