Cubase SX3 vs. Sonar 4

[stefancrs]

Check out how you can use multiple screens in podium. all windows are floating. You can open up a new "browser" window for the current project and that way have as many floating windows containing whatever you want (multiple arrangement windows, multiple mixers, part editors, whatever). Quite good.

SJ_Digriz: The main problem is what to do if you have two screens with different resolutions. Kinda hard to maximize the main cubase window to fill both screens then.

[Sascha Franck]

See, SJ Digriz, all your screenshots won't prove anything for me (btw, I know about those options).
All they prove is that SX is taking up significantly more screen space. In my posted screenshot, I DO have a channel strip available, yet tracklist, part information and channel strip don't take up around the same amount of space as your "non-inspector" version. In addition (and that's QUITE another big thing!), over the channel strip you can see the sequence information box, allowing you to actually SEE the quantization settings of each selected MIDI part. This simply isn't possible at all in SX, unless you're using a dedicated MIDI plugin for it, which IMO is complete nonsense for a basic thing such as quantizing. Whenever you're using the "plain" quantizing, there's no way to know what was quantized how, apart from looking at your note data in some editor.
Just think about how cool THIS feature alone is. No need to fool around with something like iterative quantizing, let alone having to insert a MIDI plugin - which, btw, will only work for a complete track, from what I know, rather than for a MIDI part.

Further, I only posted my main worekspace screenset.
On #3 I have around the same arrange page with a fully sized key (matrix in Logic) editor on the secondary monitor - still without having to resize the program windows to fit two monitors (which would take up WAY more space due to the added menu bars and the likes, which would even be impossible on two differently sized monitors). That's simply impossible in Cubase because editors won't open as float windows.

Last but not least, I HATE it that you just can't arrange your mixer channels freely. That's just as lame as it could get and there's no reason for it either.
In Logic I can have it both ways, there's a track mixer, actually exactly displaying what's going on in your arrange and there's your "environemt mixer", allowing for totally free configuration.

However, we could argue until the cows come home, meanwhile I'm pretty much familiar about what you can do in terms of screen efficieny in SX, and I'd still say it's almost proveable that it's wasting too much space, at least when being compared to Logic.
SX 3 (which I am about to finally pickup today it seems) might have made a few steps into the right direction, edit in place being one of them, but I still doubt it'll be even halfway as efficient as Logic. But we'll see, I actually am somewhat excited to try out the new Cubase features. Unfortunately, from the demo videos it still looks as if a LOT of button clicking and mousing will be required.

[pitchdrifter]

would you like some cheese with that whine sir?

[SJ_Digriz]

SJ_Digriz: The main problem is what to do if you have two screens with different resolutions. Kinda hard to maximize the main cubase window to fill both screens then.

Not true, I have it maxed to the big screen and size all other windows independantley on the smaller rez screen.

[stefancrs]

SJ_Digriz: The main problem is what to do if you have two screens with different resolutions. Kinda hard to maximize the main cubase window to fill both screens then.

Not true, I have it maxed to the big screen and size all other windows independantley on the smaller rez screen.

Huh? So you maximize cubase main window to for instance 1280x1024, and then size other windows as you wish on the 2nd screen that has for instance 800x600 resolution?
I'm probably missing something here, but how do you get a mixer window that does not reside _inside_ the main window in cubase? I mean, you want to maximize the arrange window to whatever resolution the monitor it resides in runs, and the same for any other window (like a mixer window for instance), regardless of which monitor you put them on.

[SJ_Digriz]

Huh? So you maximize cubase main window to for instance 1280x1024, and then size other windows as you wish on the 2nd screen that has for instance 800x600 resolution?

No, I have my window set to the 1600x1200(right monitor) that the screen shot of the mixer was take from. I run the other at 2048x1024(left monitor) that the project window screen shot is from.

Maximize to 1600x1200, then size the windows that are in the 2048x1024 window. Also, I use an NVidia card that handles some of the size difference issues. Every interface inside SX floats.

[Sascha Franck]

Stefan, you just make those windows "allways on top" to drag them out of the main program window (right click on title bar of device).
Unfortunately this is only working for some windows (mixer, plugins etc), but it's NOT working for editors, so one of my favourite workspaces from Logic, having an arrange on my main screen, with a small mixer strip following my track selection, along with a large key edit on the secondary screen isn't exactly possible, unless I resize the main program window, which leads to a massive waste of space due to all the additional menu bars and window borders.

