I’ve just bought this cable on your recommendation for the wife’s beloved washing machine. I’m expecting seriously white whites, deeper blues, and generally all round cleaner clothes. Can’t wait to see her face on Christmas morning.
Ok, feedback from one europes leading mastering studios chief mastering engineer. His quote: “The Cubase 8 mix lacks definition and body”. Basically the same what I find here in my studio. I submitted three file pairs: 1) Stereo bounce of a single stereo track with just a volume change. 2) Stereo bounce of a single stereo track with a lexicon native reverb via fx send. 3) a complete mixdown from a project - basicalls 30 tracks mixed via my high end studer 961 console. All of them sound better in 7 than in 8. I am trying to inform Steinberg.
cubase 8 has less sound quality, you need to use cubase PRO 8, there is hidden turbo Pro button in preferences
Haha
i also noticed a difference but never tried nulling yet. i also use a bit of HW and incidentally a lavry converter as well. though the converter doesn’t mean much in this case.
a couple of things i’d consider…
it’s a known issue plugin automation behaves differently at different bufferlengths. this is very audible when abrupt automation curves are used – the automation is lazier the higher the bufferlength. i believe this is more of an issue with vst2x plugins compared to vst3. with the new asioguard, you may not be getting the same speed / resolution of your automation.
regarding hw: i keep having issues with setting the correct ping delay of my hardware units. i’d make sure to re-ping your processors. to me, your issue sounds a lot like your HW may be incorrectly compensated for, hence creating some undesirable phase shifts that may smear the sound.
and lastly, i’d really try running the test without hardware inserts alogether as well, because otherwise you’re asking for 1:1 repeatability from hardware…
She’ll probably love it - thinking of all those boxing day sales and all that money to spend from the refund… 
lukas, i have a pretty complex session here all mixed. it uses 28 outputs with quite some analog outboard. final summing is done via a studer 961 desk. i opened the session in cubase 7 and 8 pro, both have identical buffer settings. I re-recorded it through my lavry a/d literally one after the other with not a slightest change. the result is pretty shocking. the cubase 7 session sounds much better. more body and clarity. the 8 session sound washed out. up til now 3 mastering engineers have confirmed this.
i also did a quick internal mix with a different session using the digital summing and no outboard. same result. for me this is pretty bad since i am working for a mastering studio. i don’t care about cpu-efficient performance. i need cubases old audio quality back in version 8. for now i am trying to give the upgrade back. shame because i would really need VCA faders…
thank you for the feedback 
i see. that’s really quite complex and difficult to troubleshoot.
on first listen, my session that was just using two outboard compressors sounded somehow better to me with c8, but i didn’t bother trying to null.
Told you!
ALL Cubase versions from SX2 > 7 null.
v2 nulls with v3
v3 nulls with v4
v4 nulls with v5
v5 nulls with v6
v6 nulls with v7
This is true for:
- audio only projects
- VST only projects
- audio and VST projects
Yes, I have tested this. No, I did not do anything wrong; you can not possibly get an accidental null. To those of you who are hearing a difference from one version to the next, either a) you are hearing a difference from the eq curves in one version to the next, or b) you are just hearing things that don’t really exist. But don’t worry; this (meaning ‘b’) happens to many people.
A few reasons why you would not a get a null:
- Pan law(s) set differently
- Reverb somewhere in the project that has a random algo
- A VST with a random algo (Zebra and Omnisphere are two good exs; Kontakt has a few random algos)
- A plug with a random algo (some compressors, as one ex)
- A ch strip with a random algo (yes, even inside your host)
- Differing s.r./b.d.
- RRs (if not reset prior to each mixdown)
- Export vs. non-RT export
I have seen people - who felt strongly that they knew what they were doing - attempt to do null tests, but wind up doing them wrong. It’s not rocket science, but it does need to be done correctly.
I cant imagine v7 does not null with v8
If someone wants to do a null test THE PROPER way, please go ahead. Otherwise, posting that one version sounds better than the next is a waste of everyone’s time.
Cheers.
Its all totally subjective anyway, and physiological too… Well said Jeff 
Well I have been working on a pro/mastering level for a long time - almost 15 years. Of course people will keep on believing that whatever industry does, it is always better. It makes me wonder why some people throw out “subjective”, “cant the true”, “8 sounds better” when 4 professionals (the chief mastering engineer mastered more than 75.000 tracks) independently come to a conclusion that there is a evident and pretty big decline in sound on cubase 8 pro. Guess what: I whished this was NOT true. I have opted for Cubase because it sounded great (up to 7.5.xx) Its the software I want to continue using. My aim is to make Cubase better, not worse. If some here are happy with less sound, fine. I am not.
Here are the soundfiles: 24 bit (recorded via Lavry A/D, no processing, no dithering)
Cubase 7 is at: MARK BIHLER - PRODUCER / ENGINEER
Cubase 8 is at: MARK BIHLER - PRODUCER / ENGINEER
The Cubase 8 has a NEW audio engine and it sounds better.(* no I don’t joking)
I don’t care what makes it sound better or you all think and do not think. Its very easy to try out and investigate for anyone that have Cubase 7 or Cubase 7.5. Just open a old project and take a listen. If you can’t hear and spot the different you should seriously think about seeing the doctor and check your ears. 
The new audio engine in Cubase 8 are new,and are complete rebuild from scratch in 192kHz, 32bit floating. Its not the same engine as Cubase 7 and prior and it sounds different, better. The Cubase 7 audio-engine were also “updated” that you can read all technically about it. Do a Search! Cubase 7.0 and Cubase 7.5 were based on the same old audio engine.
Now you all can continue with your stupid jokes about “calculator” or what ever. Funny “jokes” some of them but you are wrong this time. In the mean time I will continue working making productions with new Cubase 8 that I really like even though with its imperfection and some minor VCA bugs.
Merry Christmas to you all! 
Best Regards
Freddie
Yes i can here a difference for sure but to me the Cubase 8 version sounds better, wider, more space around the sounds, more open…i’ll get my coat
8: less body, snare washed out, transients sound squashed, more fake high end.
7: more body and sound integrity.
Interesting, ill take a listen (through Lavry DA, neumann speakers, treated room). there’s a can of worms ready to be opened I hope you realise especially re: the possible argument that “if I can’t spot a difference with my speakers, I dismiss the whole debate”.
anyway, did you send the ping signals through your HW with C8? this to me is the number one suspect when hw is involved (esp. parallel compression).
No it does not null!
And its not little different, its massive different if you phase test and make a null test.
Best Regards
Freddie
I am ever more confused if this is a social experiment.
Cubase audio engine is 192k only if you set your project to 192k. And all correctly implemented digital audio engines sound the same. Period. Fact. If they sound different, there’s something seriously wrong with one. When it comes to stock plugins etc, that’s a different story, though.
Yes and there’s world-class producers (with gazillions #1 hits under their belt) who thinks SATA drive sounds better than USB drive and similar stuff. Go figure.