Considering Presonus Studio One

[drew_drummer]

Man I dont have the time to do that in the extend nesecery, nor I feel I have to prove anything. Just load the cubase 5 nuendo 4 example and you'll get your answer. That analysis project I did almost two or more years ago. Instead I call anyone that can post me data in that matter that say that all daws are uniquality output, please do.

In the mean while when I'll have the time I'll make a simple cubase to nuendo to protools 10 comparison just for the sake of information, and nothing more.

The onus is not on us to prove anything. You can't prove a negative. It is on you to prove YOUR claims.

As for your request to checkout Cubase 5 and Nuendo, many people have done so before. Cakewalk even came out one time and said that all DAWs are effectively the same, given the same constants.

If I were a member of the Slate team, I'd use this thread as evidence for not hiring you.

 

[egan.]

..and one more thing, you can't insult anyone with truth.

You said people here "appreciate their ego more than real input." That isn't a "truth" but an insult based on an opinion. If you want to be the scientific authority then the answer is to show us your science. You can't complain that people disagree with you (or don't automatically concede your authority) when all you have are unsubstantiated claims. That's at least as egotistical as anything argued against you.

 

[JeffTD]

WishX, you're full of shit.

But just to prove it, if someone wants to post pre-mixed tracks all bounced out (like kick, snare, toms, OH, stereo gtrs, bass, vocals, etc) and pre-processed to the point where you can just drop them into a DAW and hit 'export,' we can really find out. I can run this test on C6, Logic 9, and PT10, and I'm sure on the forum we have every single DAW imaginable covered.

 

[LeSedna]

The pre-statement that someone would build a DAW where basic summing would be different would just mean their engine is broken since summing is supposed to be what it is, a sum. If a DAW sums differently, it's not doing its job, or some setting is different (like they say, pan law) or something is happening in a non-linear fashion.

 

[MartijnPaauwe]

You guys are all dead wrong, Nuendo has the BOOOM
(I could not resist )

I think all industry standard DAW's are pretty much preference in terms of workflow nowadays.

I think we all should bow to WishX because he is definitely superior to all of us (also could not resist)

 

[Wishx]

WishX, you're full of shit.

But just to prove it, if someone wants to post pre-mixed tracks all bounced out (like kick, snare, toms, OH, stereo gtrs, bass, vocals, etc) and pre-processed to the point where you can just drop them into a DAW and hit 'export,' we can really find out. I can run this test on C6, Logic 9, and PT10, and I'm sure on the forum we have every single DAW imaginable covered.

Your funny, I give you that.
Do you also believe that offline export is the same as real time ? .

Anyway, will be posting the actual data in this trial. So we can move on to the next court case.

 

[El_Gato]

Hi I'm afraid you don't know what your talking about, I am an analyst already offered to be hired by slate digital and Eiosis so yeah I know what I am talking about...

Frequency response, THD and THD+N in each DAW main output is different depending on its algorithm. You can just route a sine wave from your daw to a THD analyzer and see really whats going on. Also there are more sophisticated tests that prove that. More so, than that. load a mix in cubase 5 then load the same mix in Nuendo 4. The differense is apparent. so basicly, before you start playing smart ass. Be one.

Smart-ass? Me? Well it's not me the one who is bragging around about who I almost work for while ignoring the facts actual developers and pros demonstrated long ago. If you're so smart, learn to read. I asked not to turn this into a DAWs wars in the first time, smart-ass.

Anyway, I'm too busy as it is, to be arguing about something fairly easy to test. I'm trying to help here but seems people, apriciatte more their ego than real input...This is sad;

Ego? We're not the ones trying to derail the thread to catch the others' eye like a baby crying to be the center of attention while claiming you are an analyst.

Analyst? You remind me of those economy analysts who can't predict shit and never did while acting like spoiled know-it-alls. But we don't know what we're talking about, you obviously do. Who's on an ego trip now?

Trying to help? who? you can't help yourself from getting the fuck out of the thread as I asked you twice.

Man I dont have the time to do that in the extend nesecery, nor I feel I have to prove anything. Just load the cubase 5 nuendo 4 example and you'll get your answer. That analysis project I did almost two or more years ago. Instead I call anyone that can post me data in that matter that say that all daws are uniquality output, please do.

In the mean while when I'll have the time I'll make a simple cubase to nuendo to protools 10 comparison just for the sake of information, and nothing more.

You don't have the time to "do a simple test" but you have time to derail threads in which nobody asked for your opinion in this issue.

Post proof? us? lol, you're crossing the fucking red line now. The proof is everywhere since the test of Lynn Fuston ten years ago. Go educate yourself before playing the smart-ass. You're adding nothing but shit here.

Sure you're mixes sound better than any of ours because of your DAW of choice

..and one more thing, you can't insult anyone with truth.

