Cubase vs. Pro Tools?

J

jeremyandstuff

New member
First-time poster here, so sorry if this is a really basic newbie question...

I've been recording on my home PC for about 10 years using a really outdated version of Sony ACID Pro. Now I'm looking to upgrade everything in my home studio and step into 2016. I've been researching different DAWs online, and I seem to have it narrowed down between Cubase and Pro Tools.

Seems like people tend to have really strong opinions about these two products. From what I gather, the consensus seems to be that Pro Tools is better for recording live instruments and in-depth tweaking/editing, while Cubase is better for composers and songwriters who use a lot of virtual instruments.

I mostly play indie/experimental rock where I record live guitars, bass, keyboards and vocals, along with programmed or looped drums/beats and occasional bells and whistles from sample libraries. I find myself leaning more toward Cubase even though its strengths don't seem to align with my style of recording as well as Pro Tools does. (I also really liked what I saw from Reason, but it seems like it is not compatible with a lot of outside software and plug-ins, unfortunately.)

Any thoughts or recommendations on which DAW might be the best fit for me? I imagine that anything I get will be a major upgrade from a 10-year-old version of ACID Pro running on Windows XP, but obviously I want to find the optimal choice. Thanks.
 
For what its worth, I like protools.
I have no, as in zero experience with curbase, and have only been working with Daws for a couple of months.

I have Reaper too which I used for about a month. It is a big favorite around here and seems to be pretty good. The pros are it's cheap with an unlimited 'testing' period and there are tons of tutorials on it. There is even a dedicated Reaper youtube channel.

Why im using protools instead is beacause almost everyone I know in the real world is using it.

My understanding is that it's more 'tape freindly' , as in it got started with pros in the industry transitioning from using tape.
In that aspect, I think they are right.

If its best for you, I don't know. I like it, and I like it better than reaper. Coming from analog it's easier to figure out than Reaper was.

I guess, just pick your poison, learn it, and that's the best one for you.
:D
 
Hey,
It sounds like you've got a rough grasp of each suites strengths.
Really, the missing link is how they play with you, workflow wise. I can't use cubase - it just doesn't fit.
Like wise, Jimmy would probably find Protools to be ass-backwards.

If you can get a go on either (or both) and get a quick idea of how intuitive the workflow seems to you, I'd let that make the decision for you.
Youtube videos might do, if you're stuck.

That all said, download Reaper right now and try it.
At least you can do that for free. It's very capable software.
 
jeremyandstuff said:
First-time poster here, so sorry if this is a really basic newbie question...

I've been recording on my home PC for about 10 years using a really outdated version of Sony ACID Pro. Now I'm looking to upgrade everything in my home studio and step into 2016. I've been researching different DAWs online, and I seem to have it narrowed down between Cubase and Pro Tools.

Seems like people tend to have really strong opinions about these two products. From what I gather, the consensus seems to be that Pro Tools is better for recording live instruments and in-depth tweaking/editing, while Cubase is better for composers and songwriters who use a lot of virtual instruments.

I mostly play indie/experimental rock where I record live guitars, bass, keyboards and vocals, along with programmed or looped drums/beats and occasional bells and whistles from sample libraries. I find myself leaning more toward Cubase even though its strengths don't seem to align with my style of recording as well as Pro Tools does. (I also really liked what I saw from Reason, but it seems like it is not compatible with a lot of outside software and plug-ins, unfortunately.)

Any thoughts or recommendations on which DAW might be the best fit for me? I imagine that anything I get will be a major upgrade from a 10-year-old version of ACID Pro running on Windows XP, but obviously I want to find the optimal choice. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Ok I will be as unbiased as I can being a Cubase user and user of Protools years ago.

I will start by saying Protools 20 years ago was not something I ever wanted to work with in my home studio. I never got along with it in studios I had worked in.

I took to Cubase because the LE4 version came free with my first 'home' interface around 2008. I had previously recorded on a couple 4track machines at rehearsal 20 years previous. Those sounded better to me than the crap high end studios were putting out for my bands with their Protools/2" tape recordings if the engineer involved didn't give a shit. That is just my bitter attitude. It does not reflect on my present opinion much. lol

That being said, the DAW itself had nothing to do with the sound quality. Protools, Reaper and Cubase (actually any DAW that is capable of 24-bit recording) can achieve the same output quality. It is not the DAW that determines the outcome. It is the user and their experience that changes what comes out. It is inevitably the quality of what goes in to the mics, that has any real value to the quality of any recording. No DAW can change that....

I just had a predetermined hate for Protools from my poor experiences in the early 90's with supposed 'high end' studios that didn't give a shit about anything other than making money to pay for their gear.

Ok, I ranted too much there I suppose... lol

Bottom line is:

Select a DAW that 'feels good' to you PERSONALLY. That means trying them all out if you have the time. Or just pick one and go with it. Likely Protools is the most expensive and complicated. Cubase a close second (IMO only because new users don't understand input and output bus's) Reaper may be the DAW for you. Maybe Studio One. Maybe Able....naw don't go there. lol!

The point is that they all have their quirks that work best for different users. The end result may differ, but not because one sounds better as far as audio quality. That is up to the user. YOU!


Welcome to the forum! :)
 
As a long time user of Cubase, I'd say go for Reaper. It's very customizable and beats other DAW's in that regard. It is free for the first three months, after which you have to purchase it but it's only like 60 bucks. I've used Pro Tools in a studio, but that was a long time ago and I don't know how to begin to compare it with Cubase in terms of workflow, but to my understanding it is not as flexible as Cubase; it doesn't support VST, for example.

I too started with ACID Pro and I treated it like a damn sequencer. I would only make electronic music on it, but I also recorded some guitar tracks.
 
RFR said:
I guess, just pick your poison, learn it, and that's the best one for you.
:D
Click to expand...

This is it in a nutshell. They're all basically the same with their own unique pros and cons.

I started with Cubase for the simple reason that it came free with my first interface; same as Jimmy. I tried Sonar and Reaper but keep coming back to Cubase because I am very comfortable with the interface. Don't really want to put the energy into learning something new.

Cubase is not without its problems. The audio routing is a little awkward and I'm having a problem getting the EQ section to show up. But once you get past the technical hurdles, and learn whichever program you choose, you can get on with the creativity part.
 
It's not intuitive. You have to select the ASIO driver, which most DAW's require. Then you have to setup the VST connections. Assigning input and output channels from the interface to virtual channels in software. I don't think most other DAWs require this step and this is what trips up a lot of people. Then you have to assign the virtual channel to a track to record.

There are no big buttons or signs pointing you in the right direction. You definitely have to read the manual, but for people just starting out, it might as well be written in Icelandic. The parameters you need to change are kind of buried. You would think, Steinberg would put them in a more obvious location.

I get why Steinberg wrote it that way, it adds a ton of flexibility. But to me, the average non-professional, it is typical german over-engineering.

Get past that point (there are tutorials around here somewhere to help) and you are good to go.
 
I'd say use cubase but only go with version 8 or 8.5, forget earlier versions, they will work but the new features in 8 in particular make it so much better. Cubase is very easy to set up, maybe I was german in a past life, but I like the complexity of it, a DAW should not be too simple, when you need the flexibility, it's there, and the midi sync is flawless on both mac and PC, I've been a fanboy since Cubase SX days and love it.
 
I would go with Nuendo instead of Cuebase. The reasoning behind it is that ever since Yamaha bought Stienburg it seems that they made Cuebase experimental. I own a lot of Stienburg products and when I asked them about upgrade paths they told me to stick to Nuendo because Cuebase is more experimental now.
 
If you're used to Acid Pro then Vegas would be easy to adapt to. It's nearly identical but with more video tools and less looping capability. The one hangup is that Sony has just sold their media software group to Magix, but it looks like they're planning on keeping it going.

I've used Pro Tools plenty and it has gotten better in some ways, but Vegas is still way faster and easier to edit with so it's by far my preferred DAW. Reaper works in a similar way so I find it fairly easy to use.
 
drtechno said:
I would go with Nuendo instead of Cuebase. The reasoning behind it is that ever since Yamaha bought Stienburg it seems that they made Cuebase experimental. I own a lot of Stienburg products and when I asked them about upgrade paths they told me to stick to Nuendo because Cuebase is more experimental now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you have $1800 sitting around to spend and have previous experience with Cubase.

By the way, it isn't Cuebase. It's Cubase. I would think an owner of 'Stienberg' (also spelled incorrectly) would at least spell the shit correctly.

I have a gut feeling you may not have paid for your version of Nuendo. Sorry if I am wrong but this smells like a fish....

And I also ask- who did you talk to "they" that said anything about Cubase being experimental? I call bullshit on that statement. Whomever said that is a grumpy idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top