Quantcast
switching from Live to Cubase - Page 5 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
switching from Live to Cubase
Old 30th January 2013 | Show parent
  #121
Lives for gear
 
UltimateOutsider's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by login ➑️
Where are the definitions of the functions/characteristics? No definitions, so is most be based on subjective perceptions.
When it comes to assigning a score to a particular feature, sure. But if DAW X has a feature and DAW Y doesn't (evidenced by most of the "0" scores on that shootout), that's as objective as it gets. Just another way to put things in perspective, man.
Old 30th January 2013
  #122
I'm actually really thankful for mholloway chiming in and bringing Cubase's performance issues on Mac to my attention
Old 31st January 2013
  #123
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks. Despite being called a 'fanboi' with 'shady stories,' the reality is that I'm a long-time Cubase user, long-time Live user, and as already stated, currently run & use both on my Mac. I'm aware that the CPU stuff seems to vary among people -- if there are folks getting better Mac CPU peformance with Cubase, I'd love to hear even more about it, and work toward optimizing my system in that direction!

Related but unrelated, I'm *really* hoping Bitwig delivers on its promises. There's rumors from NAMM (where they had a table) that the estimated release is June 2013. According to the demo vids, there are some features that are exactly what I'm looking for and not covered in Live: 1. editing multiple clips simultaneously (you can see the layered clip content in one place, and toggle on/off the visibility / editing of each!) and 2. the fact that the arrangement page allows you to still view the matrix launcher (albeit in an inverted, maschine-style arrangement, which makes sense) and you can easily drag and drop between the two, as shown in the demo vid. Hell yes! Honestly, both of these features are what I was expecting from the Live 9 reveal.... and they've made exactly zero advances in those areas, which was really disappointing to me. In fact, I can say as a beta tester (even if I'm not supposed to) that using Live 9 barely feels different than using Live 8, other than the weird new browser and a couple FX enhancements. Sure, clip automation HAD to be there, but that feels more like a Fix than a Feature...
Old 31st January 2013
  #124
I just hope it's as good as their making it out to be!

don't really care for the clip launch and arrangement on the same window though, would much rather be able to see the mixer in the arrange view
Old 31st January 2013
  #125
Gear Nut
 
wayne_kerr's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Anyone remember bars & pipes from Amiga?
Old 4th February 2013
  #126
just did another Live vs Logic test, this one with waaaaay different results

this time constant being ACE's default patch playing a single note

I kept adding tracks in Live until crackles started to appear

there were no crackles in Logic even after the overload messages started to appear, so I kept adding tracks until the over messages came up

something that was quite interesting was that Logic did about the same, if not worse, with the buffer size set to 1024 as opposed to 512 while Live did better letting it load around 10 tracks more

512 buffer size

Live 8 - 40
Live 9 - 41
Logic 9 - 61

1024 buffer sizer

Live 8 - 51
Live 9 - 51
Logic 9 - 61
Old 4th February 2013 | Show parent
  #127
Gear Guru
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
thats more like what Id expect to see...I had a feeling the previous test might not be the full story...
Old 4th February 2013 | Show parent
  #128
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 ➑️
thats more like what Id expect to see...I had a feeling the previous test might not be the full story...
yeah same, that's why I tried a different test

forgot to say that this time I used the built-in audio since my ONE is in need of repair

still, I found it odd that Logic's performance was best with the buffer set to 512 as opposed to 1024
Old 4th February 2013
  #129
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
I dont think the Daw is your problem. Youve now put on your labcoat and set about testing Daws for their CPU capabilities - anything to prevent you from doing what you should be doing.......
Old 4th February 2013 | Show parent
  #130
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceacademy ➑️
I dont think the Daw is your problem. Youve now put on your labcoat and set about testing Daws for their CPU capabilities - anything to prevent you from doing what you should be doing.......
it only takes 10 minutes to do a test.... plus I'm sick and my interface is broken so why the hell not? LOL
Old 4th February 2013 | Show parent
  #131
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mholloway ➑️
Thanks. Despite being called a 'fanboi' with 'shady stories,' the reality is that I'm a long-time Cubase user, long-time Live user, and as already stated, currently run & use both on my Mac. I'm aware that the CPU stuff seems to vary among people -- if there are folks getting better Mac CPU peformance with Cubase, I'd love to hear even more about it, and work toward optimizing my system in that direction!
Yes that was me - I called you a fanbois and have no trouble sleeping at night.
I have heard cpu stories since The Dawn Of The Daw . There was definitely validity in them 10+ years ago when we all used single core P4 or Mac G4's. Those stories have calmed down a lot in recent years - but of course theres always a few people out there promoting fairy tales. Similar to the 'Theres some secret code going on in a MPC which gives it a groove' - another myth which deserves to be resigned to the scrapyard along with Voodoo science. I've seen posts from users about CPU - then we find out their sticking 5 instances of Ozone on one synth.

Mileage will vary depending on the user. Its kind of obvious to 'most' there are things we can and things we shouldn't do - during the writing process. There are some VSTs and processing plugins which are very CPU intensive. Rarely do they get the blame. I steer clear of anything which is abnormally heavy on the CPU

Real world observations.
Note - I write and mix as I go along. I must hear what I'm creating as if it were a finished record.

When working with Live during a session, I always expereinced inexplicable latency when adding tracks, groups, aux sends etc. I don't know why this happens because I go out of my way to use zero latency plugins. The more tracks and groups added the higher the latency which then quite soon made it impossible to play VST synths or programme drums in real time - with a degree of feel/nuance. Call me old fashioned, but I do still like to play parts in real time.

Quite soon I also had to raise the buffer from 128 to 256 as I add more plugins and synths (but not that many). If I don't raise the buffer the system becomes less responsive and I start experiencing audio drop outs. Just after the half way mark I then had to raise the buffer to 512. By this time i cannot play a synth in real time and the latency feels much more than 512. Near the end of the song I often had to raise that buffer to 1024, but felt more like 2000+. By then I would have had a number of look ahead plugins on the master buss, and some group channels. No way could I even attempt to play even the most simple of chord progression. Not really the case with Cubase.

I can finish a tune with Cubase rarely having to raise the buffer above 256 and only have to raise it that high once I am at the final stages - even then I can still play a VST in real time and use look ahead plugins. Even when I need to go to 512 I can still play synths in real time. Its not brilliant but definitely do-able. Have you ever - just before mixing down though that section there could be done with a new synth line - happens to me all the time. Cubase allows me to add one in in real time, Live didn't - I always had to pencil in data at that stage of the game.
This is a real world situation. Not some tests playing a bunch of random audio tracks and instrument channels + various random plugins and the user sitting there looking at the cpu monitor. You stated Cubase is a heavy duty CPU hog. But in my real world experiences its Live becasue its audio engine does some funky bizzness even when the system isnt being taxed.

IMPORTANT- Its not about I can run more tracks with Cubase. In fact Ive never ran out of CPU on either Daw. Its about how responsive the system is under pressure and in my experience Cubase has the edge. I'm not lying, I have no agenda, I don't give tuppence who uses or who doesn't use Cubase.

btw I have done zero optimisation with my dual core 2.66 Imac.

Btw2 - I also have a Quad core PC. I expereinced the same situation with Live and Cubase.
Old 4th February 2013
  #132
Lives for gear
 
lowkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I'm on a MacBook Pro 2.4 i5 and don't notice any great performance problems. I mean its almost a 3 year old laptop and I think I get quite a lot out of it. (Tried the Diva demo and quickly moved it to trash though :/ )

I'm still only using Cubase 5.5 I guess, But it's always been very stable.
Old 4th February 2013 | Show parent
  #133
Gear Guru
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceacademy ➑️
Those stories have calmed down a lot in recent years - but of course theres always a few people out there promoting fairy tales. Similar to the 'Theres some secret code going on in a MPC which gives it a groove' - another myth which deserves to be resigned to the scrapyard along with Voodoo science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spaceacademy ➑️
I always expereinced inexplicable latency when adding tracks, groups, aux sends etc. I don't know why this happens because I go out of my way to use zero latency plugins.
interesting input. However Im not sure you can have it both ways - say on one hand peoples reports are 'voodoo stories'....

then on the other that there is 'inexplicable latency'....which seems a bit like your own voodoo story...

Theoretically Live latency will be the overall system latency plus the highest latency plugin chain in the system if I remember correctly.

Im not sure your test is representative because you havent run out of CPU-its more like loose observations based around the specific way you work...
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4616 views: 612336
Avatar for smoke
smoke 7th May 2021
replies: 55 views: 30711
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 98 views: 37640
Avatar for dfghdhr
dfghdhr 2 weeks ago
replies: 1296 views: 178748
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump