Pro Tools/TDM or Cubase SX/DX/VST

[chowdhury]

I needed to know which way to go to get better sound quality so that I
can decide what to buy. Can a system based on Cubase SX with DX/VST
plugin effects be as good as a Pro Tools system with TDM effects. Guess
most probably boils down to can the VST/DX effects be as good as TDM
effects. Is there any other issues.

I would prefer to work with Cubase because its better to do midi with
Cubase. Plus there are many VST/DX Synths and instruments that are not
available in PT. Hopefully someone here has experience in both or know
about both.

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I needed to know which way to go to get better sound quality so that I
> can decide what to buy.

> I would prefer to work with Cubase because its better to do midi with
> Cubase.

Do it. If you're still working with MIDI, any difference in sound
quality based on how the two mix engines work will be insignificant.
When you have a fabulously designed room, $30,000 worth of mics in
your closet, and about 20 years experience in recording and mixing,
you can start worrying about "sound quality."

But at least make sure you have some decent A/D and D/A conversion.
That will make the most difference no matter what level you're working
at.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Monte McGuire]

In article >,
chowdhury > wrote:
> I needed to know which way to go to get better sound quality so that I
> can decide what to buy. Can a system based on Cubase SX with DX/VST
> plugin effects be as good as a Pro Tools system with TDM effects. Guess
> most probably boils down to can the VST/DX effects be as good as TDM
> effects.

At the low end, effects that use the CPU will generally sound better
than poorly coded TDM effects (which is basically everything but about a
dozen plugins). So, contrary to what you might think, low end TDM will
struggle to sound as good as low end floating point.

OTOH, you get an RTAS version of every TDM effect you get, so you can
choose to use the floating point version quite easily on a TDM system.

At the high end, the best TDM effects are better than the best floating
point effects and there are some truly amazing processors that are not
commonly available outside of TDM.

Finally, there are 5 different generations of TDM processors spanning a
decade, each supporting different plugins and different resolutions.
You have to clarify what you mean when you say TDM. It isn't "one
thing" with "one sound".

>Is there any other issues.

Yes, cost and latency. If you want to track through the DAW's mixer
using built in effects, you need TDM to avoid massive latency. However,
you're still hearing your audio through an A/D and D/A conversion, so
even with a very short processing chain, you end up with about 2ms of
latency, most of which is from the converters.

Practically, I have had no complaints about monitoring through TDM, and
I've worked with some pretty picky folks who aren't oblivious to small
timing issues.

Then again, an analog mixer wrapped around the workstation solves the
problem completely.

> I would prefer to work with Cubase because its better to do midi with
> Cubase. Plus there are many VST/DX Synths and instruments that are not
> available in PT. Hopefully someone here has experience in both or know
> about both.

Use the software you're most comfortable with. Software synths are
currently very unstable on ProTools HD systems, so if you're looking
there, you'll have to wait until it settles down.


Regards,

Monte McGuire

[chowdhury]

Actually I meant to say TDM and RTAS effects. So Pro Tools will produce
better final quality because of the better mixing engine and better
effects. Did I make the right conclusion. But I won't be able to tell
the difference unless I have really expensive equipment and good rooms.
Is that true also. I am repeating here but just wanted to make sure. If
anyone could confirm my conclusion, it would be great.



Monte McGuire wrote:

> In article >,
> chowdhury > wrote:
>
>>I needed to know which way to go to get better sound quality so that I
>>can decide what to buy. Can a system based on Cubase SX with DX/VST
>>plugin effects be as good as a Pro Tools system with TDM effects. Guess
>>most probably boils down to can the VST/DX effects be as good as TDM
>>effects.
>
>
> At the low end, effects that use the CPU will generally sound better
> than poorly coded TDM effects (which is basically everything but about a
> dozen plugins). So, contrary to what you might think, low end TDM will
> struggle to sound as good as low end floating point.
>
> OTOH, you get an RTAS version of every TDM effect you get, so you can
> choose to use the floating point version quite easily on a TDM system.
>
> At the high end, the best TDM effects are better than the best floating
> point effects and there are some truly amazing processors that are not
> commonly available outside of TDM.
>
> Finally, there are 5 different generations of TDM processors spanning a
> decade, each supporting different plugins and different resolutions.
> You have to clarify what you mean when you say TDM. It isn't "one
> thing" with "one sound".
>
>
>>Is there any other issues.
>
>
> Yes, cost and latency. If you want to track through the DAW's mixer
> using built in effects, you need TDM to avoid massive latency. However,
> you're still hearing your audio through an A/D and D/A conversion, so
> even with a very short processing chain, you end up with about 2ms of
> latency, most of which is from the converters.
>
> Practically, I have had no complaints about monitoring through TDM, and
> I've worked with some pretty picky folks who aren't oblivious to small
> timing issues.
>
> Then again, an analog mixer wrapped around the workstation solves the
> problem completely.
>
>
>>I would prefer to work with Cubase because its better to do midi with
>>Cubase. Plus there are many VST/DX Synths and instruments that are not
>>available in PT. Hopefully someone here has experience in both or know
>>about both.
>
>
> Use the software you're most comfortable with. Software synths are
> currently very unstable on ProTools HD systems, so if you're looking
> there, you'll have to wait until it settles down.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Monte McGuire
>

[Lorin David Schultz]

"playon" <playonATcomcast.net> wrote in message
...
> If you are primarily concerned with audio quality and don't need a lot
> of midi, Samplitude sounds better than both PT and Cubase if you plan
> to mix inside the computer.


I don't know about that...

I'd bet a day's pay you couldn't reliably tell the difference. There
will probably be *some* difference, but it will be very subtle and I
doubt you could reliably state which was which with better than random
accuracy.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)