|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 4, 2015 15:27:00 GMT -6
Hey Randge - are you saying you like Cubase more sonically than PT's? If so, let's start a thread about it I think it's an interesting subject if we can all remain civil. Edit: just broke this topic out of another thread...Lets be civil about it! |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 4, 2015 15:49:57 GMT -6
Yes, in years past, an engineer buddy of mine and I did extensive testing with 30 sec midi files that should have been identical, using the same EZ drummer and Ivory piano files in both Nuendo and PT, and the same Apogee converters as to make it as fair comparison as possible. I took the files that were panned identically and level matched to Final Stage Mastering and listened before we started the mastering session I had booked. The difference was very noticeable to me. PT was considerably more grainy and it felt like the panning was closed in much tighter. The midrange seemed very similar but the top and bottom were not. Nuendo (I was using that till a couple of yrs ago)clearly had the upper hand then. The same engineer buddy did the same test with the latest PT vs Cubase last fall. He said there were still notable differences and Cubase 7.5 still sounded better, though the tonal margins stated earlier had tightened a bit between the two. I am not sure what converters he used as I wasn't there and forgot to ask him for his more recent tests. It really doesn't matter that much to me which DAW platform, as I would pan differently and make the track work according to my ears and in the end, I would have a mix that pleased me or I wouldn't be finished with it.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 4, 2015 15:59:03 GMT -6
Cool - I started in Cubase...but haven't used it regularly in several years. I mixed something in C5 or 6 a couple of years ago and I swore it sounded better, but I just thought maybe it was my imagination...I might break this out into another thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 4, 2015 18:23:26 GMT -6
I will say that Cubase has really refined their built in software plugs and an engineer can easily make a nice record with them alone. PT's isn't nearly as feature packed. I also find editing on PT to not be much fun at all. Add to that all the complaints I hear about Avid and it isn't a difficult decision to at least try Cubase instead of upgrading a system (for a lot of moola) that is very proprietary and trapping.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 4, 2015 19:02:15 GMT -6
Early pt11 adopter here: can't figure avid out ?
You pay a premium for new software to finally catch up to other daws, then few plugs are available aax so you can't really use 11 and 1.5,years go by and while 11 still has bugs avid offers it to new buyers well brliw the price you paid and put a gun to your head and says subscribe or else but doesn't say much about fixing the current bugs !
Hmm avid everywhere is more like avid nowhere for me: guess I'll wait it out as I did not subscribe by the 31st for some odd reason spending another $200 us so my price would be 150% higher than newbie buyerguy for nothing didn't seem advantageous.
I don't understand avid ?
Anyway back to the future and cubebase, logic, studio one, Reason ect..!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 4, 2015 19:26:20 GMT -6
Uh...what is all this "subscribe" business? I've heard nothing about it??
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 4, 2015 19:29:48 GMT -6
I can say this...I'm tired of dancing between the two - PT 10 & 11 that is. Went to the Avid site - are they wanting $200 a year for upgrades or something?
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 4, 2015 19:55:38 GMT -6
you didn't know ?
they implemented a subscription service so annual fees $199 and it includes support. you were supposed to decide by the 31st. if you already have 11 we can apparently wait till march of 16 I think to see what happens but avid is keeping its cards close to its chest.
pro tools expert has had some good articles about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 4, 2015 20:04:59 GMT -6
No - I didn't...Damn. Hell, Cubase
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 4, 2015 20:05:26 GMT -6
So, even small updates like 12.0.1 etc?
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 4, 2015 20:26:35 GMT -6
Unclear: an avid rep said a few months ago that 11 owners would get . Releases but I haven't seen anything recently and certainly there wasn't a clear communique from avid b4 the 31st about any of this.
So 11 will still work of course but people are concerned about the lack of clarity and forthcomingness !
