Digital DAW and VST's sounds don't lie.

Strange but that could be related to some internal and different ways to process the sound.

And what is your opinion on the sound in standalone ?

The Pianoteq 8 standalone itself already good as I stated in my post.

Strange, but it gives more details and depth when I use it on Pro Tools compare to the other DAW's.

On Ableton 10, I herd a little bit sharp sound, that's why I said "the worse" in term of "comparison" with the other DAW. Logic is fine sound as it is. Cubase has ear candy, but lost little something there.

Note: I don't add any EQ or Reverb or anything. Just plug and play and enjoy the sound.

How do the audio output device selection and settings (bitrate, etc.) compare between Pro Tools and other DAWs that have less depth? If you bounce audio out from PT and another DAW, and then A/B the bounced tracks together in the same software, is there a difference?

Are you using any templates/default project settings that do anything to the master channel? Does Pianoteq load with the same velocity curve in PT as the other DAWs?

Another consideration is how drivers and the ASIO (or equivalent) engine is running within the context of the DAW and the audio interface(s).

Pro Tools tends to have the automatic advantage from its tradition of only working with audio interfaces that it's designed for (though that changed a few years ago).  Previously, Pro Tools was only available as part of the purchase of a major multi-channel mixer or control interface, usually name brand and at an additional premium as Pro Tools was bundled with it.  The relatively flat extra cost of $200-600 meant little on 32-128 channel monsters theaters, halls, broadcasters, and other large venues but was a deal-breaker for a lot of small businesses not focused on AV production and nearly all home studios and hobbyists.  This led to a perception (much as with Apple and their proprietary hardware integration history) of Pro Tools inherently being better than the competition; however, the reality is more subtle, since the older hardware restrictions contributed to the overall quality and experience with Pro Tools as users had easier installation, better workflow interoperability between different workstations and production pipelines, fewer hardware failures, and a large range of name-brand products to choose from.

On the other hand, competitors were often limited to packing their software with their own hardware (like Ableton which has historically poor integration with anything they don't manufacture--with Native Instruments have similar problems from the VSTi side) or offer LE editions free through off-brand hardware partnerships (which is how I first got Cubase almost 20 years ago when buying a small mixer from a company that seems to now only exist on paper--though in fairness I still have and use that mixer).

Therefore, it can be harder to gauge exactly how much is inherent to the software and how much inherent to your drivers, ASIO engine, and the DAW's implementation of the I/O integration code.  If my memory serves me, Pro Tools always had an extremely light and optimized I/O integration API (which is why the price of the software was built into the purchase of the hardware as a healthy amount of per-integration and interoperability testing had been done at large scale with any hardware partner) which meant fewer problems, memory leaks, and CPU bottlenecks when running through identical hardware as compared to a DAW that depends on a universal or external API that bogs things down at a processor level because of extra I/O bloat.

In theory--barring randomized FXs and processing parameters (humanization, reverb convolution, randomized gating, etc.), all DAWs should produce output identical to each other with little or no noise when doing something like an FFT diff on the outputs if they are given unlimited processing time--that bypasses any external/outboard FX and devices--and if their internal settings are truly the same (and truly implemented the same way).  However, in real world/real time use, the DAW interferes extensively with the output as it tries to keep data streaming through processors and interfaces as possible.  So, I would tentatively say that yes, PTQ is more likely to work better in Pro Tools, especially if you're using an interface designed for Pro Tools.  However, I doubt that output between PTQ Pro Standalone and any DAW will be that different.

That said, if you're running Standard, that will greatly change how the DAW interacts with PTQ as PTQ will be hard limited to 48kHz output, while Pro is up to 192kHz.  Depending on the DAW, there might be better (and worse) upsampling going on (or not going on) in the background which would dramatically change the output and quality even if no FX or other processing is obviously present.  While most DAWs should use 32-bit float and, if possible, 192kHz for internal processing, this ideal isn't guaranteed.  Also some DAWs (at least in the past) have sub-optimal implementations that will silently keep to lower bit rates and Hz thresholds even if downstream FX or interfaces claim that a higher bit rate or Hz level is possible.  Therefore, if you are on Standard, it's possible that there is better upsampling (perhaps now or in the future an AI-driven/enhanced one instead of a straightforward algorithmic one) that is increasing the sound quality of Standard's limited output that is giving Pro Tools an edge over Cubase and Logic Pro.

Evidence or it didn't happen. There are so many variables to be considerered in trying to get two DAWs to the point of "all things being equal", it makes no sense to pass judgement in the absence of a very specific, reproducible scenario - with all known variables accounted for - that can then be analyzed to confirm there's a perceivable difference, and, if so, to characterize it objectively in terms of measurable discrepancies in digital and/or analog output.

Pianoteq makes this very difficult to do right off the bat because it won't produce the same output twice from an unchanging MIDI file due to the inherent randomness of its modelling.

If I were going to compare DAWs, I would start with one of the many VSTis that *can* be made to render the same output repeatably within the same DAW. The same would go for any VST FX that might be used.

As for the possbility of two DAWs interacting differently - in some subtle way - with the same ASIO driver and audio hardware given a matching sample rate, bit depth and buffer size, that would surprise me greatly... but I'd be open to considering objective evidence of such. ;^)

I see you've gone to a bit of effort there but I don't think he meant to ask you to give links to your recordings as there is too much potential for variability and human error in execution. In depth analysis takes more than looking at the end results.

Actually I don't think it is practical within the realms of this forum to go through all the exacting details.

It probably requires full project files for both DAWs and detailed tedious analysis. Removing any elements that bring variability in the output in the plugins (and possibly daw software?) matching levels precisely, null tests etc.

Thanks @Key Fumbler. No problem. When people respond, I'll provided. About the sounds, we all know that mp3 files don't represent the real sounds and experience. But as I stated in the beginning of my post that am not the only one who can hear that. I can show you dozens of YouTube videos from many producers that confirmed the same, including the one that I already provided. I don't think people will have time to listen so many producers talking about ears, because it's all about experiencing the sounds. Some people care, some people don't. I always have different opinions about sounds in my previous post, and fortunately always correct.

The build in Pianoteq sounds already top notch. No doubt about it. If I don't like it, you know I will say it upfront without filter .

This topic post only for fun, because it's for DAW's, not particularly for Pianoteq. If some developer read this and make improvement, then that's amazing. Who knows.

Thank you and also thanks to everyone for reading and responding to this post.

Best regards.

The most important question is why did you think my comment was from a user named brundlefly

What I was trying to say is: if the sound examples null, then the difference is all in your head.

If you don’t know what “null” means in this context:

https://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com...ng%20them.

So if you render a piece in Logic vs pianoteq itself vs protools and the examples are digitally identical, then anything you hear is all psychological and there is nothing different between the samples.

The files have different 'bit rate' numbers which can effect 'headroom/dynamic range'. (agree also with Luc above, different in/out sys level stuff all unaccounted for.)

My first/main takeaway might be, perhaps Pianoteq which uses 'lame mp3 encoder' could be improved to output at 320 bit rate? (have currently no idea if that's possible?) I use my DAW because I can choose 320 but I can't get Pianoteq to output high-settings files above 161kbps in stand-alone mode. Just a thought/feature request. Piantoeq may not theoretically require a higher number - but I constantly have encountered ways in which digital domain has had 'normal' limits which end up being superseded.

Before diving in a bit, if anyone wants the best audio in real time stand-alone playing, it may help to get audio equipment capable of higher "sample rate" above 48kHz, esp. with speakers capable of reproducing beyond basic range - it can sound better than a DAW outputting a file at 320kbps "Bit rate" at 48kHz "sample rate". In the past, I'd been less able to hear these diffs - but they do stick out a little now. I still am happy with 48kHz audio for mixdown (it can imbue a sort of 'mix-glue') - and feel that above that 48 number is good for processing, and real-time playing. But everyone is different - and these files are too...

"Bit Rate" measure of files provided:

Pianoteq file is at 153kbps

Pro Tools file is at 320kbps

The others..

