PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I own a Pulsar II and usually work with Cubase. I was trying to move up to Nuendo, but it does not recieve midi in from the pulsar. It does send midi out and so the only way is to record on cubase and work on nuendo...

What am I doing wrong??

Yes, you are wrong.

Nuendo sends and receives MIDI, but it has a limited MIDI implementation in comparisson with Cubase.

It looks like a program designed for to compete with Pro-Tools software or Samplitude(losing the competition).

In version 1.5 some bugs of the old versions related with MIDI are corrected.

You will not see "visible" upgrades in relation to Cubase, but the audio engine is more stable and supports multiprocessors.

It has also a bit better sound quality than Cubase, regarding that the audio quality of multitrack mixing engine of both , tends to sound methalic .

This , if you don't use to much the EQs, that are far far to have the quality of CW's EQs, for not to compare them with SonicTimewoks EQs , that are like the night and the day.

In my opinion it does not justify to change Cubase 5 for Nuendo 1.5, regarding the HIGH price that it has.

If you wish to spend money in a good software try Sonar, it's much more better designed than Nuendo and has very little differences in latency.

And what's most important IT SOUNDS BETTER.

A comment to PabloFasan's amateur describtion of Nuendo/Cubase.

Nuendo doesn't sound methalic at all.
The logaritms wich summons the audio track has been developed under several years.
Steinberg has been a major participant in the development deparment of digidesign.

(Test made by top engineers showed better results than Protools.)

Sonar's WDM drivers are *not* to be compared with ASIO or EASI!

So, sonar's interface might be good, but it's still "cakewalk". stay out of it!
Home users might find it useful though.

Use logic instead, it's the industry standard. (If u've been to real studios)


Good luck!

Air_PoLLo - Music Producer.

I disagree for complete with your opinion, and I´m FAR of to be an amateur.

At least in all America (south and north) the two industry standard sequencers are Digital Performer and Cakewalk Pro Audio.

The standard audio recording and post-production software is Pro-Tools Mix Plus.

You can have your heart with german products but this does not means that your feelings are the reality.

About the audio quality of Nuendo/Cubase are a lot of people that thinks the same for example Michael Olsen from SonicTimeworks, the best plugins developer for Pulsar.

In any case you can use what you like, without the need to attack the opinion of other people.

for original poster: you have to arm midi track to make midi echo working on it. hope it helps.

for others: whatever works for you. i don't care what is industry standard as long as I can get results i want. let it be cakewalk on pc or cubase on atari.
there has been major discusion about summing busses on prorec.com, you can search archives there.

I must agree to the words of Air_pollo, Nuendo works great with Pulsar and the sound quality is fine (of course it is - it's the same engine that is used in Cubase and Wavelab).
On the other hand Cakewalk is a fine sequenser and Sonar is just doing what Nuendo has been doing for the past 1,5 years now....

I accept your preferences without discussion, but you are completly wrong in one thing.

Wavelab 3.x has a COMPLETE DIFFERENT audio engine than Cubase/Nuendo and of course it sounds DIFFERENT.

The audio quality of Wavelab 3.xis by FAR the best of ALL audio programs written for PC or Mac, includding Pro-tools Mix Plus.

Also it is the only program written in 64 bits, and the only that can work at the same time with VST and DirectX plugins.

No program, includding some custom hardware close systems like IZ Radar, have the transparency and dynamic range that Wavelab 3.x has.

An additional difference is that Wavelab 3.x is a Wave Driver based program, it don't use ASIO drivers.

This for those that think that with shorter latency times everything becomes better.

You're wrong again dear Fasan - it's no problem using VST and DirectX plugins at the same time in Nuendo, I do it all the time!

Pablo, I'm only trying to make ppl do the right choice. Even if that means attcking your opinion. We use a ProTools system at work (Mix24plus and 2x888|24) and the sound could verywell compare to the sound from pulsar. Remember to use good A/D's.

Remember to use whatever audioseq u want, just make sure it has ASIO/DAE/EASI support!

This discussion is becomming to look like a football talk.

I also work with Pro-Tools Mix Plus and for me it sounds better than Nuendo, but it doesn't matter if you like it.

My experience with Nuendo (original, not a copy) was not succesfully, Sorry.

Cakewalk works for my jobs faster and has a more practical graphic interface.

I disagree that the audio quality depends only of the converters, and I have enough technical reasons for sustain this.

Nuendo has not Score editor, and Cubase or Logic, that have good score editors, have nothing to do with Finale, that's the editor I use.

I don't remember a single crash using Cakewalk, even at 96khz/24bit.(32 mono tracks at 24bit/96kh without timming problems)

Nuendo BURNED!!! my first Pulsar II board for to try to use it at 96khz.

THIS WAS RECOGNIZED BY STEINBERG!!!!!!. If you want a copy of the e-mail there's no problem.

Creamware for this reason replace my board.

Do you think that CW use to replace boards frecuently?

In my personal experience Nuendo only works stable with the Hammerfall board that comes with the bundle, but I like Pulsars (sorry RME)

Dear guys I think that this talk has not more sense , in any case everyone should use what each one prefers.

The same that we are discussing here at low technical levels, is discussed by design engeneers at most higher levels and they also don't have arrived to a common position.

Cheers

Well of course everyone has the right to have his opinion on this....
But the story about the burned Pulsar card is interesting. Actually I'm sending my Pulsar to Creamware cause it actually stopped working out of sudden. Can you describe how this happened in your case? (by the way I have not been recording 96KHz)

There's no problem:

When I purchase Nuendo it was in version 1.1, the brochures , publicity and the help file sayed that it can support 24bit/96khz.

This was a theoric feature, in the reality this sample rate was not really implemented at that time

The program comes with a template for Sourround 5:1 programmed for to work at 96khz.

I put the Pulsar II at 24bit/96khz using ASIO I drivers and then I runed Nuendo and finally opened the Sourround template.

A complete crash happens in my computer, not only it burned the board otherwise it destroys the Windows registry files, forcing me to install everything again.

I claim Steinberg relating the problem and they repply without any guilt, that the 96khz sample rate was planned for the next future, but not implemented yet and that was probably the cause of the crash.

I sent a copy of the mail to Rembert Gantke and after a lot of proofs he arrives to the conclusion that the board was damaged and they changed it.

Before having this problem the board worked fine, includding at 96 khz with Cakewalk.

At the present moment (Nuendo ver 1.5 ) , the 24bit/96khz sample rate is ONLY supported using ASIO II drivers, in spite that there's no kind of advise for the user that this sample rate CAN'T be used with Wave Drivers.

And that's all folks.

What is really intriguing for me is how do you use DirectX plugins in projects that use ASIO drivers.

I can't do it, the only way is to reboot Nuendo using a Pulsar Wave Driver project.

Creamware recommends to don't mix Wave Drivers with ASIOs in the same project.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2001-05-15 20:10 ]</font>

PabloFasan writes:
"Creamware recommends to don't mix Wave Drivers with ASIOs in the same project."

This concerns me. I keep a wave driver in all my Cubase/Asio projects so I can playback from Wavelab. Pablo, can you provide any details regarding wave/asio driver conflicts. Should I take this up with CW?
Thanks,
/dave

I don't know the exact reason of this recommendation but I supose that's related with the different latency times of both driver types.

Your question has a solid logic, due all the audio editors work with wave drivers.

Why you don't write Rembert Gantke, rg@creamware.de ?

I use the WAV drivers with ASIO, it should be fine -- I think what Creamware is suggesting is avoiding using WAV and ASIO both with one program, since the latencies would be different.

I use SoundForge with the WAV drivers and ASIO with Logic, and all is fine... Sometimes I have multiple WAV drivers loaded so I can have a second program like WinAmp loaded, too.

Of course that the problem becomes evident running different type of drivers with the same program.

But some times I had problems with Nuendo and Sound Forge and less with Wavelab.

In any case there's an important question for to repply:

Why all audio editors are build for use them with Wave Drivers and nor with ASIOs or EASIs?

Is suposed that the edirors are used for mastering, that require the highest audio quality.

Can any of the Cubase/Nuendo/Logic/ASIOs fans explain me WHY??? the owners of the ASIO patent (Steinberg)continue building their main audio editor for to be used with Wave Drivers?

I will hear with pleasure all technical reasons that anybody could give me.

Well, I must tell u that the audio editors
on mac (widely used among studios) have all besides Sound manager, also ASIO (up to 32-bits) U really think microsoft writes better audio drivers than the best audio software developers in the world?

Haha, I can only laugh at u.

Also cakewalk is used in southamerica only because it's an american product.

You don't understand what I try to say:

My comment attempt to show that very short latency times affect the audio quality, in a more or less relative way that destructive audio compression does.

If you think that Cakewalk is only used in Latin America, you are wrong.

I know USA and many professional like to use it due it's simple and linear type interface.

If not they use in Mac, Digital Performer , that has a very similar design than Cakewalk.

German sequencers are apreciated, but people found them complex and not practical.(I advise you that I know how to work with all of them and I have an original Nuendo aside of Cakewalk)

Of course Cakewalk it's not appropiate for create dance or groove music , in this field Cubase works better and Logic has a better audio quality.

Forget for a moment America vs. Europe competition.

In all Americas a musician is mainly a person that first of all PLAYS an instrument in the traditional way.

Then he could be composer , arranger, conductor and so, but nobody imagine a musician as a man that "plays" a computer.

The computer is mainly conceived as a recording/editing workstation, virtual instruments are not to much used.

Also is not a praise to Microsoft, but really sometimes people tend to glorify OSs that don't have in the reality complete resouces for make music in a professional way.

If we will speak about Macintosh world, there are other ultra expensive systems that probably would be better than those of what we are speaking about, but this is not an apropiate comparisson.

Probably there's also a generational difference in all our comments, I have growed hearing modern jazz, classic music and synphonic rock, 60's and 70's music.

This conception of art is part of me and , sorry, but I can't born again.

sorry, pablo, if i go into this thread like very off-topic... but i know you are some 'cakewalk-crack' and i need serios help with cakewalk (sonar).

i already had this problem using earlier vesions of cakewalk, but at another pc, and since i used another mobo/cpu and newer windows the problem was gone (although i did not solve it, i just got a workaround).

but now with exactly that mobo, and newest windows (ME) i have that issue again, and i´m kind of helpless, all buffer-increasing and latency-increasing did not help: cakewalk stutters... playing back like rolling an egg - d'you know what i mean? 120bpm for the first few seconds, then stuttering, playing back a little faster, to get in time again, then again stuttering...
it´s horrible, impossible to work with.

there must be a solution, because i have run cakewalk 9.03 flawlessly.
do you know which setting might be wrong, which box is to switch on/off, or something simple like that? did you have also this problem one time?

god praise the one who´s able to help...

Hello Mo:

Thanks for consider me a crack, but it's to much.

I have not yet Sonar installed in my personal computer and I continue using Win98 due it has DOS command line mode (real mode).

So all my help about Sonar will be more or less be theoric and based in Cake 9.03.

There are three parameters in Cakewalk that you must adjust carefully and other in the windows device manager.

In Windows device manager adjust the latency control to the MAXIMUM latency time, and don't worry for this.

In Cakewalk you MUST first use the Wave profiler with the Pulsar project open and all the drivers you will need enabled previously.

Then you must do a check using two types of files:
------------------------------------
#1

For example if your project use 16 24 bit source Wave Drivers, do the following:

1) Create with an editor a LONG 1000 hz sine wave (24bit)and save it with 16 different file names in the audio folder.

The files MUST be enough longer for to force the program to read direct from disk , minimizing caches influence.

Insert then each one in a different track and assign them a different output wave driver, regarding that the pan must be open for to avoid clipping.

Start the test at 44.1 khz

a)Press play in Cakewalk and look if you have disk errors.

b)If NOT, everything is good, then you must check also if you have phase errors (the sound could sound phased).

c)If YES increse the size of the I/O buffer and add a new buffer and reapeat the procedure until you get a good sound quality and no phase problems.

Increasing the number of buffers and/or the buffer's size, you will increase the latency, so you can compensate this problem a little reducing the value of the latency control of Cakewalk (I say a LITTLE).

--------------------------------------------
#2

Repeat the same test using a rimshot sound LONG file with 16 different names, played in 1/8th and normalized, (you will need to adjust the input gains in the Big Mixer for avoid clipping).

But this time record the signal in at least two additional different programs using Pulsar Destination Wave Drivers, ie: Wavelab and Sound Forge and also in Cakewalk.

When you finish, check if there's a noticiable difference in the phase of the three waves.

Due sync is done via MTC (MIDI Time Code), you will have probably very little differences in phase, it doesen't matter.

But if you get BIG phase diferences ( a lot of milliseconds)you have timming problems and it will be necessary to adjust again the I/O buffers, the latency or the MTC offset.

You can check this by ear routing the signals to the buses and to the main mix output connecting there the analog output source.

Take in mind that now you are testing a system, not a single progranm , so it could be possible that you will need to correct the buffers size in one or two of the editors.

--------------------------------------------

Once you get a succesful result write in a table the latencies and I/O buffers size and redo the tests with a different sample rate, ie:48khz

Write the results again, and continue up to 96Khz.

You will have now a reference table.

This does not mean that allways it will be apropiate, because it depends of the sample rate, the bit depth selected and the number of drivers that you will use.
---------------------------------------------

A recomendation : DON'T mix 16bit drivers with 24 bit drivers and have in all cases Cakewalk as master.
When you record at 24 bit you are really using 32bit words, in Cakewalk and in all the other sequencers.

This lines ARE NOT A SOLUTION, they are a sort of path for to discover errors.

Don't lose your faith, with all sample rates and at 24 bit is possible to have 32 mono tracks in perfect sync + MIDI tracks.

I have a Pentim II with a CPU of 350 Mhz and BX440 chipset that's nothing exeptional and it works.

Good luck

PS:Don't forget that you need to create the audio and MIDI drivers that you will use FIRST of ALL in the Windows device manager.