# Cubase vs logic... is hans zimmer right?



## MarcelM

found this by accident on youtube and had a listen myself on osx. I gotta agree cubase sounds a bit brighter for whatever reason, and I don't think its the pan law 

but it might be just psycho acoustic. 

well, its saturday so why not have a fun discussion?


----------



## StefanoM

There is a simple test. Create an example like in the video, create a bus rec and record the Midi Instrument in Audio, with an internal routing ( no bounce or export mixdown ). Consolidate the file in the same way on Logic and Cubase , the 2 file must be indetical. Then invert the phase of a file and sum with the other file. 

If the sound will be cancelled .. the DAW, in this condition , sounds identical.


----------



## MarcelM

StefanoM said:


> There is a simple test. Create an example like in the video, create a bus rec and record the Midi Instrument in Audio, with an internal routing ( no bounce or export mixdown ). Consolidate the file in the same way on Logic and Cubase , the 2 file must be indetical. Then invert the phase of a file and sum with the other file.
> 
> If the sound will be cancelled .. the DAW, in this condition , sounds identical.



i know about null tests, but the test in the video isnt about audio files playing back. its about playing back a vst - in this case kontakt.
also even if you would do this test the files would never null because the library he is using (the orchestra) is using round robins for example.

whatever, in the video the audio sounds very different and all comments say the same. even the author of the video agrees that cubase sounds different.


----------



## StefanoM

In this case the different could be not in the DAW but in the different format of Instrument. Logic AU , Cubase VST, maybe. 

I don't Know. But In this simple condition the DAWs sounds identical. I created many null tests. 

The only situation when the DAWs sound different, is when the session will be complex, much tracks, much eq, delay compensation... etc etc


----------



## MarcelM

StefanoM said:


> In this case the different could be not in the DAW but in the different format of Instrument. Logic AU , Cubase VST, maybe.
> 
> I don't Know. But In this simple condition the DAWs sounds identical. I created many null tests.
> 
> The only situation when the DAWs sound different, is when the session will be complex, much tracks, much eq, delay compensation... etc etc



i made null tests aswell with audio files, and all my daws null.

still, i just made some playback test with play (hollywood orchestra) and kontakt 5 (8dio stuff), and indeed cubase sounded a bit brighter. maybe its even the pan law, iam not sure.

also an AU version and VST version of the same plugin should sound actually the same. i dont think there is any difference.


----------



## Dewdman42




----------



## Guffy

Interesting.

Cubase definitely sounded brighter to me when i moved from Studio One 2 to Cubase 7.5

I always thought it was placebo, but maybe not.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dewdman42 said:


> bla bla



Oh no you do-on't!


----------



## Dewdman42

don't shoot the messenger


----------



## Rctec

StefanoM said:


> In this case the different could be not in the DAW but in the different format of Instrument. Logic AU , Cubase VST, maybe.
> 
> I don't Know. But In this simple condition the DAWs sounds identical. I created many null tests.
> 
> The only situation when the DAWs sound different, is when the session will be complex, much tracks, much eq, delay compensation... etc etc


...for your “Null Test”, how many complex tracks did you use? My suspicion is that it’s mixing and summing - and pushing the DAW engine really hard - creates differences in sound. And surely you want to have the possibility of complex tracks?


----------



## MarcelM

well, i can only speak for myself but i always had the feeling that a high buffer darkens the sound a bit. there also have been lots of discussion about this and ofcourse people dont always agree, but it seems for some a large buffer size affects sound quality. 

there were also discussions at steinberg forums where people said that they even got a brighter sound when they disabled asio guard and also the asio guard setting in the plugin manager.

who knows, it might be even related to what kind of audio interface people use, but there are so many discussions about this and i simply cannot think that all people are wrong. and yes, pure audio files will ofcourse always null - doesnt matter with which daw you export it. but using lots of vst is somehow a different beast, and they all use buffer etc.. oh hell, i dont know


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dewdman42 said:


> don't shoot the messenger



I'm enforcing the No Ethan Winer rule, not shooting.


----------



## Mike Fox

I don't know about sound quality, but I will say that I experience more crashes with Cubase than I ever did with Logic.


----------



## Living Fossil

MarcelM said:


> well, i can only speak for myself but i always had the feeling that a high buffer darkens the sound a bit. there also have been lots of discussion about this and ofcourse people dont always agree, but it seems for some a large buffer size affects sound quality.



You can bounce the same tracks with different buffer sizes and compare them with the nulling test.
Of course, if you use samples, you should bounce them in place (and use the same file for all buffer sizes) to avoid different Round robins.
I did plenty of blind tests with audiophiles and they did several blind tests with me.
My main experience is that Placebo is really a mighty sword.
On several occasions i did the "spot the difference between two tracks" tests with playing the same file twice. It's amazing. Everyone hears differences when hearing the same track thinking those are different ones. There are some typical placebo phrases ("more depth", "more brillance", etc, etc).
Fact is: music consists of tons of information and the while the ear is extremely powerful there are myriads of details to focus on (Just think of a composition for a >120 piece orchestra).
Listening to the same recording twice always results in perceiving different details.
You simply have to be conscious of this.
If you focus on an element, your brain actually does a +3 (or even +6) dB boost. That's the cocktail party effect. So, focussing on the top end in fact enables an EQ in your perception.

However, there are always possibilities that real errors occur.
E.g. a insufficient latency compensation can do real harm. In the past, i had situations where logic did a wrong latency compensation on busses with bypassed plug ins (often, because i tried different reverbs on a bus and just bypassed the alternatives).
And this really resulted in a bad sound.

But in the end, even if there are differences in the different DAWs, you still have the possiblity to interact. (Missing brilliance -> add some brilliance)
But one has to be conscious of the fact that it's something like 99,98% about the qualities of composer/musician/mixer and only a tiny part of the DAW.


----------



## MarcelM

Living Fossil said:


> You can bounce the same tracks with different buffer sizes and compare them with the nulling test.
> Of course, if you use samples, you should bounce them in place (and use the same file for all buffer sizes) to avoid different Round robins.
> I did plenty of blind tests with audiophiles and they did several blind tests with me.
> My main experience is that Placebo is really a mighty sword.
> On several occasions i did the "spot the difference between two tracks" tests with playing the same file twice. It's amazing. Everyone hears differences when hearing the same track thinking those are different ones. There are some typical placebo phrases ("more depth", "more brillance", etc, etc).
> Fact is: music consists of tons of information and the while the ear is extremely powerful there are myriads of details to focus on (Just think of a composition for a >120 piece orchestra).
> Listening to the same recording twice always results in perceiving different details.
> You simply have to be conscious of this.
> If you focus on an element, your brain actually does a +3 (or even +6) dB boost. That's the cocktail party effect. So, focussing on the top end in fact enables an EQ in your perception.
> 
> However, there are always possibilities that real errors occur.
> E.g. a insufficient latency compensation can do real harm. In the past, i had situations where logic did a wrong latency compensation on busses with bypassed plug ins (often, because i tried different reverbs on a bus and just bypassed the alternatives).
> And this really resulted in a bad sound.
> 
> But in the end, even if there are differences in the different DAWs, you still have the possiblity to interact. (Missing brilliance -> add some brilliance)
> But one has to be conscious of the fact that it's something like 99,98% about the qualities of composer/musician/mixer and only a tiny part of the DAW.



yah, i get what you are saying and psycho acoustic can be strong. i also did some tests, and bounced files will sound the same. still, on live playback it might be different maybe because there is delay compensation going on and whatever else. i really dont know it might be just placebo.

on steinberg forums someone posted example files which were different though with asio guard on/off etc, but. its an old post and files have been deleted. whatever. i mean its not just me who hears differences sometimes. i mean the man in the topic of this post knows a little about the audio world, right?

some minutes ago between i tested the standalone versions of play and kontakt vs beeing hosted in cubase and logic pro x... and goddamn, i thought the standalone versions sounded better (what pan law do standalone versions use?) 
might be placebon once again and iam sure my ears are fatigued by now after the whole day.


----------



## Living Fossil

MarcelM said:


> some minutes ago between i tested the standalone versions of play and kontakt vs beeing hosted in cubase and logic pro x... and goddamn, i thought the standalone versions sounded better



I guess there are possibilities to record the output signal of the standalone versions. In those discussions, empirical facts are absolutely mandatory.


----------



## Ashermusic

If you want to, you could load the instruments as VSTs in VE Pro and connect to them from Cubase, and then Logic Pro. While they will be using a different format to connect, the instruments themselves will all be VST and so the libraries should sound the same.

Personally, until, you can prove to me that some clients complain about a mix done in one DAW but then like the same mix when you bounce it out from a different DAW, I don't give a big rat's hiney.


----------



## AlexRuger

Rctec said:


> ...for your “Null Test”, how many complex tracks did you use? My suspicion is that it’s mixing and summing - and pushing the DAW engine really hard - creates differences in sound. And surely you want to have the possibility of complex tracks?



But "summing" in the realm of digital audio is literally "summing" -- addition, adding two numbers together. Perhaps it's not just summing, but specifically how the summing bus deals with redlining. That too should be the same between DAWs, considering that should be a function of bit depth, but given that most terms regarding the "sound" differences between DAWs tend to be words like "brighter," "foggy," stuff like that, my brain immediately goes to distortion. 

FWIW, I too have noticed a very subtle sound difference between Logic and everything else. My success rate for being able to tell when someone is working in Logic is too good for it to have anything to do with me. It's gotta be something Logic is doing. Though, I admit that I noticed the difference far more with Logic 9 than Logic X.


----------



## Dewdman42

All of the major DAW's pass the null test which means their mixing engines are an equal playing field, they are transparent and the DSP involved in the basic mixing engine of DAW's is relatively speaking extremely simple and they are all shooting for nullness, meaning...transparency. They do not impart any tone to the sound in that area. Period. 

Anyone that thinks otherwise should watch the one hour video I posted above, admittedly its a lot of deep engineering voodoo so you have to kind of wait through the nerdy parts to hear the summaries at each little segment, but essentially what Living Fossil said above is absolutely correct, our ears and brain are CONSTANTLY mucking with what we think we hear. Our ears are not reliable measuring devices for any of the attributes commonly put forth about frequency response, distortion and all the rest. You can trust scientific instruments to measure that sort of thing, but not your ears. It doesn't matter how experienced or GEB you think you are, our brain is designed on purpose to fake us out, on a regular basis, which it constantly does every minute of every day.

The transparency of all DAW mixers has been shown repeatedly to be equally transparent every time anyone tried to do scientific measuring with devices that are more accurate then our ears, and through various null tests. They are all equally transparent, end of story. 

Now what you do with your DAW, can of course lead to different results. If you tend to notice that Logic projects from people tend to sound a certain way, that could be because they are using the built in instruments and FX a lot, which are imparting certain tone to the sound. In that case it was their choice to let it sound that way. not the fault of a "non-transparent" mixing engine. And they could easily choose to tweak the sound through EQ and other devices to sound the way they want it to sound! Or use other plugins.

I do not believe anyone that says they hear a difference in sound between the way Logic renders a certain plugin with the exact same settings and the way Cubase renders exactly the same plugin. That is malarky and their ears are not reliable measuring devices. I do not believe VST or AU are doing anything that would cause different tone. Its all the same digital numbers under the covers. Your sound card will effect what you hear, but it will not effect what you bounce to disk. So if your sound card imparts a certain tone it might effect the way you choose to EQ and mix, and thus end up with some tendencies...but again...those are your choices due to not being anal about getting transparent monitoring in your studio, etc.. not the fault of the DAW mixing engine.

Its humorous to me that this subject is still coming up after all these years, it has been proven over and over that the DAW's are all transparent, and our ears and brain are in fact not reliable measuring devices. Maybe in the old days with analog mixers and tape machines, we got used to the idea in the analog realm that different hardware could impart sonic artifacts (all measurable and known by the way), so we might choose favorites based on the way they would color the sound. But DAW mixers do not do that. Period. Its all in your mind. In that video above watch when JJ is pointing at his own brain with his pencil a few times while Nick's favorite buddy is talking. Digital audio simply doesn't work that way. But specific plugins definitely might color the sound, as you wish...but again...that is YOUR CHOICE, not something to blame the DAW mixing engine on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Dewdman42 said:


> Anyone that thinks otherwise should watch the one hour video I posted above



Oh my God! Trust me, you don't want to do that!

Besides, it's anyone *who*.


----------



## Dewdman42

Here's a much shorter, yet insightful video:


----------



## karelpsota

Dewdman42 said:


>




(OMG Thank you, I was looking for this videos for years now. I love how these guys are "zero BS" )


----------



## shomynik

It seems that Logic has some kind of analog mixing desk simulation goin on. By pushing Gain (in the inspector on the left) saturation algo is in process.

I recently discovered this by sending somewhat low volume Cubase tracks to a friend for mixing and I expected from him to just add Gain - a pure gain like Pro Tools Clip Gain (Cubase has a similar thing). But being not experienced he used this gain feature in logic that made a mess.

Maybe Logic has a similar thing going active all the time on it's faders? - since they added saturation algo in the feature that should (and is) clean and pure in every other DAW. This is bad in my book - if I want saturation, I will choose algorithm I like and add it myself, but from DAW I expect pure math and headroom of the 32bit floating point.


----------



## Dewdman42

where do you get your information that Logic has analog mixing desk simulation going on?


----------



## shomynik

Dewdman42 said:


> where do you get your information that Logic has analog mixing desk simulation going on?



I'm talking about Gain feature in the inspector. It doesn't work like in PT (clip gain) or Cubase, but it behaves like an analog desk, more you push it, more saturation is introduced. (At least my friend's version behaved like this). In PT and Cubase you just get pure gain with no distortion. In Logic, that's obviously an analog console simulation that they call it Gain.

But I'm not saying Logic has a similar thing on faders on 0. I'm not using Logic, I'm just wondering if they added this sim in the Gain feature, they might have done the same on faders as well, it would certainly explain why it sounds less bright. I don't know though.


----------



## Dewdman42

which inspector are you referring to?

I am unaware of any documented feature that does as you describe. There are countless ways to misuse a DAW into distortion, including not only LogicPro, but Cubase and others as well.


----------



## Zero&One

Must be a nightmare for Hans watching TV.
Turn it off Mary!!! It was done in Logic.
Urgh, that was an awful movie. The DAW added too much colour to soundtrack, I wanted to be sick.
Poor Hans.


----------



## shomynik

Dewdman42 said:


> which inspector are you referring to?
> 
> I am unaware of any documented feature that does as you describe. There are countless ways to misuse a DAW into distortion, including not only LogicPro, but Cubase and others as well.



Might not be called Inspector, it's the track menu on the left with many controls. Try adding 30db of gain on low level audio (-40db signal for example). And I'm not speaking of converter clipping, there is no peaking above 0db digital scale.

And I'm not sure, as far as I know, how you can missuse DAW into distortion except overloading DA converters which has nothing to do with DAW. Otherwise, when you see red lights (in Cubase) on faders, those are just indicators, there is no distortion if the master signal is below 0. In 32bit floating point there is 1500db of headroom.


----------



## StefanoM

Rctec said:


> .My suspicion is that it’s mixing and summing - and pushing the DAW engine really hard - creates differences in sound. And surely you want to have the possibility of complex tracks?



HI 

Yes, I mean exactly this ! Indeed it seems to me this.

In a of totaly "nerd" moment I had done a lot of Tests in the past, with Cubase/Nuendo, ProTools HDX, and Logic.
And the result was clear for me. For example 10 Tracks in the session , not using effects like reverbs, equalizers.( with same plug in ) and creating a simple "flat" mix with same values, pan law etc, and exported..., the null test was total. Each DAWs created a file that was canceled. But when the MIX started to be more complex, activating the sends, the groups, equalizers and plug ins (even the same), the null test failed. So I agree with you, when pushing the Daw engine, in these situations there is some differences, even the delay compensation management is different between the various Audio Engines. So also with many Virtual Instruments there could be differences. Maybe little phase differences, or I don't Know... which create this little audible differences.

I remember that in the past this difference was even more audible. 
Now maybe a little less, but there's always something.

Cheers


Ste


----------



## Dewdman42

I would be interested to see some example projects that demonstrate this


----------



## Henu

Pan law, bit depth (especially in plugins), converters. Also, the earth is flat because Hans Zimmer.


----------



## Olivier1024

Here is an example that shows that DAWs are different when using automation. Do it yourself with your DAW, it's easy.

https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/03/10/Daw-V-Daw-Automation.html


----------



## dgburns

AlexRuger said:


> But "summing" in the realm of digital audio is literally "summing" -- addition, adding two numbers together. Perhaps it's not just summing, but specifically how the summing bus deals with redlining. That too should be the same between DAWs, considering that should be a function of bit depth, but given that most terms regarding the "sound" differences between DAWs tend to be words like "brighter," "foggy," stuff like that, my brain immediately goes to distortion.
> 
> FWIW, I too have noticed a very subtle sound difference between Logic and everything else. My success rate for being able to tell when someone is working in Logic is too good for it to have anything to do with me. It's gotta be something Logic is doing. Though, I admit that I noticed the difference far more with Logic 9 than Logic X.



I’m with you Alex, I hear the Logic difference. I can pick it out as well.

I also notice that the difference goes away somewhat when you pull up your tracks into Protools. I noticed the biggest sonic difference came from Logic v7 to v8, I liked 7 more, I’m just resigned about it now.

I’m not sure I would call Cubase simply brighter, it’s more robust somehow, more detail. I noticed it with Virus TI, and that’s not a plugin, but it might be an AU vs VST thing ??

Is Logic even sample accurate midi to audio? I’m of the impression that when you make audio edits, it’s not sample accurate unless you check that little box to make phase accurate edits in the groups.

But with real audio, I can get good results in Logic if I don’t over process, its the instruments that I find weaker sounding, IMVHO

( note to self, this post won’t be making me any friends over at Apple in the Logic dept, especially as I update to C10 right about now )


----------



## babylonwaves

MarcelM said:


> well, i can only speak for myself but i always had the feeling that a high buffer darkens the sound a bit.


that's a new one ...


----------



## halfwalk

Even if your audio nulls, your perception of it is still affected by brain chemistry, atmospheric conditions, time of day, lighting, mood, expectations, bias, quantum mechanics, priming from previous listens, blood pressure.. 

There is no 100% objective listening. Your brain is lying to you every second. I say we just accept everything for what it is, and make music rather than null tests and marginal distinctions.


----------



## sourcefor

can you make your own key commands in CUBASE? Like in Logic!? And is there an advantage to me by switching to CUBASE from logic? I like the cross platform ability so i will NOT be tied to APPLE!


----------



## BenG

sourcefor said:


> can you make your own key commands in CUBASE? Like in Logic!?


Yes


----------



## germancomponist

Cubase sounds better ..... . :-D


----------



## Divico

MarcelM said:


> still, i just made some playback test with play (hollywood orchestra) and kontakt 5 (8dio stuff), and indeed cubase sounded a bit brighter. maybe its even the pan law, iam not sure.


Highly doubt that. Pan law doesnt do a thing until you start panning things around. To be honest the only thing th pan law is good for is when you let stuff move with the pan pot.


----------



## cmillar

FWIW....About 10-15 years ago I tried Logic 8 for awhile, but .... I switched back to Digital Performer, because I swear that I got more detailed sound coming from DP. 

I'll be taking advantage of the Cubase update, as I'm now a Steinberg fan due to loving Dorico and their iOS Cubasis...and, I don't want to keep on updating and switching Macs and OSX's....will get over to Windows 10 this years too.


----------



## ProfoundSilence

I cannot actually believe HZ actually said that. 

had to be someone ghost writing his forum posts or something - it's such a crazy statement... I'm sure that different factors(everything from key controller to libraries, to workflow) would have an effect on HOW you write. Working with midi in Cubase versus Logic might absolutely change how you write/program/sculpt midi data - but all things equal, there isn't a shadow of a chance in hell he'd be able to tell which track is Cubase and logic. Could there be differences? I suppose that's entirely possible... By way of summing order - and dithering, and possibly incorrect delay compensation on reverbs(I've never used logic so I have no idea)

But if he(or anyone) had ears THAT sensitive, they would be able to explain precisely what is different, rather than "pfffft logic suxxxx"


----------



## dzilizzi

I think I read about 20 pages of this over on Gearslutz. I think the conclusion was the only one that is slightly different is Harrison Mixbus because it is based off the sound of the 32c console and has color in the DAW. Other wise they all nulled out. And they tested a lot of DAWs. 

And ProTools sounds better than all of them.....


----------



## Floris

Better music sounds better.

DAWs differ mostly in workflow - they don't really make you a better composer. These threads about extremely small differences, and the question if they exist at all or not, are all a bit useless to me. 
Use a DAW that you love, and don't hold onto artificial constructs that one DAW is 'better' or 'brighter'.
These things are usually always in-between your ears, something simply a bit louder can sound like it has more depth and a grander sound while it may be the exact same audio file.

Use a DAW you're comfortable with, learn more about composing to make your tracks better, learn more about mixing to make your track brighter. That's what really matters in my opinion.


----------



## germancomponist

ProfoundSilence said:


> I cannot actually believe HZ actually said that.


I am sure he never said that. He just feel it, as I do.


----------



## Olivier1024

dzilizzi said:


> And ProTools sounds better than all of them.....



It seems to be relatively true.
Look here : https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/02/17/Daw-V-Daw-Differ.html


----------



## Dewdman42

if someone makes a general claim that such and such DAW sounds brighter. That is a fallacious statement. If someone makes a statement that such and such DAW might sound brighter because of the way people tend to use it...that may not be fallacious, but its ultimately still the user choosing to make things sound brighter by the way they are using it.


----------



## MarcelM

Dewdman42 said:


> if someone makes a general claim that such and such DAW sounds brighter. That is a fallacious statement. If someone makes a statement that such and such DAW might sound brighter because of the way people tend to use it...that may not be fallacious, but its ultimately still the user choosing to make things sound brighter by the way they are using it.



so can you explain the video on page one and all the comments about it?


----------



## Dewdman42

are you kidding me? I could barely stand to watch that video it was a waste of 20 minutes of my life. All the comments that one DAW sounds better then another are first all entirely subjective, and second of all based on superstition and unreliable human senses.


----------



## Olivier1024

All DAWs are not equal.
When Logic or Studio One are not able to perform one simple automation (Fade) on a Sinus signal without Intermodulation, but most of the other DAWs succeed, I think it's normal for some of us to hear the difference between 2 DAWs on some complex project.
Try yourself https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/03/10/Daw-V-Daw-Automation.html

Edit : It's objective and reliable


----------



## Dewdman42

nobody said they are "equal". They all have some pros and cons. The automation peculilarities between them are documented various places. That is something that can and should be discussed. To make a blanket statement that one just sounds better then the other is malarky. To call one "brighter" then another is malarky. To say one has more headroom then another is malarky. 

The automation nuances would be make for a worthwhile discussion...but have nothing to do with the claim put forth in the first post of this thread.


----------



## jamwerks

I wonder what "pushing the daw engin really hard" means?


----------



## robgb

This old chestnut? Really? Sigh.


----------



## Jeremy Gillam

Rctec said:


> ...for your “Null Test”, how many complex tracks did you use? My suspicion is that it’s mixing and summing - and pushing the DAW engine really hard - creates differences in sound. And surely you want to have the possibility of complex tracks?


From what I understand, Pro Tools HD in the TDM days used a 48-bit fixed point summing engine that could be "pushed" — with high track counts (?) or by turning the levels up to create some distortion in the mix bus that was pleasing to some ears. But with pretty much all DAWs including Pro Tools HDX using 32 or 64-bit floating point summing I don't think this still applies.

I'm happy to be proven wrong!


----------



## marclawsonmusic

Olivier1024 said:


> All DAWs are not equal.
> When Logic or Studio One are not able to perform one simple automation (Fade) on a Sinus signal without Intermodulation, but most of the other DAWs succeed, I think it's normal for some of us to hear the difference between 2 DAWs on some complex project.
> Try yourself https://www.admiralbumblebee.com/music/2019/03/10/Daw-V-Daw-Automation.html
> 
> Edit : It's objective and reliable



I find this fascinating. I will ask the practical question...

Can you hear these differences audibly? My ears are not as sensitive as some - e.g. one of my sons has perfect pitch and even minor intonation problems are like fingernails on chalkboard to him...

I like science and empirical data too, but if we can’t hear it, who gives a damn if it shows on some scope? On the other hand, if better ears than mine are hearing differences, I will take it seriously.

PS - This isn’t another 432hz discussion is it?


----------



## Divico

jamwerks said:


> I wonder what "pushing the daw engin really hard" means?


push your master over 0db and listen to the sweet and tasteful clipping


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

marclawsonmusic said:


> PS - This isn’t another 432hz discussion is it?



No, it's a 433Hz one. Totally different argument.


----------



## Vik

dzilizzi said:


> I think I read about 20 pages of this over on Gearslutz. I think the conclusion was the only one that is slightly different is Harrison Mixbus because it is based off the sound of the 32c console and has color in the DAW. Other wise they all nulled out. And they tested a lot of DAWs.


Logic doesn't even sound equal to Logic.  Before version 10.3, Logic didn't have 64-bit summing.


----------



## Dewdman42

You cannot hear the difference between 32bit and 64bit summing


----------



## StefanoM

jamwerks said:


> I wonder what "pushing the daw engin really hard" means?




The code is not always the same. And is not always write well. For example, an emulation of a 1176 can sound Good or not. Some emulation sounds very good if are a push to the "limit" like the real hardware, in this situations, other emulation sounds like a toy. So I think that it's similar to the audio engine.


----------



## jamwerks

StefanoM said:


> The Code is not always the same. And is not always write well. For example, an Emulation of a 1176 can sound Good or not. Some Emulation sounds very good if are a push to the "limit" like the real hardware, in this situations, other emulation sounds like a toy. So I think that it's similar to the Audio engine.


The audio engin that Hans speaks of is just addition. If there are compressors in the chain that he's "hitting hard" that's a different story, and doesn't have anything to do with the daw.


----------



## shomynik

Dewdman42 said:


> You cannot hear the difference between 32bit and 64bit summing


Well, technically... 64bit has less rounding errors (the whole point of it), which means less noise (right?)... which means, someone with golden ears and great system/room COULD hear it.

In my book, examples for golden ears are Hans Zimmer and Eric Persing of which both are claiming PT sounds the best, Logic the worst. I tried comparing Cubase and PT HD Native on my Win machine, couldn't hear any difference... maybe PT on Mac sounds better? :D ... maybe PT with 32bit floating point math sounds the same as Cubase and the old PT with fixed point actually sounded better.. i dunno and I certainly haven't done any meaningful testing, but how I look at this is - I believe HZ, Eric and others until I prove myself they are wrong.


----------



## StefanoM

jamwerks said:


> The audio engin that Hans speaks of is just addition. If there are compressors in the chain that he's "hitting hard" that's a different story, and doesn't have anything to do with the daw.



Sure, the emulation of a compressor is just an example, to say that ... the code is not the same, it is not identical, for a Plugin, for a Daw, so it can produce different results. Is not so strange if some audio engines work better then others. Logic has a different Audio Engine from Cubase, ProTools is different from Nuendo... etc etc..

And the question is not if sounds Better ... but that an audio engine can sound different in some conditions.

I recreated the SAME mix, with the SAME plugins ( waves ) in Logic, Cubase & ProTools. With 10 audio Tracks, with 4 STEMs.

In this condition, the Null Test failed...

so there are some differences...maybe little, and are not so important for me......maybe is also the pan law, the delay compensation and how it works......etc but this is all.

Cheers

Ste


----------



## jamwerks

I don't think so. Cubase has the same Audio engin as Logic. It's simple addition. No-one has any special vodoo, even though some marketing will say otherwise.


----------



## Dewdman42

shomynik said:


> Well, technically... 64bit has less rounding errors (the whole point of it), which means less noise (right?)... which means, someone with golden ears and great system/room COULD hear it.



No they cannot hear it. And furthermore you need to watch that one hour video I posted earlier.



> In my book, examples for golden ears are Hans Zimmer and Eric Persing of which both are claiming PT sounds the best,



Its doubtful to me that either one of those two people, while absolutely brilliant at composing and sound design, are not GEB. Even if they are, they cannot hear the difference between 32bit and 64bit summing. Do more research on this to understand why, I am not going to try to explain it here, which I would not be able to do the subject justice.



> Logic the worst. I tried comparing Cubase and PT HD Native on my Win machine, couldn't hear any difference... maybe PT on Mac sounds better? :D ... maybe PT with 32bit floating point math sounds the same as Cubase and the old PT with fixed point actually sounded better.. i dunno and I certainly haven't done any meaningful testing, but how I look at this is - I believe HZ, Eric and others until I prove myself they are wrong.



Please watch the long one hour video about Audio Myths.


----------



## Dewdman42

StefanoM said:


> Sure, the emulation of a compressor is just an example, to say that ... the code is not the same, it is not identical, for a Plugin, for a Daw, so it can produce different results. Is not so strange if some audio engines work better then others. Logic has a different Audio Engine from Cubase, ProTools is different from Nuendo... etc etc..
> 
> And the question is not if sounds Better ... but that an audio engine can sound different in some conditions.
> 
> I recreated the SAME mix, with the SAME plugins ( waves ) in Logic, Cubase & ProTools. With 10 audio Tracks, with 4 STEMs.
> 
> In this condition, the Null Test failed...
> 
> so there are some differences...maybe little, and are not so important for me......maybe is also the pan law, the delay compensation and how it works......etc but this is all.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ste



if you use ANY plugins you are not testing the DAW any longer you are testing the plugins. How you use each DAW and plugin can obviously make huge differences to the sound. that does not prove anything about one daw being more or less transparent then another..especially if its your ears that are doing the judging.

Now all that being said, the discussion from Admiralbumblebee is a worthy discussion and I would like to see a discussion focused specifically on his findings from a few months ago. In those findings he found certain DAW's introducing measurable intermodulation distortion while performing automated fades. Logic was one of the offenders, along with StudioOne. whether or not that intermodulation distortion is actually hearable or not I do not know. He did say that the distortion created by Cubase during those fades was actually hearable, though more subtle on the visual measurement. I would like to look more deeply at how at when LogicPro and cubase are distorting the signal during automated fades. Is it only when automated? His test involved automation, but what if you just set the fader and leave it, does the distortion continue, etc. Is it only during bounce? What about real time vs non-real time bounce? Etc.. He left a lot of open questions, but it is definitely a scientifically measurable distortion that is happening differently in different DAW's while doing a particular operation with it. So how you use the DAW can matter a lot. We should investigate his report more, IMHO. But most of the claims being made on this thread are fallacious.


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> if you use ANY plugins you are not testing the DAW any longer you are testing the plugins. How you use each DAW and plugin can obviously make huge differences to the sound. that does not prove anything about one daw being more or less transparent then another..especially if its your ears that are doing the judging.
> 
> Now all that being said, the discussion from Admiralbumblebee is a worthy discussion and I would like to see a discussion focused specifically on his findings from a few months ago. In those findings he found certain DAW's introducing measurable intermodulation distortion while performing automated fades. Logic was one of the offenders, along with StudioOne. whether or not that intermodulation distortion is actually hearable or not I do not know. He did say that the distortion created by Cubase during those fades was actually hearable, though more subtle on the visual measurement. I would like to look more deeply at how at when LogicPro and cubase are distorting the signal during automated fades. Is it only when automated? His test involved automation, but what if you just set the fader and leave it, does the distortion continue, etc. Is it only during bounce? What about real time vs non-real time bounce? Etc.. He left a lot of open questions, but it is definitely a scientifically measurable distortion that is happening differently in different DAW's while doing a particular operation with it. So how you use the DAW can matter a lot. We should investigate his report more, IMHO. But most of the claims being made on this thread are fallacious.





If I use THE SAME plug-in, this should sound identical. If I use Waves L2 on Cubase, On Logic, On ProTools, the result will be the same. So in my test , I used THE SAME plugins , with the same settings wich I've exported. So the difference on the sounds is Why the Audio Engine is different, little different, as I said before.

In a DAW we use also the plugins. So for a right test , its important the simulation of a normal workflow.

Cheers


----------



## Dewdman42

If you use exactly the same plugins with exactly the same settings, then even still it will depend on whether the plugin has anything in it that is programmed to introduce any variations over time as to whether it will also produce exactly the same result at any moment in time. to be clear..

And it still comes back to your ears, they are not reliable measuring device. So in order to prove your point you will need to produce some kind of scientific measurement showing the output of one DAW with that plugin vs another daw with the same plugin using the same settings and all other factors of usage being equal. If you say you hear it, I don't believe you, and nor should you.


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> If you use exactly the same plugins with exactly the same settings, then even still it will depend on whether the plugin has anything in it that is programmed to introduce any variations over time as to whether it will also produce exactly the same result at any moment in time. to be clear..
> 
> And it still comes back to your ears, they are not reliable measuring device. So in order to prove your point you will need to produce some kind of scientific measurement showing the output of one DAW with that plugin vs another daw with the same plugin using the same settings and all other factors of usage being equal. If you say you hear it, I don't believe you, and nor should you.




I'm not saying which I can hear the differences. I'm saying which the Null Test, a scientific test and not a subjective sensation , failed in the complex condition with identical plugins. So, some differences are present.

We are talking about a technical aspect, not of a quality sensation. The best DAW is the one that makes you work well.


----------



## Dewdman42

If you have ANYTHING in the plugin that is changing over time, then that is to be expected. A simple modulation would do it.

Describe your test more completely and it will probably be shown that your null test is user error in that regard.


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> If you have ANYTHING in the plugin that is changing over time, then that is to be expected. A simple modulation would do it.
> 
> Describe your test more completely and it will probably be shown that your null test is user error in that regard.




10 Tracks - Each track with 3 Plugins- Eq - Compressor -Eq same plugins, same value, same settings. 2 Tracks are in a Stem, other 2 Tracks in other Stem, etc. In each stems there are 3 plugins, Eq, Compressor, Eq, same values, same settings. On the Master, there are 3 plugins, a Multiband, a compressor, a limiter, always the same settings.

Do you think that the Delay Compensation of Cubase works like the delay compensation of ProTools HDX? For example.. this is one little difference.


----------



## Dewdman42

Just because they are the same settings does not guarantee that their algorithms are deriving the same exact results on every pass through the same music. These plugins are capable of complex calculations and very well could intentionally be bringing in subtle or not-so-subtle variations...and would thus fail a null test. Sorry but you can't use that test to validate the DAW's mixing engine, you have distorted the test with plugins that are doing unknown changes to the DSP over time.


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> Just because they are the same settings does not guarantee that their algorithms are deriving the same exact results on every pass through the same music. These plugins are capable of complex calculations and very well could intentionally be bringing in subtle or not-so-subtle variations...and would thus fail a null test. Sorry but you can't use that test to validate the DAW's mixing engine, you have distorted the test with plugins that are doing unknown changes to the DSP over time.



This Mean that a Song mixed in Cubase.. or in ProTools HDX or In Logic, with the SAME plugins... will not have the SAME sounds. But there are some little differences. And I say exactly this.

because it's a complex workflow. But the normal workflow is complex. A simple Null Test is a nonsense test.


----------



## erica-grace

StefanoM said:


> I recreated the SAME mix, with the SAME plugins ( waves ) in Logic, Cubase & ProTools. With 10 audio Tracks, with 4 STEMs.
> 
> In this condition, the Null Test failed...





StefanoM said:


> If I use THE SAME plug-in, this should sound identical.



No. 
It has been shown in the past, that plugins can some times have variable logarithms, meaning that if the pugin is in the chain, you won't get a null with multiple passes.


The audio engines for all DAWs is the same, in terms of rendering - as said earlier in this thread, a null test confirms that.


----------



## StefanoM

erica-grace said:


> No.
> It has been shown in the past, that plugins can some times have variable logarithms, meaning that if the pugin is in the chain, you won't get a null with multiple passes.
> 
> 
> The audio engines for all DAWs is the same, in terms of rendering - as said earlier in this thread, a null test confirms that.



True.. but a song is made in a complex workflow with, many plugins.

Guys, I'm not saying that logic is better than Cubase.. o ProTools is better than logic.

I'm saying that in a complex workflow with the same settings, the null test FAILED for many reasons...so the result is different. It's Simple


----------



## Dewdman42

a null test doesn't make any sense if you're using plugins..that is true. If you're doing anything to the sound, including built in tools of the DAW, that might produce a slightly different sound between two different takes...then a null test is meaningless.

The null test is only to look for differences between the basic mixing engine without these other complex variations being introduced. A null test should give you confidence that the mixing engine is "transparent" and not introducing any color on its own.


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> a null test doesn't make any sense if you're using plugins..that is true. If you're doing anything to the sound, including built in tools of the DAW, that might produce a slightly different sound between two different takes...then a null test is meaningless.
> 
> The null test is only to look for differences between the basic mixing engine without these other complex variations being introduced. A null test should give you confidence that the mixing engine is "transparent" and not introducing any color on its own.



This is True...But my question is: Is the mix the same ? No. So yes there are some differences.

So maybe some people would prefer the result on Logic, or Cubase, or ProTools HDX.


----------



## Dewdman42

please provide accurate measurements of the difference. Your null test is not an accurate measurement.


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> please provide accurate measurements of the difference. Your null test is not an accurate measurement.



Ehehe Ok. I see that we don't understand. I know very well a null test. But I'm saying something different. I'm not interested to show that the Audio Engines "unloaded" are all identical. I know this.

BUT:

If a mix created, How I explained before, have some differences, because if I put the 3 files, with phase inverted the result is not a complete cancellation, this means that there are some differences. The "reason" is not important. I've used same plugins, same settings.

And the differences are for the reason that we have talked.

I repeat ... For example, do You think that the Delay Compensation of ProTools HDX works exactly in the same way of Cubase?

Do You Have ProTools HDX ? The Delay compensation of ProTools is different from Cubase. 

So the Delay Compensation can be a reason for some differences in the mix.

Bye


----------



## Dewdman42

The plugins themselves are introducing time variations. That is the part you don't seem to understand


----------



## erica-grace

StefanoM said:


> I'm saying that in a complex workflow with the same settings, the null test FAILED for many reasons...so the result is different. It's Simple



I think what everyone is trying to say here, is that the result was different because of the plugins, not because of the DAW


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> The plugins themselves are introducing time variations. That is the part you don't seem to understand



I understand very well. 

but because also the engine is different.

Please can you answer ? .. The delay compensation of ProTools HDX is the same of Cubase or Logic and viceversa.


----------



## Dewdman42

you have not shown anything that would indicate the engines are different. You have only shown that a complex set of plugins are capable of delivering mixes that do not exactly match, due to time variations that might be happening in the plugins.


