Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Cubase/Pro Tools

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tac
    Posts
    26
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Cubase/Pro Tools

    Sign in to disable this ad
    I don't know too much about either of these. Do they serve the same function just different companies? I know Protools has some equipment with it. If they so similar things which is better?I'm thinking about getting the MBox but I'm trying to do some research.
    myspace.com/qg2


    No Comment...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    15,585
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
    They do pretty much the same. Many people prefer pro tools because it is a software and hardware solution that integrates easily and works well. Other software may need a bit more work to get going with different soundcards and such.

    I can't say that Cubase is better because I have never tried pro tools, but I can say that I am pretty happy with Cubase SX (1).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    tampa
    Posts
    94
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    cubase sx won the world music awards over protools and everything else........
    its the greatest
    protools is trendy and over rated
    If you cant afford the thousands of dollars hardware to go with it...............dont get protools.
    Its hardware can record at super high rates but your coming back to 16 44 no matter what.
    If downsampling is your freind and really works then it would be great but most say its useful for video/ dvd recording because such media can burn the high rates,
    cubase has an outboard controler called houston.
    I vote cubase
    ecspecially if your using a pc
    pro tools only has 32 tracks of audio.....
    its a pain
    bouncing tracks is a drag and a creativity killer

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Fallz
    Posts
    320
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Cubase SX 2.0 Hybrid Version

    hey i dont know much about Cubase SX but everyone has it...Right now i have Project 5 Soft Synth Workstation which comes with alot of sampler, so yea, it's a beatmakin program. the thing is, i need a recording program for my comp. so i can record vocals...what all does Cubase SX2 do, and can it record vocals and is it a good quality program? hit me bak...also, do u think it would be compatible with my cakewalk program (Project5) or would i have to go get Reason 2.5?
    Doc Ric

    [url]www.abusivemusic.com/[/url]

    [url]http://www.soundclick.com/bands/9/docricmusic.htm[/url]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Dirty Jerz
    Posts
    4,275
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    They both do the same thing. It really boils down to preference. I have used both and find that Pro Tools is easier and mor intuitive to use, and editing in pro tools is a breeze but Pro Tools only works with Digi Design Hardware which is a draw back for some as well as only giving you 32 Audio Tracks, but neither of these things limit me so its not a problem.

    protools is trendy and over rated
    Pro Tools has been around for years
    What makes Pro Tools trendy and over rated? other than the fact that you don't prefer it?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    15,585
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
    Originally posted by BeautifulConfusion

    Its hardware can record at super high rates but your coming back to 16 44 no matter what.
    I wouldn't say that recording at 96khz is important but recording at 24 bits is very important. Without getting into a digital vs. analog debate (I preffer digital if it matters, yeah yeah, it has its downsides but still) you will often need that extra headroom specially with vocals.

    Also, I like many other people, don't like doing conversions. Dithering helps a bit when making 24 bit to 16 bit conversions but I'd rather work with 44.1khz straight rather than take 96khz and make it 44.1khz after and lose a bit of detail.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    near Washington D.C. (Annandale, VA)
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    It really depends on what you are producing.
    If you have hardware(synths, drum machines), go with protools. If your software only. then most def go with the cubase SX software.
    Protools is the industry standrard in the "professional recording" world. You can take a session from your home, import it into a PT system at a pro studio, and mix down on a SSL or AMEK console if you wanted. A downfall from PT is that it only uses RTAS plugins, no VSTs yet. In a few weeks/months digidesign is releasing an RTAS plugin to use VST plugins on a insert within PT. .
    Cubase is excellent if you use VSTs alot or Rewire with reason, and looking for a low cost multitrack editor.
    You could also get a MOTU interface for your hardware I/O solution. Also available is a PowerCore from TC electronics to run all your FX processing from, taking all the strain off your CPU processor. These interfaces are not compatible with ProTools.

    You can build a professional rig from either Cubase or ProTools, it depends on what route you want to take.

