Ok I have no way to qualify this at all but...

[elmuchoescadawg]

Ive just made the jump from Logic with motu gear to pro tools HD and already Im finding it soooooo much easier to work with.. although I couldnt really say why!! I know Ive only scratched the surface of what I can do with tools but already Im able to work much quicker. The other strange thing and Ive no idea why at all is that it also seems to sound better/ clearer.. This could be the convertors i spose Ive no idea but having made the leap I can totally justify the cost of going HD!!!

 

[Notuern]

Logic should be called "unlogic".
Ive always felt that Logic and Cubase has all the functions scattered out all over the place, forcing you to click everywhere, or use multiple shortcommands, that other musicsoftware does with a simple mousclick.

Different soundengines have different "amounts" of clarity.
A good example of this is Fruity Loops.
It has always had a muddy and noisy engine, but in version 8, it sounds great.
I even think it sounds just as good as protools, but of course its not as powerfull when it comes to recording.

 

[006]

Logic should be called "unlogic".
Ive always felt that Logic and Cubase has all the functions scattered out all over the place, forcing you to click everywhere, or use multiple shortcommands, that other musicsoftware does with a simple mousclick

And the way I have Cubase set up for me allows me to say the exact opposite. Hell, even with default settings Cubase has always been easier for me to use than when I used ProTools or Digital Performer (which is very reminiscent of PT). Different strokes....

~006

 

[James Murphy]

no mike, you're just used to it.

 

[006]

True, but I worked in PTHD for quite a long time as well as PTLE for personal use for a long time, then switched to DP...eventually came right back to Cubase asking myself why I had ever switched in the first place... I only used PT because the studio used it.

~006

 

[Ermz]

ProTools is amazingly quick & powerful, but Digidesign's lack of reasonable midrange options render the software essentially useless to many of us. That, along with being locked into their hardware makes it a very shitty option unless you're forking out for a HD rig, and even then you have to use a set of external converters that don't suck as much as their 96 i/o units. Just ends up costing way too much at the end for the project studio operator.

Cubase is nice, cheap, easy to learn, effective etc. Doesn't have the editing power, speed, intuitiveness of ProTools, but it's a workable piece of software for tracking, mixing & mastering. It doesn't lock you into specific hardware, so you're free to use whatever. Biggest drawback, for me, is very clumsy editing.

I use both. Both for tracking, 'tools for editing and Cubase for mixing.

I think out of all the DAWs I've used, ProTools has the most 'analogue-like' layout and channel structuring, which make it fairly intuitive if you think in a logical manner. Cubase is a little bit arse-backwards, but it's nothing that you can't get around with a bit of time. I think if it weren't for Digide$ign, ProTools could more or less be considered the be-all-end-all for many of us. Add in VST support, unlock it to work with other hardware, screw off HD and accept that we can run shit natively with our octo-cores now. Bam.

 

[Metaltastic]

It might be that I learned Cubase essentially by myself, whereas I had formal instruction in PT (both in class at school and from Mitch Gallagher's "Pro Tools Clinic" book, which rules), but I find PT much easier to edit in as well - god do I love that little smart tool! And Moony, I wasn't aware the converters in the HD interfaces were still sub-par; a pity, but I would argue that an M Audio Profire 2626 with external hi-end ADAT converters is a decent (upper) midrange option.

 

[Loren Littlejohn]

Moony, I wasn't aware the converters in the HD interfaces were still sub-par

It's true. The studio where I interned uses Benchmark converters both in and out.

 

[Kazrog]

Having given every DAW a try this year, including an extended stay with Pro Tools, I find Cubase far more intuitive and powerful than the others, for any task, including editing.

Whatever works best for your workflow is the right app. People are doing great work in all of them.

 

[DestroyTheColossus]

The one thing that really gets to me is how easy it is to bus and sidechain in Protools and how much of a pain in the ass it is to do it in Cubendo. Protools even supplied a button to sidechain compressors that didnt offer the option, while other daws need a plug-in that offers sidechaining in order to work. For price reasons I use cubase though.

 

[006]

Having given every DAW a try this year, including an extended stay with Pro Tools, I find Cubase far more intuitive and powerful than the others, for any task, including editing.

Whatever works best for your workflow is the right app. People are doing great work in all of them.

