Audio difference between Cubase and Nuendo

Audio difference between Cubase (and Samplitude and Pro Tools) and Nuendo

This question comes up frequently, I know. But I have tests for recording for several hours. Same set-up for the piano, same set up for voice, etc. With SSL Preamp, SSL converter (Alpha Link 24-bit / 96 kHz), all in ADAT in a RME DSP 9632.

(1) recording in Pro-Tools 10 (non-HD)
(2) recording in Samplitude Pro x
(3) recording in Nuendo 5.5.
(4) Recording in Cubase 7.


  • Playback in each DAW for 4 files.

I thought that Samplitude would win, due to a past experience (the strings seemed more beautiful in Samplitude, I do not know why), but Samplitude was recording and playback such as Pro Tools and Cubase, the three equal… Only Nuendo was different, softer, Silkier, rounder.

I wondered if it was the playback only, because it is definitely higher, but I think it is both recording and playback. I check all the set-up in detail, to not be exuberant compensation of panning, volume, a plug-in, etc. Nothing but Nuendo has superior sound. I can’t swear to the recording (but I think so), but it is certain for playback. If I am wrong, it is that there is a difference that I like. But there is at least one difference. Explanation please? Steinberg people have an answer?

There’s no difference if your input test data was identical for each DAW and each DAW could be set to a ‘flat’ response - and you need an outside expert to confirm this. Perform a blind test, random, without you controlling or knowing the playback source. You will lose.

But what does it matter? Do you think that the public will hear this difference when they listen to your music on their iPhone? Any of the DAWs listed are more accurate than anything the Beatles had to work with, where’s your #1 Hit? They had at least 20 in the US. Gear is just gear, you live in a blessed age. Quit comparing sonics minutia and give the world a song.

Dear Sir, forgive first my English, I’m French. But you make a confusion between the categories of thought. We are not talking here of musical art, but the quality of the device, a tool. I know very well your arguments which have the appearance of the raw truth, but which are futile. Your Beatles do not rely on technology from their grandfather. They advanced with their time. Jean Sebastien Bach, which alter the organs, against the opinion of the bourgeois. I have no questions here concerning the art to compose or interpret. But I have technical questions. I’m not going to the drugstore or other stores to buy me a soul, but for utilitarian things. Important things, but utility. Here, I ask a question on varying degrees of advancement of technology. This is where we are at this point. On the art and practice, my question is not on this forum. Go do your morals to those who do not see this difference and who prefer summary shortcuts.

Remember, complacency can lead to stagnation!
The beatles may have had limited resources, but they pushed those boundaries to the limits, in many cases forcing the development of new techniques and gear!
That being said however, the results of the mentioned listening tests are totally useless and meaningless, and as such should not be posted in a forum where they could detrimentally influence a readers choices. You are, in effect , exerting your personal bias over others, as there is no way your test results can be subjective.

Okay, this post goes to the psychological meandering and nothingness. I withdraw my question and I stop it here.

Haha! ‘…as there is no way your test results can be subjective.’ BriHar, you meant to say ‘objective’, but such is language. :sunglasses:

You’re right, my mistake. :wink:

actually, back when I made the change from Logic (at the time apple acquired it) to Cubase, I felt I noticed a sound difference between the two.

It is not a pointless discussion in my opinion, if yes at this point unscientific and subjective, and I’m sorry your post was not better received cmbourget. Coding, engine, plugins all may influence the overall sound. Now with some console emulation, I’ve found things going a bit more in the direction I liked initially in Logic, but again, it is subjective.

my first impression was that Cubase 7 sounds different than it’s predecessors…actually better-

I found 5 and before transparent to the point of being flat and a bit cold compared to my earlier experience with Logic. my subjective 2cents-

it is an interesting comparitive study the OP had begun

Hi all,

From a technical point of view there is not a single difference in audio between Cubase and Nuendo and that’s because they are using exactly the same audio engine.


Thank you Helge.

For all DAW, however, here is an interesting test :

This is about sample rate conversion algorithms

Indeed. A technician sent me this rather quickly. Thank you.