Rumours of Cubase SX 4

[kritikon]

The really irritating thing about this is that there's no way to tie automation data to midi/audio clips in a reliable way. Start moving stuff around and it all falls apart. When I'm using Cubase I just use midi ccs instead of automation, since they at least can be.

I have no problem with automation linking to audio parts...it moves with the part perfectly.
But, yes, it is a pretty big oversight to not allow automation to move with midi parts, I fully agree.

I wonder how much automation is a problem of plugin developers though - I don't know the full VST2 spec list, but isn't midi control part of it? If all developers simply coded plugins that have midi control, it wouldn't be a problem. Some plugins I use (even some quite old ones) allow midi cc control and it makes them so easy to use. Some on the other hand have none...but I'm not sure that's Steinberg's problem. If only all devs made plugins similar to impOSCar - an edit page for the whole plugin where you simply type in whichever midi cc you want to control whichever knob. It's elegant, I would imagine simple to code, and it makes the synth so incredibly useable in any setup. If synth/FX developers all did that, we wouldn't be moaning about automation within SX. And to me, that makes it a developer shortcoming, not Steinberg.

[kuniklo]

midi CC data and vst automation data are completely separate things. Personally I prefer VST automation since I can tell just by looking what parameter it affects, but I work around it hosts like Cubase that don't support it well by using cc.

Logic handles this way better than any other host I've tried. Automation lanes are displayed over the clips they affect and they move along with the clips. You can display multiple curves on top of each other or in each lane. You can also convert back and forth between cc and automation data.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[aaastronomer]

who cares...sx3, live 5, project 5 v2, fl studio 5, and acid 5 are good enough for what i do...i'll just take incremental updates from now on...may buy guru when its debugged...

[efluon]

I think adding plugins is just like brainwashing people.

i always thought so, too. but today sequencers have to compete with things like reason or musicmaker, so some out-of-the-box-equipment is necessary. that is also a nice standard to have (so you can swap songs easily). and logics plugs really just are a better fit for most!

Well, it just annoys me that I paid nearly $700 for this dongle and the software, and yet to make something that sounds half-decent, I have to buy yet another $1k worth of plugins (which I can't afford yet).

that is just bad luck isn't it? makes me think of all the money i spent on synths and samplers. the first one being a used dx7 for about $1k.. this sort of resets the proportions, does it not? and how much did you spend on computer and soundcard? and they did not come with decent free sequencing equipment either!?! (personally i do not think that the cubase plugs are that bad. i just think they are too many, not so well chosen and too old. and a simple sampler is missing)


but there is so many FULL-decent FREE plugins out there (out here!), just look and get them!
(i agree though that those might as well be packaged?! hmm, i suggest we do some polls and create such a package!)

[n-04:05:03:05:7]

Not a chance - Ableton Live's top features are its stability (essential for confident live use) and that it encourages creativity through ease of use

The day Cubase comes within miles of that, I'll eat my hoodie

very well said.

SX has always been stable on my machine, just like a lot of (registered) people on cubase.net... Well, I'll never understand fanatics.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Sascha Franck]

What serious problems does Logic have these days? Seriously? from some of your posts it's evident you've gotten to play with a mac and logic 7 quite a bit, so i'd like to know what to be on the lookout for.

Well, I've only fooled around with a raw Logic 7 on a powerbook, so, no 3rd party plugins and no critical hardware.
Apart from being totally underwhelmed by the general machine performance, it was running rather well.
But, from carefully observing the LUG, there seem to be all sort of mixed problems. AUs still not passing AU validation, certain machines not running well with certain hardware, certain hardware combinations (such as RME + UAD) not running at all and the likes.
Probably the biggest problem you'd be running into would be AU compatibility.
If I'd switch to a Mac, I'd make sure to get a Logic 6 installer as well. That's what people are using in some studios I know over here. Almost nobody has made the switch to 7 entirely yet, even if 7.1 seems to be a good step forward.

And regarding quantization: I know it's a Logic only thing, but as companies are stealing from each other all the time anyways, why don't they just steal this immensely useful feature as well?
I mean, each sequencer has an arrange page now, it's all coming from Cubase - why not have a quantize control, coming from Logic?

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[headquest]

Not a chance - Ableton Live's top features are its stability (essential for confident live use) and that it encourages creativity through ease of use

The day Cubase comes within miles of that, I'll eat my hoodie

very well said.

SX has always been stable on my machine, just like a lot of (registered) people on cubase.net... Well, I'll never understand fanatics.

Why is it "fanatical" to want software that runs smoothly on a laptop and has a paradigm specifically geared towards live use?

I have no reason to doubt that SX3 runs very nicely on a desktop uber-computer in a fixed studio setup, and that its myriad of features (most of which I will never ever need) all justify the asking price, etc. But I would not want to run SX3 on a laptop setup on stage. I don't think that makes me a fanatic.

