protools audio quality vs logic and/or cubase

[kes]

i'm a numbie to recording, so i apologize in advance if my questions seem silly. a friend of mine recently had his band's record mastered at Metal Works Studio in Ontario, Canada. the gentleman who handled most of the mastering process asked straight out if they used something other than protools to record their stuff, which they had (cubase). he remarked that he could tell, and that he had found cubase to have a higher audio quality to it. now this guy knows his stuff, and has been working at the studio forever, which is argueably one of the best studios in canada. can anybody give me any information for or against this guys statement?

 

also, on an unrelated note, since emagic was bought over by apple, what options are there hardware-wise, for running a setup? i've seen that there is digidesign hardware that is compatible, but will it work the same way, with the dsp power on the pci cards handling most of the work, or do only the I/Os work? thanks for any help that you guys can give me in advance

[where02190]

While there is some differences due to architecture of the software, the real difference comes in converter quality.

[gdoubleyou]

Logic Pro can be used as a frontend for TDM hardware, and you would have access to the instruments and plugs in Logic, along with the plugs running on digi's DSPs.

 

Cubase/Nuendo have some sort of soft limiting on their master channel, that attempts to emulate analog warmth.

The problem that I had was there are no user controls for it. It's real subtle though.

 

Now that I'm using Logic, to my ears the mix is more accurate.

bounced mixes sound the way I heard them.

 

In the end, no matter what app you are using, it's difficult to hear the difference between sonar, Logic, SX, PTLE.

 

The average listener wouldn't have a clue, or care about what app recorded the song.

so sometimes good enough, IS good enough.

 

 

[UstadKhanAli]

If you have a great front end (great converters, mic preamps, mics), it's really doubtful that anyone could tell the difference between Cubase and Pro Tools. That makes by far the greatest difference in audio quality, not what DAW one is using. The difference between Cubase, Pro Tools, or other quality DAWs is either inaudible or negligible at best.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Originally posted by gdoubleyou Cubase/Nuendo have some sort of soft limiting on their master channel, that attempts to emulate analog warmth. The problem that I had was there are no user controls for it. It's real subtle though.

 

 

But you can switch this off, can't you? I can't imagine that Cubase or Nuendo would force you to keep a soft limiting plug-in (or whatever it is) on.

 

I mean, you can put on some sort of analog compression simulator on just about any DAW.

 

At any rate, the actual DAW makes so little of a difference compared to, say, converters or other front-end stuff that I really do believe that the difference is negligible at best.

 

And I believe most of the differences between DAWs would occur in the "math" part (summing, etc.) since if you were to record one or two of the same tracks on several DAWs, you would not be able to hear the difference, everything else being the same.

[gdoubleyou]

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli But you can switch this off, can't you? I can't imagine that Cubase or Nuendo would force you to keep a soft limiting plug-in (or whatever it is) on. I mean, you can put on some sort of analog compression simulator on just about any DAW. At any rate, the actual DAW makes so little of a difference compared to, say, converters or other front-end stuff that I really do believe that the difference is negligible at best. And I believe most of the differences between DAWs would occur in the "math" part (summing, etc.) since if you were to record one or two of the same tracks on several DAWs, you would not be able to hear the difference, everything else being the same.

 

No there are no settings, you will see a lot of posts from Cubase users stating that their bounced mixes don't sound as loud or different from the way they sound when played in real time.

 

It's no biggee I lived with it for years.

 

[kes]

thanks for the helpful responses everyone greatly appreciated. i'm currently saving for a DAW, but one with future expandability, hence looking at protools hardware. based on what everyone's said, the A/D converters are the most important factor. what would be the reccomended rackmount for this?

[Kiwiburger]

I am not 100% certain of the truth of some of the above comments about SX/Nuendo.

 

I used Logic until 5.2, when Apple bought them out and they pissed on their PC users. Simply to ensure I still had an upgrade path, I switched - reluctantly - to SX. Definately one of the best things I did, because I much prefer it to Logic, and I noticed an audible improvement in percieved sound quality.

 

I didn't understand this at the time, previously thinking that digital audio was digitial audio. Big mistake.

 

I don't know how much Logic has improved since then, but comparing Logic 5.2 with SX1, Logic sounded boxy. SX sound more open, and I found I was not alone in this observation. Apparantly the Nuendo sound engine was known to sound better than others, and people were doing stuff like tracking in Protools or Logic, and mixing in SX or Nuendo just for the better sound.

 

I do not believe this is in any way a limiter or distortion applied to the master bus. I believe it is simply better summing calculations and/or dithering. While I sometimes like to use saturation or limiting effects, this is nothing to what I hear with SX.

 

In my experience, when your Export Audio from SX it is just as good and just as loud as what you hear. This can be proven by looking at the exported wavefile in another audio editor.

 

SX has been through many revisions, and many versions had serious bugs. I think at once stage some people were having problems with exported audio where the pan law settings were affecting output levels.

