Presonus Studio One 5.2 vs Cubase 11

[jens]

Again: in most every host you simply click and drag. In other DAWs there are no stacked clips. Why are there not? Because it would be a stupid thing to implement. Also I have never seen the Steinis touting it as a feature themselves, which they certainly would if there was even the slightest merrit to (automatically) having stacked regions from multi-takes. They simply failed to implement something better.

I guess Cubase's idea was that the clip at the top is not really a clip, but a "window" from the top through take lanes, so - indeed - if you cut something out you suddenly see a take undereath.

Whereas in other DAWs it's a separate, dynamically updated meta-clip comp(osed) from takes below.

I don't think it's crap, it's just different design.

There's no need to get philosophical about it - it's simply shitty stacked clips, which are in the way and serve no purpose.

And even if that was really their idea, then it was a pretty stupid idea.

I challenge you to name one little advantage the stacked regions might yield.

[antic604]

There's no need to get philosophical about it - it's simply shitty stacked clips, which are in the way and serve no purpose.

And even if that was really their idea, then it was a pretty stupid idea.

I challenge you to name one little advantage the stacked regions might yield.

Maybe there are some technical reasons?

Maybe they were the ones to introduce it first to DAWs and this is what they came up with?

Maybe the designers had particular workflow that made sense with how it works?

I tend not to call "shitty" things that I don't like AND don't understand reasoning for why they are how they are, because it bit me in the ass few times already. But feel free to do whatever you like

[jens]

There's no need to get philosophical about it - it's simply shitty stacked clips, which are in the way and serve no purpose.

And even if that was really their idea, then it was a pretty stupid idea.

I challenge you to name one little advantage the stacked regions might yield.

Maybe there are some technical reasons?

Maybe they were the ones to introduce it first to DAWs and this is what they came up with?

Maybe the designers had particular workflow that made sense with how it works?

I tend not to call "shitty" things that I don't like AND don't understand reasoning for why they are how they are, because it bit me in the ass few times already. But feel free to do whatever you like

Well, I judge the features for what they are, not what their development history is - why would I?

Look at this thread title - it's "Studio One 5.2 vs Cubase 11" - not "Studio One in the light of the historic meaning of Cubase's development".

Here is my original post that turned into this discussion:

It may be a bit quicker to do some things in other DAWs - but I think in Cubase a Lot, if not all of that, can be made up for if you make good use of templates.

I tried a few times to get up to an acceptable level of workflow in Cubase but even just working with multpile audio-takes is such a pain in the arse - it just craps them all on top of each other... would you believe? Why, just why?

I tried putting them all in an audio-part with a macro but for some reason that ended up being utterly cumbersome too. (I can't remember the exact specifics anymore, but I certainly tried.)

It's a total mess, while Studio One's comping-feature is relatively elegant - not quite as nifty as Reason's audio-editor, but still miles ahead of Cubase.

For someone who records a lot of audio on his own Cubase is just no good at all imo. And there were several other things which I just found unneccesarily complicated/convoluted.

Besides, it was only an example of my initial point that Cubase did not age well at all:

I think your conclusion about Cubase is off base (sic.). They do innovate.

I think it is not at all - Cubase to me feels like a total dinosaur - clunky and convoluted in the way computer programmes were 20 or 30 years ago - no amount of innovation is going to change that.

They started all over in 2002 as a means to dust it off - but in the meantime it has become more dusty again than Cubase 5 ever felt. Old dogs can't learn new tricks, as they say. The only DAW that feels even more ancient to me is Samplitude.

They first came up with stacked takes for SX2 in 2003, which was 18 years ago - so they had plenty of time to improve on this original concept - but that's not how they tick, instead they just keep adding features - and THAT was my very point.

So everything you wrote her as a potential defense for them here, only goes to support my very point.


I first started sequencing with Steinberg Pro-24 btw. , so I have basically witnessed the whole of their development history.

[antic604]

So everything you wrote her as a potential defense for them here, only goes to support my very point.

I don't defend them. I never said this is a good workflow. I'm only saying I'd like to understand the reasons behind why it's designed like that before calling it "shitty".

I mean you can achieve what you want, no? If you want to cut 1 bar in the middle of the recording without the take from below popping up, just open the lanes and cut that bar across all takes. Once you understand the mechanism, you know what to do.

[jens]

I mean you can achieve what you want, no? If you want to cut 1 bar in the middle of the recording without the take from below popping up, just open the lanes and cut that bar across all takes. Once you understand the mechanism, you know what to do.

Yes, of course - but my original point is that it is needlessly convoluted. It's just more work to do it that way. I can do it both ways (i.e. on the clip level and in the comp-editor) in both Studio One and Reason (at at least in Reason I can do it both ways faster and more easily than I could Cubase )- depending on what exactly I aim at I might want to do it one or the other way - the choice is mine.

And again: there's Audio Parts too in Cubase which are actually absolutely not bad at all - it's just the way the have added it as a sidecar that's not good.

Would they add the option (as a general or per-project setting) to (cycle-)record into an Audio-Part instead (also with the ability to record additional takes later on), then all would be fine. But that this option (i.e. to record into Audio Parts) does not exist at all, speaks volumes imo.

[dellboy]

I guess I will end up having nightmares from this thread...

Yes, me too.

It's so weird - I point out something is crap (which it is) and it just seems impossible for anyone of you guys in this thread to simply admit that.

I also don't buy that it's really so hard to get what I mean. It isn't.

I think i might now understand what you mean, but I have said that before and been incorrect. Anyway, for what its worth............................