You can't insult anyone with truth? LOL Smartest-of-the-smartest-ass at work? OK, you did it, now this thread is about fucking DAWs' quality. Look, even if there's a tiny differences because of THD, 32 bit floating or whatever fixed (and some of us ARE aware of the maths involved, files still FUCKING NULL! The difference is disregarded for the human ear anyway even if your meters say the contrary.

Look, another proof I give you now, I imported all your different posts in this thread into different DAWs, I mixed them and guess what... THEY FUCKING NULL. Or is it my brain nulled trying to digest your arguments? They also sound like shit to me, maybe it's the THD fucking around...

What the fuck are you idiots talking about?

Who you calling idiot? EDIT: ok , I see, now.

You guys are all dead wrong, Nuendo has the BOOOM
(I could not resist )

I think all industry standard DAW's are pretty much preference in terms of workflow nowadays.

I think we all should bow to WishX because he is definitely superior to all of us (also could not resist)

You're dead wrong again, ONLY Nuendo 4 and PT8 havez the BOOOM

 

[drew_drummer]

Your funny, I give you that.
Do you also believe that offline export is the same as real time ? .

As far as a host is concerned, they're the same. Other than they transmit the offline flag to all plugins, and the plugin then takes that and makes decisions based on it - oversampling, larger render buffers, etc...

 

[drew_drummer]

The pre-statement that someone would build a DAW where basic summing would be different would just mean their engine is broken since summing is supposed to be what it is, a sum. If a DAW sums differently, it's not doing its job, or some setting is different (like they say, pan law) or something is happening in a non-linear fashion.

There are things like PDC and independent track buffering that may make a difference to the output. But raw summing? 1+1 .. THD does not come into it.

Given that a DAW does not have a noise floor (unless it is really broken) and given that it also does not have a frequency response, THD cannot apply.

Frequencies response is at the A/D and D/A stage, as well as the input and output of the plugin (and anything inside the plugin which relates to frequency) - none which has nothing to do with the DAW.

As far as I understand it anyway. I'm open to proof, not just bleatings.

 

[Ermz]

I recall doing my first mix in Studio One and being quite impressed at how quickly it came together and how good it sounded, after years of using Cubase. That's the only experience that even remotely makes me feel like there's something to the 'DAW-sound' debate. All the actual evidence and data I've seen on the subject so far points toward my experience being completely placebo.

 

[Wishx]

...and as I said, when I have the time to spare. I'll make a good thread with DAW messurments, for the sake of information. You can bitch about whatever you want from now on...or google math, your ignored and I'm sad for you. For the rest of the forum please have patience for the Thread to be ready.

 

[drew_drummer]

...and as I said, when I have the time to spare. I'll make a good thread with DAW messurments, for the sake of information. You can bitch about whatever you want from now on...or google math, your ignored and I'm sad for you. For the rest of the forum please have patience for the Thread to be ready.

Nah it's cool. No worries... post your evidence and we'll go from there. I'll get my Cakewalk links ready

 

[captainboom]

I'm also waiting for proofs. And especially the test protocol you used.

 

[PD-Baraka]

I was a 10 year cubase user WHO switched to Studio One last year.

Never looked back, i run RME hardware so i dont need cubase`s control room.

But i could see it be handy to some.

I would like Pro Tools` Disk cache feature and Reaper`s customizability, else i dont need anything with Studio one.

 

[rvs0002]

Bought Studio One 2 last year and have started using it pretty regularly instead of Cubase (unless I have to do something really fast as I know Cubase much better after using it since the SX days).

I made the switch for one reason, as stupid as it sounds, and that is Cubase's windows that resize everytime I do something. Drove me absolutley mad (maybe they finally fixed it with 7?). Bought an Audiobox 1818vsl and it came with S1, then they came out with a cheap upgrade path and one day as I was getting pissed at Cubase I thought "I'll do it" and have been very impressed so far. Love all the drag and drop features and no dongle needed. Still need to learn how to edit quicker, but other than that (and missing the midi drum editor a bit) I think I'll stick with it. I can't tell a difference sound wise.

I think by the end of the year I'll probably be done with Cubase for good except for opening old projects.

Another plus I just thought about was that I haven't had one single crash with Studio One 2. Cubase crashed or froze on me fairly frequently (usually at a very bad time). Been through three different pc's and it did it on all of them.

Good luck with it, hope it works out for you.

 

[hct]

I switched to Studio One more than year ago from Logic Pro. I was getting tired to hope that Apple will fix looooongstanding bugs. Now, back to the original post ...

- Stable here on OSX 10.8. I've had crashes, but tracked it down to Slate VCC VST's. Using AU version now and it's been rock solid.

- Studio One hasn't (and will not have) a builtin bridge, but http://jstuff.wordpress.com/jbridgem/ works pretty well.

- There are some rough edges here and there. For example not all works as you'd expect with multioutput instruments. I'd say that developers haven't have enough versions yet to think about all things . There is one area where Studio One seriously lacks compared to the big players though - a controller support. You can forget about Eucon, advanced Mackie control features and so on for now. But Presonus guys have made promise in forum that it will be fixed before 3.0. Will see ...