cubase 4.5

brettzy

Cubase 4.5 is out!!!

http://www.steinberg.net/en/support/steinberg_support_downloads/cubase_4.html

PaulBrewer

brettzy wrote: »

Cubase 4.5 is out!!!

http://www.steinberg.net/en/support/steinberg_support_downloads/cubase_4.html

Why is Cubase considered the Lil Bro of the Daw world?

bedbugs

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Why is Cubase considered the Lil Bro of the Daw world?

I wouldn't say that. It's just not what has become known as "industry standard". PTHD is a great system, but hardly practical for any of us with home studios at that price.

Logic isn't available if you're not a Steve Jobs customer. A mac is an expensive dongle. And Logic can't really do a hell of a lot that Cubase can't.

The thing that irks me somewhat, is considering PTLE in the same ball park as Logic, Cubase, DP or Sonar (or even Reaper) because it's just not. It's crippled "lite" software. Grand for most things, but then you want more tracks? money please... mp3 support? money please... and so on. Nasty.

My 2c!

PaulBrewer

bedbugs wrote: »

I wouldn't say that.

I would!
As a rule, one never sees it in the Pro world, I'm wondering why?
I'm not critiquing it as I don't know.

Just asking the question.

Anyone any thoughts who has used all 3?

bedbugs

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I would!
As a rule, one never sees it in the Pro world, I'm wondering why?
I'm not critiquing it as I don't know.

Just asking the question.

A fair question, I guess. But I have to ask -what's the "pro" world you speak of? Is it film audio / post production? Sound design for theatre? Rock bands? Classical recordings?

Because of all of these (and many more) the only area where protools is standard (but not exclusive) is in the rock / pop / hip hop areas.

Most film post is done on Nuendo or Logic -Hans Zimmer uses Nuendo as well as Cubase.

Classical recordings -Sequoia or Pyramix

Sound design for theatre - Cubase / Logic or Protools

There are a lot of "pro" audio facilities out there (which of course you know, Paul) but the rock / pop end is far from being in the majority.

In addition, the reason why PTHD is in 90% of commercial rock/pop studios, is because it was once the most reliable and capable system on the market. That kind of exclusivity breeds comfort and tradition which in turn breeds Avids greatest asset -people who say protools is industry standard because it's "the best".

It's not. None of 'em are. They pretty much all do the same thing. The difference comes with your outboard, plugs and converters -esp your converters.

PaulBrewer

bedbugs wrote: »

A fair question, I guess. But I have to ask -what's the "pro" world you speak of? Is it film audio / post production? Sound design for theatre? Rock bands? Classical recordings?

Because of all of these (and many more) the only area where protools is standard (but not exclusive) is in the rock / pop / hip hop areas.

Most film post is done on Nuendo or Logic -Hans Zimmer uses Nuendo as well as Cubase.

Classical recordings -Sequoia or Pyramix

Sound design for theatre - Cubase / Logic or Protools

There are a lot of "pro" audio facilities out there (which of course you know, Paul) but the rock / pop end is far from being in the majority.

In addition, the reason why PTHD is in 90% of commercial rock/pop studios, is because it was once the most reliable and capable system on the market. That kind of exclusivity breeds comfort and tradition which in turn breeds Avids greatest asset -people who say protools is industry standard because it's "the best".

It's not. None of 'em are. They pretty much all do the same thing. The difference comes with your outboard, plugs and converters -esp your converters.

Indeed, hence my enquiry...

bedbugs

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Indeed, hence my enquiry...

Sorry. Thought I answered.

brettzy

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I would!
As a rule, one never sees it in the Pro world, I'm wondering why?
I'm not critiquing it as I don't know.

Just asking the question.

Anyone any thoughts who has used all 3?

I don't know either. It's true that PTHD seems to be the most adoped DAW but I don't think it's a necessity these days.

At the guess I would imagine the reason PTHD was the only real solution in the past was computer power. PT offered DSP power when computers couldn't efficiently handle the demands of audio processing. It was an all in one solution and was really the only option.

Nowadays pc's and mac's have quad and dual quad processor with tons of RAM and can easily handle complex programmes like PT, cubase and logic. Very high quality interfaces can be intergrated with any of them, the editing facilities are excellent even on the likes of reaper which only costs a fraction of the price of the big boys. In the past PTHD was really the only contender and as a result became the industry standard, but it has real competition now.

I've used cubase for 10 years now and stuck with it all the way because I know it. I wonder is that the same reason most studios have stuck with protools???

PaulBrewer

brettzy wrote: »

I wonder is that the same reason most studios have stuck with protools???

That and compatibility I'd guess.