|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 12, 2015 22:23:15 GMT -6
and I think I might be switching over for good. (From PT's) I started on Cubase, so it's not totally alien to me - ala Logic. Once I figured out the connections and headphone routing in control room, everything was smooth sailing. I recorded at 96k...about 20 tracks and the new Slate Blackbird Drums...I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to do all of the mix in the same session after freezing the drums. I ended up importing a printed mix into another Mastering session just because I wanted to make sure there weren't any cracks and pops.
I didn't have any problems with latency when recording the drums - I believe I put it at 256...but I swear when I did a couple fixes a little later, I had the buffers at 1024 and hit record enable and had no noticeable latency. How the heck does that work?
I still have to figure out comping - or just become proficient at it...I usually don't comp myself, I'll just sing it until I think it's a good enough take and then...ahem...tune. But when recording other people, quick comping is a must.
And lastly...I swear it sounds better...maybe it's just that it was one of those songs that turned out good and was easy to create...but this experience has kind've convinced me to go with Cubase for my own projects from this point forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 12, 2015 22:59:58 GMT -6
I've often thought about switching to Cubase (from Pro Tools). I'm just pretty damn fast in PT and I don't like the thought of slowing down. I like to work quickly. Avid can be annoying though...
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Feb 12, 2015 23:46:28 GMT -6
Yup Cubase is great.
Off topic. JK How did you find the blackbird drums btw?
Might pul the trigger on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by unit7 on Feb 13, 2015 0:06:13 GMT -6
I didn't have any problems with latency when recording the drums - I believe I put it at 256...but I swear when I did a couple fixes a little later, I had the buffers at 1024 and hit record enable and had no noticeable latency. How the heck does that work? No experience of Cubase and how it handles latency, but 1024 @96khz should be 50% less latency than @48khz, not? |
|
|
|
Post by drew571 on Feb 13, 2015 12:36:10 GMT -6
Been using Cubase for over a decade. Every time I try another DAW I just can't do it. There are some annoying things about Cubase but it sounds better than protools , control room is awesome, and midi creation tools are the best. Besides Steinberg invented half the technology other DAWS use. OK maybe not half, but a decent amount of innovation has come from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 13, 2015 12:43:38 GMT -6
Been using Cubase for over a decade. Every time I try another DAW I just can't do it. There are some annoying things about Cubase but it sounds better than protools , control room is awesome, and midi creation tools are the best. Besides Steinberg invented half the technology other DAWS use. OK maybe not half, but a decent amount of innovation has come from them. In your opinion?... or do you have something that can quantify such a statement? |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 13, 2015 12:46:50 GMT -6
Been using Cubase for over a decade. Every time I try another DAW I just can't do it. There are some annoying things about Cubase but it sounds better than protools , control room is awesome, and midi creation tools are the best. Besides Steinberg invented half the technology other DAWS use. OK maybe not half, but a decent amount of innovation has come from them. In your opinion?... or do you have something that can quantify such a statement? About 3 other folks in the room when he imported the A/D tracks into Cubase after we listened in PT. Everyone nodded in unison when Randge said "hey I think it sounds better". I surely think it did. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 13, 2015 13:02:19 GMT -6
thats great, but honestly you and Randy both rail against PT's all the time, and thats perfectly legit as you are both entitled to your opinions. So with that in mind, i was asking the poster who i quoted, what quantifies such a statement? is there a difference in dsp? is it pcm based, what on paper makes it functionally SOUND better/different than PT? or is this a personal opinion? It's a legit Q.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 13, 2015 13:06:20 GMT -6
thats great, but honestly you and Randy both rail against PT's all the time, and thats perfectly legit as you are both entitled to your opinions. So with that in mind, i was asking the poster who i quoted, what quantifies such a statement? is there a difference in dsp? is it pcm based, what on paper makes it functionally SOUND better/different than PT? or is this a personal opinion? It's a legit Q. I dunno, it just sounded higher fidelity and we all agreed. I'm very sure that someone could probably figure out why if they were so inclined. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 13:07:27 GMT -6
Been using Cubase for over a decade. Every time I try another DAW I just can't do it. There are some annoying things about Cubase but it sounds better than protools , control room is awesome, and midi creation tools are the best. Besides Steinberg invented half the technology other DAWS use. OK maybe not half, but a decent amount of innovation has come from them. In your opinion?... or do you have something that can quantify such a statement? A wav file is a wav file in any daw, but generally people don't use DAW's for slapping wav files and doing nothing else with it. Summing engines (Bit SPFP (headroom), latency compensation, Pan Law, Automation, bounce algo's. DAW's are very complex and offer different ways of achieving things, they will vary it's inevitable. Is it enough to care? Well it depends, in PT native there were some actual issues with LC (That Avid have said they've fixed in PT (11.2) / 12). That can have a serious knock on effect. What's best for you as always, it depends. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 13, 2015 14:10:55 GMT -6
another big Cubase fan, here
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2015 14:16:07 GMT -6
In your opinion?... or do you have something that can quantify such a statement? About 3 other folks in the room when he imported the A/D tracks into Cubase after we listened in PT. Everyone nodded in unison when Randge said "hey I think it sounds better". I surely think it did. Actually, it was me that said that. I only point that out because I was the unbeliever. Anyway, it doesn't matter...if I think it sounds better, then even that is a useful placebo. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 13, 2015 17:07:20 GMT -6
Many have been inclined. Every "proper shootout" Ive heard the files nulled. So an outside observer would assume it all comes down to user bias. |
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,077 
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 13, 2015 17:23:36 GMT -6
well I don't know that I agree with that ?  if I served you two different pieces of apple pie, are you biased if you prefer one ? I understand its a bad (humorous) parallel but how is it possible that two completely different unrelated software architectures can actually be sonically identical ; doesn't make sense to me , but I do understand the concept of nulling; its like my bank balance after my separation: right seriously , can you explain how one would null the same mix from two different daws, just invert one and play them back and theoretically hear no sound and conclude they are identical ? Would that actually be true ? what is it exactly that they all experienced as higher fidelity ? nothing : just group user bias ? I mean these questions inquisitively not argumentatively; just in case they don't come across that way ? thx ! |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107
|
Post by ericn on Feb 13, 2015 17:26:56 GMT -6
I live in a PT town, and in a sort of PT universe, I choose to use what gets me work, if I were a office worker it would be MS Office, not Pages, or WordPerfect, not that Cubase isn't capable it is, I just want to know one DAW I'm to old to go back to knowing all of them.
|
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,077
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 13, 2015 17:47:15 GMT -6
I know the feeling ericn |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 13, 2015 18:10:35 GMT -6
well I don't know that I agree with that ? if I served you two different pieces of apple pie, are you biased if you prefer one ? I understand its a bad (humorous) parallel but how is it possible that two completely different unrelated software architectures can actually be sonically identical ; doesn't make sense to me , but I do understand the concept of nulling; its like my bank balance after my separation: right seriously , can you explain how one would null the same mix from two different daws, just invert one and play them back and theoretically hear no sound and conclude they are identical ? Would that actually be true ? what is it exactly that they all experienced as higher fidelity ? nothing : just group user bias ? I mean these questions inquisitively not argumentatively; just in case they don't come across that way ? thx ! First, when I use the word "bias" I don't mean it in a negative way. Insert "preference, believe or like" - same to me. So with that out of the way.... :-) Yes, you invert phase of one mix, but there are MANY things that need to be set up correctly. Missing any ONE will negate your test. At least scientifically speaking. There are a huge amount of flawed tests out there - and because of it, a lot of guys who are not completely informed as to the math, and "scientific" aspect of it. User bias or "the placebo effect" as John referred to it is a strong pull. And a completely legitimate one - as long as you don't declare 100% scientific victory over your foes. And I don't see that as a negative. Personally, I KNOW that PT HD/HDX is the best DAW on the planet, and that's MY personal bias - and it HELPS me work better. I know it doesn't SOUND any different than the rest of em, but the workflow is perfect for me, so "it's the best" (my personal placebo effect) and I can work faster and turn out better music because of it. There are countless good and bad null tests for DAWs out there if you're so inclined to search them out. The only ONE properly performed test I've ever seen that DIDN'T null was one I did myself, and that's a long story, but it has to do with the fact that Digi didn't completely release all info for the DAE engine to MOTU so Digital Perf running on DAE mode was not up to snuff. But other than that, all I've seen is a bunch of nulling. No matter what the pundits of any particular DAW claim. So it's all good as long as one realizes bias is in place with all of us. Cheers, bp |
|
kcatthedog
Temp
Super Helpful Dude
Posts: 16,077
Member is Online
|
Post by kcatthedog on Feb 13, 2015 18:38:13 GMT -6
thx Dr. !! all good !
|
|
|
|
Post by drew571 on Feb 13, 2015 19:02:55 GMT -6
Been using Cubase for over a decade. Every time I try another DAW I just can't do it. There are some annoying things about Cubase but it sounds better than protools , control room is awesome, and midi creation tools are the best. Besides Steinberg invented half the technology other DAWS use. OK maybe not half, but a decent amount of innovation has come from them. In your opinion?... or do you have something that can quantify such a statement? Yep, completely my opinion. Always seemed to sound thinner to me in pro tools. could be totally wrong. different listening environments etc... maybe it just looks prettier and that messes with my ears but I value my own opinion so it definitely sounds better. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 13, 2015 19:09:14 GMT -6
I'm trying to decide if I can hear the difference between my CD player feeding my DAC... or the Computer feeding the same DAC via USB.
there's some crazy psychology and bias going on here and I don't want to make any conclusions before I gather some proper information. This is the stuff of "audiophiles."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2015 19:36:42 GMT -6
well I don't know that I agree with that ? if I served you two different pieces of apple pie, are you biased if you prefer one ? I understand its a bad (humorous) parallel but how is it possible that two completely different unrelated software architectures can actually be sonically identical ; doesn't make sense to me , but I do understand the concept of nulling; its like my bank balance after my separation: right seriously , can you explain how one would null the same mix from two different daws, just invert one and play them back and theoretically hear no sound and conclude they are identical ? Would that actually be true ? what is it exactly that they all experienced as higher fidelity ? nothing : just group user bias ? I mean these questions inquisitively not argumentatively; just in case they don't come across that way ? thx ! First, when I use the word "bias" I don't mean it in a negative way. Insert "preference, believe or like" - same to me. So with that out of the way.... :-) Yes, you invert phase of one mix, but there are MANY things that need to be set up correctly. Missing any ONE will negate your test. At least scientifically speaking. There are a huge amount of flawed tests out there - and because of it, a lot of guys who are not completely informed as to the math, and "scientific" aspect of it. User bias or "the placebo effect" as John referred to it is a strong pull. And a completely legitimate one - as long as you don't declare 100% scientific victory over your foes. And I don't see that as a negative. Personally, I KNOW that PT HD/HDX is the best DAW on the planet, and that's MY personal bias - and it HELPS me work better. I know it doesn't SOUND any different than the rest of em, but the workflow is perfect for me, so "it's the best" (my personal placebo effect) and I can work faster and turn out better music because of it. There are countless good and bad null tests for DAWs out there if you're so inclined to search them out. The only ONE properly performed test I've ever seen that DIDN'T null was one I did myself, and that's a long story, but it has to do with the fact that Digi didn't completely release all info for the DAE engine to MOTU so Digital Perf running on DAE mode was not up to snuff. But other than that, all I've seen is a bunch of nulling. No matter what the pundits of any particular DAW claim. So it's all good as long as one realizes bias is in place with all of us. Cheers, bp I've worked on the DAW you prefer the most, I think it's great if I don't mind saying so myself  .. Null tests are only a small portion of the entire equation in a full mix, right down from the latent reactions to likes of DPC. Think about it this way, if everything was completely equal why the need for a 48-bit FP summation system over a 64-bit DP Float? Marketing gimmic? Hey I have the most bits, I win the DAW race. It's not quite that simple, also were assuming here that everything has been done perfectly and in software I've never seen that to be the case. Even a basic engine like Ardour is around what? 34K lines of lines of code for the engine only. Never mind the other 100K+ lines of code for the front end, PT Native did sound different but that was due to a bug that got fixed. Everything even down to the MP3 encoding alg's (Fraunhofer vs. Lame (Samp / PT vs. Reaper etc.) can be noticeably different, I have to think of it from a users perspective start to end. More of a typical use case than under a microscope analytic view.. It's a very demanding process and one thing that does actually get my goat is when they say, it's only math!.. Well if it's that simple, whip out a calculator and make your own!. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 13, 2015 19:55:51 GMT -6
so if the above is true(and i believe you), I would think that PT would be at least equal to the most accurate of DAWS simply because it's in the hands of the most users and most professional studios. Wouldn't it stand to reason that those users would be screaming at the top of their lungs if it didn't sound as good, if not better than any other DAW out there? It certainly makes sense that this would be the case, whether it is or not is another story.
To be clear, for me personally, i don't like the behavior of Avid, but i absolutely love the way PT works, and it continues to get better with every iteration IMO
|
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Feb 13, 2015 20:03:57 GMT -6
and I think I might be switching over for good. (From PT's) I started on Cubase, so it's not totally alien to me - ala Logic. Once I figured out the connections and headphone routing in control room, everything was smooth sailing. I recorded at 96k...about 20 tracks and the new Slate Blackbird Drums...I was pleasantly surprised that I was able to do all of the mix in the same session after freezing the drums. I ended up importing a printed mix into another Mastering session just because I wanted to make sure there weren't any cracks and pops. I didn't have any problems with latency when recording the drums - I believe I put it at 256...but I swear when I did a couple fixes a little later, I had the buffers at 1024 and hit record enable and had no noticeable latency. How the heck does that work? I still have to figure out comping - or just become proficient at it...I usually don't comp myself, I'll just sing it until I think it's a good enough take and then...ahem...tune. But when recording other people, quick comping is a must. And lastly...I swear it sounds better...maybe it's just that it was one of those songs that turned out good and was easy to create...but this experience has kind've convinced me to go with Cubase for my own projects from this point forward. The best way to comp in Cubase is to use the Lanes feature. For example, if recording vocals you keep overdubbing on the same track. When finished, click on the Lanes icon and all of the passes become visible. Then you use the comping tool (hand icon) to highlight and choose the part--all pretty quick. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Feb 13, 2015 20:15:53 GMT -6
To be clear, for me personally, i don't like the behavior of Avid, but i absolutely love the way PT works, and it continues to get better with every iteration IMO Ditto. <<thumbsupX2>> |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 13, 2015 20:23:15 GMT -6
well I don't know that I agree with that ? if I served you two different pieces of apple pie, are you biased if you prefer one ? I understand its a bad (humorous) parallel but how is it possible that two completely different unrelated software architectures can actually be sonically identical ; doesn't make sense to me , but I do understand the concept of nulling; its like my bank balance after my separation: right seriously , can you explain how one would null the same mix from two different daws, just invert one and play them back and theoretically hear no sound and conclude they are identical ? Would that actually be true ? what is it exactly that they all experienced as higher fidelity ? nothing : just group user bias ? I mean these questions inquisitively not argumentatively; just in case they don't come across that way ? thx ! First, when I use the word "bias" I don't mean it in a negative way. Insert "preference, believe or like" - same to me. So with that out of the way.... :-) Yes, you invert phase of one mix, but there are MANY things that need to be set up correctly. Missing any ONE will negate your test. At least scientifically speaking. There are a huge amount of flawed tests out there - and because of it, a lot of guys who are not completely informed as to the math, and "scientific" aspect of it. User bias or "the placebo effect" as John referred to it is a strong pull. And a completely legitimate one - as long as you don't declare 100% scientific victory over your foes. And I don't see that as a negative. Personally, I KNOW that PT HD/HDX is the best DAW on the planet, and that's MY personal bias - and it HELPS me work better. I know it doesn't SOUND any different than the rest of em, but the workflow is perfect for me, so "it's the best" (my personal placebo effect) and I can work faster and turn out better music because of it. There are countless good and bad null tests for DAWs out there if you're so inclined to search them out. The only ONE properly performed test I've ever seen that DIDN'T null was one I did myself, and that's a long story, but it has to do with the fact that Digi didn't completely release all info for the DAE engine to MOTU so Digital Perf running on DAE mode was not up to snuff. But other than that, all I've seen is a bunch of nulling. No matter what the pundits of any particular DAW claim. So it's all good as long as one realizes bias is in place with all of us. Cheers, bp Yeah - I don't doubt it's placebo...but it was the first thing I thought when we pulled it into Cubase. Anyway, I could be good working in either... |
|
..