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jan 4, 2015 20:38:16 GMT -6
Cubase...I love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 5, 2015 0:20:51 GMT -6
Yes, in years past, an engineer buddy of mine and I did extensive testing with 30 sec midi files that should have been identical, using the same EZ drummer and Ivory piano files in both Nuendo and PT, and the same Apogee converters as to make it as fair comparison as possible. I took the files that were panned identically and level matched to Final Stage Mastering and listened before we started the mastering session I had booked. The difference was very noticeable to me. PT was considerably more grainy and it felt like the panning was closed in much tighter. The midrange seemed very similar but the top and bottom were not. Nuendo (I was using that till a couple of yrs ago)clearly had the upper hand then. The same engineer buddy did the same test with the latest PT vs Cubase last fall. He said there were still notable differences and Cubase 7.5 still sounded better, though the tonal margins stated earlier had tightened a bit between the two. I am not sure what converters he used as I wasn't there and forgot to ask him for his more recent tests. It really doesn't matter that much to me which DAW platform, as I would pan differently and make the track work according to my ears and in the end, I would have a mix that pleased me or I wouldn't be finished with it. R Randy, you are clearly a talented cat, I take you at your word that you heard what you heard, but i would like to know more detail how you arrived at your conclusion. What versions of software? What rez and bit depth was the session? on the midi instruments(you mentioned years past) were they wrapped or both rtas or HD? any plugs/eq moves and what kind? did you do any comparisons with AD recorded files? and if so, what was the original tracking platform and conversion? All this would matter i would think. The idea that something appeared "wider" with panning in the digital domain strikes me as odd, there is no cross talk spec as far as i know of ITB, and if it was an identical playback conversion/monitoring rig, it further supports something not being optimized equally in both platforms? That said, i'm not a midi/virtual instrument kinda guy, i have heard people say in the past that PT lagged behind logic and others in midi performance, i'd be much more interested to see if you thought real instruments recorded via the same ADDA sounded better or worse on one daw or the other. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 5, 2015 0:41:08 GMT -6
It's just 1's and 0's right? There are guys a LOT smarter than me who have spent a lot of time proving all DAW's - with things like pan laws, levels, conversion, etc. being equal - are identical. Aside from screw ups (like the way MOtU approached the DAE engine years ago) I think it's all user bias when people say one is better (sonically) than the other.. Use what works for you or what most other studios (PT - at least in LA) use. That's my $.02. Now, if you want to talk AAX vs. RTAS vs. VST and the host of plugins, that's a completely different story - as is the ergo's of each DAW.
PS - IF you have a bias (and I do) I strongly suggest you work on whatever DAW you BELIEVE is best. Even if it's identical sonically to the next one. You'll do better work and your mixes will sound better.
|
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Jan 5, 2015 1:30:03 GMT -6
I keep going back to PT like a junkie I know its wrong but I cannot help my self. Dam u avid..
You get way more for less with every other DAW, but I just know PT and 2 layz to put the time in to change..
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 5, 2015 1:31:19 GMT -6
24 bit 96K were where we did the test as that is where I have recorded for years. PT had just dropped LE on its head, so whatever version was after that was what was used. both were RTAS if I remember correctly. No eq's were on and no panning was done outside of the stock EZ drummer panner built into it and they were set exactly the same. I remember taking a picture with my new (flip) phone at the time, so that we could be sure they were matched. We dropped the exported midi file into PT so that the "trigger" was identical as well. EZ Drummer is really "easy" to make a 30 second clip of music since they are loaded 1 bar at a time stereo tracks of midi info. Both were exported 24 bit 96K through Apogee converters. The piano was done the same way using Ivory (whatever version that was new at the time). It has been long enough since we did the test that I don't remember much else to be honest. I do remember cymbals feeling deeper and wider sounding and the piano to have a deeper and smoother bottom end that felt/sounded louder to my ears and a less grainy top end. All three of us in the room, mastering engineer included, picked the Nuendo files as the better sounding. To this day the mastering engineer uses Cubase instead of PT when recording his own projects and my friend that helped me conduct the shootout uses Nuendo. The ME still uses his Sadie system to master at Airshow however.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 5, 2015 1:46:47 GMT -6
Yes, in years past, an engineer buddy of mine and I did extensive testing with 30 sec midi files that should have been identical, using the same EZ drummer and Ivory piano files in both Nuendo and PT, and the same Apogee converters as to make it as fair comparison as possible. I took the files that were panned identically and level matched to Final Stage Mastering and listened before we started the mastering session I had booked. The difference was very noticeable to me. PT was considerably more grainy and it felt like the panning was closed in much tighter. The midrange seemed very similar but the top and bottom were not. Nuendo (I was using that till a couple of yrs ago)clearly had the upper hand then. The same engineer buddy did the same test with the latest PT vs Cubase last fall. He said there were still notable differences and Cubase 7.5 still sounded better, though the tonal margins stated earlier had tightened a bit between the two. I am not sure what converters he used as I wasn't there and forgot to ask him for his more recent tests. It really doesn't matter that much to me which DAW platform, as I would pan differently and make the track work according to my ears and in the end, I would have a mix that pleased me or I wouldn't be finished with it. R Randy, you are clearly a