MIDI tracks to 'instrument tracks' in Cubase 5

[koolkeys]

why have you recorded vocals as stereo? I thought all vocals should be mono????

They may have been run through a stereo effect or plugin and then bounced down. I know I don't record stereo vocals, but they sometimes end up that way.

Brent

[LawrenceF]

I think the track I dragged into that project just to have some audio there in the graphic is either a bounce of multiple backing tracks or a lead vocal stem from someone else with FX already on it.

I don't record lead vox in stereo so it has to be one of those two things. I wanted audio parts in the graphic so I dropped in the first thing I saw.

To the other stuff about Live - I don't think I ever suggested in those posts that Cubase was "better" than Live. I've never even used Live so I'm not qualified to make those kinds of subjective statements.

I only was implying that people who say Cubase is cluttered or that Cubase's advanced features are bloat, that I disagree and that there are options there to avoid clutter... and midi editing features there that go beyond the really basic stuff. For people who may need them.

What some call "power user" features are 8-10 years old or more in some cases and just ordinary standard midi features to some others. The Logical Editor was in Cubase VST 32. If a person can do a basic simple edit in 5 seconds instead of 45 seconds... that's not "power use", it's just common sense.

But many people dive fully into Cubase, or Live, or Sonar... and still end up hating them. It happens.

One man's bloat is another mans feature... who said that? Brent?

[Uncle E]

I guess this is a bit of a classic 'power users' thing.

Our job is to train our students to be power users.

My point (and I'm in danger of repeating myself here) is that in the apps that I LIKE, you DON'T HAVE TO.

*You* don't have to. I've been learning Ableton lately and am finding it very frustrating to deal with, not to mention abrasive on my eyes. I'm not saying Ableton is bad, just pointing out that different people have different requirements.

Both Reaper and Ableton have features Cubase doesn't

Such as?

I also find that when teaching these apps (Logic 9 too) - students get further, faster, and produce better results.

IME, students get further, faster, and produce better results with Reason than with any of these. That doesn't automatically discredit your argument but I hope it demonstrates why that argument is not the final word, either. Logic and Reaper are fine but Ableton and Reason, as good as they may be in their own ways, just have too many professional limitations for them to have any place in a school curriculum.

[present]

Disagree on that last statement.

Features they have that Cubase doesn't are too numerous to get into in detail - just a couple that are completely outside Cubase's feature set: Ableton's clip view and Reaper's awesome combined track folder/bus system.

[captain caveman]

Disagree on that last statement.

Features they have that Cubase doesn't are too numerous to get into in detail - just a couple that are completely outside Cubase's feature set: Ableton's clip view and Reaper's awesome combined track folder/bus system.

They aren't completely outside Cubase's feature set though. The Arranger is very similar to scenes and in fact is more flexible than scenes.... not as flexible or musical as triggering clips from different scenes, but more flexible than scenes themselves.

I also disagree with the Reaper point. Cubase does indeed have a totally awesome track folder/buss system. Maybe not combined but, in fairness, to use the word "completely" implies that you are going to come up with something groundbreaking like having a built in audio editor or groove quantise, so I am just venting my disappointment at the damp squibs you have offered up.

[koolkeys]

Disagree on that last statement.

Features they have that Cubase doesn't are too numerous to get into in detail - just a couple that are completely outside Cubase's feature set: Ableton's clip view and Reaper's awesome combined track folder/bus system.

It's not hard to list a feature or two that one app may have that another doesn't. But let's not pretend for even a second that Reaper or Ableton has more than Cubase. Not even close. Of course you could list a few features that they might have that Cubase doesn't. But the list of features that Cubase has that THEY don't have would be at least twice as long. I mean, I could say that EnergyXT does things that none of them do. Doesn't mean it can do more, does it?

Yeah, Ableton has it's session view. Have you tried the Cubase Arrangement track? It's a similar idea, but laid out differently. And it does things that Ableton's session view doesn't do, and vice versa.

I hear people talk about Reaper's universal track system, but you know what? I the many years I've been doing this, I can probably count on my fingers how many times I've ever felt the need to switch a track type. Does that mean it's not a good feature? No. But it by far doesn't get in the way for doing audio production.

Again, let's not pretend that Cubase somehow can't do as much as Reaper or Ableton. Heck, neither of those can do many of the things listed in these past three pages even. I think Ableton and Reaper both have excellent parts to them. I own Ableton, and I have followed the Reaper progression for a LONG time. They both have their own little specialties that make them cool. But let's have a little perspective.

Brent

[present]

Ok this argument has gotten real boring. To me it's clunky, fiddly and annoying, hasn't really changed much for 15 years, and has been surpassed in many areas by the competition - to you its an awesome work of art that has everything your heart could desire and more.

Our DAW-views are mutually incompatible. Lets move on.

[hibidy]

Now I have to edit

[koolkeys]

present, I don't know what your edited post said. But as far as I'm concerned, this is just discussion. Don't take it personally, as it's not meant that way. Nothing wrong with replying to statements that are made, right?

Brent

[present]

Apologies, was shooting off my mouth and then thought, woah, be a bit more diplomatic.

[koolkeys]

Ok this argument has gotten real boring. To me it's clunky, fiddly and annoying, hasn't really changed much for 15 years, and has been surpassed in many areas by the competition - to you its an awesome work of art that has everything your heart could desire and more.

Our DAW-views are mutually incompatible. Lets move on.

Of course it's all opinion. We were just addressing statements you made. You find it clunky. Cool. Nobody works the same way.

But there have been a lot of statements lately by people who seem to enjoy stating how "cluttered" or "bloated" Cubase or other apps are, but they rarely have anything real to go by. Then they make claims that apps like Reaper are somehow more streamlined, but without really saying much. Then they pretend that those who "defend" Cubase are just fanboys and don't know any better, when the same thing could be said in return.

When in reality, they just prefer Reaper/Ableton/whatever. There are no rights and wrongs. It's just discussion. Don't take it as anything else.

Besides............you started it.

[koolkeys]

Apologies, was shooting off my mouth and then thought, woah, be a bit more diplomatic.

No problem. I've been there before. I just wanted to make sure you weren't "virtual pouting" and bowing out of the discussion because you thought it was personal or anything. It's not.

Brent

[hibidy]

I think all sides could use a little of that (maybe even including me as I'm sure my comedic snipes are tiresome at times)

Kudos to present!

[LawrenceF]

These discussions (not arguments, discussions) always go sideways. Every time someone talks about advanced features of X, people take that as an attack on Y.

There is only one way to place you "inside the head" of a person using something that you may not understand. That is for the person to walk you through some of those things in detail so that you understand better.

I've read, watched videos on and read discussions about (for instance) Reaper's extension API which is a VERY powerful tool. I fully understand it's power and it's potential.

Kinda like that.

[present]

LawrenceF - yep, entirely agree. It's a difficult one!

PS. 'virtual pouting' - lol!