|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 4, 2018 9:06:12 GMT -6
Not intending this to be a 'which is better' thread, but eventually I'm going to have to either upgrade Pro Tools or switch to a new DAW. I'd always thought I'd eventually move to Cubase, but I have to admit I'm nervous, only because I've always just used Pro Tools. I know it pretty well. We just got Cubase at work, and I'm very clunky at it. So it makes me double nervous to have to learn a new DAW. I've been using PT for almost 20 years now.
I guess my question is to those who moved from PT to Cubase, or vice versa. What did you like about one over the other? What does PT lack that Cubase has? What does Cubase lack that PT has?
Beat detection? Time stretching? Playlists? Comping?
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 4, 2018 9:32:12 GMT -6
I think you'll find most modern DAW software to share most of the same main features these days. Its not until you get into another price point things get more interesting really with 3 point editing and stuff.
Id just stick with PT as you know it and time is money!
I have only used Cubase a few times though so I'm definitely not the person to ask which is better. I still like PT though and its only getting better recently. I use Pyramix a lot now as well but thats one of those higher tier DAWs(aka expensive, almost too expensive)
|
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Dec 4, 2018 9:47:42 GMT -6
Kinda like Blacksawg here. I decided to quit the Protools wagon only because of their subscription plan and very poor efficiency on Windows. I moved to Samplitude 8 years ago and would not go back as I deeply love it. Actually why do you consider changing DAW ? If it is for features, except for esoteric DAW like Pyramix, SADIE, and Samplitude/Sequoia, you won't have anything more in Cubase than in PT I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Dec 4, 2018 10:05:37 GMT -6
I'm using both Nuendo and Cubase. Every year I think about switching and I start comparing features. Most all DAWs do the basics. Cubase and Nuendo go a little beyond most. They've had a few irritating bugs over the last couple decades but they do what I need them to do and I can work relatively fast in it. Familiarity is a big thing. Funny thing is; there are dozens of features in Cubase that I have never even touched.
Track Lanes in Cubase/Nuendo and the comp tool are indispensable for me. It would really slow down my creation and mix process if I could not easily see each take of a track and quick chose them. Variaudio is also a great tool as well as all the midi features. The new sample track is very cool in that I can now do a hitpoint detection on the snare track, drop a good snare hit on the sampler track and have perfectly triggered samples of the snare used on the original track. It's come in quite handy on a few sessions lately where the drummer was way too heavy on the cymbals and bleed made the snare mic a bit less than usable.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 4, 2018 10:12:18 GMT -6
How is working with hardware inserts in Cubase? Sometimes PT gets wonky with latency when using HW inserts. That's one thing that drives me crazy about PT.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 4, 2018 10:12:56 GMT -6
That and the i/o limitation. It's what, like 32 i/o?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcirish on Dec 4, 2018 10:16:12 GMT -6
Honestly, I mix in the box and don't use hardware inserts. I've thought about it in the past but instant recall of an entire session is critical for me. I'm jumping between half a dozen mixes every day. In general though, delay compensation is very good in Cubase/Nuendo.
|
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 4, 2018 10:17:25 GMT -6
How is working with hardware inserts in Cubase? Sometimes PT gets wonky with latency when using HW inserts. That's one thing that drives me crazy about PT. hardware inserts in Cubase are flawless for me. I have about 40 channels of I/O for hardware inserts and never have latency issues. The external hardware plugin lets you configure each Outboard piece as mono or stereo or “mono to stereo - for mono to stereo fx” and a button to ping the hardware to set the exact latency. Then it compensates automatically and flawlessly |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 4, 2018 10:20:49 GMT -6
That and the i/o limitation. It's what, like 32 i/o? cubase Pro has unlimited audio tracks. As many as your computer can handle. The I/O capabilities of Cubase Pro will exceed anything you would use in real world usage. |
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Dec 4, 2018 10:27:21 GMT -6
Screw Avid. 32 I/O in 2018.... I changed my opinion on your problem ! Ditch that piece of whatever you want to call it !
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 4, 2018 10:27:54 GMT -6
How is working with hardware inserts in Cubase? Sometimes PT gets wonky with latency when using HW inserts. That's one thing that drives me crazy about PT. Sounds like you should be comparing HDX to Nuendo to me if you want to upgrade. If you're on Native PT still..get on HDX. WELL worth it. That said, Nuendos fade editor is FAR superior. Much nicer to do editing in. For a long time had a better mix bus sound too but now days after PT when to 32 bit float point I don't think it matters so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 4, 2018 10:28:48 GMT -6
Screw Avid. 32 I/O in 2018.... I changed my opinion on your problem ! Ditch that piece of whatever you want to call it ! HDX..can run WAY more than 32 IO haha I have 48 right now going to 64 soon.. drbill runs 96ch IO.. Film scores have like 128 IO.. |
|
|
|
Post by drsax on Dec 4, 2018 10:31:51 GMT -6
I have both Cubase and PT and I prefer Cubase by a long shot. So much so that when I receive PT sessions I Convert them to zero rendered file and mix in Cubase. PT HD is a good experience, but the 32 I/O limitation in the non HD version of protocols is super lame and would completely restrict my hybrid workflow. There are just a few small features in PT I miss in Cubase. But overall, I prefer the workflownin Cubase much more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 4, 2018 10:34:53 GMT -6
Not intending this to be a 'which is better' thread, but eventually I'm going to have to either upgrade Pro Tools or switch to a new DAW. I'd always thought I'd eventually move to Cubase, but I have to admit I'm nervous, only because I've always just used Pro Tools. I know it pretty well. We just got Cubase at work, and I'm very clunky at it. So it makes me double nervous to have to learn a new DAW. I've been using PT for almost 20 years now. I guess my question is to those who moved from PT to Cubase, or vice versa. What did you like about one over the other? What does PT lack that Cubase has? What does Cubase lack that PT has? Beat detection? Time stretching? Playlists? Comping? I use both interchangeably and am equally proficient in both. Honestly, they're pretty equal. I haven't used the new alignment thingy in Cubase, but that's pretty freaking awesome. Don't believe one sounds better than the other...I do like the smart tool for audio editing in PT a little better. I dramatically prefer the way Cubase comps. I thought Cubase's time stretching algo was much better than PT, until I started using xform on everything. Now I'd say PT might be a little better. I think Cubase has more midi functionality with expression stuff and the like, but I've never really gotten that deep. I tend to like PT's I/O routing a little more - seems more intuitive to me. Also, you can freeze AUX's in PT where you can't freeze groups in Cubase. I've tended to do my own projects in Cubase and projects for other people in PT...If I HAD to have one, I'd probably still lean towards PT just because almost all pro projects I get are PT. But more and more, I'm getting home projects that are in Logic...so, I have that too. It's probably the most feature filled, but the least Logical to me. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,920 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 4, 2018 10:48:53 GMT -6
Man Indie, what an opened can of worms! Honestly the only thing PT has over Cubase at this point is it’s still as close to a standard as we have, but really what it comes down to is what are you going to be using most at work? Follow the money my friend, follow the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Dec 4, 2018 10:53:31 GMT -6
Why not zoidberg?
(Reaper)
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 4, 2018 10:59:26 GMT -6
Man Indie, what an opened can of worms! Honestly the only thing PT has over Cubase at this point is it’s still as close to a standard as we have, but really what it comes down to is what are you going to be using most at work? Follow the money my friend, follow the money. Meh, I do mostly VO stuff at work, education stuff. So, unless I'm working from home, it doesn't matter much. Cubase is something I've been considering switching to, especially every time I have PT pains with i/o limitations and HW inserts going wonky. Sooner than later I'm going to have to update my OS and DAW. I fear the feeling of being completely lost in a new recording software. So, I guess if I'm going to go through the trouble of learning how to tie my shoes again, I need it to be better than Pro Tools, or else what's the point? |
|
|
|
Post by avgatzeblouz on Dec 4, 2018 11:01:04 GMT -6
Screw Avid. 32 I/O in 2018.... I changed my opinion on your problem ! Ditch that piece of whatever you want to call it ! HDX..can run WAY more than 32 IO haha I have 48 right now going to 64 soon.. drbill runs 96ch IO.. Film scores have like 128 IO.. Of course I know that. But I find supremely insulting to limit a number of I/O in any version of a DAW in 2018. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,920
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 4, 2018 11:10:33 GMT -6
Man Indie, what an opened can of worms! Honestly the only thing PT has over Cubase at this point is it’s still as close to a standard as we have, but really what it comes down to is what are you going to be using most at work? Follow the money my friend, follow the money. Meh, I do mostly VO stuff at work, education stuff. So, unless I'm working from home, it doesn't matter much. Cubase is something I've been considering switching to, especially every time I have PT pains with i/o limitations and HW inserts going wonky. Sooner than later I'm going to have to update my OS and DAW. I fear the feeling of being completely lost in a new recording software. So, I guess if I'm going to go through the trouble of learning how to tie my shoes again, I need it to be better than Pro Tools, or else what's the point? Yeah that’s the million dollar question, I get it, even after all of AVID’s bullshit I know it and still have this word loyalty that goes back to 25 years ago. The one thing that kind of Worries me with Yamaha/ Stienberg is this; while Yamaha has been the best of them, all of the Japanese biggies have had very schizophrenic approaches to the recording world and I’m always waiting for them to pull the plug. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Dec 4, 2018 11:57:34 GMT -6
For quick audio editing (not talking about beat detection or audio quantizing here) I'd say PT is best. For everything else I prefer Cubase. Once you get the hang of it I think its far easier than PT. Also, native versions of PT have always been the last to adopt very standard DAW functions: everything from midi implemintation, track folders, recording/comping lanes, automatic plugin delay compensation, track count, offline rendering etc etc. It seems AVID/DIGI have always dragged their feet when it comes to catching up with Logic and Cubase.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 4, 2018 12:32:19 GMT -6
For quick audio editing (not talking about beat detection or audio quantizing here) I'd say PT is best. For everything else I prefer Cubase. Once you get the hang of it I think its far easier than PT. Also, native versions of PT have always been the last to adopt very standard DAW functions: everything from midi implemintation, track folders, recording/comping lanes, automatic plugin delay compensation, track count, offline rendering etc etc. It seems AVID/DIGI have always dragged their feet when it comes to catching up with Logic and Cubase. How is Cubase for beat detection and audio quantizing? |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Dec 4, 2018 13:05:18 GMT -6
Beat detection is pretty good as is the ability to manually tempo map. However audio quantizing is meh. It’s similar to PT. I think Logic kills when it comes to audio quantizing and I find myself using logic 9, on an old Mac, anytime I need to quantize drums. It requires more imports/exports, but in the end is a time saver and allows me to import consolidated files back into Cubase, with no other messing around needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by indiehouse on Dec 4, 2018 13:19:02 GMT -6
How well does Cubase get along with surface controllers, say the Avid Artist Mix?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Dec 4, 2018 13:32:36 GMT -6
Not sure about the Artist mix but I’ve had no trouble with MCU protocol controllers. I’ve used the mackie MCU and the Presonus Faderport just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Dec 4, 2018 13:44:22 GMT -6
HDX..can run WAY more than 32 IO haha I have 48 right now going to 64 soon.. drbill runs 96ch IO.. Film scores have like 128 IO.. Of course I know that. But I find supremely insulting to limit a number of I/O in any version of a DAW in 2018. Eh I guess that is true. |
|
