R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Reason In Audio => Topic started by: Augustine Leudar on October 21, 2005, 05:32:10 PM

Title: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on October 21, 2005, 05:32:10 PM
Surely at the end of the day its all just ones and zeros so does it make any difference ?
The only advantage I can see in pro tools is finding jobs.
So to anyone really knows the technical side of this (as opposed to opinions grounded in product propaganda and snobbery rather than technical facts and experience).
Ive noticed people always say the one they use is better so id be interested in unbiased or objective opinions.
So which is better ?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Vertigo on October 21, 2005, 05:46:01 PM
Augustine Leudar wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 17:32

The only advantage I can see in pro tools is finding jobs.



You pretty much answered your own question. They both do the same thing (more or less). The biggest advantage of Nuendo is price point, and this includes plug-ins - TDM are generally twice the price of Native.

-Lance
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Phil on October 21, 2005, 06:04:45 PM
Pro Tools is more widely used among professional studios, and that makes it somewhat of a de facto standard. When some of your work is done in a home facility, it's nice to be able to take a disk with the session data into a PT studio, and start in with vocal backgrounds, string overdubs, brass section, or whatever you need the extra real estate for. It's like the old days when you hauled your 2 inch from studio to studio, except the CD/DVD is much lighter.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on October 21, 2005, 06:07:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jack Schitt on October 21, 2005, 06:25:21 PM
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.


Technically, because they were the first to arrive with a pro level app. They have made boat loads from being the first. Not unlike MS vs mac.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on October 21, 2005, 06:33:29 PM
But as things stand now is there any difference in sound quality and features between the two ?
ie floats, latency etc
Ive noticed that because protools is industry standards people just assume its better. I would question that.
as for mac versus pc thats another tin of worms.....
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 21, 2005, 06:33:47 PM
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,
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ged Leitch on October 21, 2005, 06:34:04 PM
I actually find Tools easier to use over Cubasevst/sx, especially automation and mixing etc.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 21, 2005, 07:55:11 PM
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,



Exactly....this is really all you need to know...

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on October 21, 2005, 09:34:29 PM
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,


Great ! I was hoping for someone who uses both to respond. Thanks.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 22, 2005, 01:35:49 PM


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...

Nuendo is my platform of choice, and we have both a Pro Tools room and Nuendo, so I could use PT if I realy wanted..... But don't
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 22, 2005, 02:10:15 PM
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...




In what way are they different? Doen't it amount to the same thing?

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 22, 2005, 02:55:55 PM
timrob wrote on Sat, 22 October 2005 11:10

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...




In what way are they different? Doen't it amount to the same thing?




Very slight differences...

ADC delay is commonly used to interface with outboard effects (corrects for hardware latency) where as PDC compensates for pluggin latency only....

ADC also compensates for pluggins, so my point may be moot....

The latest version of Nuendo will also do ADC as well as PDC....The cheaper versions of Pro Tools  dont have PDC? (Better check this)...

In the end its probably just semantics, because the results are the same....

Sorry for my confusion... it's early over here...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 22, 2005, 03:16:09 PM
And I guess if you want to get technical....

Cubase/Nuendo is 32 bit Floating Point

ProTools is 48 bit Fixed Point

ProTools LE/M-Powered is 32 bit Floating Point

.........................................................

This link talks about 32 bit Floating Point in Cubase/Nuendo:

 http://service.steinberg.net/knowledge_pro.nsf/show/32bit_fl oating_point

This thread covers ProTools 48 bit Fixed Point:

 http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/7645/11771/?SQ= 33e0c71997f25b742495fd974f01d2dc

Regards,

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 23, 2005, 09:47:27 AM
they sound different.....

listened to some cd's i grabbed.... then i played back the files in both protools and nuendo..... (through the same ouput and with the same volume of course)..... *

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....

* no ronny... it was not a blind test... although i closed my eyes sometimes Smile
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 23, 2005, 10:22:03 AM
Interesting, Rune.

I have never used Nuendo, so I cannot comment intelligently at all, but I have always wondered how much of the "'X' Platform is so much better" talk is based upon antidisestablishmentarianism, and/or a misuse of level-causing-harsh-clips, rather than actual comparison.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Bob Olhsson on October 23, 2005, 11:00:06 AM
An awful lot of seasoned pros have been holding digi's feet to the fire for over 10 years to get the tech end right. Floating point can be (but isn't always) more idiot-proof but I'm not convinced anything sounds better provided the current version of PT is used intelligently.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: stevieeastend on October 23, 2005, 11:21:46 AM
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.... .





I can second that. In terms of sound I am very happy with my DP though...

cheers
steveeastend
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jack Schitt on October 23, 2005, 11:28:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: danickstr on October 23, 2005, 11:40:37 AM
has anyone ever posted soundbites of 24 tracks mixed and recorded on both systems simultaneously?  might help.  maybe Lynn at 3daudio did this.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 23, 2005, 01:54:33 PM
Yeah, It seems to me that all the big DAW folks sound pretty darn good in the right hands. I've had to learn how to use the stuff and I still like 2" better but, a good engineer can get really good results from mostly all this stuff now.

It sure is a different way of working though, at least for me it has been.

I've heard engineers get jaw dropping results from just about anything :-} It's still about people. Thankfully.

Ivan........
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 23, 2005, 02:41:40 PM
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.


pretty hard to do.... smpte isn't exactly sample accurate..... but maybe...

but anyway i consider it redundant..... imo it's up to the techheads to prove if there's NOT a difference.... i'm not in doubt....  Very Happy

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 23, 2005, 03:11:45 PM


Nuendo sounds warmer and more "analog" to my ears... it's my fav...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 23, 2005, 03:27:18 PM
What I thought was really interesting is that I played the same 32 tracks with no gain adjustments (other than insuring the master was not clipping) in both Cubase SX and ProTools LE and heard distinct differences.

They are both 32 bit floating point (Cubase's mix engine is identical to Nuendo), so I had assumed any sound differences would be negligible (i.e. no 32 floating versus 48 fixed issues).

The difference I heard was not so much in quality of sound, but that the "relative levels" had changed. The vocal track for example was clearly audible in ProTools, whereas in Cubase it was much lower. The only adjustments made were mono tracks that were intended to be stereo were panned hard left and right (in both programs).

No plug-ins, no individual track volume adjustments, actually I don't think I had to make a master gain adjustment either, and everything was going through the same converters. The only thing I could think of that was different was that Cubase was using the ASIO drivers to access the Converters whereas ProTools was being sent via 24 bit SPDIF to the converters. Obviously not a scientific study, but I couldn't figure out what would cause such a dramatic difference, so I eventually gave up. I thought math was math. Am I missing something painfully obvious?

There only other comment I would make is that when mixing tracks, ProTools LE would always sound like everything was congested in the high mids, making it difficult to differentiate individual instruments compared to Cubase. It's kind of like what Waves L2 does to a mix. It sounds more exciting (almost a little more harsh), but Cubase sounds like it has a more accurate representation throughout the dynamic range. You don't have to raise levels as much to hear certain instruments in Cubase, you can leave them lower in the mix and still hear them.

I've read many similar comments but I'm willing to chalk it all up to user error if there is solid evidence that the math is identical.

In the end, the direct comparison really doesn't matter because the user will use the different tools to create a similar end result.

I'd just like to know where I screwed up in my simple head to head comparison. I'm willing to look like a fool...any ideas?

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jack Schitt on October 23, 2005, 03:33:55 PM
They are using different engines so it certainly follows there could be differences. Not sure they matter though. Various preamps all sound differnt and are considered good. Its not really an either / or kind of thing.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 23, 2005, 03:54:22 PM
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. As Denny mentioned, they are using different engines so, That I can see making a Diff''...

Interesting......

Ivan..........
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: stevieeastend on October 23, 2005, 04:08:45 PM
ivan40 wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 18:54




....a good engineer can get really good results from mostly all this stuff now.




This almost always comes to my mind when I hear people complain about SSL. This desk definetely does what you want/can...

cheers
steveeastend
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 23, 2005, 04:15:02 PM


Ivan beat me to it.  It could be the pan law settings...


But, I do agree that in general PT has a harsher upper mids to my ears as well.  My primary reason for using Nuendo is just that: Pro Tools sounds harsh to my ears (kind like an L2)

We have both at my studio so I hear the differences all day...

Got a mastering session back a while ago that I had insisted on all analog path and it came back sounding like Pro Tools to my ears ., So a peak into the files properties and sure enough it was generated by Pro Tools.... The mastering engineer still dosent believe that I could HEAR the difference....  needless to say mastering is going somewhere else these days....
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 23, 2005, 05:31:58 PM
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.


Good point. That would be a "painfully obvious" thing that I probably didn't check, and explain the relative level shift in a center panned vocal track.

Cubase SX defaults to "equal power" I believe, but it would have had to have been set to -6db to make as much difference as I heard.

Is it adjustable in ProTools LE? I'm far less familiar with ProTools LE as I have an older version tied to an AMIII card that I use mainly to "translate" projects to Cubase, and I don't currently have it installed on a computer, so maybe I screwed up there.

I never change the default Cubase project settings other than sample rate and bit depth but perhaps I did. I'll have to check it out and try it again.

Actually I'm probably going to get ProTools 7 M-Powered when it comes out to use with an old m-audio delta66 card just so I can get up to speed on ProTools and make a more current comparison.

Thanks.

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 23, 2005, 07:21:42 PM
I'm thinking about an 002 rig that I can put on a network? It looks like I might "need" to have P-T for some up coming stuff. I'm not a big fan but, hey, just another tool., { see, Digi just loves that shit. I don't like it,, but NEED it!!   DOE #$%^&}

Ivan...................
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 24, 2005, 11:54:50 AM
Long time user of both platforms. Still own both (HD2 and Nuendo 3 with 3 firefaces, 3 uad, 3 poco.)

I prefer working in N deeply.  There are a few functionalities I miss from PT, but no deal-breakers.  The key thing is that, overall, I get more done faster in a day in N, and I'm less drained.  It took me a while to get to that place- I started with PT, had used it for about 5 years before N, and kept trying to use N like PT.  But once I understood the N approach, it was much easier.  

The big difference is that N focuses on the object and the mouse, rather than tools and keystrokes, so you're not constantly converting the action you want to perform with one hand into a choice and action being performed by the other.  You just don't have to jockey things around or think about how to get something done as much.  If I want to change the size of something, I grab the edge of it and change it, rather that deciding I need a new tool, hitting a keystroke, and then changing it.  Very subtle, but let me tell you, the cumulative value of hitting 5 fewer keystrokes in every minute is very powerful.

In addition, the objects are much more dynamic (fades don't have to be removed to trim a region, crossfades can stay in place while each side is trimmed back and forth, audio can be moved inside a region definition while fades remain in place...)  It's a lot of little things, but it adds up to an easier day.  

I still work a lot in PT outside of my place, but I don't if I can avoid it.

As for the sound, I'm fine with both now that it's HD, though the pan-law in PT bugs me a lot.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: wavdoctor on October 24, 2005, 12:03:56 PM
brings to mind another question..I and another friend use Nuendo and a third friend uses PT, What is the best way to get his PT files into Nuendo and vice-versa? We struggled for a while and gave up? As far as sound I only worked in PT on one session and the owner/engineer was so deaf he blew my ears out!! Thats why I would rather move his files to my studio..Sorry If I hi-jacked your thread..

Harry
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 24, 2005, 02:45:14 PM
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?



Not sure, but have you looked here?

http://railjonrogut.com/

If anyone does it, this man does...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Patrick Brannen on October 24, 2005, 10:22:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 24, 2005, 11:38:16 PM
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.



Hello Patrick,

This is interesting to me.  What is it about Digi's plug-in development that you find to be leading or, ahead of the pack. Just wondering.

Ivan.................
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 25, 2005, 07:40:44 AM
The only Plugs, to me, that PT has that just don't exist in the VST world are the Eventide plugs.  This is actually the only thing I use my PT system for.  I have a bunch of sends from N to PT and always have some 910's, 949's, flangers, and phasers at the ready.  

Otherwise everything useful- UAD classic dyn, Sony Oxford, etc- is well covered.  And, BTW, I've been using Drumagog, the best sample replacement system there is, for years.  And the UAD delay modulation stuff that comes stock is some of the best I've used, hardware or software.  Add to that the Dimension D and the Roland CE-1.  

I could go on, but just making a point- there's some pretty great stuff on both sides of the fence.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 25, 2005, 07:51:51 AM
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.  
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on October 25, 2005, 07:59:50 AM
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 ?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 25, 2005, 08:23:10 AM
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.  


how hard can it be to bounce/glue files to start from the same point???

this works regardless of platform and software and is totally foolproof.... worked for me for years.... never used omf.... to much s**t.....


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 25, 2005, 08:48:11 AM
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 ?


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....
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: presto on October 25, 2005, 10:24:01 AM
zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 22:48

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 ?


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....



Hah! don't be so precious!! I didn't see any PT bashing here. Up until now the thread had actually remained quite suprisingly objective!

back to topic.

haven't been using PT for as long as I have been using Cubase, but for the pro standard, there seem to be a few basic functions omitted in PT. I find editing easier in Cubase, but the ease in PT may come with time. I prefer working with the Aux tracks in PT rather than groups in Cubase.

In the end much of a muchness as far as functionality.

back off topic. I've always found Waves, in particular, to run their ship in a professional manner. (This is more so than any other company that I've dealt with in fact)  On the few occasions that I've had to contact them for tech support they have always been promt, polite and professional in responding to, and resolving the problem.  When you say arrogant, maybe you're talking about their marketing stratergy or something???
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 25, 2005, 10:42:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Thorhallur on October 25, 2005, 12:44:51 PM
I've been using cubase for years but have recently come to the conclusion that pro tools is far superior when it comes to mixing.  The total absence of any practical routing options in cubase have completely thrown me off.
The "groups" in cubase aren´t enough.

Pro tools feels much more like a "real" mixer where you can route your signal from a->b on the fly.

I prefer cubase for composition/midi work though.

my 2 cents
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 25, 2005, 01:05:00 PM
zetterstroem wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 07:48

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 ?


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....



OK, that's cool. I just thought I would tell you that a huge list of records were mixed, not "check" on NS=10's. Also, the reason I don't like pro tools is based on year and years of experience with it simply not working. Period. It way be working now, but they are way way to late to ever get my business again.

I wont get into a pissing match here because I'm old an tired but, 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.

Ivan............
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 25, 2005, 01:19:14 PM
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.


Yes, this all makes sense. And, I want to make something very very clear. I don't willy nilly, run around bashing anyone, or anything. Period. Just to be clear However,,,


Digi has done things as a company that are inexcusable. If they were a console company, they would have been dead years ago. I know we all have our opinions about the software it's self, {I'm going and BUYING an 002} But what they charge for hardware is enough for me to never look at their big rig. I MUST get at least something to open some of this stuff with, but see, there you go. The product is everywhere and they know damn well that I must have it...

So many other companies are forward thinking and working their asses off for market share. SAW and SAM and NU ar ALL better software packages. Some of this is opinion I know, but much of it can be measured. I heard someone say they thought Nuendo felt cluttered. Well, you can make it look how ever you want. You can hide most every feature.

I just think it's to bad that Pro Tools users wont look at whats been going on in software development over the last 5 years,outside Digi. So So much good has been done and digi can't take part much because they need to hold their market share.

Man, I just can't believe the money they get. Really. It;s plain crazy.

Ivan.......
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Vertigo on October 25, 2005, 02:14:02 PM
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 Smile

-Lance
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 25, 2005, 03:20:09 PM
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 Smile

-Lance



If you are really that frugal, why would you spend 3 times as much on Nuendo, rather than Cubase SX? Do you do post production?

For the record, Nuendo IS Cubase SX, plus some postproduction specific add ons. It wouldn't be practical for Steinberg to maintain different code bases for the 2 programs. With Nuendo 3 they have started to justify the premium (there were far fewer differences between them in version 2), but for anyone recording audio (that doesn't require 192k in/384k out or post pro options) they are for all intents and purposes identical. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please share it as I would be interested. (see attached)

The only feature I want that Nuendo has that Cubase doesn't have (yet) is the ability to customize the interface and reduce the screen clutter (hide functions) for individual tasks. I still prefer ProTools overall for the simplicity of the mixer view and the routing options.

ProTools earned it's place at the top and has become the standard. Standards are a good thing. It would be nice if transfers between different platforms were transparent, but it probably wouldn't be in their best interests.

Digidesign had been ignoring the low end as Cubase and similar programs offered much more than ProTools LE, but with the acquisition of M-Audio and the release of ProTools 7 M-Powered they may be slowly changing that and offering more affordable options with increasing power.

The nice thing is a lot of the distinctions are software based, and what is not there today in one program, could easily be there in six months. I probably would have been using ProTools LE as my main DAW if the midi capability had been there in the past, now with version 7, they may have improved it to the point where I will consider moving back.

They are all pretty amazing in what they do, so be aware of the market leader, and use whatever works best for you (and your wallet).

JL





Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Vertigo on October 25, 2005, 03:48:27 PM
That comparison chart is probably recent, I've been using Nuendo since the 1.x versions. There was a much wider gap between the two back then, Nuendo wasn't nearly as expensive as it is now, and the upgrades every year or so are very reasonably priced. And Nuendo is always ahead of Cubase in terms of features.

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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 25, 2005, 04:34:13 PM
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


Just to clarify, we are talking about Cubase SX. Lower versions of Cubase still contain legacy Cubase VST code (that may have changed already though as well) and are not really comparable to Nuendo.

The feature you are referring to is called external FX, and it is included in Cubase SX (with ADC as well).

I check the Cubase and Nuendo forums constantly, and have used Cubase since it was called Pro24 on the Atari, through to Cubase VST on the Mac, and now all versions of Cubase SX on PC. I would have moved to Nuendo if there were any benefits in terms of audio recording and midi composition.

The feature set between Nuendo and Cubase SX up to this point for audio recording is virtually identical. The distinction for Nuendo has always been for post production use. Steinberg couldn't hope to compete with Digidesign using Cubase (with it's "market perception" as a toy), so they created Nuendo, added some post pro features and charged a lot of money to create a higher "market perception". With the buyout from Yamaha, things may change. There will probably be more integrated hardware solutions (Yamaha hardware of course), to make it more competitive with ProTools offerings.

I'm not into paying for "market perception" though. It may be relevant for a studio to use use Nuendo for that purpose, and you will find Nuendo in a lot of the high end post production facilities because it has some amazing features, but ProTools will most likely remain the standard for years to come in most studios, regardless of whether or not it has superior features.

Personally, if I could have ProTools LE, with an unlimited track count, 5.1 surround capability, automatic delay compensation, comparable midi & scoring features to Cubase, the ability to choose my own converters, and a VST wrapper with multiple UAD-1's and Powercore cards.....I'd be a happy camper.

We're getting close, but not quite there yet... and Digidesign may never want that to happen. It would still only be a toy...right? Smile

JL



  ............................................................ ......
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 25, 2005, 06:39:26 PM


Some "Profile" Nuendo users:  (We are gaining ground an inch at a time)

Elliot Shiner
Andre 3000 (OutKast)
Allan Parsons (Pink Floyd, APP)
Prince
Hans Zimmer (composer)
Mark Knopfler,
Brian May, (Queen Guitarist)
Danny Lux : (Boston Legal, Medical Investigation)
Chuck Ainlay (Mark Knopfler)
George... (Beatles)
Gary Paczosa...(Dolly Parton,Allison Krauss,Dixie Chicks,Mindy Smith,Blue Highway...)
Bob Clearmountain
Frank Filipetti
Jeff Waters (Annihilator)
Rob Hill (Cypress Hill, Muggs, Nickelback)
Peter Frampton
Eric Clapton (Cream)
Santiago Molares
Ed Cherney
Super Furry Animals
Phil Ramone
Bob Bullock
Stevie Wonder
Paul Haslinger
Donny Osmond
Larry Seyer
Joey Miskulin
Ray Benson
Austin City Limits
Grand Ole Opry
Jimmy Kimmell Live
John Ross
Fred Coury
Mark Slaughter
Donald Fagen
Teddy Riley
Professor Grif
Hector Delgado
Dweezil Zappa
Jackson Browne
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ashermusic on October 25, 2005, 11:26:29 PM
Fine, No knock on Nuendo, it is a great app but please recognize that many of these guys have engineers running it for them. Also many use several different DAWS and many change their DAW like you and I change our underwear.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Vertigo on October 25, 2005, 11:48:34 PM
Cubase supports ADC now? I'm behind the times, it's so hard to keep up  Embarassed

I do know ADC is AWESOME...

-Lance
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 26, 2005, 12:18:32 AM
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  Embarassed




I know how you feel. These apps are starting to feel like Microsoft Office...so many features that you  just stick to the few that you know. I haven't even tried most of the new features from the last update.

ADC is the one missing feature that really bugs me about PT LE though. It seems like such a simple thing to include to make everyone's lives easier. Apparently they have a least included a manual delay compensation function in version 7, so you have to find each plugs latency and make a manual adjustment. It would just be nice to not have to think about it.

It will be optimized for dual core cpu's now though which is great because I'm going to be building a new dual core machine soon, and Cubase SX already supports dual core cpu's, so hopefully I'll be able to switch back and forth without much difference in performance.

JL

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: minister on October 26, 2005, 01:02:57 AM
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.
ok, so the 888's sounded like dookie.  but c'mon!  PT 6.X and a 192 is NOT a TOY, nor a joke!  i think you are, at best, basing this opinion on 10 years ago DIGI...

PT ain't perfect, it needs improvement for sure, but it isn't simply something that "people got used to".
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zakco on October 26, 2005, 01:03:29 AM
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....



Interesting. I have pretty much the exact opposite opinion. I find mixing and editing in PT exhausting compared to the same tasks in Cubendo. One example would be PT's refusal to integrate the right click functionality for PC users. With Cubendo, you can access pretty much ANY of the apps functions without even moving the mouse. I also REALLY prefer how cubendo handles fades on the audio events themselves.

Also, as others have mentioned, PTLE's lack of ADC (a major slap in the face considering EVERY other pro app has it) is a complete deal breaker for me.

Anyways, i would never suggest that PT isn't a decent program, but it is NOT "better"....just different. Unfortunately, digi does have superior marketing strategies in the marketplace, and this has allowed them maintain market share while adopting an elitist, arrogant attitude. Luckily my somewhat isolated location and fully booked studio has allowed me to use whatever platform I choose rather than be forced to adopt an industry standard.

-Z-
   
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: robmix on October 26, 2005, 03:05:02 AM
Some of those Some "Profile" Nuendo users rent PT rigs when they work around town too.





Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 26, 2005, 05:25:18 AM
i like to do my own latency compensation.....  Shocked don't even use it (adc) on pt hd....

and please..... don't start namedropping nuendo users....  Rolling Eyes
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 26, 2005, 12:09:54 PM
minister wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 00:02

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.
ok, so the 888's sounded like dookie.  but c'mon!  PT 6.X and a 192 is NOT a TOY, nor a joke!  i think you are, at best, basing this opinion on 10 years ago DIGI...

PT ain't perfect, it needs improvement for sure, but it isn't simply something that "people got used to".


O.K......

I'm being harsh and maybe,unfairly to a point. The new rig sounds good. It seems to be working for a lot of people. {after many years of not working.} I listened to the hardware, the new hardware. They want twice what I would pay for it. Just like they always want twice what I would pay for there stuff, I don't care about 96-K. There are a ton of 24 bit devices out there that sound at least as good for way less money.

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@#$%^


Ivan................
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zakco on October 26, 2005, 02:18:33 PM
zetterstroem wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 02:25

i like to do my own latency compensation.....  Shocked don't even use it (adc) on pt hd....  


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?

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Bob Olhsson on October 26, 2005, 03:08:46 PM
ivan40 wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 12:19

...Digi has done things as a company that are inexcusable.
Problem is that most of their competition has done worse. I can assure you that if something else were significantly better, you'd see a jump that would make your head spin.

Most real pros aren't fools.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: minister on October 26, 2005, 03:47:01 PM
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@#$%^
maybe you need to walk a mile in DIGI's shoes! Very Happy  Twisted Evil

btw, i find that VERY funny.

yeah, i don't care about 96 either (most of the time).  the HD stuff sounds better (on the i/o side) than LE hardware.

and maybe it was too easy for me as a commercial facility that does music composition and audio post (as well as some music only projects) to jump onto the DIGI train -- becasue everyone else was doing that and i wanted compatility.  nuendo was not around at the time i bought a TOOL BOX and then a PT III. (but i tell you what i never used their convertors, i started with lucid A/D and D/A, then upgraded later).  i need a 192 i/o and all it's capabilities, and i need over 125 tracks with lots of plugs and 5.1 routing and AES and i need it to be low latency and high quality.  and i have clients that pay for that.  and i am happy.  but i can't say that i really sussed out the nuendo options and hardware for post.  just laziness i guess.

look DIGI does a lot more than just charge a lot for HW.  i am not their staunchest defender, it sure could be improved a lot.  and i can't believe how they left their AV Option users in the lurch on the move to OSX; they still don't have a post conform for OSX; the only eay to sync their HW to an external clock is to get an expensive SYNC I/O which does not accept tri-level sync....i could go on...

but, hey, if you hate them, try editing in sound effects or film tracks Cubase!  it SUCKS.  i know i tried it.  for music, GREAT!  if you need to edit, then get nuendo or smaplitude, or pyramix.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 26, 2005, 04:04:01 PM
zakco wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 20:18

zetterstroem wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 02:25

i like to do my own latency compensation.....  Shocked don't even use it (adc) on pt hd....  


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?




i don't make music.... i mix and master it... and i've done both boybands and metal... and yes some of it has been with "real" drums etc.

and i know all about the phase problems associated.....

but regardless of style you have to compensate for latency... if a shaker is of by 2ms it it will affect the swing....

i just like to do it myself so i'm absolutely shure everything is done right....  Very Happy
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 26, 2005, 05:20:25 PM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 14:08

ivan40 wrote on Tue, 25 October 2005 12:19

...Digi has done things as a company that are inexcusable.
Problem is that most of their competition has done worse. I can assure you that if something else were significantly better, you'd see a jump that would make your head spin.

Most real pros aren't fools.



Hi Bob,

I don't see this. I think in the mid sized studios,  where folks are working on music for local song writers and trying to break new ground, They have found a number of things that they view as better. Way better. SAW is one of those. As for the "PRO" thing goes, I have no idea what that is even supposed to mean anymore. There are Lot's of great folks out there that I would call Pro 's but, there are far to many people called pro 's,making records that don't have any music on them so, what's a pro? and what's better.

For me, I guess I'm a Pro of some kind because people give me money that they could give to someone else, to help them make music sound good. I personally think that 2" tape and a nice console is still better. If this makes me non-pro,or a fool, Fine.

Faced with the fact that people wont play all the way through a song anymore, I had to decide which digital package to use. Samplitude,in my opinion is in another league all together,as is SAW Studio. The fact that "PRO's" are to busy being compatible and understandably are uneasy about changing software/hardware, {Remember, their experience here is a nightmare thanks in part, to DIGI} Dose not mean that there's not other software recorders that are better in nearly every way. I think that there are some. At least two. How does this opinion take my "PRO badge" away from me??

Ivan.........
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 26, 2005, 07:12:39 PM
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.........



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?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jack Schitt on October 26, 2005, 07:26:29 PM
rankus wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 19:12

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.........



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?




Considering this strategy has already worked and 90% of the pro market is already using PT because 1)its what they started with when it was the only option or 2)because they feel they have to for compatibility reasons who else could they go after? 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 but it will never happen. Business entities rarely are capable of seeing past their front doors.

I think protools is a good product but they have dominant market share because they were first. If they came to market today they would be just another voice in a chorus.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on October 26, 2005, 08:45:04 PM
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



I wouldnt be suprised if Protools had something to do with that .
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 26, 2005, 09:47:34 PM
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...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jack Schitt on October 26, 2005, 10:20:56 PM
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...



Wow. What were you tracking that took 56 inputs?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 26, 2005, 10:32:56 PM
[quote title=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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 26, 2005, 11:13:22 PM
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...


WOW. That's big alright. SAW Studio. a couple very fast rack mounted PC's on the network. Some drive bays {You wont loose one note of music! I promise} XP-Pro and a huge MOTO rig. Hey man, I need a couple weeks to get all the bays together for you though. It would roll in the door with some 19" LCD's, {4 of em'} it would be all in one rack. If you get real Plug hungry,I'll set up another PC we can network to to get to the other three UAD cards and the big Waves rig.{Or what ever you would like.} I can work up another rack with 60 high end pre's of your choice and variety. E-mail me the Fanout you need so I can get my Pro-co panels together.

I will need to look at the AES options here but it can work. And hey, it's about the customer and we really like that you came to us so,Thanks. :-} :-}

See, it could be done.  

Look ,I know you guys know what you're doing and the standard IS working for lot's of folks who can use what ever they want. Hey, I have a friend here in town who is really really smart and a great guy. He's running an HD rig,a 2" machine, a great old Neve desk and a pre/Mic collection that makes a fella Blush.  , I just have a hard on for digi that goes way back and there are software interfaces that I think work better.

It's all what ya like. You could build a rig like the one I described and would be very stable and sound great. $$$$$$,?? I don't know. Haven't looked.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 26, 2005, 11:46:47 PM
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...




Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 26, 2005, 11:55:38 PM
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...








Yeah, I love macs!! I'm on one now. It just so happens that the software I like wont run on one. {GERRR!@#$%} Wintel is a pain in the ass.

I used Studio Vision Pro way back for composing and it was great. {In fact,we ran it along side PT--3??} I would love it if SAM worked on a mac.

Ivan.........
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jack Schitt on October 27, 2005, 06:15:40 AM
[quote title=compasspnt wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 22:32]
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.


Very Cool. How would that have been done on 2" decks? Could 3 decks effectively sync?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 27, 2005, 06:16:36 AM
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...


it could be done with some rme hardware in a g5.....

maybe a madi interface in the computer http://www.rme-audio.com/english/madi/hdspmadi.htm

a madi to adat converter.. http://www.rme-audio.com/english/madi/adi648.htm

and 8 of these great sounding a/d/a's http://www.rme-audio.com/english/adi/adi8ds.htm

a format converter to give you some aes ins http://www.rme-audio.com/english/adi/adi192dd.htm

voila.... 64 i/o in (imo) better quality than pt..... for $24k (synthax prices) http://www.synthax.com/pricelist.html#rme

the problem is that everything else but pt hd is essentially native...... so if you wanna run 64i/o with a latency comparable to hd your plugin count will probably be somewhat lower than on hd......

working with multiple computer induces latency..... thereby unusable for monitoring.... i tested the uad card yesterday and it induced 512 samples latency....
and i tried wormhole and logic node software for using other computers as cpu...... wormhole could go down to 512 samples each way.... and logic node about 1024 (both ways).....

so the main question here is.... do you want to use it "realtime" or just record alot of tracks and mix (use more cpu) later??

if you combine it with logic you can stack all the xserve g5's you want to expand on the cpu power.... great for giant mixes...

this is fun....   Razz
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 27, 2005, 08:37:12 AM
I'm sure all of these alternative solutions so far would work, but they seem to comprise multiple computer setups, ADAT interfacing, latency, etc., etc.

The session as described was done on one G4, all at once, set up in just a few minutes.  XLR I/O just plugged right in to existing 24 tr analogue looms.  AES availability on every I/O.

Protools created their platform (high end ones, at least) for the professional studio's day to day use, as a direct replacement for heavy iron multitrack tapes machines.  They just plug in and start working, every day.  We've had hundred's of different setups, configurations, uses...it's constantly changing.  We need it to work quickly without ADAT cables, extra boxes, etc.

That is just one of the reasons Digidesign are the leader.

If you're just recording a few things at a time, it's not so important.

RADAR would probably have done the job well, three 24 track ones synced together, but no plug-ins...

We have synced three analogue multitrack tape machines several times, but it wasn't a lot of fun...lots of waiting for green lights...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 27, 2005, 09:01:26 AM
On a Mac (excluding the new machines- haven't seen them yet) the above session could not be done host-based as of this time.  They just don't have the system architecture to guarantee that kind of complete system performance between pci, disk, ram, and cpu.  They're really made for offline number-crunching.  Not to start a plaform war, but that's not something I would risk my job on.  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.  This is something I would carry into a day of tracking feeling completely secure.  

If you'd like to poke around such things, check out the Nuendo Hardware forum.  Look for posts from Brian Tankersley.  No one pushes these systems in a daily working environment as hard as he does.

Regarding the "Pro" thing.  8 years ago, PT was not "Pro."  So this is a very, very slippery term. PT was just first.

Pro is getting the job done, getting it done as well as it can be done, and getting it done so fast that no one knows you did it and the technology disappeared.  Whatever tool is used to make that happen, so be it.  If you're not trying other apps, learning all of their strengths and weaknesses, then you are missing out and not serving your clients the right way.  Any producer or composer that I know who is successful right now is using more than one app- they have to.

For example, look at a something like a big-ass tracking date.  One day of tracking.  How many more days of production per song?  Fine, maybe there is a security in using PT for a big tracking date that the team can feel good about.  But when it comes time to edit and go into overdubs, adding midi parts, growing the production, there are definitely programs that will get much more done, faster, than PT ever will.  It is worth the maybe 30 minutes per song to get from one app to another with plug-in settings copied over to another system where you can do more creative work faster.  

The fact is that no one app gets all the jobs done.  They are just tools.  Use them.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zmix on October 27, 2005, 11:07:43 AM
Rob and Terry have brought up an interesting point. I use a multiple motu HD192 system on a G5 2GHz computer and every day I run 48 analog streams while mixing. There is a serious apple hardware issue of the G5 PCI bus actually delivering on motu's promised limit of 96 channels. I have evidence that the G5 screen resolution can affect the PCI bus throughput...wtf?

At the rate that the PC architecture advances means that this will likely become a non-issue on that platform.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blairl on October 27, 2005, 12:04:30 PM
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.


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?  
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 27, 2005, 01:36:49 PM
"That is just one of the reasons Digidesign are the leader."

exactly!!
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 27, 2005, 01:44:24 PM
"They just don't have the system architecture to guarantee that kind of complete system performance between pci, disk, ram, and cpu. "

what's wrong..... something i haven't heard about....  Shocked

so a g5 cannot run a single rme madi card??

strange..... (let's hope pci express does better)

but just one more reason to use pt  Very Happy

what else can deliver 2mS latency anyway??

couldn't find anything by that guy on nuendo.com
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 27, 2005, 01:56:11 PM
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...



I'm aware of two huge Nuendo systems built for film work.  They were discussed on the Nuendo Forums about a year ago...(you could do a search over there) One fellow was wanting to put together a system to mix 400 tracks and required 250 simultaneous inputs.... The system was built for him by another fellow that he found on the forum that had built systems of this size before.... no joke...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 27, 2005, 03:16:05 PM
rankus wrote on Wed, 26 October 2005 16:12

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.........



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?




Hey Rick,

Why do you see ProTools M-Powered as an insult? It's obviously not possible to get "high end" results if a M-Audio 24/96 card is your only hardware. The thing that upsets most people about how Digidesign treats the low end is that they have previously discontinued support for their hardware (AMIII, Digi001) and not offered a lot of options for replacements.

When I got an Audiomedia III a long time ago it was perfect for the kind of stuff I was doing because I didn't need the extra I/O capability. Once support was discontinued, my only option was to upgrade to the 002. I just couldn't justify going to the 002 because I could get much better quality using Cubase SX with an EMU1820m (same converters as an HD192), and Cubase SX kills PT LE for a low end solution. Essentially I was forced to move away from ProTools as a DAW due to a lack of hardware options.

I think it's great that even Pro's have the option to use a M-Audio USB or firewire solution instead of the M-Box(2) for use with a laptop for doing off-line editing etc. And for engineers just starting out, or even for bands doing demos, it is a great way to learn the software. Once they are in a "real" studio environment, they will have a much better idea of what they want and how to get it, so I think it can only be a positive  if everyone is more knowledgeable about the "tools" used.

The advantage to the high end stuff as Terry points out is that it uses dedicated DSP to get the job done, and it is a totally integrated package. You can get the job done with other options, but it is generally a "messier" approach.

If there is a greater variety of low end hardware options, people can stick to the platform, and move up as needed without having to make a major leap to an expensive  solution that may be "overkill" for their particular application. As far as I'm concerned, ProTools software should be free (they should update their free versions to work on a current OS), and they should offer a wide range of integrated hardware options to choose from.

I think people should be debating which engineer and studio to use, rather than what DAW to use. As Rob mentioned, DAW's are all just tools, and the more tools you are familiar with, the better you can assess which is the right tool for the job. The term "pro" should always refer to the engineer who gets the job done right, and not the hardware or software choices.

That being said...here is some more fuel for your Nuendo crusade.  Smile

http://www.apogeedigital.com/users/umpg.php

This is from a Steinberg user group and mentions some of the ways Nuendo is being used by high profile clients.

http://www.moneygrow.com/cubase-nuendo/previous.html

Regards,

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 27, 2005, 06:42:44 PM
blairl wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 17:04

[email

robdarling@mail.com[/email] 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.


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?  


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.


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 27, 2005, 06:58:46 PM
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.





Yes, It is true that I/O hardware is now capable of lower latencies, but not without seperate mixer application. Most host apps don't do a very good job at direct monitoring. Personally, I don't care for additional complexity in a tracking setup.
That is why generally prefer PT for tracking. With a controller I can get everything done in one window.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 27, 2005, 07:09:49 PM
timrob

you're missing the point.  with the newer systems, latencies are in fact low enough that you don't need to use dm and the submixer applications.  You can monitor straight through the app, with plugins, and get 1.5ms latencies.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 27, 2005, 09:12:22 PM


Yes, 1.5 ms latency over here on the Nuendo machine with RME interface as well....  play back 80 tracks while recording 16.... Thats my upper limit right now

We "natives" really should admit that this type of latency is relatively new to us.. maybe only in the last two years or so....  Perhaps the people who are posting all the negs about native are still remembering the "old days"? (the "old days" in computers is 18 months ago) Shocked  Very Happy

I'm in agreement with Fennris on the pricing as well... his system sounds similar to mine.... BIG bang for the buck and good sound.

This is a great thread! I learn something from every post...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: punkest on October 27, 2005, 09:42:07 PM
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.



 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

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 27, 2005, 10:11:35 PM
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.........
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Podgorny on October 27, 2005, 10:42:44 PM
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.



I'm sorry if I'm bringing a little too much of the MARSH into this discussion, but Fenris, your argument was really convincing until you posted this.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Podgorny on October 27, 2005, 10:53:13 PM
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).
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Bill B on October 27, 2005, 10:57:46 PM
Microtonal metal???? You are kidding?
Sounds like a Spinal Tap thing.
And can we get some bigger sig files in here?

Sorry, been up too long editing 'holiday' music.
grrrrrrr
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: punkest on October 28, 2005, 12:22:38 AM
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).


Even though I did not start the argument about 5xx analog ins and outs, I think it is a parameter to know that if your system can do this then it will handle lesser tasks easily, and about the console, yeah, i prefer that, but unfortunately a good console is not always at hand.

Hans
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 28, 2005, 01:25:02 AM
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?


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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: natpub on October 28, 2005, 01:30:35 AM
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 00:25



The Person



LOL, this cracked me up Terry.

To answer your question, to have i/o per i/o on both analog and AES lines, I dont see why not though would have to think it through and surf a bit. Still, even on a single fairly simple rig one could run 4 AES16 cards to 4 Apogee or Lynx AD/DA for a total of 64 i/o. Add a PCI expansion box and you could add 6 or 8 farm cards like UAD for less than a silmilar accel rig. Even without PCI expansion, these guys advertise a pretty hefty track and plug count fully native. Their page references one scenario of 80 live simultanious inputs, but I dunno what hardware arrangement they are meaning or what monitoring considerations are being made:  

http://www.adkproaudio.com/choose.cfm

I do know that they seem well regarded and probably not talking through their hats on what their systems will do.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 28, 2005, 03:41:31 AM
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? :-}

You could do plug's at will and the cpu's would yawn. Not to mention all the PCI based plugs you could run.

I'm tellin' ya, This whole SAW thing is looking really interesting to me again.


I might look up the hardware and make a system to post. That would take some real time tho,I have some stuff to finish. In a week I could look at this tho,could be fun and we would learn a lot.

As always,we wouldn't really know much until we had one hooked up getting beat on everyday in a real room.

Fun Fun Fun...

Ivan......................
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 28, 2005, 05:42:50 AM
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




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.....
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 28, 2005, 05:45:45 AM
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.........


have you measured latency on that system?? would be really nice to something about that...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 28, 2005, 05:56:42 AM
looking forward to hearing that...  Twisted Evil

i'll drink some absinth and tequila and listen to it.... (and some meshuggah)

have your friend tried playing fretless ?  Very Happy
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 28, 2005, 07:32:14 AM
compasspnt wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 06:25

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?


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


Not even PT outputs to xlrs- it's going out a dsub with standard Tascam da-88 pinout on 192 i/o's.  

For various computer reasons, your best bet for that much i/o is an RME madi card.  It is $1600 on the street and does 64 channels of i/o.  A 64 ch MADI to Lightpipe box will be another $2500.  After that, choose your poison for ad/da- Mytek, Apogee, Lynx, whatever.  You will get a significant, very significant, increase in sound quality at the same price as the 192 i/o's.  If you want the same sound as the 192's, you can spend a good chunk less- about 10k less.

