R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools  (Read 69753 times)

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #165 on: November 06, 2005, 10:55:40 AM »

DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 03:47

I don't like gear that's smarter than me, or performances that I don't dictate schedules of. I'd much rather make them keep trying to, 'do that again, now.'..

Thumbs down.


M


So if singer gets a performance as good as it might ever be and you missed the puch slightly, you wouldn't just correct the punch. You would make them do it again cause you screwed up. I don't see any point in wearing someone out unnecessarily. And I would never presume to dictate a performance to any artist unless they were having real trouble with something.

Best,
Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


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

Tidewater

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3816
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #166 on: November 06, 2005, 10:59:42 AM »

Hey, I am just trying to remain a valuable asset..

(and joking.. but that's ok Smile)

Oh, and 'miss a punch'?

1. You must have no idea who you are talking to! I won the 1987 Grammy for punch-ins.

2. We were talking about software, that records when it's just sitting there.

Therein lies the joke.


M
Logged
Time Magazine's 2007 Man of the Year

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #167 on: November 06, 2005, 11:45:51 AM »

DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 09:59

Hey, I am just trying to remain a valuable asset..

(and joking.. but that's ok Smile)

Oh, and 'miss a punch'?

1. You must have no idea who you are talking to! I won the 1987 Grammy for punch-ins.

2. We were talking about software, that records when it's just sitting there.

Therein lies the joke.


M


It's all good. Since there is not much of an indication of an actual name, I have no idea who I'm talking to.

Congrats on the Grammy.
FWIW, I've been on Grammy nominated projects the last 3 years in a row, one of which actually won and I recorded and mixed a cut for an album that is nominated in the next Grammy awards. Does that count?

I agree that I don't really find it useful for an app to sit there grinding away at the hard drive. It is asking for trouble if you ask me.

Peace,
Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


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

KyroJoe

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #168 on: November 06, 2005, 01:02:32 PM »

Just in case someone was curious about the summing differences between Cubase/Nuendo and PT.


Here's evidence from someone who did the test.

------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------
The following was originally posted by user "Nick Mulder" in Andy Sneap's forum:

--------
Hi all,

I have to advise my school about a new to build DAW. All over the net I read claims like "DAW A sounds much better than DAW B", escpecially since I read the ($2500) SAWstudio forum.

So I did this: I took 4 short 16/44 mono tracks, imported them in PT. Track 1 at -11 db, track 2 at -17, track 3 at -23, track 4 at -27.

I bounced them in PT. I phase-inverted that bounce.

I set up an identical mix in SX2. I imported the inverted PTbounce an added it to the SX2 mix.

Result: silence, the inverted PTmix totally zero'd the SXmix.

PT summing and SX summing is identical.

So I took the PTmix to SAWstudio, same story there.. Identical 4 tracks, identical volumesettings, with the inverted PTbounce in the mix I again had the purest silence I ever heard.

Funny thing is that the coder of SAW claims that the 'superior sound' of his coding is because of his integer summing engine, well du'h, it does exactly the same math as ProTools and Cubase (Nuendo) since the result of the different DAW's zero eachother.

So I thought "maybe it's not just the mixing, it's the way the different programs handle the plugins".

I added a Waves C1 with preset#2 to the tracks (and learned in the meantime that PT doesn't correctly handle plugindelaycompensation, when I inserted a C4 and put it on bypass the mix didn't zero anymore) and repeated everything: again, total esoteric meditative silence.

I started this because I was interested in the claim of the SAWfolks that their DAW sounded so much better then all the other. Well, with mixing it didn't, with pluginhandling it didn't, so what's left of this claim is the quality of the onboard EQ.

So I took the pluginversion of the internal SAWeq from JMLlabs and put it in Cubase. Did the same phase inverting trick, imported the result in SAW and I could zero the mix again by setting SAW's onboard EQ at the same settings I did with the JMLplugin.

Maybe SAW is very good coded, maybe the eq sounds pretty good, but its claim of beeing sonically superior is BS.

Just as BS it is to claim Nuendo as a better sounding tool than PT and viceversa.

...that NOBODY did this trick to confirm the (false) claim of the (any) coder is scary in the "do people really need to be this ignorant" way.

So its all up to proper eq'ing, dynamics, room and automation that makes a great mix. On which platform you do it doesn't seem to make any difference (if you have the same plugins ofcourse=).

Bye,

Nick Mulder
-------
Logged

KJ
------------
Kyro Studios

ruberbullet

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #169 on: November 06, 2005, 01:40:03 PM »

Just to clarify.... If and  how you want Nuendo to prerecord is fully up to the user... I just turn this feature on sometimes when in an improvising mode and don't want to miss a good take or a good idea. I am a songwriter/keyboardplayer/producer, and I need a tool to capture my ideas and transform them into reality the fastest way possible. The retrospective record feature has helped me more than once in this regard...especially the MIDI one...
Forgive my european ignorance but I just think Nuendo is a more modern and flexible tool to compose, record and produce music in 2005 than protools is. (I have used both appz regularly since early eighties...No Grammys here, only a humble number one in south africa, a 4th place in Eurovision Song contest, releases in Germany, Holland, Sweden and Taiwan... I want to show my gratitude and respect to all the big-time guys on this forum whom I'm learning a lot from just reading their posts)

I have now a protools HD1 rig for compatibility and a NUENDO/Lynx/DAC1/UAD/Powercore rig. I work 98% of the time on the Nuendo rig, but my partner is a die-hard Digi-fan and sweares to the HD1. I must say that the MIDI environment in Protools always turned me away from it...I guess if you work the traditional way as he does and only use the app as a tape recorder and cut/splice tool Protools is the no1 choice...
I also feel the Nuendo rig sounds better, Perhaps the DAC1 and Lynx sound better to my ears than the 96 I/O.

Another time-saver I'd like to emphasize in favour of NUENDO is the network feature:
In my studio I have set up a network environment, with 2 assistants in MIDI rooms around the caentral studio. So we can be 3 persons working in real time on the same project. This means that eg the vocals are edited/tuned/Melodyned as we are recording by one assistant...the drums are being programmed and tracks added to the SAME project from the 2nd MIDI room. This has turned out to be a very effective way of working as the record companies are tightening their budgets and deadlines...
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #170 on: November 06, 2005, 02:46:36 PM »

DivideByZero wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 10:59

Hey, I am just trying to remain a valuable asset..

(and joking.. but that's ok Smile)

Oh, and 'miss a punch'?

1. You must have no idea who you are talking to! I won the 1987 Grammy for punch-ins.

2. We were talking about software, that records when it's just sitting there.

Therein lies the joke.


M



Yeah,, well, um dude,, THAT Grammy Should have benn MINE that year. . I'm not kidding either ;-} In my little world, 1987 was when I kinda found out ALLLL about Punchin' drums. ,, and um,   other stuff too.    I learned how to punch like a moe foe that year and,, almost had a nervous break down!@#$%^&*

Oh, FWIW, I'm a SAM-7 fan who is looking at SAW. When I am composing my amazing,and unforgettable masterpieces, I like QUUEBASSSS.. It's great. The mixer is a pain in the ass in SX2 But, once you get it sized and learn to use the three mixer windows the way you want, it's a great writing package.

For audio only, Sam-7 is just great. The mixer is the best one I've used in a DAW. I will always keep my Hardware mixer.
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

Augustine Leudar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #171 on: November 06, 2005, 03:09:46 PM »

Well Ive been trying to get nuendo to do an 8 speaker 8.0 music surround piece.
I have the speakers set up and correctly assigned. Usong the surround sound panner it is possible to put one sound exclusively in any one speaker.
Except at the front !
At the front it spreads them across 4 speakers (slightly) and wont let me isolate the sound in the front left or right !
Irritating ... dont know if protools allows more control or not anyone know ?

Jeff4h

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #172 on: November 07, 2005, 10:37:40 AM »

I think if nuendo came out first we would be having the discussion the other way. Ive never used pro tools but Im pretty happy with nuendo. Someone seems like it was Craig Anderton but dont quote me did a shootout for sound quality on pc baseds programs, cubase, nuendo, sonar, logic, and even some chaper programs like cool edit and came to the conclusion there was no difference in sound if you used the same mic pres  mics and converters and sound card, makes sense to me
Logged

zetterstroem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #173 on: November 10, 2005, 04:47:33 PM »

" think if nuendo came out first we would be having the discussion the other way. Ive never used pro tools but Im pretty happy with nuendo."

Shocked

Laughing
Logged
Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway." (b.dylan)

funkcity

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #174 on: November 11, 2005, 01:18:44 AM »

One of the tests I've done recently is to compare the SMPTE lock accuracy of:
ProTools 6.x with Sync I/O
Nuendo 3.x with Timebase
Tascam MMP-16 v 5.03

Playing back the identical projects the:
ProTools consistently locked within 3 samples.
Nuendo varied 10 to 50
MMP up to 100

Now mind you, ProTools used to be the absolute worst.
Well not any longer.

Running System Link on Nuendo should net much tighter lock accuracy.

Real world... Running Nuendo as a playback machine...playing back 100 tracks with 2 RME Madi cards netted no appreciable problem with resyncing or popping or the like.

********************************


henchman wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 04:57

timrob wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 06:43



With the proper set up, you can get get sample accurate sync in Pro Tools. My point was that no option was even available for Nuendo when I built the system. There was not even the ability to sync to SMPTE. Things have changed for the for the better now.




You still cannot get sample accurate synch with PT's.
It has been discussed on the DUC in  a thread about using PT's a a dubbing machine.

 http://duc.digidesign.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB6&a mp;a  mp;Number=878315&Forum=All_Forums&Words=%22sample%20  accurate%22&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=866076&am p;am  p;Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1&am p;am  p;newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&am p;am p;bodyprev=#Post878315


Logged
"What We've Got Here Is A Failure To Communicate"  Cool Hand Luke  ; - )

Deep White

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #175 on: November 12, 2005, 01:02:28 AM »

Some of my humble opinions:

1. For MIDI recording and editing, nothing beats Nuendo.  Well, maybe the good old "excel-like" Cakewalk (not SONAR).

2. For audio recording and editing, I prefer Nuendo and Samplitude over Protools.

3. Now this is the funny part.  Recorded audio sound quality.

My friend and I did an A/B/C test among Nuendo 3, Samplitude 7 and SADIE 4.  We used the same setup.  (Rode Classic II microphone -> Neve 1272 micpre -> Lavry Gold AD converter -> RME Multiface for N3 and S7/ SADIE's own breakout box for SADIE 4.)

Then we did the blind test, with one of our friends playback the recorded track in a random order.  We told him which take we liked and not.

We did the test twice (not just listening to the same takes twice, but recording twice and listening to each test).  Not taking "personal flavor" into consideration, SADIE = Samplitude 7; Nuendo 3 sounded worst.

It's not about each software's playback ability, since we took the files out of each softwrae's Pool/Audio Folder directly (ie no exporting/bouncing) and imported them in the same Protools session.

And it's not the difference in hardware, since we use the same things for Samplitude 7 and Nuendo 3.

After that test, we decided to use Samplitude to record our incoming project.  We've finished five songs now, and we are very satisfied with what we hear so far.

We talked to the other friend about the test, whose job is to record live gigs/concerts with his notebook + RME soundcard.  He mentioned that his experience matched the result of our test: Sampltiude sounds better than Nuendo.

------

That's why I was really shocked with the Nuendo user list.  When I realized that a lot of pros prefer what we don't, I must admit that my faith has been shaken.

Yet how should someone prefer others' opinion over what he hears with his own ears, which are not that bad in the first place?

So,

Any Samplitude users here?
Logged
Arys Chien
Song Writer & Producer
Deep White Studio
Taipei, Taiwan

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #176 on: November 12, 2005, 08:56:43 AM »

Deep White wrote on Sat, 12 November 2005 01:02



That's why I was really shocked with the Nuendo user list.  When I realized that a lot of pros prefer what we don't, I must admit that my faith has been shaken.



You can never go by such a list.  I have worked with several of the people mentioned on the list...in Protools.  I have used MOTU, but I'm not a "MOTU User."  I have used Logic, but I'm not a "Logic User."  I have used RADAR, but I'm certainly not a "RADAR User."

Most tests done as scientifically as possible show little or no differences in sound quality amongst the various platforms.  The differences are usually in the converter, the techniques employed (i.e. level, etc.), or the pilot.
Logged

wireline

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 211
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #177 on: November 12, 2005, 10:12:41 AM »

Quote:

Any Samplitude users here?


One right here...I've been following this thread with great interest since it came online, as I am always looking to get other opinions, other perspectives, and have as much knowledge of other platforms as I can...

I've tried Nuendo/SX/PTLE/Saw/Sonar/you name it...even varying versions of Samp (7.23a vs 8.21, etc) and stay with Samp's most recent update....comparisons actually reinforce my decision, but Samp (or any DAW) is not without its own unique quirks....

And FWIW: celebrity endorsements are really hogwash - as stated previously, just because someone has used product X in the past does NOT imply endorsement...

Just another opinion into the fray.,..

Logged
Ken Morgan
Wireline Studio, Midland, TX
Authorized Sales Agent, WWW.Soundpure.Com

Deep White

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 91
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #178 on: November 12, 2005, 01:21:37 PM »

compasspnt wrote on Sat, 12 November 2005 21:56

You can never go by such a list.  I have worked with several of the people mentioned on the list...in Protools.  I have used MOTU, but I'm not a "MOTU User."  I have used Logic, but I'm not a "Logic User."  I have used RADAR, but I'm certainly not a "RADAR User."

Most tests done as scientifically as possible show little or no differences in sound quality amongst the various platforms.  The differences are usually in the converter, the techniques employed (i.e. level, etc.), or the pilot.

Thanks for the "not a xxxx user" note.  It's a comfort.

As for the test, well, since we used the same converter and other hardware, the same singer singing several times, the same engineer pressing the record button, etc., I can say that we've narrowed the variables down to the encoding method of each software.

Yet it's also a comfort to see the "most tests done as scientifically as possible show little or no differences in sound quality amongst the various platforms" statement.  At least that means we have not made a wrong choice by choosing a worse software.
Logged
Arys Chien
Song Writer & Producer
Deep White Studio
Taipei, Taiwan

pipelineaudio

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 379
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #179 on: November 12, 2005, 01:48:07 PM »

timrob wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 15:12

 Let's see any of those other machines pull in recorded material before the punch. Can't be done on any other DAW or hardware Recorder that I am aware of.


Vegas did this from version 1 (1998 ? )
In addition to other pro tools come lately features like 192khz
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 16   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 20 queries.