Cubase Vs. Protools vs. anything else

[solit]

n-track

Well, thanks for the input.

If I have an audiophile 2496 and decide to go with mixing software or either:
cubase sx or n-track,
would you recommend that I do my mixing on the pc with my mouse, or is there an external mixer that I should buy that would make the job easider. so a few questions:

1. n-track and cubase sx. are both compatible with my audiophile 2496?

2. which is easier to use for a beginner?

3. whats the cost of cubase sx?(I looked up n-track, its $69)

4. is there any reason cubase sx would be better?(assuming it is more expensive)

5. would you recomennd plugging in an external mixer for use with either mixing software?

 

[Digidude824]

sx will probley run u 700, but they have a sl version for around 350. Don't know what n-track is about, but I have heard some people talk about it so I can't really compare the two, but I think I would put my money on sx or sl being the better software.

If you're going to output to an analog mixer you're gonig to need a decent D/A interface, one that will do more than just two ouputs such as your audiophile. If you're going to use an analog mixer rather than the software just make sure that the quality of the mixer is going to be better than what the digital conversion quality of the program is. good luck

 

[malcolm123]

Re: Goddammit...

Bunch of replies.... but no one even has a staight answer...

SONAR 2.2 XL

nuff said...

Jaymz

Ditto !!!

Just OMF out for the studio of your choice. LOL

Malcolm
" I've been Cakewalking since ver 3 DOS,, I think.. LOL "

 

[Digidude824]

My, my.

PT is a standard that the industry can afford to have. If you have the money you can get as many tracks and plugins as your fancy desires.

The average home user, on the other hand, has the freedom to concider more cost effective options.

For example, PT LE's very real limitation is 32 tracks. N-track, Cubase SX, Cakewalk, and Nuendo have no such limitations. PT LE's limits were set when 32 tracks was a reasonable high end for computer hardware. Not so any more.

PT only allows 5 sends and 5 inserts per track. SX allows 8. n-track has no limits.

PT LE allows up to 16 internal busses. SX has no such limits.

PT got its "industry standard" status by using on-card DSP back when computers were way to slow to do much signal processing. Now that native systems can reasonably compete, PT is starting to face some stiff competition. Digi is hardly even trying to target the home market where it is FAR behind Cakewalk and Cubase.

And as a simple BBS courtesy, solit already stated that his system is based around the Audiophile 2496- which is incompatible with PT. So if solit want to learn how to mix, seems like something other than PT is going to be his best bet, eh?

Solit, I had forgotten about Logic. FINE program, but no longer supported or developed for PC since Apple bought it.

And for everyone else, is there a major difference between SX and Nuendo in the realm of audio production? I know Nuendo more geared towards post production for video, but is it worth the extra cost over SX for audio? Why?

That's great that they say the program can do unlimited tracks, plug in's etc, etc, but if you really believe that then you're in for some dissapointment. Have you ever tried running say a 32 track session using 5 plug in's per track, and using multiple aux sends? Its not entirely up to the software program to handle all of this its really up to the overall performance of your computer, which is why DSP cards are so important (if you're needing this much power). I have one of the fastest macs out there right now and im using LE at home and with only a gig of DDR RAM i am able to run somewhere in between 30-50 plug ins while running 32 tracks of audio, that's more than enough for me, and to think about it that's quite a lot for the amount of processing that is going on.

I would like you to take a 3 min song using cakewalk, n-track, or whatever and see how many tracks, aux's, plug-ins, etc until it can't process anymore and tell me what the count is. This my friends is what is known as HYPE, unlimited? uh huh, whatever

 

[malcolm123]

That's great that they say the program can do unlimited tracks, plug in's etc, etc, but if you really believe that then you're in for some dissapointment. Have you ever tried running say a 32 track session using 5 plug in's per track, and using multiple aux sends? Its not entirely up to the software program to handle all of this its really up to the overall performance of your computer, which is why DSP cards are so important (if you're needing this much power). I have one of the fastest macs out there right now and im using LE at home and with only a gig of DDR RAM i am able to run somewhere in between 30-50 plug ins while running 32 tracks of audio, that's more than enough for me, and to think about it that's quite a lot for the amount of processing that is going on.

I would like you to take a 3 min song using cakewalk, n-track, or whatever and see how many tracks, aux's, plug-ins, etc until it can't process anymore and tell me what the count is. This my friends is what is known as HYPE, unlimited? uh huh, whatever

Im not MAc user,, but that sounds damn good to me!!

Lets try what digidude suggested. We can use his standard and see what we all come up with.. Post your results, what you encountered and what you think as well as your hardware specs, software, etc.

I personally do not have a 3min / 32 track audio song for a pc based DAW,, but I guess I can paste that many and apply the plugs, aux etc.

Should be interesting.. the only problem I have is finding time to do it..

Malcolm

 

[Skysaw]

Re: Re: Goddammit...

Ditto !!!

Just OMF out for the studio of your choice. LOL

Malcolm
" I've been Cakewalking since ver 3 DOS,, I think.. LOL "

Add another voice to the Sonar 2 vote!

I think the "serious" choices are between Sonar, Pro-Tools, and Cubase. The are all hard-hitters packed with goodies.

 

[Tom Hicks]

That's great that they say the program can do unlimited tracks, plug in's etc, etc, but if you really believe that then you're in for some dissapointment. Have you ever tried running say a 32 track session using 5 plug in's per track, and using multiple aux sends?I would like you to take a 3 min song using cakewalk, n-track, or whatever and see how many tracks, aux's, plug-ins, etc until it can't process anymore and tell me what the count is. This my friends is what is known as HYPE, unlimited? uh huh, whatever

You seem to be throwing mud around to discredit other apps. That's a disservice to anybody reading this thread for facts rather than opinions.
You may have heard of Steinberg's VST System Link. Using a simple S/PDIF rca cord and ASIO compliant sound cards, multiple computers can be sample-accurate linked to share their processing power. So, while any individual PC will eventually bog down with effects and track count, regardless of software used, the VST System Link allows use of multiple computers to bypass that bottleneck.
Protools was the big dog for years, all alone on the scene, and pros HAD to use it for computer recording. With the other choices available nowdays, the Alsihiah seem a little nervous as they loudly proclaim their systems' superiority, then glance back over their shoulder.
I use Nuendo. I have used Cakewalk (since DOS v.4), n-Track, CoolEdit and Logic also.

 

[Digidude824]

no you're right, but im trying to make my point with using only one computer. Im not discrediting anything, im simply making a point about how much power is required for unlimited, which would be unlimited computers connected i guess lol. Im actually surprised that people are saying Sonar is up there with popularity, personally I can't stand cakewalk's stuff. Personally speaking im impressed with PT's, Logic platinum, and Nuendo. DP3 is not to bad either, there sure is a lot out there that is good though, but as for using any of these programs for post production video usage, I would choose neither. I have been using FPC 3 and soon 4. Avid is another nice avenue in this realm. I'm really wanting to get my hands on shake, or maya and do some crazy stuff hehe, anyone used any of these at all? I would like to hear what you think of them.

 

[Digidude824]

Im not MAc user,, but that sounds damn good to me!!

Lets try what digidude suggested. We can use his standard and see what we all come up with.. Post your results, what you encountered and what you think as well as your hardware specs, software, etc.

I personally do not have a 3min / 32 track audio song for a pc based DAW,, but I guess I can paste that many and apply the plugs, aux etc.

Should be interesting.. the only problem I have is finding time to do it..

Malcolm

That actually might be a cool idea malcom, maybe somone could post the results in a new post and hopefully they will tell the truth too heheh. I guess post the application being used, the general computer specs (just 1 comuter for now no cheating ), and just try pushing the limits of what you got and see what happens. This might be interesting.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Lynn Fuston is putting out a DAW summing CD at the moment. You can see the progress at the 3d site. This will test summing of many daw's and people can also hopefully see whether or not PT's math errors will really amount to a hill of beans or not

 

[James Argo]

Malcolm
" I've been Cakewalking since ver 3 DOS,, I think.. LOL "

You must mean ver. 1.
Ver 2, 3, and beyond is running under Windows...

 

[malcolm123]

You must mean ver. 1.
Ver 2, 3, and beyond is running under Windows...

LOL

Cant really remember the version,, but I remember the Box.

It was brown and it was around 300 bucks back in like 91 0r 92.


We saved up to buy it. LOL

thats was a BIG Deal back then!! It was like buying gear. LOL

 

[Sky Pilot]

Industry Standard = ProTools.

nuff said.

For now..........

But what was once a gap, is quickly becoming a blur.

Nuff said.

Sky

 

[scottr]

pro tools software is to limited IMO.
the only thing good about it is the bomb factory plugins..other than that.. Vs Nuendo,Sx, Samplitude 7.. the program is garbage..

Ridiculous.. It is limited by its hardware, but its functionality makes up for it. Ever tried mixing a big project with steinberg? It sucks. You could do it in half the time if you know protools well - especially editing. Editing in steinberg is incredibly stupid, at least with the steinberg products I've used. Theres a reason protools is the industry standard.

Scott

 

[scottr]

The summing. The sound. Just the improtant things to people who don't have to run prostools to get business.

Kirk

THE SOUND?!?! HA! Cubase taints everything you put on it. Go to www.earcandyonline.com. Listen to the stuff from February and then listen to the stuff from March. February is Cubase VST, March is Protools LE. The sounds speak for themselves.

Scott

 

[scottr]

Im not MAc user,, but that sounds damn good to me!!

Lets try what digidude suggested. We can use his standard and see what we all come up with.. Post your results, what you encountered and what you think as well as your hardware specs, software, etc.

I personally do not have a 3min / 32 track audio song for a pc based DAW,, but I guess I can paste that many and apply the plugs, aux etc.

Should be interesting.. the only problem I have is finding time to do it..

Malcolm

Frankly, I think its fairly obvious that Protools is much more hardware intensive than any of those other programs. Shit, I upgraded my whole system so I could get off of Cubase and onto protools, but it was well worth it. It is much more stable, much more like an actual console in countless ways, and much more user friendly. Protools is more expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Scott

 

[scottr]

no you're right, but im trying to make my point with using only one computer. Im not discrediting anything, im simply making a point about how much power is required for unlimited, which would be unlimited computers connected i guess lol. Im actually surprised that people are saying Sonar is up there with popularity, personally I can't stand cakewalk's stuff. Personally speaking im impressed with PT's, Logic platinum, and Nuendo. DP3 is not to bad either, there sure is a lot out there that is good though, but as for using any of these programs for post production video usage, I would choose neither. I have been using FPC 3 and soon 4. Avid is another nice avenue in this realm. I'm really wanting to get my hands on shake, or maya and do some crazy stuff hehe, anyone used any of these at all? I would like to hear what you think of them.

Yeah man, SONAR is fucking awful. It was the first software I bought and I returned it the next day in exchange for Cubase VST (which was slightly better)

Scott

 

[pipelineaudio]

so tomorrow if some guy that works at N-Track says " n-track is industry standard" thatll be the standard right?

stop it with that crap. I remember a time when guys at alesis were claiming the adat to be the digital multitrack standard. LOL!!!

If PT is good for you then great, but dont go spreading the myth, it only confuses bands who need to record an album. They dont believe that records were ever made without protools, like PT has been here since 1950 or something.

And scottr, if you can get a good sound in PT, and not in cube-endo, you may be in more trouble than you think. I agree editing sucks on that app, but it is sonically more accurate ( caveat emptor, testsing was done on zeroed files ) than PT, check it for yourself

 

[scottr]

so tomorrow if some guy that works at N-Track says " n-track is industry standard" thatll be the standard right?

stop it with that crap. I remember a time when guys at alesis were claiming the adat to be the digital multitrack standard. LOL!!!

If PT is good for you then great, but dont go spreading the myth, it only confuses bands who need to record an album. They dont believe that records were ever made without protools, like PT has been here since 1950 or something.

And scottr, if you can get a good sound in PT, and not in cube-endo, you may be in more trouble than you think. I agree editing sucks on that app, but it is sonically more accurate ( caveat emptor, testsing was done on zeroed files ) than PT, check it for yourself

Well from what I understand (and noticed with a short use of Cubase SX), Cubase VST is the weak link in the Steinberg line. I am getting FAR better sounds in Protools LE than Cubase VST. I don't know if you checked my link, but you can compare the two back to back, same outboard gear. Maybe a little more experience, but other than that there aren't too many variables other than the software. I don't care about "caveat emptor", I don't even know what the hell that is, but I know I was much more happy with the sounds coming out of Protools than I was with the gritty digital sounds coming from Cubase.

Scott

 

[Digidude824]

AMEN