How would you answer this question?

[TrevsAudio]

I got this comment on one of my Mixcraft YouTube videos. Totally in the dark as to how to answer. I've never even tried Cubase.

'Could you share your suggestion about sound engine between Mixcraft 10 and Cubase? Which one is better?'

[Acoustica Greg]

Hi,

Isn't this is the old bit about how some DAWs can magically make better sound than other DAWs? If you are recording audio with the same quality settings, and you have adequate audio buffering, good hardware, a good recording space, etc., the zeros and ones that comprise the audio recording will be the same.

It's a weapon in the war between the various DAW tribes. People want to feel good about the DAW that they are using.

Greg

[ppayne]

Send this as an answer

https://www.attackmagazine.com/features ... nd-part-2/

That actually explains everything, even if some DAW users wish something different

Or you can just say that the Mixcraft engine sounds the best. Who wants to prove that without the exact same ears and brian. That's the short way answer

He can also simply increase the treble a little. Then he immediately have the sound engine that has the clearest sound on the market

I would rather ask the fundamental question of whether the question makes sense. But this can end in an endless discussion. Do you really want to do this?

I would send him the link. If that's what he really wants to experience.

Patrick

[cactus-head]

DAWS... "You're gonna need a bigger boat..."

If you want to respond to the question maybe you could say something along the lines of:

The decision or opinion on whether one DAW's sound engine is different than another's is very subjective. Always be aware that there are many factors when recording or playing back audio: audio hardware (audio interface, cables, mic, instrument etc.) age and hardware of your computer, and software (effects, drivers, etc.).

Mixcraft will take advantage of the capabilities of your audio interface or sound card. Mixcraft does't convert audio to a proprietary or standard compressed format as some DAWS may when saving or playing back a project, so PCM in is PCM out.

[TrevsAudio]

Spoken like a master, thanks Cactus!

I'll maybe add my fave Andrew Scheps quote: 'The only thing that matters, is what comes out of the speakers.'

[ppayne]

'The only thing that matters, is what comes out of the speakers.'

That's exactly the point. No radio listener in the world asks themselves whether the song would have been better if it had been produced with a different daw. And if he were to ask himself anyway, then the question would be technically nonsense.

[cactus-head]

Spoken like a master, thanks Cactus!

I'll maybe add my fave Andrew Scheps quote: 'The only thing that matters, is what comes out of the speakers.'

Wow, there it is!

[Rolling Estonian]

0's and 1's are 0's and 1's!

M

[Acoustica Greg]

The secret sauce is you.

[BagObolts]

After using hissing tapes and upgrading to compressed 8 track, then DAW . Quality is non issue these days. You only get out what you put in, use what works best and easiest for YOU .

[Ray Cube]

I have Cubase and MixCraft.
There are a few differences as to what file formats you can export or import, but apples for apples, I hear no difference. There is more of a noticeable difference dependant on hardware such as DACs, microphone, headphone, and speaker choice but once you get to 24 bit exporting or even 16 bit I doubt anyone could hear a difference. Mainly price differences of most programs come down to what choices there are in tools, plugins and workflow.
For what it is worth I find myself using Cubase less and Mixcraft more.

Ray.