B
~BrettBentley~
Guest
Should i buy cubase sX or protools ?also could someone recomend a soundcard or audio interface under 500
ThanX
Should i buy cubase sX or protools ?also could someone recomend a soundcard or audio interface under 500
ThanX
Well, your decision path is more like this:
Should you buy a sound card and Cubase (or another package like Sonar or Vegas (PC) or Logic or Digital Performer (Mac)
or
should you buy a Digidesign interface (like the 001, the MBox, or the 002) to get Pro Tools. The only version of Pro Tools designed to work with other people's hardware is Pro Tools Free (an 8 channel version) -- which is based on PT version 5.0.1 and limited in the OS's it will work with (Windows 98/ME or Mac OS v8.6 & v9.x Other restrictions apply on the Mac version http://www.digidesign.com/compato/mainfreemac.html
Obviously, there's a huge amount of hype in the industry on PT -- and a PT/HD (their high end hardware based system) is a very powerful system from many angles.
Users are somewhat mixed on PT software, however. Some love it but many others who have used desktop multitracking software from other vendors are less enthusiastic.
I would definitely recommend an 001 over an Mbox if you go that way. The Mbox is okay for laptop field work but because of USB issues has a serious through-the-box latency issue. The 002 is several thousand dollars and I have heard absolutely no word of mouth one way or the other. The 002 is Firewire and is also subject to latency issues although, as I understand it, your 'zero latency' direct monitoring (pre-converter monitoring like Sound Blasters use) options are greater with the 002 (I believe you can add effects like reverb to the tracks being recorded to avoid "dry monitoring" -- which you're stuck with with an Mbox.
Because the 001 sits in the PCI bus it is not subject to the long throughput and buffering times associated with USB and FW interfaces. (USB "1" is usually limited in the number of tracks that can be recorded at once... most USB cards have only stereo in but there are several that try to get 4 channels in while still maintaining monitoring capability. Firewire has much greater throughput and can handle oodles of tracks -- but because FW has large buffers that must fill up before the signal can get through there is still a serious latency issue.
Still, with 'direct monitoring' that latency should not be much of an issue (with the exception of computer based monitoring FX) -- unless you plan on working with soft synths. (Both USB and FW "time stamp" the incoming audio signal to allow it to be properly aligned with existing tracks, so latency doesn't apply to that issue.*)
If you're going to be doing soft synths in real time you must avoid USB or FW converters. There is simply no way for the sound to get through the computer (all soft synths have a certain amount of processing latency but it's usually not too bad on today's fast CPUs) and out to the sound interface via the USB or FW (and that's where the serious latency comes from) and stay in time with other elements. If you knew what your monitoring latency was going to be you could offset that using MIDI for robotic playback -- but, unfortunately it's very hard to predict the precise latency of USB and FW from moment to moment so that doesn't help much. (I'm not that familiar with softsynth/USB/FW issues so there may be others who can fill us in more.)
One last note: as I mentioned, FW and USB latency affects monitoring latency (forcing you to use pre-converter direct monitoring) but the timestamping will keep the audio aligned...
BUT -- and this is a big one -- Pro Tools' existing software (new version due any time) DOES NOT have a conversion-latency offset built in and you must manually shift each subsequent overdubbed track by a small amount so that the conversion latency (the actual A/D processing of the Digidesign hardware) does not add up or slur the rhythmic precision of your work.
The 001 has a relatively short latency of 51 samples (about 1.1 ms at 44.1 kHz sample rate) and, depending on how you work and what tracks you use as a rhythmic reference you may not even notice the latency build-up or develop much slur.
The Mbox on the other hand has a conversion latency of 164 samples (if I recall correctly) which is about 3.7 ms. If you were doing a full 24 track project (unlike other multitrack software, PT LE limits you to 24 tracks... to get better you'll have to pop the $10K - $15K for a PT HD system) -- and you took your timing cues from each immediately previoulsy recorded track (rather from, say, a click track on the first track you recorded) your 24th track would be nearly a tenth of a second behind your first! But even if you try to take your cues from a click track, you might become confused by subsequently recorded tracks and your rhythmic center could drift noticeably.
Digidesign initially refused to acknowledge this issue but after much flame and discussion on the Digi User Conference board they issued a set of recommendations (manually move each track 164 samples toward the start time) -- and they also issued a memo that emphasized that MBox users should mute the monitor of the track being recorded in Pro Tools so as to avoid the huge USB monitoring latency (which sounds like an slap back echo) and only use the "blend" control on the MBox hardware (basically a crossfader that balances the sound of whatever is plugged into the input with the sound coming out of the D/A converters. Unfortunately Digi provided no way to mute this input short of manually turning down the "blend" control when not recording. You can read about this and many of the other problems with the Mbox in the Electronic Musician review.)
Digi apparently has NOT acknowledged the conversion latency issue with regard to the 001 but that has been independently verified by numerous users as 51 samples. I have seen no word on what either the conversion or monitoring latency of the 002 is.
You might be asking yourself, if Digidesign is such a brain trust and has such hot technology, why haven't they built in the ability to automatically adust for conversion latency (as virtually all other digital multrack software vendors have) or even come clean on what the issues are with their hardare. And, frankly, I think that's a real good question.
[CORRECTION: DOH!!! It appears I was wrong about latency offset adjustment in my own multitracker, Sonar, and quite possibly about other multi-trackers. I'm waiting for confirmation and further information on this... but from my own testing, I'm seeing a 189 sample -- about 4.3 ms -- roundtrip 'lag' when I copy a track via analog out back into analog in... which appears to mirror the behavior of PT LE. More later. Mega mea culpa!]
Should you buy a sound card and Cubase (or another package like Sonar or Vegas (PC) or Logic or Digital Performer (Mac)
or
should you buy a Digidesign interface (like the 001, the MBox, or the 002) to get Pro Tools. The only version of Pro Tools designed to work with other people's hardware is Pro Tools Free (an 8 channel version) -- which is based on PT version 5.0.1 and limited in the OS's it will work with (Windows 98/ME or Mac OS v8.6 & v9.x Other restrictions apply on the Mac version http://www.digidesign.com/compato/mainfreemac.html
Obviously, there's a huge amount of hype in the industry on PT -- and a PT/HD (their high end hardware based system) is a very powerful system from many angles.
Users are somewhat mixed on PT software, however. Some love it but many others who have used desktop multitracking software from other vendors are less enthusiastic.
I would definitely recommend an 001 over an Mbox if you go that way. The Mbox is okay for laptop field work but because of USB issues has a serious through-the-box latency issue. The 002 is several thousand dollars and I have heard absolutely no word of mouth one way or the other. The 002 is Firewire and is also subject to latency issues although, as I understand it, your 'zero latency' direct monitoring (pre-converter monitoring like Sound Blasters use) options are greater with the 002 (I believe you can add effects like reverb to the tracks being recorded to avoid "dry monitoring" -- which you're stuck with with an Mbox.
Because the 001 sits in the PCI bus it is not subject to the long throughput and buffering times associated with USB and FW interfaces. (USB "1" is usually limited in the number of tracks that can be recorded at once... most USB cards have only stereo in but there are several that try to get 4 channels in while still maintaining monitoring capability. Firewire has much greater throughput and can handle oodles of tracks -- but because FW has large buffers that must fill up before the signal can get through there is still a serious latency issue.
