NEW CUBASE SX 3 SIMPLY MINDBLOWING !!!!

[bugs]

That's OK. I'm amazed at the number of people that rely on MIDI when there are cool things like real instruments around.

But it certainly doesn't mean my viewpoint is the correct one. I can see how an integrated score would be THE focal point for MANY users, were it useful and full-featured.

Greg

Unfortunately, there are many more real instruments around then there are real musicians.

[Josmoker]

The primary concern I have is that the release of SX3 appears to have been a reaction by Steinberg to the announcement that Sonar 4 is on the starting blocks. It’s reasonable to infer from this that Cakewalk is launching because its QA is telling it that it can, whereas Steinberg is launching because the market demands it must. It’s also reasonable to further infer that Sonar is the primary market competitor to Cubase in Steinberg’s market analysis.

Now this seems like a pretty bold statement to me. I'm not saying that the first release of SX3 will be bug-free. Is that pure assumption to just stir up the discussion a bit or did you base it on more than just forum announcements or the timely order in which the news have been released by the 2 companies?

Cheers, Jo

[cold c]

Interestingly, it looks like they "held off" releasing those VST instruments when they released 2.0, as some of the files needed by them were on the 2.0 installation CD.

Now that's interesting!! If they'd released it with 2.0, it might have stopped all the people who were saying.....

"Yeah, well, 2.0 is really just a bug fix for 1.0, this bugger shoulda been free!"

If you thought that was interesting, you may also like to know that someone at cubase.net is suggesting that SX3 may have been planned as SX 2.5 rel1 according to the build version in the file properties.

see this topic for more info

I don't know if this is true, but it doesn't help their current reputation surrounding their upgrade pricing strategy.

EDIT: Bas has responded saying that the topic starter there is lying, so you may ignore most of this post.

[mauseoleum]

well I'm sure more interesting and intriguing things will surface - but, hey, that's capitalism, isn't it?

i wonder when first updates will come by.

[Lunch Money]

That's OK. I'm amazed at the number of people that rely on MIDI when there are cool things like real instruments around.

But it certainly doesn't mean my viewpoint is the correct one. I can see how an integrated score would be THE focal point for MANY users, were it useful and full-featured.

Greg

Unfortunately, there are many more real instruments around then there are real musicians.

Yeah. Luckily, you don't have to be a real musician in order to play a real instrument. Just ask Sonic Youth.

I'm just teasing, though, of course. While it's true that I don't use MIDI for much, it's one of the strongest tools a musician and composer could have at his/her disposal, without a doubt.

Greg

[elfan]

sorry i had to shout but it is too great that after 10!! years something finally happens (changes) at Steinberg.

So tell me, does this version of Cubase support DRAG & DROP of inserts? Or at least SOME way of moving an insert without having to create a new instance and copy the plugin settings manually? Does it have an sufferable note editor? One that actually lets you insert notes, stepwise (not real-time), without having a big, obstructing insertion cursor appear. Without a cursor that doesn't allow you to remove a single note, but instead removes EVERYTHING on the position where it's located. Clever interface...

Am I the only one in the world who notices these things? Why is Steinberg spending all this time and money on new softsynths and plugins to bundle with Cubase instead of fixing their goddamned GUI?

//Tomas

[elfan]

This is seriously bad.
Very often I find myself wanting to insert, say, a compressor on a track (usually this should be the first insert effect), just to find out that the insert slot in question is occupied allready.

In Logic you can just drag FX around as much as you like.
Something that should defenitely be adressed in Cubase.

I totally agree! It's amazing that Steinberg has been working on Cubase for so long and STILL has not introduced this extremely simple feature. Not only is it simple, it's essential! The fact that I can't move inserts around is so obstructing that I can't work with Cubase efficently (and, in the end, work with Cubase at all).

If only Logic was still around on the PC.

//Tomas

[Josmoker]

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Golden words in this context, methinks. Try to make the best of what you get, and if you really don't like it, look around to see if there is another host that suits your needs better.

Cheers, Jo

[egbert]

Over a decade or so, Emagic and Steinberg released a new numbered version of their sequencers about every two years - delayed release of some products like Logic 5 screwed with the sequence a little.

So, conforming to this pattern, Logic 3 was followed two years later by Logic 4. In the intervening years they released point versions - eg Logic 3.5 would be announced a year after the announcement of Logic 3.

These x.5 releases were often charged for - Logic 2.5 and 3.5 were paid upgrades and Emagic even had the gall to charge for Logic Audio PC 2.6 after the release of the VERY buggy Logic 2.5 PC.

The fact that Cubase SX 3.0 is released a year after SX 2.0 suggests they have stepped up the rhythm by a factor of two.

I don't care what Bas says - this would have been called Version 2.5 if Steinberg were following this long established pattern. The decision to call it SX 3.0 could have been made at any time in the last year or so.

So why the change - Steiny obviously wants some more cash. Perhaps Pinnacle likes the idea of an annual boost to the bottom line - although they could have done this without changing the numbering pattern.

Eg

[mauseoleum]

I'm surprised how little the *Pinnacle* factor is being envisioned and discused regarding Steiny's *market-thing* lately. New-ish *politics of dancing* ?

[mauseoleum]

I'm surprised how little the *Pinnacle* factor is being envisioned and discused regarding Steiny's *market-thing* lately. New-ish *politics of dancing* ?

[elfan]

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Golden words in this context, methinks. Try to make the best of what you get, and if you really don't like it, look around to see if there is another host that suits your needs better.

Cheers, Jo

Yep, I'm currently using EnergyXT (or actually, EnergyXT within Cubase). I used to work with Logic until Emagic dropped development on the PC. I then started using Cubase until I realized that I can't work with Cubase .

I just think it's a damn shame to ruin such a perfectly fine host with such a hopeless GUI. It's not even completely hopeless. It's just hopeless in the parts where at least I spend most of my time: In the mixer (in the insert chains) and in the note editor (step programming sequences).
It's frustrating, that's all. If it had been a lot of issues, I'd probably not even bother complaining about it. But now, as I see it, it's just a matter of TWO usability issues. Usability issues! Not introducing immense new functionality. Just making simple fixes to the GUI.

As I said... Frustrating.

//Tomas

[Improv]

Sorry. I will let you big boys discuss your SX3.

Thanks. I'm fed up of reading your FL spam. Cheers.

Atleast I dont pay 50 cents a bug for so called upgrades

No, but you have to deal with GOL!

Have fun!

[HanafiH]

The primary concern I have is that the release of SX3 appears to have been a reaction by Steinberg to the announcement that Sonar 4 is on the starting blocks. It’s reasonable to infer from this that Cakewalk is launching because its QA is telling it that it can, whereas Steinberg is launching because the market demands it must. It’s also reasonable to further infer that Sonar is the primary market competitor to Cubase in Steinberg’s market analysis.

Now this seems like a pretty bold statement to me. I'm not saying that the first release of SX3 will be bug-free. Is that pure assumption to just stir up the discussion a bit or did you base it on more than just forum announcements or the timely order in which the news have been released by the 2 companies?

Cheers, Jo

It’s a measured judgement based on Steinberg’s in-depth history. To the best of my knowledge none of the Cubase series of products has ever been developed to fault-free feature completion. The Cubase game is that the grass is always greener in the next release.

Given the past periodic generations of Cubase, one would have expected this release to be SX2.5 not 3.0, as suggested in a thread above. That would have meant that only SX1 users would have to pay for the upgrade, SX2 users would get it for free. Now we’re confronted by the unusual situation of both SX1 and SX2 owners being charged for the same upgrade. This may be an example of corporate generosity on the part of Steinberg – if so it’s the first ever – otherwise it’s a cynical attempt to leverage payment from the entire user base by bumping version numbers a year early. This would also account for the desperately uncharacteristic rebuttal of the claim that SX3.0 is in fact SX2.5 by Steinberg’s monkey.

Have any of the seventy or so 5.1 VST features omitted from SX been implemented yet? Is there any proposal to continue support for the SX2 stream for its remaining bugs?

The market for audio software has now become completely horizontal. While people were entering the prosumer DAW market in significant numbers, Steinberg could afford to lose it’s market margins – the Yamaha Factory owners, the Mackie controller brigade and the VST 5 stuckists and so on. Now, they have to brand compete in a saturated market in which the absence of it’s traditional semi-pro user base and the alienation of significant numbers of prior users leaves it uniquely exposed.

SX3 is about revenues. The price of those revenues is significantly greater than those being raised by Cakewalk and it's product line. That's my judgement and if you don't like it, argue me down.

[kevvvvv]

HH

This would also account for the desperately uncharacteristic rebuttal of the claim that SX3.0 is in fact SX2.5 by Steinberg’s monkey.