R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools  (Read 27833 times)

Ted Perlman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #135 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
Logged
Regards,

Ted Perlman
www.tedperlman.com
Nuendo 3.1
AMD64 3700 / P4 3.4
RME 9652 HDSP / UAD-1 x2 / RME ADI8 x2
Windows XP SP1

zetterstroem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #136 on: October 31, 2005, 08:15:48 pm »

and you need to pray to someone or something to forgive your arrogance.....  Embarassed
Logged
Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway." (b.dylan)

henchman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 549
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #137 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.

natpub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 394
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #138 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.

Logged
Kurt Thompson
Vibrational Arts, Inc.
Blue Skyway Music
Sonic Sorcery Studios
Austin,TX/Columbus,OH

timrob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 131
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #139 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.

Logged
Tim Roberts
Waterknot Music
Nashville


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

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #140 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

Blenn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #141 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





Logged

Pier Giacalone

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #142 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!


Logged
"It's the unknown unknowns"

minister

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1761
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #143 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?
Logged
tom hambleton C.A.S.
minister of fancy noises
ministry of fancy noises

IMDb

Peter Simonsen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 225
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #144 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
Logged
http://www.psl-design.dk
 
Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.>>Søren kirkegaard>
>>Its not a dream Peter is real<<

zetterstroem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #145 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.....
Logged
Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway." (b.dylan)

Phil Chamney

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #146 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
Logged
Philosoft Media

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #147 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
Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno

henchman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 549
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #148 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

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #149 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
Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 16   Go Up