Samplitude 8 or Cubase SX3? Your opinions please...

[ericj23]

It's more system resource efficient.
It keeps the mixer screen clear.
Ease of use.
Etc.

the cuabse one is very quick to use - resource efficient - explain how or stop making claims

yes it makes the mixer less cluttered - but thanks to the mirracle of hide channels in cubase and that ll mixxing can be done from the arrange page alal tracktion why worry

besides saving mixer space during editing is hardly a feature to shout from the rooftops

[jens]

i just did - and it is exaclty as i described ie already in cubase
- you split your audio up - you drag it to seperate tracks - cubase makes them automtically - you edit each part differently - different routings, fx, automation offline or on
- you put them all in a folder track

exactly the same

maybe not as quick - but not a whole lot off it

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT ?

It's more system resource efficient.
It keeps the mixer screen clear.
Ease of use.
Etc.

and enables incredibly quick composing/arranging which is very 'moment-orientated' - it helps you in making better arrangements...

[popsych]

I take it this "object editing" is non-destructive, just like VST automation? Sounds like a wonderful feature.

Of course it's non-destructive, and it is a WOOOOOOOOOOOOONDERFUL feature indeed. U can even freeze individual objects. The object concept is great. Much more efficient than track based for most tasks, and as you said, a lot less CPU hungry as each objects effects are activate - hence use cpu- only when the object is playing back.

ericj23 - It is perfectly possible to clone this behavior in standard hosts but for a large project it would cost you your sanity just to keep up with where everything is

[ericj23]

no it doesnt - you split you edit - you put in a folder - the only time consuming part is the move to drag the audio to another channel (which cubase creates automatically) and then dragging it back to your folder track

it takes milliseconds

as for the resources - you just freeze everything if its really destroying your cpu

now be clear i am not bashing samplitude - i recommended it on another post here - but i'm sorry the feature being trumpted here is merely useful - in the same way that cubases offline fx chains (fully reorderable) or midi input transformer plugs are merely useful or part order tracks (ala live) or musical time mode ( ala acid) - real time savers if thats what you are doing but so what

the question is should this guy spend €450 to get this feature and lots of other when he is used to sx already

im sticking to my no

Althought he object orientated midi sounds interesting if its easy to handle (although cubase can, of course, do everything mentioned just not ultra conveniently)

[cptgone]

Also midi-tracks are objects - in Samplitude 8 these can have properties such as bpm, time-signature, volume, transposition, fade in/out etc. - all non-destructive and you can create a new object simply but copying another one or cutting a part out of it.

Maybe I should switch hosts!

[jens]

It's more system resource efficient.
It keeps the mixer screen clear.
Ease of use.
Etc.

the cuabse one is very quick to use - resource efficient - explain how or stop making claims

yes it makes the mixer less cluttered - but thanks to the mirracle of hide channels in cubase and that ll mixxing can be done from the arrange page alal tracktion why worry

besides saving mixer space during editing is hardly a feature to shout from the rooftops

just for you I'll explain it once more with a simple real-life example:

say you have a vocal-recording with a verse which has the following lyrics:

Code: Select all

And now the screams fade on a daily basis
gone are the days of revolution
gone are the days of resistance
huge is the empire and liberty has buried all free will

after that verse comes a break - now you have the idea to introduce it with the following vocal-fx:

you want the 'resistance' to be repeated two times but with distortion and delay added to it but both the distortion and the delay shall increase from the first to the second repetition and also the second repetition shall be louder.

Here's how to do it in Tracktion:

- cutting out the word resistance and ccopying it on the same track where I want it to appear for the first repetition

- putting delay and distortion on it and tweaking it

- copying this clip on the same track to where the second repetition shall appear.

- tweaking the fx for this second new clip

finished! - no automation needed at all!


How would you do it with SX?

[ericj23]

selcet the area and copy it to a new track using range selection

apply fx offline using right click

control and drag another copy

apply more fx

re join the original track

looks exactly the same to me - so thanks for making my point - the only drawback is you now have a cubase audio track with nothing on it - so you have to remove it - but hell thats just a shortcut away

actually just realised that you dont need the other track of course - all this processing can be done on the same channel - using the other channel just makes it easier to see the edits

[jens]

selcet the area and copy it to a new track using range selection

apply fx offline using right click

control and drag another copy

apply more fx

re join the original track

looks exactly the same to me - so thanks for making my point - the only drawback is you now have a cubase audio track with nothing on it - so you have to remove it - but hell thats just a shortcut away

is it non-destructive?

[popsych]

.......
apply fx offline using right click
.........

Ah. There lies the rub. In samp no one is forcing you to edit it destructively. The effects are non-destructive for each option. Makes tweaking and mixing a lot more straightforward and less of a PITA

[cptgone]

selcet the area and copy it to a new track using range selection

apply fx offline using right click

control and drag another copy

apply more fx

re join the original track

looks exactly the same to me

That's destructive editing to me. (OK, there is a Undo function, but automation is much more flexible)

To do this in a more flexible way in SX you have to automate effects so they switch on/off when needed.
If you want to move the effected parts afterwards the automation won't follow.

[ericj23]

automation follows parts in sx 3 - didnt you know that ? go and read up about the product

thank you for making my point again

and all the edits are non destructive too - and whats really good is if you frequently use the same pattern of fx - say a mastering thing on a lot of cut up vocal parts you can save it as preset and apply that offline

And if you must use automation you can affect them on another channel and make a folder track to rejoin them for the arrange page


your still not selling this to me even vaguely

[jens]

non destructive too




offline

you leave me puzzled...

[ericj23]

destructive editing to me means that the original file has been changed permanently

cubase's offline editing merely means is makes a new audio file but knows what the source file is - so you can undo this editing to your hearts content as cubase will just restore the original file - in fact if you have done several offline edits you can re-order them and cubase will recalculate what it should sound like

effectively offline fx in cubase are equivalent to applying and freezing an effect in one go - so clips effected this way use no cpu

[cptgone]

automation follows parts in sx 3 - didnt you know that ? go and read up about the product

Ah yes, I'm still using SX2

and all the edits are non destructive too

You still don't get it do you?

Your way of editing is a lot less flexible.

- You can't edit the FX dynamically (like, tweaking knobs)
- Undo isn't as easy to use as automation.

[cptgone]

effectively offline fx in cubase are equivalent to applying and freezing an effect in one go

Only if you use the effect in a static manner!!!

If you wanna record knob tweaking you have to use automation in SX.