How much compensation did you get?
Not to brag, but I sold thousands and thousands of records 
And what a great way to mispel a word
And very good records I might add. 
I have a good number of them.
I went up to this DAW, she said, “Hi, my name is Cubase.”
I thought she’d be good to go with a little Velvet Acid Christ
She said, “I’d like a WAV,”
I said “Ah, ok, I’d go get it,”
Then a couple of tracks,
Emulating hardware racks
And I knew that she was with it
So I took her to my studio, and everything went well as planned
But when she mixed her sends
It was a big old mess
CUBASE HAD BAD MATHS!
So I threw him out, I don’t fool around with no summing engine null tests
You must be sure
That your DAW is pure
For the Velvet Acid Christ
MAN I STAND BEHIND CUBASE SX 2 SUCKING HUGE DONKEY DICK WHEN IT COMES TO SOUND QUALITY!
I would agree that SX2 (and SX1) had a crappy audio engine. It sounded plastic and horrible. There were plenty of other things I disliked about SX2, but they are outside the scope of this topic.
someone has the link to the field test result?! where ~500 ppl listen to two recordings and one was digital synth and the other analog.
it was a “musicmaker against ordinary listener” -test. iirc the result: 48 to 52 or so. basically 50/50.
ill check back when i find it.
@Conner_Bw: if that song is of your own hand and not in existence already, you should definitely create it.
Actually I think the culprit is inaccurate metering and GUI. Not so much of the processing end. Even DSP effects. The inaccuracy can skew quite a lot of what you perceive. Most DSP algorithms are based on a few different methods and can vary some, but even those methods are few.
When all is said and done, it will null but different programs have different ways of handling metering and measurement. Mainly the difference between just throwing it together and making sure it lights up in comparison to accuracy…
Even that can boil down to psychological issues as well. Renoise is highly a number oriented program, so you pay attention to your numbers far more than you would a program with a fancy GUI. This is what made Pro Tools very good in the days of yore since it was a PLAIN JANE GUI, but now sadly it’s with the rest of them. It could even account for some of FL’s mistakes. I still run PT 6 TDM/7 LE for this reason when doing more recording oriented stuff, I think they really fell off the boat. Unfortunately, it was demands from people saying “Pro Tools sux because it’s not easy and don’t look pretty” that forced Digidesign to re-tool their environment…
Renoise lets you get aggressive with your sound, so it’s good for making aggressive music. Live lets you effect the crap out of tracks with little effort so it’s good for mangling a bit. Reason puts you in hardware mode so it’s 1995 forever. List goes on.
I enjoy working in Live too, but you gotta enable their peak meters and stuff to see wtf you’re doing. The GUI based meter doesn’t tell you shite. Some of it can be attributed to laziness which tie into the same reasons I stated above. (ie, not caring about your math and your mix and having that skewed by eye candy)
Working with all the weird stuff cubase does, you’re really just trying to get the track done so you don’t have to go through the myriad of plugin windows anymore, not that you can see the mixer anyways because there are 50 plugin windows open in the background. (lulz)
It could even explain some of the magic behind consoles, since they have faster and more accurate meters and they’re plainly labeled. You’re also not looking at a GUI and skewing your math by simply looking at what parts are relative to other parts.
I believe things like this make quite a large difference on how you approach mixing, etc.