ANYBODY USING CUBASE VST/32 WITH WINDOWS XP?

[jackson]

I thought the main reason people stuck with VST/32 was for the huge number of features that were dropped in SX, especially in regards to MIDI. I'm sure a lot of them came back over the years, but is this still a valid claim?

[Rhythmic]

What's the big deal with sticking with a software package that's still working and gets the job done? If the guy's happy with using VST 5, let him continue to use it. This constant upgrade nonsense is just a bunch of crap anyway. I have yet to see a software developer deliver anything earth shattering in years now. How many times can you rehash the same shit over and over again and call it a new version? A lot of these music developers today are getting like Microsoft and are doing no more than adding more bloat and useless horseshit to already good music programs. Nobody needs all this crap to make good music today. Matter of fact, you can still make good music on VST 5.

VST 5 will get the job done just as good as anything else out there. The newest technology doesn't make the artist, talent and skill do. Stick with what your comfortable with and save yourself the hassle.

[jackson]

Too true, I've been using Logic 5 for years now. But then, I am actually trying to move to Live, because it really does have "earth shattering" features (compared to the old version of Logic) that I'm very excited to start using.

[musiclinks]

I have to agree, unless SX3 offers some earth shattering features, I see no reason to change, as I am comfortable with it. The only thing I'm pining for is a faster computer as my p4 1.7 Ghz is kind out outdated.

[Bas]

VST 5 was a great tool, and I think still has the best Midi tools for most editing work.

I use SX as I think it sounds less harsh than my VST rig did, and has much better audio handling, Midi plugins are useful, and that and once learned, is less quirky than VST was.

Having said that, I am all for sticking with what you know, and like. Much the the of the DAW wars thing, it is possible the like the interface of one propgram, regardless of what the other hosts provide.

I think VST can be installed under XP, but I seem to recall that it is wise to patch to the latest version before running it up.

[davor]

CM recenty had an article about the sound quality of different sequencers and they came to the conclusion that there were not negligible differences

Which issue was that? Could you share some more of the insides of the article?

Musiclinks????

[nuffink]

CM recenty had an article about the sound quality of different sequencers and they came to the conclusion that there were not negligible differences

Which issue was that? Could you share some more of the insides of the article?

Musiclinks????

Here

[davor]

CM recenty had an article about the sound quality of different sequencers and they came to the conclusion that there were not negligible differences

Which issue was that? Could you share some more of the insides of the article?

Musiclinks????

Here

Was I asking you, you bonehead with a hearing ability close to Nuffing?

[nuffink]

Use th pm if you want to speak to somebody in particular. Otherwise it's an open forum.

[nuffink]

By the way, the original little burst of anger was better. You shouldn't have edited it.

[davor]

By the way, the original little burst of anger was better. You shouldn't have edited it.

Definitely, it describes you in better terms, but the point is I definitely am not interested in what you have to say on the subject. Maybe in antoher life if you got born with at least a fraction of a talent.

[nuffink]

By the way, the original little burst of anger was better. You shouldn't have edited it.

Definitely, it describes you in better terms, but the point is I definitely am not interested in what you have to say on the subject. Maybe in antoher life if you got born with at least a fraction of a talent.

Oooh , get her...

[IIRs]

But with the new system I will probably need to go with windows XP and wondered how well it works with VST/32.

I use it every day with XP sp2, no problems at all.

[musiclinks]

Hi, I'm back to the poster who asked about the CM
article. It eluded that what mattered more was the how well someone could mix in their DAW. So in other words, sound quality from one DAW to another is neglible. I'll see if I can graab the issue I read it in.

[jasonsantiago]

I've got quite some crashes with SX 3 and I can tell you, compared to the previous VST versions, it's a CPU hog. Low latency operation has become even more of a problem than ever before. Reproduceable on a vast amount of systems.
SX is absolutely famous for extremely bad performance figures under low latencies. Heck, Logic/PC, not updated since over 3 years is performing around double as well under low latencies (again, reproduceable).

Just try to install VST under XP and stick with it for now. Yes, I'm serious. SX has got a plethora of nice features, but the essentials seem to be completely fux0red.

I'm sorry but I run both SX3 SX2 and vst/32/5.1 on different systems and I notice no difference in cpu load or latency issues.

Suggesting that someone stick with an incredibly outdated program that does not have proper implementations of delay compensation or a destructive editor is rediculous (IMO). I don't know how much work you do with audio files, but Logic 5.5 and vst 32 are pathetic compared to sx's audio editing capabilities. Even if SX's performance is 10-20% worse than VST 32 (which it was not for me, but I haven't done an official test) I'd still say it is VERY worth it.

every audio program crashes. I crashed ALL THE TIME in VST/32/5.1 -- most of it was me pushing the limits with complex programs like Reaktor and pushing my cpu meter high.

BTW, how is your Logic 5.5 doing with delay compensation?

I thought the main reason people stuck with VST/32 was for the huge number of features that were dropped in SX, especially in regards to MIDI. I'm sure a lot of them came back over the years, but is this still a valid claim?

The features that were dropped were rather esoteric... very people used them, but the people that did REALLY liked them. Most of it dealt with external hardware, but that doesn't mean external hardware doesn't respond well to midi. and the people that lost these features are VERY vocal about it, so much so that you'd think something major is missing.

What's the big deal with sticking with a software package that's still working and gets the job done? If the guy's happy with using VST 5, let him continue to use it. This constant upgrade nonsense is just a bunch of crap anyway. I have yet to see a software developer deliver anything earth shattering in years now. How many times can you rehash the same shit over and over again and call it a new version? A lot of these music developers today are getting like Microsoft and are doing no more than adding more bloat and useless horseshit to already good music programs. Nobody needs all this crap to make good music today. Matter of fact, you can still make good music on VST 5.

VST 5 will get the job done just as good as anything else out there. The newest technology doesn't make the artist, talent and skill do. Stick with what your comfortable with and save yourself the hassle.

I agree many people waste time on configurism, but for me creativity is destroyed when it takes me too long to get tasks done. I can audio edit in SX3 at LEAST three times as fast than as 5.1/vst32
No exaggeration. So for me the ability to work faster allows me to more quickly harness those creative moments.

Oh and musiclinks -- the quality of the sound in audio editors is DEFINITELY negligable. That's not the issue here -- the issue is that the new features will have you working significantly faster.