Let alone (just as you said), that it's a pain to resize the main program window in case your monitors aren't of the same size and resolution.

Btw, in Logic I can even open my arrange page as a float window, which is EXTREMELY handy while mixing.
I usually have a full two page sized mixer then, with a small arrange floating over some free space, to select, solo and mute several parts.
Sometimes I may also add a small floating matrix (key) edit, to do some individual note mutes etc, if required.
Again, not possible at all in Cubase because both arrange and editor windows can't float on top.

However, as long as you DON'T need any of these options, you might get along fine with floating ("allways on top") plugin and mixer windows.

Still, IMO it's a MASSIVE oversight that you just can't open anything as floating windows. Once you're used to this way of window handling from Logic, it's really tough getting used to anything else.

And as we are in some Cubase vs. Sonar thread, how does Sonar handle all this?

Window and mixer configuration is a pretty big deal in my book when it comes to efficiency.

Btw, another HIGHLY annoying thing about the Cubase mixer: When you have it in collapsed view, place it on top of a screen, then expand it, it will expand to the bottom - obvious. But then, when you collapse it again, it will stay at the bottom... what a nonsense!

[SJ_Digriz]

See, SJ Digriz, all your screenshots won't prove anything for me (btw, I know about those options).

Not trying to prove anything Sascha, other than the apps are more similar than they are different.

All they prove is that SX is taking up significantly more screen space. In my posted screenshot, I DO have a channel strip available, yet tracklist, part information and channel strip don't take up around the same amount of space as your "non-inspector" version.

Actually, to me my first project window that has the channel strip displayed takes exactly the same amount of screen space as what you have show in yours. Not sure what you think is eating up space? It is a hair wider, but not enough to matter. The 2nd window takes FAR less space than the one you have shown and I can adjust the settings to take even LESS space if I want.

In addition (and that's QUITE another big thing!), over the channel strip you can see the sequence information box, allowing you to actually SEE the quantization settings of each selected MIDI part.

I don't disagree with this at all. But I was talking more about the layout functions than the actual features that are available on each. This is one of the many stupid things that disappeared in the switch to SX. Although, this is a personal thing, I don't use quantize very much, so it hasn't been a huge issue for me to use the midi editor. But I agree it belongs on the strip.

Further, I only posted my main worekspace screenset.
On #3 I have around the same arrange page with a fully sized key (matrix in Logic) editor on the secondary monitor - still without having to resize the program windows to fit two monitors (which would take up WAY more space due to the added menu bars and the likes, which would even be impossible on two differently sized monitors). That's simply impossible in Cubase because editors won't open as float windows.

hmm, I don't follow this at all. This is exactly how I have mine set up. My editors pop up on the right screen that is a different resolution than my left monitor. And, that configuration is part of a screen set.

Last but not least, I HATE it that you just can't arrange your mixer channels freely. That's just as lame as it could get and there's no reason for it either.

Of course I agree with this.

In Logic I can have it both ways, there's a track mixer, actually exactly displaying what's going on in your arrange and there's your "environemt mixer", allowing for totally free configuration.

This is another one I don't follow, the inspector channel is seperate from the mixer channels and indepentant of the mixer views. It works exactly like your setup. It follows the selected track in the project window, unless you turn that option off.

However, we could argue until the cows come home, meanwhile I'm pretty much familiar about what you can do in terms of screen efficieny in SX, and I'd still say it's almost proveable that it's wasting too much space, at least when being compared to Logic.

Again, I wasn't trying to prove Cubase is better than Logic. Just that a lot of stuff in this thread is bullshit. Not yours btw. I responded to yours because it was the about the first reasonable discussion of how the apps compare. Someone should do the same with Sonar or Tracktion.

Also, while there are many advantages to Logic, there are a significant number of advantages to Cubase. I, like you, wish they would clean up some things in the interface. But, that doesn't look like its gonna happen soon.

[SJ_Digriz]

ah, your window things are because you want windows that float OUTSIDE the host app. Yeah, that would be nice. It has never bothered me the way it is though. I guess I'm used to having it full screened.

Having the mixer not go back to where it was after expanding or contracting the extensions is supposed to be fixed in SX-3. I hope so. That is truly annoying.

[SJ_Digriz]

At the end of my long response to Sascha I said that Cubase needed to clean up some of the interface issues. I would just like to point out that none of those changes are "Bugs".

All this posting about how buggy Cubase is compared to other apps is total bullshit. I've used damn near all of them and every one suffers from initial release blues. Some of the smaller, less enhanced applications start out with fewer bugs. But as soon as they start stacking the features, the product stability goes out the window.

The only release of Cubase I can truly say pissed me off was SX-1. Not because of how buggy it was, but because of how big a jump backwards it was from a feature/function standpoint to VST/32.

All this talk of stability is wrong. The only version you can claim has possible "show-stopper" bugs is SX-3 and most of those are very specific in nature to hardware configurations. If you are crashing with any other version you have other problems.

[Sascha Franck]

Somewhat true - SX has been remarkebly stable for me as well. Not exactly "rock stable", because I know some things that will make it crash 100% on both machines I'm using it on (have a Kontakt sequence playing, select track, click on inspector icon to open Kontakt's UI while it's playing = BOOM! Only happens on some songs, but on those it's 100% reproduceable on both machines), but usually it's working fairly well for me.
Yes, Logic never crashes (and I really mean "never"), but I had to sort out a few VSTis before it was crash-proof, even a few that I'd really like to use. Cubase doesn't suffer from those problems, but it occasionally crashes out of the blue (VERY rarely though I have to admit), something Logic never does.
Anyways, we all know Logic/Win won't come back and once you see some of the amazing features of other hosts (liquid audio, freezing, etc), 5.5.1 surely starts to look somewhat dated in the audio processing area (MIDI wise it's still WAY ahead of anything I know of).
So, time to bring on something that is as good (I allready filled the beta application form for Cakewalk, let´s see what will happen...) on Windows.

Seriously, I am not complaining about Cubase all the time just for the fun of it - I actually WANT it to be kickass because I like using PCs. It's just that I simply can't understand some of the things that are going on with it... especially when it comes to anything such as efficiency, ergonomics and UI design. They've managed to make the "most intuitive sequencer" (which perhaps was pretty much true until VST 5) the most un-intuitive one in a lot of aspects.
I constantly feel like my work is being buried with knobs, windows and wasted menu bars all over the place.

Btw, even if I don't know Sonar or Samplitude, they're almost looking like that as well.
Time for all those companies to fill the gap Emagic has left for them.

IMO featurewise (and probably also stability-wise), none of the current "big" sequencers wins, they're all fully stuffed with all the goodies we need these days - so, what companies now should do (at least IMO) is to streamline their products.
Too bad they seem to need features more to sell things. Of course, something like "now with warp audio" does look better in an ad than something such as "now with floating editors" - but in the end both are just as important when it comes to making music.

[headquest]

Regarding the points raised by the SX3 reviews that I quoted earlier in the thread, which seem to have led to an interesting and in-depth debate about screen-usage:

The MTM review is hardly specific about just why the reviewer thinks you really need 2 screens... so we can only surmise. I am glad to hear from one or two of you that Cubase SX3 is fine with one screen (thanks eric!), although it sounds like others here use two screens already...

In my view, any programme coming out right now that really needs 2 screens is clearly aiming itself towards the "studio installation" market. And good luck to them. The "home studio" and particularly the "laptop market" are less likely to buy into a product that needs those hardware resources to work efficiently, though. And as I belong to the latter market, Cubase SX3 is probably not for me.

Both the MTM and SOS reviews commented that Cubase SX3 also requires pretty hefty CPU resources. Again, I suspect this makes it less suitable for the laptop brigade.

In view of the success of Live, Tracktion and Reason - all of which work seamlessly on a standard Windows laptop - it is interesting to see Steinberg reallign their flagship program in this way. Perhaps we should not be too surprised. Cakewalk seem on this evidence to be hedging their bets though - it's less clear whether Sonar3 is going to run smoothly on a laptop or not, but indications are (having run the demo as exhaustively as its' limitations allow) that Sonar is a well-streamlined program that will work well all-around.

One final Cubase criticism that I forgot to mention from the reviews:

Computer Music make the following points about SX3:

"All the supplied VST plug-ins have had their graphics changed so that they all look identical and - it has to be said - rather ugly...but the amateurish look of them is in stark contrast to the professional appearance of the rest of Cubase."

"Cubase still has no top-quality built-in reverb (both SOnar and Logic have these supplied in the box)"

"...there's still no sign of even a rudimentary multi-sampler or a decent drum machine"

"...the VST effects supplied with Cubase are now looking distinctly outdated and primitive - there isn't even a multitap delay line!"