Glad I'm not alone here. But Shane is right on the real point that it's all relative to the user. I can work so quickly in Cubase while the next guy can't even figure out how to add a track in it - but can work just as efficiently in PT.

Whatever works best for your workflow is the right app. People are doing great work in all of them.

For the record, Cubase now supports sidechaining just like PT.

And I use a LOT of busses in my projects and I can set them up in a flash...dunno what you are talking about there.

~006

 

[Ermz]

Having given every DAW a try this year, including an extended stay with Pro Tools, I find Cubase far more intuitive and powerful than the others, for any task, including editing.

Are there any tutorial videos or documentation around that instruct people on how to edit effectively in Cubase? I feel a bit like I'm trying to work with my appendages severed in it, whereas in ProTools I'm all over the place with shortcuts.

Also, another biggie... is there any downloadable key mappings for Cubase that give it shortcut commands similar to 'Tools?

Allllso... is there anything that rival's PT's beat detective and elastic time in Cubase?

I've noticed that on the whole it seems to be more the electronic programming/beats/sequencing type guys that like Cubase, and that's all good and well, as those seem to be its roots. But I need the power to edit shitty drummers/vocalists in a flash, as I deal solely with recorded music.

 

[James Murphy]

external converters that don't suck as much as their 96 i/o units. Just ends up costing way too much at the end for the project studio operator.

wouldn't know about the 96, i use 192's, just like Andy has for years now, and they are great. not a damned thing wrong with those converters.

Cubase...doesn't have the editing power, speed, intuitiveness of ProTools,.... Biggest drawback, for me, is very clumsy editing.... I think out of all the DAWs I've used, ProTools has the most 'analogue-like' layout and channel structuring, which make it fairly intuitive if you think in a logical manner. Cubase is a little bit arse-backwards...

thank you, finally a realist among Cubase users.

 

[kaomao]

I worked a lot in cubase before switching to Pro tools.
What took me ages to do in cubase, just took me few days to learn and master in protools.
With protools is like working with a real mixer, no bullshits.
Look at how many useless menus are inside cubase and look how many menus are inside protools, protools just got what you really need.
But anyway it's just my opinion

 

[ahjteam]

ProTools is amazingly quick & powerful, but Digidesign's lack of reasonable midrange options render the software essentially useless to many of us.

Thats why its not called Amateur Tools

Are there any tutorial videos or documentation around that instruct people on how to edit effectively in Cubase?

Yep. On dvd and youtube.

Also, another biggie... is there any downloadable key mappings for Cubase that give it shortcut commands similar to 'Tools?

There is atleast Logic and Sonar keycommands, but I think there might be ones that are similiar to Pro Tools. Google. You can also add the keyboard shortcuts yourself. "File > Key Commands"

Allllso... is there anything that rival's PT's beat detective and elastic time in Cubase?

PT's Elastic time was actually pretty much copied from Cubases Time Warp feature. Atleast on Cubase version 3 it was effective much limited to single tracks (unless you did only like 3 really small edits), dunno about Cubase 4 tho.

 

[Metaltastic]

Thats why its not called Amateur Tools

Oh give me a break, this isn't gearslutz. :Smug:

 

[Ermz]

Yeah, I have to second that. Reads like a bit like the wank you tend to find on there. If they didn't intend to hit the home studio market, they never would've released LE. Thanks for the editing tutorial suggestions though. I'll hit up YouTube and try to find something relevant. The closer I can get Cubase behaving like PT in terms of editing, the better.

@James: I think I may have used the 192 unit once or twice, but since I never tend to track above 48kHz, never quite used it to full potential. At the lower sample rates, it was beaten out by the Apogee Rosetta and Lynx Aurora in the studio (IMO... and in the studio owners' opinion too). As with most things in that higher price range I find better converters to give that last 5% or so of extra quality, which can be cumulative to a reasonably significant change when all the tracks are mixed. The 96 and 192 I/Os, I find are adequate, but when a person needlessly spends $10,000 for hardware to run plug-ins which they can easily run natively, they'd probably want it to be closer to 'spectacular'. That's my main beef with Digi. They can get away with it all because they own the industry standard. It's for that reason I remain a Cubase user, despite its arse-backwardness. Support the underdog, freemarkets yadi yadi yada.

