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

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

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

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

eightsonstudio wrote:

a cubase system cannot contend with a pro tools tdm system peroid

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

for making and recording / producing a top notch sounding song... a whole lot of rubish.

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 shit dont matter, just strictly talking processing power :lol:

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)

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?

i dont belive there is one, but i certainly could be wrong, being a hd user i have never really looked for one

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

silicon_demon wrote: Does anyone know of a unit like this that can have ANY vst loaded into it?

[[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.muserese…"]Muse Receptor[/]="http://www.muserese…"]Muse Receptor[/] - not compatible with every VST but covers a lot of them.

spy wrote:

silicon_demon wrote:
Does anyone know of a unit like this that can have ANY vst loaded into it?

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

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

crack is bad.

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

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:// http://www.audiomidi.com/aboutus/reviews/hoover_receptor.cfm] [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!

silicon_demon wrote: for the love of wilt chamberlain, where did that come from?

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

Kev wrote:
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

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

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.

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 fuck 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

Lerxst wrote: 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.

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.

Spy wrote: [quote=Lerxst]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.

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.

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.

silicon_demon wrote:

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:// http://www.audiomidi.com/aboutus/reviews/hoover_receptor.cfm] [url]http://www.audiomidi.com/aboutus/reviews/hoover_receptor.cfm

fair enough that you have a good relationship with some of your plugs and that you would like to keep 'em... the receptor is just by far to expensive for what it does... and i know that SCV london, that is the UK distr. had all sorts of other problems with the unit, saying that software which is part of the UAD-1 card is something "thrown" at you... i guess you are not aware of that like your existing VSTs or not, the pretty much best plugs on this planet are "thrown" at you, and beat specially considering the super modest price of the studio pack version of the UAD-1 card, all that waves, urs and whatever plugs, i don't say they are bad, but a UAD-1 is a UAD-1 period... and if you don't really know the card you should take some time checking it... you want regret.... or you are ignorant???

about the PC, i am not from help, i am a diehard Mac head... but for shure better a new powerfull PC then a receptor...

cheers

Lerxst wrote: 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.

well I am
... as I said it was a long time ago and I also said I stopped using it

I am still using Protools ( I started with SoundTools)
and still loading material recorded in very old versions ... PT4 ... even a PT3 session was brought to me last year.
... however
Sample Cell Hardware and software is gone
Vibra and Stella is gone
and Master List is gone
and the list goes one for ALL softwares
Steinberg's Red Valve IT ... vanished for no reason

so some material is very difficult to resurrect

IF you write a song today and put it on the shelf for later, do you expect to be able to load into something in ten years time ?

Modern word processor packages are more open platform now and can load very old documents from Lotus 123 and Word Perfect etc
yes in the early days they were all at war with each other
AND
it feels there way with the major DAW people want to live that way
OMF should be a standard
The wav file should be standard
(so why isn't it BUT I am glad we don't have the SDII fight anymore ... except with archival material)

There is good and bad with all softwares and timing of the choices you makes with respect to Operating Systems and support softwares like drivers and plugs can greatly effect you opinions.

AVID, FCP, Protools, Nuendo, Cubase, Cakewalk ... DECK ... PEAK
the last 15 years have been a rocky road of upgrades
BUT
the support from Digidesign with Protools ... PRE AVID or LE was much much better than now.

It is not likely I would ever bother to try Cubase again.

BACK to the original point of the thread
Nuendo, Pyramix, Logic and Protools are good DAW starting points.

axel wrote:

i guess you are not aware of that like your existing VSTs or not, the pretty much best plugs on this planet are "thrown" at you, and beat specially considering the super modest price of the studio pack version of the UAD-1 card, all that waves, urs and whatever plugs, i don't say they are bad, but a UAD-1 is a UAD-1 period... and if you don't really know the card you should take some time checking it... you want regret.... or you are ignorant???

lemme just say that i won't devolve to name-calling. also, i was not debasing the UAD-1 or responding negatively towards it. in fact, having looked into it a bit, i'd say it sounds like a very high-quality card...including it's plug-ins.

However, there is a learning curve to all things one is unfamiliar with, and i have wittled down the vsts that work for me; they are of extremely high quality, easy-to use GUIs, and after time have soaked into my comfort zone......and they were expensive. And i want to keep using them.

that's it.

let's build in these forums. "i'm" definitely here to do that. not criticize.

hi silicon_demon, fair enough i said already that i totally understand that point of keeping using what you have (your VSTs), still can't help you with a PC advice, thou...

and this: axel wrote:

.... or you are ignorant???

was a question, sorry that i gave the impression of an sort of insult. just replied to your:

i'm not interested in some guy pawning off his vsts on me when i already like my own.

as the UAD-1 still remains one of the best "software" solutions, by all means buy the receptor... or upgrade your PC, you will know what's better.

cheers

This is kind of un-related at this point but back on the original subject, my vote goes with Cubase. When compared to PT LE of course. Now if I were to give a major studio engineer a PT HD setup, yeah they could produce some great stuff. But I bet if I gave that same engineer a Cubase setup with a really nice front end (preamps and A/D), I would get a great result none the less. Keep in mind, by that time, the Cubase setup would be as costly as the PT HD setup.

That being said I still plan to buy at least an M-powered system so that I can send me clients home with the option of taking a PT session for mixdown at a PT studio if they should so choose.