Best Windows based workstation program - NOT Pro Tools...?????

joseph

Member
Messages
1,472
Originally posted by cocheese
If I'm just after the best sound quality I can get.

You may already know this, but fwiw, the sound quality depends as much on having a quality analog-digital converter interface into your computer, as much as the program.
 

straticus

Member
Messages
3,101
Originally posted by cocheese
I'm going to be using either the Lynx2-C or the RME Fireface 800. I haven't made up my mind yet. :confused:
The RME gear always gets very good reviews and the 800 looks like a real nice interface.

BTW, the RME stuff works great with Samplitude.;)
 

joseph

Member
Messages
1,472
I have the fireface, works well with Cubase SX3.
It has an excellent sounding direct-in line for guitar/bass with an overdrive and speaker cab emulation, tweaking this with the extensive EQ options in Cubase, very subtle reverb/delay, and some tricks like doubling the track, panning ~30% and delaying one side a few microseconds to get a stereo spread to fatten the sound- etc-(these are great toys to tweak)- you can nail a clean amp sound easily, distorted amps a bit more work.
But you don't need a seperate DI box or speaker load box with the fireface. It seems to have all the features anyone could need as well. You can check their manual at the RME site on-line in a PDF file.
 

mtfingers

Member
Messages
119
I switched over to Cubase SX from Logic a couple of years ago. Now I use Nuendo. I can't imagine anything being easier and more intuitive to use. I didn't need to read any manuals to get multitrack recording going, and it still works perfectly. Now if only we could say the same about Winbloze.

SAWstudio is just incredible. I demo'ed it a while back. From what I understand the code is written by just ONE guy! Yikes. This is what I go for if I could afford it. He says that his sequencer doesn't 'color' the sound like all the rest do. A freind of mine swears by it.
 

joseph

Member
Messages
1,472
Originally posted by mtfingers
SAWstudio is just incredible. I demo'ed it a while back. From what I understand the code is written by just ONE guy! Yikes. This is what I go for if I could afford it. He says that his sequencer doesn't 'color' the sound like all the rest do. A freind of mine swears by it.
The people who stick with it seem very happy with it. There's speculation about 'fixed-point' versus 'floating -point' architecture that is about 3 light years over my head.
I remember people weighing in on SAW a bit a few months back, including ED DeG, who has tried it and many others, he saw some limitations as well as pluses...you could do a search here.

As far as coloring the sound, I'm using a fireface 800 with Cubase SX3 on a PC with pentium 4, 1 or 2 gig RAM and I have to say the sound is exactly what I put in, no color/difference than what's on the monitors in real time, and no latency.
 

Ed DeGenaro

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
23,989
I use Nuendo 3 on rare occasions. And spent 99% of my time in Sequoia 8.2 (Samplitude).
As far as audio engine goes unless you want to go with a Radar or Sadie with their hardware nothing touches Samp/Sequoia. IMO of course.
 

mtfingers

Member
Messages
119
>As far as coloring the sound, I'm using a fireface 800 with Cubase SX3 on a >PC with pentium 4, 1 or 2 gig RAM and I have to say the sound is exactly >what I put in, no color/difference than what's on the monitors in real time, >and no latency.

Ok, but this is what my freind says, not me. He says try recording into Cubase then recording the same setup into Saw. He says you WILL be able to tell the difference. I always thought my recordings came out pretty accurately, but he tells me that Saw will show me the truth. I haven't tried it yet.
 

Ed DeGenaro

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
23,989
Originally posted by mtfingers
>As far as coloring the sound, I'm using a fireface 800 with Cubase SX3 on a >PC with pentium 4, 1 or 2 gig RAM and I have to say the sound is exactly >what I put in, no color/difference than what's on the monitors in real time, >and no latency.

Ok, but this is what my freind says, not me. He says try recording into Cubase then recording the same setup into Saw. He says you WILL be able to tell the difference. I always thought my recordings came out pretty accurately, but he tells me that Saw will show me the truth. I haven't tried it yet.
I'm with that opinion...
I can listen to the same stuff in Nuendo or Sequoia and can tell the difference blindfolded.
 

mtfingers

Member
Messages
119
I'm with that opinion...
I can listen to the same stuff in Nuendo or Sequoia and can tell the difference blindfolded.
Wow. Really? Tell me more about Sequoia. How big a difference can it possibly be? I might have to try this one. I usually record at 24/44.1. Everything sounds accurate to me, but then again, I might be going deaf from all those years of rocking out!
 

Ed DeGenaro

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
23,989
Originally posted by mtfingers
Wow. Really? Tell me more about Sequoia. How big a difference can it possibly be? I might have to try this one. I usually record at 24/44.1. Everything sounds accurate to me, but then again, I might be going deaf from all those years of rocking out!
http://www.samplitude.com
If you don't need the extra Sequoia functions...as in 4 point editor, Aldorithmix plug compatability, advanced crossfade editor go with Samp. It's like Nuendo 3 to Cubase SX3 in terms of difference.

Now as to its sound. When I work on guitar stuff and open Nuendo and record into it the sound is always kinda vailed. With Sequoia it is soo much clearer.
 

mtfingers

Member
Messages
119
Cool man, thanks for the info, bookmarked the site. Hey, I noticed that this is a magix site. I've been using thier stuff for years (music studio, etc.). If it's these guys, its gotta be good.
 

Ed DeGenaro

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
23,989
Originally posted by mtfingers
Cool man, thanks for the info, bookmarked the site. Hey, I noticed that this is a magix site. I've been using thier stuff for years (music studio, etc.). If it's these guys, its gotta be good.
Actually yes the sam/sequoia developers do the code writing for magix as well.
 

Tim Z

Member
Messages
348
Like Ed, I too notice how great Samplitude sounds. I was working on a CD project with Nuendo and then tried the demo for Samplitude. Needless to say, I have been a Samplitude owner and user ever since. :)

t
 

boboli

Member
Messages
29
Nuendo three is a FULLY professional system for high end work where you can't screw up. It's learning curve is steep and it is not the most intuitive DAW software, but it is so completely extensible it is not fully! With Yamaha and Steiberg, you cannot go wrong in my opinion for great sounding, professional tracks with tons of VST plugins, done by peole that know what they are doing! The price ti get in is very conservative too!

Ihave used SAWStudio for man years and has a different methodology with fantastic results. It comes highly recommeded. Especiialy for voice over!
 

joseph

Member
Messages
1,472
While we're at it, I've got Cubase SX3 , newbie, haven't got to the mixdown stage yet.....
What's the best sounding file format to burn onto a CD, ie, not worried about conserving bytes....thanks
 

straticus

Member
Messages
3,101
Originally posted by joseph
While we're at it, I've got Cubase SX3 , newbie, haven't got to the mixdown stage yet.....
What's the best sounding file format to burn onto a CD, ie, not worried about conserving bytes....thanks
I bounce my mixes to 2trk stereo 16bit 44.1 before I burn them to CD. That's pretty much the standard.
 






Trending Topics

Top