talented cat, I take you at your word that you heard what you heard, but i would like to know more detail how you arrived at your conclusion. What versions of software? What rez and bit depth was the session? on the midi instruments(you mentioned years past) were they wrapped or both rtas or HD? any plugs/eq moves and what kind? did you do any comparisons with AD recorded files? and if so, what was the original tracking platform and conversion? All this would matter i would think. The idea that something appeared "wider" with panning in the digital domain strikes me as odd, there is no cross talk spec as far as i know of ITB, and if it was an identical playback conversion/monitoring rig, it further supports something not being optimized equally in both platforms? That said, i'm not a midi/virtual instrument kinda guy, i have heard people say in the past that PT lagged behind logic and others in midi performance, i'd be much more interested to see if you thought real instruments recorded via the same ADDA sounded better or worse on one daw or the other. After recording with Gary Paczosa and Chuck Ainlay back to back and hearing the sounds they were both getting with Nuendo, I locked in permanently, only switching to Cubase a couple of yrs ago. They really sold me on it over 10 yrs ago but that test just surprised and reaffirmed that at that time, they were quite a ways ahead of Protools. IMO, they still are no matter what I am recording be it drums, screamin' guitars or acoustic instruments. Just so you know, the extent of my midi work is using EZ drummer as a soft musical click for acoustic bands. I use several different guys on piano who use Ivory and Grand from Steinberg and I go over to their place to track that stuff with stems from my sessions. I go to Josh Shilling's place for real B3 though. There ain't no faking that! R |
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Jan 5, 2015 1:54:35 GMT -6
Cubase here too.... Someone tried to convince me that reaper was easier on resources, smoother a while ago. Tried it and immediately went back to cubase. Also thought Cubase sounded better. Not sure if its possible, but yeah thats what i heard. Also love the workflow in cubase
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jan 5, 2015 8:11:50 GMT -6
I use Logic X and PT now but used Cubase back in 2007 and I always thought it sounded better to me...no science there. Crazy, i remember a producer friend and myself talking about it after importing a song from PT into Cubase which is what he used.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 5, 2015 10:22:10 GMT -6
If I switch, it will be because of the pita that the whole AAX, RTAS thing is. Plus, this $199 support fee stinks of Waves...
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 5, 2015 10:33:23 GMT -6
It's just 1's and 0's right? There are guys a LOT smarter than me who have spent a lot of time proving all DAW's - with things like pan laws, levels, conversion, etc. being equal - are identical. Aside from screw ups (like the way MOtU approached the DAE engine years ago) I think it's all user bias when people say one is better (sonically) than the other.. Use what works for you or what most other studios (PT - at least in LA) use. That's my $.02. Now, if you want to talk AAX vs. RTAS vs. VST and the host of plugins, that's a completely different story - as is the ergo's of each DAW. PS - IF you have a bias (and I do) I strongly suggest you work on whatever DAW you BELIEVE is best. Even if it's identical sonically to the next one. You'll do better work and your mixes will sound better. It's 1's and 0's but there are LOTS of them. When you only have so many bits to work with (24, 32, 64, etc) and you multiply these long strings of 1's and 0's, you end up with numerical values that are much, much larger than the available bit widths your hardware can handle. Something must be done with these long numbers. Sometimes the answer is to do a lot of other math to them to make them smaller, but that takes a lot of time and processor power that might not be available, or could make things slow down a LOT. Another answer is to simply figure out which numbers are most meaningful and just cut the rest off and throw them away (truncation) because it's fast and the lost data doesn't amount to a whole lot per execution. (Sorry for the gross oversimplification) So, depending on who is coding these functions and how smart and adept they are at getting around issues like this, similar data input might be altered drastically by the software before it's spit back out. So yeah, two programs can have amazingly different outcomes while doing seemingly the same things. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 5, 2015 10:34:44 GMT -6
And this is why I am still using PT10HD. Losing ALL my investment in old RTAS/Native plugins is a gigantic PITA. I'm sure switching to all native stuff AAX, the new PT native cards will dramatically improve some things... but everything works and sounds great to me now.
Cubase? I can't quite get past its past.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jan 5, 2015 10:35:58 GMT -6
Cubase here too.... Someone tried to convince me that reaper was easier on resources, smoother a while ago. Tried it and immediately went back to cubase. Also thought Cubase sounded better. Not sure if its possible, but yeah thats what i heard. Also love the workflow in cubase Hmm, I started with Cubase and then Reaper. I used both for a little while and then chose Reaper. I've run my Reaper off of thumb drives on other people's computers when I needed to.. I also routinely run 40+ tracks on a 12 year old computer with 1GB of ram.. Try that with Cubase.. |
|
|
|
Post by odyssey76 on Jan 5, 2015 10:37:48 GMT -6
If I switch, it will be because of the pita that the whole AAX, RTAS thing is. Plus, this $199 support fee stinks of Waves... PT guy here also but been thinking about switching to Logic X (which I also have but never use). I may track in PT and mix in Logic, until I get the hang of it, just for the sole purpose of not having to mess with the hardware delay compensation. No reason anyone should have to calculate their own hardware delay in any of today's modern DAWs. I need to find time to learn another DAW though and that's where PT has me by the balls. |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jan 5, 2015 11:00:42 GMT -6
I'm happy with Digital Performer. Robust, stable, powerful editing and pitch tools. Easy offline bounces/exporting in all formats.
|
|
