| |
| Author
|
Best Daw - nuendo, live, protools, logic?
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Sep 16, 2006 00:42
|
@colin
Actualy he didn't tell when I asked him, but I found out later by myself ;-)
But, yes you are right, thats what I saw once too, and the reason why I asked him.
Still, the guy isn't that bad, and not a poser either, If you hear his productions, and references you would trust his ear. Anyway I will do a little more research on that.
  Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Sep 16, 2006 02:20
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Sep 16, 2006 03:42
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-15 22:12, Colin OOOD wrote:
Your friend with the expensive speakers (I bet he was really proud when he told you how much they cost) is talking out of his arse - and you can quote me on that.
|
|
I'll second that. The guy is talking utter bollocks. So many people listen with their wallets (and their eyes) rather than with their ears ... Even the best ears/engineers on the planet get fooled by the placebo effect!
Anyway, everyone knows that Sonar with its 64 bit audio engine sounds the best. 
UnderTow |
|
|
|
FluoSamsara (Oxygen)
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
1164
Posted : Sep 16, 2006 17:52
|
Ok...this got a bit big...I got distracted,,hehe
Yeah all the softwares work diferently, and off course they would have a slight change in sound....but to say one sounds "better" than the other is quite pointless I would say...it depends on so many things....mainly taste...
Protools is the leader in the audio market due to their incredible marketing strategies combined with a package that delivers a all-in-one package for professional studios with the advantage of compability between diferent studios, since it has become the standart. You get to pay about 10 grand to get a 24in/out system, you get quite good converters with the HD system, but thats it, you are stuck to those converters...thats the first drawback...
The second drawback of Protools for dance music is that it does not work on a 32bit-floating point system, meaning that the amount of tracks you can open will be limited to the system you´ve chosen...
I´ve been mixing a lot in protools (im studying sound engineering) if you work with audio only, it does get a while to get used to, but it does have features and shortucuts that are quite smart and effective, its meant to work really fast when you get the hand of it.
I´ve seen experienced protools users using it and I was quite amazed with the incredible things you can do with it, most times at the distance of a 3 key combination...
_____
Logic - uau, I love this software, although I am a PC user using Cubase at the moment, I started with logic, and when I can afford I hope to buy a good mac system and move to logic again . For me the major point of Logic are the plugins! From the delays to the reverbs, flangers, etc everything is quite amazing imo, when I used logic I would mostly use logic internal FX, now with cubase I use mostly external vsts...
Another BIG Logic advantage - Protools HD compability! Yes, thats right, you can use protools hd to run logic, meaning that if you want to mix/master your track in a studio where they have logic (many do) they can send your track straight to the mixing desk without exportings, and importings and convertings...
And also with Logic you can use any interface...(the "shity" apogee converters (lol) and all that crap  ) Its getting quite popular for recordings also.
---------------------------------
Cubase - My choice of sequencer atm, I can complain, but I can´t say I´m in love with it... but I do like it, it does the job with no problems....I just think the mixer with the all the diferent channels categories gets really messy after a while, and if you want it to match the mixer and the arrange window, you need to do a lot of changings around...the same for automation....it gets really messy after a while...
I started with Logic and I think thats the main thing...the one you learn first all the basics will always kind of be the one you feel more attached to or "more at home"...but I dunno, that might change....
I must say the only place i saw cubase in professional studios was inside small sound design rooms, for music creation for advertising for eg, etc...But I never saw Cubase being used for professional band recordings with analog/digital desks, etc, I see protools many times, I see Logic being used quite often nowadays, and also Nuendo is growing a lot....
------------------------
Sonar - Never used it, but I´m very curious to try heard a lot of good things about it
There goes my opinions
Boomz
|
|
|
|
subconsciousmind
SCM
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1033
Posted : Sep 16, 2006 18:04
|
Quote:
|
The guy is talking utter bollocks. So many people listen with their wallets (and their eyes) rather than with their ears ...
|
|
Yea, thats abolutely true, and even if not, whats the point in using another program or device when just a handfull of people can hear the difference?
All I can say is, that I switched from a Yamaha 01v96 mixer (working mostly in 44khz) to cubase sx, and I don't like the sound. Not of the EQs (they are shit anyway, I use external), but just the overall sound. I feel it's more likely to be narrow when I mix in cubase, then when I mixed with the digitalmixer...
But still, my sx3 doesn't ever crash and I like the functions, elastic audio and stuff, a lot and I would recommend it for everybody who works with midi and audio on PC.
Most of my music for you to download at:
http://www.subconsciousmind.ch |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Sep 16, 2006 20:25
|
A few clarifications here.
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-16 17:52, FluoSamsara (Oxygen) wrote:
Yeah all the softwares work diferently, and off course they would have a slight change in sound....but to say one sounds "better" than the other is quite pointless I would say...it depends on so many things....mainly taste...
|
|
Actually, there is close to no difference in the sound of the summing engines of all these apps. If you are working in 24/32/64 bits, the biggest difference is usually in the dither algorithms (or lack thereof). Not in the actual summing be it floating point or fixed point.
Quote:
|
You get to pay about 10 grand to get a 24in/out system, you get quite good converters with the HD system, but thats it, you are stuck to those converters...thats the first drawback...
|
|
Actually that is not entirely true. First, you can use Digidesign's digital I/O and connect your own brand of converters. Secondly, these days there are quite a few alternatives that connect straight into the PT core cards. (SoundScape, Euphonix, Apoggee come to mind).
Quote:
|
The second drawback of Protools for dance music is that it does not work on a 32bit-floating point system, meaning that the amount of tracks you can open will be limited to the system you´ve chosen...
|
|
First, PT LE and M-Powered use floating point maths but more importantly, wether a system uses floating point or fixed point maths has no bearing on the number of possible tracks.
The only reason that PT LE/M-Powered have a limited track count is because Digidesign don't want to piss of their customers that spent alot of money on HD systems.
It is a regular complaint from HD system owners that smaller studios buy PT LE/M-powered and advertise that they have ProTools. The owners of HD systems feel that they are being robbed of a big part of their investment: The brand name recognition of ProTools.
Especially these days when native computing power can easily compete with the processing power of an HD system. With a top of the line dual core dual processor Intel system, PT HD doesn't have any processing power advantage any more even if you have a big HD3/HD4 rig!
That having been said, PT isn't the ideal platform for electronic music production. It is a great recording, mixing and post production system but not a great composition tool.
Quote:
|
I´ve been mixing a lot in protools (im studying sound engineering) if you work with audio only, it does get a while to get used to, but it does have features and shortucuts that are quite smart and effective, its meant to work really fast when you get the hand of it.
I´ve seen experienced protools users using it and I was quite amazed with the incredible things you can do with it, most times at the distance of a 3 key combination...
|
|
I concure. PT is GREAT for audio mixing and editing. It is extremely fast due to the numerous and intelligent keyboard shortcuts. It also has the absolute best control surface integration that I have ever worked with.
Quote:
|
I just think the mixer with the all the diferent channels categories gets really messy after a while, and if you want it to match the mixer and the arrange window, you need to do a lot of changings around...the same for automation....it gets really messy after a while...
|
|
I concure. I really don't like the workflow in SX/Nuendo. I really don't like the huge waste of screen real estate. The limitations in number of inserts and sends. The whole antiquated group track/FX sends etc paradigm. The inability to just drag and copy effects arround. The limitations in routing (like not being able to send a new group track to a previously created group track). The inablity to just work with frozen audio in tracks.
SX/Nuendo has some great features but it also has massive design flaws IMO.
Quote:
|
I started with Logic and I think thats the main thing...the one you learn first all the basics will always kind of be the one you feel more attached to or "more at home"...but I dunno, that might change....
|
|
I don't really agree. I have been a Cakewalk/Sonar user for years and discovered ProTools much later yet for mixing/recording/control surface integration/audio post and editing, it beats Sonar easily. At least up 'till Sonar 5. I'll have Sonar 6 by the end of the month and my opinion might change drasticly.
Quote:
|
I must say the only place i saw cubase in professional studios was inside small sound design rooms, for music creation for advertising for eg, etc...But I never saw Cubase being used for professional band recordings with analog/digital desks, etc, I see protools many times, I see Logic being used quite often nowadays, and also Nuendo is growing a lot....
|
|
Nuendo is indeed gaining ground very fast. Especially for audio post. I don't expect SX to gain much ground in pro studios simply because in a pro studio, the extra price of Nuendo is negligable. That is all budgeted for and just the name recognition with customers is worth the extra price.