----------



## StefanoM

Dewdman42 said:


> you have not shown anything that would indicate the engines are different. You have only shown that a complex set of plugins are capable of delivering mixes that do not exactly match, due to time variations that might be happening in the plugins.



Yes, exactly. And the reason is that the Delay Compensation ( so .. the phase between the tracks and the aux/buss) is different for different Audio Engines, in this situation, which means..... a different sound.


----------



## StefanoM

Divico said:


> As far as I know its up to the plugin to inform the DAW how much delay it produces, so the Daw can apply this as automatic delay compensation.



True, but for example ProTools HDX has a limit in samples, so in a complex mix could be some differences for examples with Cubase.

And How the software apply the automatic delay compensation is not exactly the same. For Example Studio One and the low latency mode is a little bit different.

Anyway, I'm saying only that each DAWs in a complex workflow has a different sound. Because in a complex workflow usually, I Use Plugins, maybe standalone EQ, send, aux, buss, reverbs, maybe dithering....etc etc . So is no so wrong say this. Of course in a " traditional" null test , no plugins.. ( simple tracks exported with the engine unloaded ) the result will be the same.


----------



## Dewdman42

How do you know it has anything to do with delay compensation?


----------



## Saxer

There are a lot of possible differences. The more complex, the more differences. Could be delay compensation. Could be a difference in the plugin versions (VST vs AU). Could be a different audio level the channels feed into the plugins because of different calibrations. Even with non modulated plugins (avoiding reverbs and choruses) different input levels into compressors will result in different volume changes. I even believe if you rebuild the same song twice (not save and reload) using the same plugins in Cubase there will be differences.


----------



## Dewdman42

Some of those possibilities, I think are highly unlikely.

For example, delay compensation, why should it make any difference? All major DAW's allegedly perform sample accurate plugin delay compensation. Not sorta sample accurate. Sample Accurate. That means all tracks playback exactly when they are supposed, accurate to the resolution of a sample. different DAW's may or may not have different methods they use to achieve track synchronization, but the end result in each case should be absolute sample accurate results. If any daw is doing anything other then sample accurate, it should not be used, period. They are all sample accurate, un less there is a bug somewhere in some situation, then it should be reported and fixed by the vendor.

All the major DAW's report themselves as providing sample accurate plugin rendering...the manner of PDC does not matter one bit.

The difference between VST and AU also makes absolutely Zero point zero sonic difference. ZERO. They are merely API interfaces that access the same underlying algorithms and DSP calculations.

Different audio levels of course could render different results, that is a user error or decision, not the fault of the specific daw

I agree with you that compressors are responding to the input sound and operating different calculations based on the incoming volume. If the incoming level is even slightly different it could cause the compressor to do different things

and on and on.. Any kind of plugins Nullify a null test. 

If you really want to find a problem with LogicPro then take a look at AdmiralBumbleBee's recent work, but FWIW, he also found problems with Cubase.


----------



## EgM

I like how "complex" and "complex tracks" is being used a lot here without any clarification whatsoever.


----------



## Saxer

EgM said:


> I like how "complex" and "complex tracks" is being used a lot here without any clarification whatsoever.


More complex - less clarification


----------



## ProfoundSilence

how many of you would be willing to bet your life on being able to guess if a track was rendered in logic or pro tools?

would you bet your life with maybe best 2 out of 3 with HZ guessing?

These hypotheticals of "golden ears" with a "perfect room" and "audiophile monitors" really don't mean a single thing, you'll be happy if someone shows your track to someone on their shitty mono speaker on their cellphone. Infact - the bulk of music is probably going to be played on these kinds of devices, by people in noisy enviroments, with terrible ears, and terrible speaker(s).

the difference is infinitely smaller than 1 single take of a part you play into your daw.


----------



## NYC Composer

One thing has been completely, incontrovertibly established in this thread. It’s a fact:

Anyone who read this entire thread has too much time on their hands. :::looks at self in mirror:::


----------



## ProfoundSilence

NYC Composer said:


> One thing has been completely, incontrovertibly established in this thread. It’s a fact:
> 
> Anyone who read this entire thread has too much time on their hands. :::looks at self in mirror:::


I can instantly tell straight away when someone replies which browser they were using, and if it's chrome it's rubbish! What you type in on netscape navigator you get out!


----------



## shomynik

ProfoundSilence said:


> how many of you would be willing to bet your life on being able to guess if a track was rendered in logic or pro tools?
> 
> would you bet your life with maybe best 2 out of 3 with HZ guessing?
> 
> These hypotheticals of "golden ears" with a "perfect room" and "audiophile monitors" really don't mean a single thing, you'll be happy if someone shows your track to someone on their shitty mono speaker on their cellphone. Infact - the bulk of music is probably going to be played on these kinds of devices, by people in noisy enviroments, with terrible ears, and terrible speaker(s).
> 
> the difference is infinitely smaller than 1 single take of a part you play into your daw.



Although how big of a differrence is wasn't the subject, I generally absolutely agree. That's why I pass further research on the subject...except maybe finally watch the video @Dewdman42 posted. It was always too long to bare.


----------



## halfwalk

Plugins contribute confounding variables that you cannot account for in these "null tests" without completely reverse-engineering the DSP (for starters). They are black boxes for all intents and purposes in the context of this thread.

Furthermore, the same sort of thing applies to the actual DAWs themselves. As end users, we don't actually know what's happening inside the black box. We know what we put in and what we get out, and have to make assumptions and inferences based on that limited information. This makes scientific rigor much more complicated in this context. And it leaves a _lot _of room for cognitive bias to enter into the mix. We are operating under the assumption of what we think is "supposed to" happen in a DAW, without actually having certainty of what _actually is_ happening, and _how_.

I'm not saying things like this _can't_ be accounted for, but we definitely _aren't_ accounting for them here.

There is also the appeal to authority (e.g. so-and-so has "golden ears"), but that's almost a different discussion entirely.

My point is, without the required data (among other things, the source code of every plugin and DAW involved) this exercise is pretty pointless, unless you simply happen to enjoy it. Even if a DAW A sounds different than DAW B (and only under arbitrary "complex" conditions, at that), the difference is negligible, and completely subjective anyway.


----------



## pkm

StefanoM said:


> Ehehe Ok. I see that we don't understand. I know very well a null test. But I'm saying something different. I'm not interested to show that the Audio Engines "unloaded" are all identical. I know this.
> 
> BUT:
> 
> If a mix created, How I explained before, have some differences, because if I put the 3 files, with phase inverted the result is not a complete cancellation, this means that there are some differences. The "reason" is not important. I've used same plugins, same settings.
> 
> And the differences are for the reason that we have talked.
> 
> I repeat ... For example, do You think that the Delay Compensation of ProTools HDX works exactly in the same way of Cubase?
> 
> Do You Have ProTools HDX ? The Delay compensation of ProTools is different from Cubase.
> 
> So the Delay Compensation can be a reason for some differences in the mix.
> 
> Bye



With this method, I would bet that you could prove that Cubase doesn’t sound the same as Cubase.


----------



## sourcefor

NYC Composer said:


> One thing has been completely, incontrovertibly established in this thread. It’s a fact:
> 
> Anyone who read this entire thread has too much time on their hands. :::looks at self in mirror:::


Exactly....But I have to say that i almost read the whole thing only because i was contemplating switching to Cubase from logic to take advantage of the Cross platform ability and NOT be tied to APPLE in case they ditch us Logic users! But, I have to say..spending a few days with CUBASE, I think it does sound great and I am not sure why, but LOGIC is way easier to use, at least for me! But I will continue to use both to see which one will stick and maybe not, just use both!!!


----------



## InLight-Tone

NYC Composer said:


> One thing has been completely, incontrovertibly established in this thread. It’s a fact:
> 
> Anyone who read this entire thread has too much time on their hands. :::looks at self in mirror:::


As soon as I saw the title I knew to stay away, though i felt I had to peek today as it was still going?!?


----------



## Dewdman42

sourcefor said:


> Exactly....But I have to say that i almost read the whole thing only because i was contemplating switching to Cubase from logic to take advantage of the Cross platform ability and NOT be tied to APPLE in case they ditch us Logic users! But, I have to say..spending a few days with CUBASE, I think it does sound great and I am not sure why, but LOGIC is way easier to use, at least for me! But I will continue to use both to see which one will stick and maybe not, just use both!!!



I have also been testing them both this week and Cubase can't handle nearly as many tracks as LogicPro can on my 5,1 MacrPro. Cubase is using 3x the CPU power...I actually did methodical tests and it is actually 3x average cpu usage...and can't play even 75 instrument tracks without halting audio a minute in; while the same project on LogicPro can go to 100 tracks doesn't break a sweat, 25% avg cpu usage and could probably handle many more tracks.

Cubase has some interesting features, as does LogicPro, they each have their pros and cons. I don't subscribe to the theory that Cubase sounds better unless someone can prove it, which nobody has. But Cubase performance on my cheesegrater is abysmal. It sucks together with VEP too, and VSL engineers basically tell me they think Cubase performance sucks also on mac.


----------



## foxrec

MarcelM said:


> found this by accident on youtube and had a listen myself on osx. I gotta agree cubase sounds a bit brighter for whatever reason, and I don't think its the pan law
> 
> but it might be just psycho acoustic.
> 
> well, its saturday so why not have a fun discussion?




HELLO, Iv just did the test blank project with only kontakt (with strings library) no plugins at all..both the same on logic and cubase 10.5.....and the first thing i hear is that the file bounced with cubase has more 3d sound, dont know is that the pan law or not but its not the same sound definitely...









Fox Production


Listen to Fox Production | SoundCloud is an audio platform that lets you listen to what you love and share the sounds you create.




soundcloud.com





regards


----------



## foxrec

Dewdman42 said:


> I have also been testing them both this week and Cubase can't handle nearly as many tracks as LogicPro can on my 5,1 MacrPro. Cubase is using 3x the CPU power...I actually did methodical tests and it is actually 3x average cpu usage...and can't play even 75 instrument tracks without halting audio a minute in; while the same project on LogicPro can go to 100 tracks doesn't break a sweat, 25% avg cpu usage and could probably handle many more tracks.
> 
> Cubase has some interesting features, as does LogicPro, they each have their pros and cons. I don't subscribe to the theory that Cubase sounds better unless someone can prove it, which nobody has. But Cubase performance on my cheesegrater is abysmal. It sucks together with VEP too, and VSL engineers basically tell me they think Cubase performance sucks also on mac.


..yes the performance of cubase 10.5 on mojave is a nightmare comparing to logic x...regards


----------



## Sheridan

Hello,

Perhaps this can explain it:

https://vi-control.net/community/th...uality-for-vst-instruments.88698/post-4537295






VI playback sounds different in LPX vs CB


Similarly the analog filters in the D/A may change things by a minute tiny amount from playback to playback, but again, the effect of moving your head a few inches in any acoustic space will be orders of magnitude larger than the differences between the filters, because A/D and D/A filtering is...




vi-control.net


----------



## ptram

Cubase does indeed sound brighter than Logic. It is full of sibilants and explosives. Logic has no sibilants, and only lateral and palatal consonants.

Paolo


----------



## Ashermusic

ptram said:


> Cubase does indeed sound brighter than Logic. It is full of sibilants, explosives and labials. Logic has no sibilants, and only dental and palatial consonants.
> 
> Paolo



Lol!


----------



## dgburns

Until a software developer reveals the inner process of an engine, we really have nothing to go on but speculations.

I will tip my hat and say it confounds me that Cubase appears to use more cpu then LPX, so the code is def not the same.

I’d like to think that good results are possible with either ...


----------



## ProfoundSilence

if there is a difference between DAWs it doesn't actually matter.


----------



## foxrec

shomynik said:


> It seems that Logic has some kind of analog mixing desk simulation goin on. By pushing Gain (in the inspector on the left) saturation algo is in process.
> 
> I recently discovered this by sending somewhat low volume Cubase tracks to a friend for mixing and I expected from him to just add Gain - a pure gain like Pro Tools Clip Gain (Cubase has a similar thing). But being not experienced he used this gain feature in logic that made a mess.
> 
> Maybe Logic has a similar thing going active all the time on it's faders? - since they added saturation algo in the feature that should (and is) clean and pure in every other DAW. This is bad in my book - if I want saturation, I will choose algorithm I like and add it myself, but from DAW I expect pure math and headroom of the 32bit floating point.


wow, I was thinking im crazy..haha, i did some tests with kontakt, the same sound(strings or piano) does not sound the same in logic and cubase..in cubase its more open, cleaner, warmer..in logic it sounds kinda saturated....thanks god im not crazy..im a 10 y logic user and started using cubase 11 recently too...logic has much better workflow but to me cubase sounds much cleaner..regards


----------



## Fizzlewig

I have always thought that Cubase and Pro tools have a more HD sound to them (no scientific basis for this!) rather than logic and studio one. I don’t use Cubase. Or Pro tools my main DAW is Studio One. Take my views with a pince of salt etc


----------



## davidson

Been using logic for 15 years. Now I realise why all my music is shite...


----------

