1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

PRO TOOLS OR CUBASE...WITH A TWIST. NEED PRO HELP!

Discussion in 'Cubase' started by silicon_demon, Jan 23, 2006.

  1. silicon_demon

    silicon_demon Active Member

    hi guys. i'm a new member. not a novice but far from a pro, with a specific question regarding the cubase/ pro tools conundrum:

    my question regards studio compatability.

    to sum it up, i utilize cubase/ nuendo (with re-wire), and am comfortable with this set-up. It's predominantly pc-based with 200g of vsts, save for a few strategic pieces of hardware.

    my musical style is ambiguous, though definitely funk-based. i rely exclusively on midi implementation.

    GOAL: i've got a booth set up and am ready to go to the next level by actually recording audio (vocals)....this is the missing element to my music.

    QUESTION: I'm qulaified artistically (specifically, regarding the actual music creation); but as a technician (specifically, in mastering and creating an end product), i'm a fetus. if i am ever to change DAW formats the time is now. if i ever propose to contend with the "Big Boys" and produce a high-end artist, should i switch to pro tools if for no other reason than studio compatability? Must i adopt it just becasue it's an industry standard.

    I recently downloaded a demo of PT LE and i hate the interface. it's like going from x-box to pac man. cubase, however, i love.......(much of this, i admit, is also due to my familiarity with cubase)

    pro tools is hailed for it's audio processing power, but what can it do that cubase can't? can't i just buy some good DA converters and mic pres and be able to contend with a pro tools HD system?
     
  2. jasondirckze

    jasondirckze Guest

    I think you would be best using what you are most comfortable with. However, it would be good to familiarise yourself with PT, even if that means buying an MBox, and just using it every now and then.

    As far as compatability with "Pro" studios??? Well, if you need to, you can just take in your bounced audio files and load them into 'tools no problems.

    You could add top-notch converters to your existing setup, but it would still be native. PT HD will offer you DSP, allowing you more space for your VSTi's. I think this will be the most beneficial reason to switch to an HD setup in your case.

    Re: Vocals

    If you have a good room/booth, a great mic, and nice preamp, you will get a great result, whether you use Cubase/Logic/Pro Tools. (Oh I forgot, a good singer helps too).

    Good luck
     
  3. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    I don't like ProTools and I don't use it. Nuendo is quickly replacing ProTools because ProTools requires dedicated hardware and people are getting tired of proprietary based equipment and so am I.. If it makes you feel better to have a piece of equipment with the word " Pro" in it then go for it otherwise, stay with what you are comfortable with and become as proficient as possible with your current tools.

    Rigid but soft
    Ms. Remy Ann David
     
  4. axel

    axel Guest

    i don't think either that you have to change anything, if you are happy with cubase, then stick to it, it's good and certainly better for midi then PT.
    PT totally sucks for midi, it's probably the worst apps for that, and cubase is capable of recording any audio, too. every mastering / prostproduction facility is happy to take either WAV, AIFF or SDII files... so no shortcomings there either.

    rather spend money on a nice mic / pre-amp/ soundcard - interface/ to achieve better quality... and just improve your mixing / production skills within cubase, 200g worth of VSTs ?? man throw out the crap, and concentrate using a few really good units (VSTs) that you will really know inside out, i mean there sonic behaviour, that makes more sense then trying to use all of 'em and not knowing even one propperly... LESS IS MORE!!!

    i don't like PT at all, i have to use it often, cause i work a lot in hire facilities... (it is kinda standard for a reason i will never actually understand, ok they have been around since the bginning of modern DAWs that's why, but it's certainly not the best apps outthere, time moved on so did other manufacturers... you know there are still people in 2006 who believe that mercedes is the best car in the world... LOL) it's certainly not my audio apps of choice (it sucks that you have to use mainly Digi Hardware, that overprised stuff, i am more happy with other choices when it comes to really good audio interfaces!!), apart from recording / producing bands / acts i write my own stuff and there i use to 80- 90% midi, cause i am an electronic music head... LOGIC is my apps (i actually hate steinberg, but that's just me!), simply the strongest one for midi use and fantastic for audio too... but that would require swapping to a Mac.