It's really just an extra box in the middle.

If you need aes convertibility, you have to add more boxes, yes.  You will need to get a MADI to aes convertor.  So, a total of two extra boxes. (btw- that much aes is not really necessary- the only convertors that don't ship with lightpipe cards are the Lavry's.)

It's really not that complicated, certainly much less so than locking up two tape machines, which people seemed to be able do do for a long time.  

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 28, 2005, 07:37:46 AM
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? :-}




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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 28, 2005, 08:33:53 AM
[email

robdarling@mail.com[/email] wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 06:37]
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? :-}




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.


Yeah,

ya' know, I'm shottin' in the dark. I don't know that much about it. It was my understanding that the latency was shorter than 512 coming from the other machine.{each way?} I could be wrong. I would think they could get all these buses running almost {not quite} as fast,or a only a teeny bit slower than the host machine. I know a guy doing 60 tracks with a lot of plugs on a double P with 2 gig's of ram.{I don't have a plug count for you tho, I'm sure it comes apart at some point.} He seems to not have a Latency problem..

I'm Just now beginning to understand this stuff.{I use the term understand loosely} It wasn't very long ago that ,for me $$$$ the only option was to use a machine that was built for recording audio to tape.



Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 28, 2005, 10:05:36 AM
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.

 
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blairl on October 28, 2005, 12:06:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 28, 2005, 12:38:02 PM
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?


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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 28, 2005, 01:21:48 PM



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).
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 28, 2005, 01:37:00 PM
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).



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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 28, 2005, 01:57:21 PM
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

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).



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.


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.....
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 28, 2005, 02:15:41 PM
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:38

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?


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.


In a very real world situation, I am able, with three RME Firefaces (which I use for brute connectivity and flexibility) to do fairly large tracking dates at 64 samples. I recently did 5 days of basic tracking with a constant recording of 32 channels.  It sounds excessive, but I needed to move fast and get a very produced sound quickly, so I had 24 mics and 8 channels of compressors that were on sends.  They were all always being recorded so that in the space of a few takes while warming up an arrangement I could have a big sound that was inspiring to the band while maintaining flexiblity at the mix.

Would I do a full mix at this level- probably not.  As the mixer gets more and more complicated, it is not feasible.

But I also still have a three year old single P4 3.02 on an Intel motherboard with an SATA drive- one of the the new 16meg buffer drives.  Nothing even remotely exotic or close to what new systems can do.

The flip side of brute force recording, in terms of real-world necessity, is that in something so track-heavy, you probably don't do that much mixer stuff in a tracking date.  Hell, it's all you can do to make sure everything goes down right, and you can't get that far ahead of yourself before you head into the next song because things will be completely different.  A complicated mixer might have filters active on a number of channels, a few high boosts, a delay, and a couple of reverbs.  Not too demanding, really.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 28, 2005, 02:18:34 PM
zetterstroem wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:42

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




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.....




Actually, the card follows the latency you're using- it's like a hardware insert.  So at 1.5, it only adds 3ms, for a total of under 9 with ad/da, which, in fact, most people will never notice.  Keep in mind that most people always stand a good 10 feet away from drums if they are sane.  And 10 feet is 10 ms.

The problem with something like fx teleport at low latencies is that tcp/ip is very system dependent and will be much more variable to system usage than a dedicated dsp like the UAD or Powercore.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 28, 2005, 02:42:32 PM
It's funny how things change so fast and people forget.

Five years ago, I put together a traveling PT system for a Jazz/Classical producer.  

On the inaugural day, a Wayne Shorter record at Avatar, it was me, his engineer, the assistant, two techs, and his Protools engineer (remember when they had those for about six months?) in the room making sure everything was ok.  I said "Jesus, is this what it felt like to be the Fairlight guy twenty years ago?" and no one got it.   I promptly started looking to broaden my gigs.

Things change, they change fast.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Dennis Allen Cupp on October 28, 2005, 02:43:23 PM
Terry,

I hope you dont mind that i am using an arsenal of Lucas Limiters and EQ's on my PC Nuendo system...do ya?

I used to beat my chest about Nuendo and how it was a PT killer.
At the end of the day, does it really matter?

You can cut a record with a pocket knife, if you know what your doing!

If your client is smiling when you hand them the final mixes, then you've done your job......on what ever platform it was tracked on.

Terry: As for your need for mass-quantities of inputs, shure Nuendo married to some nice RME hardware can easily do it on a single system. Ive got a buddie in the UK that just built a mamoth of a system.

Wolf Stevens had a Nuendo rig at Muscle Shoals and at home prior to him selling the place. He loves it.
Elliot Scheiner always makes it a point of starting off discussion with "Let me tell you why i use Nuendo over PT". I think he was quoted last month saying that yet again.

Both are fine platforms. I use nuendo cuz it was easier to get into financially, and i it grew with me. I was not committed to any hardware, i could swap and see for myself. It was flexible where PT was not. It made sense for me.

If i were owner and operator of Compass Point, i'd have the fanciest PT rig money would allow. Its the giant out there, its become the Xerox, the Coke, the Hoover of the Audio world. Is it better? Who cares. If clients ask for PT, you better deliver. In my little traking universe, its of no issue. You said it best, no one has asked for nuendo at your place, so why bother?

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. Tech Support of Steiny in the USA is stellar.

also, terry, your old place of employment on madison avenue is basically giving studio time away....thats the word on the street.

Dennis
Memphis, TN
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 28, 2005, 03:12:53 PM
I think the one thing missing from this discussion is the issue of setting up and maintaining peak peformance, and lack of support on a non-integrated native audio system.

While it has been quite a while since I specialized in audio engineering, I have spent a considerable amount of time using computers and software for various multimedia applications and am very comfortable with the technologies involved. The impression I am getting from these forums is that there is not a consistent level of computer literacy in the audio world. While some may "use" computers, I'm not so sure that the majority is at the level where they are able to support "cutting edge" native systems that "may" rival integrated systems like ProTools for demanding sessions.

While I am a big fan of native solutions for their cost effectiveness, and for having the freedom to choose components, I also feel there is a downside to this in terms of reliability. While I may be comfortable designing, building and troubleshooting a system, some may not. No matter much how I don't like to admit it, relying more on a native computer environment and its operating system is more "risky" than an integrated solution that has been time tested and certified to perform .

There are so many variables when combining components from different manufacturers that unless you are building and supporting your own system, or buying a custom system from a company that has a proven track record...you are on your own.

I'd be willing to do it, but I think people should think twice before reading this thread and thinking that a new motherboard chipset, using a new dual core cpu, with new ASIO drivers on a new OS service pack update is going to be the holy grail of reliability.

For a session like Terry described, I'd probably be more comfortable renting a proven ProTools rig.

For my less demanding multimedia requirements, I'm perfectly happy to build, support and play with my own cutting edge "toys".

By the way, FX Teleport is great, but it involves TCP/IP networking, and anyone who knows anything about networking knows how reliable and easy it is to maintain..... Smile

Use it for mixing, forget it for tracking.

YMMV.

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 28, 2005, 04:30:19 PM
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

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).



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.


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.....


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

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

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

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

I'm not anti-native. I just haven't come across a system that has the kind of low latency that my ProTools TDM hardware has monitoring straight thru the box. Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT. I'd love find another platform that was actually cheaper, sounded as good, and left me with most of my hair at the end of the day. Oh and fits in my front pocket, too. Smile
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rob Darling on October 28, 2005, 05:02:15 PM
[quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 21:30][quote title=rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57][quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37]
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21


Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT.



are you sure about that?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on October 28, 2005, 05:20:37 PM
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......


If you're using Lucas, you can record on a wire recorder and get a good sound!

Thanks!

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.


I agree.  They should make good, inexpensive, pro-interfacing hardware to go with the software.

Quote:


also, terry, your old place of employment on madison avenue is basically giving studio time away....thats the word on the street.


Hopefully not.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 28, 2005, 05:59:48 PM
[quote title=robdarling@mail.com wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:02][quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 21:30][quote title=rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57]
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21


Even 64 samples is still way more than I get in PT.



are you sure about that?



Quite frankly, No. Please, enlighten.

I should have said It seems lower, because when I am recording myself on different platforms I feel the delay more than I do when recording in TDM. Even when set at 64.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Glenn Bucci on October 28, 2005, 06:04:12 PM
Read this...http://www.3daudioinc.com/3db/showthread.php?t=6770

ANother reason why I am happy I stayed with Cubase.

Interesting that not much said about Logic. They have much better plug ins over Steinberg's, and the layout of their mixer is better too. However the learning curve is bigger, and not as striaght forward to do some things.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 28, 2005, 06:17:03 PM
[email

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.

 


I know who Terry is. And I do take this very personally. It's like this sir. It is only relatively recently that people like ME who can play  FOUR instruments very very fucking WELL and can hear as well as MOST people YOU will ever meet have had to learn how to FUCK AROUND with computers instead of using industrial TOOLS to COLLECT Audio. I don't know who the fuck you are but I'll tell you this. I was recording and playing music EVERY day by the time I was 12 years old.

What an ASS hole. You're gona piss on my skill? Your talking about fucking computers? and your  gona piss on MY chops????  You want this thread to be like a what#$%^& Studio? OK then, lets talk about stuff that makes the records sound good. Mic's, Pre's Tunes, Players, Arrangers, Rooms, The right Comps in the right place AT the right time. What time of day it is. Don't spit your bullshit at me about how I don't know anything because I can't Fucking Compute!!!

I came here hoping to learn some thing. That's what "shootin in the dark "" meant. Not useful,?? Tell ya what fuck wad. If you want me to be useful, I start at $250.00 to show up. Last year my rate for PLAYING ONE GUITAR PART ON A FUCKING RECORD WAS $300.00 . It has gone up now. I get  $750.00 per day as MY rate plus food and rooms. This gets my whole skill set. Which Right this second, does not happen to include using Chinese mother boards and over priced audio ,,, e-hem, "hard ware" Remember now, your the one who implied I was some bed room kid. I play Guitar, drum kit. Bass, Key's {my keyboard chops are not what they should be.} I sing and I can use microphones TOO.

Useful??? this just pisses me off!!

If I want to learn , really Learn how to do 60 inputs on a fucking computer, I'll learn it right quick. If some one needs to go out and build a rig in any format, they can. This is not new at all. In the grand scheme of things,it is a detail only. If you can't get 56 tracks moving well enough to make a record that sounds good, your either not trying hard enough or you suck. My god. It's hardware man!! Period. Stuff that remembers what people play. It isn't the music. It isn't the people. It's a computer. And your suddenly "towering over me" is just bull shit!!

Man, some fucking jack off you are..

I'm out!!!


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 28, 2005, 06:17:53 PM
If anyone has actually built (not just heard about) and is using a newer dual core or dual CPU system I'd appreciate it if you would post some specs.

The info I'm looking for is:
..........................................................

Choice of CPU
- AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core - Socket 939 or Dual Opteron
or
- Intel Pentium D LGA775

Which is the current top performer for audio applications?

CPU speed - which offers current best bang for the buck.

Cooling system - (CPU & case) make, model, type

Ram - brand, amount and latency (Is CAS 2.0 worth extra $$ for audio applications?)

Motherboard & chipset
- make and model
- PCI type and # of slots
- Raid
- Firewire (400 or 800)
- On board networking (chipset, 10/100 or Giga?)

Video card - make, model, video ram (no fan)

Power supply - make, model, wattage, low noise?

Drives
- Does SATA offer any advantages for audio?
- Anybody using SCSI? External firewire (400/800)?
- Good removeable drive racks

Audio interface
- make, model, I/O
- PCI, firewire

OS & Apps

.........................................................

I'd just like to get some reliable info from end users as I am planning to build a new dual core system soon. I have checked out a number of audio PC "custom build" sites, but I am looking for some real world benchmarks on particular combinations of components, with the emphasis on low latency and high plug-in count (VST & VSTi).

This info would greatly help those of us considering "native" options that can compare with PT HD systems.

Thanks.

JL









Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 28, 2005, 06:48:13 PM
timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 13:30

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21






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).



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.


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.....


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

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

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

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

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



Hi Tim,

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

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

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

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

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

This costs me about the same as a Mackie big knob with tons more functionality, such as aux sends , seperate cue mixes, effects to the cans only etc.... (While the "to tape" path is pristine....)

I use a Berhinger MX9000 (24/48 into 8 buss)... Basicaly a Mackie 2408 rippoff.  (You can get them for $400.00 on Ebay)

GAWD  I'm admitting to using a Berhinger board on this forum... I will never be able to show my face again.  Embarassed


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

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...

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)

Terry:  Nuendo does have dedicated hardware.  RME makes boxes that are designed for use with Steinberg DAWS...  (I don't have them though)


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...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blairl on October 28, 2005, 06:49:50 PM
Monitoring latency in Pro Tools using a 192 I|O is 105 samples.  At 48k this is 2.12 milliseconds.  At 96k it is 1.1 milliseconds.  If a native system can run at a buffer of 64 samples, also taking into consideration the latency of the AD/DA process, then the latency would be nearly identical to Pro Tools.  One question is what adding plug-ins to a native system would do to the latency.  Also, still in question, is exactly how many tracks and plug-ins can be reliably used before the buffer has to be increased.  Rob said he has used up to 32 tracks simultaneously.  I would be interested to know the maximum someone has been able to do with a good number of plug-ins.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan on October 28, 2005, 06:56:42 PM
[quote title=rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:57][quote title=timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 10:37]
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 12:21





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

.....


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

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

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

Ivan..........
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 28, 2005, 06:58:05 PM
blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 15:49

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


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

But

Why on earth would you want to track with pluggins?  Tracking with Compressor plugs will do no good as they after the converters.  I track clean and add the plugs later during mix.... Why commit during tracking?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blairl on October 28, 2005, 07:12:34 PM
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:58

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



Well, plug-ins only affect the monitoring side, not the recording side.  The audio going to disk is not printed with the effect of the plug-ins so there is no committing during tracking when plug-ins are used.  Using plug-ins during tracking is the same as getting a rough mix on a console with eq's and compression on the monitoring side during tracking.  This is very common.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: PookyNMR on October 28, 2005, 07:32:00 PM
blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:12



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


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


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blairl on October 28, 2005, 07:38:40 PM
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:32

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


I understand now.  With Pro Tools TDM, the plug-ins are on the monitoring side for this very reason.  I agree that I would not want to commit the plug-in to disk.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jonas as on October 28, 2005, 07:57:55 PM
With Cubase/Nuendo you can choose to have the effect printed or not, by placing it on the input channel/bus or the playback channel.

Much like an SSL.

(I still prefer PT, BTW.)
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on October 28, 2005, 08:38:44 PM
rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 17:48

timrob wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 13:30



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

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

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

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

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



Hi Tim,

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

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

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

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

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



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

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


Quote:


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


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


Quote:


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

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


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

Quote:


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


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

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

Quote:


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

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


Haven't used Saw studio or Samplitude since they are PC only. I have Logic Pro. It suffers from what most of the other Native software does... Convoluted interface. There is plenty to like in all of them. I'll go out on a limb and say that Nuendo is probably the easiest of the ones I have used.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: minister on October 28, 2005, 08:46:06 PM
Fenris2 wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 18:34


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

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

here is what i am not sure about:

"32-bit floating-point mixer"

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

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

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

"Simultaneous editing of multiple events"

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

"Overlapping events"

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

"Waveforms are visible when dragging"

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

"Real-time fades"

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

"Snap-to-zero"

i can snap to zero in PT.

"Mixer presets"

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

"Assignable key commands"

this is doable in PT.

"Sample-accurate automation"

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

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

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

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

on a GD dual 2.5 with 2 internal SATA drives.

i can also do BIG music mixes on it.

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

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

that's only 16k...

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

anyway, i need a highly PRO solution.  PT seems like a pretty good deal with stuff like that.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: innesireinar on October 29, 2005, 12:51:05 PM
bora wrote on Sat, 29 October 2005 00:57

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

Much like an SSL.

(I still prefer PT, BTW.)


You can do this in PT by choosing an aux channel (with the plug you want to print inserted in) as input in the audio track you're using to record.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on October 29, 2005, 01:18:34 PM
blairl wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:12

rankus wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 16:58

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



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


Thank you.  This makes a lot of sense.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: minister on October 30, 2005, 03:00:22 AM
hey fenris2, you forgot Nuendo supports multiple QT's.  PT does not.

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

as i said, both are great.  but i'd like to know more specifics.  ...if i may...  Smile
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: ruberbullet on October 30, 2005, 01:26:28 PM
Just saw this post at the Nuendo forum....I guess the new Dual-Dualcore AMD DAWs + Euphonix system 5 hardware is more than up to the task described by compasspoint:

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

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

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

Smile

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 30, 2005, 06:16:48 PM
I found this pdf with a Nuendo / ProTools comparison that I thought people might find interesting. I hadn't seen this before on the Steinberg US site.

Here is the site it came from:

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on October 30, 2005, 07:53:06 PM
Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 30 October 2005 16:31

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

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



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

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

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

JL


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ted Perlman on October 31, 2005, 03:41:09 PM
zetterstroem wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 06:47


protools sounded more precise and analytical.... nuendo sounded a bit smeared in the top end


I've used both, and that is probably the most ridiculous and looney
description I have ever read. "More accurate"? I used to think the word "warm" was comical when describing the sound of converters, but you've definitely gone a few steps further. I use Nuendo daily, and there is nothing "smeared" about the sound. Perhaps your audio converters are cheap, "innacurate" and "smeared"? If the actual "sound" of Nuendo was "innacurate" or "smeared", do you think I would be using it for my treasured and valuable clients?

You need to pray to the audio gods for forgiveness and guidance  Smile
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on October 31, 2005, 08:15:48 PM
and you need to pray to someone or something to forgive your arrogance.....  Embarassed
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: henchman on November 01, 2005, 02:17:59 AM
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!!





Pt's isn't sample accurate.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: natpub on November 01, 2005, 04:06:33 AM
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. "





That sounds like a sweet setup. I thought the System 5 desks were one of the nicest looking product-lines at AES.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on November 01, 2005, 09:43:11 AM
henchman wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 01:17

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!!





Pt's isn't sample accurate.



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.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: stevieeastend on November 01, 2005, 11:05:43 AM
btw

100 Tracks of 24/48 shouldn?t be a problem for any DAW. I had 98 tracks of 24/96 running with my DP 4.6 on a Mac G5 dual 1.8, lots of plug-ins... no problems at all.
In addition I am using four HD192s converter, not a single crash from day one...


cheers
steveeastend
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Blenn on November 01, 2005, 11:48:39 AM
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....




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.

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!

Nuendo Users

Bob Clearmountain
Elliot Sheiner
Hanz Zimmer
Chuck Ainlay (Mark Knopfler)
Rob Hill (Korn)
Super furry animals
Alan Parsons
Prince
Andre 3000
Tadpole (Beach boys)
Brian May
Gary Paczosa (Dolly Parton,Allison Krauss,Dixie Chicks,Mindy Smith,Blue Highway)
Frank Filipetti
Jeff Waters  ( Annihilator)
Rob Hill  (Cypress Hill)
Peter Frampton
Eric Clapton
Ed Cherney
George Martin
Phil Ramone
Bob Bullock
Stevie Wonder
Paul Haslinger
Donny Osmond
Larry Seyer
Joey Miskulin
Ray Benson
Austin City Limits
Grand Ole Opry
Jimmy Kimmell Live
John Ross
Fred Coury
Mark Slaughter
Donald Fagen
Teddy Riley
Professor Grif
Hector Delgado
Dweezil Zappa
Jackson Browne
Greg Ladanyi
Ted Perlman





Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Pier Giacalone on November 01, 2005, 12:00:14 PM
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.

The sound quality is pointless to argue about in general except in one regard.  As a solid Nuendo user, I feel that the summing is probably a shade better in PTHD.  I have the RME TotalMix mixer which is 40bit linear and the summing is a hair better than native Nuendo so it's reasonable to assume that a 48bit linear system would also sound a little better.  These are very small differences, however the user interface still makes me lean toward to Nuendo (not to mention that i have a 40bit linear summing solution that was free with my converter so I don't need it in PT).  

The external FX delay compensation in Nuendo is awesome.  I really love it, it works like a charm.  I can digitally patch to a Lexicon unit that sounds better than any reverb plug-in I've used and get full delay compensation.  Not to mention analog comps.  I know PT can do external inserts, but I'm not sure how it deals with the delay.

The automation in Nuendo is lacking, but it's not that much better in PT.  Neither has snapshots.  The best automation I've seen on paper is Samp/Sequoia - haven't tried it yet tho.  Nuendo only recently fixed a major problem with the Trimming feature, but it is fixed now (since 3.1).  At this point there's not much difference between them in that regard.

A major factor when comparing these two programs is that Nuendo has full-featured MIDI.  PT MIDI is.....well..for all professional intents and purposes PT doesn't really have MIDI.   Nuendo conversely has everything Cubase has in that department.  Another huge plus for Nuendo is the Post Production features.  I don't do this work so I'm not as familiar with it as some, but for the time that Pinnacle owned Steinberg, Nuendo got a boatload of Post features.  I really don't think PT competes anymore in this arena (except for plain inertia or not wanting to upset clients).  Feature-wise tho Nuendo is king of this realm.  

I happen to think Nuendo has far more advanced user interface.  Like anything that offers greater flexibility, it's only useful if you really take the time to learn it.  I agree that for a new user, PT is more accessible and easier to learn.  But as you start reaching for features and "wishing you could do" this or that, Nuendo is much more satisfying.  Nuendo is more about "How do you want to work" rather than "This is how you need to work".  Yes, the learning curve is steeper, but that's always the case with more features.  If you can learn Logic or DP, you can learn Nuendo just fine.  My feeling is that PT is simple to a fault.  

BTW, there were some statements that the celeb list of nuendo users have people running it for them.  Not true.  Elliot Schiener just did a guest stint on the Nuendo forum.  He definitely runs his own rig and so does Ed Chereny and most of those people.  Nuendo was created specifically with their input and desires.  They were the orginial "Producers Group" that Steinberg turned to.  

For Nuendo users, all you need to do is keep an Mbox or 002R around for converting projects from the ubiquotous PT format.  Including that expense, a balls out Nuendo rig is still 1/2 the price of a PTHD rig.  Also the most recent Nuendo upgrade includes AAF conversion which is supposed to be able to deal with PT files.  Haven't tried it yet.

BTW, in addition to Eventide we also miss out on Massenberg Plugs.  C'mon George!  We miss ya!


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: minister on November 01, 2005, 02:09:55 PM
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!...
did you and RANKUS get this list from the same marketing material?  does it also talk about what else they use?  like what other DAW's, if any?

i wonder if the sonic difference isn't because of the D/A's  .. if they are different.

has anyone done a real side by side, double blind shoot out?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Peter Simonsen on November 01, 2005, 03:00:23 PM
Blenn wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 17:48

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....




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.



Blenn

Welcome onboard! If I may say so. Im very affraid that such BS is part of the everyday "norm" around internet forums...One can not avoid it Im affraid Wink.

Kind regards

Peter
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on November 01, 2005, 04:50:30 PM
ted/peter/blenn

please respect me although you don't agree.....

i have 23 years of experience with critical listening (and mixed and mastered several records in many different styles) ..... and i hear a difference.... with exactly the same "crap" rme adi-8 pro (ted....i see you use the same crap) clocked by the same "smeared" rosendahl nanosyncs..... on my "inaccurate" handbuilt high-end speakers.... (the same crap divers that krell uses exclusively).... controlled by the same "homebrew" p&g fader...

i'm sure both systems can "get the job done".... and if i had to mix on nuendo for money i would... alot of things matter more in a production .... (i'm not living in a dreamworld).... the difference i hear is small..... bordering subtle.... but just as noticeable as the difference between eg. digital eq's

and i will admit anytime that the difference i hear probably doesn't mean a flying fart to any of you "renowned producer/musician/arranger/engineer/programmer" know-it-all's out there.....

but it does to me.... cause it all adds up.....  all the opamp's..... all the poor monitoring (2x15's and a horn is not a speaker... it's a megaphone and so is anything genelec has ever made)...... and more  important......all the indifference among producers and "engineers".....

and currently it adds up to me not liking alot of new records and especially remasters of old records....

audio is going in the wrong direction... and indifference is to blame......

so go on doing a great job producing/playing/arranging/engineering etc....

but i will go on finding out what makes things sound like they do...... "then time will tell who fell and who's been left behind.... when you go your way and I go mine".......

btw ted..... congrats on you "discovering" the brauner mic..... been using the vm-1 since '98.....

open up your minds.... so we can all learn from eachothers experiences..... instead of bashing..... it's too easy.....
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Phil Chamney on November 01, 2005, 10:16:26 PM
There are as many opinions as there are dwellings on the planet.
Why do people still play the 'better' equipment game.
These are tools.
Give me a good player, a good song, and half-decent equipment, and I will give you something pleasurable.
People have lost the old art of experimentation it seems.
They are just tools...misuse them    Razz
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on November 01, 2005, 11:50:35 PM
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.


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.

As far as audio quality goes if anyone is still in doubt, here is a Steinberg quote:
............................................................ .....
Does Nuendo sound better than Cubase?
Cubase and Nuendo share the exact same audio engine and pristine sound quality featuring 32 bit floating point bit depth. Nuendo also adds the ability to record at up to 192kHz and output up to 384kHz sample rates.
............................................................ .....

This FAQ covers the differences between Cubase SX and Nuendo for version 2.0 of both programs.

http://www.pcaudiolabs.com/media/faq_comp_SX_vs_Nuendo.pdf

The Steinberg Canada site has a good overview of Nuendo and its exclusive features in version 3.1.

http://www.steinbergcanada.com/products/nuendo/nuendo_faq.ht m

http://www.steinbergcanada.com/products/nuendo/Exclusive_Nue ndo_Features.pdf

http://www.steinbergcanada.com/products/nuendo/Nuendo_Produc ts_Brochure.pdf

Steinberg just announced a 3.2 update for Nuendo with a new Control Room module.

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.


A lot of Cubase SX users are wondering if this latest update is signaling a change in the existing product positioning  of Cubase SX for audio recording, and Nuendo for post production. The Control Room module would obviously have a definite application for recording music.

It will be interesting to see where Yamaha decides to go with Nuendo and what hardware integration options they implement.

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: henchman on November 01, 2005, 11:57:54 PM
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;Number=878315&Forum=All_Forums&Words=%22sample%20 accurate%22&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=866076&am p;Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&daterange=1&am p;newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&oldertype=&am p;bodyprev=#Post878315
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blueboy on November 02, 2005, 12:01:48 AM
Here are some more details on the Nuendo setup that was used to record the Eric Clapton Crossroads festival mentioned in a previous post.

http://www.audiomidi.com/classroom/general/ondo_crossroads.c fm

JL
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Pier Giacalone on November 02, 2005, 01:45:49 AM
blueboy wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 23:50

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.


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.



The idea that a more advanced crossfade editor is a specific need for post is silly to me.  Anyone who does difficult editing, which can occur equally in any form of working with sound could benefit from a more detailed interface.  I learned to do real editing on Sonic Solutions, everything after that has been a major compromise, including Nuendo's capabilities.  I would very much like Steinberg to further develop the "advanced" editor to actually be on par with Sonic and Sequioa.  At the current price point for Nuendo, it's not an unreasonable request.

Pinnacle was selling Nuendo specifically to the post community so all of sudden everything that was different about Nuendo from Cubase was "for post".  Yamaha seems to be moving back toward music which I for one am very relieved about.  Under Pinnacle's rein, the Nuendo moderators on their forum actually said things like 'You made a mistake if you bought Nuendo for music' and other such nonsense.    Glad to have those days behind us.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Tidewater on November 02, 2005, 04:18:30 AM
I skipped from the topic starter, to reply, instantly.

I have an opinion! I prefer the sound of Cubase, and Nuendo, to all other software. It sounds better to me.

Although, Studio Vision was the cat's meow, for editing... but the Macs were 10 times as expensive then, and a 16Mb upgrade cost as much as 4 Yugos.

M
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: bobkatz on November 02, 2005, 08:45:07 AM
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.





If Pro Tools is locked digitally to the correct incoming sample rate, it absolutely must be sample accurate sync!

BK
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on November 02, 2005, 10:06:54 AM
henchman wrote on Tue, 01 November 2005 22:57

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




Look, For several years, I regularly synced PT to Sony 3348. I could transfer any sound from one to the other, play side by side with the original, flip polarity on one and they cancel completely. No Phasing whatsoever. This was using a Rosendahl Word Clock and machines reference to House Video sync. If it needs to be more sample accurate than that, please explain why.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on November 02, 2005, 10:12:58 AM
BTW, the article you reference is talking about punch in not being sample accurate. Not Sync. Punch in has always be as accurate as I needed it to be. 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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: ruberbullet on November 02, 2005, 03:02:22 PM
OK Here is something for you people near Nashville, I guess this session is somewhat comparable to compasspnt's:

"Hey everyone. This is the one you don't want to miss!! Come celebrate the success of Club Cubase/Nuendo Nashville AND the blessed Union of SAE and Neve with us!!

Here are a few highlights. I will add more as it is finalized.

* Tracking live band in SSL room, 32 tracks 192K in Nuendo!!!
* Producer on session Tommy Simms (E-Street Band, #1 Songwriter - Change Your World, Eric Clapton, Award Winning Producer)!
* Engineer Grammy and Dove award winning engineer Producer/Engineer Bryan Lenox!
* Super awesome band... could well be some VERY cool suprises here.... Smile
* See an AMD Dual, Dual Core Opteron 275 system being put to good use!!
* See the new RME-AES32 card that does 16 i/o via AES at up to 192K!!
* See the Lynx Aurora 16's!
* See some new gear from NEVE (and a few more goodies from Vintage King!)
* Greg Ondo from Steinberg/Yamaha!


Here are the things that are pending (working on scheduling issues):

* A surround sound presentation by one of the best in the business
* A short seminar on Song Writing and Technology by another Music Great!
* Food!

This will be a free event. You don't have to be a Steinberg user to attend. Just show up. Smile It will be held at SAE and will start at 7:00 on the dot. You can get directions on the club website (www.clubcubasenashville.com). This is on Thursday November 17th!! Be sure to put it on your calender!!!

See you all there!!! Smile
_________________
Steve Lamm
Cryptic Globe Recording"
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on November 02, 2005, 05:46:39 PM
Oh gosh, I'm busy that day, and won't get to go!
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on November 02, 2005, 06:38:32 PM
Glad to see some of my old cronies from Nuendo Forums over here.

Welcome to Ted Perlman and Steve Lamm ! Long time no see.

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Midi_Glider on November 04, 2005, 08:39:37 AM
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.


Well, Nuendo (and Cubase) do that quite nicely, actually.


Best,
midi.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: henchman on November 04, 2005, 11:37:59 AM
Midi_Glider wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 05:39

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.


Well, Nuendo (and Cubase) do that quite nicely, actually.


Best,
midi.




So does the Fairlight.
And it's design is over a decade old.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob on November 04, 2005, 12:12:28 PM
Midi_Glider wrote on Fri, 04 November 2005 07:39

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.


Well, Nuendo (and Cubase) do that quite nicely, actually.


Best,
midi.




I'll have to look into that. Must be new feature in Nuendo 3. Has not always had that feature.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Midi_Glider on November 04, 2005, 12:49:33 PM
indeed. it was introduced with N3.


Best,
midi.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: ruberbullet on November 04, 2005, 02:55:25 PM
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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blairl on November 04, 2005, 03:48:59 PM
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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Tidewater on November 06, 2005, 04:47:11 AM
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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob 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,
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Tidewater 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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: timrob 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,
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: KyroJoe 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
-------
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: ruberbullet 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...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: John Ivan 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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar 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 ?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Jeff4h 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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem 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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: funkcity 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


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Deep White 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?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt 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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: wireline 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.,..

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Deep White 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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: pipelineaudio 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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: twilightsong on November 12, 2005, 03:26:24 PM
I'd say your room is far more important than whatever DAW you use

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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 12, 2005, 05:24:24 PM
What is DAW ?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: zetterstroem on November 12, 2005, 06:49:56 PM
Digital Audio Wastebasket  Laughing
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ronny on November 13, 2005, 02:55:19 AM
Augustine Leudar wrote on Sat, 12 November 2005 17:24

What is DAW ?


If you have to ask, you are better off sticking with what you have.   Laughing
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Bryson on November 13, 2005, 05:53:04 AM
zetterstroem wrote on Sat, 12 November 2005 15:49

Digital Audio Wastebasket  Laughing


That ruled!
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Bill B on November 13, 2005, 07:23:43 AM
Delicate Ambience Wrecker?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ronny on November 13, 2005, 12:29:21 PM


Destructive Audio Whacker
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 13, 2005, 12:43:58 PM
Now then now then simmer down children Rolling Eyes  I know what it is really Im just testing  Cool ........... Rolling Eyes
No seriously what the does it mean ?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: rankus on November 13, 2005, 01:57:07 PM


Digital Audio Workstation
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 14, 2005, 10:05:11 AM
Ohhh is that all I see thanks  Smile
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ronny on November 14, 2005, 04:24:02 PM
Augustine Leudar wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 10:05

Ohhh is that all I see thanks  Smile



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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: henchman on November 16, 2005, 02:58:30 AM
twilightsong wrote on Sat, 12 November 2005 12:26

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



Both one and 2 are, in fact, wrong.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on November 17, 2005, 12:57:28 PM
Ronny wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 21:24

Augustine Leudar wrote on Mon, 14 November 2005 10:05

Ohhh is that all I see thanks  Smile



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.



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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: gar-p on November 25, 2005, 04:59:38 PM
well ... i'm using both PT (not HD) and Cubase 3.0 wich is similar to Nuendo ... on PC and MAC os platforms and i have to say that i HAAAAAAAAAATE  "PRO" Tools !
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 !  
 
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: cerberus on November 25, 2005, 08:08:33 PM
gar-p wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 16:59

the sound of the tracks is not changing when you reorganize them in the time line ...
 


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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Extreme Mixing on November 26, 2005, 07:39:52 AM
cerberus wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 17:08

gar-p wrote on Fri, 25 November 2005 16:59

the sound of the tracks is not changing when you reorganize them in the time line ...
 


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



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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on November 26, 2005, 10:21:10 AM
Extreme Mixing wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 07:39



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???




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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Level on November 26, 2005, 10:37:31 AM
http://www.festivalstudios.com/Protools.html
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: gar-p on November 26, 2005, 11:40:49 AM
 Embarassed Thanks ! I'm now a Pro Tools expert ! I didn't expected that much !  Laughing
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 ?  
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: gar-p on November 26, 2005, 11:45:42 AM
PS : Steve , i love to play ! Where is Fletcher's board ?
regards !  Razz
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on November 26, 2005, 01:27:40 PM
gar-p wrote on Sat, 26 November 2005 11:40



I totally agree with the approach of festivalstudios ...


What an amazing, novel approach!  How did they ever think of that?  Pascal, you are wise to agree with such an original idea.

Quote:

...what about a test cubase/nuendo/protools  vs  properly aligned Studer a800 running quantegy  tape at 500 or 600 nweber without noise reduction ? ...


I already do this exact test many times a year.

Quote:

...

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 ...


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.

Quote:

My studio is full of gear i've collected during my life as "free lance ingeneer" and that i have saved from garbage ... they throw away their old API and 24 tracks Studer for a SAJE ULN with 3324 Sony !

... 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


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.

Quote:

...did anyone listen to my tracks (link is up) ? Or we are maybe not talking about sound ?  


I did listen.  And I'm talking about sound too, Pascal.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Level on November 26, 2005, 03:01:09 PM
Festival is one of my all time favorite places to work (including my facilities).
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)
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: gar-p on November 26, 2005, 03:10:18 PM
OK someone seems to be angry about me ... or thinks i'm talking about him ...

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 ! Razz ) 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 !  Razz  Razz  ) 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?  Razz
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: compasspnt on November 26, 2005, 10:41:31 PM
Sometimes I wonder why George doesn't hang around for a while...
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Bill B on November 26, 2005, 11:10:09 PM
Wow, I hear you.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: gar-p on November 27, 2005, 01:43:32 AM
Why ? Need help to answer ? Maybe nothing to answer ? ...
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 !
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Giovanni Speranza on November 28, 2005, 04:28:09 AM
TDM = Terribly Damaged Music. Avoid it, and go for the sound.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: presto on November 28, 2005, 10:15:42 AM
Deep White wrote on Sun, 13 November 2005 04:21

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.


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

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: sonidoricoes on January 16, 2006, 09:49:49 PM
And what about levels difference in cubase sx3 vs pt?
Some people says cubase meter is 3.01 dbfs (rms) lower on absolute level vs pt...
anyone can confirm this?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: sonidoricoes on January 16, 2006, 10:11:10 PM
somebody knows the reason for which apparently done similar mixes in the two platforms tend to sound with  differences in perceived loudness?today i compare(a/B) two mixes of very similar songs in cubase and pt and  with a external meter(presonus central station)and the mix of pt sounded higher(maybe 1 or 2 dbs high on perceived loudness)  when the measurer shows rms similar....
any aid or  explanation received good  Smile
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: mark fassett on January 17, 2006, 03:08:28 AM
henchman wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 23:58

twilightsong wrote on Sat, 12 November 2005 12:26

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



Both one and 2 are, in fact, wrong.



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.  
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Augustine Leudar on January 17, 2006, 07:52:37 AM
Damn I thought this thread was dead already.
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  Razz ) 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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Glenn Bucci on January 18, 2006, 01:34:12 PM
Hi there,

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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Pingu on January 22, 2006, 12:59:25 AM
1 Thing i hate about PT and i hope it gets changed as soon as is the fact that after volume automating if you want to raise the volume fader and at the same time raise the whole envelope of automation you have to do it in the edit window with the trim tool.

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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: maxim on January 22, 2006, 08:59:22 AM
i missed this thread last time around

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)
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on January 24, 2006, 07:18:05 PM
Pingu wrote on Sat, 21 January 2006 21:59

1 Thing i hate about PT and i hope it gets changed as soon as is the fact that after volume automating if you want to raise the volume fader and at the same time raise the whole envelope of automation you have to do it in the edit window with the trim tool.


Trim automation has been a Pro Tools TDM feature for years.

Rail
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Pingu on January 26, 2006, 08:44:15 AM
Rail Jon Rogut wrote on Wed, 25 January 2006 08:18

Pingu wrote on Sat, 21 January 2006 21:59

1 Thing i hate about PT and i hope it gets changed as soon as is the fact that after volume automating if you want to raise the volume fader and at the same time raise the whole envelope of automation you have to do it in the edit window with the trim tool.


Trim automation has been a Pro Tools TDM feature for years.

Rail




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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Rail Jon Rogut on January 26, 2006, 01:36:30 PM
LE = LIMITED EDITION

Rail
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: malice on January 26, 2006, 01:52:00 PM
Yeah, they should call it VLE actually

malice
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: blairl on January 26, 2006, 05:43:49 PM
Pingu wrote on Thu, 26 January 2006 06:44

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.

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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Pingu on February 04, 2006, 05:40:38 PM
Actually i think you can get this in pt le but only for mono tracks.

There must be a trim plugin free ware or something.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ozzy on February 07, 2006, 03:42:16 PM
You're wrong you can use on stereo tracks, just select "multi-mono" versions.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Tapani Rauha on February 11, 2006, 10:31:00 AM
One way to get the whole volume envelope with all its automation up or down is use the last plugin on that track.
Most plugins have a volume/gain control.

Does that help?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Pingu on February 11, 2006, 06:32:37 PM
pop boy wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 23:31

One way to get the whole volume envelope with all its automation up or down is use the last plugin on that track.
Most plugins have a volume/gain control.

Does that help?




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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ronny on February 12, 2006, 06:45:44 AM
Pingu wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 18:32

pop boy wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 23:31

One way to get the whole volume envelope with all its automation up or down is use the last plugin on that track.
Most plugins have a volume/gain control.

Does that help?




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.



Can you explain what you mean by the differences between gain and volume increase?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Pingu on February 12, 2006, 09:18:57 AM
Ronny wrote on Sun, 12 February 2006 19:45

Pingu wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 18:32

pop boy wrote on Sat, 11 February 2006 23:31

One way to get the whole volume envelope with all its automation up or down is use the last plugin on that track.
Most plugins have a volume/gain control.

Does that help?




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.



Can you explain what you mean by the differences between gain and volume increase?





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


Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
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.
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: UnderTow on February 17, 2006, 09:31:52 PM
compasspnt wrote on Thu, 27 October 2005 02:47

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...


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)
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: UnderTow on February 18, 2006, 12:26:16 PM
Ted Perlman wrote on Mon, 31 October 2005 20:41

zetterstroem wrote on Sun, 23 October 2005 06:47


protools sounded more precise and analytical.... nuendo sounded a bit smeared in the top end


I've used both, and that is probably the most ridiculous and looney
description I have ever read. "More accurate"?


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
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: UnderTow on February 18, 2006, 12:45:48 PM
KyroJoe wrote on Sun, 06 November 2005 18:02



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.




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

Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: Ronny on February 18, 2006, 03:49:40 PM


Why are you getting visible truncation errors when you are dithering the reduction?
Title: Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
Post by: UnderTow on February 18, 2006, 05:15:30 PM
Ronny wrote on Sat, 18 February 2006 20:49



Why are you getting visible truncation errors when you are dithering the reduction?


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.