Cubase smokes Logic, PT LE in processing power...

[Johnkenn]

Is it just me? I continually run into core audio overloads and similar when I push PT or L8...Cubase 4 is ROCK solid...Seems like I can use twice the amount of plugs and effects in Cubase. I really like L8, but I just don't have time to deal with figuring out why this is happening, so I always tend to start serious projects in C4. Is it just me?

It's funny, people slag Cubase all the time, but I think it's the most intuitive and functional of all the DAW's...It ain't pretty, but it works...

[Tony Shepperd]

This message brought to you by Cubase!
Cubase. Were here for all your musical needs.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[shanabit]

Ive noticed the SAME thing here. I cant use LE on my Mac cause shes old and gives me those errors with BFD. Cubase smokes right along.
Cubase HD coming at you soon Tony LOL

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

Seems like I can use twice the amount of plugs and effects in Cubase.

are they the same plugs? i mean, aren't you just making a comment on the efficiency of the plugs you've tried?

[anguswoodhead]

I have used Cubase for years and love it. But am thinking about making the move to Tools.
I wonder if the difference is the quality of the audio engines.
ie. You get more grunt out of Cubase because the audio engine quality is not as good ??????
I don't know but just a theory - I guess in the end it comes down to number crunching. (0's and 1's)
Having said that I have found that Cubase sounds great.
Does anyone around here know about these things?

[cavern]

yes, cubase and now i use nuendo,they are both rock solid. i use outboard gear now but i use to run 18 to 20 waves plugs on sometimes 40 tracks with e.q. on 15 tracks, a ton of automation and never a glitch..can't remember even one problem. rock solid indeed.....

[Savernake]

I use Cubase most but it's more out of familiarity. I think I'll be tracking in it a long time yet, but have felt like moving away from it to Logic 8.

I'm suprised you say its rock solid, with the festival of glitches, bugs, and crashes that plagued the first year of release of Cubase 4. It was like Indiana Jones sequencing, you never knew if it would drop out from under you mid session. Hand on the save button always.

And it looks better than pro tools to me. Pro tools looks so dated now, horrible colour scheme.

[Savernake]

By the way, Cubase 4 has been updated a few times since all the major issues, and other than one project refusing to open (should have backed up), it seems completly solid now.

[steveschizoid]

With Digidesign you have to buy the toy hardware/software version which ties your hands with limited track counts, limited inputs, crappy converters and no plug in delay compensation, or you can spend upwards of $10,000 to use the real thing, which arguably does not produce any better results than any other DAW. And you have to pay for tech support. They've been on top for too long. fuuck Digidesign!

[Savernake]

People who rave about Pro Tools tend to have not tried anything else for about 5 years and rave about 'exclusive' features that other sequencers are doing better by now.

People still say it's an industry standard, but theres all kinds of ways to a flexible, pro setup now.

Well worth being familar with none the les

[Johnkenn]

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

This message brought to you by Cubase!
Cubase. Were here for all your musical needs.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

I have to say, Tony, that comment kind of hacks me off. I guess you didn't see my first 1300 posts - none of which mentioned Cubase...I have nothing to do with Steinberg - in fact, I use PT HD everywhere I go because it's like a rampant disease in Nashville. But the facts are, with my Mac Pro and 4 gigs of RAM, I can use more Ivory, more VSL, more everything...and apparently I'm not the only one. Plus, we're talking about two different animals here in LE and HD. LE is a NIGHTMARE. No delay compensation, latency for miles...come on...

[crypticglobe]

I agree completely. I do use Pro Tools as well when I have to... had a PC running Nuendo/Cubase and Pro Tools HD side by side for a long time here at CGR.

I do agree that Cubase/Nuendo is far more effecient and stable than the other mentioned DAW softwares in my experience. People will show up in droves to disagree that have never actually done comparisons just because the thought of this threatens their carefully constructed (but quite fragile) paradigm. lol.... but... it's true. The Steinberg folks are at the TOP of their game right now for sure.

I do hope this doesn't turn into a platform war though because simply... if it was the opposite... say Logic offered 10x the power on the same system... I would still stick with Cubase/Nuendo because it makes more sense to me and I can't afford the time/money to buy/learn a new DAW software. I am REALLY fast on Steinberg software and the knowledge about how it works I have gained over years of using it is priceless to me.

All that to say.... no need to be defensive people... we get it when a different DAW software is your preference....

Rock on...

[peeder]

The interesting result that could come out of comparisons like this would be if either Digi or Apple were purposefully handicapping their DAWs.

When you think about it, both of them have a motive to do so, that Cubase does not.

Apple's motive would be to sell more Macs. At $500 all-in the Logic Studio package isn't terribly profitable anymore. Apple makes its money on hardware. If you can run all the plugins you can ever imagine on an old G5, there's not much need to upgrade.

Digi has the same motive. They sell hardware...specifically the ancient HD fixed-point TDM cards. If PTLE ran everything in sight on a Mac Pro, who would want to deal with the limits of fixed point and the astounding gross margins they make on those old jalopies?

So if someone can determine that any of these DAWs are actually crippled...obvious optmizations left out, or worse, intentional delay loops capping performance...and can document it in a reproducible way, this could get very interestink....

[barryjohns]

I bought Cubase 4 a couple of months ago. I just couldn't get my arms around it. Not sure why. Menu's just didn't make much sense to me. I've never come close to maxing out a session in Logic 8 yet all at a 64 buffer. Even if Cubase is more effecient, it's all moot to me at least.

I really should give Cubase a serious go though. Honestly, I've only really played with it.

[slaves666]

I've been on Nuendo for a while now, and I borrowed my buddies mbox and with the latest software. I have a hard time with the layout and the implementation of certain features, especially fading and the cursor. I also didn't find beat detective or elastic audio to be very comprehensive. I still want to become comfortable with it, so I'll keep it until I graps as much as I can. HD is still a viable route considering all the studio's that use it....for mixng and such it is almost essential.

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by peeder

The interesting result that could come out of comparisons like this would be if either Digi or Apple were purposefully handicapping their DAWs.

When you think about it, both of them have a motive to do so, that Cubase does not.

Apple's motive would be to sell more Macs.

Here's a chart showing the Logic 7's performance on old, dual core Mac Pro, taken form Apogee's Symphony information pages:



It seems to me like Apple wants to demonstrate how CPU efficient Logic is, rather than handicapping their DAW. If it's correct that Logic 8 (on 8-core Macs) are 2-3 times more CPU efficient than Logic 7, these charts would look even better today. Of course I don't know what "Popular Realtime Native Format" means, but in my experience, Logic is really CPU efficient, more than it ever has been.

[George Necola]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

Here's a chart showing the Logic 7's performance on old, dual core Mac Pro, taken form Apogee's Symphony information pages:

this looks like a Logic-user-benchmark..

so what is the point now? it's just a tool.. it has to work for you..that's it.

[peeder]

Those charts are dubious because TDM is a partitioned format wheras host-based "native" processing is not. I do agree that makes TDM "crippled" to a degree but most likely the given plugin just isn't using the partitions very efficiently. The TDM code is different code than the native code and it may be functioning differently as well...I would need be see assurance that these results all mutually nulled to ensure apples-apples.

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by peeder

Those charts are dubious because TDM is a partitioned format wheras host-based "native" processing is not. I do agree that makes TDM "crippled" to a degree but most likely the given plugin just isn't using the partitions very efficiently. The TDM code is different code than the native code and it may be functioning differently as well...I would need be see assurance that these results all mutually nulled to ensure apples-apples.

There are a lot of things this chart doesn't tell us, and someone pointed out in another thread that the test probably was done using a HD1 card, not an Accel card, meaning that a separate, dedicated Accel card that wouldn't also run the mixer would offer more instances of the same plug-in. OTOH, Logic's numbers also look 'crippled' in that they are based on an older, less CPU efficient version of Logic and an outdated Mac. Logic is also more Intel optimized now than it was back then (which PPC users may suffer from?). Anyway, I only posted the link since Cubase/Logic was compared, not to start another PTHD/native discussion...

The only way to compare Logic and Cubase would be top open the same plugin on two identical Macs, with the same buffer settings etc., and compare the results.

In one way Apple could theoretically benefit from 'crippling' their DAW, but I think Apple see Windows - and not Cubase - as the rival, the platform to compare itself with.

[popmann]

I don't know what Apple may have done to Logic. It was by FAR the most efficient Windows app some years back when I tested. And most rock solid functioning, as well.

...since then, I've used later versions on a G5...and the GUI dragged something awful. I have no idea how that's affecting the overall efficiency, but when you're getting a draggy GUI with very little going on, it's not a good sign.

I run C4 on the PC now. It does what I need...but, it's sort of a like the swiss army knife of the studio here--handling some MIDI...some VIs...some editing...occasional amp sim plug...I can have a full mix of WavesAPI plugs or 2.8gb of VSL strings playing back without much issue--on a 5 year old CPU. I have no reason to upgrade, given what I do on the machine. YMMV.

[nativeaudio]

Originally Posted by George Necola

this looks like a Logic-user-benchmark..

It surely is posted by Apogee...

so what is the point now?.

The point is to waste some time chatting about whether Cubase smokes Logic and PT LE in processing power...

[shadewind]

Originally Posted by nativeaudio

It surely is posted by Apogee...



The point is to waste some time chatting about whether Cubase smokes Logic and PT LE in processing power...

As there is negative talk about Logic, it might piss off some Apple fans. And that's always a good thing

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Savernake

People who rave about Pro Tools tend to have not tried anything else for about 5 years and rave about 'exclusive' features that other sequencers are doing better by now.

Can you back that comment up with anything?

Personally, I mainly use PT HD (studio) and LE (home) - but I also use Logic on a regular basis, and have done sessions in the past year on Cubase and Nuendo.

Logic I find to be a bit fiddly although I can appreciate the software instruments it comes with might make it more appealing to synth-heads.

Cubase I just found counter-intuative and long-winded. It doesn't appeal to the engineer-side of my work method, which PT does. And I'm pretty certain it's not just my unfamiliarity, since I've been working with people who know the software pretty well. It just doesn't work the way I do (and I found this even before I first used PT).

[kelldammit]

i came from cubase/nuendo on pc a long time ago. loved 'em, but really grew to hate the gui and heiroglyphic buttons. life is good for me with logic8, even though i'm now only running a 1st gen macbook, i'm getting enough oomph to get the job done quickly and easily.
i could see why apple would have motive to cripple their software, but truth be told, i just don't think that's the case. the only time i get the overload errors are on first playback, while logic's sussing out the buffering, or if i do something stupid. my current project has 19 vi's running, most 3rd party (a bunch of blue's, albinos, zebras, octopi, two drum machines RMIV, microtonic, and ivory), as well as a couple of channel eq's and compressors. i can playback with both cpu's nearly pegged, and no dropouts @256k buffers. most of the overload issues seem to be coming from macpro users, so i'm wondering if there's some serious optimization needing to be done for the newer machines.
it would be interesting to see a back to back shootout, with 3rd party plugs...same machine, interface, etc. i've heard anecdotally, that 8 blows away ptle. i can tell you from experience that logic smokes dp5 and metro in the cpu efficiency dept, for vi's particularly.
there's simply no need for an hd/native argument when we're looking at a native to native comparison...

[nativeaudio]

As an experiment, I just created a Logic song to see how many times I could use the free Massey TapeHead plugin on (44.1, 24-bit) stereo tracks.

Logic managed to play back 171 stereo tracks with this plugin active before I got an overload message. This was on a 2.4 gHz MacBook Pro, 128 samples buffer setting, I/O safety buffer set to OFF, and process buffer range set to Medium.

I have no idea how the other DAWs perform with this plugin, but since it's free, maybe others could try as well?

I used the same 24 bit audio file on all 171 tracks, and had 3-4 other apps open at the same time - plus an external monitor, so maybe I could have pushed it a little further, but I guess that would only have been a few tracks extra.

[chris carter]

This is really interesting. I use Cubase and a decent production computer, but not BLAZINGLY fast to the point where I need to cool it with liquid nitrogen. But what I always found interesting is that whenever other producers/engineers would ask me about a mix I've done and I tell them all the plugs and processing they almost ALWAYS ask me how I was able to run all that stuff. And when they discover they have faster machines than I have there's all this "WTF??" commentary. I never really realized until this thread that the difference could simply have been Cubase as these folks would always end up being people using other software. Hmmmmm...... maybe the mystery has been solved.

[UnDeFiNeD]

little Q, since there must be a bunch of C4 users in here working on XP, preferably with quadcores.

Are u guys able to max out the cubase CPU/asio meter? I could only go up to like 60% before it started to glitch and crack.
I upgraded to vista (on a testpartition of course) and I could easly stress that meter to 98% without audible problems.
I ditched my XP partition after I deemded the vista platform stable and functional enough, but I'm wondering if the newer updates or simply other systems do/don't have this?


Ps: on topic, it's hard to make a a/b between daw's on processing usage, since there are way to many factors that can influence the outcome.
Only thing I can say is if u want to use your native multiprocessor power to the max on plugs, use Reaper.

Pzz

[Tony Shepperd]

Originally Posted by Johnkenn

I have to say, Tony, that comment kind of hacks me off. I guess you didn't see my first 1300 posts - none of which mentioned Cubase...I have nothing to do with Steinberg - in fact, I use PT HD everywhere I go because it's like a rampant disease in Nashville. But the facts are, with my Mac Pro and 4 gigs of RAM, I can use more Ivory, more VSL, more everything...and apparently I'm not the only one. Plus, we're talking about two different animals here in LE and HD. LE is a NIGHTMARE. No delay compensation, latency for miles...come on...

John... Breathe Deep. Calm Down. I was just kidding.

I really don't care what software people use.
I have no problems with Cubase. If Cubase does it for you, OUTSTANDING!
For others it's Logic. PERFECT!
As long as you get to where your going, it's cool with me!

[shanabit]

I say use Cubase, Protools LE and Logic (Works for me).
That way you wont be arguing with yourself about which app is better and will not feel the NEED to defend yourself about your chosen application.

You boys are too pent up about your tools.
John was just noticing this difference with Cubase and immediately the defenders of the faith show up LOL

[Johnkenn]

Originally Posted by Tony Shepperd

John... Breathe Deep. Calm Down. I was just kidding.

I really don't care what software people use.
I have no problems with Cubase. If Cubase does it for you, OUTSTANDING!
For others it's Logic. PERFECT!
As long as you get to where your going, it's cool with me!

Yeah - sorry - I'm a little touchy about the subject after years of,
"You using Pro Tools?"
"No, Cubase..."
"They still make that?"