Cubase SX issues

[topaz]

most can be done but in a different way.

1.in sx you have different mixers, so you have screensets for each view on each mixer.

ie:

f4_micro mixer (collapsed) slim strips.
f5_expanded mixer view channels 1-20
f6_expanded mixer view channels 20-32
etc etc

that way you always know what view your going to get when you hit your shortcuts.

2.2nd tool, I dont understand, right click it's all there. sod having to click combination keys to get to the tool. LAME and did my head in in Logic.

3.velo tool ? in the editor just have your lanes set up then you have accsess to velo or any cc.

Sashcha, why not post a simple. "how can I do this"

rather than, Logic does this and that ? it wuld be much easier, it's almost like you really dont want to like SX unless it works the same as logic.

but it doesnt, thank god.

Some more things:
I open a mixer, set it to allways on top, drag it onto my second monitor.
I filter out the expanded view, to have two mixer rows fit on my screen.
Now I may not filter out the expanded view anymore to adjust some settings on a bunch of channels. After adjusting them I'd go back to "collapsed" view => the position on the screen hasn't been kept! UBERLAME!

In Logic I have two sorts of mixers, one "track mixer", actually following the track sorting in my arrange and the "environment" mixer, being freely configurable. In SX I can't configuire any mixer, everything is allways following my arange order. Needless to say: Lame!

Screensets: If they steal something off Emagic, why not just do it right?
The need to save a window layout each time you changed something is as dumb as it could get as it interrupts workflow in a serious way. In Logic I permanently switch between my arrange, mixer, editing and whatnot screensets. I size and configure them to suit my current needs. No need to save anything, things just stay the way I configured them.
In case I want something to be "saved" I just lock the screenset.
Needless to say: SX's implementation is far behind.

Tools: Why cant they just offer a setting allowing me to have a secondary tool on my mouse button, maybe triggered by the use of some modifier key? Once you worked with two tools straighly available in Logic, you will REALLY miss it in any other program not offering these things.
Also, why is there no velocity tool in Key Edit? OK, considering the current tool handling implementation it wouldn't make much sense anyways, but in Logic I allways have the straight pointer tool on my left, the velocity tool on my right mouse button. You won't believe how convenient that is! No need to point your mosue to any info line, you just drag up/down on the note you were just working on anyways and change velocity with that.


Seriously, while there's some nice technical features in SX, it's now the least program that is intuitive to work with.
Or well, maybe it *is* intuitive, but it's not ergonomic at all.

I can easily spot some trend during the last years:
- Steinberg implementing features, more features and even more features while totally losing track on anything regarding efficiency of workflow.
- Emagic catching up only slowly regarding the technical side of things while adding some functions to make working more efficient in each and every subrelease.

I usually prefer Emagics attitude because I'm not exactly after new features but after handling that makes sense. SX lacks gazillions of things regarding that.

Where's my G5?

[auxbuss]

Surely Nuendo has PDC. Or have I misunderstood your post?

The latter.

Some more things:

there's more

I open a mixer, set it to always on top, drag it onto my second monitor. I filter out the expanded view, to have two mixer rows fit on my screen. Now I may not filter out the expanded view anymore to adjust some settings on a bunch of channels. After adjusting them I'd go back to "collapsed" view => the position on the screen hasn't been kept! UBERLAME!

Probably. I don't see this as I never use the "Always on top" kludge, I only use the mixer for mixing, and I never use the extended view - as I mentioned I can do all that stuff in Channel Settings, which I always have open.

In Logic I have two sorts of mixers, one "track mixer", actually following the track sorting in my arrange and the "environment" mixer, being freely configurable. In SX I can't configure any mixer, everything is always following my arrange order.

Yup, but consider Channel Settings as your "following" "mixer".

Screensets: If they steal something off Emagic, why not just do it right?

Steal is a bit strong, since all this stuff evolves. Anyway, let's not go there.

Steinberg did get screensets right with Window Layouts in Nuendo 1. They didn't have all the features of screensets, but had others that screensets don't. Having developed this excellent feature, Steinberg then removed it in SX1 and resorted to the pathetic overlay thing from Cubase VST. They then hoisted this ridiculous move on Nuendo users with Nuendo 2 - along with other gems mentioned in this thread, such as the removal of the mono/stereo toggle.

The need to save a window layout each time you changed something is as dumb as it could get as it interrupts workflow in a serious way.

LOL I agree, but I was blasted by Cubase VST users for saying so at the time. The real Window Layouts didn't do this, and also had the lock feature like Logic.

In Logic I permanently switch between my arrange, mixer, editing and whatnot screensets. I size and configure them to suit my current needs. No need to save anything, things just stay the way I configured them.

Yup, same in Nuendo 1.

In case I want something to be "saved" I just lock the screenset. Needless to say: SX's implementation is far behind.

It was all there, but they removed it.

It's really nice to talk to someone who thinks that this is a stupid as I do. Be aware that we are in a tiny minority

Tools: Why cant they just offer a setting allowing me to have a secondary tool on my mouse button, maybe triggered by the use of some modifier key?

I campaigned for this also Steinberg came up with the Toolbox thing - for guess who? This issue - and a more involved feature-set - gets regularly played out on the Nuendo forum.

Or well, maybe it *is* intuitive, but it's not ergonomic at all.

Absolutely, but this is inevitable since Steinberg doesn't discuss design with its customers. A lot of the problems stem from Nuendo 1 being used to build SX 1. They handed over the code to the VST progs who set about VSTising it without understanding the design philosophy behind Nuendo. By the time they got to Nuendo 2 - from which came SX 2 - they had unraveled things so far that there was no going back. It didn't help that the beta team was full of VST users who plodded along pushing for VST things rather than grasping the brave new world.

Heaven knows what v3 of both will bring

I can easily spot some trend during the last years:
- Steinberg implementing features, more features and even more features while totally losing track on anything regarding efficiency of workflow.

I suspect that their strategy is "features sell". Users are well-aware that both SX and Nuendo need to be "finished", and they are equally aware that this is unlikely to happen. It's a crying shame. When you compare it to the love and attention to detail taken by Ableton with Live, you can only shake your head in disbelief at the shortsightedness of it.

[Sascha Franck]

1.in sx you have different mixers, so you have screensets for each view on each mixer.

ie:

f4_micro mixer (collapsed) slim strips.
f5_expanded mixer view channels 1-20
f6_expanded mixer view channels 20-32
etc etc

You don't understand correctly.
I want a mixer that I can cofigure ALL by MYSELF.
This is impossible in Cubase as you can't change the order of objects (unless you change them in your project window as well, which I don't want).

2.2nd tool, I dont understand, right click it's all there. sod having to click combination keys to get to the tool. LAME and did my head in in Logic.

If you never used the second tool in Logic you can't know what I'm on about.
A few examples:
Im my arrange, I have pointer/left, scissor/right.
No need to ever change this. Whenever I find the need to cut (which, apart from dragging and shortening, is my most used action), I just click right. No need to select anything. No need to go back to the pointer. Just cut and work on.
Easy and convenient.
If we had a comparison who'd cut, copy, paste, shorten and whatnot, I'm sure I'd win all these "contests" both in terms of required actions and regarding the amount of time it takes.

3.velo tool ? in the editor just have your lanes set up then you have accsess to velo or any cc.

I allready explained this.
I don't want to fool around with the CC lanes.
In Logic I do the folliwng all in ONE single move:
Select, shorten, transpose, alter velocity.
No need to ever bring my mouse down to the CC lanes.
Actually, I don't even need those lanes as I can do everything with the tools only => more real screen estate.
Let alone that it becomes even more difficult in Cubase once you're treating chords.

Sashcha, why not post a simple. "how can I do this"

I'd do so. But in this case I allready knew all the things you suggested.
And they're not even remotely as comfortable as what I'm used to.

rather than, Logic does this and that ? it wuld be much easier, it's almost like you really dont want to like SX unless it works the same as logic.

I don't want SX to be Logic, but there's certain fundamental design flaws when it comes to handling.
And obviously I compare these with the way Logic treats things, a) as I am familiar with it and b) so you can see what I want.

I would even agree that there's some things that I might not like but that would make perfect sense for others - OK, no problem.

But a user definable order of mixer channel strips would be something a lot of people would benefit from. The current behaviour wouldn't be affected.

A second tool, brought up via some modifier key would be something another bunch of people would love. The current behaviour wouldn't be affected.

A velocity tool would be something a LOT of people would love as soon as they are getting used to it. The current behaviour wouldn't be affected.

Not having to save window layouts all the time could again be there as an option without even harming the way it's currently implemented. Nobody would be pissed but a lot of people would love it. The current behaviour wouldn't be affected.


There's another thing (moving of parts in the project window) that I'm just exploring, but so far I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something obvious. So far it makes a rather questionable impression, but I'll investigate on that a bit further before asking anything about it...

[Sascha Franck]

Thanks Marc, at least some Cubase user that understands what I think is more or less essential in terms of workflow.

Seriously, I would REALLY like to like SX... and there's some things I way allready "wow-ing" at.
For instance:
- The way it asks you automatically whether a dragged audio file should be copied to your song's audio folder. Brilliant!
- The way you can save mixer scenarios. Boy, what did I miss such an option when working on multitracked tunes recorded in one session when I only wanted to keep the drum mix of the first mixed tune. In Logic (depending on the complexity of your mix) it might take you pretty much something like an hour or so, just to copy all the drum channel adjustments and plugin settings.
- Time stretching in project window. Ten times better sounding as in Logic and pretty convenient.
- MIDI plugins. Just cool. Seriously. Nothing to add.

But then, when it comes to what I need most, I'd say "efficiency" and "ergonomics" regarding anything that has to do with composing, arranging and rearranging. For those tasks the mentioned things are almost crucial to me (especially the tool and part handling scenario).
I actually don't work a lot with time stretching, I also don't record mutliple multitrack songs that often. And I have developed my very own way of backing files up properly, so there's no urgent need for any automatism.
Also, I can pretty much live without proper support of multitimbral VSTi support (or layering of those).

So, to me the obvious strengths of SX actually don't mean too much.
I'm still searching for some that WILL matter much.
Not that I will ever stop using Logic (my decision to buy a Mac more or less soon is almost certain), but as I need to be familiar with SX as well (due to my current job) I'd really like to like working with it.
Just a few hours ago I had an idea for a song and thought I'd do that in Cubase. But after, say, 30 minutes I just thought I'd quit and start Logic instead.
Admittedly this had to do with the missing instruments as well, but the main reason was that I've simply been drowning in windows, didn't want to even get used to the way of editing things and didn't want to see all that screen estate wasted all the time...

Maybe I should just fiddle around with MIDI plugins a bit more - that's the feature I liked most so far.
Usually I'm some sort of "I'll do it by my own" kinda guy, but perhaps they will inspire me anyways.

[bluedad]

just have to jump in here (as I don't want to start a whole thread on my own...yet) but I just have to scream a loud DAMN!
having been trying the last 1 1\2 hours trying to figure out on my own how to throw a little fx insert on a track (I'll admit to NOT reading the manual that far)
another DAMN!
vst, you just pulled up the mixer and stuck in the plugin and away you go.
and the number of steps to do this in sx??
well, I finally read far enough in the manual to learn how to do this, and the relief was almost overwhelming!
I'm sure I'll get to learn this and love it eventually, but it's not as intuitive as vst. (but, I'll admit to having cracked the manual for that one a time or two as well.)
ok, rant over, back to sascha


I just feel better now.

[auxbuss]

Thanks Marc, at least some Cubase user that understands what I think is more or less essential in terms of workflow.

I'm surprised no one has leapt in and accused us of "whining" - the standard ploy of those lacking critical faculty

I'm not a huge fan of the term "workflow", since it suggests a succession of A to B events/tasks/processes. And, since we all work differently, and differently again in various situations, then I'm not sure that it is a good justification for complaint with sequencers - notwithstanding the fact that Steinberg likes to hoist such processes from time-to-time

Earlier you used the term ergonomic, and I think that's much better

You mention some of the good stuff, and it is good - very good. There's nothing very much you can't do, and most is incredibly flexible, allowing you to back-out or mute actions - have you found Deactivate in the Offline Process History (OPH) yet?

But then, when it comes to what I need most, I'd say "efficiency" and "ergonomics" regarding anything that has to do with composing, arranging and rearranging. For those tasks the mentioned things are almost crucial to me (especially the tool and part handling scenario).

A bit of tautology there, since ergonomics implies efficiency You've hit the nail on the head, though, and why I share your frustration - perhaps more so, since I've experienced things going backwards for a couple of years now on the ergonomics front.

Sure there's an ever-increasing bucket of functions - some well-designed, some frankly awful - but the use changes have reduced SX's friendliness as a composition and arrangement tool. Yes, you can do all the necessary tasks, but it's not very clever - and worse than it was, imo.

but the main reason was that I've simply been drowning in windows

This is the result of removing Window Layouts, and there seems to be no going back on it. Anyone who has worked with Tracktion or Live will know how powerful an apparent simple interface can be.

Hang tough, though. SX has is an awesome audio editor. They messed up the Part Editor a bit recently - add a function, mess up a few others - but other than that it is short of very little.

But yes, it is a great shame about the breeding windows. Perhaps the best move Steinberg could make is to employ a professional interface designer - someone prepared to fight their corner and do the job properly. The guy who did Nuendo 1 for example

[DevonB]

Intuitive - a process that's easy... after you've read the instructions.

Devon

[bluedad]

Intuitive - a process that's easy... after you've read the instructions.

Devon

ohh, such a pithy reply.

just let me rant, ok!?

there, it's out of my system.
(for now)

[vurt]

Thanks Marc, at least some Cubase user that understands what I think is more or less essential in terms of workflow.

I'm surprised no one has leapt in and accused us of "whining" - the standard ploy of those lacking critical faculty

oi stop whinin!

[Sascha Franck]

Hm... maybe my mindset just isn't the right to go along with Cubase.
While I seriously dig all the new tech tools we have at out disposal these days (did I tell you that I just LOVE my Komplete 2 package allready?), I switched from VST to Logic back in the days when VST allready had DX, VST and VSTi support while all you got with Logic was their 3.0 plugins (none of them sounding reasonable after todays standards).

But I was in, hm, let me say, "ergonomic heaven" - and I still am, maybe even more than ever before, as a whole lot of useful functions regarding handling have been added since then.

Then, when Emagic was taken over by Apple, I had a more or less lengthy eMail discussion with some guy at Steinberg that I know.
He said, now that a lot of Logic users might switch to Cubase, Steinberg's developers would be all open-minded towards their new users, trying to implement at least a few of the useful features of Logic (maybe not 100% the same, but at least allowing you to do things as easy).
Back then I allready suggested most of what I've been asking (or complaining about) in this thread. He more or less wholeheartedly agreed with my complaints.

Allright, that was when SX1 was just the new kid on the block. Now, a complete version jump later, apart from the (mediocre) implementation of window layouts, I fail to see how they did anything to make SX appealing to Logic users.
No, I don't mean that they should just add something the same way it's done in Logic, but they could at least have a look at what Logic users love most about Logic: Ergonomics that is!

As I've been testing for Emagic for a long time, I'm the very first to know about almost all the bugs, almost all the half-assed-implemented things, almost all about things that have been on Emagic's testers and users wishlists since AGES while not being adressed at all, even if it was something rather fundamental (such as the completely bloated reclocking functioon that never worked properly and probably never will).
A lot of these things are there in SX indeed. So, normally you'd think it'd be quite a relief for a Logic user to finally see some oldtime issues being no issue any longer... but apparently that ain't true for a lot of people.
So, what is it, that makes people buy Macs instead of just staying with the (even more affordable) platform they allready know?
What is it that keeps them with Logic while knowing that SX most likely offers better implementation of quite some technical things?
What is it that makes them switch to a platform 90% of all freebie/cheap plugins don't even exist on?
What is it making them switch to a platform that even doesn't offer a decent Wave editor such as WaveLab (all the Mac OS editors MISERABLY fail in comparison!)?

A certain part of the reason people do so are the internal plugins Logic comes with. And yes, it's by far the best package you can get with any combination deal.
But for all people I know this isn't the main reason.
You may have guessed allready, the main reason is: Ergonomics!

Yes, I am repeating myself, but IMO it's almost "proveable" that Steinberg is missing out seriously on that.
Seriously, it's not some "I want it THAT way, anything else sucks" approach. None of the points I made up would conflict with anything being allready there. Nobody had to use the features I'm asking for.
But, a LOT of people would enjoy them (believe me, they would!).
Further, it's not that things would be hard to implement in a technical way. You can allready have another tool on your mousebutton.
Why not offer an option to only have it there temporarily, via some modifier key? Could even be all the available tools, each triggered by a different modifier.
Why not offer a (HIGHLY efficient!) velocity tool? The technical basics are there allready...
Why not offer a user definable mixer? (OK, I don't know how that one would fit into Steinbergs code)
Why not offer a button bringing you straight to a VSTis channel strip (again, considering the current implementation I wouldn't know whether that was possible)?
Why not make the (unmusically) "snap TO a given value" switchable to "snap BY a given value"?

Well, I better stop now... similar complaints are suitable for almost any audio software developer (hmpf - WHY IN THE WORLD does Battery have non-resizeable open dialogs - just to name one...), and apart from the "small guys" nobody seems to listen to their user base anyways.

[topaz]

Sascha having just finished my KVR meet track and playing on griels new tune (all done in SX2) I now have time to take these 7 or so pages to the studio
and will do so tonight, then I will go thru each problem you mention, im intrugued.

there are of coarse some things that just wont happen with SX, like self configured mixer (strange but I like this, now I can get on with music rather messing about with environments and mixer objects).

personally I think it is horses for coarses, as you already said theres things that are faster in SX than Logic and vice versa.

Hm... maybe my mindset just isn't the right to go along with Cubase.
While I seriously dig all the new tech tools we have at out disposal these days (did I tell you that I just LOVE my Komplete 2 package allready?), I switched from VST to Logic back in the days when VST allready had DX, VST and VSTi support while all you got with Logic was their 3.0 plugins (none of them sounding reasonable after todays standards).

But I was in, hm, let me say, "ergonomic heaven" - and I still am, maybe even more than ever before, as a whole lot of useful functions regarding handling have been added since then.

Then, when Emagic was taken over by Apple, I had a more or less lengthy eMail discussion with some guy at Steinberg that I know.
He said, now that a lot of Logic users might switch to Cubase, Steinberg's developers would be all open-minded towards their new users, trying to implement at least a few of the useful features of Logic (maybe not 100% the same, but at least allowing you to do things as easy).
Back then I allready suggested most of what I've been asking (or complaining about) in this thread. He more or less wholeheartedly agreed with my complaints.

Allright, that was when SX1 was just the new kid on the block. Now, a complete version jump later, apart from the (mediocre) implementation of window layouts, I fail to see how they did anything to make SX appealing to Logic users.
No, I don't mean that they should just add something the same way it's done in Logic, but they could at least have a look at what Logic users love most about Logic: Ergonomics that is!

As I've been testing for Emagic for a long time, I'm the very first to know about almost all the bugs, almost all the half-assed-implemented things, almost all about things that have been on Emagic's testers and users wishlists since AGES while not being adressed at all, even if it was something rather fundamental (such as the completely bloated reclocking functioon that never worked properly and probably never will).
A lot of these things are there in SX indeed. So, normally you'd think it'd be quite a relief for a Logic user to finally see some oldtime issues being no issue any longer... but apparently that ain't true for a lot of people.
So, what is it, that makes people buy Macs instead of just staying with the (even more affordable) platform they allready know?
What is it that keeps them with Logic while knowing that SX most likely offers better implementation of quite some technical things?
What is it that makes them switch to a platform 90% of all freebie/cheap plugins don't even exist on?
What is it making them switch to a platform that even doesn't offer a decent Wave editor such as WaveLab (all the Mac OS editors MISERABLY fail in comparison!)?

A certain part of the reason people do so are the internal plugins Logic comes with. And yes, it's by far the best package you can get with any combination deal.
But for all people I know this isn't the main reason.
You may have guessed allready, the main reason is: Ergonomics!

Yes, I am repeating myself, but IMO it's almost "proveable" that Steinberg is missing out seriously on that.
Seriously, it's not some "I want it THAT way, anything else sucks" approach. None of the points I made up would conflict with anything being allready there. Nobody had to use the features I'm asking for.
But, a LOT of people would enjoy them (believe me, they would!).
Further, it's not that things would be hard to implement in a technical way. You can allready have another tool on your mousebutton.
Why not offer an option to only have it there temporarily, via some modifier key? Could even be all the available tools, each triggered by a different modifier.
Why not offer a (HIGHLY efficient!) velocity tool? The technical basics are there allready...
Why not offer a user definable mixer? (OK, I don't know how that one would fit into Steinbergs code)
Why not offer a button bringing you straight to a VSTis channel strip (again, considering the current implementation I wouldn't know whether that was possible)?
Why not make the (unmusically) "snap TO a given value" switchable to "snap BY a given value"?

Well, I better stop now... similar complaints are suitable for almost any audio software developer (hmpf - WHY IN THE WORLD does Battery have non-resizeable open dialogs - just to name one...), and apart from the "small guys" nobody seems to listen to their user base anyways.

[topaz]

the right click cut thing can be done using
preferences/key modifiers.

[Alfalfa]

edit

[auxbuss]

I think that Cubase's lack of access to audio channels (to insert fx) from the main view is its biggest setback.

That sums up the thread nicely

[Sascha Franck]

OK, just to show you how much real screen estate there is in Logic, here's two screenshots:
http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/LogicSX/Logic2ndMon.jpg
This is my standard mixer layout on the second monitor (running at 1280x1024). I didn't reduce the size, so you can really compare.
As you can easily see, there's plenty of space left (I also usually don't have all the vocal tracks there) while a lot is being displayed allready.

http://home.arcor.de/s.franck/LogicSX/Logic1Mon.jpg
This is my single monitor arrange (same resolution).
Needless to say that the channel strip in there is following my track selection, regardless whether I'm using an audio track or a VSTi track. Also, all the parameters are there. As soon as I want to edit an insert I just doubleclick. As soon as I want to edit what's happening on a bus I just doubleclick on the send buttons.
I didn't cut away anything from this screenshot, so you can see how much space there is for my arrange.
One thing I may do is to open the extended parameter box (offering more detailed quantize settings and such), which would be another small float window that I usually place above the channel strip.
Also, no matter which plugin UI I open, the arrange size will ALLWAYS stay intact maximised. Any UI will just open as an allways on top window, so I can drag it anywhere (often on my second monitor).

In both screenshots you may notice that very little space is wasted for title bars, window borders and whatever.
This doesn't change at all whenever you open any plugin.
And I still fail to find any halfway important parameter that can't be adressed that way (apsrt from MIDI plugins which just don't exist in Logic).