pro tools 002 le vs cubase

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:14 pm

Yes

You just plug your outboard gear (better using a patch bay) to the analog I/Os that are on the back, and assign them as inserts or aux sends in the Pro Tools mixer, I do this all the time with my setup, works great; the onlything you have to be aware of is latency, as sending a signal for a round trip out and back in the interface will cause some samples of latency, thus delaying the processed track; this is easily fixed by making a playlist of the track (duplicating it) and sliding it ahead of its original position by the same amount of latency generated by the hardware insert. If you use digital I/Os the latency is reduced to just a few samples, and it's unnoticeable (I link my outboard reverbs this way).

Hope this helps

L.G.

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:00 pm

Quote:

I admit that I trust my TDM system more BUT that's only because of it's dedicated processing (which neither the 002 or a cubase system will have).

That is not true, Creamware offers cards that look remarkably similar to the ProTools HD Core Cards. They are priced from attainable ($500USD) to the higher end($2500USD). They seem to be able to run ASIO drivers (Cubase,Nuendo, Sonar etc.) and also come bundled with their own Synths and Plug-Ins. Although they don't seem to run the entire load of the audio application, it appears they take more of the load off the CPU then say a UAD, or TC Powercore card. But then again I don't have on so...

http://www.creamware.com/

Some one buy one already...

I am dying to get my hands on one, or at least hear a review.

M.

Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:49 am

I don't know about the Creamware stuff, but so far the only DSP cards that have been tested on LE systems are UAD-1 and Powercore. They both work but there's pros and cons to this approach: the pros are obviously acces to top notch plug ins developed by the respective manufacturers and the use of DSP power that lightens the stress on the CPU by a large amount while allowing to run several heavy plugs without hiccups.
The cons are that you have to use a dedicated VSR-RTAS wrapper to use theose plugs within the Pro Tools environment, as they are VST only (and this is a minor shortcoming), while the most important thing is latency, as the trip of the signal to the DSP card and back induces a huge latency on the track; yes, there's the delay compensator, but it only works for a certain amount of latency, so you have to adopt the same ol' metohd of sliding the track forward to compensate...is this worth it? Some say it definitely is, others say it's not, you try it for yourself and decide.

Hope this helps

L.G.

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:05 pm

Neundo 3 is being released very soon. Previous Neundo versions were based around the same engine and interface as Cubase SX, but apparently Neundo 3 is supossed to be remarkably better. I run Nuendo 2.2, granted not everyone can afford $2,500 recording software, but its by far the best program you can get, as far as im concerned...compatible with just about every VST and DX plugin you can throw at it. Plus Steinberg has amazing quality and service...

I'm not going to say Pro Tools is lame, because its obviously a very reputable program and i dont have much experience with it. But i would DEFINITELY recommend either Steinberg Cubase SX or Nuendo 2/3...

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:25 pm

Lorenzo sez:

...also, PTLE doesn't have plug in Auto Delay Comepnsation...that Cubase has..but it seems to be coming in a next release...

I sez:

By that do you mean that you have to manually adjust the track backward in time for latency after recording? And if so is it a big deal or is it simply a mouse click and you're on to other things?

Lorenzo sez:

also no 5.1 or whatever surround capability yet...unless you DYI.

I sez:

I have understood that to mean you were talking about Pro Tools 002, that it didn't have the 5.1 capability, but that the Cubase does. Do I have that right?

Second, do we know if there are plans to make the 002 create the 5.1 surround? (I currently don't need it, but I think it's where the recording industry will head in the near future, so I suppose one ought to at least be able to create it, no?)

Thanks
Keith

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:32 am

red-pill:
usually its as easy as rendering an RTAS plugin with its AudioSuit counterpart. if its a plugin without an AudioSuite version (like auto-tune) you need to bus the track to another track and record it, then slide the audio over.

In reply to some of the other posts, I run logic 7, and DP 4, and have used qbase, and if audio and recording live instruments is your forte, ProTools can't be beat. For audio editing, there is no comparison, which is why protools is the industry standard the world over in professional recording studios.

There are downsides to protools which have been mentioned, and yes, at the moment other programs are more CPU efficient (ProTools doesn't fully support dual processors either). However, ProTools 7 is in the works which will hopefully fix all of these issues, and 6.7 has already brought many MIDI enhancements. Also, in reguards to the 32 track limit, I still have clients that say "wow!" when i tell them i can record 32 tracks. there are many professional music studios running RADAR recorders with only 24 tracks. I know its cliché, but look what the beatles did with 4 tracks. its just not that big a limitation for the majority of music studios. Post is a different story...

If you are using the equipment for your own personal projects, try out the different software options (download protools free) and find out what is most comfortable for your needs.

If you are looking to bring paying customers in however, you really should have the option of protools, or you will forever be explaining the lack thereof to every client that comes through your doors. Thats just the nature of the industry right now.

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:51 pm

i run both cubase sl 2 and protools LE w/ an MBox and i can't really tell the difference with the two. i must admit that i use cubase WAAAAAY more, but that's cuz i work extensively with midi and rewire. i used to be able to tell the difference with audio, pt being better than cubase, but that was when i DIDN'T KNOW that i could use the MBox w/ cubase, and i was using the audiophile 24/96 pci card. but once i started using the MBox w/ my cubase, the audio has been just as clean.
and BTW, VST-RTAS wrappers don't work with every vst or vsti.
i think it really comes down to feel.
but if i were to give a suggestion, i would follow the first suggestion made on this post:
get both ptLE and cubase (why not SL, keep costs down), but just get the 002 for both.