[SJ_Digriz]

Regarding the points raised by the SX3 reviews that I quoted earlier in the thread, which seem to have led to an interesting and in-depth debate about screen-usage:........

Just a couple of things. I was gonna reply to the first set of review quotes, but didn't have the time then. So, a couple of points.

#1: Screen Sets make Cubase very usable on a single monitor. I don't know why the reviewers never look at that. It's been suggested that they do so, but they never do. Also, the Cubase (and even more so Logic) project pages are LESS cluttered than Sonar. So, I have no clue what the reviewers are going on about. The only thing about Sonar that is less cluttered is the automation overlaying the track. Which makes automation useless IMO. So it unclutteres the screen at the cost of functionality. I'll take functionality every time.

#2: CPU usage. This is also not necessarily true. In fact SX3 takes less CPU than SX2. The general power required to do the same number of MIDI/Audio tracks is no more than Sonar 3 (The last version I have to check against). So, I don't think using SX on a laptop is gonna be any different than using anything else on a laptop.

#3: Bundled software should NOT be the reason you buy a sequencer. I wouldn't care if they removed every plug/synth from the package. The only plug I can say that I would use regularly that comes with an existing package is the Logic sampler. But even then I really wouldn't because I would use Giga or Halion.

#4: On your comments of target audience. There are those of us who are not happy that Cubase is moving towards the home studio/looper community. The cost in doing so has lessened the products strengths without giving it a clear advantage over the products it seems to be trying to compete against. This is another case where I wish they would quit all the side crap and get back to MIDI and Audio as a pro-studio tool. Trying to be all things to all people is cutting into the products efficiency.

#5: There were a lot of inaccuracies and half-truths in those articles. The reviews seemed to be as half-assed as a Cubase initial release.

[spaceman]

The only thing about Sonar that is less cluttered is the automation overlaying the track. Which makes automation useless IMO.

why would that make automation useless? because you like it some other place?

#2: CPU usage. This is also not necessarily true. In fact SX3 takes less CPU than SX2. The general power required to do the same number of MIDI/Audio tracks is no more than Sonar 3 (The last version I have to check against). So, I don't think using SX on a laptop is gonna be any different than using anything else on a laptop.

in my experience, SL 2 seemed to take a touch less CPU power (in general) than Sonar 4.. although many DXi plug seem to run extremely efficient in S4 now.. didn't have enough time to compare thoroughly (I sold SL2)

Bundled software should NOT be the reason you buy a sequencer. I wouldn't care if they removed every plug/synth from the package. The only plug I can say that I would use regularly that comes with an existing package is the Logic sampler..

that's in your opinion, I guess..

since the big sequencers are becoming so much alike, I think the bundled software in many cases is the deciding factor

[SJ_Digriz]

why would that make automation useless? because you like it some other place?

Because having 15+ automation params going for a single track requires that each automation be in its own lane so you can find it easily. Trying to dig through stacked lanes is a nightmare.

in my experience, SL 2 seemed to take a touch less CPU power (in general) than Sonar 4.. although many DXi plug seem to run extremely efficient in S4 now.. didn't have enough time to compare thoroughly (I sold SL2)

yeah, my point was simply that the articles were saying SX3 is some kind of CPU pig. So far, in my experience this just isn't the case if you do a realistic comparison. It's not possible to have it be apples to apples, but in general I find that Sonar3 is MUCH more of a pig.

that's in your opinion, I guess..

Would you buy the worlds worst sequencer because it had a good sampler? Especially if a better sampler were available elsewhere?

I don't want to pay for stuff I won't use. When I buy a sequencer, I want a sequencer. Also, contrary to popular rantings. The plugs in Cubase are not bad in comparison to anything except maybe the sampler in Logic. What free synths in Sonar do you want to stack against the ones in SX-2? FYI the verb that is now in Sonar is still crap compaired to the high end ones. The multiband compressor in Cubase is actually VERY good. Still not up to par with the high end commercial ones. I will give the nod to the Sonar EQ strip only because they went out and bought a good one. But again, its not as good as the high end commercial stuff.

It's always so easy to point out the stuff that other apps DON'T have, but you might try and think about the stuff they DO have as well.

Just so you know, I'm not flaming you or trying to be a Cubase fanboy. Cubase has many faults. It's just that the majority of the stuff that was being represented early in these posts was flat out incorrect.