Cubase file is at 128kbps

Logic Pro file is at 320kbps

Ableton file is also at 320kbps

Also observed the 2 files (Pianoteq and Pro Tools ones) visually in a DAW. There are obvious diffs (so a null test is moot. I performed a null test on some other files from dulistan in a different thread some time back). These files are different at least in this one way - and for sure someone might prefer one over the other.

For example, at certain zoom resolutions, in the Pro Tools file, the 'waves' seem a little longer, go a little lower/higher.. inferring headroom and perhaps other things, maybe some hint of saturation or other processing.

There are still other factors like all the above mentioned things others described - and some DAWs have differed enough, to me, to avoid them or use them (going back to the 1st post video linked... what you hear inside the DAW when mixing, can sound as good, like with Pro Tools and Studio One, whereas, often other DAWs have failed me outputting a genuinely 'lesser sounding' mix in the final exported file.

@dulistan - whatever you believe sounds better to you, is OK. There's certainly a possibility that Pro Tools and some other DAWs may handle audio in an all-round good way, compared to many others. But - we cannot hear what you hear as you play in real time. But, I'd say yes, a good DAW is often going to be valuable to any musical project, real-time or produced.

Stand-alone Pianoteq does a good job outputting MP3 - but who knows, the 'lame mp3 encoder' it uses may not do as good a job as some DAWs. (I get 161kbps when outputting high settings from Piantoeq, whereas I can choose 320kbps from within my DAW).

Also, @dulistan, on choice of DAW - the producer in your linked video, Bolo had said he wished 'the industry' would switch to Studio One, that is sounds as good as Pro Tools (and I agree, it's the DAW I use, not for 'fanboi' reasons, but the fact that at least for my workflows, it suits and gives top-end results) - it is easier to do most things - and it may cost less than Pro Tools - worth a look since you may take Bolo's word for that as well as mine.

BTW - the only downside Bolo mentioned about Studio One, was the 'sampler' within it. He prefers a sample based workflow from samplers he knows/uses.. but in Studio One, I've found, there's no need for a 'sampler' interface at all. Studio One indeed is able to 'beat find' and do all kinds of sampler related things, automatic and manual alike, without the bottleneck of a, well IMHO dinky old sampler interface (usually these are emulating old ways of working, and maybe some, like Bolo actually want to work in those specific ways as it may inform their aesthetic - not judging anyone's musical direction or anything.. but for sure, if avoiding Studio One because its sampler is not exactly like some existing others going back decades.. to people who are not into old school or Rap or Electronica based loop producers, that may be no good reason to avoid Studio One.)

Interesting stuff - but I guess I'll add a data point inre 'real time' diffs. A DAW I used in the past did seem to have a very clean audible range (good for digital only music) but when additives (extra tracks, acoustic instruments, even vocals, FX like just good acoustic reverb types, then into mixing where compressions and any saturation got involved).. it could sound terrible. That seemed a mystery - and I blamed something in my own audio kit.. upgraded an audio device and some other things.

Some time later, after the same annoyances kept ruining certain complex bounces/mixes, I stumbled on a person's Youtube measuring "upper frequency noise" in various DAWs. With digital-only sources, exact tinky-tonky beats and syn wave kinds of sounds, it was clean and clear but whenever the complexity went beyond a fairly low threshold, that otherwise inaudible upper noise ended up 'processing' into audible lower frequency noise.. like bad harmonics.. just scratchy/vague/jarring and barely audible at all.. just present and a complete waste of everyone's time. Posted about some of that in the past - and it's kind of a side-issue here so won't call it by its name or expand - it's a confusing issue of its own.

Luckily though, that problem was solved - it's now stable and not doing that.. but I don't use it anymore (that time where I dropped the DAW meant I focussed on others) and maybe I would still use it now, if I hadn't have spent so much on fixing the unknown issue myself and hadn't found Studio One improving so rapidly back then.

Anyway - just not sure what each DAW does differently - but there can be differences. I would absolutely believe Pro Tools will sound at least near the best if not the best. But - again for dulistan check out Bolos other recommendation, Studio One. I tend to only use other DAWs for some now fairly rare things they do.

