# Cubase: how to export without the export option?



## impressions (Jan 27, 2013)

Have you noticed your project sounds much better when its heard on cubase than after the export?

I went to a friend's studio which showed me how he physically rerouted the out's of the channels to the in's of the soundcard, to record it on the pool, the result is the same as heard on the DAW.

I think i've seen a virtual way of doing it? something with the rerouting the buses?

anyone?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 27, 2013)

impressions @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> Have you noticed your project sounds much better when its heard on cubase than after the export?
> 
> I went to a friend's studio which showed me how he physically rerouted the out's of the channels to the in's of the soundcard, to record it on the pool, the result is the same as heard on the DAW.
> 
> ...



1 - No I haven't noticed it. At all.

2 - You'll need to interface with stuff outside the DAW, so you're dependent on your soundcard software really.

3 - This might end up being a long and tedious thread because of (1), so I thought I'd get in right at the start and then run away.


----------



## impressions (Jan 27, 2013)

ok.... 


from what I've read on this forum I wasn't the only guy in town thinking this,besides my friend.

if someone find this offending they probably working for steinberg.


----------



## Blakus (Jan 27, 2013)

I honestly don't notice a difference either. But would be interested to hear what others say!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 27, 2013)

Yup, you got me. I secretly work for Steinberg.

I don't find it offending, just boring - its one of those esoteric discussions that preoccupies vast amounts of time and effort for almost zero gain for me. I'd rather they fixed bugs and improved useability.

Running away again.


----------



## dfhagai (Jan 27, 2013)

Don't know about the sound, but the software routing is simple.
1. Create a spear output, call it router or something...(F4)
2. Create the audio channel you want to record into and choose router as the input.
3. Send the tracks you want to record to the router (via sends), usually
You'll want them to be set at 0db.
4. Hit record on the mix downs audio channel.

You can so send all the tracks on the project to a group,
And route that group to the mixdown audio track input.

...that's it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 28, 2013)

When you export, check the "record to pool" and" as"record as audio track" boxes. When the eport is done, it will ask yo if you want to import it into the project. Say yes. To AB, turn off any effects you have on the master output, and solo the audio track, which will be at the bottom of your track list.


----------



## dfhagai (Jan 28, 2013)

At this stage you can also do the dreaded NULL TEST :twisted:


----------



## soundshigh (Jan 28, 2013)

I've been working with Nuendo and Cubase for several years now, and I have noticed this, more before than now. For example, after listening to a reference export of the project for a while, I open the Nuendo session and think it sounds a little better than the mix down. My not very well informed explanation of this at the time was that this is the Nuendo/Cubase's 32 bit floating point audio engine at play, and since my exports are most often 16 bit, what I was hearing was the difference between the undithered 32bit project vs. the same thing crammed into a smaller dynamic range. Or it was just me being influenced by watching the audio events spread on the time line....
Whatever it was, I do not pay attention to it now, cause it's the exported audio file that travels out of the studio, and if it is bad, then the Cubendo project will not sound less bad either...maybe 2% less bad if the above is true, but those 2% will not save me, and are inaudible outside my studio.

Cheers!


----------



## mark812 (Jan 28, 2013)

OMG, not this sh%t again..


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 28, 2013)

mark812 @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> OMG, not this sh%t again..



That's exactly what I thought after reading impressions first sentence in his first post.



impressions @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> Have you noticed your project sounds much better when its heard on cubase than after the export?



It does not. It sounds_ the same_ in Cubase as it does after the export.

Few things to consider.

1. You are imagining things. Sorry if I sound flippant, but this accounts for about 90% of all instances of people hearing a difference between this and that. 

2. There is actually something going on when you export (yes that is a possibility), for ex, your control room might be on, or there may be some other anomoly happening. But that's OE - not because Cubase sounds different after export.

3. If you listen to your exported track outside of Cubase, there are a multitude of reasons that the file may not sound the same - when it really is. Things like eq settings in other apps, listening at different volume levels, etc, can all influence your perception of what you hear.

I think your original Q on how to do what youwant has already been answered, no?

Cheers.


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm not a Cubase person, so this is non-partisan...I think RiffWraith has it right. I'm not sure you are imagining things, but the other factors he mentioned are dead on.

Very little chance Cubase is the issue and rerouting things to compensate is a waste of effort.


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 28, 2013)

I think we could also discuss the scientific/chemical evidence of Homeopathy!


----------



## MacQ (Jan 28, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> Things like eq settings in other apps, listening at different volume levels, etc, can all influence your perception of what you hear.



Also, especially on Windows, sometimes the audio driver can influence volume, and in my opinion volume differences are the biggest culprit in the "it sounds different" debate. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics


----------



## impressions (Jan 28, 2013)

> 1. You are imagining things. Sorry if I sound flippant, but this accounts for about 90% of all instances of people hearing a difference between this and that.


nice trolling provoke. see ya.
~o)


----------



## 667 (Jan 28, 2013)

MacQ @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> RiffWraith @ Mon Jan 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Things like eq settings in other apps, listening at different volume levels, etc, can all influence your perception of what you hear.
> ...


I believe that differences in loudness are responsible for this 100% of the time. That, and expectation bias.


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 28, 2013)

impressions @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> > 1. You are imagining things. Sorry if I sound flippant, but this accounts for about 90% of all instances of people hearing a difference between this and that.
> 
> 
> nice trolling provoke. see ya.
> ~o)



Even though I don't want to get into this debate, I have to agree somehow.
There are actually many (again, MANY, not EVERYONE) people who swear on plugin or sequencer company x, but could not distinct the difference between a 44,1Khz wav, 24bit file and a 320kbit mp3.

Furthermore I think we can gain much more valuable soundinformation on a final track, by arranging, mixing and mastering it properly rather than just looking for homeopathic sound improvements. I mean I am a fan of optimization, 1% here and 5% there ... but in the end all these tests between summing amps, plugins, nulling tests etc. I end up like: "and ... now?".

Just to clarify I am not saying that a summing amp can not improve the mix, but there is one thing we have to keep in mind. A sequencer always sums the signal in the cleanest way ... if you mix something on an analog console it will surely sound different, but not because it is MORE CLEAN, but it adds MORE NOISE!

However, your signal inside Cubase always sounds the same as the rendered stereo file.


----------



## impressions (Jan 28, 2013)

I'm not going to react on this, especially if everyone thinks its so negligible. I've noticed in a few instances in this forum(like people saying logic exports better than cubase?I'm pretty sure there was a thread about it) and in my visiting of studios, technicians said that quite a few times(not just my friend), I myself haven't terribly noticed it(maybe 2-4 %).

so, I thought i'll ask around here again, because i didn't remember the answer.

Thanks, and lets stop now, because it feels like shakey ground from the moment mr re-peat entered the room.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 28, 2013)

impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> > 1. You are imagining things. Sorry if I sound flippant, but this accounts for about 90% of all instances of people hearing a difference between this and that.
> 
> 
> nice trolling provoke. see ya.
> ~o)



Sorry you think I was trolling. I was trying to help. Your loss. See ya!


----------



## Rctec (Jan 28, 2013)

What does 2-4% mean? 2-4 % of what? I think you need to find a more descriptive way of describing your impressions. But the bottom line is that - as with all technology - you learn how to make it sound good to your ears by manipulating the tools at your disposal. I agree that truncating things down to 16 bits will have an effect, and that's what you might be hearing. All recording systems have inherent problems and are far from perfect, but all recoding systems have given us great music, recorded by master engineers who had learned how to work around and manipulate the shortcomings of the equipment of the day. I still remember people saying how bad SSL consoles sounded, and then how George Massenburg praised Hugh Padgham for teaching him how to make a great sounding record on an SSL, which he had thought was impossible. So, all this nostalgic gearslut lust for old compressors, tape, mic amps is, in my opinion, really a desire to sound as good as Ken Scott, Steve Lipson, Geoff Emerick - and all the other greats, the humans making the magic, not the magic box. It's really not the gear. A great 'Tonmeister' is as much an artist as the performers he records. Stop inventing imaginary problems that have simple solutions: work with a great recording engineer who's sound and aesthetic you love. Or, better still, learn to be a great recording engineer. The gear is so good now, there really are no excuses left. 2-4%? All good engineers know how to get around such tiny deficiencies. It's not voodoo, it's talent and knowledge...


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 28, 2013)

Rctec @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> It's not voodoo, it's talent and knowledge...



+1


----------



## mark812 (Jan 28, 2013)

2-4% difference? I wish I had such a golden pair of ears.


----------



## impressions (Jan 28, 2013)

Rctec @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> What does 2-4% mean? 2-4 % of what? I think you need to find a more descriptive way of describing your impressions. But the bottom line is that - as with all technology - you learn how to make it sound good to your ears by manipulating the tools at your disposal. I agree that truncating things down to 16 bits will have an effect, and that's what you might be hearing. All recording systems have inherent problems and are far from perfect, but all recoding systems have given us great music, recorded by master engineers who had learned how to work around and manipulate the shortcomings of the equipment of the day. I still remember people saying how bad SSL consoles sounded, and then how George Massenburg praised Hugh Padgham for teaching him how to make a great sounding record on an SSL, which he had thought was impossible. So, all this nostalgic gearslut lust for old compressors, tape, mic amps is, in my opinion, really a desire to sound as good as Ken Scott, Steve Lipson, Geoff Emerick - and all the other greats, the humans making the magic, not the magic box. It's really not the gear. A great 'Tonmeister' is as much an artist as the performers he records. Stop inventing imaginary problems that have simple solutions: work with a great recording engineer who's sound and aesthetic you love. Or, better still, learn to be a great recording engineer. The gear is so good now, there really are no excuses left. 2-4%? All good engineers know how to get around such tiny deficiencies. It's not voodoo, it's talent and knowledge...



your point being that sound engineers are artists and not some dumb wanna be composers who just toss a plugin and expect magic to happen? no kidding.
they could find another way to make up for this? well there is a way-you can physically re-route the channels instead of exporting. I'm not sure about the 2-4% could be even 10-15% i don't really know how to measure it, and i don't think anyone can.

there are 2 things you can do to check it-listen to your project in cubase and then after it exported. you will hear a difference especially if you're working with audio and not samples(and I'm not talking 96khz to 44khz). the other thing that is noticeable in export is when you do it several times(double editing, or triple), there is a degradation of quality, you can hear it after 3 exports of the same file. always, just try it.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 28, 2013)

impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> .....that is noticeable in export is when you do it several times(double editing, or triple), there is a degradation of quality, you can hear it after 3 exports of the same file. always, just try it.



:facepalm:


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 29, 2013)

impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> the other thing that is noticeable in export is when you do it several times(double editing, or triple), there is a degradation of quality, you can hear it after 3 exports of the same file. always, just try it.



Wait a minute, there is something I don't understand but seriously want to!
You say, that if you export your mix to a stereo file, reimport the stereo file, export this same file again (and a few times more) that this file suffers from a quality loss?


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

^
yes, definitely. check it, you can really hear the difference after 3 exports.


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

impressions @ Mon Jan 28 said:


> Have you noticed your project sounds much better when its heard on cubase than after the export?


I had a similar problem, everytime I was recording an instrument or using outboard gear, my return print track that I was listening to in real time in Cubase sounded more wide and open compared to the recorded print track. The problem in my case was that I had accidentally enabled the control room, and it was feeding the signal twice into my monitoring when the 'monitor button' was enabled on the track. Therefore the audio was always louder when I was listening to it real time, and I always thought it sounded way better.




impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> the other thing that is noticeable in export is when you do it several times(double editing, or triple), there is a degradation of quality, you can hear it after 3 exports of the same file. always, just try it.


Maybe it would be useful if you could upload some audio examples on the situations where you hear audio degradation?


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

maybe...I'm not so sure even though its VERY audible.

export1-
https://www.box.com/s/bbjva6jrbywwod5vgxqt
export2-
https://www.box.com/s/jchyvcxin7zkof330o2o
export3-
https://www.box.com/s/dn1cocyxq7kpfk32mu5i
export4-
https://www.box.com/s/89vhbezyupl9d8nk6tyj
export5-
https://www.box.com/s/16kmyhwb5jftm9aiignk
original-
https://www.box.com/s/uv286llueloazmt0im3j

looking after each export-the volume is decreasing significantly, could be my soundcard setting also. can't say until someone else posts theirs.


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

These are all mp3's - are you are exporting in wav format in cubase or in mp3?


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

you want me to upload 300mb? fine..


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

Maybe if you could just upload the original and then export 1 & 5?

Also, how are you exporting the files in this example?


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

I'm not uploading the original on wav because its an ongoing project.
e1-
https://www.box.com/s/0yqvnf1yq46p3jamp0ae
e2-
https://www.box.com/s/r2g76sg57lcsxb1xwgpu
e3-
https://www.box.com/s/6kd7ebgw6htdgnykjikp
e4-
https://www.box.com/s/088uh5hg2citfsvbb0lr
e5-
https://www.box.com/s/4aqqmodt7encf065mw1b


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 29, 2013)

impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> maybe...I'm not so sure even though its VERY audible.
> 
> export1-
> https://www.box.com/s/bbjva6jrbywwod5vgxqt
> ...



Okay, so you are posting files as evidence for your theory that there is significant decrease in quality (remember your first post: Have you noticed your project sounds much better when its heard on cubase than after the export?), but then you say: ... could be my soundcard settings and you can't say until someone else posts theirs?


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 29, 2013)

You know I really don't want to appear disrespectul. I totally agree with Hans statement that ... "It's not voodoo, it's talent and knowledge..."

... but I would extend that and say, "It CAN appear as voodoo if you are not aware of your sequencer and soundcard settings"


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

I took a portion of your Export 1 - exported, imported and re- exported it in Cubase7, repeated ten times.

Here is Export 1
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9178387/export1.wav

Here is Export 10
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9178387/export10.wav

I checked and these files null each other perfectly. There is no difference in sound or volume. 

In your case you are losing volume with each export. It shouldn't happen, so you must be doing something wrong here. The way I export is that I go to File -> Export -> Audio Mixdown. I then make sure that I have the same settings as the source file (in this case 44.1khz and 16bit), I have Pool, Audio Track and Real Time export unchecked and I click Export.


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

so if i'm exporting from 24 bit to 16bit i should expect decrease in volume?
that's the only difference i've noticed.

just to check-by repeating you mean-
taking export1 back to cubase and exporting again-then export2 to cubase and export again?


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

Exporting from 24bit to 16bit should not make a difference in volume either. Also to my understanding, when you are exporting in the box the soundcard should not matter as your CPU is doing all the work. 

What I did was I exported portion of your export1 and re-imported it into Cubase. I exported this new file into export2. Imported export2 and exported export2 into export3 and so on..


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

great...now how the hell do i know what settings to use with my soundcard so that export will work..

thanks devstat, hagai. at least YOU actually helped me.


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

Do you have a stock soundcard on your motherboard and then an external one? Maybe you could try to switch to the basic stock soundcard and see if it makes a difference? Altho I suspect that the problem is not in the soundcard..


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

no i only have 1 soundcard and it's through my motherboard (i forgot what's it called, PCI-E maybe?)

http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_hdspe_aio.php


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 29, 2013)

impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> great...now how the hell do i know what settings to use with my soundcard so that export will work..
> 
> thanks devstat, hagai. at least YOU actually helped me.



Why don't you simply post some more details about what is going on?
It would help a lot!

What soundcard do you have? Are your faders alwas at 0? Do you have an RME card and you got some internal routings going? Is your control room in Cubase active? If you have an interal card such as Soundblaster or anything, are your Windows/Mac volume settings other than 100% (or on default level)?


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

In Cubase, If you go to the Devices -> Device Setup -> VST Audio System, you can choose between different ASIO Drivers. Maybe you can switch to another driver and see if it makes a difference.


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 29, 2013)

impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> no i only have 1 soundcard and it's through my motherboard (i forgot what's it called, PCI-E maybe?)
> 
> http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_hdspe_aio.php



Okay, one step further. Now could you please post a screenshot of your RME mixer AND matrix?


----------



## impressions (Jan 29, 2013)

devastat @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> In Cubase, If you go to the Devices -> Device Setup -> VST Audio System, you can choose between different ASIO Drivers. Maybe you can switch to another driver and see if it makes a difference.



i had generic, and full duplex-both gave me on the first shot a decrease in volume.

we'll have to postpone this sudden change of empathy later because i need to go(already spent 2 hours on this).
will post pictures later.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 29, 2013)

impressions,

is the small input volume knob, what is located above the master fader, also set to 0 dB? (You have to hit the shift key when you want to adjust this parameter) 

if it is set lower than 0 dB, then the volume will decrease significantly from one export to the next export.

Check this out!


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> i had generic, and full duplex-both gave me on the first shot a decrease in volume.


I don't think that audio card is the problem. Do you have any other programs you might try to export audio from? Maybe you could download a demo version of another DAW and see if the same thing happens with the export. Then you can see if it is a Cubase related problem or not. And yeah, make sure that your master fader is always set to 0db.

P.S I think that the free ASIO4ALL driver might work better for you in general than the generic driver.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 29, 2013)

devastat @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> impressions @ Tue Jan 29 said:
> 
> 
> > i had generic, and full duplex-both gave me on the first shot a decrease in volume.
> ...


RME make some of the best drivers in the business, so that's what the OP should be using.

D


----------



## Waywyn (Jan 29, 2013)

To be honest, I worked for a long time with a Soundblaster card back then when I wasn't able to afford anything and I never had volume loss or anything.

It MUST be some fader/adjustment settings which are reduced.

Please don't get me wrong but this is what sadly happens way too often. In many cases these voodoo-ish assumptions are made, it is all kinds of gears/softwares fault, but I would suggest the first thing to do is check *yourself* and see if maybe you missed something/don't understand/wasn't able to relate to ... before blaming it on the gear!


----------



## 667 (Jan 29, 2013)

devastat @ Tue Jan 29 said:


> P.S I think that the free ASIO4ALL driver might work better for you in general than the generic driver.


Although the OP said the sound card was 'on his motherboard' it's an RME internal interface so naturally the RME ASIO driver should be used.

ASIO4ALL is a hack that's really only appropriate if you are using the cheap built-in sound e.g. using a laptop that's not your 'real' rig if you haven't installed a real sound card into it. I always say if you have to use ASIO4ALL then you are using cheap/crap hardware and you should expect to have problems with it (from a 'pro audio' perspective). I do use it myself in my laptop but that's just until I upgrade to a Babyface.


----------



## devastat (Jan 29, 2013)

667 @ Wed Jan 30 said:


> ASIO4ALL is a hack that's really only appropriate if you are using the cheap built-in sound e.g. using a laptop that's not your 'real' rig if you haven't installed a real sound card into it.


I should have read more carefully, that's what I thought the OP was using. Didn't notice he is using an internal RME sound card.


----------



## AndrewZGN (Mar 22, 2013)

*impressions*
If your project is for example in 24 or 32float and you export it to a lesser bit depth file then you OF COURSE will have a file with less DYNAMIC RANGE (not to mess with the VOLUME, which is subjective in the way human percepts it).


----------

