R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools  (Read 69747 times)

blairl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #120 on: October 28, 2005, 06:49:50 PM »

Monitoring latency in Pro Tools using a 192 I|O is 105 samples.  At 48k this is 2.12 milliseconds.  At 96k it is 1.1 milliseconds.  If a native system can run at a buffer of 64 samples, also taking into consideration the latency of the AD/DA process, then the latency would be nearly identical to Pro Tools.  One question is what adding plug-ins to a native system would do to the latency.  Also, still in question, is exactly how many tracks and plug-ins can be reliably used before the buffer has to be increased.  Rob said he has used up to 32 tracks simultaneously.  I would be interested to know the maximum someone has been able to do with a good number of plug-ins.
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #121 on: October 28, 2005, 06:56:42 PM »

[quote title=rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57][quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37]
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21





I agree with an earlier poster about not posting unless you know your statements to be fact..... Too many myths getting started this way.

.....


I ,,am never, ever afraid of a Myth. I can go find out what the truth is see. So, I wont be looking around here anymore. Everyone here,knows for sure, that everything they post is fact. There is know way this is a good thing. You kid's have fun. I'm going to go where there are nicer folks............

I, am really bummed out.No shit. I really am.

The weak, no talent hack, alone in his bed room, spreading "Myths" { how funny..}

Ivan..........
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #122 on: October 28, 2005, 06:58:05 PM »

blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 15:49

  I would be interested to know the maximum someone has been able to do with a good number of plug-ins.


I have avoided this question for fear of looking smug or trite with a reply:

But

Why on earth would you want to track with pluggins?  Tracking with Compressor plugs will do no good as they after the converters.  I track clean and add the plugs later during mix.... Why commit during tracking?
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

blairl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #123 on: October 28, 2005, 07:12:34 PM »

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:58

Why on earth would you want to track with pluggins?  Tracking with Compressor plugs will do no good as they after the converters.  I track clean and add the plugs later during mix.... Why commit during tracking?



Well, plug-ins only affect the monitoring side, not the recording side.  The audio going to disk is not printed with the effect of the plug-ins so there is no committing during tracking when plug-ins are used.  Using plug-ins during tracking is the same as getting a rough mix on a console with eq's and compression on the monitoring side during tracking.  This is very common.
Logged

PookyNMR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #124 on: October 28, 2005, 07:32:00 PM »

blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:12



Well, plug-ins only affect the monitoring side, not the recording side.  The audio going to disk is not printed with the effect of the plug-ins so there is no committing during tracking when plug-ins are used.  Using plug-ins during tracking is the same as getting a rough mix on a console with eq's and compression on the monitoring side during tracking.  This is very common.


Not true (for SX and Nuendo users) if you are putting the effects on an insert in the input bus.


Logged
Nathan Rousu

blairl

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 376
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #125 on: October 28, 2005, 07:38:40 PM »

PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:32

Not true (for SX and Nuendo users) if you are putting the effects on an insert in the input bus.


I understand now.  With Pro Tools TDM, the plug-ins are on the monitoring side for this very reason.  I agree that I would not want to commit the plug-in to disk.
Logged

Jonas as

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #126 on: October 28, 2005, 07:57:55 PM »

With Cubase/Nuendo you can choose to have the effect printed or not, by placing it on the input channel/bus or the playback channel.

Much like an SSL.

(I still prefer PT, BTW.)
Logged

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #127 on: October 28, 2005, 08:38:44 PM »

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:48

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 13:30



Rick,
Perhaps you could describe your setup in greater detail. I'm using both ProTools and Nuendo w/ ProTools hardware. So, I don't have to deal with the latency issue unless I'm using another studio's rig.

I wasn't trying to spread misinformation, only speaking from experience that I have had working with Native systems(Primarily, Nuendo and Logic) in other studios.

BTW, I helped build one of the systems on your long list of Nuendo users. In that particular case, he uses an O2R96 for I/O and monitoring.

It took about two years to get all the bugs worked out of the system. Custom built P4 with all the bells and whistles. Finally with Nuendo 3 the system is stable and truly functional.

