Cubase SX issues

[Sascha Franck]

Hm, Marc... all this isn't making me too happy when thinking about my SX (or maybe Nuendo) future.

As said before, ergonomics never have been Steinbergs strongest point, but I can't understand why they would even remove some of the undoubtedly useful features you mentioned.

And while I do understand that adding functionality to a program will (at least in 90% of all cases) add to the complexity of a UI as well, I for example still can't seem to understand what all the buttons in SX (they're all over the place) are doing that I can't achieve in Logic (with WAY less buttons it seems).

Add to this that in a more or less complexed arrangement at one point you will most likely experience quite some screens with tons of overlapping windows - which might not even be THAT bad from a functional point of view, but it surely doesn't look elegant or whatever (at least to my eyes it doesn't).
In Logic, even my most complexed arrangements look almost as slick as my Autoload, without having to close tons of windows.
Seriously, in Logic I never have to fool with the size options of my arrange, in SX I find myself doing so all the time.

[Sascha Franck]

Well, while there's some valid points in what you're saying, stu.macQ, it still isn't a really satisfying solution.
Sure, mixer shortcuts are OK, no problem with that... but when working on an arrangement I usually just don't care much about mixing. But what I'm doing quite often though is to add, say, a little bit of delay, EQ, whatever to a track, just to make working a more pleasureable experience.
For this a channel strip view (such as what Logic offers) is just the best solution I've seen so far.
It's totally uncluttered, doesn't affect any of your other window settings and - most important - it's QUICK!

I'm not sure how one could combine this with multi-channeled VSTis running through multiple outs (for this there's no solution in Logic either), but the way it is right now it's not satisfying at all for a whole number of reasons.

[auxbuss]

Well, it makes perfect sense, actually.

It's logical - from one perspective - but not particularly practical from a composition perspective. Sure, Steinberg have decoupled the MIDI tracks from the VSTi, which is logical, since you might want to drive a VSTi from many MIDI tracks. And each of those tracks might use any of the one or more VSTi outputs,

Logic's VSTi implementation was half-assed, and for the longest time didn't support multi-output VSTi's. Cubase's implementation *IS* the correct method. Consequently, when you want to edit the VSTi channel, Cubase has no way of knowing WHICH VSTi channel of a multi-out VSTi you want to edit.

Well, this isn't mathematics, so one can't simply say that Cubase's method is the "correct" way.

For example, the way that Live 4 handles MIDI and VSTis retains the decoupling, but offers more flexible MIDI routing. In effect, one MIDI track "contains" the VSTi and a pair of outputs - which is all that is needed in the majority of cases. However, any other MIDI track can route to that track, and you create any extra audio outs as audio tracks. The Live VSTi set-up is more flexible that Cubase SX and certainly more "correct", imo.

[stefancrs]

For this a channel strip view (such as what Logic offers) is just the best solution I've seen so far.
It's totally uncluttered, doesn't affect any of your other window settings and - most important - it's QUICK!

But you have channel strips in SX as well.

[topaz]

drag the automation track under the vsti midi track
(you only have to do this once) hit one button to pop open the channel strip.

[cold c]

I think this thread is suffering from the same problem that forum.cubase.net suffers from, and that is noise.

(Yes I know this post is just adding to the noise)

People typically steam in with a tirade against Steinberg, mixed in with newbie confusion, and hangups they have brought with them from their previous sequencers.

They may have valid points in there somewhere but because they are poorly thought out or innacurate in some aspects the important points are completely missed.

I remember someone on cubase.net requesting that the freeze feature be removed from SX2 because they incorrectly thought it would somehow make SX2 run more efficiently on their machine. They may have had a point about SX2 efficiency but it was completely misdirected.

I don't know if the VSTi spec supports the reporting to the host of WHICH MIDI channel has its audio routed to WHICH output channel on the VSTi, but it probably should.

Probably not, but output channel isn't always dependant on input MIDI channel in the VSTi, for example some VSTi use the extra output channels to do surround stuff, or to output dry/wet versions of their sound.

To me, this thread highlights the need for better handling of feature requests at cubase.net.

This thread also emphasizes the need for extra options in the inspector when the MIDI track is routed to a VSTi:

There is already an "Edit VST Instrument" button so the relationship between MIDI track and VSTi exists, but there should also be an extra panel of VSTi options with list of VSTi output channels (with "e" buttons, one for each VST output) in the inspector of the MIDI track. And/or when a VSTi channel is selected, the selected VSTi channel could then be "expanded" in a panel below.

There should also be corresponding key commands to bring up the edit channel settings windows (depending on which VST channel is selected) and instrument windows. Maybe they will add something like this in a future version?

These features would allow people to ignore the mixer view until they are actually mixing as Sascha said above -

Sure, mixer shortcuts are OK, no problem with that... but when working on an arrangement I usually just don't care much about mixing.

