Should I update? Cubase Vst 5.1 to SX - Who can help?

[relayer2001]

The deadline in Australia for upgrading was extended to 15 August, but after a lot of soul searching, I decided not to upgrade. There were three reasons for this.

1. I spent a several hours with the SX demo and did not find the new interface as intuitive as VST5.1 - the help file and manual were no help either. To upgrade would mean spending a few months getting to know the software to the extent where accessing functions become second nature. So much for making music.

2. SX2 is not the path for me - SL2 is. I don't need (and will never see a need for) video or surround sound functionality. I don't need unlimited audio tracks either because I mainly work with midi. Unfortunately, SX does not let users disable video or surround processing as a preference to reduce resource consumption.

3. I do not see the need to spend money now then spend more money later to upgrade to SX3 (and how dare Steinberg try to trick me into doing so). The money is better off in the bank earning interest or used for better purposes (like buying Ravity ).

Based on the above, I decided to take the risk and wait to see what SX3 brings before I throw money Steinberg's way.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Ford Prefect]

I wasted my money on SX1 yet she didn't mature until 2 at which point I'd already become a happy Sonar user...

[Linde]

The deadline in Australia for upgrading was extended to 15 August, but after a lot of soul searching, I decided not to upgrade. There were three reasons for this.

1. I spent a several hours with the SX demo

What demo? I was under the impression there isn't a demo.

and did not find the new interface as intuitive as VST5.1 - the help file and manual were no help either. To upgrade would mean spending a few months getting to know the software to the extent where accessing functions become second nature. So much for making music.

Well, SX isn't realy an upgrade, it's a totaly new program. I started with VST5.1 but I think SX is much better. SX is a modern windows program, 5.1 has it's roots in Windows 3.x, Gem, it needed a total rewrite.
It took me two weeks to get the hang of it.

2. SX2 is not the path for me - SL2 is. I don't need (and will never see a need for) video or surround sound functionality. I don't need unlimited audio tracks either because I mainly work with midi.

Why do you think SL2 is THE PATH? It's works exactly as SX2 besides some limitations.

Unfortunately, SX does not let users disable video or surround processing as a preference to reduce resource consumption.

If you don't use them why should they consume resources?

I do not see the need to spend money

No, you are clearly happy with 5.1, so be it.

now then spend more money later to upgrade to SX3 (and how dare Steinberg try to trick me into doing so).

Nobody knows for real when SX 3 will happen. Just rumours. At first I was quite unhappy with the upgrade from SX1 to SX2 regarding pricing and that it happenened so soon after the release of SX1.
But I got over it. SX2 is much better SX1.
No one is tricking you or forcing you into an upgrade. I had some reservations about the SX1 SX2 upgrade. In the end I thought I did the right thing and I didn't felt I was cheated.

Based on the above, I decided to take the risk and wait to see what SX3 brings before I throw money Steinberg's way.

Why do you think SX3 will do it for you? It will be be based on the same Nuendo/SX code base.

Henny




[/quote]

[dusted william]

Does anyone know if we will be able to upgrade from SX1 to SX3?

dw

[Sequent]

Well, I was told that 5.1 to SX3 will be available again once 3 is out, so I imagine sx1 to sx3 shouldn't be a problem.

[relayer2001]

Henny

What demo? I was under the impression there isn't a demo.

It was the SX1 demo. I just wanted to get a feel of the new environment. I didn't like it much. Certain windows took up way too much real estate. Unfortunately I'm not one of those people that run huge or dual monitors.

Well, SX isn't realy an upgrade, it's a totaly new program.

I totally disagree. Tracktion is a new program. So is Live. SX still works off the same paradigm as Cubase 1. What has changed in SX is the arrangement of the functions.

Why do you think SL2 is THE PATH? It's works exactly as SX2 besides some limitations.

Why should I pay an extra AUD$650 for "features" I'll never use. It just does not make economic sense.

No one is tricking you or forcing you into an upgrade.

Well if Steinberg was not trying to trick me, they should have been more explicit about future upgrade paths instead of this ominous "no more upgrades" statement. To me it comes across as a ploy to make a quick buck by getting rid of existing stocks before SX3 gets rolled out. BTW, I spoke to someone in the know here who hinted that SX3 may be out towards the end of the year - but who knows.

Why do you think SX3 will do it for you? It will be be based on the same Nuendo/SX code base.

I don't. I'll just have to wait and see.

[Linde]

Well, SX isn't realy an upgrade, it's a totaly new program.

I totally disagree. Tracktion is a new program. So is Live. SX still works off the same paradigm as Cubase 1. What has changed in SX is the arrangement of the functions.

That's not what I meant. I was comparing SX to 5.1. SX was a complete rewrite.
So SX is quite different from 5.1.

Henny