ANYBODY USING CUBASE VST/32 WITH WINDOWS XP?

[musiclinks]

I am looking at getting a new system probably an Athlon 64 (either X2 or single core). I would like to stick with my current VST/32 ver 5.1. But with the new system I will probably need to go with windows XP and wondered how well it works with VST/32.

I'm happy with Cubase VST and on my current system it works very well, so I would rather not have to upgrade to SX3 which I have heard is quite buggy.

Thank you

[jasonsantiago]

I would upgrade. I think you got yourself paranoid by reading around on the internet. SX3 is actually quite good. The people that are enjoying it with no problems for the most part are not posting.

vst/32 aka 5.1 is so outdated it is useless to me. The improvements in SX are so gigantic that I shudder having to go back to an old project.

i would upgrade.

[valdiorn]

Actually I've never had a single crash using Cubase SX3 ! :s ... weird..

[musiclinks]

thanks for the info, I guess it's true that if you don't have problems with Cubase you're not going to post.

I was looking at SE3 to start, it looks like it has more features than VST/32 except for the scoring. Maybe I'll try that and jump to SX3, and that way I can get the upgrade price, The music store I go to was selling SE3 for $139.00 CDN

[musiclinks]

are you guys using an intel or AMD based PC?

[Sascha Franck]

I've got quite some crashes with SX 3 and I can tell you, compared to the previous VST versions, it's a CPU hog. Low latency operation has become even more of a problem than ever before. Reproduceable on a vast amount of systems.
SX is absolutely famous for extremely bad performance figures under low latencies. Heck, Logic/PC, not updated since over 3 years is performing around double as well under low latencies (again, reproduceable).

Just try to install VST under XP and stick with it for now. Yes, I'm serious. SX has got a plethora of nice features, but the essentials seem to be completely fux0red.

[Ian B]

I used Cubase VST v5 (final release) under XP with no issues, and iirc, that's much the same 'family' as Cubase VST/32 isn't it?

[musiclinks]

I would like to stick to VST/32 for now, I've heard that the sound quality is much better in SX3, except that the crashes probably would n't make it worth it.

CM recenty had an article about the sound quality of different sequencers and they came to the conclusion that there were not negligible differences

[Muff Wiggler]

fwiw SX3 is working just fine for me on WinXP (Intel).

I use it every day and don't have any instability or performance problems at all.

[Manc Chris]

I have SX3.1 NEVER crashed. On the same machine (A64, 3200, winXP) I also run VST 5.1, again, NEVER crashed.

Go for it.

[AndrewW]

SX3 is working great here as well. I'm useing Athlon x2 4400+.
In my opinion SX1 is very outdated not to mention VST5.1. Some time ago, more than 6 months ago, I opened a project that was done on VST5.1 and I did not know how to get my way around. The program seemed very ackward to me. But so is SX1. I can live with SX2, and still use it, but SX3 is working great.

[Sascha Franck]

SX 3 is a CPU hog of special sorts nonetheless.

[Scotrick]

and also, I can report that Cubase VST/32 5.2b works fine on my system detailed below, alongside SX 2 and 3

[davor]

CM recenty had an article about the sound quality of different sequencers and they came to the conclusion that there were not negligible differences

Which issue was that? Could you share some more of the insides of the article?

[Manc Chris]

SX 3 is a CPU hog of special sorts nonetheless.

Sascha, with all respect, you are pushing that point, but I personally cannot agree. SX3.1 is not much more of a hog on my pc than was VST5.1. No probs at all here