cubase or cakewalk...or neither?

[fraserhutch]

Fraserhutch, in answer to your question concerning "External effects as VST" it's great! And there is yet no equivalent for it's convienence. You are rignt a hardware I/O is necessary, Cubase allows you to set up this I/O as a VST effect, you can use and process this hardware effect on as many channels as you like. I find there is no software equivalent to my hardware Lexicon reverb and my hardware tube EQ which I use in many projects by way of VST plugins. It's and astounding tool!

OK, but you still haven't really explained how it works How do you set it up, what hardware IO is requried, etc.

I am interested, so thanks for the reply in advance!

 

[fraserhutch]

The sound quality of the audio engine debate is also old. There's been tests showing that the outputs are down to the bit identical if you zero everything out. The differences comes from eq, panning and so on. But the engines by themselves provide identical results.

Is this the case? I too am tired of the wars between packages. I really don't care - if someone says their package is better, I'm willing to listen as I'm always into re-evaluating my choices.

That said, I don't recall ever actually hearing it stated that the audio engines are basically equivalent. I have always heard one camp claim their engine outperforms the other. I even asked the question much earlier in this thread and got no response at all.

At the end of the day, to me, the output if the audio engine is the #1 consideration. UMHO, all the conveniences in the world are sort of meaningless if the results don't sound as good

 

[Beltrom]

Is this the case? I too am tired of the wars between packages. I really don't care - if someone says their package is better, I'm willing to listen as I'm always into re-evaluating my choices.

That said, I don't recall ever actually hearing it stated that the audio engines are basically equivalent. I have always heard one camp claim their engine outperforms the other. I even asked the question much earlier in this thread and got no response at all.

At the end of the day, to me, the output if the audio engine is the #1 consideration. UMHO, all the conveniences in the world are sort of meaningless if the results don't sound as good

Notice I didn't say that there was no difference of sound between apps. I'm talking just about the audio engine. To me as a developer I would have been very surprised if there was a difference at that level.

I can't back my statement up with links or such so you don't have to believe me. I really won't go to the trouble of searching for it. But I would think you've been around long enough to have seen them for yourself? Hope someone else has it on a link.

I promise to get back to you if I bump into it again...

The problem is in real life you never listen to "just the engine". The sound is never just summed. The implementations of those things of course will have an impact - here Cubase and Nuendo could have an edge. I frankly don't know - but in my eyes it's a more interesting question...

This is by the way part of the origin of the "%"-joke among Cakewalkers if you've seen it (tried to find that link 'cause it was in part very enlightening (but sad) - but it doesn't seem to be there).

Another thing that could make a difference is that the more expensive the DAW is the more likely there's better equipment and a more experienced engineer. This could of course give an impact that f.e. "Nuendo tracks" sound better than f.e. "Sonar tracks" on an average.

So what I'm saying is that the differences people hear doesn't have to be just psychological or expectations - it's just not the core engine.

 

[fraserhutch]

Notice I didn't say that there was no difference of sound between apps. I'm talking just about the audio engine. To me as a developer I would have been very surprised if there was a difference at that level.

I can't back my statement up with links or such so you don't have to believe me. I really won't go to the trouble of searching for it. But I would think you've been around long enough to have seen them for yourself? Hope someone else has it on a link.

I promise to get back to you if I bump into it again...

The problem is in real life you never listen to "just the engine". The sound is never just summed. The implementations of those things of course will have an impact - here Cubase and Nuendo could have an edge. I frankly don't know - but in my eyes it's a more interesting question...

This is by the way part of the origin of the "%"-joke among Cakewalkers if you've seen it (tried to find that link 'cause it was in part very enlightening (but sad) - but it doesn't seem to be there).

Another thing that could make a difference is that the more expensive the DAW is the more likely there's better equipment and a more experienced engineer. This could of course give an impact that f.e. "Nuendo tracks" sound better than f.e. "Sonar tracks" on an average.

So what I'm saying is that the differences people hear doesn't have to be just psychological or expectations - it's just not the core engine.

As a developer, I would postulate that the summing algorithms could indeed have a great deal of impact on the output. A lot of people go to great lengths to get those algorithms right. Many people don't like DAW summing algorithms, and go the outbaord route. And I do know that it is stated that there is a great difference between the audio engines of Cubase VST and Cuabse SX, and that those differences alone make the upgrade worthwhile.

