Cubase 10.5 is here now....

[BONES]

As for the 180 track song... you can hear it here...
https://soundcloud.com/scott-moncrieff- ... hour-night

Nice work. Some parts work better than others - I think the drums are comparatively weak, for example - but I doubt I could do better if faced with 180 tracks. I reckon I could easily get it down under 20 tracks without ruining it, though, and then I'd have something I could go to work on.

... but this last update, really doesn't add to that, even though I keep hearing stories how it's improved workflow, I just ask HOW ?

If you can't see how the comparative EQ and project merge would improve your workflow, you're not looking too hard.

At a guess I would have around 700-1,000 plug ins in the session

That is simple insanity. I cannot imagine anything good being made that way. Happy to be proven wrong if you have something to share, of course.

[telecode]

180 tracks!?! WTF!?! Our most complex song has fewer than 20 tracks and since we moved to Cubase, it's more like a dozen.

I think it's time for you and your band to make a punk rock heavy alternative song with 180 tracks of pure distortion, over drive, and grit. Do it! You know you want to!! Let 'er rip like Lemmy!

[jancivil]

Don't take this personally, the you is universal 'you', it's this statement which is stupid: "Terribly convoluted workflow."
No tool, no DAW/Host has a workflow. You have a problem with yours in Cubase. This is 100% your responsibility.

That's only true up to a point. The interface design places limits on workflows. I will never be able to get close to the smooth, logical workflow of Orion in Cubase, simply because of the interface. It's a fundamental restriction that I can't work around. I can develop other workflows, which I've done, but it will never come close to the speed and convenience of Orion.

Granted, but the true statement will be 'Orion facillitates this workflow', unless there is strictly the one Orion Workflow possible. Cubase has a terribly convoluted workflow, well, no, if only because I don't.

[BONES]

Absolutely and the workflow is what drew me to Orion. It remains to this day the closest feeling to working in a real studio, pre computers. That's mainly down to the fact that everything in Orion revolves around the mixer, just like it does in a studio, whereas everything else - Cubase, Logic, FL Studio, Studio One, Reason, Live, Bitwig - treats the mixer as an afterthought.

I think it's time for you and your band to make a punk rock heavy alternative song with 180 tracks of pure distortion, over drive, and grit. Do it! You know you want to!! Let 'er rip like Lemmy!

You guys would be absolutely horrified if you saw one of my projects. I was just counting them up and in the song I most recently finished porting from Orion, I have only used EQ on two channels (kick and bass) and for the whole song I've used a total of 8 effects, which includes putting Ozone on the master. There are only 8 parts in the arrangement, with a total of 12 mixer tracks. And that's a finished 6 minute song, with vocals, ready to be put on CD - Battery, Substance, DUNE, Hive, TRK-01, Zampler RX and two tracks of vocals. Done! But it has still taken us the best part of two years to get it to this point, so simple doesn't necessarily mean easy. It's also why the thought of a 180 track song paralyses me with fear.

[zoidkirb]

What I'm saying is that if the software doesn't work for you, then ditch it. If it does, then embrace it. It's really that simple.

Hey mate I think you missed my other reply, I basically agree with you. Anyway, Cubase 10 is working very well here. Reason 10 is too. I'll continue to embrace both but the way these companies behave and the products they offer will also continue to influence my personal future purchasing choices. I'm not trying to convince anyone not to buy, just stating a viewpoint

[reggie1979]

What I'm saying is that if the software doesn't work for you, then ditch it. If it does, then embrace it. It's really that simple.

Hey mate I think you missed my other reply, I basically agree with you. Anyway, Cubase 10 is working very well here. Reason 10 is too. I'll continue to embrace both but the way these companies behave and the products they offer will also continue to influence my personal future purchasing choices. I'm not trying to convince anyone not to buy, just stating a viewpoint

I'm not sure what to think. 10.5 has been announced. And it's cool for those that are applicable. Carry on Wayne...............

[LeVzi]

... but this last update, really doesn't add to that, even though I keep hearing stories how it's improved workflow, I just ask HOW ?

If you can't see how the comparative EQ and project merge would improve your workflow, you're not looking too hard.

Not once in my life have I said to myself, "God I need comparative EQ in my DAW " or "I wish I could merge my projects"

So while you may find this useful, I do not. Nor would I ever use them. Yes updates are subjective, and while you could list a hundred reasons why those two additions improve workflow, to me, they do NOTHING.

So to get an updated synth version (I own Padshop V1) and a new effect of which I Have a million delays, I have to pay £51.

If there was an improvement with CPU , or something that benefitted everyone id jump on it.

Seems that each new release, there is less and less worth having. But then that was always gonna happen eventually, you cannot continue to improve on the same idea indefinitely.

[THE INTRANCER]

As for the 180 track song... you can hear it here...
https://soundcloud.com/scott-moncrieff- ... hour-night

Nice work. Some parts work better than others - I think the drums are comparatively weak, for example - but I doubt I could do better if faced with 180 tracks. I reckon I could easily get it down under 20 tracks without ruining it, though, and then I'd have something I could go to work on.

Thanks... it's actually one of my own personal favourites in terms of tracks I've created in all the years I've been creating music. Creating beats and drums is one aspect I find particularly boring in the process of creating music. I know it's important but I do use drums and percussion as more of a momentum in the background normally, (I find and balance the mix of it all during the whole process). My most recent track I've posted on soundcloud is still a work in progress and has since been updated...I've still many unpublished tracks to put on there yet. This track took around 10 - 12 days to create from scratch...

Music is like looking a piece of landscape, there is a lot of which you can't actually see from your naked eye or in this case, there is a lot of which you can't hear that plays an important part in the whole piece of music that without it would sound empty. In that sense, your perception in being able to replicate something with a percentile as low as that and to be comparable is pretty presumptuous without knowing the details.

When I used Cubase 9.5, I found it pretty frankenstein...and I don't think I'd enjoying using it for creating music with as much as I have with Studio One. I originally moved from Propellerheads Reason to create filmscore type music with high track counts, but didn't want to break the bank with Cubase even though that seemed an obvious choice at the time.... Other than a few weird behaviours that have popped up in my time with Studio One, I've not looked back. The most limiting thing for me music wise, is not the tools but myself as a composer and how I feel emotionally. It means more to me to create music I enjoy than having dozens of tracks that I don't, and don't have any connection with. It typically takes at least 2 or 3 tracks that I've started before I get into the head space I want to be in... I made music with Bar & Pipes in the 1990's, every friend I knew didn't make music, or want to make their own music... and as a teen back then, I though it was kinda odd that I did...Funny how things never change...

[BONES]

Not once in my life have I said to myself, "God I need comparative EQ in my DAW " or "I wish I could merge my projects"

Then you can't have much of a clue what you're doing. Honestly, the whole idea of using EQ in a mix is to fit all the different sounds together. If you can't see how being able to compare the spectrum of one channel while you adjust the EQ of another might improve that process, then you really don't have a clue. And you have never done a few hours work on a song, abandoned it for whatever reason and come back at a later time and wanted to re-use one or two parts of it in something else you're working on? Again, seems that if you've never been there, maybe you've never had an idea worth keeping.

So while you may find this useful, I do not. Nor would I ever use them.

So Steinberg should clear all new features with you, to make sure you will use them before adding them to Cubase. Full of yourself, much?

So to get an updated synth version (I own Padshop V1) and a new effect of which I Have a million delays, I have to pay £51.

No, you don't have to do anything. I'm not getting the upgrade but that doesn't mean I am so blinkered that I can't see the value in it.

If there was an improvement with CPU , or something that benefitted everyone id jump on it.

Well, aren't you the bloody altruist, then? And here was me thinking you were just a self-absorbed little gobshite.

Seems that each new release, there is less and less worth having. But then that was always gonna happen eventually, you cannot continue to improve on the same idea indefinitely.

Well, of course. You can only put things in once, then they are there. Eventually you end up putting everything in, then there is nothing at all left to put into the next version, tehn we can all get some work done.

Creating beats and drums is one aspect I find particularly boring in the process of creating music. I know it's important but I do use drums and percussion as more of a momentum in the background normally

I'm a bit the same, which is why I bought Ujam's Eden. I haven't used it much yet but when we start writing for the next album, I can see it getting a lot of use.

Music is like looking a piece of landscape, there is a lot of which you can't actually see from your naked eye or in this case, there is a lot of which you can't hear that plays an important part in the whole piece of music that without it would sound empty. In that sense, your perception in being able to replicate something with a percentile as low as that and to be comparable is pretty presumptuous without knowing the details.

That's my point - most of the details aren't relevant to what the listener hears. When you paint a landscape, you only paint the things you can see, you don't paint everything else that you know is there, like the reverse side of a hill or the back of a tree trunk.

[LeVzi]

I completely missed the point, but nevermind, I still had to sound important

Only one gobshite around here son, you, not everyone sees the same value, I certainly don't, but I know others do, and I never suggested it wasn't a worthwhile upgrade for many, but I wasn't alone in thinking this was a lite .5 update and a lot of stuff wasn't really going to be useful. Now if you can't accept that people don't all think your way, then , well I guess you know where you can stick it then.

And i've never needed comparative EQ to this date, so suggesting I don't know what i'm doing because of that is laughable tbh.

See my avatar to any further replies you care to make junior.

[THE INTRANCER]

That's my point - most of the details aren't relevant to what the listener hears. When you paint a landscape, you only paint the things you can see, you don't paint everything else that you know is there, like the reverse side of a hill or the back of a tree trunk.

But you can't see behind a tree in anycase, so it's not what you can't see, which would be the equivilent of silence in music but rather that of multiple elements / properties which make up the visual appearance of the tree, which exist to create the colour of the bark, the light and shade which is influenced by that of the sun and shaddow that is cast, which affects the visual properties of what the true colour of the tree actually is to the non imapired human eye. So there are a number of factors in how something looks and thats the same as sound. When you look at a forest of tree's, they never look flat, no matter how far you are from them...it's the same with food... It's all science..

[BONES]

The thing is, though, that not everything will be audible to the listener. They will only hear half-a-dozen things going on at once, the rest won't register at all. In my experience, if it's not going to register, it doesn't need to be there.

not everyone sees the same value, I certainly don't, but I know others do, and I never suggested it wasn't a worthwhile upgrade for many, but I wasn't alone in thinking this was a lite .5 update and a lot of stuff wasn't really going to be useful. Now if you can't accept that people don't all think your way, then , well I guess you know where you can stick it then.

Well, now you've completely changed your tune and you are agreeing with me, so it seems people do think my way. Because, to refresh your memory, you originally said "... but this last update, really doesn't add to that, even though I keep hearing stories how it's improved workflow, I just ask HOW ?". Now, however, you are saying that other people might in fact see how it improves workflow. Nice to have you on board.

And i've never needed comparative EQ to this date, so suggesting I don't know what i'm doing because of that is laughable tbh.

If you haven't used it, how can you possibly know whether or not you've needed it? It could be a revelation for your workflow for all you know. To remain close-minded on the subject seems stupid to me. And if you are so confident in your abilities, how about a link to some of your work so we can all see just how much you know and how well you are able to apply it?

[epytryga]

I've been recording music on puters since my Atari in 1988...the comparitive eq is a game changer for me that I didn't realize I would use it so much

[Ah_Dziz]

I still can’t make a real-time midi randomizer with the tools cubase provides. I would like to see a better midi transformer that works fully in real-time.

[BONES]

What? You want Cubase to write your music for you? I do miss the random pattern generator from Orion, but only as a quick way of previewing sounds, so I got it to generate one, which I saved as a MIDI file so I can use it in Cubase. Problem solved. Surely you could solve your problem with a plugin?