stay with cubase, or jump ship to protools?

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

Having owned a Digi 001 and also Cubase SX 3/RME, all I can say is that it
depends on what you need. I find Cubase SX 3 to be easily as intuitive as PT
LE with more integrated features plus the added advantage of *not* having
to use Digi hardware interfaces or VSTi wrappers.

YMMV



"David Ingram" <news@nospamveryheavy.com> wrote in message
news:X92dnYDMf5HHfxXfRVn-tg@comcast.com...
> I am finally very close to completing my basement studio room - after a
few
> years of making spare bedrooms work, I've built a good room that will
serve
> as my home project studio. The type of projects I do will mainly be 1)
> songwriting ideas/development/composition, 2) recording my band, 3) some
> voiceover stuff for a friend. I've currently got Cubase VST 5.1 and a
delta
> 44, and I will be upgrading my interface and software within the next
month
> or two. I've had cubase for a while - initially had 3.0 for mac then
> switched to PC a while ago. It's not bad and I can get around in it to
some
> degree, although I've never really found it that intuitive, and definitely
> do not know it to the depth I should. Mostly my fault but I feel like the
> software is not helping me either. My band has recently been doing some
demo
> tracks at a small studio with protools LE and the digi 001 outboard, and
as
> I've watched the owner at work in protools, it seems to me as I look over
> his shoulder that PT is set up in a more logical way, or that it's a
> better/cleaner tool from a user interface standpoint. Obviously he knows
PT
> way better than I know cubase, but my sense is that I would like PT
better.
>
> Anyway, I'm about to drop some dough here, and I thought I'd ask for
input.
> I think I'd either upgrade to Cubase SX3 and get a fireface from RME, or I
> would go with protools and a digi002 (or could I use the fireface equally
> effectively with protools?). I figure the other nice advantage to protools
> is that it would be easier to interface with more pro level studios if I
do
> drum tracks somewhere else and then want to work on the tracks at home...
> But there are no doubt ways to get tracks over to cubase too. I suspect
that
> if I just sat down and put the time in I could make cubase work better for
> me, but I am really interested in getting the best, most transparent
> recording tool I can, so that I never again forget an idea or lose
> inspiration while I am fiddling with cumbersome software. Is a protools LE
> rig without all the more expensive offboard PT gear a more limited
platform
> than cubase sx3 out of the box?
>
> I know that my question is ultimately a bit vague and that I could really
> make either of these packages work. If I can answer any followup questions
> to get better input from the group, please let me know.
>
> Thanks
>
> David Ingram
>
>

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

I am a very big fan of Cubase SX even after using PT HD at the studio
where i work. I own Cubase SX 2 with MOTU interfaces and it works great
for me.

In the end it is personal preference. You can do pretty much the same
thing on most DAW's out there, it all depends on the comfort of the
operator with that system.

The clincher for me is performing general arranging, editing and
recording functions(which occupies about 90% of my time). I find that in
Cubase SX you don't need to mouse-click or key-command or dialogue-box
as much as in PT. An important feature for me are the folders in SX. You
can place anything into folders and arm them all in one click, monitor
them all in one click, edit them all in one click, colour code
everything, hide all the tracks in a hierarchical fashion, and even put
folders in folders to keep the workspace clean.

Cubase is also killer for writing music using MIDI and VSTi's.

What it comes down to, is that I use software until i find a limit
that's holding me back or until i find something else that works
better/faster. I used Logic for years all the way up to version 7, i've
been using PT for a year, and Cubase SX for about the past few years.
I've never found a reason to leave SX.

Roach

David Ingram wrote:
> I am finally very close to completing my basement studio room - after a few
> years of making spare bedrooms work, I've built a good room that will serve
> as my home project studio. The type of projects I do will mainly be 1)
> songwriting ideas/development/composition, 2) recording my band, 3) some
> voiceover stuff for a friend. I've currently got Cubase VST 5.1 and a delta
> 44, and I will be upgrading my interface and software within the next month
> or two. I've had cubase for a while - initially had 3.0 for mac then
> switched to PC a while ago. It's not bad and I can get around in it to some
> degree, although I've never really found it that intuitive, and definitely
> do not know it to the depth I should. Mostly my fault but I feel like the
> software is not helping me either. My band has recently been doing some demo
> tracks at a small studio with protools LE and the digi 001 outboard, and as
> I've watched the owner at work in protools, it seems to me as I look over
> his shoulder that PT is set up in a more logical way, or that it's a
> better/cleaner tool from a user interface standpoint. Obviously he knows PT
> way better than I know cubase, but my sense is that I would like PT better.
>
> Anyway, I'm about to drop some dough here, and I thought I'd ask for input.
> I think I'd either upgrade to Cubase SX3 and get a fireface from RME, or I
> would go with protools and a digi002 (or could I use the fireface equally
> effectively with protools?). I figure the other nice advantage to protools
> is that it would be easier to interface with more pro level studios if I do
> drum tracks somewhere else and then want to work on the tracks at home...
> But there are no doubt ways to get tracks over to cubase too. I suspect that
> if I just sat down and put the time in I could make cubase work better for
> me, but I am really interested in getting the best, most transparent
> recording tool I can, so that I never again forget an idea or lose
> inspiration while I am fiddling with cumbersome software. Is a protools LE
> rig without all the more expensive offboard PT gear a more limited platform
> than cubase sx3 out of the box?
>
> I know that my question is ultimately a bit vague and that I could really
> make either of these packages work. If I can answer any followup questions
> to get better input from the group, please let me know.
>
> Thanks
>
> David Ingram
>
>