Subhuman... why did you pick Logic over VST?

Noctulius · Post by **Noctulius** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 2:47 am

The real test is using an actual multitrack arrangement and mixing it on all platforms with the same settings and the same plugins.
And when you do that test, the difference is HUGE...

Well, and if the mixing is performed via extarnal mixer (e.g. Pulsar Mixer)? Is there still a difference?

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 4:38 am

Ok, I'm going to post some links here to some of the discussions over on cubase.net about the soundquality issue which I think pretty well demonstrate that there is NO difference. I can't conduct the tests myself and people keep popping up who say they get different results. But please read them yourself and make up your own mind, or conduct the test yourself if you can.
Don't believe people who claim to be hearing things without conducting actual scientific tests that tell them otherwise.

http://linux1723.dn.net/forum/Forum2/HTML/014341.html

http://linux1723.dn.net/forum/Forum2/HTML/021576.html

http://linux1723.dn.net/forum/Forum2/HTML/014356.html

Especially Paul Woodlock's posts are interesting.

I did discover in these posts however that Cubase 5 sounds way better than 3.XX, so I'm off to upgrade my 3.7!

samuel40 · Post by **samuel40** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 6:05 am

thanks for the info Kim

Funktastico · Post by **Funktastico** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 9:28 am

Has anyone compared Sonar's sound quality over these two?

[ This Message was edited by: Funktastico on 2002-02-11 09:28 ]

coc999 · Post by **coc999** » Mon Feb 11, 2002 10:00 am

hi Pz friends,reading your posts i see that the choice of the sequencer is influencing
your sound and the way you compose(logic mr spock:).But the offer seems to be pretty similar.I imagine two artists leaving 1 on north pole,second on south pole they compose exactly the same song(mathematicaly impossible i think).one works with logic other with cubaz.They come for example in "magic sandrob island studio" to make him hear the prod.
At this point of progress is there a difference,will it influence a producer ear?
Have you got some opinions?
For me technology can make a real difference(i remember when the daft punk
made there first rec for underg raves everybody was saying "How can they do this filter?why my kick is not like there kick?" at the end the answer was simple
TECHNOLOGY.Maybe one day i will have an ensoniq asr10,a dp4 effect...
But at the end i believe that doin music is
like "a pizza" ,you can do it simple or really complex and the sequencer is the tomato base.
I return on my cubase telling me that i will try logic one day
cheers:)

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 5:43 am

eeehhhmmm....yes, I think so.

Of course similar results can always be achieved in different ways with different technology. But if it's a simple matter of audioquality then I think it's worth investigating. As long as there is no difference in quality, it's really up to the way you like to work. Most people say Cubase is just so much easier and dare I say it, more logical, to work with than Logic, but if you have only ever worked with logic (or sonar or whatever) I can see why you would prefer that.
In the end, some people make complete shite on protools, and others make genius with fruityloops. Technology is only part of the whole musical picture.

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 7:40 am

I like the North Pole analogy. Brfore getting my huge royalties check and buying my computer and Logic I was composing on a Roland MC-50, a SoundCanvas and a CM-64(!).

I can truthfully say that my ears were corrupted by this sound because I seem to have convinced myself that this was the best sound to be had.(Mind you, I am in the MIDI file business and most other programmers know squat about balance and mixing a MIDI device) I know that this is quite silly but when all you have to work with is this cheap equipment, I believe in making the best of it.

So if i WERE stuck in the North Pole with nothing but, say, Cakewalk 6, I'd probably be justified in thinking there was nothing better around.

On the other hand, when I went to the Logic Control-Logic 5.0 demo, there was a producer there saying that Logic DOES sound crisper to his ears having compared the exact same tracks done on Cubase. (But then again, you can't believe everything you hear, right?)

The music is the most important reason we all have this great equipment, so let's get cracking!

_________________
Paul R. Martin

I think I may get the hang of this after all!

[ This Message was edited by: paulrmartin on 2002-02-12 07:42 ]

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:09 pm

On 2002-02-11 02:47, Noctulius wrote:
Well, and if the mixing is performed via extarnal mixer (e.g. Pulsar Mixer)? Is there still a difference?

If all channels are panned hard left, center or right, and the channel and output is at unity gain, (no automation), and all channels have seperate outputs to the mixer, (no bussing), then it will (almost) sound the same.
The reason for the "almost", is that some audio engines actually does some processing of the signal even with the above settings and no plugins.

Kim.

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:27 pm

On 2002-02-11 04:38, King of Snake wrote:
Ok, I'm going to post some links here to some of the discussions over on cubase.net about the soundquality issue which I think pretty well demonstrate that there is NO difference.

Great post. You're linking to 3 different discussions where the posters actually don't know what they're talking about

Namely that they discuss mostly summingbusses and panlaws, wich has little or no impact at all on how a modern digital mixer sounds !!!
Why anybody would give a damm about what Logic, Protools, Nuendo and Cubase sounds like without using faders, pans and plugins is a complete mystery to me...

Kim.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 12:35 pm

ehm...right...the discussion was about wether or not the BASIC AUDIO SUMMIG BUSSES of Cubase had noticable faults when compared to Logics, of course you're not going to use plugins in that comparison. If you did a phase cancellation test would be completely unviable, because you would be introducing extra processing the quality of which would be dependant on the quality of the plugin itself, not the audioengine of the sequencer. Please read before making snide comments.
As for the last point, well I guess it psychological, if people are saying "I can hear Cubase sounds thinner/less warm/less defined etc than Logic, people will begin to doubt because they want the best possible equipment, even if they themselves can't hear the difference, I know I would too.

I'll just qoute Paul Woodlock here

"And.....