BYW - Studio One has excellent 'console emulation' built in - and some 'Mix Tools' or 'Mix FX'.. one click insert on master bus and it will effect each audio track individually and sum (like a real world mixing desk/console). I do find myself using that regularly - without pushing anything hard, it can instantly give a good boost to how audio sounds through your speakers.. a little diff but it's just one of many reasons for Studio One imho.

[Edited some mis-labelled 'bit rate' to correct 'sample rate]

+1 Except that some DAW's like Ableton always perform some sampling rate conversion - with loss - and (most) others don't.

My bad @dikrek. Must be typo replying during breakfast.

Sure, I know that. In my experience, to analyze digital sound files using computer still behind human ears. Even though it subtle, It's been confirmed in this forum from previous topic from many users, including me. That's why we've gone this far with so much improvement near perfection. There's something that human ears can pick up compare to "null" test. I believe a lot of multi-talent people here know the best and have great ears. That's why I started this topic.

I appreciate your understanding & your thought. Thank you for sharing your opinion in details. Now we're getting somewhere. About 5 hours ago, I installed the Studio One (Trial Version 30 days). I watch Bolo, but I never have Studio One, because I already have 3 DAW's. Stupid me I did not installed it first. Honestly at first, I did not like it because it crash a few times. Trying to adjust, especially the MIDI Keyboard input almost the same as REAPER that I have to figured out first. Yeah, I have one also, still in "Evaluation" mode.

What I like about this Studio One is the lay out look like Ableton in term of simplicity, simple & straight forward. I know I hate Ableton 10 sound engine. But the simplicity is one of a kind.

Then when I started hear the sound, after drag and drop the Pianoteq 8 (just like Ableton), then suddenly my ears pick up something different. There's even more details in Studio One on "ppp" to "pp" velocities, that other DAW can not pick up which is strange, but I like it. The sounds also more glued beautifully. Ableton 10 also had that, but in harsh piercing ears and gloomy mode. Studio One is on Softer Mode, but still clear. Although I was struggled in the first one hour of installation process, the sounds suddenly erased that.

One thing that I hate in the past was using String from Jaeger. At church, the sounds was harsh at every pick up. People can herd that in very good Sound system settings. This time those harsh initial pick up sounds almost gone. This is very good for sure. I think in the future, I'll get one for sure.

Although the sounds is not the same as Pro Tools, I think am satisfied with this Studio One. I am not on geek side using DAW like I know every details, No. In fact, I am far from understanding computer. My forte as a conductor is my ears. Some people here at church are the one who help me a lot with all kind of trouble. I use DAW a lot because that's the best way we use them as musician combining with other instruments in real world.

One thing that I enjoy from softer and clear sound is, it allow us to play longer time using headphone or ear monitors. Ears is musician assets.

Well, Sir Qexl, Here I upload the same previous file, but now in Studio One.

https://forum.modartt.com/uploads.php?f...%20One.mp3

Pianoteq Studio One

Some people might hear the same sound. It's fine. I like to share to everyone when I have time.

Thank you everyone for all your response, feedback and solutions. I really appreciate it very much. Have a good week end.

Thank you very much Sir Qexl for details informations and solution.

I’ve never seen people compare mp3s because each DAW may have different (hidden) settings and even different mp3 encoders. LAME vs Fraunhofer for example.

It’s always best to keep everything at the same sample rate (48KHz for example) and 24 bits, and export the same length of music.

Keep the length short to keep the WAV files short.

Then it’s easy to compare properly.

This topic sparked my imagination, so I decided to do some investigating myself.

What you see above is the slight variation between Cubase Pro 12 and Cakewalk by Bandlab. The latter is identical to PianoTeq 8.

METHOD

I set the two DAWs to 24-bit 48,000-Sample Rate, 128 sample buffer and used the same ASIO US-122 MKII external audio card.

I stripped both DAWs of any dithering methods.

I created a PianoTeq 8 instrument track and used the NY Steinway D Classical preset with all FX turned off and the Microphones set to Stereo and made sure that the internal sample rate was also set to 48,000 and the buffer size 128.

A simple midi file was used:

https://forum.modartt.com/uploads.php?f...leTEST.mid

Each application was set to output a .wav file 24-bit, 48,000 without dithering or the like.

WHAT I NOTICED

Using Sound Forge I located and zoomed in on the wave. Cakewalk and Pianoteq 8 proved to be identical. Cubase, on the other hand, showed slight variation in places mainly toward the trailing off of each sound (see the illustration above).

WHAT I CONCLUDE

There is perhaps an imperceivable difference due to the way sound is exported or the VST is hosted or some other factor I failed to eliminate.

All in all, I don't think I'll worry about Cubase not producing an identical output to the other two apps at this stage.

Here are all three sound files for comparison (they've been converted to mp3 using Sound Forge for upload).

PianoTeq 8:

https://forum.modartt.com/uploads.php?f...leTEST.mp3

Cakewalk:

https://forum.modartt.com/uploads.php?f...leTest.mp3

Cubase:

https://forum.modartt.com/uploads.php?f...leTest.mp3

Excellent observation.

The digital world is indeed full of those tricky variances (worth mentioning.. to be fair, on a per user workflow level, probably nowhere near as full of glitches as in the old days with replacing worn tubes and demagnetizing tape machine playback/record heads and a load of other time-sinks which could be expensive). I guess for a lot of people now, the craziest stuff to deal with when making music with digital equipment is the old 'turn it off, and turn it on again'.. in a way I'm amazed at what glitch fixes have lingered more than 30 years in tech, like that old chestnut - but I guess, also pretty tame on reflection.

Well presented there @DEZ. Each file has a 192kbps bit rate - so instantly that gives each file a good start for comparison at least by ear..

With a quick listen, the Pianoteq MP3 file here seemed the best, to me. Listened a few more times to try and get a better beam on things like how resonances fade and felt at first that the DAW files may add a tiny fraction of boxiness there.. but listened for that a few mins later and didn't seem to be able to confirm that.. so on just listening alone, they seem all good - but with still a sense that I prefer most the Pianoteq file here.

The software kindly linked by dikrek above "DeltaWave" ("DiffMaker" was also good, used it later) showed Cakewalk had a better null match than Cubase (40db correlated null depth, vs. 26db, rounded). Other diffs do seem to include 'clock drift' - but.. that's possibly attributable to how Pianoteq renders each performance in real time (not a static lifeless instrument.. like being played in real time on each playback, with variances in various things like all the random generated tiny diffs built in. - things like that are the 'ghosts in the machine' I hinted above in other posts.. and of course, encoding and other things may apply here too..)

In general, no 2 playbacks of any MIDI with Pianoteq generating output would likely give perfect exactly the same results (perhaps unloading from RAM like brundlefly did would get closest.. that in itself is an interesting ghost in the machines to know about.. I personally just suspect something like random seed beginning at 1 again.. so many 'random' things would likely calculate cleanly.. then maybe the start seed would 'morph' perhaps randomly during performance.. ?? would love to know more tho). But should say.. random stuff Pianoteq does as the player performs or on MIDI playback is not about quality of files etc., but just those above-mentioned variances due to the mentioned randomly generated elements to give life to the instrument. All that may show up in (even WAV) tests, as differences if outputting a Pianoteq MIDI file to WAV more than once (did not have time to do that.. but asap I'll try it, see if ).

Possibly, the thing to remember might be, when exporting audio from Pianoteq, choosing highest settings, you're probably going to get something 'as good as possible' - but still, I'm hoping for 320kbps in future (should add, that's for MP3).

Output from Pianoteq as a WAV and the bit rate here becomes 3072kbps.

Indeed using that WAV file as a start point in a DAW (rather than rendering MP3).. and then we're truly much closer to testing 'the same input' as output when rendering that WAV to an output file from within different DAWs.

I output a little musical phrase from Pianoteq to a WAV file (at 3072kbps.. no user input there, it just outputs at that).. imported that WAV file into Studio One, exported that as mixdown also to WAV and received an output file with a wonderful 300db correlated null depth (as good as it gets??).. which really gets us to the region of 1:1 similarity.

