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

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" wrote in message
...
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

Ultimately both will get the job done for you but for me its Cubase SX hands
down.

regards,

Martin


"Animix" wrote in message
...
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" wrote in message
...
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

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

Martin Quinn wrote:
Ultimately both will get the job done for you but for me its Cubase SX hands
down.


Same here.....I can work faster in Cubase and I find it to be more
intuitive and easily navigable than PT. The major advantages for me are
not only being able to put things into folders, but also being able to
move anywhere in the project by moving the mouse left or right and up or
down to zoom in and out. This allows me to quickly zoom in to a single
sample with one click and a little movement of the mouse.

But yes, ultimately Cubase will do 24/96 and the same VST plugins as
protools but without the proprietary hardware. I'd HIGHLY recommend
sticking with Cubase.

Jonny Durango