I'm not anti-native. I just haven't come across a system that has the kind of low latency that my ProTools TDM hardware has monitoring straight thru the box. Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT. I'd love find another platform that was actually cheaper, sounded as good, and left me with most of my hair at the end of the day. Oh and fits in my front pocket, too. Smile



Hi Tim,

Well the method I use when using outboard pre's with a console is pretty straight forward:

On the Neves we rent they have both XLR's and TRS 1/4" outs for the 8 pre's. (This is a custom rack of 8 pre's put together with power supply and a bunch of IO options on the rear of the rack)....  I simply plug the mic into the input, the XLR out goes to the recorder (RME Multiface analog interface/ converters).  The other out for that strip (TRS 1/4") is routed to the Berhinger board channel in for monotoring only...

The two channel (2buss) out from Nuendo / RME also goes to the board for monitoring whats already on tape.  

SO all the recorded tracks are coming into the Berhinger from Nuendo in stereo, and the tracks that are recording go straight into the RME I/O, with a split coming into channels on the Berhinger to blend with the in the box mix.... 0 Latency, with any pre.... (Or even the highest sample settings)I imagine you could also use a ballanced splitter on the back of any pre that dosent have 2 or more outs (Most of mine do)

The simplicity of this system in use is pretty much identical to using tape with an analog board.



This is what I had envisioned. I do this very thing when I have to. In fact, my Grace 801R has parallel outputs to XLR and a DSUB connection and I have tails for several different types of connections.
The juggling happens when you have to do a band punch.

I can wheel in my PT rig and plug things up and start recording. Without a console if necessary.


Quote:


PS:  Tim please accept my appologies for my comments earlier... It was "BC"  (Before Coffee).... All the best... respect.


No problem. The thing is... If we all had all our facts straight before posting, there would be no need for discussion and no need for a forum like this. I don't know everything and I'll gladly admit when I'm wrong. No Harm done. Smile


Quote:


PPS:  As others have stated, My native system was built by myself with a decade of experience in building and trouble shooting my own sytems... Past systems were fraught with troubleshooting headaches etc.  But this current system that I built 6 months ago went together like leggo and has had zero issues... not even one hang....  

I don't like the IBM stuff, Tim (P4)... I stick with ASUS MoBo's and Athlon chips.... Avoid VIA Southbridge Chipsets...


That is part of the problem to me. Native systems require you, the guy that just wants to record the band or yourself...etc, to become an expert in the latest computer components that all play nice together and deliver the best performance. Up until very recently the best performance was still fairly poor up against a TDM system.

Quote:


The best way to build a system is to buy the software, then the interface that is proven to work well with the software (Nuendo/RME example)... only then start to purchase computer components that both the Software and Hardware suppliers BOTH recomend and agree on.... Problems are more likely if you use any old computer and then stick some software on it. If your goods are recent with recent drivers then it should be a breeze.....  Tim's freind with the O2r having problems was two years ago.... (two years ago we were all still having issues)


This is what we did. With help from the vendor and consultation from technical reps from Steinberg. The problems weren't just two years ago. They were very persistent for two years. First hardware issues, even though we went with recommended components at the time. Wound up replacing the motherboard. Then Windows XP issues. Then various odd behavior from Nuendo. On top of all that , when we built the system there was no sample accurate sync available for Nuendo. Only some pretty cheesy midi sync interface.

Never had that kind of trouble with any of the Macs I've owned. Knock on wood!!

Quote:


Once again:  Wicked thread.  I am soooo glad that the Nuendo crew has a chance to show our enthusiasum without persecution!

PPSS:  Saw, Samp, and Logic are all wicked apps as well... I love the way Logic sounds but can't dig the interface...


Haven't used Saw studio or Samplitude since they are PC only. I have Logic Pro. It suffers from what most of the other Native software does... Convoluted interface. There is plenty to like in all of them. I'll go out on a limb and say that Nuendo is probably the easiest of the ones I have used.
Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


---------------------------
Ours is not to understand.
Ours is just to record the band.
-Unknown

minister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #128 on: October 28, 2005, 08:46:06 PM »

Fenris2 wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 18:34


This is a list I made up of features Nuendo has that Pro Tools lacks:

Unlimited tracks (200+ on a well-equipped system)
Support for third-party DSP cards: UAD-1, PowerCore, Scope
Distributed processing with VST System Link or FX Teleport, for unlimited DSP power
Non-partitioned DSP (no chip limitations on plug-in size)
Simultaneous editing of multiple events  
Overlapping events
Waveforms are visible when dragging
Real-time fades
Snap-to-zero
Mixer presets
Assignable key commands
Sample-accurate automation
Offline processes such as Envelope
Offline Process History and Track Freeze, with unlimited undo
Full MIDI capabilities
Superior MIDI timing (with Linear Time Base interfaces)
Sample-accurate slaving to tape (with the optional Time Base synchronizer)
Customizable hardware control
Open architecture, open standards, and support for third-party hardware
AES-31 support for universal file exchange
Faster than realtime export
32-bit floating-point mixer
Support for 32-bit float files, stereo interleaved files, and multiple bit depths
64-bit float plug-ins
32-bit float plug-in bus (significantly less degradation than PT's 24-bit fixed plug-in bus ... this is the main source of degradation in PT)
is all this true?  sorry, i am not a nuendo user, but i have SEEN it work and i was impressed.  when i jumped in, nuendo wasn't around...so i stayed with PT, and am happy.

here is what i am not sure about:

"32-bit floating-point mixer"

24-bit signals,in PT are multiplied by 24-bit coefficients and summed to an output pair at 48-bits (dual precision). and the MIXER is a 56 bit accumulator.

Aux Inputs in PT handle signals the same was as audio tracks, they just don't have a disk track associated with them.  So, signals arrive at the mixer plug-in as 24 bit signals, and are multiplied by 24-bit coefficients that represent gain and pan and are summed to an output pair at 48-bits where dither is applied and then
truncated to 24-bits for output to the DACs.  the outputs, (bus or HW) are 24....but that still gives you 144dB of range so the dithering (of the LSB) is well below the noise floor.

isn't a 48 bit mixer better than or at least as good as 32-bit floating?

"Simultaneous editing of multiple events"

meaning?  is this somehow different than what you can do in PT with groups etc?

"Overlapping events"

meaning?  like tracks?  playlists?  can you explain this?  and tell me how it is something i cannot do in PT?

"Waveforms are visible when dragging"

meaning you can see the waveform move along the timeline as you drag a region?  in PT if you drag, teh region moves and then when you let go the WF snaps into position.  but i use NUDGE all the time.  WF's move then.

"Real-time fades"

meaning?  i can make fades as things play back, as i mix.  can you explain what PT lacks here?

"Snap-to-zero"

i can snap to zero in PT.

"Mixer presets"

how is this different than templates or importing session data with mixer presets from another session or template?

"Assignable key commands"

this is doable in PT.

"Sample-accurate automation"

hunh?  PT's automation is not capable of Sample-accurate automation.

i am not being hostile, i want to be educated.  obviously, both platforms are great!

does Nuendo have Playlists?  i use thos ALL the time!  there must be some stuff that PT has that Nuendo doesn't.

i purchased an HD|2 Accel.  i mix 120 tracks of a film mix, in 5.1, 10 aux channels. 8 stem printing tracks, with 4 outboard reverbs, 3 HW EQ and Comp inserts, TONS of high quality plugs, WITH 1 % PULL DOWN, ADC to keep everyone in line -- even the HW inserts!  frame-edge accurate with HIGH RESOLUTION picture.

on a GD dual 2.5 with 2 internal SATA drives.

i can also do BIG music mixes on it.

i guess i don't know new, 'cause i did a trade-in...

HD|2 - let's say 10k
192 - let's say 4K
sync i/o (is their HW that allows NUENDO TO PULL?) 2K

that's only 16k...

plug-ins....eeesh....

anyway, i need a highly PRO solution.  PT seems like a pretty good deal with stuff like that.
Logged
tom hambleton C.A.S.
minister of fancy noises
ministry of fancy noises

IMDb

innesireinar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 84
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #129 on: October 29, 2005, 12:51:05 PM »

bora wrote on Sat, 29 October 2005 00:57

With Cubase/Nuendo you can choose to have the effect printed or not, by placing it on the input channel/bus or the playback channel.

Much like an SSL.

(I still prefer PT, BTW.)