Plasticag is wrong wqhen he says the Pan Law is irrelevent. Logic uses a 0dB Pan law, and to set cubase's pan law at -3dB as you said would give misleading results when trying to do a file compare.

I did my test with Cubases pan law set to 0dB, which I use anyway.

No-one uses these apps without some form of processing. I've proved the summing engines in both apps give the SAME results.

However in the real world, where EQ's and other plugs are used, then there might be differences in other parts of the app, that make one sound better than the other, but these need testing seperately.

The summing busses are fine."

This was what the discussion was about.

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2002-02-12 12:46 ]

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2002-02-12 12:53 ]

kimgr · Post by **kimgr** » Tue Feb 12, 2002 11:44 pm

On 2002-02-12 12:35, King of Snake wrote:
ehm...right...the discussion was about wether or not the BASIC AUDIO SUMMIG BUSSES of Cubase had noticable faults when compared to Logics of course you're not going to use plugins in that comparison.

That's exactly my point: There IS no difference worth speaking of in that kind of test, so it says absolutely nothing about why Logic and Cubase sounds different.
And that's what this thread is about, right ?

If you did a phase cancellation test would be completely unviable, because you would be introducing extra processing the quality of which would be dependant on the quality of the plugin itself, not the audioengine of the sequencer. Please read before making snide comments.

But there IS a difference in how the audioengines handles in/out streams of plugins: Things like bitdepth and whether or not they use rounding/truncation or dithering to convert the in/out of the plugins. And the gainstructure/headroom is also important.
Naturally you have to use the same plugins on the different engines to test it.
And like I wrote before: Why would you care about the fact that Logic and Cubase sounds the same without using plugins and faders/pans. How often do you do anything without plugins and setting levels ???

As for the last point, well I guess it psychological, if people are saying "I can hear Cubase sounds thinner/less warm/less defined etc than Logic, people will begin to doubt because they want the best possible equipment, even if they themselves can't hear the difference, I know I would too.

Me to. That's why I spend a LOT of time testing it for my self.
I really wanted to start using Nuendo for jobs that required a lot of multitrack editing, because Nuendo is the best in that respect. But on the very first job it was clear to me that there was a problem with the sound of the internal mixing, so I did the test, and send Nuendo back

Kim.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Wed Feb 13, 2002 4:17 am

Well, tests like these may be ultimately uninteresting, but it's the only way you can do a purely scientific comparison between two packages and then you can prove that the sound of Logic and Cubase is the same when all other variables (pans, volume, eq etc)are equal. Much of the quality these other variables introduce to the sound are up to personal opinion and cannot be properly defined. Try to define "warm" "punchy" "fat" etc, it's very hard and differs from person to person. If people keep claiming to hear a difference even though the signals they claim to be hearing a difference between sum to zero in a test, I'm inclined to believe the test rather than the someones ears.

maket · Post by **maket** » Wed Feb 27, 2002 9:12 pm

well,so what sounds better for now?
Cubase or Logic?
Realy very important!

Post by **garyb** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 1:40 am

get one. make music.all of these systems can get a grammy in the hands of a master with fine musicians and good material and with the backing of the _______(guys w/ a lot of money).

logic works well for me altho i'm not impressed by the usb software key for v5

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 6:21 am

The basic engines sound the same, but you will have to try both out to judge the quality of the eq's and processing yourself. It's mostly up to personal opinion so there's never a definite answer.

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Sat Mar 02, 2002 7:22 am

Well, I´m a Nuendo/Cubase/Samplitude user and do hear differences between those apps, and other apps like Logic and Sonar as well. This thing is really widely discussed over the net, and it seems to be a mystery why one can´t prove the differences to be there...

The question is, what could be the flaw in a NULL test?? Take a 24-bit source in Cubase and process it up to 32-bit. Compare them in Wavelab´s file compare and you´ll see differences when amplituded... Technically there shouldn´t be any differeces in the Delta file!!

Very low level differences in 24 bit files could be only audible around -140dB - hard to hear and hard to measure, but WaveLab's file comparer will find them and allow you to amplify them to become audible. It is even worse with 32 bit files.. The theoretical noise floor can be down in the -190s. So there is the NULL test issue - you cannot test at extremely low levels without some good tools - bitscope, WaveLab, etc. Certainly, NULLing the files in Cubase or Logic and listening for "apparent silence" may not be conclusive...

Regards,
Sunshine

mgranger · Post by **mgranger** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 2:12 am

"Cubase is like a Swiss Army Knife - Whereas Logic is like a surgeons scalpel"
-anon

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Thu Mar 07, 2002 8:33 am

it is? I would never have guessed...

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Sat Mar 09, 2002 4:59 pm

Reading all this makes me want to buy Logic but I would have to have to learn a new program.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sun Mar 10, 2002 4:54 am

It's really not too bad... I learned Logic without a manual when I was 'evaluating' it. The thing about Logic is that it's amazingly deep... I personally don't use probably 75% of what's in it but it's there waiting for you to grow into. The actual basic sequencing method is surprisingly easy.. maybe you would have to check the manual for a couple of hours, but wouldn't you do the same if you bought a complex piece of hardware, or any new software for that matter?

And now with Logic 5 I have to say it's nearing perfection : High-resolution, sample-accurate automation for all plugin parameters, incredibly slick REX2 import (even from the clipboard!), unlimited undo very soon. No multi-outs for VSTinstruments (but it's also coming very soon) but with 32 instrument slots available, who really cares (for most uses anyway). And before you say "who the hell can use 32 instruments" - I have 25 instruments active on my current track (on an AthlonXP 1800+) with plenty of CPU headroom to spare.

peace