Still, with 'direct monitoring' that latency should not be much of an issue (with the exception of computer based monitoring FX) -- unless you plan on working with soft synths. (Both USB and FW "time stamp" the incoming audio signal to allow it to be properly aligned with existing tracks, so latency doesn't apply to that issue.*)
If you're going to be doing soft synths in real time you must avoid USB or FW converters. There is simply no way for the sound to get through the computer (all soft synths have a certain amount of processing latency but it's usually not too bad on today's fast CPUs) and out to the sound interface via the USB or FW (and that's where the serious latency comes from) and stay in time with other elements. If you knew what your monitoring latency was going to be you could offset that using MIDI for robotic playback -- but, unfortunately it's very hard to predict the precise latency of USB and FW from moment to moment so that doesn't help much. (I'm not that familiar with softsynth/USB/FW issues so there may be others who can fill us in more.)
One last note: as I mentioned, FW and USB latency affects monitoring latency (forcing you to use pre-converter direct monitoring) but the timestamping will keep the audio aligned...
BUT -- and this is a big one -- Pro Tools' existing software (new version due any time) DOES NOT have a conversion-latency offset built in and you must manually shift each subsequent overdubbed track by a small amount so that the conversion latency (the actual A/D processing of the Digidesign hardware) does not add up or slur the rhythmic precision of your work.
The 001 has a relatively short latency of 51 samples (about 1.1 ms at 44.1 kHz sample rate) and, depending on how you work and what tracks you use as a rhythmic reference you may not even notice the latency build-up or develop much slur.
The Mbox on the other hand has a conversion latency of 164 samples (if I recall correctly) which is about 3.7 ms. If you were doing a full 24 track project (unlike other multitrack software, PT LE limits you to 24 tracks... to get better you'll have to pop the $10K - $15K for a PT HD system) -- and you took your timing cues from each immediately previoulsy recorded track (rather from, say, a click track on the first track you recorded) your 24th track would be nearly a tenth of a second behind your first! But even if you try to take your cues from a click track, you might become confused by subsequently recorded tracks and your rhythmic center could drift noticeably.
Digidesign initially refused to acknowledge this issue but after much flame and discussion on the Digi User Conference board they issued a set of recommendations (manually move each track 164 samples toward the start time) -- and they also issued a memo that emphasized that MBox users should mute the monitor of the track being recorded in Pro Tools so as to avoid the huge USB monitoring latency (which sounds like an slap back echo) and only use the "blend" control on the MBox hardware (basically a crossfader that balances the sound of whatever is plugged into the input with the sound coming out of the D/A converters. Unfortunately Digi provided no way to mute this input short of manually turning down the "blend" control when not recording. You can read about this and many of the other problems with the Mbox in the Electronic Musician review.)
Digi apparently has NOT acknowledged the conversion latency issue with regard to the 001 but that has been independently verified by numerous users as 51 samples. I have seen no word on what either the conversion or monitoring latency of the 002 is.
You might be asking yourself, if Digidesign is such a brain trust and has such hot technology, why haven't they built in the ability to automatically adust for conversion latency (as virtually all other digital multrack software vendors have) or even come clean on what the issues are with their hardare. And, frankly, I think that's a real good question.
[CORRECTION: DOH!!! It appears I was wrong about latency offset adjustment in my own multitracker, Sonar, and quite possibly about other multi-trackers. I'm waiting for confirmation and further information on this... but from my own testing, I'm seeing a 189 sample -- about 4.3 ms -- roundtrip 'lag' when I copy a track via analog out back into analog in... which appears to mirror the behavior of PT LE. More later. Mega mea culpa!]
Last edited:
B
~BrettBentley~
Guest
Well Blue9 after your very informal protools review i'm definetely ruling out the mbox! and since ive heard alot of good things about cubase SX i think im going that route. Latency is a ***** so i just have to get a good audio interface and ill be finewith the cubase setup.
Thankx
Well, keep in mind I'm just some jerk on a bulletin board. 
Don't let me make Pro Tools sound like a bunch of hooey because there are some very powerful features in the software (and the high end HD systems are expensive but very good in many ways). I just think there's a lot of hype regarding PT and a lot of not-necessarily-well-informed musician-consumers who think that unless it's Pro Tools it's not pro recording. And that kind of uncriticial thinking and hype-blindedness bugs me.
All that said and still feeling as I do, I've found myself once or twice recently considering something like MBox as a way of getting a foot into PT land. Not because it offers me anything I don't have (with the exception of portability... if I had a laptop it might be attractive for field work) -- and in fact I doubt I would use it much on my own.
But, like I said, there are a lot of people who already have stars in their eyes or who have projects they've started in PT studios who need mixing, remixing, etc. I have a pal who's a journeyman recordist but is picking up a fair amount of well-connected work because he's developed a rep as someone who knows his way around PT. (He also knows how to hang, how to meet people, and how to listen to what artists want -- which are probably far more important skills.)
But if you're looking to record yourself -- I say please yourself. And, especially if you're going to be working with MIDI, a choice like Cubase probably makes much more sense. (I'm a Sonar guy myself but I've heard some very good things about Cubase SX and I think it clearly looks like a winner.)
Don't let me make Pro Tools sound like a bunch of hooey because there are some very powerful features in the software (and the high end HD systems are expensive but very good in many ways). I just think there's a lot of hype regarding PT and a lot of not-necessarily-well-informed musician-consumers who think that unless it's Pro Tools it's not pro recording. And that kind of uncriticial thinking and hype-blindedness bugs me.All that said and still feeling as I do, I've found myself once or twice recently considering something like MBox as a way of getting a foot into PT land. Not because it offers me anything I don't have (with the exception of portability... if I had a laptop it might be attractive for field work) -- and in fact I doubt I would use it much on my own.
But, like I said, there are a lot of people who already have stars in their eyes or who have projects they've started in PT studios who need mixing, remixing, etc. I have a pal who's a journeyman recordist but is picking up a fair amount of well-connected work because he's developed a rep as someone who knows his way around PT. (He also knows how to hang, how to meet people, and how to listen to what artists want -- which are probably far more important skills.)
But if you're looking to record yourself -- I say please yourself. And, especially if you're going to be working with MIDI, a choice like Cubase probably makes much more sense. (I'm a Sonar guy myself but I've heard some very good things about Cubase SX and I think it clearly looks like a winner.)
Last edited:
M
mosquito
Guest
i haven't looked at protools 6, but up to protools 5, midi just blew with protools. however, from what i've been reading here and there it looks like logic is going to "provide" the midi solution. but it's mac based only (logic) now, so i don't recommend it.
i personally haven't upgraded to cubase sx yet, but even with some of the remaining "bugs" in 5 (vst/32) i'm extrememly happy with it. and in terms of affordability of expansion, once Steinberg has VST System link implimented and bugs worked out, you're looking at a great way to use multiple computers for audio.
personally the high price of protools has always kept me away from it (well no, the midi has kept me away from it first and foremost). but as theblue1 states, get what you are comfortable with.
as for a sound card under $500, that's a tough one. how many in/out channels are you looking for?
i personally haven't upgraded to cubase sx yet, but even with some of the remaining "bugs" in 5 (vst/32) i'm extrememly happy with it. and in terms of affordability of expansion, once Steinberg has VST System link implimented and bugs worked out, you're looking at a great way to use multiple computers for audio.
personally the high price of protools has always kept me away from it (well no, the midi has kept me away from it first and foremost). but as theblue1 states, get what you are comfortable with.
as for a sound card under $500, that's a tough one. how many in/out channels are you looking for?
B
~BrettBentley~
Guest
i might go with the Maudiophile the really cheap onei've heard alot of good things about it. plus is only cost 150
from that i could hook up a mixer to provide me with all the inputs i need plus mic preamp
do u think that would be a good setup?
holla back
A lot of people have the M-Audio stuff. I've heard of occasional trouble with drivers -- but that may just be because I've run across so very many people with their stuff. Mostly I hear pretty positive things. For not a lot more you can also get the Echo Mia which also seems to have a pretty good word of mouth. (I have one and I like it just fine. It sounds a fair amount smoother than my everyday card, a Sound Blaster Live (which I do love for its Sound Font synth capabilities -- although I think I love it despite Creative Labs, who continue to rub me wrong at times [over the years I've owned 5 cards from CL]).
