| Author
|
changing from ableton to cubase
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 12:35
|
|
audio to midi you can do it in cubase since v5 but it s not that usefull |
|
|
greenalien
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
7
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 15:23
|
|
Cubase > Ableton |
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 21:18
|
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-31 11:38, TimeTraveller wrote:
thy sound different , they were coded wiht different algorithms. When doing my degree the guy (lecturer) who did electro engineering, digital engineering and etc clearly stated it, they all must and do sound 100 % different.
For me since then there never was a doubt about it, and I remarked audible differences years ago by my onw subjective opinion and set him thousands of questions about it.
This guy builds his own compressors and analog goodies and is a freak about algorithms digital engineering aswell a successful producer and a master lecturer was a great possiblity to ask and get scientific responses which I could not repeat as deteailed as he did but I know they sound different.
An analysis on this topic would be a nice work for a master of audio degree. Analysis (soundforge/wavelab) helps here more than any votes.
|
|
Just because someone has a bunch of degrees does not mean that you should take their word as gospel. I have never seen any test that shows definitively that any of the major DAWs are objectively superior in regards to their audio engine when using the same exact third party plugs.
And, even if there was a difference (which is definitely not proven to me yet) it is probably so incredibly minor as to not be a factor that you should consider when evaluating which DAW is right for you.
Quote:
|
Demoniac said:
Spend few days on FL Studio, then on Ableton, and then on Cubase.
To my ear FL studio sounds kinda muddy and loud, Ableton sounds kinda thin and quiet, and cubase is just right there in the middle. I even noticed big diffrence between the sound engine on Cubase SX3 and Cubase 5
|
|
What tests did you do to come to this conclusion? Bias is incredibly hard to factor out unless you are using good testing criteria.
Quote:
|
can you link the tests? does live also convert polyphonic or monophonic?
it will most likely be the freely available melodyne algorythm i guess.
|
|
Ableton has Drum, Monophonic and Polyphonic conversion algos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2RA1pScjZU
here is the comparison video that I have seen.
I'm not trying to be a Live fanboy here. There are certain things that Logic/Cubase inarguably do better than Live, and vice versa. I'm just kind of tired of people throwing around 'this audio engine sounds better' and then when you ask them what tests they do or did, they almost always say well...I just..you know...tried it out for a while and that's what I think.
That may be good enough for you, but it is certainly not good enough for me or anyone who prides themselves in being aware of how easy it is for Bias to creep into our analysis of such things.
 If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 21:25
|
sorry  I find it really amusing
-
Just because someone has a bunch of degrees does not mean that you should take their word as gospel. I have never seen any test that shows definitively that any of the major DAWs are objectively superior in regards to their audio engine when using the same exact third party plugs.
-
LOL hard .. sorry really. Sincerely respectfully however. Nevertheless this is funny although quite ignorant.
..however I'm out of this nonsense and useless discussion Not sure though is my english really that bad or my post not really understandable..however.  Enjoy
best is to trust nothing and nobody at no place I guess 
https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 22:03
|
How is it ignorant for me to want actual PROOF of something that someone says and not just take their word for it? If he had made a compelling technical argument you should be able to regurgitate at least a decent bit of it no?
I am perfectly willing to be convinced of what you say. I have no allegiance to either side of the argument and I welcome any and all information as long as it comes from a place of logic and reason.
"My teacher is really smart and he said there's a difference" is not good enough.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 22:30
|
If you want to do some reading on this DAW sound engine topic, check out this thread:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/703073-ultimate-do-daws-sound-different-test-4.html
Again, even if there is a difference - is it a musically significant difference? I posit that it is entirely insignificant in the context of actual music making, though I admit that I have not done double blind tests myself.
At the end of the day, just use whatever you want to use and make some music with it. I just realized that I spent way too much time researching this when I already knew that no matter what I won't be switching over from Ableton to anything else even if my search resulted in me finding proof that the Cubase sound engine is 'better' than the Ableton sound engine.
Workflow, native plugins, GUI, 'intuitivenes' etc are 100x more important than what we are talking about.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 22:33
|
Will read my post again. Just from the first sentence is best. There is actually nothing more to add about it.
Sure they are differently coded with different algorythms.All is effected the sound.
A test wasn't done so far by anybody, atleast not a scientific one,I guess because it makes already sense even when ears are not that sensible. Each of this sequencers are differently coded with different algos.It would be nice to read and watch one skilled work about it though.
You can make a analysis about it like a skilled work if you have that time, bounce same file through the outputs and make a concrete analysis.
And no.. masters by degree and lecturers about electro engineering and digital technique ( dunno if it is correct term digital engineering maybe in english) are not without reasons masters by degree and indeed they are smart.
It is maybe funny to claim something what I never said as you put in quatation marks but it is lame because I did not said it like this.
but nice
Sure, they sound different because they were coded by different algorithms. And it is all about sound nothing else.
Sorry cannot help you with it more. For me it is enough, actually up from reason + cubase times my ears knew a difference. It is ok to believe what anybody wants.
Lots of times this disscussion were here, but actually this is the answer.
https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
pressure
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
7
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 22:34
|
i exported the same drumloop from cubase and ableton (unwarped). they sounded and looked the same spectrally. (FL studio was tested aswell but it applied lots of gain by default so i left it out)
i then inverted one copy to phase cancel and check for discrepancies.
i was left with (low level) noise. what is that from? could it be generated by one of the daws? (its very low level about -70. its almost full spectrum it starts to fall off at about 6K and by 20K its gone) |
|
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 22:36
|
I dont want to do some reading about it haha but I will do so maybe tommorrow I will chech this link out! Promised!
..althoug you know - on some internet forums it is correct to claim that you don't need to believe when some smart names claim something is true.
also... I myself never said that Cubase output is better than Ableton. I said only they are different.
https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
pressure
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
7
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 22:36
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 22:39
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 23:12
|
Quote:
|
On 2013-01-31 22:33, TimeTraveller wrote:
Will read my post again. Just from the first sentence is best. There is actually nothing more to add about it.
Sure they are differently coded with different algorythms.All is effected the sound.
A test wasn't done so far by anybody, atleast not a scientific one,I guess because it makes already sense even when ears are not that sensible. Each of this sequencers are differently coded with different algos.It would be nice to read and watch one skilled work about it though.
You can make a analysis about it like a skilled work if you have that time, bounce same file through the outputs and make a concrete analysis.
And no.. masters by degree and lecturers about electro engineering and digital technique ( dunno if it is correct term digital engineering maybe in english) are not without reasons masters by degree and indeed they are smart.
It is maybe funny to claim something what I never said as you put in quatation marks but it is lame because I did not said it like this.
but nice
Sure, they sound different because they were coded by different algorithms. And it is all about sound nothing else.
Sorry cannot help you with it more. For me it is enough, actually up from reason + cubase times my ears knew a difference. It is ok to believe what anybody wants.
Lots of times this disscussion were here, but actually this is the answer.
|
|
The thing i put in quotes was a paraphase of what you said. Just didn't feel like quoting back a huge wall.
"Sure they are differently coded with different algorythms."
Yes, I understand that. I am also not disputing that your teacher is a smart guy.
What I am disputing is that people are able to tell the difference between one DAW and another assuming they are using the same plugins, and further that this difference, if it exists at all, is completely insignificant in the context of making music.
If you think ableton is 'warmer' than Cubase, you should be able to tell the difference in a double blind test and be able to score consistently better than a coin toss (50%)
Its super easy to test. Go into Cubase and Ableton. Make a 16 bar loop with a synth preset that they can all use. Bounce.
Now, have someone else (NOT you) play you those files back to you 20x in a random order and you guess which one they come out of.
This is not some guy telling you that its different, its the real deal. You either can tell or you can't. I don't think you can, and I think people talking about the Sonic Signature of DAWs are blowing smoke up people's asses or being fooled by their own biased opinion. I am completely open to being wrong though.
This is similar to the MP3 vs WAV argument. I see many people talk a lot, but never do I see someone back it up with actual facts.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
astro_traveller
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
65
Posted : Jan 31, 2013 23:43
|
Since I use lots of samples and loops on my tracks... so i like using ableton.
I can load all the samples and loops and play it to see which suits the best. to do that on cubase.. I have to do it individually.
I m never sure about bpm.. after i make 3 minutes track may be i like it slower or faster. Every time after I make 8 or 16 bars i usually check how it would sound 3 bpm higher and lower. at the end of the track all my sounds are tighter then cubase.
I like editing on cubase but same things i can do it on abelton as well.
abelton defiantly more CPU friendly then cubase. My cubase was crashing all the time ... since i use abelton it has never crashed.
when i play live, i can take out sounds and replace it with other sounds on the fly. I have seen people who play live on abelton and make music on cubase, they have their tracks laid down and they play with few sounds and loops here and there, nothing interesting.
cubase is very old school. there are lot of limitations.
About the sound quality, I found it little different.. but after i made every thing running on 64 bits... i can not really tell the difference.
|
|
|
|
astro_traveller
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
65
Posted : Feb 1, 2013 00:01
|
I have 12 tracks finished on abelton. If i Dj them together i can hardly play 1 hour. but on live i play one and half hour. I can just reuse the 16 or 8 bars from same tracks on different times with differnt elements from same 12 tracks . If i want to do this with cubase tracks... it is close to imposible.
I dont even want to include my cubase tracks on my live any more. |
|
|
|
Alien Bug
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
27
Posts :
682
Posted : Feb 1, 2013 01:28
|
|
