Cubase stock plugins vs Third party (quality)

[Synthman2000]

It depends what you want to do and how well you want to do it and applicable to all DAW's. EQ is a little different than compression, compression is likely more difficult to get right, especially compression that emulates classics. Stock EQ could be fine in mixing. I use Pro Q3 and DMG Equilibirum for mixing myself and I am really happy with this combo. Compression in mixing I use mainly DC8C but have Fab C2 and various other "boutique" but I don't generally use them much. For which my CPU thanks me.

I usually use DC8C for what I am doing in a mix, tucking things in a bit here and there I don't tend to slam much so it's very much good enough. I go gentle with compression cause all my balances are generally in the sweet spot already so need just a tap down usually. (arrest any small unwanted dynamic variations, tap a resonance down, tame a sweep or hold something sticking out a bit, shape an attack or transient)

Like everything with audio it is about details, what are we wishing to achieve with a given tool.

Short answers and blanket statements are usually wrong in audio. Sometimes there is an exception to this.

Are your monitors room and DAC even good enough to allow you to hear the differences if there are differences ? If not you may live in ignorant but technically less superior bliss.

Does it need to even be better ? That might be part of whether you bother to find out or not. if you are ending up with 1/2 tracks or a bunch of loops stuck on your HDD what does it matter? if you are making high end high quality, top level productions it is going to matter.

Horses for courses comes into it as well.

[Trancit]

nevermind

[vitocorleone123]

You’ve got it backward. ProQ3 is the simple tea pot. Your DAW and most other plugins are overly complex.

Nevertheless, to solve simple everyday tasks, my hand does not reach for Pro-Q3, but for Pro EQ3 (the standard equalizer of Studio One, my main DAW), where all the adjustments I need are already on the panel and are available all at the same time, without endless creation new points and clicks on them to access each one individually. I have a Pro-Q3 license for some specific and highly specialized tasks, but in reality I forgot when I last used it.
"Functions of a coffee machine, bread slicer, toaster, meat grinder and food processor" - linear phase, M/S mode, matching, etc.

Then you are one of the exceptions. Congratulations. I never use the Studio One EQ because I find ProQ3 so simple and fast to use.

[kritikon]

Some of thestock ones are pretty standard and vanilla, but those are the type of pugins that are...standard and vanilla. I find their multitap Delay very good. Capable of some stunning delays and huge range of character. I mostly use it for dark or crunchy delays, somehow can't get it sounding pristine and clear - but that's its strength IMO. It's almost modular in nature, though I have to say I don't find it intuitive. Bloody byzantine sometimes, trying to get what I want out of it. And the feedback often seems to be all or nothing.

Their analyzer is great too. It's the only one I use now. Stopped using Youlean and Span since Artist got the good analyzer.

A simple on I find good is their phaser. It has a good middle sweet spot though nothing different sonically from the rest. That Phazor, or Razor or whatever it's called has it's own character (the one based on the Virus phaser). Between those 2 I don't need other phasers (I used to very much like Mobilohm back in theday).

Squasher is another outstanding one. Easy to use, intuitive GUI and can squash the living bejesus out of anything without ruining it. Dunno if it has a limiter on board (didn't think so), but I find I don't need limiters/clippers when I use Squasher. It's OTT with a proper GUI that can be used for precision and subtly as well as flatlining.

Convolution - Cubase's is fine. Depends on what impulses you put in rather than the plugin features, so if you have decent impulses I see no point whatsoever using 3rd party.

Dunno what it's called, but that FX modulator thing is capable of some great things. Not easy to get what you want, and tbh I mostly rely on throwing the random dice to get useful patterns on it, but I've had some great modulation on drumbeats from it.

Straight delays, chorus, algorithmic reverbs are all pretty dull and I use 3rd party for those. Their comps are OK but exceptionally uncharacterful thouyh they do what they say on the tin quietly. Their maximizer is OK but only OK, same with limiter & brickwall.

Overall, I could happily use only Cubase ones, but I do like delays, and Cubase Multitap doesn't do everything.

[kritikon]

I forgot Eq. TBH I'm happy with Cubase ones. I don't hear huge differences between any Eqs (not a connoisseur of Hz knobs) and don't get the point of fancy Eqs. I don't want bloody saturation on an Eq! You could give me the most expensive Eq plugin and I likely couldn't tell the difference.

[Trancit]

I forgot Eq. TBH I'm happy with Cubase ones. I don't hear huge differences between any Eqs (not a connoisseur of Hz knobs) and don't get the point of fancy Eqs. I don't want bloody saturation on an Eq! You could give me the most expensive Eq plugin and I likely couldn't tell the difference.

Don´t worry, it´s mostly nonsense anyway and at most and max aimed at speeding up workflow but not really sound related... and of course to make you pay...
Nothing one couldn´t do with a standard EQ and perhaps a bit of saturation (In the case of especially Fabfilter not even this... digital clean...)
It´s more of knowing how than using a special plugin...

The biggest myths are about the "magic" of EQ and Compression... and at the end it´s nothing but a lot of fantasy/imagination/marketing and a bit of know-how... especially with such a vague and easy to cheat sense like our hearing which is more guessing than knowing and heavily depedant on external factors and daily form...

If you mix the same song let´s say every 2 weeks (that you have forgotten the settings) newly with the same tools and you are happy with the mix ... the result will always sound different...

The same blind test provided by somebody else and every day mixed up again will lead to always different results and let you hear every day again something different...

Best proof that it´s 99.9% nonsense.... it´s never the tools, it´s just the person using them in this moment and over and over different again... as I said... it´s guessing... not knowing... and therefore different tools will never make a bigger difference given that you know them equally well...

[_leras]

For sure the cubase plug ins are very good quality. There's a reason people hold them up as the highest quality stock DAW plug ins. As well as vanilla the have some vintage flavours too. The range of plug ins is also fantastic.

I think some of the top tier plugins can still bring some extra quality. But, arguably this is less important in non acoustic or vocal music.

As well as great plug ins Cubase also offers some of the deepest production tooling. Things like Control Room, great audio editing, deep midi, multiple mixer setups, ability to save mixer settings separate from project, great export options, and tons I'm missing.

[ramseysounds]

For pure EQ, I use stock Cubase on every channel; all you’re doing is cutting (mainly) or boosting (sometimes) frequencies to clean up and enhance a sound. If I want saturation, I’ll add a separate plug. Stock plug-ins for any DAW are so often overlooked. And I also have dozens of 3rd party for choice.

[MidnightRunner]

stock plugins in cubase work great. you can use tons of instances of them and hardly hit cpu.

[_leras]

The list is actually incredibly comprehensive...

https://steinberg.help/cubase_pro_plugi ... ded_r.html

[sqigls]

i don't think i've used a Steinberg plugin since SX3. I don't even use the EQ anymore.
I'm 100% third party.
mostly because i need to be able to transplant projects from Live to Cubase.
But also because i've been making music on computers since plugins were born, and happen to have a tidy collection

[Synthman2000]

"Best proof that it´s 99.9% nonsense.... it´s never the tools, it´s just the person using them in this moment and over and over different again"

Said persons abilities (and their monitoring situation) influences the tools they choose.

Let's say you have a multiple compressors, eq, saturator, reverb, delay, de-esser, stereo width enhancer, pitch shifter, dynamic eq, resonance suppressor in your mix.

If I find something that is 1-5pct better than another piece of software and the differences can be larger or smaller. Do you not think that it might add up to being 10-15 pct better sounding mix. All other abilities being the same ?

Of course it is, unless for any given reasons you cannot hear the differences.

[Trancit]

...
Said persons abilities (and their monitoring situation) influences the tools they choose.

...

No!

If I find something that is 1-5pct better than another piece of software and the differences can be larger or smaller. Do you not think that it might add up to being 10-15 pct better sounding mix. All other abilities being the same ?

No... your mixes will sound different anyway everytime you mix it again from scratch...
How could a subtle difference in a plugin (or multiple) add up given that fact??
It sounds different anyway every and every time again... How will you judge...

It´s just different but there is no better or worse as long as you know what to do...
The differences YOU do to the mix when doing it multiple times over and over again are 1000% bigger as all subtle differences of any plugins could ever be...

Our hearing is just too unprecise to be able to let us make always the same decisions... this will just happen by accident but never intentionally...

Second example:
Give the same project to 10 different professional mixing engineers and all are using the same DAW the same plugins, the same monitors in the same room...
You´ll get 10 complete different mixes...
How shall using plugin XYZ change this situation and makes everything better???

That´s nonsense... will never happen!

As I said before... some 3rd party plugins you personally really dig will perhaps let you work faster and get your desired result easier but that´s it...
Standard stock plugins will get you always into the same ballpark and all of this analog modelling nonsense isn´t "ahead" at all and can be simulated 99% very easily with stock plugins...

As long as you i.e. have a compressor which does all of the technical tricks ( feed foreward/backward, very fast timings, curve adjustment) and a saturator there is nothing an super duper analog modeled thingie will have ahead apart from perhaps being a bit faster in workflow or having a nice GUI bringing you into the right mood...
Soundwise the results are close enough to never be noticeable in a normal mix...
There is no "magic" ... there is just know how...

[Synthman2000]

Quality of tools did not change even if you mixed 4 times. Personally I mix once and confidently. Maybe others mix multiple times but their tools did not change their fundamental quality. That seems like an invented premise to create ambiguity that did not exist.

Know how helps you choose tools.

[Trancit]

Quality of tools did not change even if you mixed 4 times.

Please explain "quality"...
What does plugin XYZ have over a stock plugin what isn´t replaceable in any way but immediately noticeable in a mix without A/Bing??

Personally I mix once and confidently. Maybe others mix multiple times but their tools did not change their fundamental quality.

You didn´t understand, did you??

It´s not about mixing multiple times or that it would be necessary...
It´s just about if you do... each version sounds different than the other... if so, how can the "quality" of your tools make anything better if everytime you use it the mix sounds different anyway??

Know how helps you choose tools.

Know how to mix helps you to decide i.e. if you need compression or not or which settings to use best...
Know how the different plugins work/why they sound how they sound, enables you i.e. with any similar compressor type how to sound like the other... and that´s the point here...

If you know how it´s made that a certain plugin sounds how it sounds, it´s quite easy to get into a very close ballpark with any similar stock plugin or a combination of 2 or 3...

And to get back to your special room and monitoring argument:
If a plugin might do something which is just noticeable in a special treated room with special treated monitors, it´s senseless to use this plugin for this special feature anyway just because 99.99% of all listeners do not have that monitoring situation and will never hear it... so what for??