Nor am I a thief by the way - in spite of your implied accusation. I am a fully paid-up registered owner of Cubase SX1. So if you want to imply otherwise you can simply piss off.

I guess that the point I was really trying to make before was to counter the post I was then responding to:

I bet once it does happen though it will attempt to be matching Abelton's Live 5.0 features and the sucess this sequencer will have in the next year.

What I was trying to say is that it would be frankly stupid for Cubase to try and emulate Ableton Live's way of working. The two programs clearly have a different core use/philosophy.

Saddlemirestudios may have been right though in the sense that Steinberg may well try to copy Ableton in spite of the foolishness of doing so. Now that Ableton have developed Live 5.0 as a capable "Complete Music Solution", it is inevitable that Steinberg will try gamefully to fight back. They already started to do so by grafting Live's "Audio Warp" feature into SX3.

It seems to me though that the further down this route they go, the more unwieldy Cubase is actually becoming... which is precisely what live musicians DO NOT want their software to be.

[Sascha Franck]

btw, what is the website of the LUG? Thanks.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-users/

[mojkarma]

Could you Sasha, please, teach me why should I ever want to reorder the tracks in the mixer to be different than in the arrange view!?
Please, give me some usefull situations, where I could benefit from that possibility.
If I for example have the lead vocal on channel one, I expect it to be the first also in the mixer. Why should I place it on the, let's say last place! I just don't get it. And, BTW, if I don't miss something, I don't see how to move the channels easy. If I drag the channel 5 to channel 1 it will overlap.

Also, the the ability to see the quantize settings, well, I quantize usually things that are not recorded to well, to place them on the right place. Once I do this, it is over for me. I move to the next job. Why should I want to go back. If I do the quantize wrong, I just hit undo and do it with a different settings.
I don't see a big advance here.

There is no question that cubase could benefit from some good ideas implemented in logic but the opposite is also true.

[Sascha Franck]

Could you Sasha, please, teach me why should I ever want to reorder the tracks in the mixer to be different than in the arrange view!?
Please, give me some usefull situations, where I could benefit from that possibility.

THE main advance: I can put all my busses where I want them to be. Usually, this is somewhat on the right in my mixer. Doing the same in Cubase would mean having the FX group track at the bottom of my track list, which is just annoying. I prefer placing them on top, so they don't get in my way.

Also, while arranging I often drag around tracks, something like less important or finished tracks up, more recent ones down. I just don't want my mixer to change each time I'm doing something like that.

Then, what about multitimbral and multiout VSTis? Let's assume I want to have my basstrack next to my drumtracks (in the project/arrange window). Now let's assume my bass is coming from a multitimbral Kontakt, running in instrument slot #4 or so.
How could I put this channel next to my drums in SX' mixer? Right, I just freaking CAN'T! This is clearly where Steinberg is conradicting their very own paradigm. I can put my Kontakt bass next to the drums in my arrange, but they won't be next to each other in my mixer. Uberlame and, as said, a contradiction of the "mixer equals arrange" paradigm.

And, BTW, if I don't miss something, I don't see how to move the channels easy. If I drag the channel 5 to channel 1 it will overlap.

Err? So, what would happen in the real physical world if you'd move an object onto another? Right, it'd overlap as well! So, what would you do to avoid this? You'd put the "underlapping" object somewhere else... now take a wild guess about what you could do in Logic.

Also, the the ability to see the quantize settings, well, I quantize usually things that are not recorded to well, to place them on the right place. Once I do this, it is over for me. I move to the next job. Why should I want to go back. If I do the quantize wrong, I just hit undo and do it with a different settings.
I don't see a big advance here.

Apparently you haven't worked with small "inbetween timing" grooves yet at all. I almost NEVER quantize all my parts the same, and having a visual control about what I was doing hours ago when all of a sudden a part wouldn't match the others anymore is nothing short but a freaking godsend!
I may also record, say, two different hihat tracks, using different Q settings. I may then decide which one would work better. Maybe the one shuffled stronger would, but maybe it wouldn't be perfect. Now I'd just have a look at the shuffle settings of that part and probably raise the shuffle of the alternate take to get closer to it... etc etc etc. There's just TOO many reasons why such a box is just what the doctor ordered.
Of course, in case you never use anything else but hard 16th quantizations, it might be worth nothing. But try doing some RnB groove with everything quantized straight to 16ths - it's impossible. And with the plethora of q-settings that usually go along with RnB, it surely makes sense having visual control.

[peppy197]

I asked our local dealer what the upgrade price to SX3 is and he just said:

"don't know, everyone is buying Sonar lately."

but I wont be, dont know why for that either ???
al