The only small diffs were below -150db and inaudible.. each DAW may do different things in this range - and it could have been 'that' which gave me poor results years ago with a different DAW (when processing audio a lot in complex projects). But, very happy to see those, kind of expected results from Studio One.

Even so.. I think many will always be exporting to MP3 (convenience, ubiquitous terminal file type with portable/streaming purposes etc.) and getting all kinds of differences due to like mentioned, encoding via different algos, having unknown different user settings inside their DAW, different audio units/sound cards etc.. but when just dealing with outputting to WAV, seems Studio One (only one I tested here) does a clean job. Honestly, would expect most DAWs to excel also at this particular WAV only task with no huge diffs these days.

MP3 will be what most will output and share and talk about - and often it will be moot to null test at all.. but fwif, I've enjoyed this whole thread, with thanks again.

Another thanks to dikrek - both those software titles do interestingly make diffing super easy (even with obviously diff files, no fuss. Cheers!).

Just now read your post above @tm!  Bit rates were all equal at 192kbps on the outputted files - in case DEZ misses your question. Not sure of the rest but I would love to know more about your final question (does Piantoeq process 48kHz at ceiling, or downsample from a computed 192kHz. Have a vague recollection of perhaps it being mentioned once - but seems that I forgot, if so.. my intuition would flow towards keeping users on 48kHz to only 48related computing.. for CPU keeping.. but maybe not.. as there's probably less system stress on background processing to output? ++ to find out for sure.. there's every chance, if it's downsampled, is there a bottleneck of sorts there? how ever small/unnoticed though it might be.).

Np

Truly fascinating results!  You've done a fantastic job experimenting on this!

I'm no expert, but I suspect that the differences you're seeing are could be between MIDI Clock and MIDI Timecode being implemented differently in different DAWs (apologies for those tautologies).

MIDI Clock is the older standard, and it was designed to allow multiple, independent devices to share universal tempo track data (everything from outboard SFX to click tracks to drum pads to anything else that supports MIDI) in fractions of a quarter note.  MIDI Clock is fairly robust but designed for music only and is tempo based instead of time-based (making digital music production for TV and film a horrifying nightmare in the 90s and early 00s--not that it isn't now but that's for different reasons).

MIDI Timecode is an implementation/extension of SMTPE Timecode (the same global clock technology used in live television broadcast to switch between video feeds live on a vision mixer before everything went digital and got tons simpler there too).  Depending on conditions and if Clock is running in an extended resolution or not (older software and hardware was limited to 24 units per quarter note resolution while more advanced and contemporary implementations are 480 units or--perhaps in recent years better than that, I'm not sure), MIDI Timecode could be more precise in some conditions then MIDI Clock and less precise in others, but it always has a clear sense of what time you're at in the file.  Also Timecode subdivides decimal frames (again with various precision between software and depending on whether you're syncing devices to create an SMTPE pulse or if you're simply using an SMTPE-based timeline at some decimal-limited, arbitrary resolution) while Clock, again, subdivides quarter notes which will change with the tempo track.  My understanding is that you could increase the time precision of Clock by increasing the tempo, such that 200bpm was twice the time resolution of 100bpm, but especially at low tempi, 60bpm or lower, Clock was worse than 24fps with no subframe signals/data.

My theory is that some DAWs are somehow limited in timing precision which is creating rounding errors as DAWs interpret the data from Clock to Timecode or perhaps the reverse.  This is especially likely if you're MIDI file is a human performance versus a quantized or otherwise computer-generated track.  Probably the MIDI files would null if the MIDI file consisted entirely of whole notes or breves and an easily divisible fixed tempo (something that 60 divides cleanly into like, well, 60bpm or 120bpm).  That said, it's possible that even then while DAWs should render that file at 1bps or 2bps, respectively, there's some additional dithering or timing rounding going that might be unavoidable (albeit unlikely).