 

A lot of the grizzles about SX come from crack users, who invariably have cracks based on buggier early releases.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Originally posted by kes based on what everyone's said, the A/D converters are the most important factor. what would be the reccomended rackmount for this?

 

 

I use an Apogee Rosetta 800 and can't recommend it highly enough. What a huge difference it makes.

 

It's not cheap, but it sure sounds great, and is, in my opinion, a very good value.

 

I have a Digi001/Pro Tools LE 5.1/LE 6.4 setup, in case matters. The difference between the stock converters and the Apogee are night and day.

[toddlans]

I believe you're talking about the True Tape feature which started with Cubase VST/32 5 was also included on SX1, but is not anymore. It was controllable also, you could turn it on or off and control the gain up to either 12 or 18db. It didn't sound bad at all but I didn't use it really. I believe this is what you are referring to.

 

Also, as said, there has been debate that the mixdown summing used in the neundo and cubase audio engines is has a better sound than some other programs. I never knew whether to believe this (which could be true) or chalk it up to people that thought they heard this improvement because they were cubase/nuendo users. And, I rarely if ever get to work with programs other than Cubase.

 

What program you use should be determined more by things like functionality, ergonomics, plug-in architecture, interface, your computer, price and other factors, with sound quality being the last because they're all basically the same. the bulk of the differences in sound quality is going to start at your source and end after your convertors.

[Kiwiburger]

I would have said that the major DAWs all have about the same features, so why not pick the one that sounds the best - if you can afford it. Full Plugin Delay Compensation everywhere is essential too, and native VST support is highly desirable.

[kes]

my recording experience to date has centered around the use of various versions of Sonic Foundry/Sony Acid, Sonar, and a few brief experiences with Cubase. all things considered (at least the things i can think of considering, being new to this and all), a Mac with a Apogee Symphony Card and a Apogee A/D 16x rack looks to be like a good option, leaving room for expandability.

 

i find myself leaning towards using Logic, but my reasons for that may be the wrong ones. some of my favourite records (Radiohead's 'KID A', "Amnesiac', and Nine Inch Nails' 'The Fragile') were recorded using Logic and Digidesign Hardware. the Protools setups get way to expensive for me, so the Apogee seemed like a good route. i want to be able to run 32 channels of audio, with room for expandability down the road. thoughts?

 

... and to think, after all's said and done, i still have to figure out what pre(s) and mics i need

[UstadKhanAli]

Well, don't forget that there's a lot of different Pro Tools setups. The least expensive PT setup is probably just under US$500.

 

The Logic/Apogee Ensemble thing that just came out looks like a winner, and at $2000, appears to be a good bargain as well. And in addition to those very nice converters, there are four mic preamps as well.

 

But at any rate, I wouldn't get hung up too much on the DAW. What you should do is check out a few of these and choose the one that seems to work the way YOU want to work. Not someone else's favorite, but YOUR favorite. We all work and approach music and editing in different ways (thankfully! ), and you should pick what's best for you.

 

Now, that way may be completely wrong, but don't let that stop you!

 

P.S. Those three CDs you mention are quite awesome, aren't they?

[kes]

 

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli Well, don't forget that there's a lot of different Pro Tools setups. The least expensive PT setup is probably just under US$500. The Logic/Apogee Ensemble thing that just came out looks like a winner, and at $2000, appears to be a good bargain as well. And in addition to those very nice converters, there are four mic preamps as well.

 

 

my only worry is that their logic ensemble only supports 8 channels of A/D conversion, and i'd prefer to not have to disconnect or reconnect leads when i'm recording different instruments. i play everything myself, and the upcoming project i'm planning will require a lot of percussion to be mic'd and ready to go.

[gdoubleyou]

If you have the money you could have multiple ensebles, or any combination of core audio interfaces.

 

Under aggegate devices, you can mix and match and they would all appear as one device, with OS 10.4 and greater.

 

Or you could add analog inputs through the ADAT I/O.

 

[EngineGuitarist]

ensemble and symphony look nice but the price gets out of hand fast, especially if you are starting from scratch. ensemble is 2k and each symphony is $700. it would cost $8100 for 3 of each, plus $1k for logic. 9 grand assuming you already have a computer. actually make that a G5 since its PCIe. so at least $2k more for a computer. $11k is quite alot of dough. thats almost into PT HD range. I'm not tryin to hate on it, just pointing out it is a bit pricey.

 

just buy a 2" otari.

[kes]

well, i figured i'd have to spend around 20K (canadian) on it the recording setip. if there is a cheap way to go about it, i'm all ears. my preposed setup at this point would be:

 

- Logic Audio

- Dual (or) Quad Mac G5

- Apogee Symphony Card

- (2) Apogee 16X A/D Converters

- (1) Apogee 16X D/A Converter

- (1) Radial Reamping rackmount

- outboard pres (undecided at this point)

 

what i basically need in the setup is the ability to have 32 tracks of audio, future expandabilty, and the power to reamp tracks to an outboard reverb unit or amp. i'm unsure of what control interface to use at this point as well. like i said, if there's a cheaper way, i'm all for it

[UstadKhanAli]

The Apogee 16x converters are supposed to be nice. I think they are either the same or a tiny step up from the Rosetta 800 converters (pretty sure it's the latter). I have the 800 and think it sounds *great*.

[kes]

 

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli The Apogee 16x converters are supposed to be nice. I think they are either the same or a tiny step up from the Rosetta 800 converters (pretty sure it's the latter). I have the 800 and think it sounds *great*.

 

 

it's good to hear that. but do you think there is a cheaper way to achieve my goals?

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Originally posted by kes it's good to hear that. but do you think there is a cheaper way to achieve my goals?

 

 

Cheaper, yeah, I'm sure you can do that. Might be a challenge to do cheaper and better for that price, though - I'm just not sure.

 

Anyone?

 

16 channels of high-quality A/D (or D/A) conversion is just not that cheap, unfortunately.

[EngineGuitarist]

 

Originally posted by kes - Logic Audio---$1000 - Quad Mac G5---$3600 w/2GB RAM, no extra drives or any monitor - Apogee Symphony Card--$ 700 ea.=$1400 since it seems you need 2 cards. - (2) Apogee 16X A/D Converters-$3200 ea.=$6400 - (1) Apogee 16X D/A Converter-$3200 3 apogee X-symphony-$180 ea.= $540 These cards are required to connect the rosetta 200, 800, ad16x and da16x to a symphony card. - (1) Radial Reamping rackmount - outboard pres (undecided at this point)

 

 

thats $15,140 (american dollars) assuming you have hard drives for audio and a monitor for the computer already. that doesn't leave much money for pre's. im not sure which radial thing you're talking about but if it the one i saw it was about $350. so we'll say it $15,500 without any pre's.

 

if you did an HD system i'd say an hd2 at least. with the amount of i/o you need it would be $18,500 provided you already have a computer. it won't matter if it isn't super fast, just not a clunker. that is of course unless you only need 4 outs for your 32 ins (the 96i interface) then it would be $15,900 provided you had a computer. sounds wacky to me but i dont know how you work. if you did go the cheaper route tho you could easily pick up a 24bit 888 for a little under a grand. which would give you 40 ins 12 outs. 8 of each on not as good converters. that would be a little under 17 i guess. if these are for headphone mixes it would be fine. like i said i dont know how you work.

 

at that price difference the only thing that could make me decide would be just how much processing power id have. i haven't seen any comparisons of an HD2 rig against a quad with logic. id be interested in the results, the HD2 would need to have a decent amount more for the 1500 price difference, but the test would need to include the native power on the HD rig because a good percentage is useable. plus there is the software preference issue which is different for everyone.

 

but for absolute price the rig you have picked out is definitely the cheapest. just worth looking into to see if a little bit more would make much of a difference before you spend all that loot.

[kes]

thanks for the fantastic feedback guys. this has to be the most On Topic forum in all of Harmony. i'm going to look around a little bit, and try out the rigs of a few of my buddies. a friend of mine runs an older version of logic, and another buddy uses a protools LE rig. and to think i haven't even touched on preamps, compressors, snakes, etc.

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally posted by kes thanks for the fantastic feedback guys. this has to be the most On Topic forum in all of Harmony. and to think i haven't even touched on preamps, compressors, snakes, etc.

 

I can make it off-topic if you'd like....

 

Preamps, compressors, and snakes, oh, my!

 

Preamps: cheap but good - RNP

 

Compressors: cheap but good - RNC

(obviously, you can get better stuff than that, but not at those prices!!!)

 

Snakes: Check the A&R or legal dept. of most any major label record company.

[kes]

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli Preamps: cheap but good - RNP Compressors: cheap but good - RNC (obviously, you can get better stuff than that, but not at those prices!!!) Snakes: Check the A&R or legal dept. of most any major label record company.

 

yeah, i've read a lot about the FMR stuff. i thought i might splurge (or what i would consider splurging) on a Portico Dual Pre for the guitars. it's just that i'll have so many mics from the drumkits, etc. that i don't think i'll be able to afford enough decent pres. has anyone had luck recording their drums direct and then reamping them or using software preamps on them???

 

as for the record company experience, no such (bad) luck yet

[blue2blue]

 

Originally posted by Kiwiburger I would have said that the major DAWs all have about the same features, so why not pick the one that sounds the best - if you can afford it. Full Plugin Delay Compensation everywhere is essential too, and native VST support is highly desirable.

 

Many of the same features but really different implementations.

 

I'm thinking I'd have to balance the two considerations if I was shopping.