Can you please elaborate about this?
I was told that Cubase and Nuendo have the exact same audio engine.
Can you back this up with a few links from Steinberg?
I’m curious about this.
Cheers
Nuendo has an internal resolution of 384
Cubase 192
as far as backing it up it is in the comparison chart of the programs that’s why I prefer it and it does sound better for those that can hear and feel it it
Compare Nuendo and Cubase | Steinberg
I guess that this means 384 kHz vs 192… 
Can you point us to a document that clearly states this, as I’m truely skeptical ? This means that there would be a systematic oversampling for every recording/audio processing done. What for ?
This only refers to the max sample rate that can be set in the program.
2 Likes
Hung on, this is the resolution that an audio card can support.
I never go to 192 for recording and playback, let alone 384. Damn, the amount of data would be insane to handle.
The stuff I produce is in industry standard 48/24.
I sometimes record on a higher rate if I need better quality vocal, or quitars, but I downgrade to 48/24 as I will have deliver at this rate.
384 is obviusly better but I would be very surpised if anyone uses this rate.
If you could prove that Nuendo sounds better at 48/24, then that would intetest me.
Do they not mean a higher oversampling rate?
That could make an difference if using alot of processing but never heard it called internal sample rate before.
I always read that as the maximum supported sample rate, ie. if you have an audio interface with 384kHz you can use that sample rate in Nuendo but Cubase only allows you to go as high as 192kHz.
If that was an “internal sampling rate” it would mean that Nubase/Cubendo are constantly oversampling when setting the project to 44.1, 48, or 96 kHz.
We would need someone form Steinberg to tell us how it actually works.
The chap is looking at the sample rate the program can allow.
I don’t think there is such thing as an “internal sample rate”, it being better in terms of Cubase being set at 48/24 and Nuendo at the same rate, and magically Nuendo sounding better…
That’s not how to read those numbers on that webpage. Right above it says “64-bit” for “Audio Engine”, and that too is selectable. It is just the maximum bit depth just like the sample rate is the maximum the software will allow.
You can test this by taking stock plugins and set up a project running at 44.1kHz and load your CPU to say 50%, then take the same project and set the sample rate to whatever maximum is allowed. If there is an “internal sample rate” that remains the same there should be no difference in CPU load. If there is a difference then the CPU load increased because the rate increased.
It’s hardly news that people get fewer tracks worth of processing at higher sample rates and it’s exactly because the load on the CPU increases.
1 Like
It is actually a lot more difficult to test that than people think.
Agreed.
The idea that a higher sample rate always sounds better is flawed. What we hear is what comes out of our D/A converters and they can sound a bit different when set to different sample rates. I have personally encountered D/A converters that sounded more pleasing @ 48kHz than on 96kHz. And this was a high end converter.
3 Likes
@Henry_Thomas revived this 4 year old topic and has not been back since. @TommyBlk has no activity here outside this topic.
Unless someone objects, I’ll close this topic in a bit.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 29 minutes. New replies are no longer allowed.