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

[TeeLangSun]

Wouldn't you expect that the actual audio output channel would be shown once you select a track using a VSTi? But no, it's the MIDI channel that will be selected, rather pointless when working with VSTis that offer most (if not all) of their useable settings on the respective audio channels.
I do of course know that there's a workaround by selecting the channel in the "vstplugins" folder track, but I usually really don't want to bother with that.

Yes, I know, you don't want to hear it anymore, but Logic excels so much in that area. Regardless whether I'm using an audiotrack or a VSTi one, selecting it will automatically take me to the relevant channel in the mixer.

Yeah that is actually is quite annoying IMO....

I know it's just an extra click, but you have to hunt and peck through listings of out put names in the list of vsti's in the midi track that will open the audio track. If you load enough vsti's into the project it gets to be a pain to go to that extra window find the stupid vsti output, and then click it to get the audio window.

That is really where I like the workflow in logic alot better.

I mean I use Cubase and I've gotten used to it because I have to, but I really wish they would make the Vsti's audio track easier to access, it would just speed things up alot for me.

When I click on that midi track in the Project View I see not only all aspects of the midi track itself (Midi FX inserts, inputs and outputs, channel, gain, pan, offset, recording parameters etc), but also all aspects of the VST instrument which has been assigned to it. Everything is right there in the inspector. I see in bold the name of the instrument. If it's a multi timbral instrument it shows a drop down list for output channel. Next, it shows exactly what you'd see on the mixer. Inserts (Audio), 2 EQ views, Sends, the Channel strip with Fader and parameters exactly as displayed on the mixer. I might be missing something that other people are expecting to see here, but I can't think of anything else that I'd expect. If I viewed the mixer itself, I'd see all the same parameters, less actually. Also, from this same inspector view you can choose not only the presets of any synth, but also, the samples or multi-sample kits that you may have loaded into a sampler or soundfont player etc, will be viewable and selectable there on a per channel basis, without bringing up the VSTi interface. So for me, the VST Instruments folders are only used for accessing the automation lanes. Everything else is viewable/accessible by clicking on the midi track which has been assigned to a VSTi.

[Sascha Franck]

When I click on that midi track in the Project View I see not only all aspects of the midi track itself (Midi FX inserts, inputs and outputs, channel, gain, pan, offset, recording parameters etc), but also all aspects of the VST instrument which has been assigned to it. Everything is right there in the inspector.

Nonsense. When you want to see ALL of these, you need some 30" monitor or whatever.
On my laptops 15.4" I can't see both the MIDI and audio channel parameters at once.
Add to that: If your monitor isn't able to show all the channel infos, there's no freaking way to scroll down. Things just exceed the lower monitor border without any scrolling option.
Yeah sure, great programming skills.
I'll gladly provide a screenshot if you don't believe.

Then, when you open the audio channel settings of a given VSTi (using the lower E button), change to another track and change back, you'll be confronted with the MIDI channel settings again. Oh yeah, right, just the very reason why I was using the lower E button in the first place.
Again, kickass programming skills.

Next: When you have a (linked, per preference) mixer opened and click on a MIDI track, it'll take you to the MIDI channel. In case you have the MIDI channels hidden (which is making sense in case you're using VSTis), it'll take you nowhere.
In Logic, it'll just take me to the appropriate mixer channel. Which is *exactly* what you want, in case you're working with virtual instruments.

Really, as much as I appreciate your expertise in SX, there's *no* way to defend their lame "VST to mixer" linkings.
It's just plainly bad (see the scrolling comment), buggy (see the E button comment) and absolutely making no sense in some cases (see the linked mixer comment).
Don't get me wrong, I *do* understand the very reason why it's like that: It's because Steinberg is following hardware paradigms when using VSTis. You have a rack and you need to cable your MIDI cables into it. Just that you're doing it all inside the box. And while this approach is very nice (and I really mean it) should you be working with external synths, it's conmpletely clueless in a VSTi context. And yes, I really mean it - and it's proveable, too.

[Bas]

Say what you mean Sascha, no need to hold it all in.

[Sascha Franck]

Say what you mean Sascha, no need to hold it all in.

I'd rather prefer they'd finally listen to their users.
And, as you may know, these are all no esoteric things just to suit my personal needs, it's something a whole lot of (experienced) SX users are wishing for.
Meanwhile, Steinberg has at least sorted out quite some arrangement issues (such as finally implementing relative snapping, which, along with "absolute snap" is making SX even more flexible than most others), but there's still some majpr flaws in their overall organisation of the program, a lot of things simply boiling down to userfriendliness and ergonomics, but about the same amount of things being simply un-intuitive (something Cubase was almost famous for - being intuitive that is), highly illogical and even absolutely counterproductive.

I do know about the potential behind SX, just to explore (and actually use) that potential is causing nervous breakdowns. And as said, it's not only me.

Personally, for me it's finally enough of a reason to go for a Mac. And yes, I've been trying not to. Pretty hard even.

[TeeLangSun]

When I click on that midi track in the Project View I see not only all aspects of the midi track itself (Midi FX inserts, inputs and outputs, channel, gain, pan, offset, recording parameters etc), but also all aspects of the VST instrument which has been assigned to it. Everything is right there in the inspector.

Nonsense. When you want to see ALL of these, you need some 30" monitor or whatever.

Nonsense? It's not nonsense. Obviously you don't see all of it at once, what you see, is a vertical label in the inspector which lists for example:

Hypersonic
Equalizers
Eq Curve
Sends
Channel

and so on. Click on one to expose that option. It fits perfectly on the screen with no scrolling. Obviously you can't actually view all of these things on the screen at once. But you originally said that you couldn't see any of it unless you went into the VST Instruments folder which you said you didn't really want to do, and I agree, I don't either. What I'm pointing out here is that you don't have to. It's all there in plain view.

I'll gladly provide a screenshot if you don't believe.

I'm looking at it in front of me, what is your screen shot going to proove.? Maybe I should provide a screen shot to proove otherwise. My monitors are 19 and a 20 inch widescreen. The 20 inch is actually not as tall as the 19 inch. As for laptops, I hope you didn't buy one not realizing that it would have a much smaller screen. Not to be provoking argument here, but I don't see the point of mentioning what can or can't be viewed on a laptop.

Then, when you open the audio channel settings of a given VSTi (using the lower E button), change to another track and change back, you'll be confronted with the MIDI channel settings again. Oh yeah, right, just the very reason why I was using the lower E button in the first place.
Again, kickass programming skills.

I've seen that. But with 98% of the same parameters in the inspector right in front of you, why bother clicking the "E" button. I don't. But I'm not disputing that Cubase is or isn't perfect. There are things that I'd like to see in Cubase and there are examples of bad programing. None of it has proven to be life threatening for me personally, but I accept that what's merely strange for me is earth shattering for someone else, and vice versa.

Next: When you have a (linked, per preference) mixer opened and click on a MIDI track, it'll take you to the MIDI channel. In case you have the MIDI channels hidden (which is making sense in case you're using VSTis), it'll take you nowhere.
In Logic, it'll just take me to the appropriate mixer channel. Which is *exactly* what you want, in case you're working with virtual instruments.

Really, as much as I appreciate your expertise in SX, there's *no* way to defend their lame "VST to mixer" linkings.

I'm not. I only pointed out the fact that I can see everything in the inspector. And without scrolling mind you. But again, these other things aren't fatal for me. Maybe I'm just adapting my workflow to avoid these things. It's like, if I know something is gonna behave strangely, I avoid doing it where possible. That particular thing seems highly possible to avoid and therefore doesn't bother me.

It's just plainly bad (see the scrolling comment), buggy (see the E button comment) and absolutely making no sense in some cases (see the linked mixer comment).
Don't get me wrong, I *do* understand the very reason why it's like that: It's because Steinberg is following hardware paradigms when using VSTis. You have a rack and you need to cable your MIDI cables into it. Just that you're doing it all inside the box. And while this approach is very nice (and I really mean it) should you be working with external synths, it's conmpletely clueless in a VSTi context. And yes, I really mean it - and it's proveable, too.

I'm not arguing with any of the above, or Steinberg's programming skills, or their reasoning for it. But I just don't see any of the above as life threatening. No one program is the best at every single thing. For me, and probably with every Cubase user, Cubase simply does what I need better than anything else. I can list a bunch of things that feature in FL Studio that I'd love to see in Cubase, and Logic while I'm at it. LOL. But overall, Cubase fits me best. No matter what I choose, I'll have to live with something that itsn't quite right.

[Sascha Franck]

I'm looking at it in front of me, what is your screen shot going to proove.?

It's supposed to prove that Steinberg in all their "we know it all" minds simply forgot about a scrolling option.

I've seen that. But with 98% of the same parameters in the inspector right in front of you, why bother clicking the "E" button.

Because it's offering a WHOLE lot more of information at once. Something you can't get from inspector as fast.

I'm not. I only pointed out the fact that I can see everything in the inspector.

Yeah, after some clicking madness.

But I just don't see any of the above as life threatening.

Well. I don't think *any* feature (or lack thereof) of *any* sequencer is life threatening at all. So that's completely beyond the point.
There's just some things that simply could be done better. Unarguably better that is.
And I can't see a reason to leave those out or implement them as badly as they are implemented.

And while all these things aren't life threatening for sure, they're good enough to make me switch platforms. Which, as you may know, is quite some step.

[TeeLangSun]

Well, I can't aruge that Apple/Emagic have managed to put more in the inspector than Steinberg has done with Cubase, and that I'd rather not click at all than have to click even once to see what I want to see. I definately wouldn't call it "clicking madness" by a long shot, but it's extra clicks nonetheless.

I love the whole look of Logic on the Mac and the idea of owning Logic Express has crossed my mind, but I don't know how I would manage without access to everything that I now use which is PC only. Also, some specific features of Cubase would be sorely missed. Still, I have the Mac and Logic Express is not prohibitively expensive so I may seriously consider it anyway.

Let me ask you this though. Have you found that midi timing is better on the Mac than on the PC? Midi timing in terms of playing a midi keyboard. I've read people saying this and I wonder if there's any truth to it.

Thanks

[ericj23]

does sascha realise that if you control click on the part that indicates what vst your connected to that you can view all of the vst details from the inspector ? - and if it has multiple outs you can choose which out put to look at - something logic handles unbelievably badly

and if you click on one of the vst subsections - lets say the inserts - every other midi track you look at shows that choice

I really have no idea why you would open the mixer or the inspector - but each to their own

EDIT actually having read more he does know this - he just doesnt seem to like it

[Sascha Franck]

Let me ask you this though. Have you found that midi timing is better on the Mac than on the PC? Midi timing in terms of playing a midi keyboard. I've read people saying this and I wonder if there's any truth to it.

I've never done any tests myself, and as I don't own a Mac yet, I can't. At least not now.
But, considering that I'm not using any external stuff anymore, it shouldn't matter much, as VSTis/AUs are sample accurate on playback anyways.

Btw, I really don't want to rub the "clicking madness" thing in (because I wished so much it was any different in SX), but as one example: When you open whatever plugin GUI in Cubase, the damn thing will stay opened as long until you close it manually - which will quite often lead to a plethora of opened GUIs, effectively covering your workspace. In Logic, plugin GUIs can be "chained", so once you open a new one, the previously loaded one will automatically close.
Please note that this is no "must" - it's an option on a per plugin base (unlike in SX, where almost everything is managed through some global preferences, things are working songbased in Logic). So, you could just have it both ways.
The same goes for about anything "linked". You can have linked editors along with unlinked ones. You can have (as much as you want, btw, not just 3) linked mixers along with unlinked ones.
And well, while I do agree that all these things aren't any sort of a requirement for anybody (or to get some work done), let alone being life threatening, they're making some daily sequencing tasks a much more pleasant experience. And, to stress that again, they actually wouldn't get into the "classical Cubase" way at all. As said, all these things are just optional in Logic.

Oh, fwiw, I always seem to come through as some deep Cubase hater - that's not exactly the truth. I do very well know about the advances of some things, especially as soon as it comes to audio handling. That's something truly outdated in Logic. Fortunately it doesn't get in the way of the things I'm doing (even if I'm sort of a 50/50 audio/MIDI person).

Oh, and fwiw #2, I *am* a Cubase hater! It just managed to mess up WaveLab 3 horribly. They're sharing their plugin directories and it seems as if there's no way to avoid that. I even uninstalled SX and WL was working just great (without accessing any VST plugin directory). Then I reinstalled SX and WL crashed on scanning some newer plugins. I tried to change like everything (plugin paths inside SX, some registry settings) - all to no avail. It seems that whenever WL3 and SX3 are installed on the same machine, WL3 is automatically using the plugin path(s) specified in SX.
Now, I could do the following things:
- Not allow SX to use any but very limited plugins. Not what I want (for the most obvious reasons).
- Only use certain vstplugins "natively" and open the rest via Energy XT. Again, nothing I want.
- Uninstall some vstplugins. Yeah well - just no!
- Update to some newer WL version. Why? V3 is doing all I need. No way I'd spend more money for features I don't need.
- Uninstall SX. Well...

All I want is to load WL without any plugin scan. And that seems to be impossible as soon as SX is installed, accessing my vstplugins directory.

This very issue is truly makíng me angry right now (as I need to work on some samples, which is what I got WL for).
Just imagine, there's a program working perfectly (WL) until I install some other program (SX).
Wouldn't that just drive you mad?
I'm serious, I'm thinking about hunting down some newer WL crack and install it on this 100% legal machine. I'll be losing money in case I can't use WL (that sample cutting/looping job is a commercial one) and I'll be losing quite some time in case I can't have SX installed parallely.
Would anybody happen to have an idea?

[Sascha Franck]

does sascha realise that if you control click on the part that indicates what vst your connected to that you can view all of the vst details from the inspector ?

Yes, he does.

And no, I don't think multiple outs are handled that badly in Logic. IMO in general they're even dealt with in a better way, but YMMV.

[cptgone]

does sascha realise that if you control click on the part that indicates what vst your connected to that you can view all of the vst details from the inspector ?

typically steinberg: functions hidden behind esoteric key combinations. if you don't know 'em by heart, you're fuxxored.

i love sx btw, but i agree with sascha about the hardware paradigm, the stupid little ergonomics flaws and the lack of attention for the user base. but, used with eXT, it's very powerful.

[ericj23]

had a quick look in the registry - my sx writes a path in under local user software vst - im guessing that wavelab uses that key as well

all i can suggest is setting cubase to no folder - then use wavelab

then when you want to use moobase you'll ahve to tell it where the vsts are and then restart

now this is ugly - sorry

[Sascha Franck]

had a quick look in the registry - my sx writes a path in under local user software vst - im guessing that wavelab uses that key as well

all i can suggest is setting cubase to no folder - then use wavelab

then when you want to use moobase you'll ahve to tell it where the vsts are and then restart

now this is ugly - sorry

Yeah, I know about those steps. And it's ugly indeed. Especially since once you actually forget to disable the plugin path in Cubase, WL will automatically use the same one. And crash - in my case, probably due to whatever instrument plugin (which wouldn't crash any other host and which I wouldn't need inside WL anyways).
And, to make things even worse, once you forgot to change the plugin path in SX, WL will remember it as long as you completely uninstall it and clean the registry. I even had it recreate some X:\program files\Emagic directory on reinstall, simply because I forgot to clean up my registry.
Seriously, this is one software of one company rendering another software (of the same company) useless.
After all, it seems I simply can't use the two along each other without going through major hoops.

I will give things another go, installing both SX and WL on different partitions, but in case this will fail I'm afraid I'll have to say goodbye to SX. These things are completely inacceptable and Steinberg doesn't seem to give a f**king shit either. Poor Phillipe - what a gifted programmer.
I just need WL much more than SX and I can't see a reason why I should update when v3 is exactly doing what I need.
Ok, I may install whatever crack of whatever newer version. And believe me, I wouldn't feel bad about it in any way. So far, my computer is as legal as it could be. And I'd love to keep it like that. But I can't be arsed to do so just because the Steinberg folks are clueless.

[cptgone]

It just managed to mess up WaveLab 3 horribly. They're sharing their plugin directories and it seems as if there's no way to avoid that. I even uninstalled SX and WL was working just great (without accessing any VST plugin directory). Then I reinstalled SX and WL crashed on scanning some newer plugins. I tried to change like everything (plugin paths inside SX, some registry settings) - all to no avail. It seems that whenever WL3 and SX3 are installed on the same machine, WL3 is automatically using the plugin path(s) specified in SX.
Now, I could do the following things:
- Not allow SX to use any but very limited plugins. Not what I want (for the most obvious reasons).
- Only use certain vstplugins "natively" and open the rest via Energy XT. Again, nothing I want.
- Uninstall some vstplugins. Yeah well - just no!
- Update to some newer WL version. Why? V3 is doing all I need. No way I'd spend more money for features I don't need.
- Uninstall SX. Well...

All I want is to load WL without any plugin scan. And that seems to be impossible as soon as SX is installed, accessing my vstplugins directory.

WaveLab4Essentials has a textfile in which you can list "plugs to ignore".

i came home knackered yesterday night, eager to install my new WaveLab4Essentials. after install, it wouldn't run... and neither would SX2

- WL4E installs a number of old plugs into my vst folder, making SX crash (there's no option not to install 'em)
- WL4E automatically scans all vst folder plugs and crashes if it finds one it doesn't like (like, many VSTis)
- WL4E doesn't even report what dll caused trouble - in the help file they recommend using drwatson
- then i had to use an old DOS command to fetch all VSTi names so i coud enter them into the textfile that lists plugs who aren't to be scanned

took me ages last night to get things running. but, WL will come in mighty handy for mastering CDs.

i take it i can't use my SX2 UV22 dithering plug in WL4E?
is the WL4E internal dithering any good? or should i use Elephant's dithering instead?

[cptgone]

btw, Sascha, does WL3 have the Audio Montage feature? maybe that would be worth the upgrading for?