    Peace

    Rob
    aka Nuke
    [email]rob@crucialrecording.com[/email]
    [url]www.crucialrecording.com[/url]
    Overnight CD Duplication w/ no extra fees
    On-Disc Thermal Print
    Best prices around!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    727
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Originally posted by sleepy
    ...I like many other people, don't like doing conversions. Dithering helps a bit when making 24 bit to 16 bit conversions but I'd rather work with 44.1khz straight rather than take 96khz and make it 44.1khz after and lose a bit of detail.
    The thing is:

    most people don't hear a difference between 44.1 and 96kHz recordings, unless they have incredibly good hearing. By contrast, the difference between 16bit and 24bit is huge!

    Rule over thumb: the highest frequency that can be reproduced is half of the sampling frequency (the so-called Nyquist Frequency, I believe): 44.1k=22KHz, 48k=24KHz, 96k=48kHz. Now, most people can't hear anything beyond 20kHz (woman, btw, have a slightly higher hearing range). So true, 44.1Khz is already beyond the range of human hearing -- but the point is: With a sample rate of 44,100 samples per second the highest frequency that you can record is 22,050 hz, because you need at least 2 samples to reconstruct the waveform. So while at 44.1kHz you will have 2 data points representing a sine wave, you will have at least 4 sample points at 96kHz. In the first case you have a triangular wave -- which doesn't sound much like a sine wave (= "digital harshness") -- while its much more like a sine wave at 96kHz. Or the other way round: at 96kHz you get twice as many sample points in a recorded sound file, which will be much smoother. Even if you down-dither to a CD sample rate of 44.1 kHz, the sound wave will be smoother due to the interpolation between 4 data points instead of two. The downside, however, is that you need much more disk space to store the files at higher sample rates. That'll drain your CPU power, and the performance of your computer goes dramatically down! The resource factor is 3.2653 here. So if you were getting 36 tracks of audio before, now you're getting 11. WOW! (BTW: 88.2->44.1 is a cleaner conversion than 96->44.1 coz its exactly a factor of 2.)

    Lets got back to the bit rate:
    At 16bit you have a range of 0-65,000 to store values for volume, frequency, etc etc...
    At 24bits, that range jumps up to 0-16.7million! Now THAT's a difference which is clearly audible!

    Here's an analogy from digital video:

    Audio bit depth = number of pixels on your tv screen
    Sampling frequency = frame rate.

    As long as you are operating beyond the frame rate of the human eye (or frequency range of the ear), you're fine.

    To make a long story short:
    24 bits over 16 gives you a greater benefit over the sampling frequency. A good compromise is therefore 24/44.1 recording for CD production, while 24/96 is a must for DVD/surround recordings.

    Sorry if that had absolutly nothing to do with Cubase/ProTools
    Back to Pro Tools: ProTools LE is useless because of the track limitation. I think LE is nothing but a joke. ProTools HD, on the other hand, clearly sounds better than Cubase simply due to the better converters in the ProTools interfaces, which are top notch. However, unless you are operating a pro studio and need ProTools to attract customers (who think a studio is only "pro" because you have ProTools), I'd get Logic *LOL
    Last edited by Giganova; 12-08-2003 at 08:39 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    15,585
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
    I'll just leave it where it is and not get this discussion going too far.

    Edit;

    There's also Digital Performer.
    Last edited by sleepy; 12-08-2003 at 09:40 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    de Westvloanders (Be
    Posts
    13,646
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Well this thread makes me a little confused again. As I'm going to get new MIDI & audio recording software and a new mixer next year, I was doubting about Cubase SX2 and ProTools (now I'm still on Cubase/VST32 5.1...). Reading several reviews on the web and threads here on FP, I was rather going into the direction of Cubase (less expensive, no special hardware required, VSTi's, ... ), but after reading this thread I'm in doubt again as I'm owning lots of hardware synths...

    Is there any user of both systems who could give me his opinion please ?
    I feel MOOG'ed today...
    http://www.myspace.com/thmsynthfreak

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •