In Summary

Although the DAW has been with us for decades, for some the idea of sonic differences between them persists. Most understand that digital audio doesn’t have a sound of its own, but some factors can make a difference while others won’t. We investigate…

Going Deeper

The Great Debate

Following the virtually unchallenged, decades-long reign of analogue audio tape, at the end of the last century something incredible happened to audio production. During the 1980s, desktop systems made it possible to capture and edit stereo audio on a computer. Via a number of competing systems, the tech eventually morphed over another decade or so to become the modern studio marvel enjoyed by studios great and small: the DAW.

Today, users are made up of either converts from the old days of tape, or thoroughbred DAW natives for whom tape and consoles exist only in GUIs and social media posts. Some will have a broader basis to compare tools than others.

For anyone with experience of using different DAWs, a small number will have sensed differences between different platforms’ sounds. Whether real or perceived, the point is that if someone is hearing a difference that’s worth a deeper look. Here we take an unscientific look at how those differences, if any, can arise, and how in each case the DAW itself can be counted in or out.

Analogies

Studio gear in the pre-DAW era had a sound. In fact, a good section of the industry still exists to sell those imperfections that bring character, mojo, vibe, or whatever else the manufacturer or developer claims.

Taking the idea that no two systems are the same, it’s not unreasonable to at least be open to the idea that any part of the system, including the DAW itself could be guilty of lacing productions with its own subtle infusion. Certainly, in many studios, the DAW might be one of many places through which audio will pass; it doesn’t take a great leap of faith to liken this to the tape machines and consoles that it replaces in many studios.

Lost In Translation?

Conversion

Engineers now enjoy a wide choice of high quality gear to convert between ITB (In The Box) and the outside world, with even budget converters delivering performance equalling or bettering older premium offerings. Although it’s getting harder to find a converter that sounds measurably bad, that hasn’t always been the case. In the early days of the DAW, certain platforms such as Pro Tools could only use specific hardware, with other DAW users being catered for by other manufacturers. This will no doubt have cemented an association of different sounds with different DAWs.

A lot of well-meaning explainers on digital audio show the familiar stairstep representations of digitised audio, but these are misleading. Samples in the DAW can only be instantaneous; digital conversion changes incoming continuous voltages into these discrete snapshots. The opposite is true on playback, with samples providing singular points from which continuous voltages are produced. This is where different converters can introduce changes of their own. It’s no secret that engineers will choose these based upon their subtle signatures, or for their ability to be virtually transparent where needed. Check out the converter shootout Steve DeMott and William Wittman conducted between four alternative converters.

Summing

While an analogue console adds signals together to produce bigger resultant voltages (like a bus or a mix), virtually all DAWs use Pulse Code Modulation (PCM) summing to do the same thing with digital audio. Once digitised, in this domain summing signals together is an arithmetic process that doesn’t change the waveshape of either individual tracks, or mixed signals. Although different DAWs do have different mixer architecture handling things such as internal headroom, all that use PCM employ pure arithmetic to sum samples together.

From this, it goes that DAW engines do not have a measurable sound. Despite this the debate for some rumbles on. As mentioned, changes to the waveform are only measurable in the continous domain, ie in the convertor.

On Balance

Engineers still working through consoles sometimes talk about their own board’s particular soundstage or stereo imaging. Owing to subtle imperfections and the console’s own panning law, some consoles can indeed sound wider, more focussed, or otherwise ‘bigger’ towards the extremes.

Although no DAW mixer suffers (or benefits!) from analogue aliments such as crosstalk or component variation, one thing those working ITB can be assured of is that 100% ‘hard over’ means just that, and that centre panning will always appear straight down the middle.

That said, other settings can indeed sound different between DAWs with each having a panning law of its own. Although most allow this to be changed, their own default laws (eg, 3dB versus 4.5dB or 6dB) can and do sound different.

This law determines the amount of gain or attenuation for signals in each channel at a given pan position; this is to make sure audio sounds at a constant level as it is moved across the panorama. This can result in audibly different imaging between platforms, where attempting to match settings won’t always produce the same results.

Who’s Driving?

Just think about the amount of time and discussion that is given to the tools of our trade. With the huge amount of incredible audio plugins, hardware boxes, mics, monitors, interfaces, and everything else that adorns the studio, engineers have a lot to get animated about.

As we’ve seen, the DAW itself does not have an inherent sound, but all of the audio processing power within it and all of the associated gear at either end certainly does. As always, the single biggest factor in any mix is the engineer, to the point that they will instinctively work through any medium to achieve their own sound.

Those working entirely entirely ITB will have fewer stages to consider, but for others managing longer signal chains (such as when working with hardware and a console) there is an even greater chance for colour, character, or other infusions to happen. Would engineers working like this put any sonic differences down to a flavour coming from inside the computer? Maybe not.

In any place where sonics are the currency, it’s good to ask questions about the sound of anything. Understanding the true differences between DAWs such as pan law can explain variations between them. These will change the sound; engineers that hear those differences are not mistaken.

Much like many coats of paint are used to produce the right finish, mixes from all studios regardless of size or gear are the result of a number of processes. No single stage provides that result, with the DAW providing no fewer choices than hardware-only studios from the past. With that, the biggest point of difference is always going to be what goes into the recording and the choices made by the engineer.

A Word About This Article

As the Experts team considered how we could better help the community we thought that some of you are time poor and don’t have the time to read a long article or a watch a long video. In 2023 we are going to be trying out articles that have the fast takeaway right at the start and then an opportunity to go deeper if you wish. Let us know if you like this idea in the comments.