You can do this in PT by choosing an aux channel (with the plug you want to print inserted in) as input in the audio track you're using to record.
Logged

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #130 on: October 29, 2005, 01:18:34 PM »

blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:12

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:58

Why on earth would you want to track with pluggins?  Tracking with Compressor plugs will do no good as they after the converters.  I track clean and add the plugs later during mix.... Why commit during tracking?



Well, plug-ins only affect the monitoring side, not the recording side.  The audio going to disk is not printed with the effect of the plug-ins so there is no committing during tracking when plug-ins are used.  Using plug-ins during tracking is the same as getting a rough mix on a console with eq's and compression on the monitoring side during tracking.  This is very common.


Thank you.  This makes a lot of sense.
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

Ive done stuff I'm not proud of.. and the stuff I am proud of is disgusting ~ Moe Sizlack

"There is no crisis in energy, the crisis is in imagination" ~ Buckminster Fuller

minister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #131 on: October 30, 2005, 03:00:22 AM »

hey fenris2, you forgot Nuendo supports multiple QT's.  PT does not.

i'll be back later when i have more time.

as i said, both are great.  but i'd like to know more specifics.  ...if i may...  Smile
Logged
tom hambleton C.A.S.
minister of fancy noises
ministry of fancy noises

IMDb

ruberbullet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #132 on: October 30, 2005, 01:26:28 PM »

Just saw this post at the Nuendo forum....I guess the new Dual-Dualcore AMD DAWs + Euphonix system 5 hardware is more than up to the task described by compasspoint:

"I want to encourage the Steinberg programmers by saying how happy I am with the way Nuendo 3.1 is running. Between the improvements in N3.1 and the quad Opterons, I'm doing things that were only a dream just a year or two ago.

How about this one? We're printing about 100 tracks live at 48/24 chasing LTC for a 1.5 hour service, three times a weekend, using 2x RME MADI into Euphonix System 5s. But the system is coasting with so little load, I decided to check out doing video capture to the same DAW on the Decklink card at the same time. 100 tracks of audio plus video capture at the same time.

Not a problem, at all. Total CPU load is still less than 50% worst case, with either uncompressed video or photo JPEG. The whole scenario just works so well and so fast, we keep wondering if we're kidding ourselves. Turns out, we're not. "

Smile

Logged

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #133 on: October 30, 2005, 06:16:48 PM »

I found this pdf with a Nuendo / ProTools comparison that I thought people might find interesting. I hadn't seen this before on the Steinberg US site.

Here is the site it came from:

  http://www.hhaynes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=31&Itemid=2

This links to an article that discusses why the author made a move from Mac to PC, and from ProTools to Nuendo. The reasoning seemed to be very similar to my own.

   http://www.hhaynes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task =view&id=54&Itemid=2

Also, for any of you Mac users who have never seen Nuendo on a PC and are offended (like myself) at the very sight of the windows 95/2000/XP GUI, please keep in mind that the Windows XP GUI can be changed quite easily (with a little hack) to something far more pleasing (even "Mac-like"). I have no idea why they continue to use screenshots with the win95/win2k GUI in their literature... It's probably not such a good idea to make Nu/base look like it was made in 1995.  Rolling Eyes

You should also note after reading through this that most of the unique Nuendo features are post-pro oriented, but almost all of the audio recording oriented features in this document also apply to Cubase SX.

Regards,

JL
Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #134 on: October 30, 2005, 07:53:06 PM »

Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 16:31

>>>the Windows XP GUI can be changed quite easily (with a little hack) to something far more pleasing (even "Mac-like").

When I set up an XP machine, the first thing I do is turn off "visual effects" to make it LESS Mac-like.  Very Happy  "Visual effects" are useless and slow down the interface.



I don't need 3D eye candy when I'm trying to get reliable performance, but I certainly don't want to have to look at something that looks like it was created by someone with absolutely zero appreciation of aesthetics. I consider it worth every CPU cycle lost to not have to look at the ugly windows 95 look.  Smile

The XP theme option is far less CPU intensive than the visually stunning but relatively slow OSX interface. Using any reasonably new CPU on a PC, there is very little (or any) perceptible loss of responsiveness using the WinXP GUI (default or customized). I'm talking about the graphic elements....not animations and transparency.

Let's save the Mac vs. PC thing for another thread though...

JL


Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 16   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.038 seconds with 19 queries.