Augustine Leudar wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 17:32 |
The only advantage I can see in pro tools is finding jobs. |
Augustine Leudar wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 18:07 |
Thanks for the replies. I am aware of protools being the industry standard i was just wondering if there was actually any technical reason why this is so. Especially since the gear is so expensive. |
timrob wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 15:33 |
I use both all the time. They each have strengths and weaknesses. I find Pro Tools to be more intuitive to use. Other folks will tell you that Nuendo is more intuitive. It all depends on what you can relate to easiest. Technically, I don't think either has an advantage. Depends on the type of work you're doing. I like Nuendo's ability to do non realtime bounces to stems. I also like being able to make gain adjustments in a file rather than having to write automation for everything. I like Pro Tools editing style and automation and crossfade handling. I prefer ProTools Playlists to Nuendo's Layers (Parts). With Nuendo you have many more options for Hardware. With PT/HD you get solid hardware and w/192i/o you get great converters. I like having both. Since Nuendo can utilize PT hardware, I've got the best of both worlds. Best, |
timrob wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 23:33 |
I use both all the time. They each have strengths and weaknesses. I find Pro Tools to be more intuitive to use. Other folks will tell you that Nuendo is more intuitive. It all depends on what you can relate to easiest. Technically, I don't think either has an advantage. Depends on the type of work you're doing. I like Nuendo's ability to do non realtime bounces to stems. I also like being able to make gain adjustments in a file rather than having to write automation for everything. I like Pro Tools editing style and automation and crossfade handling. I prefer ProTools Playlists to Nuendo's Layers (Parts). With Nuendo you have many more options for Hardware. With PT/HD you get solid hardware and w/192i/o you get great converters. I like having both. Since Nuendo can utilize PT hardware, I've got the best of both worlds. Best, |
rankus wrote on Sat, 22 October 2005 12:35 |
PDC = Pluggin Delay Compensation IMO this is the difference between just usable and truly pro... Whatever you get make sure it has this feature... NOT to be confused with "ADC" which is a different animal... |
timrob wrote on Sat, 22 October 2005 11:10 | ||
In what way are they different? Doen't it amount to the same thing? |
zetterstroem wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 14:47 |
they sound different..... nuendo sounded a bit smeared in the top end.... a bit plastic-like.... nice on some metal tracks.... . |
Denny W. wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 17:28 |
Interesting. Has anyone time synced the 2 systems and played back the same wav to see if they null? It would be a pretty interesting experiment. I don't have PT gear to do it. |
ivan40 wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 18:54 |
....a good engineer can get really good results from mostly all this stuff now. |
ivan40 wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 12:54 |
You said you had to do some panning to make stereo files? Or just to image the mix? Could there be a difference in panning law's? Just a thought. |
wavdoctor wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 12:03 |
brings to mind another question..What is the best way to get his PT files into Nuendo and vice-versa? |
Patrick Brannen wrote on Mon, 24 October 2005 21:22 |
I like having both. I actually like Nuendo if I have to edit the crud out of something. If I have 50 crossfades on one track with the crossfade window I can customize each individual CF and the track will be done in about a minute. Pro Tools takes me a little longer. But where Pro Tools wins out for me is in plug-in developement. |
robdarling@mail.com wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 13:51 |
As for getting sessions back and forth, it will be tough. You have to use OMF, but it is cranky until you've done it a few times and is still prone to problems when you do something new in your project that you don't know will screw things up. Digi always blames everyone else, but can EVERY developer out there be screwing it up? This is the kind of stuff that gets Digi the ill will that they get. There are nine million reasons why someone might be using a different program, especially if they are a composer, but communicating back to PT's world sucks. There is a very strong industry standard for daw interchange in place with aes-31, but Digi refuses to support it. |
Augustine Leudar wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 13:59 |
So if theyre going to be akward and snotty and Nuendo is just as good why are they still the industry standard ? Is it like NS10s ? |
zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 22:48 | ||
wouldn't use nuendo unless i was paid good money..... pt is still better for what i do... yes i've worked with nuendo..... our studio had it for a year...... the keyword is had..... use logic express for some of my midi... and i've worked with cubase..... (had sx2 on my laptop).... most recently sx3.... completly awful for mix/mastering work imo.... the user interface is complety cluttered... there's alot of funtcions to make it easier but they would be redundant if the layout was more simple.... i use one window for all my pt work with only one plugin window open at a time.... comparing protools to ns10's is downright.... ns10's are essentially awful speakers that have somehow found use in the pro music business.... they are good for levels and chechking out a mix.... that's it..... i think so many was bought due to a severe case of "flavor of the week"... or rather flavor of the decade.... protools is more than usefull..... it actually have changed the way music is produced..... it is still the shortest way from thought to action when it comes to audio editing/mixing/mastering.... the current "flavor of the week" is that pt sucks and everything else doesn't..... almost every piece of crap software has it's followers..... and i can understand why..... digidesign (and even worse waves) are very arrogant in the way they run their company...... so go ahead and do whatever you like and use whatever you like..... but i'm sick and tired of all the pt bashing.... |
zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 07:48 | ||
wouldn't use nuendo unless i was paid good money..... pt is still better for what i do... yes i've worked with nuendo..... our studio had it for a year...... the keyword is had..... use logic express for some of my midi... and i've worked with cubase..... (had sx2 on my laptop).... most recently sx3.... completly awful for mix/mastering work imo.... the user interface is complety cluttered... there's alot of funtcions to make it easier but they would be redundant if the layout was more simple.... i use one window for all my pt work with only one plugin window open at a time.... comparing protools to ns10's is downright.... ns10's are essentially awful speakers that have somehow found use in the pro music business.... they are good for levels and chechking out a mix.... that's it..... i think so many was bought due to a severe case of "flavor of the week"... or rather flavor of the decade.... protools is more than usefull..... it actually have changed the way music is produced..... it is still the shortest way from thought to action when it comes to audio editing/mixing/mastering.... the current "flavor of the week" is that pt sucks and everything else doesn't..... almost every piece of crap software has it's followers..... and i can understand why..... digidesign (and even worse waves) are very arrogant in the way they run their company...... so go ahead and do whatever you like and use whatever you like..... but i'm sick and tired of all the pt bashing.... |
