Cubase SX3 drives me nuts

[Kingston]

Even if I still miss quite some things in SX, this isn't exactly the truth. There's some really great new functions in SX. Cosmetically not much has been done (unfortunately).

Our functionality preferences are probably quite differerent but I, as well, am an ex logic user.

Still, having used to SX2.2, I consider the new workspace improments and relative snap fairly cosmetic, ie. they should've been there from the start. The new timescretch functions are handy.

For example, in-line editing is totally cosmetic.

I can't think of anything else than the workspace improvements that would get me to SX3 right now, and the deal, as it seems right now, is extremely dodgy. I vote for stability.

[UltraJv]

eyeknow666 wrote:

This thing about the ram is always a good suggestion but I will tell you that in this day and age it should be unneccessary

.

Microsoft disagree. If you have over 2GB you need to edit a file in Windows to make it work properly :

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/pl ... AEmem.mspx

[Sascha Franck]

Still, having used to SX2.2, I consider the new workspace improments and relative snap fairly cosmetic, ie. they should've been there from the start.

While I agree that they should've been there from the start, they're really not cosmetic at all.
Relative snap for me was one of THE big points when moving to Logic several years ago.

For example, in-line editing is totally cosmetic.

Not at all, it's a new functionality. Any while it's pretty much badly laid out (at least IMO), in case this will improve (it'd be nice to have individual zoom settings as soon as you switch a track to in-line editing) it'll become VERY handy.

I can't think of anything else than the workspace improvements that would get me to SX3 right now, and the deal, as it seems right now, is extremely dodgy. I vote for stability.

I agree that stability should be the absolute No.1 for any host, but personally I can barely make SX 3 crash at all. Might be way different for other people though (as we all know...).
Anyways, for me SX 3 is offering a lot small but pretty much welcomed additions.

The things I still miss the most:
- A less toyish, user configurable mixer. The current one is a shame, compared to Logic's environment mixer.
- Visual control on the quantize settings of a selected part or track. That's just where Logic is sooo much superior it's hard to believe.
- Easier tool access. I really don't want to switch tools and then switch back each time I only do a single operation (for instance, a time stretch).
- Velocity tool in key edit. A godsend in Logic.
- Better MIDI CC control of audio channel and VST parameters without having to write automation data. MIDI learn would be great.
- Direct MIDI CC access in the arrangement (a la Logic hyperdraw).
- Some small things such as plugin windows actually switching between each other instead of them opening on top of each other. After 5 minutes of working in SX I use to find my screen all cluttered with windows.

With these implemented I might think about swithing for serious work as well (right now I only use SX for my classes).

[Scotrick]

to maybe redeem myself somewhat,
the denormalization in this version of Cubase SX 3... is true, the moderators on Cubase.net have acknowledged that using some of Steinberg's own plug-ins can produce denormals...
but it only shows up with some plugs and only in certain racking orders so it's a hard one to track and duplicate... but it has been noted and confirmed as a problem and even, if I remember correctly, mentioned as fixed in the supposedly soon to be released update...
myself, I'm sticking with SX 2.2 because I can't afford even the upgrade price to 3...

[bluedad]

.
myself, I'm sticking with SX 2.2

I wish I could use SX2! clicks and pops on my system that I CANNOT track down. Finally had to go back to vst 5.1, and no more clicks and pops.

[SJ_Digriz]

just a quick comment on this...

For example, in-line editing is totally cosmetic.

A lot of features are being put into SX in stages. It's a bit annoying at times, but you can clearly see functions improving as we go. In-Line editing will get many new enhancements, this was just round one.

- Easier tool access. I really don't want to switch tools and then switch back each time I only do a single operation (for instance, a time stretch).

If you can believe the thread on the Nuendo forum there will be upgrades to keycommands and more instances of "auto-tools"(like when the pointer turns into a pencil when you hover the MIDI CC lane). Time stretch for sure needs to be in the mod-key list. Hopefully that will happen.

- Better MIDI CC control of audio channel and VST parameters without having to write automation data. MIDI learn would be great.

I may not understand what you want here, but doesn't the generic remote do MIDI learn and then allow mixer/channel control via MIDI CC? I know that I use my keyboard to stop/start transport, set record enable, next track/previous track, and use the keyboard sliders to control pan/volume etc.. Not sure if that is what you are after.

- Direct MIDI CC access in the arrangement (a la Logic hyperdraw).

I don't know hyperdraw, but the in-line editor has the CC data at the bottom and it's just like the MIDI editor where you can choose which ones to display. It ain't perfect, but not bad either.

Do you have a link to a picture of hyperdraw? That sounds kinda cool and maybe I'll start a rant on Cubase.net hehehe.

[Kingston]

While I agree that they should've been there from the start, they're really not cosmetic at all.
Relative snap for me was one of THE big points when moving to Logic several years ago.

it was.. for YOU. I don't consider it important at all and I can certainly work around with tremendous speed whenever I need it.

Not at all, [inline editing] is a new functionality. Any while it's pretty much badly laid out (at least IMO), in case this will improve (it'd be nice to have individual zoom settings as soon as you switch a track to in-line editing) it'll become VERY handy.

Seriously, it's just another way to pull up the pianoroll, and very inefficient as such. Apart from color changes in UI, that's about as cosmetic as it gets.


and by the way, I agree with every single one of your "missing in SX" examples. God I miss the velocity tool, environment mixer and quantise of logic.

But as far as doing serious work, Cubase is my choice of hosts for that today.

[Cosmic Bandito]

As someone who is coming into the sequencer game somewhat recently, Cubase SX comes across as a great audio/midi engine with endless features tacked on. Seems to handle VST's the best and very stabile, but instead of redesigning the way certain things are done they just 'stitched' on features to compete with the new breed of apps, hence in my mind cubase is now 'Franken-base'.

[Sascha Franck]

I may not understand what you want here, but doesn't the generic remote do MIDI learn and then allow mixer/channel control via MIDI CC? I know that I use my keyboard to stop/start transport, set record enable, next track/previous track, and use the keyboard sliders to control pan/volume etc.. Not sure if that is what you are after.

No, that's something entirely different.
What I want is to assign *any* parameter (plugin parameters, send levels, etc) to MIDI CCs and record them - AS MIDI CCs!
Right now, if you assign things in the remote control menu, you can only record movements as automation data. In case you record MIDI data, the assigmnents won't do anything just because this is happening before the sequencer.

Now, I know, a lot of people will just tell me to use automation instead of MIDI CC recordings instead, but it's a totally different working paradigm (I've exlained it a gazillion times allready, will only do it again if you really don't believe).

Do you have a link to a picture of hyperdraw? That sounds kinda cool and maybe I'll start a rant on Cubase.net hehehe.

Have a look here:
http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/temp/Hyperdraw.jpg
What you see is:
a) a part (with some notes on it) switched to hyperdraw view. You can just draw around in it as much as you like.
b) the parameter selection box. Yes, it's limited to 127 parameters max. That's because things can be MIDI controlled.
c) the small hyperdraw box allowing you to get to the selection.

Please note: I am NOT happy with the implementation of this in Logic. It doesn't feature MIDI learn (so you'll have to use transformers and set up things manually) and it's limited to 127 parameters (an old MIDI shortcoming, that's why MIDI learn would be HEAPS better).

But nonetheless, it allows for some things that just aren't possible at all in Cubase.
For instance, hyperdrawn parts are just behaving like MIDI parts (even without any notes on them). That means, you can individually timestretch them, mute them, cut portions out of them and so on. This is requiring WAY more efforts using automation data (in Logic as well, should you use track automation, which is basically working identically to Cubase's automation).

As said, I'd like to see MIDI assign/learn for each and every parameter - but, in opposite to what generic remote is doing (which is allready covering the MIDI learn/assign part quite well) I would like to see this:
a) straight on the objects in question (so, you'd just modifier-click whatever mixer or VST parameter, move your CC knob and be done).
b) being songbased (the remote menu is a global one, unless you load a dedicated XML file for each song).
c) being "MIDI recordable" for the very reasons mentioned above.

Cheers,
Sascha

[bmanic]

Still, having used to SX2.2, I consider the new workspace improments and relative snap fairly cosmetic, ie. they should've been there from the start.

While I agree that they should've been there from the start, they're really not cosmetic at all.
Relative snap for me was one of THE big points when moving to Logic several years ago.

Same here, which is why I've never been able to compose anything worthwile in cubase yet. Relative snap is a must.

- bManic

[Sascha Franck]

Seriously, it's just another way to pull up the pianoroll, and very inefficient as such.

Sorry to disagree, but that's nonsense.
There's no piano roll showing your MIDI notes in relation to say, an audio track. They are all differently sized and you won't manage to size project and key edit 1:1 while shown simultaneously at all.
With inline editing this is perfectly possible and probably the main purpose of dealing with it.

[Kingston]

Seriously, it's just another way to pull up the pianoroll, and very inefficient as such.

Sorry to disagree, but that's nonsense.
There's no piano roll showing your MIDI notes in relation to say, an audio track. They are all differently sized and you won't manage to size project and key edit 1:1 while shown simultaneously at all.
With inline editing this is perfectly possible and probably the main purpose of dealing with it.

A professional disagree'er, eh?

Why do you suddenly think it such an earthshatteringly important feature? Logic never had it, and I certainly never even thought to need it. There's always the bar ruler on top to keep track of things and piano roll will always be filled with more information anyway. And you can jump between the two faster than a blink of an eye.

[SJ_Digriz]

No, that's something entirely different.
What I want is to assign *any* parameter (plugin parameters, send levels, etc) to MIDI CCs and record them - AS MIDI CCs!

ah, no need to post more explenations, I get it. You want the CC to control from within the environment so that you can use MIDI editing/quantize etc.. to drive the automation instead of using the audio track automation. That would be cool.

IMO the internal automation itself needs to be improved anyhow. They seem to be thinking about it so we'll see.

[waveriderarts]

- Better MIDI CC control of audio channel and VST parameters without having to write automation data. MIDI learn would be great.

I may not understand what you want here, but doesn't the generic remote do MIDI learn and then allow mixer/channel control via MIDI CC? I know that I use my keyboard to stop/start transport, set record enable, next track/previous track, and use the keyboard sliders to control pan/volume etc.. Not sure if that is what you are after.

About SX2.2
The generic remote is the reason I dropped Cubase, (AND PRICEY AND NUMEROUS UPDATES). It is so crazy to use, first it is not saved with the song file, second, all the assignements you make get displaced when you add a track!!!!! Impossible to use in practice. And live? You would have to load you song AND load the generic remote assigments before starting it.

It does not addres pattern sequencing either.

So my question for CSX3 users, any improvements for thoses two points????

[SJ_Digriz]

So my question for CSX3 users, any improvements for thoses two points????

No not really, Cubase isn't really meant to be a DJ tool. Although they keep slipping in half assed teasers like it's gonna be instead of working on the Audio/MIDI editing features that is its bread and butter.

All this does is piss off both camps.