CUBASE SX OR LOGIC AUDIO Sonically

[JOHN]

Hello Gear people, mixing internaly in Logic Audio or mixing in cubase SX 2 or 3 which one sounds better? which one would sound better sonically?

[Kiwiburger]

Out of the people who can actually hear a difference, Cubase/Nuendo seem to be prefered.

My own experience with this dates back to Logic 5 on PC. I had only just bought Logic, and was about to buy all the Emagic plugins and controls surface when Apple bought them out, and they pissed on their PC users.

Against my will, I bought Cubase SX at the shafted-logic-users special deal. I relucantly installed it - as a second best option, having previously decided Cubase was too gay.

On the exact same PC, same hardware, speakers, everything - I was absolutely gobsmacked at how much better SX sounded compared to Logic 5. I was stunned - and I ever since then I have never said "digital audio is just ones and zeros".

It should be obvious that certain DAWS will sound better than other DAWS. Any other digital device - sampler, eq, compressor etc all sound different and there are clear winners. It's no different with DAWs. They are not simple, and there are many compromises, shortcuts, and outright bugs in these things.

Logic sounded constricted to me, and SX just sounded better. I would like to think Logic have caught up by now, but I don't know. Cubase has got better.

[DJDJ]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Out of the people who can actually hear a difference, Cubase/Nuendo seem to be prefered.

My own experience with this dates back to Logic 5 on PC. I had only just bought Logic, and was about to buy all the Emagic plugins and controls surface when Apple bought them out, and they pissed on their PC users.

Against my will, I bought Cubase SX at the shafted-logic-users special deal. I relucantly installed it - as a second best option, having previously decided Cubase was too gay.

On the exact same PC, same hardware, speakers, everything - I was absolutely gobsmacked at how much better SX sounded compared to Logic 5. I was stunned - and I ever since then I have never said "digital audio is just ones and zeros".

It should be obvious that certain DAWS will sound better than other DAWS. Any other digital device - sampler, eq, compressor etc all sound different and there are clear winners. It's no different with DAWs. They are not simple, and there are many compromises, shortcuts, and outright bugs in these things.

Logic sounded constricted to me, and SX just sounded better. I would like to think Logic have caught up by now, but I don't know. Cubase has got better.

Of course, Pan laws could have a lot to do with this......

[Ashermusic]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Out of the people who can actually hear a difference, Cubase/Nuendo seem to be prefered.

My own experience with this dates back to Logic 5 on PC. I had only just bought Logic, and was about to buy all the Emagic plugins and controls surface when Apple bought them out, and they pissed on their PC users.

Against my will, I bought Cubase SX at the shafted-logic-users special deal. I relucantly installed it - as a second best option, having previously decided Cubase was too gay.

On the exact same PC, same hardware, speakers, everything - I was absolutely gobsmacked at how much better SX sounded compared to Logic 5. I was stunned - and I ever since then I have never said "digital audio is just ones and zeros".

It should be obvious that certain DAWS will sound better than other DAWS. Any other digital device - sampler, eq, compressor etc all sound different and there are clear winners. It's no different with DAWs. They are not simple, and there are many compromises, shortcuts, and outright bugs in these things.

Logic sounded constricted to me, and SX just sounded better. I would like to think Logic have caught up by now, but I don't know. Cubase has got better.

There are at least as many who say the opposite. I know because 3 of them came to me to help them switch to Logic Pro just in the last 6 months.
That said while there many be some sonic differences between Daws they are FAR less significant than the difference in converters and plug-in choices.

Pick the DAW that has the workflow and the features you prefer. If you have skills you can get great sounding mixes out of Logic, Cubase, DP, PT,and so on. If you don't it won't matter.

[Kiwiburger]

Of course, Pan laws could have a lot to do with this......

Nope - nothing at all. I always set my pan law to 0, because I don't like my DAW making decisions for me. I expect the power to increase when I pan to the centre.

The difference I heard was heard and discussed by many people who made the same move from Logic to SX at the same time.

It's a subtle difference - I agree that moving to better converters makes a bigger difference. But my wife could hear it too - it was a delightful difference to hear.

My mixes were predominantly VST drums, synths, samplers, all ITB stuff with vocals and guitars. I will freely admit that much of the improvement could very well have been in the implementation of VSTi hosting - you would expect Steinberg to get their own technology right.

Who knows - maybe this is why Emagic dropped VSTi support - maybe they couldn't get it sounding as good.

Logic 5 just sounded slightly constricted in comparison - anyway, with superior workflow and logical GUI of SX, it just was illogical to continue with Logic. The improved sound quality was just the icing on the cake.

[Bad Khan]

It's weird... way back in the day I had both Cubase VST and Logic on my PC (yup, before Emagic was bought by Mac...) I liked working in Cubase better but was absolutely convinced that Logic sounded better... Hmmm... Seeing as Logic is Mac exclusive and I'm a PC guy, I just stick with Cubase... I don't know...

[Kiwiburger]

True - Cubase VST didn't sound as good. Cubase SX used the Nuendo audio engine, and was a huge leap forward in sound quality at that time.

I have no idea how the latest version of Logic compares now, since I run Windows.

My point is that there certainly can be very audible differences between DAWs.

For example - in a comparison of software sample players playing back the exact same sample with no filters or anything, some will sound very bad and some will sound very good. It's disturbing that such a simple thing can introduce so much variation, but it does.

A DAW is far more complex than just a simple sample player - so it's not unusual that they will sound different too, and they do.

[ctms777]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

For example - in a comparison of software sample players playing back the exact same sample with no filters or anything, some will sound very bad and some will sound very good. It's disturbing that such a simple thing can introduce so much variation, but it does.

A DAW is far more complex than just a simple sample player - so it's not unusual that they will sound different too, and they do.

A software-sampler, or any sampler has to resample a sound to play it back at a different frequency, a DAW merely plays it back as us. Your comparison is incorrect.

The recorder (DAW) is least significant part that determines the sound in the recording chain IMHO.
Something like this; (most important things first) Talent-> quality instruments -> Mic placement -> room -> mics -> preamp -> processing -> converters -> DAW

Coen Thomas

[Kiwiburger]

I'm thinking specifically of some 24 bit 44.1kHz samples (Scarbee WEP if you must know) that I have tried to use with alternative samplers in a 24 bit 44.1kHz project. No resampling was required, and yet I found big variances in sound playback quality.

The Scarbee samples are a mixed bag - some of them really stink, and they've all been brutally compressed and normalised. I was trying to build some better patches using just the good sounding samples, and I was checking out various samplers that allow you to build your own. I found huge variations, and huge defects in a lot of samplers.

I ended up using Audacity as my reference - I find it can play back any wave file perfectly. The same wave files can be played back in other hosts or samplers, and the sound (compared to Audacity) can be distorted or compromised. It was a frustrating day when I found this out. And unfortunately I heard some problems with Cubase SX which is why I can full believe there are better sounding DAWs out there, although I now there are also worse.

My point is that digital audio is never just "zero and ones". Even the simplest operation can be screwed up and compromised.

Edit: this was critical listening sessions, with a Benchmark DAC-1 and Senheisser HD280s. I agree this is splitting hairs, and bad converters damage audio much more than a typical DAW. But the differences are there, and they annoy me when playback is inferior to the original sample.

[hollywood]

I don't use Cubase (any more) or Logic. I use DP, but I do believe that DAWs sound different. I tried the most recent version of Samplitude and to me, the audio was much improved over DP. DP seems to cloud all of my audio. But I still use it, because the GUI, editing and mixing suit me much better than Logic.

Just an observation: If the majority of people believe that Cubase SX sounds better than VST, why is it inconcievable that Cubase and Logic sound different??

[brutze]

Currently running both progs side by side on a mac this is a subject close to me at the moment...

I think that Nuendo has it on the summing.
It sounds warmer/more like a record. I think logic sounds somehow more sharp and clinical...Mike Oldfields last CD was made on Logic...when I heard it I almost laughed at how instantly one can recognise the sound.
Me no like. Reason is another program like this. But its not enough of a difference to get "too" worried about.

I think that the workflow on Nuendo is 10000000 times easier for Tracking audio/mixing, although Logics Environment is a great building site for creative routing.
I also think that the program structure affects ones work to the extent that it changes how your mixes end up.

Check this...

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

...out for a shock on sample rate conversion!

Logic (7.1), Shocking!
Nuendo better but should still be ashamed.

So, get another program like Wave Editor for 24/96 to CD conversions.

You might want to check out the Awesome DAWsome CD from Lynn Fuston's website...

http://www.3daudioinc.com

I still haven't got round to getting this...sorry Lynn.
So get it and tell me what you think.

LOGIC is an out of control monster of a prog. The learning curve is steep...
Takes weeks to learn. It has too many Pull down menus with doubled Items between them every window has a different set of similar but different menus...ITS A MESS!
I really like many things there, though....so

LOGIC for Composing/Putting together ITB compositions quickly/midi stuff.
Nuendo/Cubase for Tracking/Mixing Audio.

As to your main question...I do think, and check my wording carefully, that Nuendo mixes come out sounding better.
I can mix faster in Nuendo too and the arrange window and audio editing is easier.

All the best from an overcast rainy Berlin.

Brutze