Shoot me again
--th
inbeLievble! steinberg cubas sx4 !
-
- KVRAF
- 8735 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
No no no no no...and no.
It's true! LOL!
Everything on the net is true!
It's written in real letters and sentences and everything...
Everything The Sun and News of the World write about is true, because it's written in words too - they even spell it wright. George Bush is the 2nd Messiah! I was kidnapped by an alien! Hershey makes real chocolate!
C'mon people FFS.
How stupid have some people become since the invention of the internet?
It's true! LOL!
Everything on the net is true!
It's written in real letters and sentences and everything...
Everything The Sun and News of the World write about is true, because it's written in words too - they even spell it wright. George Bush is the 2nd Messiah! I was kidnapped by an alien! Hershey makes real chocolate!
C'mon people FFS.
How stupid have some people become since the invention of the internet?
-
- KVRist
- 485 posts since 5 Jan, 2004 from In the now
Why are you guys so sure it's fake?
I know the moderators at Cubase.net denounced it, but wouldn't they do that in either case?
If a hoax, the hoaxter should be hired by Steinborg pronto, he/she has some great ideas!
I know the moderators at Cubase.net denounced it, but wouldn't they do that in either case?
If a hoax, the hoaxter should be hired by Steinborg pronto, he/she has some great ideas!
"If less is more, just think of how much more, more will be".
-
- KVRAF
- 2609 posts since 26 Aug, 2002 from here
the hoaxer came on cubase.net and said it was a fake
how much more evidence do you need
how much more evidence do you need
I believe every thread should devolve into character attacks and witch-burning. It really helps the discussion.
-
- KVRAF
- 2813 posts since 14 Feb, 2001 from What do you care? :)
Fake or not fake, true or not true...
Two things stand out...
1) The offloading of functions to dsp. That is something that the Steinberg rep mentioned at the Cubase meeting as a direction that they were hoping to go in and that they would now finally be able to do with Yamaha's help. Moving towards more of a PT paradigm. Considering PT is who they were mainly after. (per the rep) Tying everything in to hardware also being the best security measure. Better than a dongle, which usually lasts about 12 months (if they're lucky). Better than a dongle since a cracked program isn't going to do you much good if its functionality relies on the power provided by the extra dsp.
2) The bundled file that would contain the song and audio all together as one thing. Well, that's not so far fetched seeing as how Sonar has had the Cakewalk bundle thing going for a while. If the Cubase thing were indeed true, I would not be surprised that Steinberg had borrowed that idea from them.
3) As for Cubase SX4? Well, that's a no brainer... it's been a little while, so about time to drum up a little bit more money inflow.
I'm sure time will tell how this all pans out. Perhaps sooner than we expect too.
Two things stand out...
1) The offloading of functions to dsp. That is something that the Steinberg rep mentioned at the Cubase meeting as a direction that they were hoping to go in and that they would now finally be able to do with Yamaha's help. Moving towards more of a PT paradigm. Considering PT is who they were mainly after. (per the rep) Tying everything in to hardware also being the best security measure. Better than a dongle, which usually lasts about 12 months (if they're lucky). Better than a dongle since a cracked program isn't going to do you much good if its functionality relies on the power provided by the extra dsp.
2) The bundled file that would contain the song and audio all together as one thing. Well, that's not so far fetched seeing as how Sonar has had the Cakewalk bundle thing going for a while. If the Cubase thing were indeed true, I would not be surprised that Steinberg had borrowed that idea from them.
3) As for Cubase SX4? Well, that's a no brainer... it's been a little while, so about time to drum up a little bit more money inflow.
I'm sure time will tell how this all pans out. Perhaps sooner than we expect too.
-
- KVRAF
- 8735 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
And I beg to differ about SX's sidechaining methods. On h/w you very simply use your inserts and jack in direct to whatever unit you want. The sidechain feed also is extremely simple and direct.
With SX there's all that crap with L/R, front/rear, left leg forward and shake it all about. You have to physically create a group, go back and route your channels and/or other groups to that group, and not least you have to make sure you've created the groups at the start of your project, otherwise if you create them in the wrong order, you can feasibly not be able to sidechain everything you want into anything you want. Groups leave alot to be desired in SX (certainly in SX2....I haven't gone to SX3, but I haven't seen any reference at all to any improvement in group implementation).
Sidechaining without any reference to creating a group would have benefits in SX. Possibly it might mean alot more channels being created (maybe they'd have to create an extra channel automatically for every other channel created... I don't know the programming well enough), but IMO there would be far better ways of doing it. Both logistically and graphically.
SX is not good in that respect and never has been. The reason why we see so many questions here about sidechaining in SX is obviously because it is not an easy process if you've never done it before. Coming from a h/w background...I could figure it out easily enough, but I damn sure had to read the manual first - several times, in fact. Cubase used to be pretty intuitive in almost all aspects IMO - that went out the window with SX, and sidechaining is a prime example. All they need are some graphic cables - insert this cable to this plugin, and insert this sidechain feed cable from this plugin to that plugin. Et voila!
But instead we get...insert plugin, create group, fiddle with balance, fiddle with fade, go back to plugin to set parameters, route channels/groups, create new audio/VSTi channel and route to brand new created group channel....then go back and start all over again because you created your new group in the wrong order.
Much though that initial letter is so obviously not true, whoever had that vivid imagination is right in that a complete rethink of the mixer is a good idea. Cubase is still my host of choice - doesn't mean I have to like everything about it though...and after almost 2 years of using it, I still miss Cubase VST! How sad is that? I simply love all of the audio side of it - I can do thing I dreamt about in VST...but the midi side lost a bit, and the mixer was just an aborted foetus. They may as well not have bothered with those stupid FX channels because you can't route them elsewhere, sidechaining is do-able, but I actually find it so much of a pain in the arse that I'd rather load up 2 instances of QuantumFX and use their method (but take the extra CPU hit penalty) because it's so much easier. All the shit you have to go through when you create a new midi channel - if you don't have 2 monitors (which I don't - and it shouldn't have to be a prerequisite either - other hosts get by for the vast majority of users with only one monitor...) switching to the mixer to assign a channel to a plugin, switching back out again, hiding the f**king stupid midi mixer channel (which I mnever ever use, and just wish could be automatically hidden - but you can't if you ever want to try out different plugins on that channel....there are just so many plain fiddly things within SX that don't have to be...
But I'm saying that as a loyal Cubase user...doesn't give the nay-sayers carte-blanche to slag Cubase. Because I know Logic is a steaming pile of shite, T2 doesn't even compete in the same ballpark with midi, Orion - doesn't Bones use that? ('nuff said
), Ableton - likewise...great audio stuff, shite midi, Reason, P5 etc....not what I'd call a full host by a long shot. They're great extended plugin holders, with some good pluigns, and reminiscent of the way I used to work with my old h/w sequencer - but I don't want to work that way any more.
So Cubase is still good in many aspects - I just wish they'd get some solid musician userbase input before they release the fluff.
Ignore me...I'm just frustated because I haven't got my studio up and running yet, so I'm stuck with solely s/w at the moment - and SX is far from perfect.
Seeing spoofs like the one at the top of this thread just makes me think how much better SX can be...
With SX there's all that crap with L/R, front/rear, left leg forward and shake it all about. You have to physically create a group, go back and route your channels and/or other groups to that group, and not least you have to make sure you've created the groups at the start of your project, otherwise if you create them in the wrong order, you can feasibly not be able to sidechain everything you want into anything you want. Groups leave alot to be desired in SX (certainly in SX2....I haven't gone to SX3, but I haven't seen any reference at all to any improvement in group implementation).
Sidechaining without any reference to creating a group would have benefits in SX. Possibly it might mean alot more channels being created (maybe they'd have to create an extra channel automatically for every other channel created... I don't know the programming well enough), but IMO there would be far better ways of doing it. Both logistically and graphically.
SX is not good in that respect and never has been. The reason why we see so many questions here about sidechaining in SX is obviously because it is not an easy process if you've never done it before. Coming from a h/w background...I could figure it out easily enough, but I damn sure had to read the manual first - several times, in fact. Cubase used to be pretty intuitive in almost all aspects IMO - that went out the window with SX, and sidechaining is a prime example. All they need are some graphic cables - insert this cable to this plugin, and insert this sidechain feed cable from this plugin to that plugin. Et voila!
But instead we get...insert plugin, create group, fiddle with balance, fiddle with fade, go back to plugin to set parameters, route channels/groups, create new audio/VSTi channel and route to brand new created group channel....then go back and start all over again because you created your new group in the wrong order.
Much though that initial letter is so obviously not true, whoever had that vivid imagination is right in that a complete rethink of the mixer is a good idea. Cubase is still my host of choice - doesn't mean I have to like everything about it though...and after almost 2 years of using it, I still miss Cubase VST! How sad is that? I simply love all of the audio side of it - I can do thing I dreamt about in VST...but the midi side lost a bit, and the mixer was just an aborted foetus. They may as well not have bothered with those stupid FX channels because you can't route them elsewhere, sidechaining is do-able, but I actually find it so much of a pain in the arse that I'd rather load up 2 instances of QuantumFX and use their method (but take the extra CPU hit penalty) because it's so much easier. All the shit you have to go through when you create a new midi channel - if you don't have 2 monitors (which I don't - and it shouldn't have to be a prerequisite either - other hosts get by for the vast majority of users with only one monitor...) switching to the mixer to assign a channel to a plugin, switching back out again, hiding the f**king stupid midi mixer channel (which I mnever ever use, and just wish could be automatically hidden - but you can't if you ever want to try out different plugins on that channel....there are just so many plain fiddly things within SX that don't have to be...
