KVR Audio

BERFAB · Post by **BERFAB** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:58 pm

Put me on the Cubase fan list as well. As said before, no one really pays $800 because of the various upgrade paths. And the cheaper versions like SL and SE offer a boatload of functions for a fraction of the price--until you're ready to upgrade to the full program.

It's stable, and it's supported. And, parenthetically, it's the reason that KVR exists: they invented VST technology and I guess you could say that it kind of caught on.

Other hosts have various different takes on improved workflow, but they all incorporate features that Cubase has incorporated somewhere already.

Is it perfect? No. But as mentioned above, many other hosts can act as VSTs within Cubase if there's something else that's needed.

Personally, I often feel that I only use about 1% of all the Cubase features. But I'd hate to be in a situation when I did need a feature that I don't normally use, only to find that my NON-Cubase host didn't support it.

-B

moroe · Post by **moroe** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:25 pm

got a picture from the arcticle about CUBASE 4 in the computer music magazine !!!

http://www.andremoroe.com/

just look under "cubase 4 screenshots"

greets

andre moroe

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:00 am

Oh yeah... Computer Music UK or Computer Music US?'Either way, won#t get the chance to read that article, as our local bookstore discarted Computer Music. Then again, paying 15bucks per magazine THERE just to read the article... uh uh - without me.

But as I expected... "exclusive previews" once again. Any "official releasedate" in this particular article?

K-Slash · Post by **K-Slash** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 3:36 am

moroe wrote:got a picture from the arcticle about CUBASE 4 in the computer music magazine !!!

http://www.andremoroe.com/

just look under "cubase 4 screenshots"

greets

andre moroe

I hope someone will scan this, I'm curious about the new effects and AudioWarp version.

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:11 am

K-Slash wrote:
moroe wrote:got a picture from the arcticle about CUBASE 4 in the computer music magazine !!!

http://www.andremoroe.com/

just look under "cubase 4 screenshots"

greets

andre moroe
I hope someone will scan this, I'm curious about the new effects and AudioWarp version.

It should all be out in detail by Thursday.

BassQuake · Post by **BassQuake** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:18 pm

Can someone clear this up for me? Im only a recent user of Cubase SX 3. When they develop a new VST standard does that mean, we are going to see a whole new bunch of VST's that wont run in SX 3? and only 4?

egbert · Post by **egbert** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:23 pm

BassQuake wrote:Can someone clear this up for me? Im only a recent user of Cubase SX 3. When they develop a new VST standard does that mean, we are going to see a whole new bunch of VST's that wont run in SX 3? and only 4?

I doubt it. My guess is that Steinberg will shoot for backward compatibility and you will need a VST3 compat host to exploit some of the new features.

All hosts still in development will adapt to the new standard in time and new plugin versions will probably use the VST3 SDK (which isn't out yet) and old ones like Logic PC (no development since ~ 2002) will fall behind.

Odditory · Post by **Odditory** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:37 am

It's interesting how quite a few DAW's are releasing new DOT-O versions all of a sudden within this next month: Sonar 6, Ableton Live 6, Cubase 4. Sadly I'm stubbornly still using Logic Platinum 5.5.1 on PC. I'm looking for my next great DAW and have spent days to weeks each in Ableton Live 5 PC, Sonar 5 PC, Cubase SX 3 PC, Nuendo 3 PC, Logic 7.2 OSX. I can still 'get right down to writing tracks' in mere seconds with Logic 5 PC. My friends all beg me to switch to Mac because "it just works" - yeah right, I feel clastrophobic in OSX and after a few hours I literally (not joking) develop a headache (psychosomatic no doubt). Perhaps its learning-curve but I own so many third party plugs/software on PC and I know every square inch of a PC's hardware and software having coming from DOS and pre-DOS days.

If Cubase 4 has really improved timestretching (wait, I mean "Audio Warp - A Steinberg Innovation!" says their ad *cough*) anywhere near the Acid6 or Live5/6 level, then Cubase 4 just may be my next magic DAW. I've gone through the askvideo.com video tutes for SX 3 and while many basic functions require 3 to 4 clicks that one can do in Logic 5 PC with a single click or click-hold, again perhaps Cubase 4 improves on those. I find it amusing that it took 'til Cubase 4 to finally get things like 'instrument tracks' - something logic's had since v4 I believe. It makes me worry what other less obvious basics are more complicated than they need to be in Cubase. It also worries me that Steinberg takes 8 or 9 months releasing incremental updates or simply new dot-oh versions (the Cubase forums are aflame as we speak) as well as the fact that Cubase makes an OSX version which I'd assume takes time/resources from otherwise further bug-proofing the PC version; that's one thing attracting me to Sonar 6 is Cakewalk's laser-like focus on PC/Windows. If Sonar 6 also has excellent timestretching as they claim then THAT may be my next DAW.

I've seen the Cubase 4 videos on Steinberg's site and they make Cubase 4 look promising (though when the guy that sings the "All 4 You" song hits the part "All for YOU .. YOU .. YOU .. YOU" it invokes milk-curdling douche-chills / involuntary gag). To be honest Cubase 4's instrument and plugin GUI's are painfully boring / monotone - hopefully they sound better than they look. Come to think of it Cubase's GUI and especially their plugin GUI's have always been very bland/boring. "Who cares" some say - yet likewise someone once said that if a GUI "looks" fun to use you're more likely to use it; our visual and auditory senses are more interconnected than we realize. There's *some* truth to that.

Decisions, decisions.

-Odditory

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:55 am

If "instrument tracks" are important to you, then you might want to consider the fact that Sonar 6 still does not have them - you will still need seperate MIDI and Audio tracks each time.

stag · Post by **stag** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:35 am

Looks are definitly important, but subjective too.
Working something out with odd GUI, like others have IMO, with to much colour or other distrating kitch cosmetics doesn't rock my world at all.
Cubase on this dpt has improved, very down to get it done.

still lots of room to improvemment doe.

Improv · Post by **Improv** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:54 pm

stag wrote:Looks are definitly important, but subjective too.
Working something out with odd GUI, like others have IMO, with to much colour or other distrating kitch cosmetics doesn't rock my world at all.
Cubase on this dpt has improved, very down to get it done. still lots of room to improvemment doe.

In the old days of tape, I wonder if there were similar complaints: 'Oh man-that new Tascam is flat black AGAIN! How am I supposed to be inspired to create my next hit when they can't even have an optional orange colour? I can't go on like this! And that brushed aluminum colour on the Neve? Forget it! '

Improv · Post by **Improv** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:09 pm

Silly Improv-this is a second copy!

stag · Post by **stag** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:15 pm

absolutely! but the easier on the eye the better...IMO

Compyfox · Post by **Compyfox** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:19 pm

Uhm... Cubase can be flat black&white or can have as many colors as you like (like shown in the demo screens)

Personally I give a damn about colors, if I may say so. I'm used to VST32 (VST5.x) and it was boring greyshades on white or grey background. And you know what? I even used it till SX3 came out.

Is this hardcore or what?

Cubase 4 advert !