/af

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:18 am

Good info guys,

So about that 5.1 surround thing, or lack thereof? What's the story?

K

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:15 pm

useless feature unless you actually plan on making use of it...apparently 5.1 will be the standard in recording by 2010, but i dont know about that one...i run a 2.1 set up at most, when i have access to my BlueSky 2.1 monitors...either way, don't make your decision based on its 5.1 cababilities....

Posted: Wed Mar 23, 2005 11:56 pm

Thanks Freelight, that makes sense.

Another ? that came up during a Mac/PC flame war on another post.

At this site:
http://www.carillonusa.com/clnweb/performance.jsp?country=US

Their testing shows that a 3.0 or so PC runs significantly more tracks, plug ins and effects than a dual 2.5 G5 on Cubase, but on Pro Tools the Mac dusted it by running 50% more of that sort of thing.

Seems odd, anybody know why?

Thanks
Keith

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:20 am

Sorry to hog the airwaves, but a cubase guy once told me that once you've bought Cubase, and you want to upgrade to a newer version, all you do is pay them the difference between the old and new programs, and they send you the new package.

First of all, is that true?

Second, does Pro Tools do the same thing or do they make you buy the whole thing from scratch?

I'm thinking specifically of version 7 of Pro Tools and what it will hold as far as running with dual processors and being supposedly more CPU efficient, and whether one ought to wait to buy or jump on board now?

Thanks
Keith

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:54 am

what are the specks on the mac running pro tools did it have the card s installed

Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 6:31 pm

Quote:

a cubase guy once told me that once you've bought Cubase, and you want to upgrade to a newer version, all you do is pay them the difference between the old and new programs, and they send you the new package.

First of all, is that true?

Second, does Pro Tools do the same thing or do they make you buy the whole thing from scratch?

It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. If you're talking purely about software upgrades, there's no price difference from one version of Pro Tools to the next, so they can't really charge you the difference. LE software upgrades are $75, but they don't charge you for every upgrade. I know that Cubase will only offer upgrades going back so far and then you have to buy the program new.

Digidesign also offers hardware upgrades, which is pretty unusual in this industry...especially at the lower price points.

-Duardo

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2005 11:50 pm

Frob sez:

what are the specks on the mac running pro tools did it have the card s installed.

I sez:

If you're referring to what I said about the mac-PC thing, that's a good question. I don't know if they hanicapped the Mac or not to make their product look better on the tests. It is probably tough to find out. They do give the basic specs for all the machines listed, but there may be significant details missing.

If there are any more or less neutral computer guys out there who could shed light on this, that might be good for all of us.

The link to the test results is under my name, 4 posts back.

Cheers
Keith

Posted: Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:25 am

took-the-red-pill wrote:

Frob sez:

what are the specks on the mac running pro tools did it have the card s installed.

I sez:

If you're referring to what I said about the mac-PC thing, that's a good question. I don't know if they hanicapped the Mac or not to make their product look better on the tests. It is probably tough to find out. They do give the basic specs for all the machines listed, but there may be significant details missing.

If there are any more or less neutral computer guys out there who could shed light on this, that might be good for all of us.

The link to the test results is under my name, 4 posts back.

Cheers
Keith

I think the first thing you need to understand is that while most software makers attempt to market their produxt as cross platform it is always designed with one platform in mind and the other is a compromise. The costs of creating two completely different versions of software each optimized for a specific platform would be enormous and so only what needs to be changed in order to make it run on another platform are integrated.

When PT was created Mac's were by far the better choice for audio and so PT was written for Mac primarily, studios adopted it and it has become for lack of a better word the "professional standard". Cubase was created with PC's in mind to capture the "home/small studio" market since PC's are far more numerous in those environments. Compromises exist in both and also in all other DAW software.

It's funny you think the Mac may have been tampered with to produce better results for the PC. Can you explain how this would benefit a software or hardware maker? It would only result in lost sales to users of the platform they handicapped, not a smart business move. If anything they would want those numbers to be relatively even. It's all about sales not platform bashing. They may handicap a competitors product but not a whole platform that they depend upon for revenue.

One company who attempted to benefit by handicaping another product was Apple itself. When the G5 was released it was already slower than the then current Intel 3.0 GHz, so in essence they cheated to make the Mac appear faster. Read this for the lowdown.

http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

It's really a shame because Apple makes a fine product but Steve Jobs is once again driving them right into the ground. Instead of making a deal with AMD to provide it's processors and shifting OSX in the direction of Linux (both Unix based OS's BTW) he chose to use the much slower IBM processor and continue to develop the MAC OS as it's own entity. The result has been a machine and OS that is compatible with nothing else and has fallen way behind PC's in performance at twice the price. This gap will only widen as Intel and AMD continue to push the performance envelope and Apple has nothing new in the pipeline. Someone at Apple please fire that nitwit and put Wozniak back in charge.

If your looking for great software/hardware performance consider what platform it was developed for first, this can get you much closer to the results you desire. The same applies to computers, choose your software and the platform will become apparent.

Good luck

This topic sponsored by: