Taking a look at Cubase

[SubFunk]

well i think it is the way it makes you work with it, plus the plugs.

not judging good or bad just saying, i know out of using Live and Logic that they both put a different way of working upon me which ends up in different results.

but technically the summing is really the same, but i also think it does not matter what some technical tests show or not show,
because we talking audio and it is about the perception via your ears of a complete product (a mixed song), nothing else.

and if people claim it does sound better or worse in the result (a song). than it is in the end valid more then a test. IMO.

i don't thing it is different, though... not after live's engine update. but as i said it makes me work differently therefor the result is different.

somehow it is like driving a porsche vs a 6er BMW, they are both utter fast and proper high speed true sport cars,
but i am sure the porsche leads to a way more aggressive way of driving.

[evon]

there is NO difference to digital summing all it is doing is playing back a digital file with out processing it's like playing a .wav through VLC or through itunes they will sound the same because all they do is playback a digital file !!!

the only difference will be in how the DAW processes the audio for example with panlaw a -3db panlaw will sound different to a -6db panlaw..the minute you process the audio in anyway like warp in ableton, realtime sample/bit rate conversion or using apple loops or acidized files that shit will change how it sounds but running an unaffected file through the summing engine on any DAW will sound the same

But that was exactly what I did as one of the simpliest tests I could think of, and I noticed the difference.

[evon]

well i think it is the way it makes you work with it, plus the plugs.

not judging good or bad just saying, i know out of using Live and Logic that they both put a different way of working upon me which ends up in different results.

but technically the summing is really the same, but i also think it does not matter what some technical tests show or not show,
because we talking audio and it is about the perception via your ears of a complete product (a mixed song), nothing else.

and if people claim it does sound better or worse in the result (a song). than it is in the end valid more then a test. IMO.

i don't thing it is different, though... not after live's engine update. but as i said it makes me work differently therefor the result is different.

somehow it is like driving a porsche vs a 6er BMW, they are both utter fast and proper high speed true sport cars,
but i am sure the porsche leads to a way more aggressive way of driving.

Exactly!!

[arctic ranger]

Cubase is more precise for me with editing overall, midi and audio, + love how the things are organized in it's GUI (detachable windows, and a simple right click toolbox with scissor does it for me)a better mixerview, wished Ableton had this too.

Midi editing and audio is much faster and easier in Cubase overall and much more precise.

I wished Ableton had this, for years now.

oops...didn't read the whole thread but this as well...

i find this thread very amusing, remembering all those threads why is PT or Cubase or Logic or DP, etc. more around in studios and considered standard.

and arguing that live is so much better.

and now you give yourselfs the answers

hehe i love em all master of none...

just got maschine and am loving it as well. now i got more to bitch about

[SubFunk]

well i should have said: "arguing that live is so much better in every aspect", cause it is surely the greatest in some areas.

[chelemasty]

I use both. For me, I can't really compare both, or prefer one on the other. Both of them are both beautiful beast. What I like about Cubase is that, when you map something on the quickcontrols, say the mod wheel, if you go to another track, you can still use the mod wheel again and map it on another parameter. Unlike in Live that once it's mapped you cant use it for other parameters anymore. But in Live, almost everything is mapable and in Cubase it's not. And, N + O = NO. Cubase doesn't sound better than Ableton, they both sound the same to me. It will sound different because the native plugins on each DAW are different. Record from Propellerheads sounds the same as them also, but what I like about it, is that the mixer, the EQs, compressor, and filters in there sounds really good, therefore you'll have more control, and it's easier to mix there(For me). But yeah, no midi-out yet. Will wait though. But I love the workflow there the most. I don't care about VSTs...LOL

But yeah, if you can have them both Cubase and Ableton, get it, you'll love it if you have both, there's no need to choose. I sometimes work on either of the three mentioned above, and loving it, coz sometimes staying on the same environment kinda bores me, or sometimes if my mind is stucked on the other say Ableton, it will function on the other one like Cubase or Record.

sorry for the late quote ....

just want to clarify something everything in cubase is mapable it might not be as straight forward as ableton but i think you can map more in cubase than you can in live .. learn about the generic controller dialog and you will soon see how much you can actually map

I know how to map things via Generic control, but it is really time consuming. In live all you need to do is press MIDI map mode and there you go. Simple as that. But yeah I agree with you, you can map more in Cubase but just time-consuming.

[SubFunk]

same in logic, you can map way more stuff, but it is a real pain (probably the weakest part of it, but then you have things like eucon on the other hand for studio use), i love live's easy key and midi mapping... even it could be a little more to be able to be mapped. but the easiness is bar none perfect in live!

[Tone Deft]

Thanks Tone..the only thing that spoiled it is your opening remarks...this topic will never go away, even after you and me are dead..so you may as well make lots of coipes of that.

that's just a respectful disagreement.

all I can ask is for a little patience and an open mind in discussing this. if there were differences between DAWs' sound qualities it wouldn't be some big freaking secret we'd only be uncovering now. there are MILLIONS of us in this hobby, a secret like this wouldn't be hiding. look at my post count FFS!! I've been reading this forum closely for years and I've seen this time and again, there is no big secret!

ultimately the proof relies in the person trying to prove the existence of something, that would be yourself.

[leedsquietman]

Everyone involved in this thread has love for Live and most of us like it best. Even in the heavily moderated Cubase forum, they allow people to go on and on about Sonar or Logic, or Live. As someone who lurks around both forums heavily and who has contributed more than 23 posts to both, I know this from experience.

Logic also doesn't sound better due to it's audio engine - I have used Logic in a work environment for years and like it a lot too. I agree with SubFunk. Because you can't rewire Logic to Live you can't say that rewire works better in one application over the other, but Rewire can do things such as adjust levels. A truer test would be to export the audio from Live, bring it into Logic, and set it up at exactly the same gain levels, panning and NO PLUGINS or inbuilt EQ and then compare. It will sound the same. People believe Logic sounds better again due to it's nice range of plugins and improved mixer view.

As for RomanH - you obviously have some kind of a problem with STeinberg or Cubase - I've had my own issues with this company, that's what lead me to buying into Live in the first place, the blase, arrogant attitude from the top, broken promises on an update to SX3.1.2, dropping DX support from C4 with no mention and their forum banning and deleting. They are far from perfect, I didn't even buy C4 (the only upgrade I ever missed since the Atari days). However, they seem to have mellowed a bit and the new features in C5, plus the really good stability of the product led me back in and when dealing with my distributor (as opposed to the web forum, which doesn't give official support) I've had good help.

If all your hate is simply down to a dongle, then you need to chill. Just walk on by and choose something else but ranting and hating are not cool.

[3phase]

Well being a "quiet" "man" I took a "Leed" and began looking (actually listening) into cubase. I loved the sound, seemed more "jucier" than Live and more natural.

.

That's something i noticed too, maybe we are manipulated by the looks tho, i dunno, the techheads here might say there is no difference.

All people i know experiance cubase to sound better than ableton live...

i guess thats raher caused by the ears than the eyes

[leedsquietman]

3 users on this thread who use Cubase and Live - mholloway, chelemasty and myself - all agree that Cubase and Live sound the same.

Whatever works for you is fine though. Mostly plugins are what leads to the perceived difference, Cubase 5 has 56 audio, 18 MIDI plugins and 8 instrument plugins included, so it has quite a number of extra plugins including pitch correction and convolution reverb, compared to Live. It's this type of thing which leads people to like the sound better but Live with a few good VST/AU can sound just as good (and potentially better).

[3phase]

3 users on this thread who use Cubase and Live - mholloway, chelemasty and myself - all agree that Cubase and Live sound the same.

Whatever works for you is fine though. Mostly plugins are what leads to the perceived difference, Cubase 5 has 56 audio, 18 MIDI plugins and 8 instrument plugins included, so it has quite a number of extra plugins including pitch correction and convolution reverb, compared to Live. It's this type of thing which leads people to like the sound better but Live with a few good VST/AU can sound just as good (and potentially better).

why should it sound potentially better when it is the same?

and what kind of speakers do you guys use?

however you might be wright that better plugs add to the picture

[SubFunk]

why should it sound potentially better when it is the same?

because it is up to the user and his skills.

man, i know so many people with so much money and tons of gear to die for... even extremes having restored neve desks at home!

and they can't mix / produce for shit, absolute rubbish, and on the other hand i know a few folks using reason only on old rotten computers in their little bedroom making tunes that sound like they come out of abbey road.

in the very end it is about your abilities how you make it sound. of course if you got a skill level then better equipment will help to gain further quality no question about it, but real skills always come first, technology second.

The tools don't make the professional. Where "Lady Gaga" (*yuck*) needs to take her clothes of to get noticed Frank Sinatra could simply grab a mic - *ANY* mic - and start singing while totally silencing the crowd. Bring in some extra unexpected music and yuckyuck, sorry; Gaga, will freak out because it wasn't planned while Sinatra would simply improvise and deal with it.

gotta agree to that, similar accounts for a good mixer / producer or DJ or whatever else artist.

[evon]

Thanks Tone..the only thing that spoiled it is your opening remarks...this topic will never go away, even after you and me are dead..so you may as well make lots of coipes of that.

that's just a respectful disagreement.

all I can ask is for a little patience and an open mind in discussing this. if there were differences between DAWs' sound qualities it wouldn't be some big freaking secret we'd only be uncovering now. there are MILLIONS of us in this hobby, a secret like this wouldn't be hiding. look at my post count FFS!! I've been reading this forum closely for years and I've seen this time and again, there is no big secret!

ultimately the proof relies in the person trying to prove the existence of something, that would be yourself.

There you go again..nobody is trying to prove anything. As the adage says "the proof of the pie is in the eating". That could be carried through to the "proof of the DAW is in the listening". I was simply sharing my listening experience with the forum.