SX3 more intuitive and user friendly?

[Sascha Franck]

Bumping post to get rid of the stupid "no posts exist for this topic" thing.

[Sascha Franck]

you don´t like note to cc ,transformer ,the key map
,the whole Steinberg approach to a sequencer. I respect that but somehow i think it´s your loss.

Nonsense.
As said, you don't seem to read my posts properly.
Steinbergs transformer is brilliant. I use it a lot.
I actually like a lot of things in Cubase. However, regarding the issues I mentioned (several ergonomic issues, CC control of mixer/plugin parameters), MASSIVE improvements are required to catch up with others (FL, EnergyXT, Sonar - and even Logic 5.5.1).

[IIRs]

the nature of the inicial question Should i upgrade or change sequencer??? Jeezz ,don´t make any sense unless you payd zero ,nada ,zip ,beyond a net connection.

or unless there is a app (Tracktion) available for less than the price of your SX upgrade, which pisses all over SX in terms of inspiring yu to make music..

[headquest]

Steinberg as developed ASIO ,VST ,VSL and set them free so developers could made what we have today.
not likely others company that developed protocols
that are not of public domain ,nevertheless AFAIK give a lot of problems to users as developers as well
but seems to me everybody is happy with them.

Is that bias or what?

Not sure I follow your logic here stag...

Unless I messed something nobody here suggested that ASIO, VST are bad. But the fact that Steinberg have produced some good software and protocols in the past does not mean that Cubase is "the best sequencer available today".

Using your reasoning, surely Reason is better than Cubase, because Propellerheads ReWire technology is implemented in more music software than any other protocol, Steinberg's included?

Oh but hang on...surely isn't Acid the best sequencer around? After all, Sony make great televisions...

[hebex]

I´m sorry to tell this but this whole thread has the subtle scent of Piracy or plain rip off to be accurate.

the nature of the inicial question Should i upgrade or change sequencer??? Jeezz ,don´t make any sense unless you payd zero ,nada ,zip ,beyond a net connection.
and the comments done after by some just perspire envy and denial toward a company who has developed the best sequencer available today.

I think that's really quite a strange comment stag. I've heard quite a few Cubase diehards use this line of arguement when confronted by people who find an alternative sequencer more appealing. Why is this?

I can't speak for the other people who have contributed to the debate in this thread, but for my part I was/am a fully paid up owner of Cubase SX1.

I have chosen to switch to Tracktion for a variety of reasons, none of which have to do with money/cost:

1) Cubase was unstable on my laptop (P4, 2.8 Ghx, 512 DDRAM, 60Gb memory). It seemed full of bugs at the time (which may well have been sorted now, of course)

2) As a teacher I found that teenagers more readily identified with Tracktion's "one window" presentation - it is easier to explain and see the signal flow at all stages, without the need for mental gymnastics trying to visualising a hardware paradigm that the students had no personal experience of

3) In common with my personal experience, Cubase regularly crashed on the school computers.

4) Looking after multiple dongles in an educational environment is asking for trouble . And Steinberg were entirely unsympathetic to this reality

5) In the process of realising this, i discovered that I too prefered Tracktion's approach and that my productivity was greatly enhanced by it's more logical workflow

6) Unlike SX1 I found Tracktion to be rock solid. It has never crashed on my laptop or on a single of the computers I use with students

7) At that time Tracktion had a full-on Freeze function and full PDC. Cubase (from "the company who has developed the best sequencer available today" - in your opinion) had neither of these features.

To accuse people who choose not to stick with Cubase of being dishonest is frankly quite offensive. It adds insult to injury for those of us who have paid hundreds of pounds for a product that failed to deliver the goods, and to a company whose customer support is legendary for its failings.

I'm glad that your experience of Cubase has been better than mine and the schools where I teach. But that gives you no right to be personally offensive. People are allowed to have different experiences and opinions.

To Headquest: Excellent post.

To Stag: I agree with what you say in an earlier post, it´s good to RTFM. But it´s equally important, when participating in forums, to read the f***ing post. To make things clear, I´ll post it again:

--------------------
1. The hype and some magazine reviews say that Steinbergs Cubase SX3 is more user friendly than before. Would you agree, and why?

2. As a Cubase SX2 owner I haven´t tried SX3 yet, since the upgrade costs some bucks. Meanwhile, I have had an eye on Tracktion, that compared to SX2 seems to be extremely intuitive and user friendly. The thing I like with Tracktion is that is allows me to have an immediate overview of the tracks, the order of VST-instruments and effects and volume levels at the same time, without having to open several windows/mixers. Is this possible to achieve in SX3?
--------------------

As you can see, I haven´t said if I´m going with Tracktion or not. I´m just saying that I like the way that sequencer is doing certain things and I´m asking if SX3 can do it the same way, something I don´t know and can´t RinTFM since I only have SX2.

Since there AFAIK is no demo version up for SX3, I also think it´s a justified question to ask if people who have tried the software agree with the hype that SX3 is more user friendly than before. That way I will get an indication if the upgrade from SX2 to SX3 is worth the fair deal of money Steinberg asks for (200 $ where I live).

[hebex]

Sorry double post.

[hebex]

Sorry, double post.

[CANE CREEK]

Silly question i think....

is Reason 2.5 more user friendly than reason 1.0...NO

is Acid 5 more user friendly than Acid 1.....NO

is SX3 more user friendly than SX2 .......NO

[sleepingsword]

Silly question i think....

is SX3 more user friendly than SX2 .......NO

I think it is......

[Sascha Franck]

is SX3 more user friendly than SX2 .......NO

I'd say YES as well.

IMO userfriendliness is quite something else than being intuitive.

[hebex]

is SX3 more user friendly than SX2 .......NO

I'd say YES as well.

IMO userfriendliness is quite something else than being intuitive.

OK, would you say that SX3 is more intuitive then, and why?

[hebex]

One other thing: I would like to be able to shape the Cubase mixer in whatever size I like. The way it is now (in SX2) there is no way I can see all tracks and the mixer at the same time, the mixer simply blocks the view.

IMO it´s a sign of rigid thinking from Steinberg that the user can´t get an immediate overview of the tracks, the order of VST-instruments and effects and volume levels at the same time, without having to buy at least two monitors.

And as far as I can see, by judging the answers in this topic, it´s the same problem in SX3. Too bad.

[ahja]

One other thing: I would like to be able to shape the Cubase mixer in whatever size I like. The way it is now (in SX2) there is no way I can see all tracks and the mixer at the same time, the mixer simply blocks the view.

IMO it´s a sign of rigid thinking from Steinberg that the user can´t get an immediate overview of the tracks, the order of VST-instruments and effects and volume levels at the same time, without having to buy at least two monitors.

And as far as I can see, by judging the answers in this topic, it´s the same problem in SX3. Too bad.

Well this thread blew up didn't it?

For shaping your mixer, I think what you want to do is make use of all 3 mixers SX gives you. If your screen is large enough, you could open all 3 mixers from your device menu and line em up however you'd like. First mixer, channels 1-16, second mixer, channels 17-32, etc... You could simply create a workspace/window layout for you your mixers. Another tip I could suggest, that may not fit your workflow, but I hide my midi channels in my mixer. They are useless to me in my mixer... Clears up a lot of space, for sure. Not sure how exactly YOU work, since we all do things differently in the same exact scenario.

Take care.

[aaastronomer]

1. The hype and some magazine reviews say that Steinbergs Cubase SX3 is more user friendly than before. Would you agree, and why?

2. As a Cubase SX2 owner I haven´t tried SX3 yet, since the upgrade costs some bucks. Meanwhile, I have had an eye on Tracktion, that compared to SX2 seems to be extremely intuitive and user friendly. The thing I like with Tracktion is that is allows me to have an immediate overview of the tracks, the order of VST-instruments and effects and volume levels at the same time, without having to open several windows/mixers. Is this possible to achieve in SX3?

1. Disagree. Switched to SX3 from the awful and unstable SX1 two weeks ago. The SX3 interface and workflow is pretty much the same as SX1 (and I assume SX2). So, its not more user friendly, but, its user friendly enough! And, if you were already use to working in SX1, Steinberg didn't switch things up on you. Oh, SX3 is rock solid and the freeze really frees up a load.

2. For VST-instruments, you have to pop open some drop-downs to see what's going on. But, you're not more than two levels from the top to see most of what you (I) need, most of the time. Again, better organized than SX1 IMHO.

[mauseoleum]

@hebex:
maybe it would be best if you could find some dealer with installed SX3 to testdrive it - and write down on paper all issues you want to check out beforehand so you'll make an informed decision.

you should also make $$$ precalculations regarding upgrade pricing etc.

and write a letter to Steinberg so they'll start making rugged metallic keys instead of plastic.