Nuendo Vs. Cubase

Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:45 pm

If you're making music, Cubase is the bogsdollux. If you're doing cinematic post, you need Nuendo. I run both, only because a job came along that required some of the video functionality of Nuendo, and the value of the job justified it. 90% of my work uses Cubase only.

Unless you need pro video facility and silly sample rates, you have njo need for Nuendo.

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:57 pm

hello

192k sounds nice! does an one have this setup to be able to record at such high rates??
How close is it to analog!?

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:53 pm

What video editing functionality is there in Cubase?

None at all, limited, plenty for getting on with?

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:45 pm

SeniorFedup wrote:

hello

192k sounds nice! does an one have this setup to be able to record at such high rates??
How close is it to analog!?

How close is it to Analogue? About as far as you can get.
Analogue<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Digital
I could have gone further but you get the point. Or do You?

192k does sound nice though.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:48 am

Greener, tell me you measured that.
Fullscreen 1280x1024 in Firefox 3 on Windows, that line literally cannot be any longer. It's perfect.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:32 am

Nope.
Pot luck.

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:11 pm

so your saying we need MORE than 192k? this is getting crazy

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 2:34 pm

SeniorFedup wrote:

so your saying we need MORE than 192k? this is getting crazy

Sample rate has little to do with how analogue-like a digital recording can sound. There are plenty of ways that Digital surpasses analogue. Especially at 192kHz. Particularly noise floor. Not only do you get less noise with digital recording but when you bounce the noise is not compounded nearly as much as with analogue and the only noise that is compouded is due to the analogue gear in your chain.

Clarity is certainly superior with digital and yet that is one of the complaints about it. Magnetic tape just sounds different than 1s and 0s. Not necessarily better but certainly more pleasant in many ways. If they can get that quality in digital recording, we'll all be in I think.

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:56 pm

Shove the noise floor up your nose.

Listen to the sound, listen to the way the sound comes at you, listen to how smooth the transients are. I'd rather have a steam engine making nasty background noise in the room with me and be listening to a hissy tape than some of the digital crap I hear.

Sometimes digital can give you clean accurate nice sound. Still got nothing on when you get phat tunes from a piece of spinning floor covering.

I don't care how hot and realistic your plastic vagina is. My girlfriends' still more fun. Trying to say I'd hit up lunch lady Doris before I'd roll with a blow up doll.

Too far?

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:36 am

Codemonkey wrote:

What video editing functionality is there in Cubase?

None at all, limited, plenty for getting on with?

None, but you can import video for sync purposes.

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:12 am

Greener wrote:

Shove the noise floor up your nose.

Listen to the sound, listen to the way the sound comes at you, listen to how smooth the transients are. I'd rather have a steam engine making nasty background noise in the room with me and be listening to a hissy tape than some of the digital crap I hear.

Sometimes digital can give you clean accurate nice sound. Still got nothing on when you get phat tunes from a piece of spinning floor covering.

I don't care how hot and realistic your plastic vagina is. My girlfriends' still more fun. Trying to say I'd hit up lunch lady Doris before I'd roll with a blow up doll.

Too far?

too far nothing.... Cool

some just dont really understand the difference.
the reason i believed 192 can boost more to the analog sound is just getting more samples of the sound . .. . . ... .. . . . ... ..

BUT! what if i recorded the tracks on to my tascam 388 (4th inch) then dumped it on to cubase at highest res. would THAT have the analog sound embeded within the track? or would the conversion and samples CHOP EM OUT?

p.s. A suggestin l expect to see posted is try it for yourself... sorry if i wasted your time but school full time leaves me with no time for even updating my software!

This topic sponsored by: