Bruno de Souza Lino

I'm also curious because I have more or less the same issue, but in a different place. Sample rate conversion is also extremely slow as well in comparison to other DAWs which seem to be able to either do all tracks at once or do them in sequence only presenting them once they're all done. CbB does one track at a time and taking a few seconds for each. A single multi track session which needs to be converted might take several minutes to happen depending on the number of tracks it has. Either things which should be extremely fast, like converting a 44.1 to a 48k fine of the same type takes the same amount of time as converting from a different format.

Oh look, they're trying everything they can to not lose users by implementing a feature which should've been already there since the beginning! That leaves me with one v9 plugin I'll have to install manually.

I found the song hard to listen at low volumes, but that's more a flaw of the genre in question than everything.

If you tune your guitar by ear, it will often be a few cents flat. Tune using harmonics and it will be more flat.

Ctrl+End, then add marker to indicate the end.

Oh boy. He's actually doing free advertising for Waves without noticing... Especially considering they pulled back on the subscription only aspect and a good portion of people watching at a later stage will have no idea about the context of the video. I did think about installing the Waves plugins I have but I gave up after remembering 6 plugins will cost me 10 GB of disk space.

But then you'll never know for sure if the difference you hear actually exists or you've never noticed it before changing one variable. Auditory memory is pretty fragile and things like expectation bias and placebo effect are pretty effective at misleading people. It's that famous thing we've all done at least once: taking a mix then tweaking, say, a snare to perfection only to discover the EQ was bypassed the whole time or you were tweaking a different track and being sure your actually heard a change at what you thought you were tweaking. There are even talks at a "producer channel strip," which is something set up by the mix engineer so the producer can adjust his levels of satisfaction, even though said channel strip is not connected to anything.

Apparently the memo hasn't reached Yngwie Malmsteen yet.

Did you try opening the project in Safe Mode? Hold Shift whilst opening the project in question.

Essentially, you only want to change what's being tested, which are the DAWs. Everything else has to be exactly the same.

Doesn't help that Ctrl+Enter does the same function as just Enter in other places, whilst Shift+Enter (which is the shortcut to add a line break in essentially everything else) is not mapped to anything.

If you need comprehensive notes for a track, the Melda MNotepad plugin is your best solution for that. The Inspector notes only allow you to write one continuous string of text without multiple lines and the same goes for the Take Notes as well. Don't expect a complete text editor experience from the plugin though. You also have to click on the right keyboard icon to type text into the plugin, as even clicking on "give all keystrokes to plugin" will still trigger keyboard shortcuts.

The first thing to fix in this test would be the patch you're using. Tracks 2 and 3 don't have the initial "stab" 1 and 4 have, which means they're not the same sound for effects of comparison. That will potentially bias some into thinking these two sound different, even if they don't. Even if the patch has some variance to it, all sequences have to start at the exact same point and end at the exact same point, otherwise you're not comparing the same thing.

Square waves in any oscilloscope are also made of sine waves by the way. The 456 doesn't have enough bandwidth to display what you're seeing in MOscilloscope. Or the square wave it generates doesn't.

That's how square waves are done in practice. It's impossible to create a perfectly sharp square wave as it would require infinite bandwidth. Even if you could do it digitally, that would be how a speaker would reproduce it once it came out of it, as it's physically impossible for a speaker to instantly move from one position to another.

I would personally steer clear of gaming laptops or anything gamer, especially if you want reliability and stability on the long run. I'd probably look for a used business or workstation model. They're usually built to be repairable and have to last at least 5 years. Many of the models have interchangeable parts and you can sometimes even upgrade things like the cpu depending on the model.

The only time I did both was in a video I'll probably never release. It was both edited and the song composed in REAPER. Editing video in REAPER falls into the same category as using Fairlight as a DAW. You can do it, but you're driving a nail into the wall using a scewdriver.

Yes, but they're the exact same IRs, so it wouldn't make sense to use them there. Here. https://www.overloud.com/downloads/presets

Well, there's also de Blackstar Studios one, which you'll find in the Donwloads section under REmatrix.

Because they're not inventing a mixer. They're copying how it behaves. Anything different than that is not a mixer, but something else.

But can you load the Rematrix solo impulses in the player? Where are they stored?

Technically, Waveform also fits that criteria, as 99% of the channel strip is on the right side.

Wait until you see some of stock pictures Voxengo puts in their site.

What Fourier claimed in 1821 (any function, whether continuous or discontinous, can be expanded into a series of sines) is applied in the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, which is the backbone of digital audio. Technology Connections has a video which explains the theorem very well. But the point here is there's no new revolutionary way to convert and treat digital sound and it hasn't been for several decades already and it's likely your test has some variant you haven't controlled yet which renders you different sounds from different DAWs. What manufacturers claim as "improved sound" could be several things, including marketing BS. While you might get slightly different results which could be measured depending on circumstance, those are irrelevant if they're outside of the audible spectrum or too low in the noise floor. After all, music is a form of media made to be listened to and if you can't hear the difference, fundamentally there's no difference at all. This most likely happens because computers are not capable of properly dealing with floating point numbers and have to approximate the result.

And this is the reason Ardour/Mixbus is stuck in the past when it comes to other DAWs. That's the response the lead developer always gives when said feature is not something he uses or can find a use for and doesn't implement it because of that.