KVR Audio

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:01 am

Lance wrote: I wonder Cuba could sue Steinberg for Cuba-se. Or maybe Steinberg pays license fees for the name to Castro.

a reasoning as sturdy as my granny after two shots of gin

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:13 am

Beardedone wrote:In Cubase everything feels and looks awkward and stilted. But with all my other hosts the process is nearly always instant and satisfying.

what hosts are you talking about here?

i like cubase - but i never used anything else (except eXT)
i wouldn't want to miss the Cubase range of features though.

rbet · Post by **rbet** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:38 am

spaceman wrote:
Lance wrote: I wonder Cuba could sue Steinberg for Cuba-se. Or maybe Steinberg pays license fees for the name to Castro.
a reasoning as sturdy as my granny after two shots of gin

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:39 am

Lance wrote:maybe Steinberg pays license fees for the name to Castro.

because their programmers are eunuchs?

Beardedone · Post by **Beardedone** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:15 pm

Beardedone wrote:
In Cubase everything feels and looks awkward and stilted. But with all my other hosts the process is nearly always instant and satisfying.

what hosts are you talking about here?

i like cubase - but i never used anything else (except eXT)
i wouldn't want to miss the Cubase range of features though.

I am referring to Sonar 5, Live 5, FLS, eXT and Overture 4 for working with midi and virtual instruments. I am getting into Phrazor and like a lot too. For audio editing etc I use Adobe Audition.

I have been trying to use Tracktion 2 for quite a while and I also find it awkward and unusable though much better than Cubase. I know should not denegrate Cubase since it was the Pioneer program in this field and I am grateful to Charlie Steinberg for that. It is incredible to me that I cannot do anything in Cubase. I have little trouble with the hosts I list above. Why is that? I do want to like Cubase. So, why is it that time spent trying to coax Cubase to do what I want always results makes me angry and frustrated? I don't expect anyone to answer that but it boggles my tiny brain no end. I guess I will give Cubase another try one day when I have countless hours to kill.

Best Regards
Gordon

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:19 pm

Beardedone wrote:I guess I will give Cubase another try one day when I have countless hours to kill.

you might give Cubase Unleashed a go, a pay site with Steinberg tutorials, they have demo lessons on offer.

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:21 pm

maybe it's Cubase's hardware paradigm that confuses you?

Beardedone · Post by **Beardedone** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

maybe it's Cubase's hardware paradigm that confuses you?

Qué? I know how to connect my RME Multiface with SX demo. Otherwise I would get no sound. I do know what you mean.

spaceman · Post by **spaceman** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:57 pm

maybe it's

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 3:09 pm

Beardedone wrote:
maybe it's Cubase's hardware paradigm that confuses you?
Qué? I know how to connect my RME Multiface with SX demo. Otherwise I would get no sound. I do know what you mean.

I think he means that Cubase is setup as if its elements (eg the arrange page/transport and mixer) were analogues of a hardware tape machine and a hardware mixer. Even the VSTi's are stored in a "Rack". Some advantages and also some limitations flow from this way of setting things up.

Some other hosts are set up to allow anything to interconnect to anything else and the tape/mixer studio paradigm are dispensed with altogether. To some extent Cubase was designed to allow people used to the analogue/hardware studio to feel comfortable in the new computer based studio. Now we have twenty years of computer based music experience and a 16 year old coming to this fresh will probably start off with computer based recording systems.

Beardedone · Post by **Beardedone** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:20 pm

Beardedone wrote:
Quote:
maybe it's Cubase's hardware paradigm that confuses you?

Qué? I know how to connect my RME Multiface with SX demo. Otherwise I would get no sound. I do know what you mean.

I think he means that Cubase is setup as if its elements (eg the arrange page/transport and mixer) were analogues of a hardware tape machine and a hardware mixer. Even the VSTi's are stored in a "Rack". Some advantages and also some limitations flow from this way of setting things up.

Some other hosts are set up to allow anything to interconnect to anything else and the tape/mixer studio paradigm are dispensed with altogether. To some extent Cubase was designed to allow people used to the analogue/hardware studio to feel comfortable in the new computer based studio. Now we have twenty years of computer based music experience and a 16 year old coming to this fresh will probably start off with computer based recording systems.

I am 52 so this diesn't apply to me. I have a passing familiarity with "hardware paradigm" Cubase is supposedly emulating. It is mostly the way Cubase handles midi creation and editing and automation that messes me up.

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:44 pm

Beardedone wrote:I am 52 so this diesn't apply to me. I have a passing familiarity with "hardware paradigm" Cubase is supposedly emulating. It is mostly the way Cubase handles midi creation and editing and automation that messes me up.

I used Logic before SX and I still prefer midi editing in Logic - I used the hypereditor a lot for drums and the score, list and piano roll editors for instrument parts. SX I can deal with - the midi editors could be improved but I get by OK. The handling of multiout VSTi in the mixer and audio editing are better in Cubase than they ever were in Logic PC.

Some great aspects of Cubase SX for me are the full PDC and automatic allocation of multi outs for virutal instruments. (BTW does Logic 7.2 do these yet? - Anyone?)

My Cubase SX tunes do not get corrupted or anything nasty like that. My main issues with Cubase SX are:

1) that you end up with too many mixer tracks, many of them unused and that enormous amounts of screen space is wasted on the bloated mixer layout.

2)I would much prefer to be able to see sends and inserts at the same time on a mixer object - this can be done in the project window but I don't mix from the project window.

3)Freeze is not as useful as it could be either but my system is pretty fast so I would rarely need it at this point. If I was mixing many synth tracks freeze would be essential and in that case more control over the freeze files would be a big plus.

4) poor coordination between project window VSTi tracks and mixer objects.

None of these are deal breakers for me. If another host (eg Samp) looked like it would suit me better I would jump but I wouldn't want to lose anything major. Eg - as a Logic user I used to be dealing a lot with VST developers over compatibility issues with plugins and synths so the improved compatibility with VST plugins has been somewhat of a relief.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:51 pm

I guess I will give Cubase another try one day when I have countless hours to kill.

Why?

There's no point. If it doesn't suit you, why even try to force it.
You like it or you don't. In exactly the same way, I simply cannot use Tracktion or Logic. Logic has never made any sense to me whatsoever, most likely never will. Tracktion has some nice features, but it just seems toylike to me, and won't do some midi things that seem like second nature to me in Cubase.

Nowadays I rarely even bother to try out new versions of those hosts. It's a waste of my time that I don't have. It'd take me 6 months minimum to learn a new host and be anywhere as quick as I can be in Cubase, even if I don't like everything in Cubase.

Can't be arsed.

Also can't be arsed why others don't like Cubase, and I don't expect them to waste their time trying to learn my host either.

Another pointless thread, really...

Sascha Franck · Post by **Sascha Franck** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:06 pm

egbert wrote: Some great aspects of Cubase SX for me are the full PDC and automatic allocation of multi outs for virutal instruments. (BTW does Logic 7.2 do these yet? - Anyone?)

Full PDC, yes, automatic allocation of multiouts, no - and THANKS GOD it isn't like in Cubase!
Seriously, this is one of the things I find WAY more elegant in Logic. I always only get the individual outs I need, rather than being confronted with up to 32 (Kontakt 2) outs when all I need is a single stereo pair. I know, I can hide them, but whenever I may need an additional out I gotta unhide things, search for the proper individual out in the brutally expanded mixer (just imagine a setup with 2 DR-008s, one Battery and 2 Kontakts... around 60 extra channels popping up, depending on your preferences) and then re-hide the unwanted channels. In addition, I can't drag, say, a bass channel playing through, say, Kontakt module #2 next to my drum channels - which is where I'd like it to be.
In Logic I have a bunch of aux objects right from my main mixing screen (so they don't get in my way if unused), and whenever I need one of them it's a one-click-and-select menu thing to get my snare playing through whichever aux object. After that I just drag them to whatever appropriate position in my mixer.
Seriously, this is something I truly love! But hey, different strokes for different people. I actually happen to know a lot of people liking the SX way of handling these things. Maybe they never got warm with Logics environment mixer, I don't know.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:15 pm

Unfortunately, many of us never will, because they made Logic Apple-only. Dumb move. Who knows? I may have switched if I could use it on a PC!

Cubase 4 advert !