compasspnt wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 09:42 |
Thank you Rune. Here at our place we get every kind of client. At least 60% of them are at the very, very highest level of the business, in production, engineering, artistry, and sales. I would say that 95% of ALL of our clients use only Protools. The rest have used Logic on Digidesign hardware, except one time a MOTU, and twice RADAR. These are people who can afford anything they want. There is a reason for this. We have never had Nuendo, or Cubase, or SAW, or any of the other competing systems come in here. I'm sure they can work just fine, and if you know the system, be an excellent tool (a "pro" one) for anyone. But to senselessly bash Digidesign is ridiculous. The system is a tool. It is professional. It works. Almost everyone uses it. If we were to suddenly even suggest to our clients that they should use our new Nuendo/Cubase/Whatever else instead, there would be laughter, and lost clients. |
Vertigo wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 11:14 |
I really don't see Cubase as being a fair example. That's hardly an apples to apples comparison - more like comparing an apple to an apple flavored Jolly Rancher. I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic, other than the fact that it's made by Steinberg and it shares some of its code-base with Nuendo... Bottom line - PT is great, Nuendo is great. There are some differences, but they essentially do the same thing. I'm a Nuendo user and I can do pretty much anything a guy with ProTools can do. I think ProTools rocks, but there's one factor that I think is going to keep Nuendo and I together for a good long time: $$$ PRICE POINT $$$ On average, a core recording rig in a Nuendo shop is going to cost half of what a comparable ProTools rig is going to run. And I do NOT consider a 002 and PTLE to be a comparable rig - more like "ProTools for Tots". If money weren't an issue I'd go PT in a heartbeat - PT is the majority, and when it comes to the marketplace it pays to be "in" with the majority. But I just can't justify spending that kind of cash to be able to perform the same functions that I'm already doing now. I'm just far too frugal with my gear money. Heck, most of my gear I either built myself or pulled out of a dumpster and repaired (I buy piles of broken 60's and 70's gear on Ebay all the time and at this point the reps at Digikey know me by name). Awesome ProTools is, cost effective it is not -Lance |
Vertigo wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 12:48 |
And as for current featureset, there are plenty of differences between the two that are lacking in that document. For starters Nuendo now supports outboard hardware delay compensation, Cubase does not. That alone puts them miles apart in my book. -Lance |
Vertigo wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 20:48 |
Cubase supports ADC now? I'm behind the times, it's so hard to keep up |
ivan40 wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 12:05 |
... If you think think PT is a great editor, you need to look closely at Samplitude. I my opinion,based on experience, not'Fad", PT is a toy. Man, Look what applying fades does to the rest of the editing tools ,, that alone is a joke. On top of that, you had them selling the 888 as if it were better sounding than,,, I don't know,,,, something.. My Layla card sounds all DAY as good. Some people Pro tools bash because the company has done a horrid job. They want way way way to much money for hardware that is JUST OK,, not GREAT. and like I said, the editor is a bad joke that everyone just got used to. |
zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 05:48 |
and i've worked with cubase..... (had sx2 on my laptop).... most recently sx3.... completly awful for mix/mastering work imo.... the user interface is complety cluttered... there's alot of funtcions to make it easier but they would be redundant if the layout was more simple.... i use one window for all my pt work with only one plugin window open at a time.... |
minister wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 00:02 | ||
PT ain't perfect, it needs improvement for sure, but it isn't simply something that "people got used to". |
zetterstroem wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 02:25 |
i like to do my own latency compensation..... don't even use it (adc) on pt hd.... |
ivan40 wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 12:19 |
...Digi has done things as a company that are inexcusable. |
ivan40 wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 11:09 |
And here's the real problem. I don't like the company and have been trying to keep my money from them for a long time. So, a cheap 002 rig it is. I might not buy it I'm still not sure. It will depend on whether some up coming clients I might have really "insist". It will save me a couple seconds per day on their projects opening files, and cost me a lot more in relearning the software and all. Plus, I'll be sitting there knowing that The Devil is in my house!! :-} DOE@#$%^ |
zakco wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 20:18 | ||
Just out of curiosity, what type of music are you making? Are you using live multi-mic setups such as a drum kit or gtr/voc combination? |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 14:08 | ||
Most real pros aren't fools. |
ivan40 wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 14:20 |
As for the "PRO" thing goes, I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean anymore. Ivan......... |
rankus wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 19:12 | ||
Well Pro certainly ain't something that you can buy for $200 and plug in a Audiophile 24/96 sound card (slightly above a Creative Soundblaster) and use in your bedroom.... Sadly I AM talking about Pro Tools : M-Powered ... I feel that the new $200 home studio stuff with the "Pro" Tools name is an insult to all the pro's (me included) that have funded Digi over the years.... They appear to be taking the same approach as tobaco companies " ... lets hook em while there young and they will be with us for life".... They seem to be going after kids rather than the pro market these days.... Says something dosent it? |
Denny W. wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 00:26 |
If the rest of the market players would just come together with a good cross platform file format they could put a dent in the PT market |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 21:47 |
Please tell me another manufacturer's hardware/software product which would do the session I did last week: *56 separate inputs, all recording at one time (48/24), mostly analogue sources, but needing the capability of changing input to AES at any time. XLR inputs preferred, but TT would work. *56 separate outputs, all tracks playing back at one time. Mostly analogue outs, but AES capability required. XLR outs preferred, but TT would work. *Many, many plug-ins running, both while recording, and on playback. I know our PT rig can do it, because we did it. I think a MOTU might. Can anyone else provide such a system? If it exists at a better price point, I'd like to know about it. Roll it in, plug it into the XLR's, hit record... |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 20:47 |
Please tell me another manufacturer's hardware/software product which would do the session I did last week: *56 separate inputs, all recording at one time (48/24), mostly analogue sources, but needing the capability of changing input to AES at any time. XLR inputs preferred, but TT would work. *56 separate outputs, all tracks playing back at one time. Mostly analogue outs, but AES capability required. XLR outs preferred, but TT would work. *Many, many plug-ins running, both while recording, and on playback. I know our PT rig can do it, because we did it. I think a MOTU might. Can anyone else provide such a system? If it exists at a better price point, I'd like to know about it. Roll it in, plug it into the XLR's, hit record... |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 22:46 |
Thanks. Glad to know it can be done. [One tiny problem for us is that non-Apples aren't allowed to work in our building, but...] And it only would take THREE computers networked, hardware from a different manufacturer, without a definite on 28 stereo integrated AES I/O's... |
Denny W. wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 22:20 Wow. What were you tracking that took 56 inputs?[/quote |
A very large "live-in-the-studio" group...4 guitars, 2 keyboard players, each with a plethora of instrumentation, drums, bass, large percussion section, 3 BG singers, the artiste, etc. No overdubbing. One shot at getting it right. Professional tools required. |
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 03:47 |
Please tell me another manufacturer's hardware/software product which would do the session I did last week: *56 separate inputs, all recording at one time (48/24), mostly analogue sources, but needing the capability of changing input to AES at any time. XLR inputs preferred, but TT would work. *56 separate outputs, all tracks playing back at one time. Mostly analogue outs, but AES capability required. XLR outs preferred, but TT would work. *Many, many plug-ins running, both while recording, and on playback. I know our PT rig can do it, because we did it. I think a MOTU might. Can anyone else provide such a system? If it exists at a better price point, I'd like to know about it. Roll it in, plug it into the XLR's, hit record... |
robdarling@mail.com wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 07:01 |
But, on a dual-amd Windows machine, it could be done with a single RME Madi card and any host-based application with latency performance matching PT. |
compasspnt wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 18:47 |
Please tell me another manufacturer's hardware/software product which would do the session I did last week: *56 separate inputs, all recording at one time (48/24), mostly analogue sources, but needing the capability of changing input to AES at any time. XLR inputs preferred, but TT would work. *56 separate outputs, all tracks playing back at one time. Mostly analogue outs, but AES capability required. XLR outs preferred, but TT would work. *Many, many plug-ins running, both while recording, and on playback. I know our PT rig can do it, because we did it. I think a MOTU might. Can anyone else provide such a system? If it exists at a better price point, I'd like to know about it. Roll it in, plug it into the XLR's, hit record... |
rankus wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 16:12 | ||
Well Pro certainly ain't something that you can buy for $200 and plug in a Audiophile 24/96 sound card (slightly above a Creative Soundblaster) and use in your bedroom.... Sadly I AM talking about Pro Tools : M-Powered ... I feel that the new $200 home studio stuff with the "Pro" Tools name is an insult to all the pro's (me included) that have funded Digi over the years.... They appear to be taking the same approach as tobaco companies " ... lets hook em while there young and they will be with us for life".... They seem to be going after kids rather than the pro market these days.... Says something dosent it? |
blairl wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 17:04 | ||
My understanding has been that if I monitor through the native program with plug-ins running, latency will be an issue and there is no way around it. More powerful systems can offer lower latency to a certain extent, but nothing that can match a TDM system. As far as I know, this is still true today. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I would be interested to know. What would the latency be on the system you describe while monitoring with plug-ins? |
robdarling@mail.com wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 17:42 |
[ All digital systems, including Protools, incur latency. TDM systems, since they use their own cards to do the processing, have been able to keep their latency down to a couple of milliseconds. Until recently, host-based systems could not match this. But with the newest processors and chipsets, that is no longer the case. A host-based system can now do a major tracking session, with plugins, with latency and stability matching that of a PT TDM system. |
Fenris2 wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 02:34 |
Latency is really the ONLY drawback of Nuendo and other host-based systems, and it can be overcome if you have the latest CPU's. A host-based system can easily handle a session TWICE as large as the one Compasspoint described. When it comes to plug-ins, you can obtain a ridiculous plug-in count by adding 3 or 4 UAD-1's or Powercores, and networking a second PC via FX Teleport. No synchronization involved; all the plug-ins show up in your DAW on the main PC. My Nuendo system is 4 years old and cost me $8 grand. It was 96k-ready from the start. I recently added some $300 UAD-1 cards and a $500 PC from Dell to network to it, and now it has comparable power to the latest PT systems. No kidding. Compare this to PT users replacing their whole system for $20,000 every few years. Universal Audio makes AMAZING vintage emulation plug-ins, but they've stopped porting them to TDM for some unknown reason, maybe because Digidesign is strangely hostile toward UA. If you want to use them on PT, you'll have to get a UAD-1 card and use the VST-to-RTAS shell. Almost every TDM plug has a native equivalent, the only major exceptions being the Massenberg EQ and Eventide Clockworks. In addition, there are hundreds of freeware VST plugs that are sometimes brilliant ... convolution reverbs, envelope followers, transient designers, side-chain processors, stuff I actually use. 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) A lot of these features I use every day ... for instance, I love being able to run Strip Silence on a snare track, select all the hits at once, and adjust the fade-ins and fade-outs, or apply Normalize and Envelope to every hit, to attain perfect noise gating. Can't do it in PT. My metal band is experimenting with microtonal music ... since microtonal guitars have limited playability, we're doing it by applying digital micro-editing to normal guitars. It's an insanely complex process, which would be impractical in any DAW other than Nuendo. I'm constantly amazed at how flexible it is and how the programmers seem to have anticipated every possible situation. I will NEVER make a record on PT. I refuse to. It's too limiting and it would compromise my ability to get the sounds I get. That's my perspective. Since I run a one-man business where records are made entirely in-house, compatibility is not a big issue and this business model works for me. |
Fenris2 wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 18:34 |
My metal band is experimenting with microtonal music ... since microtonal guitars have limited playability, we're doing it by applying digital micro-editing to normal guitars. It's an insanely complex process, which would be impractical in any DAW other than Nuendo. |
Podgorny wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 05:53 |
My question for the person with the project requiring fifty-odd analog ins and outs is, what on earth are you doing tracking a project that size without a console? If you are tracking through a console, the issue of latency becomes moot. And IMHO, in a demo session where we are doing 12 songs in a double session, there isn't time to dick around with menus or plugins (or crashes). |
Podgorny wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 22:53 |
My question for the person with the project requiring fifty-odd analog ins and outs is, what on earth are you doing tracking a project that size without a console? |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 00:25 |
The Person |
punkest wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 03:42 |
