Software VS. Software

Discussion in 'Tracking / Mixing / Editing' started by Teacher, Aug 28, 2001.

  1. Teacher

    Teacher Guest

    Anyone have a fave software for the PC or legitimate biases toward some, I've been a cakewalk person since i began and stuck wit them wit there release of Sonar i'm not complain but then again i have no frame of reference...just interested on what everyone else has to say about it

    i heard about Logic, Radar, Nuendo, Cubase, Saw Studio, Reason, Acid, PT...i heard some people say they are all basically the same justa matter of how good u are wit the program...
     
  2. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    My favorite has to be Nuendo right now...I was a cakewalk user when I first started and quickly realized it's limitaions..no direct monitoring of fx, terrible EQing ability and lack of a good mixing view. Then I found Cubase and was creating more happily than ever..I enjoyed the interface, the ability to choose what type of monitoring I wanted, the clear menu selections on sync and MIDI. I tried Logic at one point but found myself having to really read the manual many times over to understand certain aspects of it..the mixer was nice but the environment made it impossible to get things done quickly if you didnt know what the hell was going on with it. Then came Nuendo...wow!! a complete step up from Cubase and a pretty good contender to Pro Tools..I never really got into Pro Tools since it requires 20 plus grand to even get started on a real Pro Tools system...dont have that type of cash lying around!! Anyways, Nuendo has a rock solid feel and style to it. Brings out the creativity in me that I like.
    In the long run most people are right when they say it's totally up to you and how you learn and adapt to a certain interface. One can say all they want about a certain software but in the end "you" have to be happy!
    Opus
     
  3. Teacher

    Teacher Guest

    thats funny u mention those things u don't like about cakewalk...cuz Sonar addressed and fixed all of them...i also meant digital recording quality...for ex i went to a studio that used pro tools i wasn't too sure if he had the "official" pro tools set up or what all i know is the vocals sounded relatively same as my vocals recording on Cakewalk pro 9 thru a mackie1402vlz and delta 66 sndcard...in my opinion that would make pro tools the worse of the product cuz i would assume that the studio has way better equipment then i do..meaning it should sound way better...at least i think...maybe the engineer wasn't as good as i thought?
     
  4. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    I guess maybe being more specific in your question would have led to a different answer!!! I totally hear(no pun intended there) you when you say you got the same quality sounding on your system as compared to the guy running pro tools. It is the engineer combined with the gear neing used that gets the better sound. Anyone can have all the most expensive and latest and greatest equipment and still make is sound like $*^t! Money can not buy you good ears!! Plain and simple! I recently listened to a recording done at a Pro Tools studio and then listened to what I recorded on my Nuendo system and it sounded very very close indeed! Not to sound egotistical or anything but my ears are tuned very well! I used an AKG D112 for vocals(since I lent my vocal mic to someone!!) and it came out sounding awesome! I'm going to try that more often! I put it thru my Mackie 1402 and used the inserts to get a direct out into my US428! USB!! no PCI card on that session!! It just goes to show that it's all in the operator!
    Now, Cubase and Nuendo definately have a different sound quality to it..as well as Pro Tools...
    Opus
     
  5. Teacher

    Teacher Guest

    HEEEYYYY wiat a min i didn't say my recording sounded like $*^t ;) i just said it sounded similar.
     
  6. try2break

    try2break Guest

    I'd just like to point out that the software is not what makes it sound different. It's the AD and DA converters, as well as the clock driving them, that contribute to the quality of the tone. You should have bit accuurate samples from all software if you use unity gain (fader at 0). If you are worried about the sound of the internal mixer of your software app, don't use it. Take you project to a studio with a quality analog desk to mixdown, if you feel it's good enuf.
     
  7. griff1096

    griff1096 Guest

    I'm just starting out with computer based recording... I'm using CUBSE 32 and I like it as far as the editing. The mixing is is great...


    NOW I've a question for the NEUDO guy.... The one thing that I don't like is the exporting. I'll have the mix great and I happy... Then I export it to 2 track sterio file... play it back and it has lost something. It's not as crisp, the tone is a little different. AND to answer your question before hand, no I didn't change from 24 to 16 bit.. I've been transfering from the adat's to the computer at 16.
     
  8. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    What properties are you selecting for the mixdown? Where are you listening to the two track mixdown when it is done? Another program? What version of Nuendo are you running..the latest version is 1.5.3pr1...most of the mixdown bugs have been corrected so far with this latest release..was the file created at 44.1 or 48Khz? let me know
    Opus
     
  9. griff1096

    griff1096 Guest

    OPUS..

    I'm sorry, I was not clear.. I'm running cubase vst 32(5.0)..

    I set the automation and everything sounds great. Then I click the export and it creats a stereo track @ 44.1 - 16 bits..

    I transfer the audio from my ADATs @ 48 - 16 bits..

    If I play it back in Cubase there is a slight change.... Same with Wavelab....
     
  10. Thomas W

    Thomas W Guest

    Heya Griffin,

    > I set the automation and everything sounds
    > great.

    If the mix sounds good from your computer, you should be able to capture that to a file.
    - almost perfectly into 24 bit
    - moderately well into 16 bit

    Dither & perhaps a little peak limiting will help you keep clear of the 16-bit noise floor.

    > Then I click the export and it creats a stereo
    > track @ 44.1 - 16 bits..
    > I transfer the audio from my ADATs @ 48 - 16
    > bits..

    Your bad! Bad bad bad!

    Sample rate conversion (SRC) causes severe quality loss.

    Re-digitizing thru analog & good converters is the main way that sounds good. High-end hardware SRC boxes might or might not match this. Software algorithms typically sound worse than a 12-bit sampler.


    Cheers,
    Thomas
     
  11. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    Thomas hit the nail on the head there!! Keep it all in the same bit rate and sample rate..this will keep everything sounding the same...
    Opus
     
  12. garyalan

    garyalan Guest

    Greetings fellow musicians...

    I wonder if any publication has done a comprehensive review of all or the majority of muscic software in the interests of commonality...a showdown of sorts if subjective (aren't we all to a degree) to see how they stack up.

    I'm a keyboard player- have a VS-840EX/External CD writer- to stay out of the computer and CW PRO Audio 9/Audio Efx 1 should I decide to use it...since it is a project studio & I plan on doing keys only projects (with a drum machine) don't see any issues I need to be concerned with... a friend has used CW 8 doing exactly that with great results actually...FWIW

    I joined PRO Talk today - good info here...

    Enjoy- Regards,

    GA
     
  13. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    Check out Prorec.com...they have some articles that discuss different software packages and so forth...you may need to search the archives for these but they are there..they have a recent one that discusses Sonar...
    Opus
     
  14. patrick

    patrick Guest

    Originally posted by Opus2000:
    Now, Cubase and Nuendo definately have a different sound quality to it..as well as Pro Tools...
    Opus


    Hi Opus. Could you please explain what sound differences you find in Cubase and Nuendo? I find Cubase great for midi, now that the Midex8 is here, but having become accustomed to Wavelab for mono or stereo file editing, I find Cubase quite cumbersome (and a bit nerve-racking, with it's very limited undo) for audio work.

    I gather that Nuendo (on the audio side) handles something like a multi-track Wavelab, but some people say that it sounds the same as Cubase. If it sounded considerably better in specific ways, it would make the idea of forking out over a grand for it a little more attractive.

    thanks
     
  15. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    To me..yes, Nuendo does sound a hell of a lot better...I have compared songs I recorded in Cubase(seems like eons ago that I used Cubase!) and transfered into Nuendo and heard more clarity and mistakes I made when recording in Cubase..I think the coding architecture helps smooth out the sound..but then again years of smoking pot could do that to one's perecption as well!! lol
    No, Seriously..I do hear a difference in quality..plus the fact thatI dont have to use an external editor..I just double click the waveform in question and up comes the sample editor..you can do everything right in Nuendo without having to close it out or have your clip not play back due to sound card issues.
    Cubase does make great recordings as well as MIDI recordings..Nuendo isnt for everyone..
    Opus
     
  16. patrick

    patrick Guest

    Hi again, Opus. Thanks for your comments.

    I was wondering, would there be any changes in your setup, since the days that you used Cuabse, that might account for the improvements that you notice, or would there still be that difference in audio quality if you recorded into each in your present setup?

    I've never been able to figure out why Steinberg doesn't make Wavelab Asio compatible, so you can use it with Cubase without frigging around with your drivers. :p

    Would you have any idea how Cubase and Nuendo would get along on the same PC at the same time, using Cubase for midi and syncing it to Nuendo for audio? (Or am I asking for even more trouble :eek: )

    thanks
     
  17. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    I would think you would be asking for trouble at that point!! I would think your system processing would be bogged down in a big way!! I agree about making WL ASIO compliant but then again I find it works just fine with my layla and the 428...
    the only difference between my setup is the US428..but to be honest I really only use it as a controller surface more than an audio input..when I was doing "some" beta testing for Tascam on the 2.0 drivers I used it for audio only..at that poing I wasnt really recording my songs tho..just throwing data in for testing..
    Even using my 20bit layla I noticed a difference between Cubase and Nuendo...Nuendo just makes life a hell of a lot easier to record and have fun with..personally I think Cubase needs a lot of work to get all the bugs out of it...Nuendo has some issues but nothing like Cubase!!
    Opus
     
  18. Teacher

    Teacher Guest

    WDM drivers wave of the future....sonar got it first
     
  19. Opus2000

    Opus2000 Well-Known Member

    Originally posted by Teacher:
    WDM drivers wave of the future....sonar got it first

    and your point is?
     
  20. Teacher

    Teacher Guest

    i pretty much forgot what my point was that was a couple of days ago i was prolly high or drunk or both :D
     

Share This Page