antic604 wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 17, 2021 4:12 am
jens wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 17, 2021 3:46 am
There's no need to get philosophical about it - it's simply shitty stacked clips, which are in the way and serve no purpose.
And even if that was really their idea, then it was a pretty stupid idea.
I challenge you to name one little advantage the stacked regions might yield.
Maybe there are some technical reasons?
Maybe they were the ones to introduce it first to DAWs and this is what they came up with?
Maybe the designers had particular workflow that made sense with how it works?
I tend not to call "shitty" things that I don't like AND don't understand reasoning for why they are how they are, because it bit me in the ass few times already. But feel free to do whatever you like
Well, I judge the features for what they are, not what their development history is - why would I?
Look at this thread title - it's "Studio One 5.2 vs Cubase 11" - not "Studio One in the light of the historic meaning of Cubase's development".
Here is my original post that turned into this discussion:
jens wrote: ↑
Wed May 26, 2021 10:41 am
_leras wrote: ↑
Wed May 26, 2021 2:39 am
It may be a bit quicker to do some things in other DAWs - but I think in Cubase a Lot, if not all of that, can be made up for if you make good use of templates.
I tried a few times to get up to an acceptable level of workflow in Cubase but even just working with multpile audio-takes is such a pain in the arse - it just craps them all on top of each other... would you believe? Why, just why?
I tried putting them all in an audio-part with a macro but for some reason that ended up being utterly cumbersome too. (I can't remember the exact specifics anymore, but I certainly tried.)
It's a total mess, while Studio One's comping-feature is relatively elegant - not quite as nifty as Reason's audio-editor, but still miles ahead of Cubase.
For someone who records a lot of audio on his own Cubase is just no good at all imo. And there were several other things which I just found unneccesarily complicated/convoluted.
Besides, it was only an example of my initial point that Cubase did not age well at all:
jens wrote: ↑
Mon May 24, 2021 1:58 am
Trensharo wrote: ↑
Sun May 23, 2021 3:34 pm
I think your conclusion about Cubase is off base (sic.). They do innovate.
I think it is not at all - Cubase to me feels like a total dinosaur - clunky and convoluted in the way computer programmes were 20 or 30 years ago - no amount of innovation is going to change that.
They started all over in 2002 as a means to dust it off - but in the meantime it has become more dusty again than Cubase 5 ever felt. Old dogs can't learn new tricks, as they say. The only DAW that feels even more ancient to me is Samplitude.
They first came up with stacked takes for SX2 in 2003, which was 18 years ago - so they had plenty of time to improve on this original concept - but that's not how they tick, instead they just keep adding features - and THAT was my very point.
So everything you wrote her as a potential defense for them here, only goes to support my very point.
I first started sequencing with Steinberg Pro-24 btw. , so I have basically witnessed the whole of their development history.