Hey, I agree with most of what you said, but I understand that using a second CPU via Teleport results in a very noticeable latency, true?? I know so with the powercore and the UAD cause I have both, and with ADC there is no problem when mixing, but to record a big session monitoring through plugins you need at most 2 ms. so Teleport, UAD, Powercore and all that is out of the question, right?? Anybody talking about the new CPU's and chipsets can come up with an actual real world experience from a large session handled natively with 2 ms. latency or less with plugs?? Any opinions on the new G5 quad? Four 64 bit processors at 2.5 Ghz. 16 Gb expandable RAM. Cheers Hans Mues |
ivan40 wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 04:11 |
I'm pretty sure the latency on the network would be as low,or almost as low. It's coming right off the the PCI buss of the other machine. Really, like with my Dad's rig, it seem's the three machines networked are just one big computer. After it's set up, it just Rocks!! He's using big huge orchestral samples and all that. I don't know about the plugs coming in from the other machine but, sounds are coming out VERY fast. Ivan......... |
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 06:25 | ||
Yes, the person was tracking through a Neve V3 console. Many mics were through outboard pre's (API), and many through the Neve's. Monitoring was track-for-track through the Neve. The person never tracks without a console. Not seen herein addressed as yet is the hardware available for such a session on a platform such as Nuendo. XLR I/O "analogically," instantly convertible to XLR AES I/O. Is such hardware out there? Thank you, The Person |
ivan40 wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 08:41 |
I would still use two or three networked. It really does behave like one rig and building the computers is cheap. You wont run anything on the edge either. All the hardware to do this could fit in one double bay road case, {a big one} The AES thing MIGHT be a bit of a sticking point but, It's out there I'm, Um Sure? :-} |
robdarling@mail.com[/email] wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 06:37]
This is more trouble than it's worth and completely unfeasible in a for-hire studio environment. And if you already own a 480 and some Eventides, as any decent studio does, it's pretty unnecessary. The only things that a big studio has needed PT over host-based for have been: Low-latency use with plugins while recording Large track-count tracking with the same Reliability. Those things now exist in a host-based system. This hasn't been the case for long, but it is indeed the case at this time. The memory and pci performance of the the newest generation of motherboards can in fact exceed the speed of the dedicated audio dsp's on the market. As we move to quad dual-core motherboards in the next year, you will see machines with 20ghz processing for about $5000. That is insane. You're looking at the power of something like an HD4 in that. So break it down. Take away $2000 you would have to pay for a computer anyway (being so generous here- this machine will pound into the ground any $2000 mac.) That means you're getting a street $15000 system for $3000. |
blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 11:06 |
These are my understandings. Please correct me if I'm wrong. The buffer on native systems is now able to go as low as 64 samples in some cases. This is the 1.5 ms latency being talked about here. In addition to this buffer latency, you need to consider the inherent latency in AD and DA converters. Generally speaking, the better sounding the converter, the more latency involved due to the requirements in filtering. So for a decent converter you are looking at around 18 to 20 samples each way for a total of 36 to 40 additional samples of latency. This would put the monitoring latency at around 2 milliseconds. All of this is based on a 48k sampling rate. This is all good. Now here is where I start to question the latency. Even in speaking with the folks at Steinberg, they tell me that this 64 sample buffer is limited, even with fast multi-core computers. The more tracks you add and the more plug-ins you add, the more likely you will have to up the buffer to 128 samples. My questions is where is this limit? How many tracks with plug-ins can I have in the real world before I need to up the buffer and in turn bump the latency to around 3.5 milliseconds? |
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21 |
Regarding latency. Is'nt this a moot point if we are talking about "pro" studios that all have consoles? No latency issue when tracking through a console. In fact the console could be a Berhinger if all its used for is monotoring (using outboard quality pre's in the recording chain of course). |
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37 | ||
Certainly, if all you use is console pres. I generally go mic->pre->comp(if needed)->input. In this case, there is no way to avoid some latency. Even on a ProTools system there will be some. Actually, the only way would be to mult the output of the pre or compressor, but then when you have to punch-in you have to change your monitor path. |
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:38 | ||
Now you're talking about the real world. I've worked on some pretty powerful native systems. They all fall down on the latency issue while tracking. This is precisely the reason that RME uses TotalMix and MOTU uses CUEMIX...etc. A large tracking session would not be possible without some add on mixer, whether internal or external. In the near future we may see computers capable of low latency monitoring within the host application, but I haven't witnessed one yet. |
zetterstroem wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:42 | ||
as i said.... expect 10-20 ms when using uad cards or audio via ethernet.... uad has 512samples latency..... wormhole has 512+ each way..... unusable for monitoring..... |
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57 | ||||
Yes you record through the quality pre and mult that to the console.... No issues with punch in. I have used Neves while monitoring through a Berhinger..... No need to use the console pre's at all.! 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 record all day, every day, with the setup I mentioned above,,,, no latency no issues of any kind... works exactly the same as a tape machine studio... Let the "tape" run and hit the record button (mouse) when you want to punch..... |
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21 |
Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT. |
Dennis Allen Cupp wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 14:43 |
Terry, I hope you dont mind that i am using an arsenal of Lucas Limiters and EQ's on my PC Nuendo system...... |
Quote: |
I think Steinbergs marketing team has been a sleep. They have the toys and the tools to really rival PT, i just dont think they have done a decent job. |
Quote: |
also, terry, your old place of employment on madison avenue is basically giving studio time away....thats the word on the street. |
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37 | ||
are you sure about that? |
robdarling@mail.com[/email] wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 09:05]Sorry to be a ballbuster, Ivan. I'm sure you mean well, but reading all the way through a thread and paying attention to what someone is saying when you answer a question in a thread is a courtesy you should exercise. The discussion is how to use native systems in a full tracking environment with plugins in the same way PT can. 512 is not at all useful in a tracking environment. And "shottin in the dark" is not going to make people happy in a 56 channel recording date. And "I don't know that much about it" isn't very useful. Don't take this personally- this should be a public sticky. The fact is that this site is no different from being in the studio. Before you talk, figure out who you are talking to. Go do a search a bit and find out who compasspnt, the person asking the question you are answering, is. You will maybe want to think twice before giving a half-cocked answer to something you don't know much about. Alright, rant over. I just want this place to feel like a real studio, not a bunch of guys at home playing with toys. The PSW forums are the last place that maintain this level of professionalism and I want to keep it that way. |