But I'm saying that as a loyal Cubase user...doesn't give the nay-sayers carte-blanche to slag Cubase. Because I know Logic is a steaming pile of shite, T2 doesn't even compete in the same ballpark with midi, Orion - doesn't Bones use that? ('nuff said
), Ableton - likewise...great audio stuff, shite midi, Reason, P5 etc....not what I'd call a full host by a long shot. They're great extended plugin holders, with some good pluigns, and reminiscent of the way I used to work with my old h/w sequencer - but I don't want to work that way any more.So Cubase is still good in many aspects - I just wish they'd get some solid musician userbase input before they release the fluff.
Ignore me...I'm just frustated because I haven't got my studio up and running yet, so I'm stuck with solely s/w at the moment - and SX is far from perfect.
Seeing spoofs like the one at the top of this thread just makes me think how much better SX can be...
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Did I mention that it was obviously a fake?
Aren't those lipstick smudges in the first paragraph of the features overview?
Aren't those lipstick smudges in the first paragraph of the features overview?
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
That's the "Stamp of Approval".Lunch Money wrote:Did I mention that it was obviously a fake?
Aren't those lipstick smudges in the first paragraph of the features overview?
-
- KVRAF
- 7489 posts since 6 Jul, 2004
I agree that the thing was obviously a fake, and having read through this thread (late in the day) I also see that some guy has even owned up to it. However, a few interesting points emerge so far as I can see:
First, the Steinberg guy has confirmed there that SX4 will be out later this year. Just in case anyone doubted that
Secondly he also implied that SX4 is not quite as big and update as suggested in the fake list. For a few a guess that may be a suprise or disappointment. I agree that fakes like this are therefore not a particularly good thing - some people won't get the joke. And when people don't get the joke it tends to end badly.
Thirdly, some of the ideas in the fake may either be on the agenda... or now get added to it. But it was still an odd way of making a feature request!
Lastly, and the most important thing in my opinion... Yamaha and Steinberg both have a history of being monopolistic in their business practices. That is a BAD thing for us all I think...
First, the Steinberg guy has confirmed there that SX4 will be out later this year. Just in case anyone doubted that
Secondly he also implied that SX4 is not quite as big and update as suggested in the fake list. For a few a guess that may be a suprise or disappointment. I agree that fakes like this are therefore not a particularly good thing - some people won't get the joke. And when people don't get the joke it tends to end badly.
Thirdly, some of the ideas in the fake may either be on the agenda... or now get added to it. But it was still an odd way of making a feature request!
Lastly, and the most important thing in my opinion... Yamaha and Steinberg both have a history of being monopolistic in their business practices. That is a BAD thing for us all I think...
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
Oh, and as a longtime Cubase user, I totally agree with you, Kritikon. Ditch that crap-ass, old school, hard-wired mixer routing. Although I will never understand how VST was better than SX, coz I couldn't figure out anything with VST32 (or 5 or WTF it was called?), and I thought the SX mixer was kind of the same, just sleeker.
Oh and can't you just hide the MIDI channels? I never use 'em either, but I just hide them right away in all my Templates and all my Mixer Views.
Oh and can't you just hide the MIDI channels? I never use 'em either, but I just hide them right away in all my Templates and all my Mixer Views.
-
- KVRian
- 868 posts since 2 Jan, 2003 from In the foothills of the Rocky Mountains
It sounds like a very good marketing ploy to me.(and true if you ask me, I mean what loser would sit in his basement and think this shit up?)..people have been wondering for some time now how Yamaha and Steinberg will mix....this thread is at 7 pages and there are countless other forums. What better way to keep interest up in the company than to drop a hint of things to come.
dano
dano
"In a sky full of people, only some want to fly,
Isn’t that crazy?"
Isn’t that crazy?"
-
- KVRAF
- 19156 posts since 13 Feb, 2003 from Vancouver, Canada
What losers would argue for 7 pages about it?danielmm wrote:It sounds like a very good marketing ploy to me.(and true if you ask me, I mean what loser would sit in his basement and think this shit up?)..people have been wondering for some time now how Yamaha and Steinberg will mix....this thread is at 7 pages and there are countless other forums. What better way to keep interest up in the company than to drop a hint of things to come.
dano
-
- KVRAF
- 12977 posts since 29 Sep, 2003 from Ottawa, Canada
Oh, after reading the hoaxer's thread, I dunno. Doesn't seem like an elaborate ploy to get publicity, either.
I, for one, am even LESS interested than Cubase than before. Surely Steiny needs people to talk about their product LESS in order to reclaim some market share.
Greg
I, for one, am even LESS interested than Cubase than before. Surely Steiny needs people to talk about their product LESS in order to reclaim some market share.
Greg
-
Donnie Darko Brasco Donnie Darko Brasco https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=95488
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 68 posts since 23 Jan, 2006
hallo!
I did said from beginning is't fake..
I invented it's fake!!
the evry first one I aws and found out that its fake..
why not listen to me inventor of its' fake and go speuclate?
liste to me and read to me guy.. I invent and find any haox and fakes in minute
bye
I did said from beginning is't fake..
I invented it's fake!!
the evry first one I aws and found out that its fake..
why not listen to me inventor of its' fake and go speuclate?
liste to me and read to me guy.. I invent and find any haox and fakes in minute
bye