Protools vs Cubase,Sonar,etc.
Home > Home Recording Forum > Computers & Software > Protools vs Cubase,Sonar,etc.
Posted on Oct 03, 2005 08:12 pm
Soundmind??
?cixelsid I mA
Member Since: Jul 30, 2005
Spent bout an hour with a protools user/salesman last nite. I was lead to believe that recording in protools would give me better quality recordings, plug ins, etc., even with the LE version. He did say that Cubase, Sonar, Samplitude, etc were better for music production/workflow stuff, but that protools was better for recording. Any thoughts? I don't think there will be an audible difference in recorded sound between any of the high end software products.
[ Back to Top ]
Oct 03, 2005 09:40 pm yep, I believe a salesman would say that, and it's complete B.S. The sound quality is no better or worse than any of the others you mentioned, but ProTools costs more, the plugins cost a hella bunch more so the salesman would stand to make a lot more commission.
I have heard professional recording from all of them, and even lesser costly applications like Cakewalk Home Studio. VST and DirectX plugins are cheaper than TDM, and there are loads of FREE ones available all over the internet, some being quite good.
Never ask a salesman anything...
Oct 03, 2005 10:16 pm hope u didn't believe that sales man...lol....i heard this said b4 by a protools person, it sounds almost totally ignorant...and there are alots of hi quality VST plugins that has more features compair to there counter parts on pro tools... i been using Waves platinum bundle, i got it from my friend who owns a big home studio, those set of plug-ins are doing fine for him and for me.
Oct 03, 2005 10:56 pm I wonder how long these people will keep carrying that ProTools banner like they do. I mean, ProTools is a great app, good sound, good quality, rock solid stable and all that, so it's a good app, I'd never say it's not, but it's not the only app that is all of those things. 8-10 years ago it was maybe, but not any more. Today there are plenty of option that can fit most anyones budget that makes great sounding recordings.
Oct 03, 2005 10:59 pm I did'nt buy it (the gear or his pitch). Just wanted verification of what I thought to be true. Believe me, I'll base my decisions on feedback from others who have tried the various types of gear. I think we all tend to have some bias toward the stuff we use, but I will always try to be honest when I offer an opinion, and I believe you folks will too. Thanks for the prompt, honest feedback!
Oct 04, 2005 01:36 am mmm. I like pro tools for some applications. Beat detective is the best invention ever. And IMO the digi 002 sounds quite good. But I couldn't live without VST support (although the RTAS plug ins are very cool). And it costs so darn much!. There are some very cool features in pro tools if your willing to dig. I think most people who use it only scratch the surface. Even with apps like cubase, there is a wealth of features that nobody uses lol. If your looking at professional sound engineering, chances are your going to have to learn how to use pro tools.
Its not 'rock solid' though IMO. I've had it crash on me numerous times : ).
And of course, its the 'industry standard'.
Blow for blow though, I'd still stick with cubase because I've grown into it. I do like the digidesign hardware though, and would probably have gone with a digi 002 instead of my aardvarks.
My 2 NZ cents.
Oct 04, 2005 07:18 am I have heard comparable results between Pro-Tools and Cubase (done independently of me I may add) and I can say its down to many things but consider this:
1) The better engineer can get comparable/better results from Cubase than a poor engineer with Pro-Tools...
2) MANY MANY very good cards can be purchased anr run with apps like Cubase to get a VERY Good sound indeed...check the gear section on this very site for some recommendations
3) Pro-Tools IS expensive and for my ears, is not worth the price difference...
As I mentioned, I was given a CD to master and also given the first one by the same band, same songs etc.
I can HONESTLY say that the difference in quality did not merit the Pro-Tools price tag and indeed, the bulk of the Pro-Tools recording was equal or inferior to the cubase version.
I personally use Cubase but have no issues with other systems being better. I can say that the difference I noticed (both demos done "professionally" by the way) was not "this one was done with the industry standard" and this one was done with Cubase!!!
Trust your ears and your instincts...then trust your wallet!!!
Good luck to ya
Coco.
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Oct 04, 2005 08:00 am I remember a few years ago one of the bigwigs at Homerecording BBS said he did a compairison and found that all but one sound essentially exactly the same...the oddball I "vaguly think" was neuendo which he said had about a 3db boost on playback...but only in the playback engine.
The only thing that I would expect to alter sound quality is the digi equiment...but most of the protoolser I personally know...(not many) are usually drooling some other thing... usualy made by MOTU... I personally think they're attracted to the sound of name not the sound of the equipment.
Oct 04, 2005 12:54 pm I keep hearing that its the "industry standard", but one thing I've learned in life, todays "industry standard" will be tomorrows "collectables". LPs were the industry standard 30 years ago. Now I often hear how "warm" they sound, which is good, if you can tolerate the rumble, cracks, limited dynamic range, wow, flutter, etc. Get out your old LP and listen to a cymbal (sounds like a piece of wet bacon got dropped in a hot frying pan). I'm glad we have a competitive industry where all these companies are trying to out do each other. If we could only get them to offer their products via linux to enhance competition with XP and OS! Sorry, got lost in the emotional world. Bottom line, it doesn't have to be expensive to be good. I don't have a beef with any of these brands and its really a matter of what appeals to you (interface, appearance, compatability with VST, Direct X, etc).
Oct 04, 2005 12:59 pm Yep, competition is good for the consumer...Linux apps are slowly becoming available, it'll be a while, but they will be there...never as good tho, because the monetary gain isn't there...the ultimate motivation.
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 04, 2005 01:07 pm Quote:
never as good tho, because the monetary gain isn't there...the ultimate motivation
I don't know if I'd agree with that, using that logic, linux wouldn't have been developed, let alone become a more stable app. Money doesn't seem to be the driving factor for the linux arena.
I will say though, that the mainstream developers will go for the $$$, maybe that's what you meant.
Oct 04, 2005 01:11 pm If money motivation was there, Linux would currently have 10 times the userbase, would have developed 10 times faster and there would be more applications available for it.
Like I said, the apps WILL be there, but they won't be as good and won't appear and develop nearly as fast. Money driven projects will ALWAYS move faster...now, whether thats good or bad is another topic completely.
Linux is cool, it's stable, it's more secure and all that, but look how long it has taken...people have to pay their bills first...
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Oct 04, 2005 01:18 pm i certainly agree with you, but that was not what I was contending.
I meant there can be some developement that could surpass windows offerings, even if they are free, due to the nature of linux developers.
and yes, it would certainly take longer to develop, as no-one's paying the bills for such things.
Oct 04, 2005 09:09 pm Just found an interesting article, a shootout between Sonar, Cubase, ProTools LE, and Acid Pro. In this case, ProTools didn't hold up so well. Here's the link...well, how do you attach links here? The article is on the Digital Pro Sound website.
Oct 04, 2005 09:37 pm just put the URL in the post, it'll autolink it.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Oct 04, 2005 10:33 pm How could they even have ranked Sonar 5 PE yet. It only just started shipping. Definately not enough time for them to have done a complete eval at all.
The study was based on training materials and video tutorials.
It says there is an explanation for each rating but I cant find a link to it anywere.
Anyway, good to see PT isnt ranked as high as some might think.
Oct 05, 2005 06:53 am But common, its pro tools LE. It should be being compared to Cubase LE/SE should it not? Why don't they compare TDM to cubase SX 3?
Not to be sticking up for pro tools or anything. Bah.. so hungry...
Oct 05, 2005 07:10 am Well, but a ProTools LE system (Digi00x, etc) costs about as much as Cubase SX and a sound device...so, perhaps price level comparison was their criteria...
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Oct 05, 2005 04:53 pm Hmm... Being a Pro Tools user I could go on and on but time is money, LOL.
There is much to say about a program's mix engine... basically how it sums the audio, how much headroom it has, and things like resolution and when it truncates the bits. So Digital doesn't always equal digital... like comparing mp3 codecs... most suck, and some don't.
Commercially, Pro Tools HD/TDM is the best. Period.
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Oct 05, 2005 05:08 pm wow... I try to keep a post short and I end up sounding like I'm an elitist bastard... oh well.
Oct 05, 2005 05:10 pm Ah, good point dB.
Ah, good point El Musico.
Oct 05, 2005 05:30 pm yeah.. who's the elitist bastard ... is he new? :P
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Oct 05, 2005 08:36 pm actually db I think primary motivation is need. though money tends to encourage people to need things...with the ammount of musical computer geeks there is going to be someone somewhere who needs a kickass plugin with the ability to code it... or they'll make a shitty one and it will continueously be improved. Thats prettymuch the root of Open Source problems... it was created by people who needed things to do certain things and what they personally didn't need was never added. The big linux video editor (Cinelerra) forked this summer over that issue... the company that made it simply didn't want to take the time to add and maintain things it didn't use and because not very many people look to linux for video editing it took years for a group to organize and develop in their own direction...but because it's all based on need... and video editors tend to need a lot... it is very advanced. Though like another OS project Blender3D (a nifty 3D program) it is desigened to be used by the creators so other people have a very hard time learning it because nobody documents something they coded :)
Oct 05, 2005 11:28 pm Yeah, I know, my open source scripts suffer from the same problem...I get people saying "add this, add that, do this" but, if I don't need the feature myself, it never gets real high on the to-do list...
Oct 05, 2005 11:36 pm I think the point was to compare similarly priced software. I noticed that Samplitude was not included, which would have made more sense than considering Acid Pro, but Samplitude is also more expensive, around $1000 US, so I guess that's why it didn't meet their criteria. There again, Pro Tools HD would by no means be anywhere close. Kinda like comparing a Volkswagon to a Jaguar. Again, the question imo is, does the software make enough difference in sound quality (if the preamps, converters, and other hardware are equal) to make one brand better than the other? I don't think so, but I'm certainly not an expert.
Oct 05, 2005 11:47 pm Of the higher end software, such as you mentioned in the first place, no, Sonar, Cubase, Vegas, Pro Tools...they all sound great...now, get into the cheaper software (some, not all) you may hear differences...
That said, there is some less expensive software that still sounds great. Mackie Tracktion is one, MultitrackStudio is really nice and some of the bundled effects are very nice, Cakewalk Sonar Home Studio is great. Point being you don't HAVE to spend a fortune.
