R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16]   Go Down

Author Topic: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools  (Read 52608 times)

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #225 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


Logged
If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide.

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #226 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.
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #227 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)
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #228 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
Logged

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #229 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

Logged

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #230 on: February 18, 2006, 03:49:40 pm »



Why are you getting visible truncation errors when you are dithering the reduction?
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

UnderTow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 393
Re: Cubase/Nuendo vs Protools
« Reply #231 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16]   Go Up