Cubase export quality

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjunkieguitar
  • Start date Start date
M

mjunkieguitar

New member
My current configuration is Firebox into a new dell ispiron 15 laptop loaded with the cubase LE 4 that came in the package. This is my mobile, or in my case, deployed overseas set up. The computer has 3 GB of RAM. My home studio is set up with the Firepod and another dell with cubase sx3.
I am having an issue with the mixed down audio not sounding like the tracks when monitored through the firebox or firepod. As I am recording and mixing, I monitor and adjust levels and it sounds great with plenty of punch, clarity, and possessing 3d like quality. After mix down to a wave file or windows sound file, the track looses a lot of those qualities and sounds sterile in comparrison with a significant loss of low end punch and with pronounced mid range. This occurs even when comparing with the exact same speakers. I usually monitor through the headphone jack. I have always wondered why there was such a big difference between the two and am just now realizing that it was not the monitors I was using, but something else. Shouldn’t they both sound the same? What are my options? Please help.
 
They should be the same. There has to be something else. Are you listening to the mixdowns through another program that has, perhaps, some built-in EQ settings?
 
In my last test, I switched between a speaker system run through the Firebox phone jack and with the song running in Cubase, then quickly played the exported track with Windows media player with the same set of speakers through the computer phone jack. No eq applied at all in that program. i have recently heard of some others having the same problem.
 
May be a silly question, but have you checked the quality that you are saving the file as? I think Cubase often defaults to a low quality.
 
Yes. I use the same settings as perscribed by tutorials and other forums.
 
so your mixing it in cubase after you've recorded? And then you click Export Audio mixdown with it on 16 bit 44.1k wav? And it still doesn't sound the same after mix down playing it in a media player as when you were mixing it in cubase after recording?:confused:

What are you playing it back in? Have you tried different formats and software? WMP is wack.

p.s I do find that Headphone outputs are a little more hissy but the mix and general sound quality should be very similar if not exactly the same..
 
I have tried several different configurations including 16 bit, 24 bit, and 32 bit (float). I have heard a lot of people say to export in real time but the version of cubase le4 that I have does not give you that option. I have converted to a wave file and it opens on my computer in itunes. Again, a noticeable difference. The volume level is the same, but looses the magic. The low end punch is audibly different as well as being able to feel the difference in the low end resonate on my desk. Its just not as tight and 3d as it is when played back through cubase. Not CD quality.
 
but have you played back in different progs? Not just Itunes? Is Itunes converting the file? Maybe try re-installing Cubase? Have you contacted Steinberg? Maybe they have a forum?
 
Export the mix as a 16 bit 44.1k file.

import that file back into cubase

Listen to that file against the raw mix (you will have to turn off all plugins on the main output) and see if it is the same. If it is, then the way you are listening to it is what is causing the problem.
 
Activate "export in real time". It is in the audio mixdown menu
 
Vladac said:
Activate "export in real time". It is in the audio mixdown menu
Click to expand...
This won't help, I have tried.

In fact the problem is known, I have few friends who had to switch to Pro-Tools just because of the mixdown problem. It all sounds wonderful in the mix, then you mix it down and it sounds crap. Your mix might be crap, but what you hear when you mix should be definitely 100% exactly what you'll hear when you bounce it to an audio file with no difference, otherwise what's the point of mixing, if you have to re-mix after the mixdown?
Even if you export audio stems from Cubase -> the EQ become like that of the mixdown -> not good.
NB: I tried Ableton and Pro-Tools and they seem to be ok: mixdown sounds the way it should be: the same as the mix.

The workaround which works for me is the software called Virtual Audio Cable. It's free and you can connect the output of any software to the input of any software. So I fired up this program, chose it as a main output for Cubase and main input for an audio recorder program (I use Cool Edit Pro) -> and , hey, it works.
I am not sure Steinberg has resolved this problem uin the newer Cubase versions.
Later I will post the 2 mixdowns, so you can compare it yourself.
 
I sometimes feel like my PT mixes sound a bit different in the program than they do bounced. It's probably just because I run PT louder than I listen to the bounced file, mostly.
But there is a reason why it's considered the "most professional".
 
cyberglad said:
This won't help, I have tried.

In fact the problem is known, I have few friends who had to switch to Pro-Tools just because of the mixdown problem. It all sounds wonderful in the mix, then you mix it down and it sounds crap. Your mix might be crap, but what you hear when you mix should be definitely 100% exactly what you'll hear when you bounce it to an audio file with no difference, otherwise what's the point of mixing, if you have to re-mix after the mixdown?
Even if you export audio stems from Cubase -> the EQ become like that of the mixdown -> not good.
NB: I tried Ableton and Pro-Tools and they seem to be ok: mixdown sounds the way it should be: the same as the mix.

The workaround which works for me is the software called Virtual Audio Cable. It's free and you can connect the output of any software to the input of any software. So I fired up this program, chose it as a main output for Cubase and main input for an audio recorder program (I use Cool Edit Pro) -> and , hey, it works.
I am not sure Steinberg has resolved this problem uin the newer Cubase versions.
Later I will post the 2 mixdowns, so you can compare it yourself.
Click to expand...

Five years later...
 
Schwarzenyaeger said:
But there is a reason why it's considered the "most professional".
Click to expand...
that's only true in the US. It's mainly because it was the first comprehensive daw, and it made you buy very expensive Hardware to run. Once an investment like that was made, the upgrade.path was always the best choice. Only the best studios could afford it, so it took on an air or superiority. There was a very long period of time that it was not the best, just the most common.
 
Farview said:
that's only true in the US. It's mainly because it was the first comprehensive daw, and it made you buy very expensive Hardware to run. Once an investment like that was made, the upgrade.path was always the best choice. Only the best studios could afford it, so it took on an air or superiority. There was a very long period of time that it was not the best, just the most common.
Click to expand...

True. But nowadays nothing can beat the sheer power and features combined with universality.
It's just one of those things you have to know how to do just like working with Macs in the pro studio.
 
Schwarzenyaeger said:
True. But nowadays nothing can beat the sheer power and features combined with universality.
It's just one of those things you have to know how to do just like working with Macs in the pro studio.
Click to expand...

Nearly everything has the same features...even reaper. You're right about it being universal, at least in north america. Europe is more about samplitude and cubase/nuendo.
 
Farview said:
Nearly everything has the same features...even reaper. You're right about it being universal, at least in north america. Europe is more about samplitude and cubase/nuendo.
Click to expand...

Most of them do. For homerecording I doubt that it matters what you use.
But when you get into the highly specialist fields like 5.1 surround sound mixing for films, I'd just rather use PT HD than Abelton, you know?
I've personally never seen a pro studio for anything that didn't require you to know Pro Tools in the UK or Germany.
 
Armistice said:
Second time I've seen that particular thing (Virtual Audio Cable) mentioned in a one and only poster resurrecting a deceased thread lately. Hmmmm.... ;)
Click to expand...

I didn't read all of the post, so didn't notice the spam. What's virtual audio cable? Is it a Russ Andrews product simulator that works by doing absolutely nothing to the sound but displaying cumulative cost on the screen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top