Does protools hd have a naturally wider stereo image more headroom than say cubase4

[Knobturner]

Oooh. I can't wait to read the responses to this post. Drooling in anticipation.

[drBill]

I'm not sure how you can really do a scientific comparison. It's not like changing out a mic or micpre. I'm sure there will be opinions though.

[pigcat]

I thought this kind of topic (it's almost always Cubase/Nuendo or PT or both) has been discussed thousands and thousands of times.

[GYang]

Originally Posted by pigcat

I thought this kind of topic (it's almost always Cubase/Nuendo or PT or both) has been discussed thousands and thousands of times.

It seemed to me that Nuendo always won in direct, scientifically executed, unbiased, impartial comparisons by huge margin.
So, I bought Nuendo.
And yes it is better. thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
TO ME

[H-Rezz]

Originally Posted by GYang

It seemed to me that Nuendo always won in direct, scientifically executed, unbiased, inpartial comparisons by huge margin.
So, I bought Nuendo.
And yes it is better. thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
TO ME

I'd really like to see that 'scientific' data if you have a link ! Huge margin ? what does 'huge margin' mean in terms of stereo width , i mean how much wider can we go before we totally phase out and hear nothing

[AllAboutTone]

And you guys thought some of my threads were stupid !!!!! This one takes the cake.

[underworld]

Originally Posted by HIGHENDONLY

I know it's stupid to ask but i'm just curious. With say an hd3 system to a cubase 4 setup. Does protools have a apparent wider stereo image and more headroom?

i think the short answer is "no". it does not have an "apparent wider stereo image and more headroom". and maybe i should stress "apparent".

it IS possible that the summing algorithms in Cubase/Nuendo and Protools vary somewhat, and that there could be some level of stereo image crosstalk (although I would generally doubt it). i think if you use some kind of stereo image plug-in you might have some variation in the stereo image, but otherwise i would expect them to be identical. you could scientifically test this though. you take a set of WAV files and mix them in both PT and Cubase using the same panning settings (and everything else flat/identical). Mix down to isolated stereo tracks (i.e. separate left and right). Then bring the PT left track and the Cubase left track into an audio editor and see if they null. Repeat for right track.

The same should be true of "headroom". When both systems operate with 24-bit or 32-bit integers which represent audio samples, the headroom could not be more scientifically identical. Think of it this way: machine a has 32 switches, machine b has 32 switches - which machine has the ability to flip more switches?

[richardswag]

Originally Posted by underworld

Then bring the PT left track and the Cubase left track into an audio editor and see if they null. Repeat for right track.

You'd have to be careful which audio editor you used though, in case one had a wider stereo image or more headroom than the other...

[Joe Porto]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't you actually have to CREATE an additional algorithm simulating crosstalk in order to colapse a stereo image in the digital domain?

[Ski spiggy]

I remember reading on "unicornation", the MOTU site, that DP has 32bit fixed and PTHD has 42bit floating... or something like that.
What ever the case, summing in the PTHD 42bit floating was said to sound better.
I have no experience in this. I have DP.
My recordings sound fine. But then I have nothing to compare to.

Spiggy

[DSMrehearsal]

H-rezz - just in case you didn't get it (Which you obviously didn't ), Gyang was beeing SARCASTIC.

[Ski spiggy]

Woops. DP 32 floating. PT 48 fixed

[uncle duncan]

Cubase would have a wider apparent stereo image if the guy spent the other 8 grand on better convertors and monitors instead of HD. (Not the answer you're looking for, but I couldn't resist.)

[Tony Shepperd]

The short answer is yes, your image is wider in PT HD.
Do a listening test, but I believe you will come to that conclusion.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

The short answer is yes, your image is wider in PT HD.
Do a listening test, but I believe you will come to that conclusion.

If a stereo image is wider in the forest, does anyone hear it?

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by HIGHENDONLY

I know it's stupid to ask but i'm just curious. With say an hd3 system to a cubase 4 setup. Does protools have a apparent wider stereo image and more headroom?

If you pan something totally to one side in Protools you hear absolutely nothing from the other channel. How much wider do you want? As far as headrom goes, any modern DAW will give you more headroom than any analog system--more than you can possibly utilize. If you're running out of headrom on a 24 bit DAW you're doing something wrong.

-R

[bexarametric]

Aren't there pan law presets that play into those results? I know in Logic, I can set the pan law. I would assume that PT and Cubase have their default settings that can be adjusted. I'm pretty sure this exact same question was brought up a while back comparing the panning of PT vs Logic. Maybe I'm high too. (shrugs) As far as the headroom goes, I'm not even going to touch that.

[DISCERN]

Its been tested. A bunch of files level matched and panned with identical pan laws within different daws. A null test proved they were identical. Even the newer 64bit fixed point mix engines produced the same identical file as 32bit floating and 48 bit fixed point. These tests however, were done without plugins. Thats a can'o'worms all to itself and would prove very hard to determine where the difference (if any) may lay. Workflow, and familiarity influences the final mix.

Both good and bad mixes have been made on the same SSL.
Both good and bad mixes have been made in Protools
Both good and bad mixes have been made in Nuendo
Both good and bad mixes have even been made on wackie mackies.

Sometimes gear scutiny is a good thing, at other times its nothing but a path to being sidetracked. Just use what works for you, and what you think sounds the best in your hands. Science doesn't support a definate "best sounding" anything... because science supports that everyone hears things differently.

[bexarametric]

Originally Posted by DISCERN

Its been tested. A bunch of files level matched and panned with identical pan laws within different daws. A null test proved they were identical. Even the newer 64bit fixed point mix engines produced the same identical file as 32bit floating and 48 bit fixed point. These tests however, were done without plugins. Thats a can'o'worms all to itself and would prove very hard to determine where the difference (if any) may lay. Workflow, and familiarity influences the final mix.

Both good and bad mixes have been made on the same SSL.
Both good and bad mixes have been made in Protools
Both good and bad mixes have been made in Nuendo
Both good and bad mixes have even been made on wackie mackies.

Sometimes gear scutiny is a good thing, at other times its nothing but a path to being sidetracked. Just use what works for you, and what you think sounds the best in your hands. Science doesn't support a definate "best sounding" anything... because science supports that everyone hears things differently.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[epp]

I don't know about cubase 4 specifically, but if it doesn't dither the output from the program to your converters, protools is likely to have a nicer sound to it.

[redroom]

Prtoools does not use Stereo interleaved files this could have a posotive effect on the stereo spectrum.

[theRog]

Right, I can't resist and tell you guys this:

If we leave the convertors out of the equation then it doesn't matter what DAW you use at all!

Of course there will be a difference with different plugins but if you go straight in and out of an application and the output is dithered equally then there is no difference in sound.

Don't bring up the floating vs. fixed issue...

Just use the tools and make great music!

cheerio
Roger

[danoan522]

Originally Posted by DISCERN

Its been tested. A bunch of files level matched and panned with identical pan laws within different daws. A null test proved they were identical. Even the newer 64bit fixed point mix engines produced the same identical file as 32bit floating and 48 bit fixed point. These tests however, were done without plugins. Thats a can'o'worms all to itself and would prove very hard to determine where the difference (if any) may lay. Workflow, and familiarity influences the final mix.

Both good and bad mixes have been made on the same SSL.
Both good and bad mixes have been made in Protools
Both good and bad mixes have been made in Nuendo
Both good and bad mixes have even been made on wackie mackies.

Sometimes gear scutiny is a good thing, at other times its nothing but a path to being sidetracked. Just use what works for you, and what you think sounds the best in your hands. Science doesn't support a definate "best sounding" anything... because science supports that everyone hears things differently.

AMEN. Now everyone lets go make music

[joeq]

Originally Posted by bexarametric

Aren't there pan law presets that play into those results? I know in Logic, I can set the pan law. I would assume that PT and Cubase have their default settings that can be adjusted. I'm pretty sure this exact same question was brought up a while back comparing the panning of PT vs Logic. Maybe I'm high too. (shrugs) As far as the headroom goes, I'm not even going to touch that.

all pan law does is lower the volume of center-panned tracks to compensate for the coming out of two speakers

one would assume that a mixer who knew what he wanted would place his track where he wanted it L-R, and then adjust the volume where he wanted it

in other words, use both the pan-pot AND the fader

I pan the lead vocals dead center and then I adjust the fader. If the pan law of DAW X attenuates the signal more, it doesn't matter to me, because I am going to raise that fader until the vocal sounds like it is supposed to sound.

If I know what I want, I am going to end up with same mix.

[The Famous Yard]

DAW software has no sound. There is no summing algorithm. They all null.

Will this topic never die?

[tridelica]

The newest Cubase is so great for quickly slicing,comparing, and comping audio takes, that whether it sounds better or worse than Pro Tools, is of secondary concern.
Many years ago, however, before Cubase was revamped with the Nuendo audio 'engine,' there were many complaints that Cubase sounded more collapsed than Pro Tools.
Happily, those daze are over.
It's Pro Tools, Cubase or the highway. I have never used Pro Tools, but I bet its only advantage, besides its ubiquity, is the quality of its (overpriced) plugins, and default plugins.

[Bassmec]

I think it probably makes a difference in some very very subtile way, but I don't think it makes as much difference as anybody could actually hear it.
It's more to do with what you do with it. I use protools most of the time but I have Nuendo as well, almost anything you do with a plugin or send and return to outboard (even with quality mic cable and the rack object bypassed) will provide far more difference.

[Ambience]

Pro tools hd does have a wide stereo field and it emphasizes the low end for that added warmth. Best money spent !

[jrhager84]

No, it doesn't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk