?Cubase vs. Cakewalk

M

mjhigg

New member
Hey folks. I was just wondering if I could get a quick opinion on something...

I am currently recording on an analog multitrack recorder, and importing the mix into SoundForge, where I do a little mastering. I would like a little more control over the individual tracks, though, and was considering a multi-tracking software. Anyone out there have experience with both Cakewalk and Cubase, and would like to voice their opinion on which is better suited for this purpose?

All advice will be greatly appreciated, as it is difficult to find unbiased opinions anywhere else on the net.
 
Both will work. Quick opinion - Cubase is far superior to Calkwalk. I have used both, bias is unavoidable though. Nuendo is better than both the above.

Check out n-track. http://www.fasoft.com. Cubase or Nuendo may be overkill for what your doing, but I have no idea what analog multitrack you refer to - 4 track cassette or 2" studer.
 
AHH, THE AGE OLD RIVLRY...WELL I HAVE USED BOTH, AND IN MY OPINION I FEEL THAT CUBASE BLOWS CAKEWALK AWAY IN ALMOST ANY CATEGORY.BUT FOR WHAT U WANT TO DO, LIKE EMERIC SAID BOTH WITLL DO FINE...BUT IF U WANT TO KNOW WHICH IS BETTER...CUBASE BY A MILE AND A HALF
 
Ok, other than the Dongle nonsense, can you folks
explain why you like Cubase so much over Cake?
I am trying to keep an open mind here, so
any input is great.

I do mostly Classical Stuff, and I don't really edit;
If it's not right I will undo and play it til it's right.
I don't do soft synths, which obviously Cubase has
the advantage on, and I have outboard Reverb hardware,
so I dont have much use for Plug-ins, at least right
now, and I am weary of eating up tracks with plug-ins,
cause my computer is not killer (566Celery, 128ram etc).

Given that info, what advantage would Cubase have
over Cake for me? Does at actually sound different,
or better? If so, why?

One thing I HATE about Cake is there are no led meters
on playback for individual tracks, no led meters
for Midi as well. That Drives me absolutely
nuts, and if Cake doesnt fix that in Version 10
I am jumping ship to Cubase, Logic or Pro Tools,
if I can scrape up the Cash.

I have Cubasis, and have downloaded the Cubase
demo. To me, that is the most ackward interface
I have seen, it just seems poorly set up,
and a much steeper learning curve. Am I right?

Cakewalk comes with a huge manual. I dont know
where mine is, but rest assured its in perfect
condition, read three pages one day, thats about it.
Certainly that is one advantage over Cubase,
I bet even hardcore Cubase folks would agree
with that one.

Looking forward to comments, and I hope
everybody is enjoying life as much as I am these
days> Peace, David
 
Well, from what you say about your music and recording, I would guess that yes, you are indeed a cakewalk guy. I had a classical guitar teacher who also tried both Cakewalk and Cubase and liked Cakewalk better because of the ease of use.

Doesn't seem like you're doing much with your music once it's recorded, so Cakewalk should suit your needs just fine. Cubase's forte is actually what it can do to the music after it's recorded.

Good luck to you.
 
Hi Ikmuller, and thank you so much for responding,
it means a great deal to me.

I realize the debate over Cubase and Cakewalk can
be like Gore vs. Bush sometimes. I have no
love for Cake, it suits my needs, but If Cubase
would suit me better, I would jump ship tomorrow.
( I have no love for Gore or Bush either, but I
did vote for one of them : my lips are sealed)!

I am currently in the process of Transcribing,
Composing, arranging, and recording music that
eventually will go on CD. It will be a while
for that all to be done, and I am in the process
of gathering gear, so I can do the whole
process at home.

My question(s) to you:
Why is cubase better than cake in that sense?
I havent finished anything on Cake yet, so I dont
now about its capabilities there. Is there some
sort of trick Cube does to mixdown that cake does
not?

For the record, this is not me singing into a
soundcard and then playing it for a girlfriend.
I want (and demand) the highest quality on
a low budget. I have at least 50 CDs in my rack
that I play on, big names like REM etc (Pro
Violinist bigtime here), and I hope this CD
I am making will be first quality, so any help
is welcome. I have thought of going Pro tools,
but really would rather spend the cash on
outboard stuff, so please give me advice on
what Cube does that Cake Dont. Cheers. David
 
I have been spending the last few months doing a project in cakewalk. its been fine for me. i think im gonna try and switch to cubase however because i do alot of editing and all i use is plugins. i have tried it before and the problem was, i was too used to cakewalk to learn how to use it. but i think im gonna try hard to learn it and use that on my next project since i hear its alot more better for what i need to do. Though, cakewalk has done what ive needed and i do think its a great program for beginners.
 
I've used both David and I prefer Cakewalk mainly coz I don't do a lot of midi. In my opinion cake handles audio much much better and the right click options etc are much better on cake (which was written for windows and not modified from MAC) You can view playback in console view but it won't show individual tracks only the master out but why that would be a problem I don't know. Hell you can see the track!!

whatever works for you is really the answer

Cheers
John.
 
I have used Cakewalk Pro for about 3 years now. I don't do midi, which it is quite capable of...just audio recording. I guess I like Cake so far because I am pretty dumb and old ( 43 hard years, and it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks) ;-)
I am a tape guy from way back, but Cake sold me on digital audio and working on a computer. I am not here to put down Cubase, I have heard lots of good things about it
( actually, I have Cubase 3.75 that I just installed today, haven't had but a few minutes to work with it).
I like Cake because it was releatively easy to learn,controls kinda make sense, and things seem to be laid out in a natural scheme.
What I DON'T like about it, is it isn't very stable ( at least my version 8.01 isn't) and the effects that come with it are not great, not even a compressor in my old 8.01 package. I think Pro Audio 9 and the new FX1, 2,& 3 packages kinda cure that problem. But all in all, it does what I want it to, and until I get a more modern computer, I can live with what I have.

BTW, any of you guys out there have any of these new super-duper computers now? I need to get 16 tracks on Cake WITH EFFECTS on each channel (lets just say one on each). Will one of these 1ghz, 256mb ram, 7200rpm HD, PIII machines do the trick for me?? I'm gonna get one this spring...is the Cubase more processor efficient? Let me know what some of you are running, I'm real curious as to what kind of tracking and effects performance the new computers are getting. Thanks! bOb
 
lets not compare older versions here, cubase 5.o is absolutely incredible.i dont know or care about cakewalk, it doesnt evenn exist in my world(though im sure its adequate).

for midi logic audio is the best,for audio pro tools is the best......but on host based systems it seems inuendo takes the crown.

i was tottaly blown away by cubase 5.o.plus steinberg is at no loss for cool things to plug into it.if your a more serious about recording generally youll want to check out logic audio,cubase,nuendo,or pro tools.-cake walk doesnt relly exist, ive never heard of a pro studio using it and i never will(though again,im sure its adequate and can be a great tool)
 
robert jaybird said:
i dont know or care about cakewalk, it doesnt evenn exist in my world(though im sure its adequate).

cake walk doesnt relly exist, ive never heard of a pro studio using it and i never will(though again,im sure its adequate and can be a great tool)
Click to expand...

Actually Cakewalk does exist. I've never heard of a pro studio using it either, thats why I'm here at HOME RECORDING.COM, not PRO RECORDING.COM
 
quote-"Actually Cakewalk does exist. I've never heard of a pro studio using it either, thats why I'm here at HOME RECORDING.COM, not PRO RECORDING.COM"-

it was a figure of speach as in a subjuective assertion of opinion. your perceptive. you must be edumacated or something(?)_or___maybe not. its nice to use software and hardware thats at least compatible with what the pro's use. that way,if i wanted to get a real drum sound i could just buy studio time bring in the tracks ive done at home and take care of business etc. etc.

this may be home recording.com but its not crappyrecording.com is it?
 
Chill out, peeps! Out with the jive, in with the love!

Obviously, both programs have their merits, or else they wouldn't both have such loyal followings. Since I started this post, I have checked out both demos, and decided that Cake was for me. I liked the interface, and I was also swayed by its compatibility with SoundForge, which I have been using for awhile.

I am only working with audio files. Cubase might be a whole lot better for MIDI, but I can't speak to that. Cake seems to work great for audio, and for my purposes. In a short time, I have recorded a couple songs with Cake, and I like them better than the ones I recorded in a pro studio a year ago.

Thanks everyone for your posts, and for your help.

P.S. What the hell is a dongle?!?
 
mjhigg, a dongle is a copy protection device that
is attached to the serial/printer port, to
make sure nobody steals or copies cubase.

Basically, the good folks who make Cubase Assume
that you are a thief, so that is the reasoning
behind the Dongle. I am not a thief, so I am greatly
insulted by this practice.

Jaybirds posts are, well, vague at best. Sure,
no pro studio is gonna use Cakewalk9, but
I have heard some MP3s done on Cakewalk that are
amazing. If Jaybird thinks that Cakewalk9 is
crappyrecording.com, then Jaybird doesnt know
how to use cakewalk to its best possible use.

I am a pro player, for twenty years now. I have
never flipped a burger or had a day job. My
copy of Cubase (and the Dongle) is never used,
I use Cakewalk.

If one is in to VST, plug-ins, etc., then
Cubase has the upper hand, no doubt.
I dont work with that stuff, so Cakewalk is
better for my needs. I dont edit much, do
classical stuff, so I use Cakewalk like a
tape recorder, and Cake is simpler than Cubase
for my needs.

Cake and Cubase are good Prosumer products. I
do sessions all the time, and I have never seen
Cake or Cubase in a studio, its always Pro
Tools or other fancy shit. When Cake comes out
with Cake 10, it will probably be a player again
and hold it's own against Cubase. David
 
Here we go" I use Cubase 5 and its better, more than I could ever want for Audio and MIDI construction/Recording.

Iv just come from a AMIGA 1200 yes I know its basic" but I was expecting cubase to take me months to get into but no! after one week I was off and away and theres so much more to get into. What ever you choose dont change it if it works and does the job stick with it. I know somone you has been going from one to another and hasnt done nothink for a year because he hasnt settled down with nothink?
 
he he he....its all subjective as i already said.
im vague because cubase vs. cakewalk is silly.....

we all know the major recording softs are more than competent.it boils down to taste and what your comfortable with.

more important than cubase vs. cakewalk is the equipment you use to get the sound into it and your ability to use that stuff.

most important is that we write good material and perform it properly.

with either of these programs the more important question is-how should i arrange this piece? and wich mic should i use?

ill get better results with a roland vs-880 if im recording
chick corea than anything that anyone could do with a crappy song and a pro tools mix+ system.

i use a digi 001 running pt and logic platinum btw.
cakewalk is for children he he...;)
 
Robert, I dont get it.

I just dont understand why something like Cakewalk
is for kids, so please explain, I really would
like your input, and I am not trying to provoke
an argument. I have seen emagic, and realize
it is a very powerful program, but what can it do
sonically that cakewalk cant? I am not talking
about plugins, editing, all that.

If I plug a Mic in and Record a violin solo in
Cakewalk, and do the same thing in Emagic, will
they sound different? I am not asking about
soundcards, pre's, etc, If all are good, will they
sound different? If so, why? Isnt the recording
process the same?

I have no doubt that Emagic is more sophisticated
than Cakewalk, has lots more features, 5.1 Sound,
Etc. If I am noy going to use those features,
how is it better than Cake?

I guess the bottom line: I saw a post where someone
asked; " Has there ever been a hit record made
on Cakewalk"? You and I know that there hasnt, because
why use a $299 product if you can snag a studio
with 250 grand with of toys.

A better question would be, "Could a great engineer
and great musicians with good outboard gear make
a hit on Cakewalk"? I say they could. David
 
Merry Christmas David,

I see you're still looking for an answer to the Cakewalk/Cubase issue. I honestly don't think you can find an objective answer because everyone is partial to whatever program they're using. BUT LET me tell you this. I am a Cubase user and like what it does. I have a friend, however, who does tracks for many of the local singers here in Honolulu. And I don't mean just any singers, I mean the good ones, who work all the time, and could be considered the local "stars".

The tracks my friend David (yep, his name is David too) records are professional, CD quality tracks that are used in many recordings here in Hawaii. He makes his living, and a very good one at that, by recording tracks for singers. Here's the good part - he uses Cakewalk. And he's ALWAYS used Cakewalk. His stuff sounds good - real good.

Now, could he make tracks that sound as good on Cubase? Of course he could. Why does he use Cakewalk? Because he likes it. So go figure.

Lee Muller
http://leemuller.iuma.com
 
it all depends wich tools you prefer and are most creative with.period.

i prefer pro tools le for audio because its mixing functions work better(eq, automation) and i can take a session into a pro studio to use a good room with 0 compatability issues.

for midi i prefer logoc because it uses direct i/o and works with my 001 better than vst or mas.

the real question in my mind is logic vs. digital performer.that is a silly question too.but at least those and cubase have pro quality plug ins.and i dont see how you could not look at the editing features of a program when deciding on your purchase.thats the nature of these softs, that they have these features.

something like mix eq and automation, or the availability of professional quality plug ins/mastering software will make a difference in your sound quality.is waves even available for cakewalk?mcdsp?lexiverb?hmmm.....and to go a little further .....reason?

cakewalk is competent.cubase is better.this by a creiteria of features and quality as thats the nature of these programs, to EDIT sound and midi.this is my opinion so get a friggin life.

your violin will sound better on cubase if its recorded in 32-bits(but youd need 32-bit converters):)

cakewalk is easy to use and cubase aint difficult either.
what do you want?

buy what you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top