Protools Vs Cubase

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:03 am

Hi all,
This is the first post for me,and i would like to know what is better for mixing protools or Cubase with all the respect for all the DAW,i have both and most of the plugins i have on both but i use more the UAD plugins on cubase only because there is a huge compensation with protools ,i cannot find that difference,but honestly the mix is more fat on cubase (32 bit floating).
Please advice ,i would like to get more opinion about this so i can work only on 1 Daw for mixing.

Thanks in advance Embarassed

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:18 am

I would say that if you think Cubase sounds better and your workflow is better with it, use that.

I don't completely understand it, but doesn't Pro Tools HD have a 48 bit mixer? I don't know if it's all marketing hype or not, though.

Doesn't PT HD have auto delay compensation, too?

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:28 am

yeah...i'd agree. if you like cubase better, then use it. you can get just as good quality mixes. however, it's interesting to me that you say cubase is giving you a fatter sound. i understand the bit difference that cubase has 32 and protools has 24...but would that make enough difference to where you'd get a noticeably fatter sound...let alone different at all?

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:39 am

No, PT doesn't have PDC. Bit depth doesn't have any impact on sound quality.

Use what you feel most comfortable with. You'll probably find that they sound exactly the same, although there wil always be a little placebo effect in the one you feel the most comfort with.

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 2:56 am

Well Fourone3/jordi,
Thanks for ur post reply,i am only asking to see if any 1 agree with this ,and as i said before i have both,mind you that i never knew that PT mixer 48 Bit and if it is ,so why its clipping when i capture a signal that doesn't clip on cubase 32 bit (exactly same input),and about the delay compensation yeah u r right but the UAD plugins has more and more then 2048 sample. and the auto compensation in PT its 1024 max i believe,and also i doubt to find an accurate plugins like the UAD, with respect for the rest.
while Cubase has auto delay compensation even if its larger then 4000 samples.

Cheers, Smile

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:23 am

Clipping has nothing to do with bit depth

Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 3:47 am

I don't understand why digidesign doesn't have automatic delay compensation on all of their versions of Pro Tools. Perhaps it is to leave more control in the hands of the operator? Maybe something about keeping everything "real time" ?

It is easy to compensate for delay in Pro Tools. Just Ctrl-Click on the green text below the faders to display the track delay, then add time adjusters to make them all the same amount of delay.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:20 am

We do not even know up to this point what versions we are talking about here. Is it PT-HD or LE. Is it Cubase 3 or 4. There is one big difference between the two in general.

ProTools has a fixed number of bits in the masterbus. This limits trackcount the hard way.
Cubase, like many other DAWs works with 32bit floating point calculations, hence the track count is either limited by the rest of the software or the capacity of your computer.

Neither makes it more or less suited for mixing. It's just the way the software is setup.

I think I'd use Cubase if a lot of midi is involved. If it is all audio, it doesn't really matter, except perhaps for your workflow. Use the one you have the appropriate plugins with. Cubase didn't have side chaining before release 4. That's all settled now.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:55 am

I assumed HD since the signature indicates such.

Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 9:44 pm

cfaalm wrote:

We do not even know up to this point what versions we are talking about here. Is it PT-HD or LE. Is it Cubase 3 or 4. There is one big difference between the two in general.

ProTools has a fixed number of bits in the masterbus. This limits trackcount the hard way.
Cubase, like many other DAWs works with 32bit floating point calculations, hence the track count is either limited by the rest of the software or the capacity of your computer.

Neither makes it more or less suited for mixing. It's just the way the software is setup.

I think I'd use Cubase if a lot of midi is involved. If it is all audio, it doesn't really matter, except perhaps for your workflow. Use the one you have the appropriate plugins with. Cubase didn't have side chaining before release 4. That's all settled now.

Except that sidechaining is possible in SX3, as well, although it's a bit fiddly, not being native.

This topic sponsored by: