Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

is there any benefit to using cubase over adobe audition i..

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
March 6, 2005 5:57:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

im really comfortable with audition and don't do anything complicated,
but its seems that cubase is the other really 'pro' software for pcs..
the only benefit i've found is that it saves and loads ten times faster
than audition.. for me at least audition is so much easier to manipulate,
with tiny buttons for volume, fx, panning for each channel so you don't
have to open some huge cascade just to make minor tweaks.. audition has
buttons at the bottom for easy horizontal or vertical zooming, with cubase
you have to get the magnifying glass, choose the zoom function, etc.. urgh.
plus audition has a really easy to use editing function. i'd be using the
same vsts either way, recording in 32 bit floating point either way.. so
should i stick with cubase, learn it and get used to it? or is there no
difference with audition? i'm just a beginner to this multitrack recording
thing and i'm sure there are a million things cubase does that audition
doesn't, i just have found any yet that i seem to need :) 

also, is it reccomend to eq using auditions packaged eq or is it better
to get a 'quality' eq vst? does stuff like that make a difference? thanks!
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 5:57:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Take a look at some of the Magix products, which offer a lot of bang
for the buck.

Al

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 14:57:00 GMT, shaun@gmail.com (shaun) wrote:

>im really comfortable with audition and don't do anything complicated,
>but its seems that cubase is the other really 'pro' software for pcs..
>the only benefit i've found is that it saves and loads ten times faster
>than audition.. for me at least audition is so much easier to manipulate,
>with tiny buttons for volume, fx, panning for each channel so you don't
>have to open some huge cascade just to make minor tweaks.. audition has
>buttons at the bottom for easy horizontal or vertical zooming, with cubase
>you have to get the magnifying glass, choose the zoom function, etc.. urgh.
>plus audition has a really easy to use editing function. i'd be using the
>same vsts either way, recording in 32 bit floating point either way.. so
>should i stick with cubase, learn it and get used to it? or is there no
>difference with audition? i'm just a beginner to this multitrack recording
>thing and i'm sure there are a million things cubase does that audition
>doesn't, i just have found any yet that i seem to need :) 
>
>also, is it reccomend to eq using auditions packaged eq or is it better
>to get a 'quality' eq vst? does stuff like that make a difference? thanks!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:20:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"shaun" <shaun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0TEWd.326$JH1.47832@news20.bellglobal.com...
> im really comfortable with audition and don't do anything complicated,
> but its seems that cubase is the other really 'pro' software for pcs..
> the only benefit i've found is that it saves and loads ten times faster
> than audition.. for me at least audition is so much easier to manipulate,
> with tiny buttons for volume, fx, panning for each channel so you don't
> have to open some huge cascade just to make minor tweaks.. audition has
> buttons at the bottom for easy horizontal or vertical zooming, with cubase
> you have to get the magnifying glass, choose the zoom function, etc..
urgh.
> plus audition has a really easy to use editing function. i'd be using the
> same vsts either way, recording in 32 bit floating point either way.. so
> should i stick with cubase, learn it and get used to it? or is there no
> difference with audition? i'm just a beginner to this multitrack recording
> thing and i'm sure there are a million things cubase does that audition
> doesn't, i just have found any yet that i seem to need :) 
>
> also, is it reccomend to eq using auditions packaged eq or is it better
> to get a 'quality' eq vst? does stuff like that make a difference? thanks!
Cubase is a midi sequencer package with excellent audio facilities. Audition
is audio only (although you can load in a midi file to play along with)
That's a short answer
BC
Related resources
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:57:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

shaun wrote:
> >> also, is it reccomend to eq using auditions packaged eq or is it
better
> >> to get a 'quality' eq vst? does stuff like that make a difference?
thanks!

It can make a difference but (for example) Sony's EQ can get pricey.
You should do OK with the supplied EQ's.

> >Cubase is a midi sequencer package with excellent audio facilities.
Audition
> >is audio only (although you can load in a midi file to play along
with)
> >That's a short answer
> >BC
>
> yeah i used cubase a while ago when i had a midi controller but now
im just
> doing simple multitrack recording.. so from your answer am i to
assume that
> there is no difference in the audio quality of the end result
regardless
> of whether i use audition or cubase to record/mix/etc..?

The most part of your sound quality is determined by the audio
card, or interface. One thing I noticed with the bundled version
of Cubase that came with my Echo Mia card was that it was a 16
bit program, even though the Mia is a 24 bit card ! Hopefully
your version is newer and 24 bit.


>
> thanks
March 7, 2005 12:08:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> also, is it reccomend to eq using auditions packaged eq or is it better
>> to get a 'quality' eq vst? does stuff like that make a difference? thanks!
>Cubase is a midi sequencer package with excellent audio facilities. Audition
>is audio only (although you can load in a midi file to play along with)
>That's a short answer
>BC

yeah i used cubase a while ago when i had a midi controller but now im just
doing simple multitrack recording.. so from your answer am i to assume that
there is no difference in the audio quality of the end result regardless
of whether i use audition or cubase to record/mix/etc..?


thanks
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:55:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"shaun" <shaun@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ijKWd.3837$JH1.160473@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >> also, is it reccomend to eq using auditions packaged eq or is it better
> >> to get a 'quality' eq vst? does stuff like that make a difference?
thanks!
> >Cubase is a midi sequencer package with excellent audio facilities.
Audition
> >is audio only (although you can load in a midi file to play along with)
> >That's a short answer
> >BC
>
> yeah i used cubase a while ago when i had a midi controller but now im
just
> doing simple multitrack recording.. so from your answer am i to assume
that
> there is no difference in the audio quality of the end result regardless
> of whether i use audition or cubase to record/mix/etc..?
>
>
> thanks
>
I've used both myself but for audio only I much prefer Audition (I only have
ver 1) as the editing facilities are so much better. I understand that
Audition 1.5 has VST support so in multitrack mode that is going to be
fantastic.

Sonically, no difference, the bottom line is speed and ease of use and that
is up to you i.e how confortable you feel with either program.

BC
!