I hate to start another protools vs cubase thread but....

I recently did a mix on protools and I haven’t used it since 2010 so I had to kinda relearn it ,usally I just get files and import in cubase but the client wanted to mix in pt ,so learning pt all over again I have to say that every feature in cubase is just easier and better than pt…now don’t get me wrong I know if u use pt you can move and achieve the same results than cb ,but cb just makes mixing easier in every aspect…however performance wise it did run nice my mixing computer has 64 gb memory so the memory timeline is nice I used a cache of 10 gb and ran very nice…so maybe cb can do something like that,cb does run nice as well on same machine .so what I’m saying is why are all these professional mixing engineers using pt? Is it because that it was maybe the first daw,besides pyramix which did come out before pt (I think)…but every mixing video on YouTube is pt…and does anyone remember the days when nuendo was the mixing daw of choice in Nashville and NYC?..I mean they just came out with track freeze and cb and nuendo had that for many years…

So any thoughts on this matter? I would like to hear some feedback on this issue

Ps I think cb version 9.30 is a very nice build I have had no issues with this version except video playback ,but they will address that,I mean video files,I need to just find the right codec settings

No, I don’t remember that day in either NYC or Nashville. PT has always been dominate in every studio I have seen in the USA. In years past, tracking to tape and then mixing in PT and often multi-collaboration with mix engineers.

Now if you mean composing/production in home studios that is a different thing.

For myself DAW’s are just a tool. Use what works best for you and focus on the end results.

IMHO, many engineers working in PT for years and years are just to conservative and lazy to explore and learn another DAW, which could problaby be a “better” DAW for them, in terms of customisation/better workflow speed (time is money) and so on.
Indeed, they just see PT as a tool, nothing more, and they don’t care about other DAW “tools”.
Protools is like “Notools” for me personally ; DAW’s like Cubase. Studio One and last but certainly not least: Reaper, are way ahead on Protools for years and years regarding arsenal of functionality (both in midi and audio area) and such.
I worked on Protools for more than 10 years but discovered Reaper 5 years ago and now thats my main DAW.
(Cubase 9 Pro on mac for me: severe performance / GUI lag issues but i like the GUI so much lol).

I have a colleage, working in NoTools and see me do things in Reaper that makes him make like “WTF ???”
But he’s too lazy to learn Reaper, cause he knows his way good in Notools.
Thats no excuse if you ask me but hey, i am a person that always want to explore more/better DAW’s that makes things done in an even faster way.
Sadly enough (my opinion), the majority of Notools users indeed just see it as a Tool, no more or less.
Not me, and i am happy with that.
Just my 2 cents.

Pro Tools has plenty of things that are much better and faster than Cubase, and the other way around as well. I have extensive experience with both currently, and am currently back on Pro Tools for new projects because of the GUI issue with Cubase on Mac. Going back to Pro Tools I am seeing some things that Cubase would benefit massively from looking at/incorporating, and also plenty of things that Pro Tools is sorely lacking in that Cubase has in its favor. I do prefer Cubase despite some major issues, but can’t use it due to the Mac GUI issue right now. :frowning:

If you haven’t already, send some of the useful PT features as requests on that subforum.

I have for a few, though I could do more.

The problem is that from what I’ve seen here, few feature requests seem to make it into existence. There have been requests for some Pro Tools “features” that make life much faster and easier, like being able to raise chunks of the automation line easily (please, don’t anyone point me to Greg Ondo’s workaround - it’s clumsy and not close to PT/Reaper/Studio One’s method), being able to see the labeled send names in the automation lanes of the project window, a true multi-tool, full edit group playlists the fantastic way PT does it, full session import features, etc., that have been on here for sometimes many years.

Don’t underestimate how many hours go into adding and maintaining each and every additional feature. While I do want the improvements to come over, the last thing we need is a more complex program with less bug fixes.

1 Like

Totally, I hear you. It’s just frustrating when you experience much faster and more efficient ways of doing some things. I know that no single DAW is 100% perfect for anyone, of course. I agree that the bug fixes/unfinished features need to be addressed first and foremost.

Is the real question here why did protools become the industry standard?

That’s easy to answer, because its sales model and funding model which was similar to the established existing proaudio one of the time and that was familiar to the pros of the time rather than this DIY sequency computer geek tecky stuff.

The guy who did your SSL/Studer 24 leasing deals and who you trusted, sold protools and mac deals (You already may have a Mac for the SSL automation) on similar terms to what you were used to.
That established it.

Then it’s a standard, just like 2 inch 24 track tape was a standard

The rest is History


The few I stay in contact with I would not at all label conservative or lazy.

I think the best word I know of would be comfortable. Just like their hardware tools, they know PT well and it gets results at the end of the day. Keep in mind the commercial studio is a totally different world. Time is money. Deadlines. Repairs. Equipment mods. And don’t forget clients and everything they bring in including drama. Commercial engineers I know of have little demand for a total production environment such as Cubase.

And I would not say conservative either. Again, time is money. Doing endless shootouts, learning a production environment such as Cubase, and time on forums brings in zero dollars. When an objective is not being completed in a timely manner with their current tool, they explore options. Or I suppose a few in very high demand have an assistant bring the options to their attention. I very rarely see a current version of PT either. Usually 3-5 years old. Even TDM :laughing:

Cubase 9 overall is a fantastic tool. But it’s a total feature-rich production environment, but that’s not what the engineers I know of really desire.

Yes please tell me ,cause I’m trying to do comping right now,working with playlists,really miss the comp tool,but I’m struggling in pt,and like I said it’s whatever you are comfortable with as you can achieve great mixes in both programs…but nobody remembers chuck angly big producer in Nashville,and Michael Wagner using nuendo? And all the film mixing done with nuendo…I have been using steinberg since nuendo 1 ,I started working in cakewalk up to version 9 ,they didn’t even have audio until version 5 if I remember correctly than I used pyramix for a brief time,btw pyramix rocks still today it can do something that no other daw can do with there mass core technology,using CPU cores can achieve 1 or something ms latency on any computer 384 tracks and supports more technology than any daw…try the demo it’s a steep learning curve…more?

So …last night after working in pt for a week opening cubase again is like going home on a snow filled night and the fireplace is lit and chicken noodle soup is cooking on the stove and you cuddle up to a chocolate lab on the couch watching a good movie!!!

That sounds like Hygge.

What is hygge?

Hygge is a Danish word that means something like:
going home on a snow filled night and the fireplace is lit and chicken noodle soup is cooking on the stove and you cu…

Oh ok cool

I’m very fast and experienced with PT so it’s very quick for me. There are things PT has that would be a big help for Cubase like the way it handles group editing and playlists, its automation editing features, the multi-tool, the massively useful and advanced session import, and some other things. Like I’ve said many times here, I prefer Cubase overall, but since I’m back on PT now for new projects I do love some things about it that are faster and more intuitive than Cubase (and vice-versa, of course). I’m very fast on Cubase now, having been on it for nearly two years straight.

For me, time is money without a doubt and I’m in the scoring and production/songwriting worlds - I’m not a mixing house for others, I mostly only mix my own projects (if someone offers me enough I do mixes for others though). PT has some things that without a doubt save me time, and Cubase does as well in some other ways, but keep in mind that I spent years on PT and am insanely fast on it. As I said: I am on Cubase as well, so the comparison is pretty even from my personal standpoint.

I know this is an old thread but I see no reason to start a new one on this topic.

I use both Cubase and Protools. I generally compose using virtual instruments and in this area, Cubase has no peer. It stands alone!
I do prefer to do my main mixing in PT though because I mostly use stock plugins and some Izotope ones. PT stock EQ and compressor are among the best out there, far ahead of Cubase’s unfortunately and even ahead of many other paid plugins. Protools reverb and delay is also better IMO so while I may start my mixing in Cubase; variaudio, chord track stuff, and with Cubase 10, audio alignment, things PT is not even thinking about. I prefer PT for the main mixing.

Each has strengths and weaknesses unique to each.

you can grab channels in the PRo Tools mixer and drag them left or right to re-order them to suit your mix. Dont under-estimate how useful this is to visually group things that are similar together.

You cant drag around channels left or right in the CB mixer.

Dealbreaker for many.

I rarely get access to PTHD any longer. Technically, what is now in PT digital EQ that is different in the Cubase digital console EQ? Or, if you are not sure, what are you hearing differently between the two?

Personally, I use the Cubase console EQ by default with no issues. If it’s something featured, I resort to ProQ3. If I want a flavor, I’ll grab a UAD API SSL or several others with flavors. If I want extreme Q surgical and the most transparency I still love Massenbergs MDWEQ5.

I too would love to re-order mix console channels, with the option for link on/off with the project page.