Thus, it seems to me a perfectly valid question as to whether the same type of differences exist between the Cubase SX and Sonar audio engines.

Personally, I don't really know, and that is why I am asking. We are agreed that there is a lot more to the final result than just the summing, but my point is, if that isn't equal to begin with, then all bets are off.

 

[Beltrom]

As a developer, I would postulate that the summing algorithms could indeed have a great deal of impact on the output. A lot of people go to great lengths to get those algorithms right.

I'm surprised. I would view differences at this level as bugs. But I won't argue - and of course you have the right to view this as important as you like. Personally I'm far from a studio where this is the critical section. Like I said I've seen some threads and discussions with tests being made with everything zeroed. That's good enough for me...

I would point out though that the 'new release standard phrase' "improved audio engine" doesn't necessarily mean sound quality. It might be f.e. performance. I've seen remarks that SX3 has a better engine than Sonar in the sense that it's more gapless for example...

 

[Beltrom]

I felt I had let you down so I searched around a while and found this quote from Ron Kuper at Cakewalk - basically I think if we're to believe this statement we're both right (but perhaps you slightly more right...):

"When it comes to the basic math of mixing and summing, I stand by the assertion that all engines should sound the same.

However, there are some non-basic ways they can differ, for better or worse.

One is dither. If you truly want to compare 2 engines to see if they null out, you have to make sure neither one is dithering. By default most engines apply dither, and S4's dither is new and better, so this will change the sound.

Another is pan law. Here again different engines have different rules. When comparing 2 engines sound it's important to make sure they both are using the same pan law. S3 only had 1 hard-coded choice. S4 now has 5 choices."

In another previous post he mentions that Sonar makes straight summing when dither was off, and that he would be surprised if another DAW didn't do it that way without at least having an option to do it that way.

If you haven't seen this it might be of interest:

http://www.3daudioinc.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/32

Also check out the forum and Vestmans site...
(This is not to verify my claim, just thought you might be interested if you hadn't seen it.)

 

[fraserhutch]

Excellent! Thanks for the info - that's along the lines of what I was looking for.

 

[Maniac]

OK, but you still haven't really explained how it works How do you set it up, what hardware IO is requried, etc.

I am interested, so thanks for the reply in advance!

Sorry that didn't explain it, the setup is somewhat conventional, similar to hooking up a normal piece of hardware. The audio output of the hardware effect would connect to any audio input on the sound card, and the audio input of the hardware effect would connect to any audio output of the sound card. Doesn't matter if it's digital or analog. After this, there is an External effect setup option in Cubase or Nuendo. You would setup the external effect by indicating the inputs and outputs of the sound card that the effect is setup on.

The Cubase or Nuendo external effects setup program also gives you the option to name the external effect once it's setup. For instance, you would name an "External Lexicon MPX-1" just that. Once that's done you open up the inserts or effects option in Cubase's virtual mixer, there you will see the external effect you just setup and named "External Lexicon MPX-1". You can now use it just like you would any other VST effects plugin. That's it.

 

[TravisK]

i would consider them to be so from what i have heard....

now my question is, where does protools sit on the marker? i have never touched them because of their proprietary design, but hey--i know some good studios that use it.

i use cakewalk all the way, sonar is awesome.

 

[jgourd]

I too have only touched ProTools in the store. It is a very good, mature system. I hear the PC version is a joke but the Mac is the god standard. I also hear that anything "ProTools" (plugins, hardware, etc...) cost more than the VST versions.

 

[fraserhutch]

I'm surprised. I would view differences at this level as bugs. But I won't argue - and of course you have the right to view this as important as you like. Personally I'm far from a studio where this is the critical section. Like I said I've seen some threads and discussions with tests being made with everything zeroed. That's good enough for me...

I would point out though that the 'new release standard phrase' "improved audio engine" doesn't necessarily mean sound quality. It might be f.e. performance. I've seen remarks that SX3 has a better engine than Sonar in the sense that it's more gapless for example...

Well, jsut a follow up:
at gearslutz there is currently a thread doing a shoot out between Sonar and Samplitude in which they are trying to comapre ONLY the audio engines. All else should be equal : no panning, no fx, nothing except simple summing.

At this point, the consensus is that the two resulting tracks are NOT identical.

Take this as you wish.

This said, I still don't personally detect a big difference between the audio engines.

I also would not necessarily agree that dissimmilarities between audio engine are necessarily a bug.

 

[joel77]

I don't know anything about Cubase. I do know I really like Cakewalk, Sonar 2, 3 Pro and now 4 Pro is on it's way!

Joel

 

[guitarfreak12]

ok, I like cakewalks features better, but after years of fighting and frustrations I switched to Adobe Audition, here's why.
Cakewalk had great features, but the biggest problem was Latency. When I was multitracking I had to actually sing a little ahead of the background tracks to have them mix. Now when I first started out I thought it was the sound card (I did all the tweaking I could in the audio tweaking section and had phone support walking me through) and then when I got a good soundcard M-Audio Delta 44, it still was there. Basically you would speak into the mic and 30 or less ms later the sound would record, it's a real hassle. It wasn't my computer either, it's fairly new, and always been used for recording only. Adobe Audition is cheaper, and it is the most user friendly interface available IMHO. The fact that you can't record MIDI is one thing, but you can use MIDI in the program. Also, you can do all the editing you want, I like the editing more than cakewalk or cubase (which a friend has) And MIDI aside, my friend likes adobe better. Anyway that's my two cents.

 

[LfO]

Steinberg betrayed me....

I started out with Steinberg's Cubasis (which was the equivalent of Cakewake Home Studio - i.e., $100-$150). I was kind of irked when they sold it to another company (Pinnacle Systems?) with some of their other more general-audience stuff. So, I bought Cakewalk Home Studio 2004. I just upgraded to Sonar 4 Producer - at least Cakewalk hasn't abandoned me yet

 

[Toker41]

Should really check out N-track. It's only about $50, and does everything Sonar does.

 

[Synkrotron]

what an interesting topic

Personally, I'm firmly in the Cakewalk stable and have been for some time.

My first PC sequencer was Cubasis back in the mid 90's... it was the lite version and was all I could afford (to spend on my hobby) at the time. I liked the ability to record a bit of MIDI and then split the clip and move it around etc. but I had big problems with the resulting MIDI recording stalling on playback. I found it difficult to get into the guts (events) of the MIDI messages and suss out what was going on.

Not long after getting Cubasis I decided that I needed a new sound card. At the time, Soundblaster were doing a card that had a daughter board that used the EMU chip. The other thing with this particular card was that it came bundled with Cakewalk Lite.

It was a totally different interface but was quite easy to pick up. But the greatest improvement in my opinion was the ability to open up an event window and "see" exactly what was going on "inside".

You might think this sounds a bit daft but what was happening with Cubasis was that each time you cut a clip up and cut and pasted the clips around it also copied additional program and contoller messages at the start of each new clip which is why the MIDI song would stall slightly as far too many messages were sent at the same time back to my MIDI device.

Cakewalk did not do that and even if it did you could open the event viewer and delete any spurious messages.


Sorry for recounting that rather long and boring tale but I wanted to try to explain why I ditched Cubasis and started using Cakewalk.

Since then I've stuck with Cakewalk and I have since upgraded to Sonar 5 Studio. It's a package that I am pretty comfortable with although I've also since started using the audio side more (was mainly a MIDI man previously).

I've seen Cubase in action but to be honest I'd prefer to stick with what I've got despite all the argued differences between the two packages.



Having said all that I must apologise for not being able to answer the original question...

 

[studiomaster]

I dont know about others, but for my DAW, loading plugins and processing plugins in Sonar 5 takes so much time. So alternatively, I use cubase SX now..not just because it loads faster but for its overall features.

 

[tkeefe6]

I'm just getting started with home recording,I'm getting cubase program with Lexicon desktop ever heard of it?

 

[jaykeMURD]

I don't and never have used Cubase-based software. I'm Cakewalk, and Cakewalk ONLY.

 

[Fishmed]

I have used Cakewalk since ver 3. The last version I upgraded to was Sonar 4. A coulpe years ago I have switched to the Alesis HD24 because Windows has been unstable on one too many occations. I am getting back into Sonar as I am starting to do more MIDI projects.

I have never used Cubase, so I cannot comment on the software.
Nobody has mentioned Vegas. How does it compare to these other programs?