Cubase vs. Protools...

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigwillz24
  • Start date Start date
bigwillz24

bigwillz24

New member
Okay now that your here. This is NOT about how one is better than the other or vice-versa. All I want is the major advantages and disadavantages of using one over the other. For example:

Cubase has automatic plugin delay compensation Protools does not.

Protools has the ability to rearrange plugins on inserts Cubase does not.

Thanks
 
Cubase: Midi at its best
Protools: Midi at its worst
 
zook250 said:
real time bouncing in protools le sucks.
Click to expand...


Word. That's one of the most annoying uhh features of LE. I just love it when I'm finishing up a full cd project and I have to sit there for an hour while everything bounces down.
 
if you get protools 7 that does have automatic delay compensation. although protools midi functions arent the best out there they are still pretty good and getting better....and cubase is not the best either. id probably go with logic if i was wanting to work with midi. theres a reason almost every major studio uses protools....its by far the best editor out there for audio and since so many studios use it it makes it alot easier to move your work to a different studio. go ahead and flame me for me not capitalizing words and bad grammar i dont care
 
karl_danger said:
go ahead and flame me for me not capitalizing words and bad grammar i dont care
Click to expand...
OK. I hate your grammer and lack of capitalization.

Feel better?
 
PT has gotten a lot better with their MIDI features since version 7 came out. You have to understand they were originally just an audio editing program that incorporated MIDI later while program like Logic or DP started with MIDI first and incorporated audio.
Pro Tools LE 7 actually still does not contain delay compensation but utilizes a round-about way to buffer the audio being processed. But this was done even in versions before 7.
And as far as real time bouncing...this is just something that is left over from the analog days, and actually many people still utilize it. How else are you going to get your audio out of the computer, into your analog gear (an SSL console, EQs, etc.) and then back in?

as far as Cubase, I've only used their LE version and it was so long ago that I can't even remember the features so I can't comment on that. sorry.
:)
 
I just hate the fact that Pro-tools only works with digidesign products (and M-Audio), and you can't have pro-tools and a firepod. Also since a pro-tools plug-in costs a million dollars.
 
I Own both. Cubase was my first "real" DAW and I used it for a few years before investing in Pro Tools. I upgraded to SX2 but haven't been able to justify getting 3. I just don't use it all that much.

Pro Tools does have wicked fast editing, and I like that most eveything happenes with the 2 main windows. It also comes with a few plugins that I like better than the stock Cubase plugs. Pro Tools LE and most of the RTAS plugs don't have a delay- not like the TDM system plugs which ALL have different delays.

I *really* like being able to move projects from studio to studio with Pro Tools- that actually lets me work: Pro Tools may not actually be any better than the other programs out there, but it does have name recognition. I've paid for my Pro Tools with the work it allowed me to do.

Cubase has:
Unlimited tracks, full dealy compensation *even* on hardware sends(!), timecode and advanced video functions, OMF inport and export, faster than realtime bounce, track freeze, distributed processing... the list goes on.

Pro Tools: cheaper to get into at the ground level. The mBox comes with PT and is less than Cubase SX. While this is true, the arguement breaks down when you realize PT LE is more on the level of Cubase SL. :eek: Verye expensive to upgrade.

Cubase: Infinitely upgradeable and grows to the limit of your hardware.

Seriously, the only reason I chose PT over Cubase is because of the professional work that I do. That's the only reason I'd recommend it to a home recordist, as well, because Cubase pretty much kicks its butt in every other area except work flow.

Take care,
Chris
 
Brad_C said:
Also since a pro-tools plug-in costs a million dollars.
Click to expand...

lol, well they don't cost anymore than a VST version of that same plugin would.
 
bennychico11 said:
lol, well they don't cost anymore than a VST version of that same plugin would.
Click to expand...
Yes, they do. Normally about 1 1/2 times what a native plug would cost.
 
Farview said:
Yes, they do. Normally about 1 1/2 times what a native plug would cost.
Click to expand...

are we talking about RTAS or TDM/HTDM plugins here? big difference. If you're talking about RTAS, most plugin companies sell one disc that has all host based plugins on them (including RTAS). Waves Bundles, Antares, Izotope, Spectrasonics, Nomad Factory, Elemental Audio, etc.
Now if you mean TDM/HTDM...yes, but there's a little bit different processing done with those plugins. And I assumed Brad C wasn't talking about TDM.
 
I keep forgetting that when people say 'Protools', they mean LE instead of HD.
 
Chris Shaeffer said:
I
Pro Tools LE and most of the RTAS plugs don't have a delay-
Click to expand...
huh, i'm fairly sure you're wrong about this........ especially since i've bumped audio around according to the dealer published delay of plugs to iron out parallel compression. (not always, but after enough of the right plugs it needs to be done)
 
Farview said:
I keep forgetting that when people say 'Protools', they mean LE instead of HD.
Click to expand...

lol, it's okay. Most people on this forum mean LE, so I just assume that.

huh, i'm fairly sure you're wrong about this........ especially since i've bumped audio around according to the dealer published delay of plugs to iron out parallel compression. (not always, but after enough of the right plugs it needs to be done)
Click to expand...

well, you're right, every plugin induces delay...no matter what program you are working with. However, LE uses it's built in buffering to help compensate for plugin latency. This usually can cover up to the maximum size your buffer goes up to. For example, if your buffer setting is set on 1024, then any plugins that create less than 1024 samples of delay are accomodated for. It's nothing as fancy as ADC and the more plugins you add the worse (the so-called mastering plugins are terrible, IMO)....but it doesn't hurt to at least have a reverb on an aux or basic dynamic plugins. It's when you get into the fancy 12 band EQs and stuff that you run into issues.
 
giraffe said:
huh, i'm fairly sure you're wrong about this........ especially since i've bumped audio around according to the dealer published delay of plugs to iron out parallel compression. (not always, but after enough of the right plugs it needs to be done)
Click to expand...

We're both right. "Most" is an an exageration. "Some" and "many, low CPU" plugins would be more accurate.

Start piling them on and you do get delay. Use a CPU hog and you get delay.

That... and that even the cheapest hardware compressor kicks the shit out of the plugs I have... and that even my student's mom can hear that analog mixes sound clearer than digital mixs... and that my mixer's EQs sound really good and I have 20 3 bands of them with no CPU overhead... and the mixs sound wider... and that it doesn't matter if I'm using Pro Tools, Cubase, the ADAT or the reel to reel... is one of the reasons I mix analog. ;)

-C
 
this:

http://duc.digidesign.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=919359&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1

should clear up any confusion about plugin delay compensation in pro tools le.

its a post by digi tech support, here:
"
2. The hardware buffer size will compensate for any plug-in delays - as long as the plug-in delay isn't longer than your HW buffer size, you shouldn't experience any plug-in delays. This is why it's recommended that you increase your HW buffer size while mixing down, to help compensate. You can always see the amount of plug-in delay in the display at the bottom of the track (as long as the plug-in reports it properly). "
 
ProTools vs. Cubase debate

I believe ProTools is very popular in film and TV score, especially across the Atlantic (USA). I suppose you could say it is the industry standard in this field, and this, really, is the only reason for my interest in the product.

I have been using Cubase for some years now and I am currently using SX3 on a Win2K PC. I would also like to confirm that, at this point, my current combination of hardware and software makes for a very fast and stable DAW indeed.

As for ProTools, I recently tested the MBox2 LE version on a WinXP based PC. Despite following the install procedures by the book, the result was far from satisfactory. The program was sticky and prone to freezing and/or crashes. Moreover, the ProTools interface is unlikely to win any HCI or usability awards. For me, it has one hell of an overly confusing, almost half-finished looking interface, especially when compared with Cubase.

Although I can’t comment on the DSP dependant version of ProTools, it appears that the LE version just doesn’t cut it on a host based system. I think I’ll stick with Cubase for now, or maybe even migrate to Nuendo if need be. If it’s good enough for Zimmerman and Gregson-Williams, than I’m sure it will do for me.

Dick_Spanner
 
Nuendo is definitely gaining ground in the industry for film scoring and the like. It ain't cheap though (around $2000).

If you are looking for something that integrates very well with film/video, give sony vegas a try. It's very easy to learn, and is equally adept at editing/processing both audio and video. It's an exceptional value for what it can do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top