Rather than using slip editing to explain what you mean would it not have been simpler to just suggest to split a track in two places and delete the clip ?

In Cubase this leaves the underlying clip exposed and still visible and playing, whereas in Studio One it just leaves a gap in the top audio track and the underlying audio is neither playing nor visible ?

If this is the gist of what you mean, I agree, Cubase is silly and Studio One does it better.

But I somehow fear I have it wrong again somehow.

[jens]

Yes, I think you really got it now (but as I said, this is just an example of when the stacked regions get in your way)

btw: regardless of whether you make two cuts and delete or make one cut and slip-edit, it's basically just two ways to do the same thing. It's a matter of what's more convenient for you.

Personally I tend to make one cut and then slip-edit, as I usually have to listen and finetune the points either way... (i.e. even if I make two cuts and delete I'll most probably slip-edit afterwards anyway)

[dellboy]

I know its clunky and not as efficient as Studio One, but a possible workaround is to select in preferences\audio\ "Treat Muted Audio Events Like Deleted".

Now you can make a clip and use the "mute" tool to mute all the clips in the stack below with a few clicks and then unmute the top one you are working on. The takes below are not deleted, just muted, and the top take can now be slip edited etc.

In the future all the muted takes in the stack below remain for any future editing.

[jens]

Perhaps - I guess I would try this out a bit... actually not a bad suggestion at all I think

But I dunno... I think I should probably just sell my license and move on -but then there's this GASsy fear of missing out (i.e. what if 11.5 or 12 is going to blow me away?)...

[dellboy]

Perhaps - I guess I would try this out a bit... actually not a bad suggestion at all I think

But I dunno... I think I should probably just sell my license and move on -but then there's this GASsy fear of missing out (i.e. what if 11.5 or 12 is going to blow me away?)...

There's something coming, and they are calling it "the new environment", but what it is, is anyone's guess.

"It’s too early to announce details on the schedule or the new environment, but one thing is for sure: The future will be dongle-free."

https://forums.steinberg.net/t/license- ... ead/701407

[jens]

Yeah, but that's just concearning the copy-protection, I think - don't get me wrong, It's absolutely great (well, at least assuming it affects Spectralayers too), but it's not enough to win me over. For that they'd have to come forward with some serious workflow improvements.

One can dream, right?

[Queens]

Cubas have “not friendly GUI” compared to S1

[Trensharo]

Cubase and Logic are two top DAWs used in scoring. Reaper and Studio One are on second place, slowly gathering bigger and bigger crowd.
Post Pro: ProTools and Nuendo.

That's a bit surprising to me. Is this from your experience, or can these numbers be found somewhere?

(I can believe the "Reaper, cuz it's free! hur-de-hur" thing though. Sadly.)

That person is clueless. Digital Performer is almost certainly used more for scoring than REAPER and Studio One, and I'd even believe it if someone said Pro Tools was used more often than both of those, right now.

Both REAPER and Studio One are niche in that market.

Oh yes. "Almost certainly" is definitely an evidence of fact Mr. "Cluemore".

On planet Earth, REAPER doesn't even really register in that market segment. Thats how little it is used. Same for Studio One, which only really became somewhat usable in the latest version, and historically has been pretty terrible to use with a large template.

Do you actually do this kind of work, or are you just projecting your biases onto the film scoring market?

Make it make sense, please.

Beyond that, the only value I've gotten out of this thread since my previous post is who to preemptively block to save myself lots of time in the future. Have a great day.

[pixel85]

Cubase and Logic are two top DAWs used in scoring. Reaper and Studio One are on second place, slowly gathering bigger and bigger crowd.
Post Pro: ProTools and Nuendo.

That's a bit surprising to me. Is this from your experience, or can these numbers be found somewhere?

(I can believe the "Reaper, cuz it's free! hur-de-hur" thing though. Sadly.)

That person is clueless. Digital Performer is almost certainly used more for scoring than REAPER and Studio One, and I'd even believe it if someone said Pro Tools was used more often than both of those, right now.

Both REAPER and Studio One are niche in that market.

Oh yes. "Almost certainly" is definitely an evidence of fact Mr. "Cluemore".

On planet Earth, REAPER doesn't even really register in that market segment. Thats how little it is used. Same for Studio One, which only really became somewhat usable in the latest version, and historically has been pretty terrible to use with a large template.

Do you actually do this kind of work, or are you just projecting your biases onto the film scoring market?

Make it make sense, please.

Beyond that, the only value I've gotten out of this thread since my previous post is who to preemptively block to save myself lots of time in the future. Have a great day.

Ok, because you give so much evidence to support YOUR OPINION, I have no other option but to admit you are right. Oh way... you didn't. So far, you just stated your opinion, and you're projecting it as a fact.

Btw. If you could use your brain cells, then you would guess that my saying about "Reaper taking second place after Cubase or Logic" doesn't necessarily mean that Reaper took already 50% (or more) of the market. It means that simply more and more composers are switching to it. If you don't believe me, go to V.I. Forum and read. It's better evidence than yours "almost certainly" and "I'd even believe it" - which is nothing more than supposition, like everything you've said so far.

[Trensharo]

Cubendo, DP and Logic are used predominantly in that market. More people score with Pro Tools than REAPER. Do people actually believe what you're writing here? Love the semantic round-about you're concocting to try to make that make sense.

I am not even sure why you're trying to argue about this. Go to VI-Control and ask what those people are using.

That's not an opinion. Those are facts. I'm sorry they don't align with your hopes, but it is what it is.

List is growing by the hour!