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. |
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. ..... |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:48 | ||
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. |
Quote: |
PS: Tim please accept my appologies for my comments earlier... It was "BC" (Before Coffee).... All the best... respect. |
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... |
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) |
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... |
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) |
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.) |
blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:12 | ||
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. |
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. "Visual effects" are useless and slow down the interface. |
zetterstroem wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 06:47 |
protools sounded more precise and analytical.... nuendo sounded a bit smeared in the top end |
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:38 |
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!! |
ruberbullet |
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. " |
henchman wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 01:17 | ||
Pt's isn't sample accurate. |
zetterstroem wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 14:47 |
they sound different..... protools sounded more precise and analytical.... nuendo sounded a bit smeared in the top end.... a bit plastic-like.... nice on some metal tracks.... but all in all protools sounded more "correct"..... if this is due to floating vs. fixed point i don't know.... btw.... hate the mixer layout in nuendo.... |
Blenn wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 10:48 |
...Below is a list of well respected engineers, artists, producers etc who all use Nuendo. I dont see any of them complaining of smearing. Utter rubbish!... |
Blenn wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 17:48 | ||
This is my first post here on these forums. Sorry to be negative on my first post. But in a pro community such as this I am shocked to hear such nonesense! Nuendo sounds nothing at all resembling smeared. Are you sure you are not getting converter smear mixed up here. Nuendo's summing is first rate. One of the best DAW summing I've heard. |
Pier Giacalone wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 09:00 |
Nuendo is different from Cubase. For starters, Cubase does not have the same crossfade editor that Nuendo has. Nuendo's crossfade editor is not as good as Sonic Solutions or Sequoia, but it's a lot better than PT. |
Quote: |
Nuendo 3.2 features a full Control Room section that provides up to four separate Studio outputs, extra Mix, Headphone and Control Room busses as well as configurable Input Returns and user definable Monitor Setups. Each Nuendo audio, group, FX return and VSTi channel now includes new Studio Sends allowing each signal to be routed to any of the four Studios. The integrated talkback functionality enables engineers and producers to speak directly to musicians, narrators or other performers in any of the studios, automatic dimming and separate Talkback levels are also provided. Should playback from external sources such as DAT, Tape or CD be required for a performer, up to six playback inputs can be instantly selected and routed to any Studio, Track, Headphone or Control Room bus. User definable Monitor Configurations can be setup for quick changing of monitoring setups and extensive fold-down and solo operations such as "Rear to Front" or "Solo to Center" grant easy audition of compatibility on the output side. The above Control Room features are already integrated into the WK Audio ID Controller, a custom-made, expandable editing and mixing surface that has been engineered especially for use with Nuendo 3. The update to Nuendo 3.2 also expands the functionality available through the EuCon protocol, which integrates Nuendo directly into editing and mixing environments based around the renowned Euphonix MC and System 5-MC products. Nuendo 3.2 now adds support for the optional dual automated joysticks, in turn allowing direct control of the Nuendo surround panner through both of these advanced digital control surfaces. |
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. |
blueboy wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 23:50 | ||
Cubase SX has wide variety of fade in/out curves to choose from in the crossfade dialog whereas Nuendo has an Advanced Crossfade Editor that allows you to "fine tune" your fades using sliders and a click and drag display. They both have equal gain and power options, are calculated in real-time, and also let you save your crossfades as presets. Whether the "fine tune" capability is important to you is obviously dependent on your particular needs, but Steinberg seems to feel that this level of control has more value for post production. |
henchman wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 23:57 |
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. |
henchman wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 22:57 | ||
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 |
timrob wrote on Wed, 02 November 2005 15:12 |
BTW, 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. |
Midi_Glider wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 05:39 | ||
Well, Nuendo (and Cubase) do that quite nicely, actually. Best, midi. |
Midi_Glider wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 07:39 | ||
Well, Nuendo (and Cubase) do that quite nicely, actually. Best, midi. |
ruberbullet wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 12:55 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In Fact...I always have my Nuendo set to prerecord of 30 sec on all record enabled tracks...that means that I am ALWAYS in record if the talent sholud come up with something le extrordinar Post by: Tidewater on November 06, 2005, 04:47:11 AM Thumbs down. M Post by: timrob on November 06, 2005, 10:55:40 AM
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, Post by: Tidewater on November 06, 2005, 10:59:42 AM (and joking.. but that's ok ) 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 Post by: timrob on November 06, 2005, 11:45:51 AM
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, Post by: KyroJoe on November 06, 2005, 01:02:32 PM 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 ------- Post by: ruberbullet on November 06, 2005, 01:40:03 PM 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... Post by: John Ivan on November 06, 2005, 02:46:36 PM
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. Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 06, 2005, 03:09:46 PM 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 ? Post by: Jeff4h on November 07, 2005, 10:37:40 AM Post by: zetterstroem on November 10, 2005, 04:47:33 PM Post by: funkcity on November 11, 2005, 01:18:44 AM 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. ********************************
Post by: Deep White on November 12, 2005, 01:02:28 AM 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? Post by: compasspnt on November 12, 2005, 08:56:43 AM
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. Post by: wireline on November 12, 2005, 10:12:41 AM
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.,.. Post by: Deep White on November 12, 2005, 01:21:37 PM
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. Post by: pipelineaudio on November 12, 2005, 01:48:07 PM
Vegas did this from version 1 (1998 ? ) In addition to other pro tools come lately features like 192khz Post by: twilightsong on November 12, 2005, 03:26:24 PM Then, quality A/D Then decent mic's and mic pre I know this pretty basic opinion... I just find it very hard to believe that any DAW sounds noticeably "better" than any other. I think our ears are playing tricks on us. Let's face it: Pro Tools is the industry standard because: 1. It was first and has established whatever inertia comes from deep, prolonged market penetration 2. it's always been relatively stable and reliable; only recently has native app's become so 3. There's that unquantifiable but very impactful aspect of name recognition, IOW, a professional studio needs to maintain a certain level of pro credibility by also having Pro Tools, simply because all the others do... it's basic human nature Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 12, 2005, 05:24:24 PM Post by: zetterstroem on November 12, 2005, 06:49:56 PM Post by: Ronny on November 13, 2005, 02:55:19 AM
If you have to ask, you are better off sticking with what you have. Post by: Bryson on November 13, 2005, 05:53:04 AM
That ruled! Post by: Bill B on November 13, 2005, 07:23:43 AM Post by: Ronny on November 13, 2005, 12:29:21 PM Destructive Audio Whacker Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 13, 2005, 12:43:58 PM No seriously what the does it mean ? Post by: rankus on November 13, 2005, 01:57:07 PM Digital Audio Workstation Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 14, 2005, 10:05:11 AM Post by: Ronny on November 14, 2005, 04:24:02 PM
I see you are serious. I thought that you were kidding. Digital Audio Workstation can mean a PC or Mac that is configured primarily for audio, or it can also pertain to stand alone workstations that don't incorporate Win and Apple apps, but use proprietary linear formats. Post by: henchman on November 16, 2005, 02:58:30 AM
Both one and 2 are, in fact, wrong. Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 17, 2005, 12:57:28 PM
Thanks for the explanation. I work with all of the above just never heard them called Daws before. I guess digital desks with their own software would come under that umbrella too. We use a Mackie digital desk which seems to do a nice job. Post by: gar-p on November 25, 2005, 04:59:38 PM That crap thing sound awfull ! Costs a lot ! Is (and always was !) UNSTABLE ! I have numerous examples of sessions where i had to leave the mac open because the session was simply impossible to save ! The TDM multiplexing DSP sh%t leads to generous amounts of jitter ... signal is "blured" dynamic is poor and ok ... it's better with rtas ... but it is far from the quality achieved by Cubase/Nuendo ! and i'm not talking of those bloody bounces ! And the buffer settings ( where is the "real" sound ?) Ha ha ha ! I'm laughing but when you 've bought your mix3 and apogee harware and all sh%$t coming around¨and you see how poor this thing is sounding ... you can think that you've been stolen ! That's my feel ! Digidesign S%cks ! I'm not using tons of plugs ... i've bought a UAD dsp (NOT multiplexed !) that sounds ok for me ... and i NEVER NEVER NEVER mix in the box ! Always summing in the analog domain with my (home made) 16 tracks API mixer ... in this case , and with very decent converters (RME, AD8000 ... everything with recent asahi kasei's chips in fact !) i can achieve the "analog feel " sound i was always dreamin' about with this simple nuendo software ! Nuendo is stable, the sound of the tracks is not changing when you reorganize them in the time line ... ( try it with PT and listen carefully !!) briefly Nuendo really looks like a "pro tool" when protools looks like "proto" ... Ok i'm living in France !( yes ! this little country living in the middle age and lost in the middle of nowhere !) never look at MTV or even the TV (i don't have one since one year !) Just playing recording and producing music (http://mastabasta.free.fr) (http://colourbox.free.fr) very far from the music business ! I just say loud what a lot are thinking in silence ! Post by: cerberus on November 25, 2005, 08:08:33 PM
I think it would change if you used enough tracks, I hear a small difference sometimes when I bus to subgroups on Steinberg's mixer, but I think it is too small a discrepancy to worry about. Were one to try and mix 1000 tracks, I think track order would matter on any mixer design. It does not help the argument to suggest that any kind of summing can be "perfect". Both electron flow and math have their anomalies: Two electrons cannot occupy the same space at the same time,... and ... Simple arithmetic such as dividing 3 by 1 returns values that need to be rounded. cerberus Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 26, 2005, 07:39:52 AM
3 divided by 1 equals exactly 3. On the other hand 1 divided by 3 equals .33333... I think that was what you meant to say. gar-p should take a moment and do the blind listening test on Fletcher's board. He should be able to identify the Pro Tools file immediately. Why not give it a try??? Steve Post by: compasspnt on November 26, 2005, 10:21:10 AM
Yes, please enlighten us! There is such a non-consensus as it is from so many "novices," that we need a Protools expert to sort it out. It's a shame they didn't also do a Cubase version so we could all hear a good sounding dig file. Post by: Level on November 26, 2005, 10:37:31 AM Post by: gar-p on November 26, 2005, 11:40:49 AM I totally agree with the approach of festivalstudios ... what about a test cubase/nuendo/protools vs properly aligned Studer a800 running quantegy tape at 500 or 600 nweber without noise reduction ? ... I just wanted to say that if you are discussing so long comparing a system with another that costs a fraction of the first ... and if the sound of the second IS NOT a fraction of the first ... there is no need to compare in my opinion ... The main reason why i "hate" protools is that this software is too "far" from a musical approach ... i don't have a commercial studio : i'm producing music ... and for that job no need to say that one of those two sofwares is better than the other ! During my little carreer i've seen so many nonsenses become standards that i'm now refusing to "fight" with other people on that subject ... let's say that all my words are dicted my what i founded pleasent "to my ears" and not more ... My studio is full of gear i've collected during my life as "free lance ingeneer" and that i have saved from garbage, modular analog synths , Oberheim Moogs or P5's that people "gave" me during the 80's because they were just "too crap" beside their brand new DX7 , D50 or Korg M1 ! Same way for the studio where i was assitant ... they throw away their old API and 24 tracks Studer for a SAJE ULN with 3324 Sony !! Some of the 550a's and a huge buch of spare 2520 and trannys are still powered in my studio and i can't imagine a session without ! And what about the old tube or ribbon mics i collected same way during same period when everyone was talking about U87 or akg 414 tls .... and all those vintage pre's and those good old UREI's ha ha ha ! I've seen those "standards" moving and moving so many times and always with a good "reason" or very interesting technological arguments that i'm sure you're all right !!! Pro Tools is far better than Nuendo that is far better than pro tools ... did anyone listen to my tracks (link is up) ? Or we are maybe not talking about sound ? Post by: gar-p on November 26, 2005, 11:45:42 AM regards ! Post by: compasspnt on November 26, 2005, 01:27:40 PM
What an amazing, novel approach! How did they ever think of that? Pascal, you are wise to agree with such an original idea.
I already do this exact test many times a year.
I do have a commercial studio; and guess what...I'm producing music, too. Saying that any of the platforms is too far from a "musical approach" is patently absurd.
You know what? Some of us weren't so stupid as to "throw away" great old gear. But some of us also bought some of those awful new U87's, and some of us also bought that awful Protools, and some of us use all of it, new and old together, to make music.
I did listen. And I'm talking about sound too, Pascal. Post by: Level on November 26, 2005, 03:01:09 PM Rick always approaches any situation from a Practical aspect and we all know "that sound" that has been recognized as "in the pocket" Yes, I hope others adopt the approach because their really are no rules how we connect and use the equipment..as long as we follow common sense and don't go "outside" of the limitations of the mediums. (i/e the seriously misunderstood level issues in digital) This approach has been going on for quite a while. A few years for certain (at least how I have used and experienced it) Post by: gar-p on November 26, 2005, 03:10:18 PM 1 . The festivalstudio solution is not a newbie ... i use it for years ... are you doing different way at compasss ? If no ... i don't really understand your answer ... a bit agressive ! 2. Next time you are doing such interesting tests you can at least give your opinion ... if mine seems to have poor interest to your eyes maybe your's can be precious for some lamers like me ! 3. A commercial studio producing music ? Why ? Not enough clients ? Not enough earnings from your productions ? (i'm kidding ! ) Protools is real crap for MIDI (known !) Is unable to print a score (true !) Has no "Structure" tools allowing to arrange the song in different manners without effort , it doesn't time strech in real time ( not everyday use but very creative function ... use it an never leave it!) so 3 arguments to say that PT is miles away from the others (cubase/DP/Logicaudio/samplitude v8 etc ...) and definetly not a musical orientated tool ! 4 . You kept your old gear ... good boy ! I suggest to keep your PT also ( Again i'm kidding ! ) You searched me ! I'm there ! 5. I just asked me why i'm responding to such vacuity ... and why such big studio owners can be angry against a poor boy like me ... I DON'T LIKE PROTOOLS is it a crime ? Go to your 1st answer : my point of view is not new , i'm not the only one to hate it !!! regards ps : Sorry , i've NOTHING against YOU ... Maybe Are you distributing PT? Post by: compasspnt on November 26, 2005, 10:41:31 PM Post by: Bill B on November 26, 2005, 11:10:09 PM Post by: gar-p on November 27, 2005, 01:43:32 AM When i posted there i thought i founded open minded persons , open to discuss on a specific subject able to think by themselves ... I just find angry people complaining that George is not there to arbiter, i just hope that someone enough advertised (as he is ...) will stay away of this stupid fight !... The question on this thread was clearly : nuendo vs Protools I have both ... do you ? I use both ( and others ... ) do you ? So i thought i could give my opinion ... i did ! Not yours ? Just explain why and please argue something ! Maybe your position of "big studio" owner let you think that there is no need to argue in front of me ... believe me i'm respectful of every living parcel of this planet , including you ! But your words are the same i could hear on the digidesign stand at every show i 've seen ! I expected more from someone "in da biz" ... i expected something more "sharp" ... I'm in DAW's since 1989 first on a fairlight III (the famous R page ... ) and shortly after on a NED 9600 with 16 Tracks direct to disk on of the most reliable "close" systems ever made... (not mines of course ...) I bought my first pro tools (version II) in 1995 ... with IIfx Macintosh under system 7 this expensive 4 track system (20 000 dollars !) very innovative at this time , NEVER worked properly ... it allows me to get some jobs but ALL the tracks and work i really did was with a synchronized ATARI falcon running cubase Audio i got at the same time for 10 times less !!! I pass the looooooooong phone calls with a non existing on line support ... the "never work" updates ... the expensive options ... in fact i only kept the mac for CD burning and premastering with SDII ... and it did it well ... i still have the whole hardware somewhere (the 442's, a samplecell which is a great product !! ) maybe there will be a fashion in the future for vintage DAW's ! I went to the compass point site ... great Studio ! ... great location ! Just hope you are more "welcome" with your customers than with me ! All apologies if you think i've been unpleasent ... i'm usually a very cool person ! ... And i promise ... will never post on this thread again ! Post by: Giovanni Speranza on November 28, 2005, 04:28:09 AM Post by: presto on November 28, 2005, 10:15:42 AM
Hi, I was just wondering if you could give some more information regarding exactly what you were tracking? just vocals? some instruments too? You've obviously gone to a great deal of effort to conduct your test, but don't you need to take into account the quite real variable of the performance each time? (including small variations in mic position etc..) I'm not convinced that that you have actually narrowed the variables down to just the software. Thanks Post by: sonidoricoes on January 16, 2006, 09:49:49 PM Some people says cubase meter is 3.01 dbfs (rms) lower on absolute level vs pt... anyone can confirm this? Post by: sonidoricoes on January 16, 2006, 10:11:10 PM any aid or explanation received good Post by: mark fassett on January 17, 2006, 03:08:28 AM
Number 1 IS incorrect. There were options before PT... however, PT gained acceptance because of a lower price point and good marketing. I still like working in it fine. I'm not that picky, it's just a tool. Number 2 is sort of correct. Native apps have become more reliable, but so has Pro Tools. But many native apps had further to go.. not necessarily because they were unreliable, but because the more complex the setups have always been... WAY more interfaces, motherboards, etc. to support,, while PT is more limited and thus more easily tested. Yes, I too understand why George doesn't live here anymore. I wish he still did. Post by: Augustine Leudar on January 17, 2006, 07:52:37 AM Well lets hope it does so but it certainly answered any queries in my mind and a lot of interesting information and technical data was proffered which I did not know beforehand. I cannot understand people who get snotty about such debates though. As long as it doesnt descend onto a personal level (platform hooliganism ) I believe such debates are useful to consumers looking to make investment decisions on which platform to buy and if a company grows complacent it will maybe keep them on their toes if the grapevine is fully functional and there are "industry read" discussions about their shortcomings and good alternatives to their product. Anyway thanks to those who made useful and informed contributions to the thread. Post by: Glenn Bucci on January 18, 2006, 01:34:12 PM I went through several pages of this thread and found it interesting that there was not much talk on power. Pro Tools with their DSP cards allow you to have more plug ins open at once (especially at 88 or 96.. I won't even talk about 192) compared to using Nuendo/Cubase. The good news is the new Mac G5's have a lot of power and as some PC's with their dual processors. The other good news is with UAD, and Powercore cards, you can very good plug ins that don't crush your CPU. (To record at 88 or 96, you need at least 3 cards in your computer to have enough power). Waves also came out with their new boxes for extra power. This is very helpful when you want to use their convolution reverbs at high sample rates. My Pent IV 2.8 with 2 gigs' of ram has one convol reverb at 88 go to around 45%. Having one of these boxes would be great and still a lot cheaper even when you buty it and several UAD cards compared to getting PT HD. The Waves and other plug ins sound pretty much the same with any DAW that you use them with. Nuendo/Cubase also has a Score program which PT lacks, as well as much better midi over PT. Post by: Pingu on January 22, 2006, 12:59:25 AM This pisses me off so much. Why cant you simply raise the volume and have all the automation go with it, or have the option to be able to select this. I know Sonar does this. Maybe PT 7 allows this im not sure but something has to be done about it. Post by: maxim on January 22, 2006, 08:59:22 AM boy oh boy terry wrote: "I would say that 95% of ALL of our clients use only Protools. The rest have used Logic on Digidesign hardware, except one time a MOTU, and twice RADAR. These are people who can afford anything they want. There is a reason for this." fwiw, 95% of people in the world eat at macdonalds and use wintel the reason: convenience popularity doesn't equal quality, as the last elections results in the usa and australia demonstrate btw, i understand that as a commercial studio owner you'd be mad to get anything other than pt at this stage also, most experienced engineers will use more than just one software unless they're getting paid to say otherwise (and even then, i doubt it) Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on January 24, 2006, 07:18:05 PM
Trim automation has been a Pro Tools TDM feature for years. Rail Post by: Pingu on January 26, 2006, 08:44:15 AM
Yes but this feature is not in Le and is it not a plugin. Surely they can come up with a more econmic means of doing this. PT prides themselves on Automation, they should have all the bases covered. Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on January 26, 2006, 01:36:30 PM Rail Post by: malice on January 26, 2006, 01:52:00 PM malice Post by: blairl on January 26, 2006, 05:43:49 PM
There is a "trim" plug-in, but this is not the same as the "trim automation" command. TDM or HD systems have a trim automation command. Post by: Pingu on February 04, 2006, 05:40:38 PM There must be a trim plugin free ware or something. Post by: Ozzy on February 07, 2006, 03:42:16 PM Post by: Tapani Rauha on February 11, 2006, 10:31:00 AM Most plugins have a volume/gain control. Does that help? Post by: Pingu on February 11, 2006, 06:32:37 PM
I dont think it does as it can change the charateristics of your settings on the plug. Plus some are gain increase not volume increase. But yes you can implement a multimono trim so its all good. Post by: Ronny on February 12, 2006, 06:45:44 AM
Can you explain what you mean by the differences between gain and volume increase? Post by: Pingu on February 12, 2006, 09:18:57 AM
Yes i should have been more specific sorry guys. And off the top of my head i cant Ronny and i didnt explain myself well enough. He proposed that i could use the plugins gain/volume to alter the volume and i didnt like the sound of that option. I know you are capable of explaing why this should or should not be done. And while your at it Ronny can you also explain the difference between gain and volume. Cheers Post by: Ronny on February 12, 2006, 03:31:09 PM There may be a technical difference between gain and volume, but I'm not aware of it in this context. Post by: UnderTow on February 17, 2006, 09:31:52 PM
This has probably been answered a long time ago but I am slowly getting through this thread so here is one possible setup: * 1 x quad dual-core AMD PC with the right ram and harddisk. This gives you enough power to run 200 tracks at 64 samples of latency and a bucket full of plugins. Cost? 6000 Euro. * 2 x Sydec Mixpander cards ===> 128 inputs + 128 outputs in MADI/ADAT/TDIF/AES/EBU/AnalogueXLR or a mix of these. 18 DSP chips giving you 2x128 channel digital real-time mixer with zero latency. Enough processing power to run 20 TC Reverbs, 120 dynamics processors (gate/expander/compressor/limiter), 600 bands of fully parametric EQ, 12 TC Dynamizers and 60 delay based effects simultaneously with zero latency. Cost of these two cards + I/O? 5990 Euro. My choice of DAW: (You could use Nuendo of course) * Sonar 5 to give you full 64 bit floating point signal path (within the application) and many other advantages over PT like the universal buss architecture which beats Nuendo and ProTools routing. Cost? 500 Euro or less. (The Mixpander cards support ASIO, MME, WDM, GSIF2 and DWAVE so you can use any software with it. (Cubase/Nuendo/Sonar/SAW Studio whatever). Cost so far? 12500 Euro. To put things into perspective, you need at least 4 192 I/O cards for the I/O for the above mentioned project. List price 16000$. An HD3 system is listed at 14000$ so that is allready 30000$ for PT and you need to factor in a PC. As we have so much change left over compared to a PT rig, we can throw in a Magma box with a few PowerCores and UAD-1s into our setup for good measure and access to some nice plugins not available in native format. We can also throw in the entire Waves suite, the entire Voxengo suite, Algorithimx, URS and Sonalkis plugins. This give you MUCH MORE processing power than any PT rig . If somehow this isn't enough, the quad dual core AMD can be expanded with 4 more dual-core processors on a daughter board. You can also add more mixpander cards. Imagine the upgrade path we are talking about... All this talk of PDC reminds me that CakeWalk started implementing automatic plug-in delay compensation in '97. More than 8 years later and it still isn't in PT LE and isn't automatic in PT HD... ProTools is very far from being the most powerfull solution at any price point let alone at a good price. Alistair (Slightly edited) Post by: UnderTow on February 18, 2006, 12:26:16 PM
That might be because in Nuendo/SX conversions from float to int are truncated (no dither). I suggest Sonar for better sound quality. It doesn't truncate from float to int. (It does at present truncate from double (64 bit) to int but that is recognised by CakeWalk and will be fixed in the next point update). Alistair Post by: UnderTow on February 18, 2006, 12:45:48 PM
Silence by analysing the file or silence on your monitors? Ok, try this: Create a 32 bit -6 dB 1Khz sine wave in an App like Audition. Import into Nuendo. Turn on UV22 dither for good measure. Export file to 16 bit. Analyze the output file. You will see harmonic distortion because of the truncation errors. (I havn't tried this in Nuendo 3 so they might have fixed this since v2). Alistair Post by: Ronny on February 18, 2006, 03:49:40 PM Why are you getting visible truncation errors when you are dithering the reduction? Post by: UnderTow on February 18, 2006, 05:15:30 PM
To my understanding, the conversion should be rounded and not truncated. In other words, it is code error or using the wrong libraries/function calls. The whole point of this little test is to show that it isn't doing what one expects (properly dithering the LSB). Try it. You should see the harmonics on analysis. Alistair Edit: Btw, I don't really think this error is audible but it makes me question wether nulling mixes in Nuendo with mixes in PT really would result in total silence i.e. a file with only zeros. |