 

[James Murphy]

rock on.... "fight the good fight"... all that scheiße.... i prefer to just get to work and interface perfectly with the overwhelming majority of the industry.

regarding converters, anyone who says they can hear a difference, cumulatively or otherwise between an Apogee Rosetta and and a digi 192 on a metal project is smoking the crazy-crack and i double-dog dare them to pick the Rosetta accurately and repeatedly in a blind A/B test with such program material.... i can see it now... dude leaning over to place his ears "in the sweet spot"... and proclaiming, "yes, this one maintains the pristine depth of the stereo field, and the cymbals are much more detailed and 3-D in their imaging, and blah blah blah blah, insert pretentious audio buzz-words ad infinitum". especially with very busy, dense music like metal.

i fully understand,believe, and know implicitly that quality converters are very important, but the 192 converters are fine, and even excellent when clocked with something like a Big Ben, which i have.
also there are tangible benefits with a TDM system that native-only systems cannot yet replace, regardless of how fast computers currently are.

so you can "stick it to the man" and all that noise... hey, i have "beef" with Digi too... but i hardly feel my much more than $10,000 hardware purchase was "needless" by any definition of the word. it has paid for itself, nearly twice over already.... and made my life a damned sight easier.

it's a cakewalk (no pun intended) to proselytize to the uninitiated and make them believe "hey, cool, i already have everything i need to go pro".... everyone wants to believe that the time and money they've invested is going to pay out, but unless you make really good choices the reality will sink in soon enough. you can rail against standards all you want, but they really do make the professional world go 'round much easier, and the first time major label A&R calls you up asks if you have Pro Tools HD and wants you to mix an album, i'd be curious to be there to see how quick you call to book time at a studio with HD, and/or call your banker. there IS a price of admission.

FTR, i don't care what anyone here uses.... cubase, nuendo, cakewalk, or even f'n Guitar Tracks Pro, doesn't matter... doesn't matter to me, and probably doesn't matter to your clients either, if you have any. But start working as part of a team on bigger signed label projects... say, as the recording engineer on a project with a producer and a big name mix engineer, and band mebmers who have done a bunch of pre-pro, both with and without the producer... and you're the only guy trying to use Cubendowalk Pro or whatever..... well, i can tell you now, that's just not gonna work out for you, i don't care how easy it is to convert the files. no one's gonna want to deal with it, for the most part.

 

[AStudio]

Perfect as always James, I can just see it now "label calls up and asks the obvious questions, what platform do you work with?

You say Cubase, followd by can you please bounce all 150 audio tracks down so i can import into Cubase? Label hangs up."

After a few of those calls you will know the above is golden information.

 

[elmuchoescadawg]

i fully understand,believe, and know implicitly that quality converters are very important, but the 192 converters are fine, and even excellent when clocked with something like a Big Ben, which i have.
also there are tangible benefits with a TDM system that native-only systems cannot yet replace, regardless of how fast computers currently are.

it's a cakewalk (no pun intended) to proselytize to the uninitiated and make them believe "hey, cool, i already have everything i need to go pro".... everyone wants to believe that the time and money they've invested is going to pay out, but unless you make really good choices the reality will sink in soon enough. you can rail against standards all you want, but they really do make the professional world go 'round much easier, and the first time major label A&R calls you up asks if you have Pro Tools HD and wants you to mix an album, i'd be curious to be there to see how quick you call to book time at a studio with HD, and/or call your banker. there IS a price of admission.

FTR, i don't care what anyone here uses.... cubase, nuendo, cakewalk, or even f'n Guitar Tracks Pro, doesn't matter... doesn't matter to me, and probably doesn't matter to your clients either, if you have any. But start working as part of a team on bigger signed label projects... say, as the recording engineer on a project with a producer and a big name mix engineer, and band mebmers who have done a bunch of pre-pro, both with and without the producer... and you're the only guy trying to use Cubendowalk Pro or whatever..... well, i can tell you now, that's just not gonna work out for you, i don't care how easy it is to convert the files. no one's gonna want to deal with it, for the most part.

And having collaborated on a few records this year where we bounced from tools to logic and back again I can tell you even with bounced audio files its still an utter paid in the arse. This pretty much sums up why I made the move in the first place..

So far im very happy with it with no plans to go back!!!