Jump to content

Your Ad Could Be Here

SF - Layering sounds

 Share

Recommended Posts

Newbie

BongStuff

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Do you mean copy and paste end to end in order to normalize, as far as mixing (ctrl-m) that's about all your gonna get from sound forge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah it's really mixing I'm getting at.

Don't think there's much more than destructively ctrl-M'ing .

I'm gonna try and use CuBase for this kind of thing I think!

Cheers,

BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

john

Posted
Posted

Hey

Buy Wavelab. It'll do the job.

Cheers

John

P.S. Cubase sucks the sweat off Sonar's balls. That's just a quaint way of saying, I'm not big on cubase. If you're really serious then chuck 'em both in the bin and buy Pro-Tools. Sure you'd have to sell your family, but it would be worth it!

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newbie

FinnArild

Posted
Posted
Pro tools is the way forward but the price is just too much for someone that records in a bedroom.....i just never got on with cubase it has some good features over sonar but apart from the fact sonar does not have a gapless audio engine i prefer it hands down

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cubase is the only alternative if you want to have something that's remotely affordable (The SL isn't that expensive) but still can scale up to something of pro-tools standard. I don't think there's much difference between pro-tools and Cubase SX these days. Someone on this list should point those differences out :-) ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newbie

tgrover

Posted
Posted
Cubase is the only alternative if you want to have something that's remotely affordable (The SL isn't that expensive) but still can scale up to something of pro-tools standard. I don't think there's much difference between pro-tools and Cubase SX these days. Someone on this list should point those differences out :-) ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Out of interst Finn what do you use to record with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Explorer

Songstuff

Posted
Posted
Cubase is the only alternative if you want to have something that's remotely affordable (The SL isn't that expensive) but still can scale up to something of pro-tools standard. I don't think there's much difference between pro-tools and Cubase SX these days. Someone on this list should point those differences out :-) ...

Oh? Who would that be then? :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Rookie

hariossa

Posted
Posted

I have never used pro tools so I can not tell the truth about it, but all the pro guys I know use only pro tools.

my point of view is that pro tools is more than software, is a whole dedicated recording system that "resides" on a computer, so you have a very fast, safe and powerful tool to make your music.

here is a Sound on Sound article from 2001 about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

john

Posted
Posted
I have never used pro tools so I can not tell the truth about it, but all the pro guys I know use only pro tools.

my point of view is that pro tools is more than software, is a whole dedicated recording system that "resides" on a computer, so you have a very fast, safe and powerful tool to make your music.

here is a Sound on Sound article from 2001 about it.

Hari

You've got the main reason. Pro Tools has dedicated hardware based on DSP technology, with dedicated hard disks for recording onto. They've been working with this architecture as long as Cubase, but while Cubase has focused on supporting industry standard sound cards Pro Tools has more or less always used dedicated hardware. In fact their first foray into the budget market was only a couple of years ago with the Digi001.

Pro Tools has it's problems like anything else, but the difference is like trying to run Cubase through a Creative SB16.

For me Pro Tools was too expensive. I opted for using a Creamware system (about half the price). Same idea of using dedicated hardware with a PC environment acting as a fully configurable Studio. However it is designed to work with standard sequencer programs. I use Sonar, but it works just as well with Cubase. It basically lifts a lot of the processing weight of the system main CPU, running audio processing and generation algorithms on dedicated high performance DSPs.

Other companieas are begining to offer there kind of solutions. They're not cheap, but then neither is the sound.

Earlier on I was kidding about Cubase. There's not much between Cubase and Sonar. They've got slightly different emphasis in their tools and envoronment. My preference is simply for more flexibility and a preference in the way data is presented. With Modern day processing power on a PC you have to go a fair amount before you encounter the problems of bandwidth. Then again I have a Creamware system. so maybe I just don't get the problem.

Cheers

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Newbie

BongStuff

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hari

You've got the main reason. Pro Tools has dedicated hardware based on DSP technology, with dedicated hard disks for recording  onto.  They've been working with this architecture as long as Cubase, but while Cubase has focused on supporting industry standard sound cards Pro Tools has more or less always used dedicated hardware. In fact their first foray into the budget market was only a couple of years ago with the Digi001.

Pro Tools has it's problems like anything else, but the difference is like trying to run Cubase through a Creative SB16.

For me Pro Tools was too expensive. I opted for using a Creamware system (about half the price). Same idea of using dedicated hardware with a PC environment acting as a fully configurable Studio. However it is designed to work with standard sequencer programs. I use Sonar, but it works just as well with Cubase. It basically lifts a lot of the processing weight of the system main CPU, running audio processing and generation algorithms on dedicated high performance DSPs.

Other companieas are begining to offer there kind of solutions. They're not cheap, but then neither is the sound.

Earlier on I was kidding about Cubase. There's not much between Cubase and Sonar. They've got slightly different emphasis in their tools and envoronment. My preference is simply for more flexibility and a preference in the way data is presented. With Modern day processing power on a PC you have to go a fair amount before you encounter the problems of bandwidth. Then again I have a Creamware system. so maybe I just don't get the problem.

Cheers

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah can't argue with any of that!

I could add - this is further proven when you look at the origins of both...

CuBase started as Pro24 on the Atari ST...!

BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Your Ad Could Be Here



  • Current Donation Goals

    • Keep The Lights On - Make A Donation
      Raised $1,040
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By continuing to use our site you indicate acceptance of our Terms Of Service: Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy, our Community Guidelines: Guidelines and our use of Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.