Which is technically better- pro tools, nuendo, cubase.
- Thread starter kev
- Start date
I love to work with Logic, and the synths/plugins that comes with 7.0 are really good! The only reason why I use Pro Tools right now is becouse we got a control24 to the studio, and its kind of nice to mix with real faders.
black sugar
The Burninator
Skyweaver
Shred or Die !
I use Nuendo its easy to get started with and fairly intuitive, I've picked up the Protools handbook and there seems to be a longer learning curve to get started, as for quality of the final output - all the software products are close.
You decision should be based on your current and future needs, etc; do you want to record tracks at home and then go to professional studio for mix ? if then Pro Tool may be an option as most professional studio's can load up your sessions and mix.
For me, the drum recording studio uses nuendo and I just take home the whole session from there and record all guitars, vocals, bass in my home studio then mix and send off to be mastered.
You decision should be based on your current and future needs, etc; do you want to record tracks at home and then go to professional studio for mix ? if then Pro Tool may be an option as most professional studio's can load up your sessions and mix.
For me, the drum recording studio uses nuendo and I just take home the whole session from there and record all guitars, vocals, bass in my home studio then mix and send off to be mastered.
Razorjack
Bass Behemoth
Razorjack said:
What?? If this is possible you have to tell me how!?
I´ve been on the Digidesign forums and the people that use the control24 say that it´s only working with Pro Tools.
Muttley
Member
- Oct 27, 2004
- 150
- 0
- 16
OzNimbus said:
I'm sorry, but speaking from a programmers point of view that's bunkum.
C++ is not an interpreted language as you imply (maybe you're thinking of Java). A C++ program is indeed converted to machine code by a compiler, but this is done at build time by the developer. What you install on your machine and run is already machine code.
Plus, I bet that SawStudio is written in Assembly Language (I don't think anyone these days sits there typing in hex codes to program
), and this then needs to be compiled to machine language by something known as an assembler which basically does the same job as a compiler does for C/C++. And unless it totally bypasses the operating system it's going to need to use OS libraries and APIs that, on the whole, will have been written in C/C++ anyway. C/C++ is generally used for large programming projects because it's a much quicker language to develop in. Plus the huge majority of programmers out there would probably make far less efficient machine code by hand than a compiler can.
Huge amounts of optimisation can be done of C++ code, either in the compilation process or by inlining small assembly routines if required (rarely).
Also, don't forget that CPUs are stupidly fast these days, and the major bottlenecks for audio software are through memory, disk and bus bandwidth limitations. Machine code won't help you there at all.
At the end of the day, machine code is not inherently better than C++, and C++ is not inherently better than machine code. They're basically two tools for getting the job done, and what you use is basically down to personal taste. Kinda like the whole Mac vs. PC nonsense (my Commodore 64 is better than your Spectrum, etc.).
Just my 2p.
Muttley
chadsxe
Super Rad Member
- Dec 13, 2005
- 1,136
- 0
- 36
Muttley said:I'm sorry, but speaking from a programmers point of view that's bunkum.
C++ is not an interpreted language as you imply (maybe you're thinking of Java). A C++ program is indeed converted to machine code by a compiler, but this is done at build time by the developer. What you install on your machine and run is already machine code.
Plus, I bet that SawStudio is written in Assembly Language (I don't think anyone these days sits there typing in hex codes to program
C/C++ is generally used for large programming projects because it's a much quicker language to develop in. Plus the huge majority of programmers out there would probably make far less efficient machine code by hand than a compiler can.
Huge amounts of optimisation can be done of C++ code, either in the compilation process or by inlining small assembly routines if required (rarely).
Also, don't forget that CPUs are stupidly fast these days, and the major bottlenecks for audio software are through memory, disk and bus bandwidth limitations. Machine code won't help you there at all.
At the end of the day, machine code is not inherently better than C++, and C++ is not inherently better than machine code. They're basically two tools for getting the job done, and what you use is basically down to personal taste. Kinda like the whole Mac vs. PC nonsense (my Commodore 64 is better than your Spectrum, etc.).
Just my 2p.
Muttley
being a fellow programmer I have to back up everything you just said......by the time we see any of these software projects it is already down to a machine language level.....C++ and any other intermediate language was developed to make coding easier.....no one with a sain mind programs on a machine level anymore (unless they have to i.e. old old old programs)....but if you want to get techniqual you can program down to a machine level in c++ for optimization......
errrr....
every freaking program is going to do almost the same thing.......you just have to find the one that works best FOR YOU>...
Gomez
Member
What really annoys me about any DAW is that it will be a piece of absolute junk in 10 years time (or even a lot less).
They also loose its value very quickly
I know most people here loves digital (so do I) but when I buy digital equipment I feel like "I have bought something".
When I buy a nice piece analog gear I feel like "I've made an investment".
Not necessarily true for everything out there.
just my £0.02
They also loose its value very quickly
I know most people here loves digital (so do I) but when I buy digital equipment I feel like "I have bought something".
When I buy a nice piece analog gear I feel like "I've made an investment".
Not necessarily true for everything out there.
just my £0.02
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
ltratt said:
I'll have to respectfully disagree with this statement. Speaking as someone who used Sonar & Cubase for years, speed wise, SS kicks the living crap out of both of them. Seriously, going back and pulling up a project in Sonar is like watching a slideshow in comparison.
But don't take my word for it, dowload the demo and try it out. Watch the record & playback meters. No slowdown. Layer 4 takes of 12 drum mics, and then swap them in & out of the mix without stopping playback (I've yet to find another DAW that can pull that off) Pull up a 36 track mix & hit the F keys as fast as you can. (F keys are screen layout & setup keys) It'll swap views lightning fast without breaking playback.
Actually, that's probably where some of the speed gain lies. It bypasses Windows. No registry hooks. Uninstalling is as simple as deleting the directory.
Gentlemen, I really have no interest in starting a flame war. I use a DAW that takes a radically different approach to audio production than the mainstream. It's written by one dude, who also happens to provide the best tech support I've ever encountered.
Use whatever you're comfortable with, but if you want to try something that's really different & really fast, check out the demo at www.sawstudio.com
-0z-
It's been hard to bit my tongue on this one, but with due respect, OzNimbus you really don't know as much as you think.OzNimbus said:
When you stated Machine Code you really meant Assembly Language.
High level languages like C, C++ are not interpreted, but compiled... it's not a distinction without a difference
Todays compilers also do instruction scheduling/optimizations which would really be a chore for a human and with Hyper-threading... well.
Writing a Windows program solely in Assembly is a real job... a much better approach is to develop it in C/C++ and optimize certain portions by hand.
I'm not convinced SAW bypasses Windows. In NT it's impossible unless Kernel mode drivers are installed... an NT task can't get to the HW. Anyways, there's no reason to bypass the OS.
Secondly, what's a Registry Hook? The Registry is just a data DB.
Cheers,
Kelch-
BTW: Samplitude is a great DAW program.
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
kelch said:It's been hard to bit my tongue on this one, but with due respect, OzNimbus you really don't know as much as you think.
Dude, I never claimed to be a know-it-all
That's my wife's job. Actually, that's why I'm on this forum every day: to learn.
As far as my total programming knowledge & experience goes, we're talking 20 years ago typing in programs out of the back of Compute! magazine, both in basic & assembler. Man, did I ever pick up debugging skills! These days, I'm a rank amateur, no question about it.
Ok, let me clarify: You're right... it's written in assember. My bad. I've always got the two terms mixed up. Ok, commence crucifixion!kelch said:
Yes, writing in assember is a real labor intensive process, but one that the programmer swears by. But then again, he designed & built his own large format analog consloe back in the 70's (all that soldering... again, labor intensive) I can't even begin to imagine how hard it is to write that kind of program in that language.
To clarify, the core audio engine bypasses Windows and has a direct pipe to the processor. Api's such as Direct X & VST are still available, as well as MME & ASIO drivers, not to mention display drivers.
Bob, the developer, thought it was pretty important for the audio engine to bypass Windows because he felt it created too much of a speed penalty.
If you'd like to find out more about it, you can ask him yourself over at
http://www.sawstudiouser.net/forums/index.php
He's a pretty cool guy to talk to.
BTW, you're right, Samplitude is a cool program as well.
Muttley
Member
- Oct 27, 2004
- 150
- 0
- 16
Hey Oz, please don't think I was trying to have a dig at you or start a flame war or anything, 'cos I'm not at all.
I just saw a bit of misinformation and needed to correct it, as you must realise how info posted on the Intermaweb spreads and hangs around for years and years.
I've had a bit of a play with SawStudio now, and I do see how he's done it. Yes, he's definitely bypassing most of the Windows GUI API as it appears he makes one canvas window to display stuff in, and uses his own GUI code for the windows and menus inside it. This would mean he has more precise control over the GUI performance, although it may put people off the progam as it works kinda differently to normal Windoze apps. He still has to capture events from the Windows API telling him whether someone has clicked/moved the mouse in his window though.
Not used it extensively, but it doesn't seem particularly intuitive. That may be down to me though.
The other thing is the price. It's hella expensive compared to my SONAR Producer (almost 3 times the price).
Good luck to him though. It sounds like he's really passionate about what he's doing, which is always good.
Muttley
Muttley
I just saw a bit of misinformation and needed to correct it, as you must realise how info posted on the Intermaweb spreads and hangs around for years and years.
I've had a bit of a play with SawStudio now, and I do see how he's done it. Yes, he's definitely bypassing most of the Windows GUI API as it appears he makes one canvas window to display stuff in, and uses his own GUI code for the windows and menus inside it. This would mean he has more precise control over the GUI performance, although it may put people off the progam as it works kinda differently to normal Windoze apps. He still has to capture events from the Windows API telling him whether someone has clicked/moved the mouse in his window though.
Not used it extensively, but it doesn't seem particularly intuitive. That may be down to me though.
The other thing is the price. It's hella expensive compared to my SONAR Producer (almost 3 times the price).
Good luck to him though. It sounds like he's really passionate about what he's doing, which is always good.
Muttley
Muttley
Glenn Fricker
Very Metal &Very Bad News
Muttley, no worries dude. We're all here to learn something. Respectful debate is a good thing.
Actually, the basic version is only $300. It's 24 tracks & no midi, but there might be a track count improvement when version 4.0 comes out in a few weeks. I did UNRESTRAINED! magazine's "best album of 2004" on the basic version.
As for "counter intuitive" I'm not so sure. It's different, no question there. But if you learn the GUI, you'll wonder how you made do without it. Like I said before, pulling up a Sonar project feels like working with an abacus by comparison
Actually, the basic version is only $300. It's 24 tracks & no midi, but there might be a track count improvement when version 4.0 comes out in a few weeks. I did UNRESTRAINED! magazine's "best album of 2004" on the basic version.
As for "counter intuitive" I'm not so sure. It's different, no question there. But if you learn the GUI, you'll wonder how you made do without it. Like I said before, pulling up a Sonar project feels like working with an abacus by comparison
black sugar
The Burninator
Muttley said:Not used it extensively, but it doesn't seem particularly intuitive. That may be down to me though.
I've been on the fence with SawStudio for almost a year now. I'm intrigued by the feel (speed) and functionality, but I grew up on Cakewalk and Cubase, so the layout and command functionality felt pretty alien to me at first. Protools, by comparison, was easy for me to pick up.
SawStudio is a very "power user" type of interface and once you get some of the hotkey combos and the mixer views (try scrolling through the F-keys), it starts to get pretty cool.
But I still feel that the learning curve is pretty steep, and that's kind of a bitter pill when you've already gone through it on other systems which you're now very familiar with.
If anyone's at all interested, the demo vids are a great place to start. Just watching those gave me some good reference points. I'm still trying to trudge through the online training every now and then while I wait for version 4.0 to come out.
