Just built my first tracks in Cubase in about 5 years

I would expect PT11 to have less issues than Cubase8 It a much newer platform just as I would expect cubase to have less issues than pt(1 to 10) rtas. Each generation requiring backward compatibility is going to cause issues. Altho I have issues with avid and I am always looking to jump ship I like the way they have built PT 11 from the ground up without worrying about legacy plugins or old hardware.

just curious. did these proper tests go out through converters and back into a different DAW. same set up of course for both.

i contend the differences ppl are hearing are in the DAW's as media players, and not digital summing. if you take the same wav files and print them in two different DAW's, of course they are going to null. they are the same file. it would be like moving a file from one folder to another. the difference is in playback of audio. in other words, you can play the same file through two different media players and they will sound different. but if you put those two files in the same DAW they will of course null, because they are in fact the same file. i posted this in the other forum and got a bunch of sh?t of course. audiofest.info/2011/video_player.php?video_id=20

in this video Dr. Rob Robinson, who wrote driver code for Apple for 27 years explains why. clumpy data delivery causes jitter. here is another source www.audiostream.com/content/media-player-qa-q4-what-makes-one-media-player-sound-different-another where 8 other media player developers confirm the same thing, "the efficiency of getting music to the DAC is the main determinant of sound quality."

in my experiences, and ive tried pretty much all of them, there are significant differences between them, and not just between different DAW's but between older and newer versions of the same one. especially cubase. there is a big difference between cubase 5 and cubase 7.


IMO protools sounds the best, and is the best. i wish to god that weren't the case. that being said, i know i will eventually be leaving PT, and am 99% sure i will end up on cubase. so i hope it was 8 you tried and it really does sound better.

I have both and don't hear a difference. There are some things that I like about Cubase and some Pro Tools. If the Pro Tools software engineers had showed some consideration for ASIO based interfaces, I'd use it a lot more.

ASIO may be Steinberg's baby, I don't know, but interfaces like my RME also have the option to utilize ASIO if you want to. I don't understand why any seller of software would tailor a product to one computer type. I don't think Avid did that with Pro Tools 11 software.

As for the reason why they would include ASIO:  they would do it is to keep customers coming back to their company. Not building in ASIO makes it more difficult for me to do my job. When I go to purchase something that Avid sells- like perhaps a DAW Controller- I will keep in mind that they could have added ASIO, but didn't and made my life more difficult. I certainly will never buy their HD system, it doesn't make any financial sense. I can get the same results (if not better- my RME-Aurora is stable as hell) for way less $$$$.

Unless the development costs are huge, I don't see how it would lose them money. Perhaps there's a software engineer that can chime in. 

They know that there are tons of people using hybrid converter/interface systems. They created a software for that market, but kept out a key component that Pro Tools HD has-being able to monitor musicians inputs/cue mixes from within the Pro Tools interface. Did they think I'd sell my system and buy an HD system because I don't have direct monitoring from their interface? Hell, I'd have paid a premium for ASIO in the software. Maybe that's their next move. I don't know. But like I said, it left a bad taste, and they should have been thinking about the money they could lose on their other products as well. The PT HD domination for DAW's is over. They lost.

JMO, I think they blew it with their squeezing big time, if you look at the digi002, the basic layout of the thing was ripe for upgrades, they dumbed down the build and components to limit it's quality, if they would have just done 2 things, i'd bet they would be the only daw co. in existence right now. Those 2 things would have been, upgrade the PSU, component path and clock to the standards of what the BLA signature mod did to the 002, and make them linkable up to 32 channels(how many guys would have bought 4 each of those units!), then keep the HD stuff for the really big guys, which would have been totally feasible considering they would have had the entire market share, and wiped the competition clear off the map. Word.

Asio drivers have worked in PT Native (HD Native as well) for years, since about version 9 I believe. Even though it's not "officially" supported, you can even use ASIO4ALL if you wish.

tonycamphd

For HD / HDX the idea was to create an all-in-one medium that was easy to support and had plenty of raw grunt for professional studios, I'm pretty sure Avid don't want to loose money. But in todays market the HDX all in one model doesn't work like it used to, hence them trying to retrofit native solutions to solidfy them for the ever exploding home recording market.

Make no mistake PT is a heavy piece of complex gear and it's not simple to just change the infrastructure. Whereas new up and comers had no relative restrictions building a clean infrastructure from scratch.. Even though I love Samplitude, the UI / front end could do with a re-write but it's a massive job that takes years.

drbill

Null tests don't prove much, were talking about underlying libs here that correlate to PCM which is the same for Wav and Aiff. For example if I use QtMultimedia (A sub-lib) I can just play back raw PCM (PCM supplies the RIFF header, sample rate info, BPS etc.) it's universal and should never vary. The only thing that matters is how the DAW influences the process from beginning to end and it's very hard to create an accurate test at home, we use specific tools for testing all sorts of components.

Even in the core libs like FMOD vs. Bass, I've noticed latency issues. So slapping some PCM data in and phase cancelling it out, really doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.

@me

Finally, all that should really matter is workflow and in-built tools. Again why I use Samp, it's very stable and I've no concerns with it whilst Samp comes with a metric ton of features. The final cherry on the top is how good the in-built plugs are.!

Well in a way, ASIO is our baby.  It gives power to the users to decide what they want to use.  The hammerlock that Avid seems hellbent on keeping with their software has been a piss poor business model IMO.  

Honestly, I hope Avid see's the benefit of giving us all the freedom we want.  They would see a lot of native people flock to them if they did.

What am I missing here? As said PT Native and HD Native has worked with Asio drivers for years, again not officially supported but works fine with ASIO4ALL.

Are you talking HDX?

Thanks for clearing that up chief, I left ages ago so I'm not sure what's going on. I was testing with an Mbox pro and Lynx Aurora and never had any specific issues with the ASIO driver set.

At the moment I'm using PT9 native, with the Audient ID22 and MOTU still not had any ASIO driver issues. Then again I've had issues with the Mbox's and had a lot of weird issues with PT in general.

So it doesn't suprise me ..

10 was pretty damn solid for me. I don't think 11 has ever crashed.