Last edited:
The only thing off that Blue1 said is about ProTools LE track limitation. This is based on the hardware product you buy.
Mbox - 24 audio, 128 midi
Digi 001 - 24 audio, 128 midi
Digi 002 - 32 audio, 128 midi
In addition, ProTools 6 is a vast improvement. On Mac OS X, CoreAudio helps a tremendous amount with the latency issues. Their MIDI section is phenomenal now. Just wait for the reviews to start rolling in...
Everything else, Blue1 is right on. I deal with the latency now, but 90% of what I do is audio sequencing. External gear is only used enough to get sampling and resampling for the final sequencing I do.
Mbox - 24 audio, 128 midi
Digi 001 - 24 audio, 128 midi
Digi 002 - 32 audio, 128 midi
In addition, ProTools 6 is a vast improvement. On Mac OS X, CoreAudio helps a tremendous amount with the latency issues. Their MIDI section is phenomenal now. Just wait for the reviews to start rolling in...
Everything else, Blue1 is right on. I deal with the latency now, but 90% of what I do is audio sequencing. External gear is only used enough to get sampling and resampling for the final sequencing I do.
The agony! The shame! I've had nightmares about this moment.
Wrong! Wrong!
I'm... wrong. 32! Worse! --- someplace in the back of my head -- I knew that.
[Bangs head on wall repeatedly.]
Dang!
PS... I didn't realize Version 6 was already out. (I did know it was a big deal at MacWorld.)
Wrong! Wrong!
I'm... wrong. 32! Worse! --- someplace in the back of my head -- I knew that.
[Bangs head on wall repeatedly.]
Dang!
PS... I didn't realize Version 6 was already out. (I did know it was a big deal at MacWorld.)
Last edited:
re pro tools or cubase sx
I've been using cubase for four years...Cubase SX is buggy as hell. I have crashes every session. Unlike the logic forum the cubase forum at cubase.net is accessible to all. Check out the difficulties. Also ask around. I posted on the cubase forum asking about who used it professionally...i.e. actually for a living...like 2 people did! ha. I don't know anyone who is using it for film or tv work in LA.
So i strongly recommend NOT getting Cubase SX.
Other reasons are that it simply isn't as intuitive as logic or DP. I don't really know protools...just about to buy a system.
good luck.
-A
I've been using cubase for four years...Cubase SX is buggy as hell. I have crashes every session. Unlike the logic forum the cubase forum at cubase.net is accessible to all. Check out the difficulties. Also ask around. I posted on the cubase forum asking about who used it professionally...i.e. actually for a living...like 2 people did! ha. I don't know anyone who is using it for film or tv work in LA.
So i strongly recommend NOT getting Cubase SX.
Other reasons are that it simply isn't as intuitive as logic or DP. I don't really know protools...just about to buy a system.
good luck.
-A
B
backplay
Guest
I worked with Cubase SX for a while in a friend studio, and i must say i am verry happy that i've got PT 6.1!!!
The expensive RTAS plugins is the only downside on PT for me.
But with the new VST to RTAS converter that is coming out in a few weeks, this problem is solved and is going to make PT the most versatile audio software for me.
Never had any problems with the latency (if you don't overdub) or the 32-track limitation.
It is not because PT is the industry standard that i like it so much, but the ease of use, exelent support and superb soundquality that made me choose PT.
Cheers
The expensive RTAS plugins is the only downside on PT for me.
But with the new VST to RTAS converter that is coming out in a few weeks, this problem is solved and is going to make PT the most versatile audio software for me.
Never had any problems with the latency (if you don't overdub) or the 32-track limitation.
It is not because PT is the industry standard that i like it so much, but the ease of use, exelent support and superb soundquality that made me choose PT.
Cheers
re cubase sx2
hiya re cubase sx2.0
"Great?" interesting. can you tell me how many crashes you have and also if you use it professionally. i.e. do you make money with it? would you rely on it in a professional environment (collaboration or recording others?). It's very difficult for me to believe one would. And I only heard of a handful of people (on any board, anywhere) using SX 1 or 2.0 in a professional manner. Home studio hobby folk yes, but pro's?
thanks!
Andy
hiya re cubase sx2.0
"Great?" interesting. can you tell me how many crashes you have and also if you use it professionally. i.e. do you make money with it? would you rely on it in a professional environment (collaboration or recording others?). It's very difficult for me to believe one would. And I only heard of a handful of people (on any board, anywhere) using SX 1 or 2.0 in a professional manner. Home studio hobby folk yes, but pro's?
thanks!
Andy
hookiefree
New member
I love PT too. Digidesign has lots of info and free tutorials that will get u up and running in no time. PT has 2 options to eliminate latency. low latency mode and the option to decrease the playback buffer size. I went with PT so I could become familiar with the software in the even that I got a change to work in a BIG studio with an HD system. The thing that sold me was that u can actually upgrade ur equipment when u want to graduate to new systems.
The Digidesign User Conference is a pretty great resource, too.
One thing... I can see how PT hosted and dedicated systems offer more upgradeability than, say, a system like RADAR. But it seems to me that open systems like Sonar, Cubase, Digital Performer, Logic, etc, offer even greater upgradeability (you can change hardware brands and so on). But they definitely don't have the marketing push or widespread studio penetration of AVID/Digi...
One thing... I can see how PT hosted and dedicated systems offer more upgradeability than, say, a system like RADAR. But it seems to me that open systems like Sonar, Cubase, Digital Performer, Logic, etc, offer even greater upgradeability (you can change hardware brands and so on). But they definitely don't have the marketing push or widespread studio penetration of AVID/Digi...
Last edited:
DaOriginalBlade
You're Forgiven
Damn, I was gonna buy a NEW Mbox too. Would an M-Audio interface with Sonar be better?? (No I'm not gettin a PCI Card, I'm not to stressed with latency, I'm mainly tracking audio from an outsboard hardware sequencer which is why I figured I could settle for the MBox. Only midi I'll be using is my oxygen controller to PC for Reason 2.5). Hmmmmm.. decisions decisions, well, if I did get Sonar, I'd be able to use Atmosphere since that is not compatible with windows RTAS plugins that ProTOols uses. But maybe a wrapper would work, I dunno, I ain't taking that chance right now. Hit me up with what you think is the better option.
Blade
Just to confuse things farther... I'm in the process of revising my ideas about Firewire devices and latency.
From what I'm reading, latency with the current crop of FW devices does not seem to be nearly the issue that people were reporting a few years ago. In fact, a recent Electronic Musician article focused on using them as a platform for virtual synths... which, it seems to me is the crucial app (since recording/monitoring issues are usually pretty well covered by the 'zero-latency' monitoring option in most FW (and USB) devices.
Just to confuse things farther... I'm in the process of revising my ideas about Firewire devices and latency.
From what I'm reading, latency with the current crop of FW devices does not seem to be nearly the issue that people were reporting a few years ago. In fact, a recent Electronic Musician article focused on using them as a platform for virtual synths... which, it seems to me is the crucial app (since recording/monitoring issues are usually pretty well covered by the 'zero-latency' monitoring option in most FW (and USB) devices.
DaOriginalBlade
You're Forgiven
I guess I'll stick with the Mbox considering they got a deal on other software I need (Adobe and Macromedia Suites - for design) and I'm thinking about gettin it. The Mbox will be a cheaper choice for me, and really won't make that much of a difference. I was considering that Firewire 410 tho. Anyway, good luck with your experimentations 
.
.