All of this reminds me of the horrible time that Adobe quietly increased (sometime this past decade) the maximum decimal precision of InDesign internal linear units and broke every one of my older layout templates as the higher resolution resulted in rounding errors when opening older files...nothing in the files had moved, but the software's new parameters meant it read old information differently resulting in objects not aligning the way they'd used to and breaking snapping, etc. in wild and crazy ways: the file was the same, the way it was interpreted by the (otherwise identical) software had changed subtly in way that everything on the templates moved slightly from where that same software previously thought they should go.

Again, great work!

I heartily forgive in advance if you're unwilling to bother with testing any subtleties of MIDI Timecode between DAWs...

More resources on Clock vs Timecode:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI_beat_clock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIDI_timecode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_timecode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMPTE_timecode
http://www.harfesoft.de/aixphysik/sound...itmcn.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video-signal_generator

Hi there. I was wondering the same.. In Logic Pro and GarageBand Pianoteq 8 sounds more clear/vibrant, raw, cleaner/deeper bass, sparkling highs etc, etc than the standalone which also sounds beautiful with just more muddy bass and somewhat less expressive purely is sound processing; same computer, velocity curve headphones and speakers, sounds way more present through the DAW..

Hi, Modartt forum.

I'd like to share a little background story about sound in my community. Many people refused to believe that there's a difference between any DAW sounds. Unfortunately, my Jamaican friend disagrees with the majority. He has both Cubase 14 and 8, while I have Cubase 10.5. However, in his studio, he keeps using Cubase 8 during recording sessions for any reggae songs. This raised my curiosity: why did he do that? His answer surprised me. He said that Cubase 8 has the best sound for reggae compared to any new Cubase update.

We all knew that Cubase already has so many feature upgrades and all the advantages of every new upgrade, including not using a dongle anymore. However, because of ear candy, he prefers using old software even though he has to sacrifice time for audio editing and other stuff. The reason he has to upgrade to every new version, including Pro Tools and Ableton, is only because of his clients.

I believe this topic will never get old, including in the Pianoteq forum. I always use Pianoteq standalone for playing and gigging because of its lightweight use. But for recording and exporting, I prefer Ableton 12, where they have new improved sounds that have been retained since Ableton 11, including the amazing reverb effect.

Reading that people have different opinions always sparks my curiosity about the digital sounds.

None taken. Some people don't hear any improvement sound in Pianoteq 8, and that's okay. Same thing with different DAWs and VSTs. Because people's ears and perspectives are always different.

In my opinion, if I only buy Pianoteq using merely the final export, then Pianoteq 6 is already perfect. There's no need to ask for sound improvement or anything. However, because some people use Pianoteq for hours hearing the RAW sounds, then people definitely have different opinions about what they hear.

Another thing to add. There are some differences between car engineers and the drivers. The engineer uses a fact sheet and a computer, while the driver uses feelings that might be called anecdotes. Can we disregard the driver's opinion? Sure, why not?

I would also like to add, as an addition to my comment above, what I have learned, that to get the right sound/best sound when comparing vst daw  with using speakers, in loudspeaker listening, the loudspeakers are usually placed so that their angle with respect to the viewer is 60 degrees. This creates an equilateral triangle. The resolution of directions is quite poor, at best 10 degrees. This is because in loudspeaker listening, the signal from the left loudspeaker, which is “intended” for the left ear, is also heard in the right ear and such “crosstalk” confuses the hearing of directions.
In order for the listener to have the correct sound image, the right sound, he should sit in a fairly precisely defined area, symmetrically with respect to the loudspeakers, to get the right sound when comparing vst daw. Even a small deviation from this will shift the sound image towards the closer loudspeaker, which change how the sound sounds. Further away, there may be a wider area.

In reality, many listeners often sit wherever they want. If the reflected and direct sound arrive at the ears with a delay of less than 30 ms, the listener cannot distinguish them. Sounds that have traveled longer than this are perceived more as echoes, which ”colors” the sound…..

Oh oh -  despite all the modern technology we have so I always come back to this ”we hear different” :    ”Because people's ears and perspectives are always different”
Now I can't find anything more to say in this post.

All the best, everyone

Stig