Cubase/Pro Tools

Q

QG5000

Guest
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.
 
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).
 
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
 
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?
 
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?
 
BeautifulConfusion said:

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.
 
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
 
sleepy said:
...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 :D
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:
I'll just leave it where it is and not get this discussion going too far.:D

Edit;

There's also Digital Performer.:D
 
Last edited:
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 ?
 
THM: if outgoard synths is what you record most, ProTools would be a waste of money. I'd only recommend ProTools for someone who is recording a lot of vocals and has killer mics and preamps. I think the quality of the proTools gear (and I am not talking about an MBox or something cheap like that) is only noticable with "natural sounds". I own a lot of outboard synths as well, and they tend to have a rather high noise floor; so with ProTools you wouldn't notice any difference. Just my 2Cents.
 
Also keep in mind, that Protools is meant mainly for audio use (great for that) and Cubase is better as a midi/audio-hybrid. Midi function of Protools suck, even in the new 6.0 version. I have Cubase SX at home studio, and Protools HD in another studio. PT sounds really good and high-end, but comparing the cost of PT core card & software & hardware and Cubase SX and a soundcard (I use and old Echo Layla 20-bit, really nice sound for no money), I don't see too many reasons to go PT. And the LE version ain't good, 'cause of the limits (btw no hardware expansion..).

I'd choose Protools for only a million-$$$ pro studio, and for everything less I'd get Cubase SX (or SX2) and some MOTU interfaces, depending on the I/O needs. And with the MOTU HD192 interfaces, there shouldn't even be a noticeable difference in sound quality, right?
 
THM said:
OK thanks guys - back on the Cubase route...
And I'll check out the MOTU HD192 gear - thanks Jabbe.

Remember to check out other MOTU stuff, like 828, 896, 2408 etc., get the one that suits best to your needs....
 
I'm still on an EGO-SYS (aka ESI) WaMi Rack/24 card. Not bad at all, but nothing can touch the quality of MOTU, isn't it.
 
Lets See.

Protools: Souped up and overrated(looks like up Cool edit.)Uses Proprietary hardware that cost an arm and a leg. Midi implementation sucks.

Cubase: Cheaper, Easier, more accessable, Works with anything that has a midi port.


BTW Nuendo 2.0 blows both out of the water imho...
 
If you want to make music only in your home. Get Cubase. If you ever want to work in a pro studio as an engineer or editor, go Pro Tools all the way.

This is like a Mac-PC debate. Sure one costs more, which is better is debatable, but what the industry standard is not.

I use what I can use in the industry. That's just how it is.

Pro-Tools/Mac. I need to be able to work in the real world.

I personally think the interface in Cubase is goofy. It's all techy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find cubase alot easier to work in and with ... much more creativly, and does everythign perfectly for me ...... i likeit MUCH better than protools!




With that said, if you ever want to work in the industry, than you need to know protools... nto just how to brin gup the transport bar... Your best bet, is to find someplace that has a Protools rig already, and plsy there alot..... As long as you can learn the prorgam so you can use it when you're at someonese elses studio.... go for it ::: But i personly would never run it myself. But you need that knowledge, even if you dont' choos eto spend the money
 
Back
Top