Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Cubase vs Pro Tools

  1. #11
    GrouchyMonkey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Post Cubase or Pro Tools

    Sign in to disable this ad
    I have just completed an in-depth analysis of Cubase 6.5 and Pro Tools 10. First, it is important to note that Pro Tools has been in use in many professional industry-leaders, including Skywalker Sound. This does not make it better or worse - but those companies are not about to switch over to something else after decades of using PT.

    I am not a youngster and have been recording since the "old" days of multi-track tape. PT follows that paradigm, so many of the older professionals prefer it because the "good ole days" feel and workflow.

    However, knowing both of them intimately, I have committed myself to Cubase and will stay with it. Steinberg invented VST and is WAY more capable in the Midi department. Although, I am an "analog" musician (guitar, keys and drums), it is IMHO the better of the two. I know most people are afraid to go out on a limb and "choose" one over the other. But I am not afraid of replies that question my judgement. If you want the most comprehensive DAW and aren't swayed by the "industry standard" rebukes, then put your money into Cubase 6. PT is just now adding capabilities in PT 10 that Cubase had back in the version 5 days.

    I have switched completely to Cubase and will probably never go back. It's multi-platform and in the long-run, easier to match with hardware, sound cards, interfaces, etc.

  2. #12
    Mo Facta's Avatar
    Mo Facta is offline Farts of Nature
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    JHB, RSA
    Posts
    1,165
    Rep Power
    4690782
    Quote Originally Posted by GrouchyMonkey View Post
    I have just completed an in-depth analysis of Cubase 6.5 and Pro Tools 10. First, it is important to note that Pro Tools has been in use in many professional industry-leaders, including Skywalker Sound. This does not make it better or worse - but those companies are not about to switch over to something else after decades of using PT.

    I am not a youngster and have been recording since the "old" days of multi-track tape. PT follows that paradigm, so many of the older professionals prefer it because the "good ole days" feel and workflow.
    That's the crux of the matter. Being a market leader counts for a lot but it says nothing about it's actual "sound" or whether or not it's "better". What it says is that Avid had it's foot in the door from the get-go and marketed the product very well. The fact that the US is a world leader in audio and the fact that Avid is US-based has some sort of loyalty/camaraderie factor as well, I'd imagine.

    Another thing is compatibility. It's probably the biggest reason to get PT if you're planning on working professionally in post or have the need to integrate your session seamlessly into other studios. If you're a lone island type of guy, on the other hand, you can use whatever DAW you like, provided it has cross platform interchange formats like OMF, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by GrouchyMonkey View Post
    However, knowing both of them intimately, I have committed myself to Cubase and will stay with it. Steinberg invented VST and is WAY more capable in the Midi department. Although, I am an "analog" musician (guitar, keys and drums), it is IMHO the better of the two. I know most people are afraid to go out on a limb and "choose" one over the other. But I am not afraid of replies that question my judgement. If you want the most comprehensive DAW and aren't swayed by the "industry standard" rebukes, then put your money into Cubase 6. PT is just now adding capabilities in PT 10 that Cubase had back in the version 5 days.

    I have switched completely to Cubase and will probably never go back. It's multi-platform and in the long-run, easier to match with hardware, sound cards, interfaces, etc.
    Another one bites the dust! Welcome to the Steinherd. I have been a Cubase user since VST5 and have never looked back either (+/- 13 years). I find it completely intuitive to my workflow and powerful enough to handle the biggest projects. It gets better and better every revision and I feel that Steinberg really listens to it's users.

    My 2c (ZAR)

    Cheers

  3. #13
    GrouchyMonkey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0

    Talking Excellent Points

    Mo Facta brings up some excellent points. I wasn't comparing products based solely upon capabilities, but was considering the entire scope of the issue. Here are some thoughts:
    - A HUGE factor is the "first in the door" item. PT was the first into many aspects or home and pro audio recording. As Mo says, if you are concentrating on post-production or are looking to make a living as a freelancer, then it becomes obvious that you need to know PT.
    - American Made: The US is the leader in audio products. But don't let that persuade you in making a decision for your needs. Henry Ford invented the automobile, but I'll take my BMW over any American car, any day. Not snobbish, just realistic. Steinberg is a German company, but they have always been hip to the market they serve. Cubase 6.5 updated their Mandarin and Cantonese languages as a show of faith to their desire to be unilaterally non-language biased.
    - It may be redundant, but PT garners many of the third-party plug-ins because, it was, in fact, first to market. For instance, I am a guitar player first and foremost, so I look for plug-ins from my favorite hardware designers. While Eventide supports multiple formats, TC Electronics (their G-Major II is awesome for the $$) is only compatible with PT.
    - This, however, brings up the next point. Cubase with their recent 6.5 release comes with more native amp racks, guitar signal processing and other jam-packed instruments that Pro Tools will hardly catch up. But they will play "catch-up".

    This brings me to the final point. Like Mo says, if you are hell-bent on being with the "industry-standard" crowd, then no matter what DAW you choose as your main platform, you will have to learn PT for sure.

    BUT...and it's a big BUT...if you are looking for the most comprehensive software that ships with 1000's of instruments, processors and plug-ins, then there is no contest.

    The "Steinherd" (thanks, Mo!!) flock will carry you wherever you need to go.

    Buy Cubase if you want an intuitive workflow. As always (also thanks to Mo for this), Steinberg listens to every customer idea and each revision reflects the market demands. They crank out stuff 3-1 compared to PT. No, I do not work for Steinberg...it's just really that good!

  4. #14
    MLHStudiosInc is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0

    Finally I figured it out!!!!.....I think....

    After dabbling for over a decade with the Cube and PT I think I finally know a sufficient answer to this question. The answer is "neither and both". Bare with me...

    If your looking for super fast editing, tracking, automation, pretty much anything in the workspace, cubase is dope for it. I can mix and cleanup a song in Cubase a hundred times faster than I can in PT. you should see the look on my clients faces when they see im using Cubase 6 (not pro tools) and im able to tightly mix their songs as they record them, effects and all. They are able to walk out my studio minutes after the last audio is captured with a near finalized mix of their material. Now I know my experience makes that possible but alot comes from steinberg focusing on making quality software thats very user friendly.

    Now if you are looking for a program with a high resolution sound engine, pristine cpu power in your plugintry(yes i made that up), and mapping and bussing that will literally make you verbally abuse your setup repeatedly then PT is for you. Its a reason why its called PRO Tools and not Poor Tools. Its idealogy to be used with gear. If youve got an icon or SSL, hell even a AWS 94 or any analog board of comparison protools will seem easy because your board interfaces and whatever you touch corresponds. Not click bussing or drawing automation. You get all that special power at your finger tips. Evan my tascam integrates with PT very well and allows me more flexibility then using a mouse.

    So in conclusion:
    Cubase: fast editing, quicker routing, seems more plugin and midi friendly, and easy on the brain.
    PT: Industry depth in sound, more power out of your plugins and mix, if you have the new 10 you can maximize headroom with the new 32bit engine. Greatly compatible with interface board.

    But here is why I said "neither but both" .... Lets look at these two notable entities as Beyonce and Jay Z(I will let you pick which is which). Before they teamed up they were arguably the best in their genres(arguably meaning there were other singers and rappers mentionable) but it wasn't until they becamevunited when Beyonce became the queen of RnB and JayZ secured his legendary image as one of the greatest in hiphop. Now who can actually argue that B is better then J or vice versa? You cant because they're different in style and genre. But put them together and you get one hell of a combo! And that is why I say both...(best analogy I could think of sorry)

    Since i purchased PT 10 when it released I noticed how much more power and detail avid put into the post production/recording features of PT... And then it hit me! Do my recording and editing in cubase using the seamless workspace features, but then mix and master the trax in PT(especially with that new 32bit engine which makes it nearly impossible to clip audio). The epiphany of using both for what they do best has been gold for me literally. Granted its a few more steps to take wether you .OMF out or mixdown to a 32bit stereo track, it gets the job done and ive had no complaints in the past year I have been using this combination... In fact Ive expanded on my business.
    PT 10Hd, Cubase 6, Reason 5, Tascam DM 3200, AKG C414 XLS, AKG 214, Presonus Monitor station, M-Audio Bx8s and Bx5s, quad core, 8g RAM, 2Terabyte drives, and a redbull!

  5. #15
    Kainer's Avatar
    Kainer is offline New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Bangkok, Cologne
    Posts
    14
    Rep Power
    0
    'Industry depth in sound'?

    The sound is the same and it is called pro tools from PROduction tools. For Hardware: We use a SSL aws 900 and PT is trickier to connect than Logic, so this argument is out of the door. The OP himself said he stayed with Cubase cause the hardware implementation is easier for him in Cubase. Cubase is 64 bit btw. So why you think 32 bit of PT10 would be better?

    I for myself have chosen PT10 over Cubase because I am MUCH faster with PT10.

    Nice workflow when you are nearly ready with mixing the song after the client recorded it. Respect.
    News, beats, tutorials, plugins, promotion, music videos and webdesign... Check out http://www.soundfactorywomb.com

  6. #16
    Steenamaroo's Avatar
    Steenamaroo is online now Honorary Old Fart.
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Age
    29
    Posts
    11,878
    Rep Power
    21474857
    Forum lied to me and told me this was a new thread.........
    Quote Originally Posted by Grawlf View Post
    That's a tad too much terminology. What do you mean by 'mix'?

  7. #17
    Mo Facta's Avatar
    Mo Facta is offline Farts of Nature
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    JHB, RSA
    Posts
    1,165
    Rep Power
    4690782
    Quote Originally Posted by MLHStudiosInc View Post
    After dabbling for over a decade with the Cube and PT I think I finally know a sufficient answer to this question. The answer is "neither and both". Bare with me...

    If your looking for super fast editing, tracking, automation, pretty much anything in the workspace, cubase is dope for it. I can mix and cleanup a song in Cubase a hundred times faster than I can in PT. you should see the look on my clients faces when they see im using Cubase 6 (not pro tools) and im able to tightly mix their songs as they record them, effects and all. They are able to walk out my studio minutes after the last audio is captured with a near finalized mix of their material. Now I know my experience makes that possible but alot comes from steinberg focusing on making quality software thats very user friendly.
    That sounds like a personal workflow orientation to me and has nothing to do with the software.

    Quote Originally Posted by MLHStudiosInc View Post
    Now if you are looking for a program with a high resolution sound engine, pristine cpu power in your plugintry(yes i made that up), and mapping and bussing that will literally make you verbally abuse your setup repeatedly then PT is for you. Its a reason why its called PRO Tools and not Poor Tools. Its idealogy to be used with gear. If youve got an icon or SSL, hell even a AWS 94 or any analog board of comparison protools will seem easy because your board interfaces and whatever you touch corresponds. Not click bussing or drawing automation. You get all that special power at your finger tips. Evan my tascam integrates with PT very well and allows me more flexibility then using a mouse.
    High resolution sound engine? Pristine CPU power? Do you work for Avid? Because all that sounds like marketing hype. Please qualify these claims with facts. The bolded bits are the statements I have issues with.

    That being said, identical controller protocols are available on all platforms and you'll find problems and stability across the board. What you have stated above is NOT a worthwhile distinction to make. Automation can be written by controllers in both camps. Additionally, as mentioned, Cubase has a 64-bit engine and Pro Tools is only now catching up to 32-bit floating point. If you want to go on figures alone (which is silly), PT is trumped. Don't waste time worrying about DAW bit precision. It makes very little difference compared to what you captured and how you captured it, i.e. mic, room, placement, player. Additionally, plugins are handled natively in Cubase and Pro Tools HD Native and on Sharc chips in the HDX / TDM systems. Two different beasts. However, yes, processing on external DSP will always help lessen CPU load and increase overall system power but with UAD cards and the like, this is available on both systems. Probably the biggest trump card Pro Tools has in this department is the ability to have very low latency monitoring with plugin processing on input. Many native systems struggle with this although now with the ever increasing CPU power available, the margin is narrowing.

    Quote Originally Posted by MLHStudiosInc View Post
    So in conclusion:
    Cubase: fast editing, quicker routing, seems more plugin and midi friendly, and easy on the brain.
    PT: Industry depth in sound, more power out of your plugins and mix, if you have the new 10 you can maximize headroom with the new 32bit engine. Greatly compatible with interface board.
    Like I said, 32-bit FP engines have been around for yonks with other DAWs. Cubase has had it for years and so has Logic so get off that bus because it's done the round trip. Once again, most of what you're talking about above is workflow preference and has nothing to do with the software.

    Quote Originally Posted by MLHStudiosInc View Post
    Since i purchased PT 10 when it released I noticed how much more power and detail avid put into the post production/recording features of PT... And then it hit me! Do my recording and editing in cubase using the seamless workspace features, but then mix and master the trax in PT(especially with that new 32bit engine which makes it nearly impossible to clip audio). The epiphany of using both for what they do best has been gold for me literally. Granted its a few more steps to take wether you .OMF out or mixdown to a 32bit stereo track, it gets the job done and ive had no complaints in the past year I have been using this combination... In fact Ive expanded on my business.
    Have you been living under a rock? 32-bit FP engines are old news. And why would not being able to clip be an advantage for you? Are you slamming your levels routinely? You know about proper gain staging, right? In any case, the main advantage with 32-bit is not with levels but with processing in the DAW environment. Reverb tails etc have a smoother decay. That's the better way to look at it, imo. If having the capability to slam your levels without clipping blows your hair back, by all means, but it's really not the point.

    Dude, this is the real crux of the matter...

    Both are good. Both can accomplish the same thing. Both are powerful. The rest is semantics and workflow preference. And remember...

    "Professionalism" is not a platform but an attitude and a skill set. Nothing else.

    Cheers

  8. #18
    MLHStudiosInc is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0
    Gee whiz Mo Facta went in on me lol. Listen I know cubase has been capable of that stuff for a while and hey im a Cubase over Pro Tools guy myself. I was giving my personal opinion based off what has come to work for me. Especially giving the fact(like some one stated in the thread earlier) Pro Tools is the industry standard simply because it latched on first. I personally think Cubase has been surpassed them but my method is a technique of using cubase to capture and tweak audio freely but using PT to polish audio according to industry standard. And agreeing with you I stated neither is best and both are great! And Im not pushing my levels that hard by preference. But I deal with alot of rap and pop music which they prefer jacked up to the maximum for punch and volume. Im a more RnB guy myself.

  9. #19
    MLHStudiosInc is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    0
    Also I do notice that my plugins process and attenuate my audio better in pro tools than cubase. Not sure why but it does. I use waves Mercury bundle plugins and I get a way better performance out of my dynamic plugins especially. So I apologize if that was interpreted as fact instead of phenomenom when I said PT has better power to plugintry. Ultimately there is no factual answer to this read. Its just about whatever works best for to accomplish what you want. I think we all can agree on that

  10. #20
    CrowsofFritz's Avatar
    CrowsofFritz is offline Flamingo!
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Abingdon, VA
    Posts
    2,696
    Rep Power
    16918318
    Quote Originally Posted by MLHStudiosInc View Post
    Also I do notice that my plugins process and attenuate my audio better in pro tools than cubase. Not sure why but it does.
    Bias?


    Have the EXACT same effect on two tracks: one in Cubase and one in Pro Tools.

    Blindfold yourself and have somebody play them back to you. Make sure they're the same volume.
    "Nahhhhhhhhhhhh mannnnnnnnnnn. I ain't touching that mic. That thing's expensive."

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Pro Tools vs Cubase?
    By dem466 in forum Newbies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2011, 14:14
  2. Cubase SX 2 to Pro Tools
    By SpotlightKid83 in forum Steinberg / Cubase User Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-10-2005, 09:30
  3. Cubase and Pro Tools
    By nitchguitarist in forum Steinberg / Cubase User Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-27-2003, 12:11
  4. Vegas Pro vs. Pro Tools, Cubase,...
    By Bloodbought in forum Recording Techniques
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-17-2003, 11:20
  5. Pro Tools to Cubase
    By lomky in forum Steinberg / Cubase User Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2001, 07:12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
A3E sponsorship event box

Check out A3E in Boston!