    stick to what you have now and improve your skills first before you spend money... a good set of monitors and a good soundcard is "IF" a worthy investment to HEAR what you actually do first!!!!

    cheers

    axel
     
  5. a cubase system cannot contend with a pro tools tdm system peroid, however if you use a dedicated dsp card like the uad stuff it can run a high number of UAD plug ins, there are also some other options made by other comanies that support 3rd party plug ins like the Powercore which you can get some sony oxford plug ins. however you do run into the whole proprietary problem where not every manufactor will run on the dedicated processor. In my opinion that really isnt a problem just use what you are comfortable with. to me cubase is an eye soar and not very user friendly to me, but that is a personal thing. do what feels right
    steve
     
  6. axel

    axel Guest

    eightsonstudio wrote:

    talking processor power and plugin instances... absolut TRUE.

    for making and recording / producing a top notch sounding song... a whole lot of rubish.
     
  7. my whoel point is processing power. the question was what can pro tools that cubase cant, and that is it. as far a everything else the medium doesnt matter protools, cubase, acid, that $*^t dont matter, just strictly talking processing power :lol:
     
  8. gdoubleyou

    gdoubleyou Well-Known Member

    If you are doing personal recording PTLE won't matter, but if you are open to the public PT will get you clients. a TDM system could open you up to the world of corporate clients.

    cubase is more of a composition system, PTLE is great for recording and editing audio.

    If I was writing a song cubases would be the choice because of it's extensive midi features.

    8)
     
  9. silicon_demon

    silicon_demon Active Member

    THANX FOR THE INPUT GUYS...AND MS. R.A.D.....KEEP IT COMING

    i appreciate everyone's input. i heard some very insightful debates. And for the most part this turned into an enlightening discussion instead of a cubase / pro tools war.

    so i get what you guys (AND gals) are saying about pure processing- power capabilites of a hardware pro tools system. but riddle me this:

    i know there are some manufacturers of rack-mount vst processors (Waves being one of them)...which can free up processing overload from your computer by doing the digital signal processing of the vsts for it. But--to my knowledge--the Waves unit, for example, only uses waves vsts.

    Does anyone know of a unit like this that can have ANY vst loaded into it?
     
  10. i dont belive there is one, but i certainly could be wrong, being a hd user i have never really looked for one
     
  11. Spy

    Spy Guest

    Re: THANX FOR THE INPUT GUYS...AND MS. R.A.D.....KEEP IT COM

    Muse Receptor - not compatible with every VST but covers a lot of them.
     
  12. axel

    axel Guest

    spy wrote:

    a good friend of mine works for the UK exclusive distributor for this unit, it's not worth a penny, you are by far much better of with spending your money on something like a UAD-1 card, those are seriuos good sounding and usefull, the receptor is super expensive and they get tons of units back.

    UAD-1 is the choice.

    or even rather a powercore card by TC, is better the the receptor, but hey UAD-1 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  13. Kev

    Kev Well-Known Member

    and I would use PT
    obviously I don't need much midi

    2 x JV1080
    JV880
    Virus Classic ( I have the Virus plug but obviously only available on the TDM system but I tend to midi on the LE system)
    Waldorf Micro
    Korg Micro
    A Station
    Alpha Juno
    DX7s and TX7
    even an old FB01

    oh !
    and the spare JV1080 in the mobile rack

    I find the need for proper alignment to recorded audio tracks more important than the midi features of Cubase.
    I am an owner of Cubase
    Purchased 3.52 and 4.0 and wish I never did
    I did this for the benefit of clients in two different locations ... hence the two copies.
    ....
    or do you use cracks ... rhetorical question ... no answer required
     
  14. silicon_demon

    silicon_demon Active Member

    crack is bad.

    for the love of wilt chamberlain, where did that come from?
     
  15. silicon_demon

    silicon_demon Active Member

    alrighty then................

    tc powercore and uad-1 utilize pre-wired plug-ins. as i said, i already have an erotic relationship with very specific plug-ins. i'm not interested in some guy pawning off his vsts on me when i already like my own.

    i did actually find the receptor [for those of you late to this discussion the current topic has threaded to hardware that runs vsts, thus freeing up computer resources]--there's a very good review of it at: [url]http://www.audiomidi.com/aboutus/reviews/hoover_receptor.cfm

    i actually place a lot of emphasis on customer feedback and user reviews, so your input on the UK distributor causes some pause.

    so my next question is:

    what's the baddest (as in "goodest") pc i could build for audio application?
    perhaps a dual opteron motherboard. i do build pcs, and i do realize that not everyone does, and i don't want to corrode this audio conversation to a pc chat....but i'm intent on utilizing current technology to solve my conundrum, which is: providing sufficent computing power (even via an external hardware unit) to run my vsts comfortably.

    you guys are giving me great input. keep it up!
     
  16. Kev

    Kev Well-Known Member

    if that was a reference to my crack about crack'ed software
    ... was to the effect that some of those that complain about Protools also seem to be heavy users of software that has not been paid for.

    I own two copies of Cubase and yet chose to use a crack'ed version because it was more stable than the purchased one.

    I did the same with some of the purchased Waves Plugs ... many international phone calls to Waves while tring to solve the incompatability problems.

    I have many copies of Protools and Protools LE over the years and currently I use a single LE version on all my LE systems as it seems to be reliable.

    They should all be the same ... ?
    yes I agree the CDroms should all be the same for the same listed version
    so why does one consistently crash ?


    we love software
    I think this is getting OFF Topic

    I'll shut up now
     
  17. Lerxst

    Lerxst Guest


    Midi aligns just fine - unless you don't know what you are doing.

    I have used Cubase since 1.0 and I have never had any stability problems. I don't understand how anyone could think that a cracked version of a SX is going to be more stable - that's ridiculous and illegal.

    There is no version Cubase 4 - the current release is 3.1.1.994 so unless you have just released a new cracked version yourself you must must be smokin it.
     
  18. Kev

    Kev Well-Known Member

    so are we going to do this ? do we have to ? cos I'm over it long ago
    but if we must

    I have a Steinberg box in front of me and my product registration card says
    ... version 4.1
    and gives a product code and serial number
    Steinberg Australia
    A division of Music Link

    I also own a separate 3.52
    the second version was purchased because the rep could not supply an upgrade software and so sold me a NEW version.
    The Supplier had promised a solution by a specific date ...
    AND couldn't

    I knew they wouldn't be able to but it cost me the additional software to prove it


    so
    I must be a ^#$% wit

    I have emails from Steinberg referring to the same thing .. yes a few years old now but I have kept them.

    The BAD software was decided on .. with my cubase rep ... as a solution to the immediate problem.

    The extensive engineering test or both midi and audio gave consistently ... inconsistent results with a variety of computer hardware ... but always on the 001 and Mix+ audio hardware.

    I really don't want to go over ALL this again
    if you do a search right here you may find some of the posts
    unfortunately most of my activity was obviously in the old Tech Talk forum ... now defunct

    illegal so they say
    both Waves and Steinberg new what I was running and were scrambling to fix the issues
    Waves did and I removed the references
    Steinberg couldn't so I just stopped using Cubase

    chalk me up as another JP22 if you like
     
  19. Spy

    Spy Guest

    Just to clear this up (not that it's any of my beeswax), before Cubase became Cubase SX/SL/SE/LE it was known as Cubase VST and before that simply Cubase. AFAIK Cubase VST went up to version 5.xxx before it was remodelled and remarketed in it's current form.
     
  20. Lerxst

    Lerxst Guest

    True, but if we were talking about a CB VST version 3.x - 4.x that would indicate a very old version almost 8 years (1997-1998) that is end of life and unsupported.

    Then my next question would be: Why would anyone want to post an opinion on obsolete software - especially that old? It has no bearing on the stability or functionality of SX. SX is a completey different piece of software compared to CB VST - a complete re-write.
     

Share This Page