PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

i know few people who work with samplitude + creamware cards. I already use creamware cards with nuendo but many people tend to think that samplitude sounds "better"... Any experience of that? Many european musicians use cubase/nuendo but it seems that sampltude is getting big here as the sound semms better. But i need to verify if it is a reality....

Jo

sam is very nice, but i really prefer sx/nuendo for music production. i do use sam for mastering....

why? Is it a matter of sound ? Or do you prefer the options offered by neando rather than that of samplitude? If you use sam for mastering, it must be because you find the sound is better, right?

Jo

samplitude has superior mastering features(including cd burning). for some types of editing it's nicer(when arranging songs on a timeline for cd burning)..

nuendo/sx is superior in all other editing, especially midi. i think that nuendo/sx's editing is more intuitive when contstructing a song. it'd be hard for me to explain what i mean, it's a matter of experience and my preferences. imho, nuendo/sx has better signal routing and a much better mixer. i prefer the automation in nuendo/sx as well.

both apps sound great. if you like one or the other, fine. choosing one over the other will not be the difference between good and great work, however. each has it's strengths and weaknesses. both are professional.

I used SX 1.x till switched to samplitude. It's difficult to define quality differencies between the audio engines, but since started using samplitude, I have started to mix everything inside the software. With cubase this wasn't possible, as I didn't get favorable results. I think that's a sort of quality measurement that applies for me.

In my point of view samplitude mixer and routing is superior to cubase one. For example, you can arrange channel signal flow and insert slots freely.
As gary mentioned, Samplitude is excellent for mastering and burning also.

However both apps have their strong and weak points, but for me Samplitude has a lot more value.

samplitude's summing may indeed be better(i don't really like either app for summing), but i never mix in the app anyway. that's what scope is for....as far as individual tracks, i don't see an advantage either way.

use what suits you. samplitude definitely sounds good. sonor and steinberg sound good too.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2006-08-10 09:44 ]</font>

Summing in scope is goooooood!

yes.

Samp. and Creamware are a great combination. I do everything all the way through mixdown insided Samp. I even sometimes mix OUT through SFP and into another track inside Samplitude and compare the mixes that way.

Samplitude 9.0 is due out before the end of August!!!

Greg

I`ve tried both Samplitude and Cubase SX and I also think SX has a worse sound....

I discussed this in long threads over at kvr and we came to the conclusion that it cannot be the summing.

But something is sounding worse in Cubase SX... And everyone that seems to hear a difference is saying that Samplitude is better than SX in terms of audio quality....

Maybe its just the build in effects. They are really bad in Cubase....

I just did compare the Cubase overdrive with the pulsar overdrive on a simple 303 bassline riff and there are really big differences. The Cubase one sounds so bad....

I`m working on a page that reviews Creamware Scope devices and maybe I comparing some Scope fx to Cubase internal.

For midi and workflow Cubase is just the best sequencer but I`ll never go back and mix in this tool.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hifiboom on 2006-08-13 20:25 ]</font>

the stock effects in cubase aren't to good, true.

On 2006-08-10 09:38, garyb wrote:
but i never mix in the app anyway. that's what scope is for

Yes.. scope sounds far better than sonar sx or sam's mixer.
thanks