Quite a big disadvantage in Cubase SX3 !!!!!

[bduffy]

Thing being that in this very thread Cubase, Tracktion, Logic, eXT users and what not seem to just get along fine with eachother.

Personally, even if I *am* guilty of switching to "fanboy-mode" quite sometimes, I do learn a lot from different approaches towards different things.

Now, it's just time someone starts developing the "uber-host", and I'm gonna be the first in line shouting "here" in case testers are needed.
I doubt it'll happen though.

I don't know if it's possible! But I think what I really learned from this thread is that you can integrate them now! That was quite a shock! Almost as shocking as Cubase and Logic users getting along...

[jens]

Now, it's just time someone starts developing the "uber-host", and I'm gonna be the first in line shouting "here" in case testers are needed.
I doubt it'll happen though.

my hope is on XT2 - and Reaper doesn't look too bad either...

[OMU]

Almost as shocking as Cubase and Logic users getting along...

Hey, I use them both

[bduffy]

Almost as shocking as Cubase and Logic users getting along...

Hey, I use them both

Well, there you go. Heck, I'd probably be using both by now if they hadn't discontinued the PC version.

[Kingston]

Hey, I use them both

Me too. Although in order to streamline things I'm doing all new projects in SX3.

I've got hundreds (or closer to thousand? scary!) of logic projects so I can't just ditch it.

[Sascha Franck]

]

my hope is on XT2 - and Reaper doesn't look too bad either...

Sure... but I guess for quite some things I'm doing I'd still need something more "complete". Such as OMF im/export, detailed MIDI editing (all that NRPN, SysEx and whatever stuff) and probably even a score editor.

IMO it'd be just great if you could buy a basic sequencer and then add modules to it - which would be developed by an independent team, dedicated to the task.
The basic package could give you a sequencer with audio, MIDI and VST support (and some proper editors), while additional modules could be done for a lot of things imaginable, such as OMF, score, whatever support, or even for an advanced mixing environment. Or a dedicated (but, because of the modular embedding, highly optimized) audio editor.
The main developer (or team) wouldn't have to care about it, others than keeping the module interconnection intact.

I've got no idea whether such a thing would be possible though, but I could imagine that something like this *could* lead to very slick and optimized individual parts of the program.
There's so many parts in the big sequencers that just aren't working properly, very often probably due to developers not focussing on them.
As an example, while quite some portions of Logic are really great, the audio editor is still nothing but a joke, even Audacity does the job 10 times better.
And when you look at the various scoring modules, give me Sibelius over them any day - just that Sibelius can't be integrated into a stock sequencer.

Dunno. Won't happen anyways.

[SJ_Digriz]

In this case it means a MIDI editor that works without complaint from Sascha

No, it simply means an extra window, instead of being bound to inline editing.

I was just harrassing you Sascha, I am in 100000% agreement with you on the slow degredation of MIDI implementation in Cubase. I also think they do a terrible job of integrating enhancements into the interface and/or workflow of the software. Just like you, I have bitched and moaned about it here and on Cubase.net for quite some time.

It is truly unfortuate. I still prefer the Cubase "interface". It is just getting more and more cluttered and less and less usable. (the workspaces being a perfect example). However, I have no intention of buying a Mac just to run an audio app, and unless Tracktion 3 is better than Tracktion 2, there is still no audio app for the PC to compare. Plus, like others have mentioned, I've used it for so long that I know how to use it for what I do.

[IIRs]

IMO it'd be just great if you could buy a basic sequencer and then add modules to it - which would be developed by an independent team, dedicated to the task.

I think that would result in yet another incredibly complex mess! The whole point of Tracktion is that it combines all these different elements into a single interface which works as consistently as possible for all types of data.

[OMU]

I really hope the audio editing in Logic 8 will be much better (and not like the "update" in 7.2 so that you can use - well, you have to buy it first, and it's not cheap - a 3rd party time/pitch algorhythm).
I really don't understand why they don't implement the handling of audio parts as in Wave Burner, which is a joy to use. And some of the excellent features of Sound Track Pro.
It will be closer then anything else to that... uberhost thing.

[geekboy]

configuring eXT as a live guitar rig (which even includes aquiring some new hardware, so I'm really unsure...)

Hey Sascha,

I'd like to hear more about this. Care to give any details? What are you trying to achieve?

Regards,
Dan

[Sascha Franck]

Thing is, apart from a few "absolute" drawbacks (non-ideal performance or crashes), I could probably get away with any sequencer.
But that'd only be getting away...

Unfortunately, I have seen the light

No, seriously, give me Logics workflow, efficiency and mixer (in whatever "visual package" that might be embedded), Cubase's audio editing options (or maybe even better Samplitudes), easy integration of MIDI plugins and things such as the brilliant OMF support (it's really great at that!), then add eXTs modularity and controllability (unrivalled IMO) and probably spice it up with Tracktions efficiency on screen handling (wouldn't mind the filter approach either).
Oh yeah, and I want clip based effects for both MIDI and audio as well.

[Sascha Franck]

configuring eXT as a live guitar rig (which even includes aquiring some new hardware, so I'm really unsure...)

I'd like to hear more about this. Care to give any details? What are you trying to achieve?

Uh-oh, long story, but here goes:

In short, before I start: I want some super flexible setup, both delivering "conventional" tones for commercial jobs (note: for anything "real" I will most likely still be using my Boogie or Fender) and more experimental stuff.

Now, a while ago I bought Guitar Rig 2 and the Rig Kontrol 2. Unfortunately (while I like the sound), it doesn't meet my requirements in terms of flexible controlling. Heck, I can't control more than one parameter at once with the Rig Kontrol footswitches, so the very reason I am going for programmable stuff in the first place, to avoid that good old pedal step dance, is brought ad adsurdum.
In addition, you can't embed any 3rd party FX with GR.
And, to add to this, Rig Kontrol doesn't work as a plain MIDI controller, so using it inside a host to control other FX is out of question as well.
I can only hope they'll be adressing these issues.

Anyways, I need flexibility and control.
So I decided to use a host allowing for maximum control (probably Brainspawn Forte would be better, but for now I'll stick with eXT).

There's quite some things I want. In no particular order:

- Tap Tempo for delays and other FX. eXT allows for that.

- Overall speaker simulation on/off control, regardless of the patch chosen. I may want to run the same patches through a guitar amp or a fullrange system.

- Overall level control of certain FX, namely reverbs, but delays and some modulation FX might be important too.

- Overall control about certain amp parameters, namely the difference in volumes between, say, clean, crunch, drive and lead. It's been so often that I played on a stage where I just needed my clean sounds to be louder (or lower). Programmable devices don't adress that issue, you'll have to reprogram each clean sound. Impossible. In addition I want overall tonal control on the different patch categories. I may play a pop gig and probably need less grit in anything overdriven. Without having to readjust each and every parameter again.

- Individual (per patch) control of certain parameters. For instance, I may use a crunch sound and want to turn it into a lead sound. For that I might like to switch on an additional overdrive or boost, as well as an additional post EQ (to enhance some mids and tame some trebles, while at the same time also switching on a delay. On a sidenote: It'd be important for the delay to lap over whenever I switch it off, so I would actually have to control the send amount (or send on/off status).

- Individal (per patch) control over a few more parameters. I want some "dangerous" patches as well, so I may want to switch GRs PRO-53 filter on and control its cutoff with a pedal. Things like that.

Ok. as a solution for my needs, I thought about the following setup:
I'd run three (or more, but I should get away with three) independend audio channels, all fed by the same input, all running different amp types. As an example, channel #1 might basically be clean, #2 might be crunchy, #3 might be overdriven.
Now, to switch between those three, I'd use some sort of a controller (first thing I'm not sure about). Program changes won't be what I'd like to be dealing with for this task (I need them to only switch the "global" patches). So I'll have to find some way to mute/unmute them by controllers. A difficult task to be sure. Would perhaps be easy with two channels (mute one, unmute the other), but with three it's getting tricky. I could try to get away with 2 channels, but I'd seriously prefer 3. As said, so far I got no idea whether that is possible.
Might be that I will have to use program changes (even if I don't want to).

In addition, those channels would be "enhanced" with some individual controls for each, so I can achieve the overall control mentioned before (less drive on one channel, more treble on the other, etc). I would also add, say, a boost effect to the crunch channel, which I might switch on/off by a controller. And finally, I would add the speaker simulation here as well, so I could switch those on/off globally.

However, these channels would be mixed together, so they can all make use of the same FX. Probably some sends would be routed independently per channel, because, for instance, overdriven sounds need less reverb (if at all).

After that things would run into an FX section. I would again like to only control things via controllers, rather than by program changes. But that should be less of an issue (not sure about controlling the FX send on/off status though, might not be exactly possible, but I'm sure there's a workaround).

In the end, I'd run everything into some master section with an EQ and probably a mellow compressor chained.

What I would like to be able to is to use program changes only to switch between some "global" settings (I would for instance create some "pop" setup) while doing everything else by controllers.
Unfortunately most MIDI foot controllers focus on program changes, so I may have to rethink this. But then, I know somebody who would build me a custom thingy.
And I also don't know yet how I would route and assign all the controllers in eXT. Probably some MIDI util is needed in addition, allowing to set some controllers to "reverse polarity".
I may as well find a solution doing it by program changes, even if that'd be less than ideal.

I got almost everthing set up allready in eXT (channels, FX, etc), but it's not yet ready to be controlled. Needs some more days of headscrathing.

Anyways, that's it so far, not sure where this is all going to...

[spaceman]

Thing is, apart from a few "absolute" drawbacks (non-ideal performance or crashes), I could probably get away with any sequencer.
But that'd only be getting away...

Unfortunately, I have seen the light

No, seriously, give me Logics workflow, efficiency and mixer (in whatever "visual package" that might be embedded), Cubase's audio editing options (or maybe even better Samplitudes), easy integration of MIDI plugins and things such as the brilliant OMF support (it's really great at that!), then add eXTs modularity and controllability (unrivalled IMO) and probably spice it up with Tracktions efficiency on screen handling (wouldn't mind the filter approach either).
Oh yeah, and I want clip based effects for both MIDI and audio as well.

have you ever tried Digital Performer?

[Sascha Franck]

have you ever tried Digital Performer?

No, doesn't even seem to exist in the area of the world I'm living in.

[bduffy]

have you ever tried Digital Performer?

No, doesn't even seem to exist in the area of the world I'm living in.

Really? I guess they're scared of all that German efficiency... It's Mac-only, btw.