Has Cubase been used for any major label recordings? Do any pro's use it?

[johnjm22]

I'm currently on PTLE and plan on putting together a new rig soon. Originaly I was going for Nuendo on a PC. But seeing the cost of Nuendo 3 when compared to Cubase 3, and seeing that Nuendo is headed in more of a post direction, makes me lean more twords Cubase.

But I've never heard of any pro's using Cubase. Why? Alot of pros however use Nuendo. Does Nuendo have anything that Cubase doesn't as far as music production is concerned? Is there a sound quality difference between the two? (internal bussing, src, ect.)

I would be interested to know if any major label recordings were done with Cubase, or if any big time engineers/producers use it.

I'm afraid if I get Cubase I won't be taken seriously.

[OzNimbus]

It's what comes out of the speakers that counts. If Cubase works for you, then use it.

[Staycenator]

First off, let me just say that Cubase is as full featured a program as you will likely ever use, as well as a monster for MIDI tracking. As long as you consider an appropriate A/D, D/A interface(Apogee, MOTU, etc.), you will have a serious contender on any platform, with the ability to import session data from virtually any system/studio.

I'm currently on PTLE and plan on putting together a new rig soon. Originaly I was going for Nuendo on a PC. But seeing the cost of Nuendo 3 when compared to Cubase 3, and seeing that Nuendo is headed in more of a post direction, makes me lean more twords Cubase.

I have used both Cubase & Nuendo, and you are exactly right-they share the same audio engine, MIDI features for the most part(which by the way, destroy PT in that department), and full delay compensation. So, in essence, you are getting Nuendo minus the post perks.

But I've never heard of any pro's using Cubase. Why? Alot of pros however use Nuendo. Does Nuendo have anything that Cubase doesn't as far as music production is concerned? Is there a sound quality difference between the two? (internal bussing, src, ect.)

There are plenty of pro's that use Cubase and/or Nuendo. You can catch a glimpse of many of them at: http://steinberg.net/Steinberg/Artis...sp?Langue_ID=7

Chances are that if they use one, they have used the other just to A/B them. The sound quality has everything to do with the converters that fuel the in's & out's of your system, but if you were to A/B them right next to each other using the same converters, you would not be able to hear a difference. You really don't give up much in the way of production by using Cubase. Although I do most of my work in Pro Tools, I know a similiar way of accomplishing the same results in Cubase SX, which from an interface point of view I greatly prefer.

I would be interested to know if any major label recordings were done with Cubase, or if any big time engineers/producers use it.

Chuck Ainlay, one of my favorite producers/engineers in Nashville is a big time Nuendo advocate. From George Strait to Mark Knopfler, he has used Nuendo on most projects. He told me in an e-mail that he even has George Strait setup with a mobile system at his house that he tracks directly into Nuendo, and then sends the files to Chuck for him to work on in Nashville. Pretty smooth.

Point being, you are the one that will make people take you seriously-everytime someone questions Cubase's viability, I play them something, and they freak. The fidelity is all there. I hope this helps.

Happy hunting.

[Crandall1]

I've got about 80 albums with my name on them, from producer to player to programmer, including one each platinum and gold as artist, and all but the earliest were done with either Cubase or Nuendo as either sequencer or DAW. In all my years, I've actually managed to avoid using PT in the studio, except for one Pigface session a couple years back that was plagued with problems. (These were a result of the engineer having his head up his ass, not PT directly.)

So I can't provide a compare-and-contrast for you. It works for me. I know several other people that are professionals that use Nuendo or Cubase. In my experience, musicians gravitate towards Nuendo, Cubase, or Logic, while engineer types tend to favor PT. I'm not sure why that is; I'm of the former flavor.

As for the differences between Nuendo and Cubase, aside from the cosmetic, there isn't much. If you're only doing music production and not post work, it's hard to see how the extra money would be well spent. I don't know if SX3 has some of the little features of Nuendo 3 that are nifty, like the AFL/PFL or rendering to AAC.

Chris Randall
Audio Damage, Inc.
http://www.audiodamage.com

[lordnielson]

Prodigy "Fat of the land" Liam used a Mac running Cubase.
Sold a few copies that one.

Oh yeah, Bob Clearmountain uses Nuendo.

[Roger Starr]

Andre 3000 of Outkast uses Nuendo on an IBM laptop. I think he made Hey Ya! with that. Reason enough...

Rumor has it that Prince is using Nuendo too, tho' that's more of a forum hoax to me since it only popped up once in a discussion on the Nuendo forum.

As far as I know Cubase can do almost all Nuendo can. In certain way I am in the same boat as you are and doubting between Cubase, Nuendo or LogicPro. If it comes up to music production Cubase SX is probably the best choice. On the other hand what is called 'post' is for me always part of music production too, so...? I do think that Nuendo looks slightly slicker, more tight, let's say more Pro... Not easy to choose. If money is an issue, go straight for Cubase.

Oh yeah, I think Beck is using Cubase too...

Regards,

Roger

[johnjm22]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

[remo]

Jason Nevins also uses Cubase and he's had some HUGE hits!

at the end of the day it comes down to the song and the user... any DAW can make a platinum album NEVER FORGET THAT

its the customers who want to say to their friends "this was recorded on Pro Tools" or "we used an Avalon for the vocals"... its all bull$hit. Its all about name dropping and buzzwords. I guess the words "Pro Tools" and "Nuendo" just sound cooler than "Cubase" to the general public.

I use Cubase and I think it rocks. Great piece of software especially now Yamaha are making all their digital desks totally integrated with it.

So many people get sucked into this gear frenzy they forget gear/software is nothing without talent.

Buying new gear requires 0 talent.. and in turn talent is nothing without the persistence to succeed.

[Renie]

I thought Liam used the Roland W30 for sequencing that record.

[lordnielson]

http://www.theprodigy.info/equipment/cubase.shtml

I found this. Guess we'll go even on that one

PS. Funny how he approximates Remo's take on DAW's and the person in front of it.

[TonyBelmont]

Some of the biggest names in the industry use Cubase and Nuendo. Some of my top tier clients are Nuendo users, and helped me make the leap over to Cubase (it really is almost the same program as Nuendo minus some post and surround features). It is 10x better than Pro Tools if you're actually making music with it (midi, workflow, vst instruments, etc), not just recording audio.

Also, there are many people who are using Nuendo and Cubase who are way bigger than the names mentioned in this threadt. They don't want people to know what they are using, though.

I use Cubase, do I count??? I think I'm a pro..

[TonyBelmont]

Originally posted by johnjm22


I'm afraid if I get Cubase I won't be taken seriously.

By who? clients who are going to record in your studio? or record labels?

Either way it comes down to assesing your own needs and determining which program will fill those needs the best.

[bunnerabb]

Nuendo may indeed be the Pro Tools killer.

200+ tracks
Support for third-party DSP cards: UAD-1, PowerCore, Scope
Distributed processing with VST System Link or FX Teleport, for unlimited DSP power
Non-partitioned DSP (no chip limitations on plug-in size)
Simultaneous editing of multiple events
Overlapping events
Real-time fades
Snap-to-zero
Mixer presets
Assignable key commands
Sample-accurate automation
Offline processes such as Envelope
Offline Process History and Track Freeze, with unlimited undo
Full MIDI capabilities
Superior MIDI timing (with Linear Time Base interfaces)
Sample-accurate slaving to tape (with the optional Time Base synchronizer)
Customizable hardware control
Open architecture, open standards, and support for third-party hardware
AES-31 support for universal file exchange
Faster than realtime export
32-bit floating-point mixer
Support for 32-bit float files and stereo interleaved files
64-bit float plug-ins

Less and less people have the cash on hand to invest into DigiDesign's proprietary interfaces and architecture.

Macs cost a lot of money, too.

Wavs is wavs. The rest is simply what sort of plugs are available, what algorithms they use and work-flow ergonomics.

[greggybud]

IMHO a tricked out Nuendo with something like Apogee converters is the way to go over Pro Tools. However I dont think Nuendo will ever "kill" pro tools.

Pro Tools is easier for recording mixing.

Pro Tools has excellent tech support. Part of that huge money spent is for paying guys to actually answer your questions and even physicaly meet you and make sure things are working right. (what a great concept!)

Pro Tools has the name recognition.

I just dont even see comparing Pro Tools vs. Cubase/Logic/DP/Sonar and blah blah blah. If you want to create make music and produce use them. If you want a simple reliable recording mixing system and are not writing/creating, use Pro Tools.......and get a big budget.

The thing about having Cubase and being taken seriously.......I think a lot of that is the fault of Steinberg. They do release new versions with too many bugs. The tech support is horrible and many resort to forums which costs nothing for Steinberg. And finally Cubase is probably the most cracked sequencer and Steinberg has turned their head I guess hoping crack users will convert to legitimate users.

So that is why Cubase is considered a "toy" by many in my opinion. Many I believe have upgraded to Nuendo just to get away from a sequencer that is used by many hobbyists and has a "toy" reputation.

[bunnerabb]

That is the common take on the market.. yeah.

I think it's mostly just marketing..,,

YMMV.

[johnjm22]

By who? clients who are going to record in your studio? or record labels?

Either way it comes down to assesing your own needs and determining which program will fill those needs the best.

By all of they above. No one takes Cubase serioulsy. Thats why I'm considering spending the extra money to get Nuendo.

Nuendo may indeed be the Pro Tools killer.

200+ tracks
Support for third-party DSP cards: UAD-1, PowerCore, Scope
Distributed processing with VST System Link or FX Teleport, for unlimited DSP power
Non-partitioned DSP (no chip limitations on plug-in size)
Simultaneous editing of multiple events
Overlapping events
Real-time fades
Snap-to-zero
Mixer presets
Assignable key commands
Sample-accurate automation
Offline processes such as Envelope
Offline Process History and Track Freeze, with unlimited undo
Full MIDI capabilities
Superior MIDI timing (with Linear Time Base interfaces)
Sample-accurate slaving to tape (with the optional Time Base synchronizer)
Customizable hardware control
Open architecture, open standards, and support for third-party hardware
AES-31 support for universal file exchange
Faster than realtime export
32-bit floating-point mixer
Support for 32-bit float files and stereo interleaved files
64-bit float plug-ins

Less and less people have the cash on hand to invest into DigiDesign's proprietary interfaces and architecture.

Macs cost a lot of money, too.

Wavs is wavs. The rest is simply what sort of plugs are available, what algorithms they use and work-flow ergonomics.

Yeah PT is killing itself by not going naitive. Why would you spend all that money on a PTHD system when you could build a better nuendo rig for less?

Pro Tools has excellent tech support. Part of that huge money spent is for paying guys to actually answer your questions and even physicaly meet you and make sure things are working right. (what a great concept!)

Your right about that. Hopefully now that Steinberg has been taken over by Yamaha they will improve their tech support.

Pro Tools is easier for recording mixing.

How is PT easier for recording and mixing?

[bunnerabb]

I think it's mostly just marketing....

By who?

DigiDesign, Inc.

[kittonian]

For marketing/advertising purposes Nuendo has a better name than Cubase does (which I imagine is because Nuendo used to be Steinberg's "pro solution" while Cubase wasn't even close). Nowadays Cubase and Nuendo run pretty much neck and neck but the name Nuendo still holds more value, plus it gives you the ability to do full post production work and surround should the need arise.

I used to be a DP/PT user and now that I've gotten into Nuendo 3, I've ditched everything else.

[remo]

yeah.. its funny how Nuendo and Cubase are basically exactyl the same program (engine) apart from the post stuff in Nuendo and ppl will say "ppfffttt he's only running Cubase, what a hack" and in the next breath say "ohh he's running Nuendo, thats much better".


dfegad people who know jack$hit about what their talking about.

[lordnielson]

Originally posted by remo
ppl will say "ppfffttt he's only running Cubase, what a hack" and in the next breath say "ohh he's running Nuendo, thats much better"

Heh, snobbery is hillarious. Snobbery is ignorant to preferences, taste etc. Like the one who gets the latest G5 or a brand spankin' Pentium IV three point whatever, then goes harassing some forum about how the one kills the other.

The way I see it that guy has turned into a Gates or a Jobs bitch. These two company founders do not care about the person who just made them even filthier rich. There's no loyalty reward or pat on the back for good lip service. It's just another prostitute serving them and they're laughing hard, all the way to the bank.

The difference between the two platforms (running optimally) is negligible. And if you really suck at what you do, the difference is the same.

[remo]

I think it comes down to this:

ppl think that if a studio/engineer can afford the most expensive DAW (PTHD, Nuendo) over the cheaper options (PTLE, Cubase) the studio must be making more money because ppl go to them because they are good.

And sucks as it may I think this train of thought holds "some" water.

A hobbiest isn't gonna drop big coin on a HD system, he's gonna get Cubase because he doesn't use it as much.

Big studios need to remain ultra competitive because they have a lot more at stake so the need to ofer clients "the best".

There are of course many exeptions to the rule like the rich kid who whats to get into recording so his daddy buys him a SSL or a mega PTHD rig... but who the hell does that happen to...

[Hiwatt]

It's true about the name. Nuendo gets more respect due to marketing, hype, whatever...

Yes in reality if you don't need the post production stuff just go with Cubase same audio engine etc...

Don't know if this matters much to folks but it's somthing to consider that Cubase only does 44.1 to 96k and Nuendo does 44.1 to 192k

What I would suggest is buy Cubase SX and then buy Nuendo at the crossgrade price. So you get both programs for less than the price of Nuendo alone.

[greggybud]

Originally posted by johnjm22

How is PT easier for recording and mixing?

Sorry, "easier" may not have been the best word. What I meant to imply is that PT is a dedicated recorder/mixer. It does that and does it very well to the degree that it gets a reputation and soon engineers in recording studios and radio statons just buy the name knowing the support will be behind it. PT doesnt claim to have the best midi sequencer. PT doesnt have audio warp, match points, and all that stuff etc. It does few things...but is very reliable.

Compare that with Cubase which is marketed as "1 box does it all" which means editing (semi-lame) VSTIs (lame) processing (average at best) and of course you can even master in it....according to the marketing. Every upgrade is released with bugs which after a few months get fixed (so you can assume the beta testers role) and by the time the bugs are ironed out they release a new upgrade and the cycle starts over again.

Some features such as freeze and audio warp are great to have. But I believe the main problem with Cubase is its cramed with all kinds of features at the expense of being a rock solid digital audio sequencer. In other words, it's a box that does lots of things, but at the expense of some bugs, and not doing anything really great (midi excluded)

Thats my opinion of course from a Cubase user since early 90s, who is now working through the bugs of SX3.01...........

[remo]

what problems are you getting with 3.01? I'm about to upgrade

[greggybud]

Huge CPU consumption spikes with certain applications such as Kontak. With 3.01 the bug list was shortened. There are others, however using Kontakt is my only personal gripe right now. Go to www.cubase.net if you want a "known bug list", and you can also see how many bugs were fixed with the .01 upgrade.

SX3 has been out since August so the bugs are being ironed out....Im sure it will be pretty solid in a few more months.........right about when Steinberg releases SX4.....

[remo]

Originally posted by greggybud
SX3 has been out since August so the bugs are being ironed out....Im sure it will be pretty solid in a few more months.........right about when Steinberg releases SX4.....

lol... true true... Thats not good news about Kontakt as its an integral part of my setup. I might wait a few more months then. SX 2 is suiting me fine atm anyhow! Whould you say the workflow has been improved with the "in place" midi edit option and the other changes? i.e. how much better is it than SX2 IYO?

[TonyBelmont]

Originally posted by remo
lol... true true... Thats not good news about Kontakt as its an integral part of my setup. I might wait a few more months then. SX 2 is suiting me fine atm anyhow! Whould you say the workflow has been improved with the "in place" midi edit option and the other changes? i.e. how much better is it than SX2 IYO?

I'm using SX 3.01 and haven't had any problems with Kontakt... I must be lucky.

[Roger Starr]

Everybody says that Cubase and Nuendo are almost the same thing except that Nuendo has more Post features. Besides the fact that Nuendo has more surround options it's not really clear to me what other 'post' functions it has that Cubase hasn't. Actually, post would be for me mixing and editing your music. Isn't that exactly what you can do in Cubase too? So what's that Post?

Roger

[Roger Starr]

Also, I really don't see why Nuendo should cost so much more then Cubase. Tho' I think it's good to have a flagship, but what's the productrange now really, SL, SX, Nuendo. OK, but why should Nuendo cost 1000 more then Cubase? What's the vision behind this?

Roger

[TonyBelmont]

Originally posted by Roger Starr
Everybody says that Cubase and Nuendo are almost the same thing except that Nuendo has more Post features. Besides the fact that Nuendo has more surround options it's not really clear to me what other 'post' functions it has that Cubase hasn't. Actually, post would be for me mixing and editing your music. Isn't that exactly what you can do in Cubase too? So what's that Post?

Roger

Post = Video features and support for different frame rates, etc for film/ tv/ advertising work...