R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools  (Read 52592 times)

compasspnt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16266
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #15 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.
Logged

Bob Olhsson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #16 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.

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #17 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

Jack Schitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #18 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.
Logged

danickstr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3641
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Nick Dellos - MCPE  

Food for thought for the future:              http://http://www.kurzweilai.net/" target="_blank">http://www.kurzweilai.net/www.physorg.com

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #20 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........
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

zetterstroem

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 765
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #21 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

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)

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2005, 03:11:45 pm »



Nuendo sounds warmer and more "analog" to my ears... it's my fav...
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

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

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

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #23 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
Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno

Jack Schitt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 648
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #24 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.
Logged

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #25 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..........
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 

stevieeastend

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #26 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

rankus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5560
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #27 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....
Logged
Rick Welin - Clark Drive Studios http://www.myspace.com/clarkdrivestudios

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

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

blueboy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 538
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #28 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
Logged
"Only he who attempts the absurd can achieve the impossible." ~ Manuel Onamuno

John Ivan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3028
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #29 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...................
Logged
"Transformation is no easy trick: It's what art promises and usually doesn't deliver." Garrison Keillor

 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16   Go Up