Rumors discussion: Cubase 6 at NAMM is on the road next year?

[LawrenceF]

I'd argue with you if I knew what the hell that sentence meant

I meant that - overall on balance - Cubase is pretty strong across the board. That doesn't actually keep me using it but generally speaking, electronic and/or acoustic music production wise, it covers a heck of a lot of the bases when compared to the conventional linear hosts like Sonar, Samp, PTLE, etc.

A more "non-conventional" host (imo) would be something like Live or FL Studio or similar... things that are particularly suited more for one thing than for using globally.

How are you Lawrence? Hope all is well in the New Year.

Doing great, thanks. Enjoying my son being home from college for the winter break.

Despite my PT allegiance, I just picked up a used Motif XS so I will be rooting for some nice features in Cubase 6 since it is so much easier to dump the Motif into Cubase. As said earlier or in another thread, just let me move the mixing channels around and I'll be happy(ier)

Can't say I've tried them all as extensively but none of the hosts I've actually tried handle various hardware synths and general midi hardware nearly as fluently as Cubase... so, point taken. Cubase communicates with the "outside world" of midi hardware better than any of them imo.

As to the VST/RTAS points...I think a lot if not most of the plugs I use come with both formats so it might be a non-issue -especially if PT 9 gains ground with the independence of HW.

I hear you. I've committed to Studio One for the long haul so all of my recent work was done there. I haven't even launched Cubase in weeks. Studio One is pretty much the only host I use now.

[Hink]

I'd argue with you if I knew what the hell that sentence meant

I meant that - overall on balance - Cubase is pretty strong across the board. That doesn't actually keep me using it but generally speaking, electronic and/or acoustic music production wise, it covers a heck of a lot of the bases when compared to the conventional linear hosts like Sonar, Samp, PTLE, etc.

I would love to know how samp isn't 'strong across the board'....what bases are not covered in the way you speak of in samp?

[captain caveman]

I hope the borgz NEVER listen to laptop DJs and force a single interface solution. That would absolutely blow chunks. A multi-modal docking interface would be cool as long as I can rip off a window and put it where I want. Wavelab 7 works just fine that way, other than having to go through menus to undock windows. This is the freakin 2010s, haven't they heard of drag&drop yet?

Don't worry, Cubase 6 will be out in 6 months then it will only be another 2 years till the interface gets changed in Cubase 7. This means by my calculations that you have around 48 hours to petition them to influence their C7 interface plans till the roadmap is set in stone.

[LawrenceF]

I would love to know how samp isn't 'strong across the board'....what bases are not covered in the way you speak of in samp?

It was missing things I'd become accustomed to in Cubase like Play Order, Logical Editors, Drum Editor, Independent Track Looping, etc. That may have changed since I demoed. It was only a subjective personal opinion, we all have them and they don't necessarily require proofs.

[Hink]

I would love to know how samp isn't 'strong across the board'....what bases are not covered in the way you speak of in samp?

It was missing things I'd become accustomed to in Cubase like Play Order, Logical Editors, Drum Editor, Independent Track Looping, etc. That may have changed since I demoed. It was only a subjective personal opinion, we all have them and they don't necessarily require proofs.

I'm sorry, can you speak up...it's hard to hear you way down here

[LawrenceF]

I'm sorry, can you speak up...it's hard to hear you way down here

Sorry, I didn't mean it the way you took it. I only meant it as a way to say that the various (subjective) debates over daws are endless so just take it (the subjective random opinion) at face value as just that, not necessarily that it's being presented as hard fact.

Thanks Hink. Samp is a great daw.

[Hink]

I'm sorry, can you speak up...it's hard to hear you way down here

Sorry, I didn't mean it the way you took it. I only meant it as a way to say that the various (subjective) debates over daws are endless so just take it (the subjective random opinion) at face value as just that, not necessarily that it's being presented as hard fact.

Thanks Hink. Samp is a great daw.

it seems as a non user of cubase I should not have entered this thread, duly noted...but for clarification, I asked a question because I wanted to know the answer...not start a debate..I really do not know that much about cubase...take care

btw I did get my answer

[LawrenceF]

Apologies. This is KVR so maybe I jumped to a conclusion there. I think (subejctively) for people that worked with and maybe still work with hardware midi devices (for example), Logic and Cubase are really hard to match if (a big if) you need a lot of what are for many modern VSTI users, granted, legacy functionality.

I have some hardware midi modules racked up in the studio and the things I demo just don't get it done quite as well as Cubase, rightfully so, they were doing that way, way, way back... so they have a big head start.

Newer products tend to focus more on virtual instruments I think.

Thanks Hink. Again, apologies for my "conclusion jumping".

[ObsoleteAcc99]

another birdie says it will copy logic's hybrid engine, and i am sure it has been officially stated that Cubase 6 on mac will be true 64 bit, so i don't think the mac version is going anywhere.

Sorry to show my ignorance, but what is Logic's hybrid engine?

logic uses an internal buffer always selectable between 512, 1024, and 2048 samples for MIXING.

it only uses your audio buffer setting (say in this case 64 samples) on the tracks you are recording to, or when you select an instrument track to play midi.

This is how it avoids spikes and dropouts, which cubase can not,even on windows, when using high cpu plugins, such as linear phase stuff with large latency.. proved even by daw builders themselves using the very best systems and hardware.

[zvenx]

I have heard about this, but how does it avert timing errors when recording? if the already recorded tracks are using a different audio buffer setting that is higher, shouldn't they be playing late as I record a new track, relative to the new track?
rsp

[ObsoleteAcc99]

no, it works. LOL. trust me.

[zvenx]

interesting.
rsp

[SJ_Digriz]

I have heard about this, but how does it avert timing errors when recording? if the already recorded tracks are using a different audio buffer setting that is higher, shouldn't they be playing late as I record a new track, relative to the new track?
rsp

use an easy example.

incoming audio -> say 4ms latency
already recorded tracks with convolution or big latency vst .. 12ms

play already recorded track 8ms early ... all lined up isn't it.

Direct monitoring in Cubase sort of provides similar capability, however you can't have different buffer depths. So, it's a cool feature for quite a few recording situations.

[Alfalfa]

logic uses an internal buffer always selectable between 512, 1024, and 2048 samples for MIXING.

it only uses your audio buffer setting (say in this case 64 samples) on the tracks you are recording to, or when you select an instrument track to play midi.

I do hope this is a part of Cubase 6. Thanks for the explanation.

[surfingo]

...and it will be a +150 eur update again...