Steinberg were very smart to create a seperate version that costs much more. The fact that there are not that many extra features is close to irrelevant when you want to gain the trust of pro studio customers. Peace of mind and trust of your customers is worth much more than the $2000 price tag.
Quote:
|
Sonar - Never used it, but I´m very curious to try heard a lot of good things about it
|
|
It's killaaarrghhh! I would suggest waiting for the new version 6 to come out at the end of the month before testing this. There are some great new features being included (some long due) and alot of improvements in the workflow.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Sep 16, 2006 20:28
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-16 18:04, subconsciousmind wrote:
All I can say is, that I switched from a Yamaha 01v96 mixer (working mostly in 44khz) to cubase sx, and I don't like the sound. Not of the EQs (they are shit anyway, I use external), but just the overall sound. I feel it's more likely to be narrow when I mix in cubase, then when I mixed with the digitalmixer...
|
|
This sounds very much as though the different pan-laws could be the cause for this. Pan-laws affect how the level of sounds change when you pan them left/right. Check the manual and try experimenting with different pan-law settings. You might be pleasantly surprised. Or maybe not. Who knows untill you try.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
index
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
36
Posts :
548
Posted : Sep 18, 2006 00:17
|
|
maybenot
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
4
Posted : Mar 27, 2007 11:36
|
|
logic!! |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Mar 27, 2007 11:37
|
|
Ableton Live 6 |
|
|
|
Saf
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
210
Posted : Mar 27, 2007 12:06
|
I just found out how awesome Ableton Live is for Jamming with yourself to come up with ideas, (which you can record and pick apart the best peices).
It's really helpful in the spontaneous creativity area.
I haven't gotten things in Live to sound as good as Cubase yet... I'm thinking about creating in Live, and then finalizing in Cubase. |
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : Mar 27, 2007 13:26
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-08 21:19, Pavel wrote:
What is the best food - Apple, Cheesecake or Hamburger?
|
|
not exacly.
its more like
"who's chips do you like better ? "
they are all seq.
they are all vst supported
they are all audio engines
they are all programs to create music
does it realy matter ??? thats the real Q.
it does.
evryone got his own taste
and as someone mentioned (cooker), more in music then food.
www.sattelbattle.com
http://yoavweinberg.weebly.com/ |
|
|
|
master bud
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
144
Posted : Mar 27, 2007 15:10
|
Very interesting topic, nice posts. What got me thinking about this was Fruity and Ableton. Lots of established artists use FL and AL for production, AFAIK here at isratrance...are they finalize their tracks in PT or Nuendo? Or just stay at their DAWs?
Anyway, if u use AL for production and Nuendo for mixing, what is your preferred workflow? Export just the midi tracks and rebuild the whole FX chain in Nuendo?
|
|
|
|
Saf
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
210
Posted : Mar 28, 2007 11:07
|
Well, I've just taken a song I was doing from Cubase and imported all the midi and redid the whole fx chain in Ableton, (except waves c1 sc doesn't work, using Sidekickv3 now) so I could more freely create, and I hope finish this track, which is actually working well.
But then I think I will try exporting to audio each separate track when I'm done and mixing it in cubase again to finalize it.
It seems like a good idea anyway. I seem to come up with more happy accidents when composing in AL than Cubase. |
|
|
|
master bud
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
144
Posted : Mar 28, 2007 11:51
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-03-28 11:07, Saf wrote:
Well, I've just taken a song I was doing from Cubase and imported all the midi and redid the whole fx chain in Ableton, (except waves c1 sc doesn't work, using Sidekickv3 now) so I could more freely create, and I hope finish this track, which is actually working well.
But then I think I will try exporting to audio each separate track when I'm done and mixing it in cubase again to finalize it.
It seems like a good idea anyway. I seem to come up with more happy accidents when composing in AL than Cubase.
|
|
Huhh, this is interesting. Normally, I would think that one may compose the whole track in AL first then import the midi and redo the FX chain in Cubase, which is "considered" superior soundwise to AL.
I am using AL and I love it but at mixing I prefer Cubase. |
|
|
|
|
|
