• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Topic: Cubase/ProTools

  1. #1


    sponsored links

    Hi all!

    I\'ve got a quick question. Which do most people prefer? I\'m currently working with Cubase. It does the job, but i\'ve heard from many sources that ProTools is what they suggest. Those people hadn\'t really tried Cubase. Can anyone enlighten me?

    Thanks in Advance.

  2. #2

    Re: Cubase/ProTools

    Hi Switchfoot,

    Try a search using keywords cubase protools on the software category of this forum. Also give the sample library category. Here\'s one of many from the Software category:


  3. #3

    Re: Cubase/ProTools

    Cubase and Pro Tools are two completely different beasts.

    Cubase is more known for it\'s capabilities as midi sequencer. Pro Tools has long been the industry standard for audio editing.

    I don\'t think you can choose one or the other. It really comes down to choosing a decent sequencer AND a decent audio editor.

    For my money that\'s Cubase and Vegas.

    Joanne is quite right though, do a search through the forums, you \'ll dig up lots of info.

    Regards, Scott.

  4. #4

    Re: Cubase/ProTools

    As people have said, they are different beasts. One of the main things to note is that the MIDI side of pro-tools sucks in comparison to Cubase and Logic, which is why so many commercial studios use Logic and pro-tools combined (e-magic and digidesign collaborated so that both work snugly together).

    Having said that I find that on the audio side pro-tools is so much more elegant than Cubase (at least up to 5.1, I\'m not upgrading to SX yet). Audio editing in Cubase is clumsy and inaccurate and the automation up to 5.1 is miserable compared to pro-tools - however SX has moved to a more \'pro-tools\' style, being track-based (Logic made the leap in v5).

    Bear in mind also that plugins for Cubase tend to be cheaper and more abundant (even if you\'re on a Mac, if you\'re on a PC you can barely move for the amount that are available).

    Of course one of the reasons pro-tools is so huge is because it used to be an entire recording solution, and has been designed from the start to work with pictures (making syncing issues simple, etc). Rather than just a piece of software it was an integrated software and hardware recording suite, with DSP boards taking a great deal of the strain off your CPU. Keeping proprietry hardware meant that pro-tools was extremely stable - I\'m not sure what it\'s like now that it\'s on so many platforms and works with so much different hardware. At the same time Cubase has started to have 3rd party DSP boards (eg: http://www.mackie.com/record/uad1/ ) developed for it, bringing them ever closer together.

    Just to reinforce the point about them being different beasts, Steinberg came out with Nuendo - http://www.steinberg.net/en/ps/products/media_production/ - to compete with pro-tools.

    Sorry, that\'s a bit rambling.

  5. #5

    Re: Cubase/ProTools

    They are indeed, as people say, different beasts.
    One of the interesting aspects of Protools is also the hardware.
    Protools has a number of DSP card and interface options that make it a cut above other DAW\'s.
    With these, the entire mixin system runs on hardware with plugins instanciated on DSP\'s.
    These don\'t take any CPU time which means you can make a very complex mix without burdening your computer\'s cpu.
    Also, a lot of the TDM plugins (digi\'s proprierty format) are of higher quality than VST plugins, although some (like the Waves bundles) exist on both formats. Things like Mcdsp\'s compressorbank, analog channel and Eq\'s spring to mind, as well as plugins from wavemechanics, sony, drawmer and bombfactory.
    Protools is geared towards mixing although it has basic midi capability.

    That having been said, I recently looked at a demo of SX and was surprised at how flexible the audio editing was. I\'d heard bad things about the old cubase, but was pleasently surprised by the new one wich apparently is based on Nuendo.
    To me, the region and crossfade handling is actually better than Protools! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
    Still, automation is still not as good as Protools and I did miss a lot of my favourite Protools plugins.

    I guess the bottomline is were the emphasis of your work lies; music composition or audio editing.
    Personally I use Protools hardware as a mixer replacement (all synths etc. come in on digi interfaces connect to a few dsp cards) with logic as a front end for composition.
    Then I can switch to Protools if I need to do any audio editing/mastering.
    Best of both worlds!



Go Back to forum

Tags for this Thread


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts