Switching from Cubase to Logic

    It's a pretty big transition, I think. After spending all this time thinking of everything as buses, I get really confused when I open up Logic.


    But I like the sound engine, Cubase seems a bit darker, this one has a bit of a more open sound, I thought after doing some simple recording. Reminded me of Samplitude, which doesn't work on Mac.


    Planning to get stuck into the manual, it's one hefty thing. Anyone have any tips for getting the most out of the software other than that?

    Did I get you correctly that you want to switch because Cubase sounds darker than Logic? I would advise you to double- (better triple-) check thoroughly. For me it would have to be a big, substantial difference to make me change my daw and I would really not want to do that only to later find out that it was just my imagination or one of these programs being louder than the other one =O . And if Cubase's sound really was too dark I would just insert an eq to the master fader 8)
    Of course if something else totally attracts you to Logic (it's quite cheap, isn't it?) ... but your post seemed to indicate that your confusion ?( with Logic is a rather unpleasant affair.


    HTH

    all daw's have there own sound.
    I used logic for 15 years and in that time it went from being a professional tool into a prosumer Mac app.
    I switched over to reaper about three years ago because I prefer the sound. The transition is always tough when you cross over from one you know inside out, to a new thing that feels un intuitive and clunky.
    Thankfully, with YouTube and great dedicated forums, this pain is much diminished.
    You'll be fine in the long run, just stick with it.
    Logic has a fairly intuitive interface, even though (imho) it has become a little bloated.
    The more daw's you use, the more you'll wish you could make one that has the best features of all of them.
    Sadly, not possible. ||

    I used logic before switching to CUBASE and I liked the sound of Logic, which is weird, because, you'd think digital is the same but it really isn't and that's because of technical differences that can be explained. With setting the proper options, they can all be made to sound identical I believe.


    When I looked into that, I found out that if the PAN law is set the same, they will sound the same, that has to do with loudness as was mentioned already.


    Needless to say I discovered that Cubase use of 32bit file meant it had more headroom and dynamic range and since Steinberg basically invented Vst instruments, I figured I'm safe with it In the end of the day, I think the user interface is the most crucial part and once you're comfortable with a user interface, unless you really have to, there really is no need to switch because even thought there might be slight differences in the sound engine in the end of the day, it's really impossible for anyone to discern the difference and the final product will sound the same.
    If there's a trial version, I would say before making the switch try seting the pan law the same in both DAWS and you wouldn't hear a difference at all,

    Edited 8 times, last by Dean_R ().

    Like 2
    Quote from mrs-zambesi

    Did I get you correctly that you want to switch because Cubase sounds darker than Logic? I would advise you to double- (better triple-) check thoroughly. For me it would have to be a big, substantial difference to make me change my daw and I would really not want to do that only to later find out that it was just my imagination or one of these programs being louder than the other one =O . And if Cubase's sound really was too dark I would just insert an eq to the master fader 8)
    Of course if something else totally attracts you to Logic (it's quite cheap, isn't it?) ... but your post seemed to indicate that your confusion ?( with Logic is a rather unpleasant affair.


    HTH


    In this case, darker doesn't equal worse or better. It's just the "sound" of the DAW and how it processes audio. I don't find Cubase "bad" and I don't find Logic better at this juncture. I just bought the software on the recommendation of a friend who told me I might find it easier to work with than Cubase (I need all the help I can get when it comes to recording).


    There are lots of debates about whether DAWs have a "sound" of their own. I own three of them now and based on my own experience, I can say that the way the audio engine is coded probably has an impact on reproduction of sound. I think that much is obvious, no one is using the same code, so there is likely to be a difference. Just seems logical.


    In the same vein, I even found the metronome in Logic to be quite different from Cubase. I had always read that the Cubase metronome was "lazy", but after trying out Logic, I know what people are talking about.




    Thanks for the recommendation, I will check it out. Still digging through the manual at the moment.

    Having used Cubase, Logic, Reaper, Ableton Live and Studio One and Harrison Mixbus in the past I'd disagree about them inherently sounding different.
    In the end it's all about workflow and preferences, like @Dean_R stated.
    I'd love to have Cubase's drum editor in Logic for example but all in all I prefer Logic at the moment as my main DAW.
    I have full versions of Live and S1 als well.


    Knowing your DAW and working with limitations is better than switching all the time.
    Logic doesn't have a drum editor.
    Cubase has nothing like Logic's Drummer.
    It's all about choices. :)

    Quote from Ingolf

    Knowing your DAW and working with limitations is better than switching all the time.

    This.


    Always the odd one out using Digital Performer, I've learned to resist temptation, having long subscribed to Ingolf's POV.


    For the record, IMHO, null tests prove that the single most-responsible factor for the differing "sounds" of the various DAWs is pan law.

    Well, I've got both, so thanks for the healthy bashing chaps, lol


    Seriously, I get really swamped in all the options Cubase offers. Of course, now that I have Logic, I feel that I'm in over my head, having only read some 150 pages out of a 919 page manual.


    Still, it has its plus points. I just recorded a video using Logic and I thought it was pretty easy to do. So +1.

    I got to say, I am really liking the way Logic sounds! And while I agree that position has got me into trouble, let me caveat that statement by saying it's not so much the way it "sounds", but the kinds of results I've been getting from it.


    For once in my life, my mixes sound bright and crystal clear. Just so much easier to mix and master and while I'm no Andy Sneap, I'm getting really excited that I'll be able to present sounds to people that are close enough to the fidelity you get from commercial recordings.


    Exciting times, I always felt I was struggling with Cubase because let's face it, you really need a solid knowledge of audio to work with most DAWs.


    And while a working knowledge would be recommended even for Logic, it just seems just easy-peasy in terms of getting results. I even found the supplied plugins much more intuitive than Cubase for getting results.


    I now know exactly what my friend was talking about when he recommended the switch.

    Logic is great, but Cubase is extremely deep and I really value its composer tools and awesome sounding virtual instruments. I tend to work in both these days as they each have their strengths.

    Husband, Father, Pajama Enthusiast

    I think the comment about loudness and headspace is key. It's best to control what goes into your plugins by pulling back a bit and not overloading them.


    But I disagree that different DAWs "sound" different. The power of a Digital signal is that it's NOT manipulated by transference UNLESS you set it to be altered by using a device (i.e. plugin) that is intended TO alter that signal (distortion via gain, compression, tape emulation, etc)


    Back in the day, differing analog gear had differing sounds because each analog component altered the signal path as a byproduct of physics.


    Digital gear doesn't undergo such transformations, and so ANY alteration has a digitally manipulatable mechanics involved with any changes in sound, that is, once past the A/D conversion, and of course, any D/A back (i.e. to speakers) But those being the same, all DAW will have the same digital signal of 1s and 0s to move around unaltered UNTIL altered by your preference setup and hand.

    Quote from db9091

    Digital gear doesn't undergo such transformations, and so ANY alteration has a digitally manipulatable mechanics involved with any changes in sound, that is, once past the A/D conversion, and of course, any D/A back (i.e. to speakers) But those being the same, all DAW will have the same digital signal of 1s and 0s to move around unaltered UNTIL altered by your preference setup and hand.

    Yeah.


    I think that there actually WAS a difference back in the olden days, back when ProTools used a somewhat inferior summing method / internal bit depth / magic leprechauns. But that was many, many years ago.

    also the difference in the sound quality of a DX7 over that of a Sybclavia.
    I've been making records for over 35 years, and let me tell you, even trying to get the same piece of equipment to sound the same two days running is a mountain I've seen many a Big name driven to tears over.
    At some point, you just have to stick for a while and trust your ears. If we all upgraded everything constantly, none of us would be any good at anything!

    Quote from Dean_R

    Needless to say I discovered that Cubase use of 32bit file meant it had more headroom and dynamic range

    You'll find that all up-to-date modern DAWs use 32-bit floating point processing internally. It's a common misconception that DAWs that offer support for 32-bit wav/aiff files have more headroom or a lower noise floor (the files, of themselves, technically do, but not so that the internal processing sees any actual benefit). It's practically impossible to clip a DAW internally, as shown in a series of studies by my old studio neighbour Holger Lagerfeldt. The problems arise when a plugin hasn't been coded optimally, at the D/A stage or of course if you overload the A/D converters while recording to disk. As for more dynamic range, 24-bit already offers a range that exceeds any real-world practical limits, from the point where your ears start to bleed to where sound will fall below ambient background noise levels. Of course, we all want better and more pristine audio, but we hit the point of vastly diminishing returns some time ago.

    Edited 3 times, last by sambrox ().

    Like 2
    Quote from sambrox

    As for more dynamic range, 24-bit already offers a range that exceeds any real-world practical limits,

    This should be pinned to each and every forum dealing with digital audio. 95.67% of all the discussions since 24 bit arrived would have been avoided.

    Ne travaillez jamais.

    Like 2