Logic vs. Cubase SX

I did some tests recently, bouncing my virtual instruments to 16-bit audio and was shocked by the results. Logic sounds clear and crisp, but Cubase sounds fatter and closer to analog to my ears. Anyone else notice this?

Also, after about an hour of playing around I had a full-blown track on my hands. This program is VERY intuitive and seems engineered more for artists and Logic seems to be for engineers. I find that in Logic I spend more time tweaking my setup than making music.. Perhaps it's blasphemy to say this, but I just may convert! The only thing holding me back is the fact that my AUs will be worthless

I did some tests recently, bouncing my virtual instruments to 16-bit audio and was shocked by the results. Logic sounds clear and crisp, but Cubase sounds fatter and closer to analog to my ears. Anyone else notice this?

 

Also, after about an hour of playing around I had a full-blown track on my hands. This program is VERY intuitive and seems engineered more for artists and Logic seems to be for engineers. I find that in Logic I spend more time tweaking my setup than making music.. Perhaps it's blasphemy to say this, but I just may convert! The only thing holding me back is the fact that my AUs will be worthless

Not my experience. The sound is largely about the hardware and mix choices, not the software. I am a composer and while Cubase and DP are fine apps I still think Logic is the best for composing music.

I used to be a longtime cubase user, and i do think that Steinberg DAWs do attempt to simulate an analog limiter on the master track.

I noticed that my mixes never matched what i heard from my monitors. the effect is neither good or bad. My gripe was that I didn't have control of it.

I find Logic to be more accurate and less colored than Cubase, over my monitors.

8)

I second gdoubleyou...!!!

the actual soundengines vary a lot, from prog to prog, some have even rather massive differences... you will hear that by using the EXCACT same hardware and different apps with the same test wave or whatever file....

logic rules. it's neutral and accurate. and gives you full control!, lots of preople say different, my opinion is that they can't produce! cause you hear also every single mistake you make!!!

I second gdoubleyou...!!!

 

the actual soundengines vary a lot, from prog to prog, some have even rather massive differences... you will hear that by using the EXCACT same hardware and different apps with the same test wave or whatever file....

 

logic rules. it's neutral and accurate. and gives you full control!, lots of preople say different, my opinion is that they can't produce! cause you hear also every single mistake you make!!!

funny stuff

play the same file through logic and cubase with the identical hardware and it will sound exactly the same. no color. the difference is when it comes to summing a lot of audiosignals in one of these apps and this is where cubase/nuendo sound noticeable better, clearer... . (but still with no color)

play the same file through logic and cubase with the identical hardware and it will sound exactly the same. no color. the difference is when it comes to summing a lot of audiosignals in one of these apps and this is where cubase/nuendo sound noticeable better, clearer... . (but still with no color)

Interesting. In my experience Cubase does color my sound with a touch of warmth that makes logic sound slightly cold and digital by comparison. The signal is also hotter and even though the waveforms appear identical, the Cubase mixdowns sound louder. The other thing I love about this program is how easy it is to arrange. The "Intuitive Play Order" function is something that Logic can learn from.

Logic is still king when it comes to speed, latency and efficiency. I can open more plugins and have more effects playing simultaneously. But when it comes to intuitive songwriting and overall sound, Cubase gets my vote.

cloubblast wrote:

play the same file through logic and cubase with the identical hardware and it will sound exactly the same.

no offense here, but really... do you have ears??? it's not about trashing cubase!!!

(even i dislike it totally, but for lots of reasons, that doesn't have anything to do with the topic!! of the actual sound engine)

BUT ESPECIALLY THOSE TWO APPS ARE SOUNDING SO DAMN DIFFERENT< sorry, but to say that it is not, is clearly a sign of deafness!!! sorry i don't mean to insult!!

just do a A/B test on a really good Pro system enviroment. i have to deal / work on a daily basis with different audio apps, and there is shurely a rather massive difference...

if you prefer the one or other, fair enough it's a pure matter of taste!!!, but saying Logic and Cubase have the same sonic behavior...

and Ace of Dubs

it's a well known fact that Cubase performs very pure when it comers to CPU efficiency on a MAC, it's by far better on the PC platform...

that's why a Mac is a bad choice if Cubase is your apps of choice...

Subfunk, I just don't buy it. The sound is far more dependant on the hardware and plug-ins than the software.

If you brought 16 audio tracks into Cubase, applied no processing, all levels at -6db, no panning and bounced, then did the same in Logic and DP, and then burned them all on a CD I REALLY doubt you could tell me which is which. (PT might require slightly different levels since it is not floating point.)

Folks, if you have good skills & decent hardware you will make good sounding music on any of these DAWS. If not, you won't be able to in any of them.

Pick the DAW that has a workflow you like and runs well on the platform you are using (Cubase does run better on the PC than the Mac) and stop worrying about what the software sounds like. For me it is Logic Pro but not for a nanosecond do I think my sound ins better than my friend Matt who is using Cubase or my friend Bruce who is using DP or my friend Ted who is uising Nuendo because they are all skilled and all have decent hardware.

hm funny.

subfunk, did you get my point? only ONE stereo or monofile, 0db, no fx, no eq, no level, no pan, no nothing, same hardware DOES sound the same.

if it doesn´t you set up things wrong.

ashermusic, as for 16 tracks, completely unprocessed but bounced together, i´m quite sure i´d hear the difference and even would go as far to tell you which is cubase/nuendo and which is logic....

in deafness

cb

Ashermusic wrote:

Folks, if you have good skills & decent hardware you will make good sounding music on any of these DAWS. If not, you won't be able to in any of them.

I highly agree with that!!!, but it's not really the point of discussion here, unless i get it all wrong.

cloublast wrote:

subfunk, did you get my point? only ONE stereo or monofile, 0db, no fx, no eq, no level, no pan, no nothing, same hardware DOES sound the same.

if it doesn´t you set up things wrong.

i get your point , but highly disagree with it.

after using DAWs for over 15 years to earn my bread and butter.

it's certainly not the question about that you can't record nor make any decent muisc with all of the above mentioned apps, but question of this topic was: ace of dubs wrote:

I did some tests recently, bouncing my virtual instruments to 16-bit audio and was shocked by the results. Logic sounds clear and crisp, but Cubase sounds fatter and closer to analog to my ears. Anyone else notice this?

and i agree, apart from the engineering skills, use of plugs or any other enhancement / manipulation... there is a sonic difference. bad or good as i already mentioned it's shurely a matter of taste, but they do NOT sound the same if: cloudblast wrote:

only ONE stereo or monofile, 0db, no fx, no eq, no level, no pan, no nothing, same hardware

hm funny.

 

subfunk, did you get my point? only ONE stereo or monofile, 0db, no fx, no eq, no level, no pan, no nothing, same hardware DOES sound the same.

if it doesn´t you set up things wrong.

 

ashermusic, as for 16 tracks, completely unprocessed but bounced together, i´m quite sure i´d hear the difference and even would go as far to tell you which is cubase/nuendo and which is logic....

 

in deafness

cb

I wish that you lived in L.A. so I could put you to the test

If you can, you have better ears than I do.

This topic has been to discussed to death in hundreds of audio forums. The general consensus is there IS a sound difference between DAWs that anyone with ears (golden or not) can hear, even on crappy monitors and listening environments. Many people say that Cubase produces brighter/fuller/louder bounces than Logic does. Having both platforms installed on Mac, both legit, having decent ears, and having many years experience doing this for a living, I confirm it IS true. Cubase does seem to have some sort of (non-user-controllable) sweetener stage or something on its virtual final stage bus.

But, that's not the point.

The point is: who uses raw bounces from their sequencers? Well, PROFESSIONALLY anyway? I don't care how nice the final bounce sounds, the track isn't done until it's been mastered, and what's true is that any Logic bounce that's been well-mastered will wipe the floor (sonically) with the best-sounding Cubase raw bounce anyone in the world can come up with.

So then it follows to ask: does a mastered Cubase bounce sound better than a mastered Logic bounce (all things being equal)? I really don't think so. I've A/B'd this myself, and with two identical tracks mastered so that they sound the same (that is, different settings but to produce similar final results), so loudness, equalization, stereo depth, etc, made to sound the same, I can't hear any difference.

still keep hereing peepl left right &centre saying how cubase sounds more 'alive'

theyre doin my nut!

still keep hereing peepl left right &centre saying how cubase sounds more 'alive'

 

theyre doin my nut!

Fine. Let them listen to the radio and make a list of which songs they can tell were done in PT, which in Logic, which in Cubase, and which in DP. Then start film scores.

I can''t wait to read the results so that we can see how really different they are.

Fine. Let them listen to the radio and make a list of which songs they can tell were done in PT, which in Logic, which in Cubase, and which in DP. Then start film scores.

That reminds me of an article I read in Pro Sound News about 10 years ago. They had organized a meeting of 10 of the biggest sound engineers in the world, blind folded them and played them a recording through different digital recorders: anything from the blackface ADATs to the then $60,000 digital reel to reel.

Pretty much all agreed that the blackface ADAT was the best sounding of all. Of course, when they took the blindfold off, they couldn't believe their eyes

I think a lot of people simply have to validate their purchase or their decision to go one route rather than the other.

Seen the term "it's doing my nut in" all over the place...what the fook does that mean? Is that some sort of Cockney?

Anyways if someobe could explain that'd be the dog's bollocks, so then I can start putting it in all my emails to all my friends.

Ears won't answer these questions. Why not make an exact same setup, one with one tack just bounced, one with 4 tracks just bounced, one with a softsynth that you can load into both prg etc. Just be carefull that everything(panlaw, db) is exactly the same. Then do a phasecancelation test. See if it cancels, in what area it cancels etc. then you will know instead of assume.

Some people did those tests thoroughly and stated that only processed files didn't cancel... Well; you'll know if you setup a proper test. If not, it's just an opinion. I personally don't care. If it works and I can make things sound good, I'm happy.

fwiw: I did 1 test to see if my new old analog desk (D&R Dayner) was functioning first time I hooked it up. Both me and my girlfriend agreed it sounded so much warmer in the low end and nicer on the top end compared to my DM-24. Then I did a test. I could make the high and low end cancel almost completely... after I put a low shelf -3.5db on about 80hz and a hi shelf of about -3 on 19khz on the DM-24. Only thing that wouldn't cancel was the midrange somewhere between 900hz and 6khz.

Lesson I learned: what I percieved as warmth and air appeared to be due to a masking effect somewhere in the higher midrange. Fact was that the Dayner has less low and high end. Ofcourse you could argue I have bad ears. So do your test

8)

my 2cts

Budy

Hey Suges,

being an anal english teacher I had to get you a good definition for "to do one's nut" - but being akin to head/mind. It's not cockney as far as I'm aware - just an idiomatic Engish and Australian phrase:

do your nut (British & Australian, informal)

to become extremely angry

If she has to walk from the station again she'll do her nut.

(from Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms)

Ron

Thanks Ronnie! So do you have any idea of etymology of that word? I assumed it was "obscene" not "informal", assuming "nut" meant something else...but if a woman can do her nut, then...

Just curious cause I can't even come close to fathoming where that phrase comes from or how it came about.

Fine. Let them listen to the radio and make a list of which songs they can tell were done in PT, which in Logic, which in Cubase, and which in DP. Then start film scores.

That reminds me of an article I read in Pro Sound News about 10 years ago. They had organized a meeting of 10 of the biggest sound engineers in the world, blind folded them and played them a recording through different digital recorders: anything from the blackface ADATs to the then $60,000 digital reel to reel.

 

Pretty much all agreed that the blackface ADAT was the best sounding of all. Of course, when they took the blindfold off, they couldn't believe their eyes

 

I think a lot of people simply have to validate their purchase or their decision to go one route rather than the other.

That's really the truth of it. You can read these exact same discussions on EVERY pro audio board in the world, and everyone has a different opinion not only on WHAT sounds best, but HOW you should do your comparison.

There can be no doubt that the phase cancellation test is final if it passes...two seperate DAW bounces cancel each other out, they're identical. Test done, no more discussion.

If there's no complete cancellation, I don't know, I'm of the mind that the rest of your comparisons should be done by your ears. Really, what else matters in the world of AUDIO PRODUCTION?

When I say I A/B something for comparison, I'm talking about not knowing which one is which and having someone randomly switch them back and forth for me, telling them which one I think sounds better each time, and then have THEM tell me which one I picked. That's the only way to compare using your EARS only, right? This is how I picked my audio interface, studio monitors, channel strip, etc.

At the same time what I think sounds best is probably not the same as what you think. I like my mixes bright and loud, I spent 90% of my mixing time working on sparkle and breathiness. Guys in my same genre focus 100% on bass thumpiness, roundness, whatever, and could care less about the highs, as long as you can hear them.

On top of that, what sounds best can vary from genre to genre. I've noticed in a lot of these rock/alternative/whatever songs, the kick drum is barely more than a click, but that mid where all the guitars are is so detailed. This affects their choice of monitors, etc.

It's true at the end of the day, you spent money on a sequencer, you made your choice, and you want to feel like you're in the company of great people who made the right choice too. You'll try to convince others your particular thing is the best, better than whatever they got, they should switch, etc. That's how I got into Macs in the first place (and they were right, mostly). That's why you got so many fanboys (borderline heretics) on the official forum for whatever sequencer, shutting down everyone and spewing bile. Some poor newbie will actually uncover a legitimate bug with the app and post a nice question about it...within seconds a fanboy will answer: "YOU'RE A f$@%ing IDIOT, CUBASE HAS ABSOLUTE NO BUGS, YOU SHOULD LEARN HOW TO USE YOUR COMPUTER YOU HACK." That kind of crap.

But if you've been in the game for a while, you've used everything from Pro Tools to Podium, you have access to all the programs (or own them), and you're not particularly married to any one of them, you can afford to be objective. I own a LOT of sequencers that's I've PURCHASED over the years. A lot of them sound the same, but some of them sound different. There really is no arguing this. If you argue this, you haven't done the phase cancellation test (properly) or the blind listening test (properly). Do your tests. I repeat: DO YOUR TESTS before arguing this point.

Having said this, I use Logic 100% of the time. I haven't even touched any of my other apps for about a year now and I don't plan to. Because, even with the sonic differences, as I mentioned before...

IT DOESN'T MATTER. ALL PROFESSIONAL MUSIC MUST BE MASTERED BEFORE BEING COMMITTED TO MEDIA.

There's a whole argument about mastering that will erupt on this board sooner or later, cause it has everywhere else. WHOever or HOWever you think mastering should be done, it will make your song sound like solid gold no matter what sequencer it came from.

Hi Suges,

no - it is informal - nut just means head/brain/mind - not any lower down the body!

I actually have a feeling it mught be cockney - just by the way it sounds - and where i've heard the phrase most often used....

i like to imagine the it's related to the difficulty in cracking open a nut. The action/process actually makes you frustrated/angry and therefore "does your nut (in)".

These are just suppositions...I'm away from any of my reference books at the moment.

one possible example for usage:

You're trying to do a time intensive (perhaps repetitive) task in Logic e..g cleaning up a one hour long voice over audio file. Unless I'm doing something wrong...er...it takes ages...and it can certainly do my nut.

btw, i think the "in" at the end of the idiom is optional. But, it all depends on most common usage I guess.

anyway, I'll stop now!

rounik

Suges. by and large I agree with your post. Film & Tv scores generally do not go to M.E.s until later they are to be released on CD.

After years of working on this stuff in my studio and others using other DAWS:

Different hardware can make big differences in the sound.

Lack of understanding and proper usage of each apps gain staging canmake substantial differences.

Different between DAWS using the same hardware and plug-ins, small differences, if any. And certainly not enough to describe one as sounding more "analog" or "fatter".

I am now through with this discussion, here and eleswhere. People will believe what they want to believe. After all, a number of Americans believe Elvis is still alive and that we did not land on the moon, it was filmed in a TV studio.

People will believe what they want to believe. After all, a number of Americans believe Elvis is still alive and that we did not land on the moon, it was filmed in a TV studio.

Bwaahahahahah. 'Nuff said!

i like to imagine the it's related to the difficulty in cracking open a nut. The action/process actually makes you frustrated/angry and therefore "does your nut (in)".

Well that's a good explanation, I'll roll with that one.

btw, i think the "in" at the end of the idiom is optional.

Yeah you've got to be right on that one, I see the 'in' used very rarely.

Well, I'm satisfied! Rarely get mad enough that my nut gets done in, but if I ever do...!

Perhaps we forget one vital thing in the constant war about which DAW/hardware setup is the 'best' one.....

Ears.

They are not produced to a perfect plan in a factory where every single ear drum is the same thickness, every ear canal is the same diameter and every inner ear contains the same number of villi meticulously placed in exactly the same place. Even your 'small bones' will be smaller and larger than other people's.

At the end of the day, if nature's equipment that you use to monitor your monitors is different to the guy sitting next to you then you'll have a slightly different opinion on what sounds better.

Now I'm serious...

KIDS.....GO TO YOUR ROOM BEFORE I SIN MY SOUL...

Suges - the use of 'nut' meaning head is used in quite a few idioms and expressions. For example 'to nut someone' means to headbut them. In the same way, 'he cracked me on the nut' means he hit me on the head. I am not sure how this came to be the case, but it certainly is not just specific to doing ones nut in. By the way, I have never heard it without the 'in' at the end.

I'm now going to go and play with my nice new toy. I bought myself a MicroKorg for Christmas. Such a funny, dinky little thing...

Suges - the use of 'nut' meaning head is used in quite a few idioms and expressions. For example 'to nut someone' means to headbut them. In the same way, 'he cracked me on the nut' means he hit me on the head. I am not sure how this came to be the case, but it certainly is not just specific to doing ones nut in. By the way, I have never heard it without the 'in' at the end.

 

I'm now going to go and play with my nice new toy. I bought myself a MicroKorg for Christmas. Such a funny, dinky little thing...

Thanks for that extra bit of knowledge lupin. Truth say I've never heard any of these terms with the word "nut" in them, but then again I grew up in Toronto and don't travel very much. Somehow I guess that term never got here. The MicroKorg looks coooool.