.

drag the automation track under the vsti midi track
(you only have to do this once) hit one button to pop open the channel strip.

I suggested this as a "workaround" earlier in the thread as not everyone wants to move their automation away from its folder, and there is still no key command for opening the channel settings, or the VSTi.

Notwithstanding these usability issues though, I still find SX2 the best host I've used so far.

[cold c]

Another (alternative) feature request-

Give the inspector back and forward buttons like a web browser, and include shortcuts in the MIDI track's inspector view to go directly to the VST instrument channels in the inspector.



Chances of them implementing that feature?? Slim to none?

(Though I think it would work quite well. Or wouldn't it?)

[negativeinjury]

For example, the way that Live 4 handles MIDI and VSTis retains the decoupling, but offers more flexible MIDI routing. In effect, one MIDI track "contains" the VSTi and a pair of outputs - which is all that is needed in the majority of cases. However, any other MIDI track can route to that track, and you create any extra audio outs as audio tracks. The Live VSTi set-up is more flexible that Cubase SX and certainly more "correct", imo.

I guess the reason Steinberg do it they way they do is to keep the separation between Midi controller automation and VST automation. Especially if you are constantly using both VSTis and external midi sound sources. Certainly I would find your suggestion quite limiting. What i suggest is using the "split project window" function, or what ever it's called, to create two rows in the arrange window. that way you can put the vst instrument channel tracks in the top section, whilst keeping the midi tracks routed to them in the bottom section.

then there's the removal of direct access to the master effects

Getting at master effects has always been a royal pain in the arse in cubase. In Cubase VST, SX, and SX2, I have (without exception) found it easier to route everything to a new group channel and put my Mixbuss effects on there!

Neg.I.
AKA "squig ☼" on A.S.C

[negativeinjury]

Sascha,

It may be an idea to post a question or two over at the alt.steinberg.cubase newsgroup.

Seeing as you have purchased cubase, it's not much help having a conversation about what is bad compared to other sequencers*. Cubase is a perfectly operable sequencer, it works differently to others, yes, but then no two sequencers work identically.

A.S.C. is full of dedicated cubase users who use it daily and professionally. We will be able to help you adjust to Cubase's way of working, rather than what people seem to be encouraging you to do here, which is for you to try and force cubase to suit your way of working.



Neg.I
AKA "squig ☼" on ASC

*By the way, ye all seem to be finding differences between Cubase and Live, Logic, and Sonar, but the reason for these differences, I'd have thought, is that cubase/nuendo is going in the direction of the ProTools model.

[auxbuss]

There should also be corresponding key commands to bring up the edit channel settings windows (depending on which VST channel is selected) and instrument windows. Maybe they will add something like this in a future version?

This exists in Nuendo 1 - but then Steinberg removed it. However, you can get to it via the GRD, provided that you know the trick. In other words, it's there, but hidden.

Notwithstanding these usability issues though, I still find SX2 the best host I've used so far.

Indeed, but it's definitely one step forward, one step back. Some great, and some essential, features have been removed for no apparent reason, and this makes each release a lottery.

[auxbuss]

I guess the reason Steinberg do it they way they do is to keep the separation between Midi controller automation and VST automation. Especially if you are constantly using both VSTis and external midi sound sources. Certainly I would find your suggestion quite limiting.

I didn't make a suggestion! In fact, I described an alternative approach used by a competitor for comparison. This seems to be half the battle sometimes: exploring an idea as opposed to seeing things in black and white.

Additionally, MIDI Controller info and VSTi automation are separate in what I described. So your premise is also incorrect.

I use outboard too, very much under MIDI control. In contrast to your supposition, Live 4's approach makes it a very creative tool for controlling outboard gear.

The method used in Live 4 is not perfect, by any means, but it provides a deal more flexibility than SX in many ways. However, much of this is enabled by its imaginative routing setup.

Getting at master effects has always been a royal pain in the arse in cubase. In Cubase VST, SX, and SX2, I have (without exception) found it easier to route everything to a new group channel and put my Mixbuss effects on there!

Not so. Nuendo 1 and SX 1 had the [F7] key command for this - a dedicated function. Gone in SX2!

*By the way, ye all seem to be finding differences between Cubase and Live, Logic, and Sonar, but the reason for these differences, I'd have thought, is that cubase/nuendo is going in the direction of the ProTools model.

And thee make a lot of assumptions about others

[cold c]

This exists in Nuendo 1 - but then Steinberg removed it. However, you can get to it via the GRD, provided that you know the trick. In other words, it's there, but hidden.

I remember reading that trick on cubase.net (an SX2 easter egg, sort of.)

Notwithstanding these usability issues though, I still find SX2 the best host I've used so far.

Indeed, but it's definitely one step forward, one step back. Some great, and some essential, features have been removed for no apparent reason, and this makes each release a lottery.

How else would they be able to justify the upgrade price, this way they can charge for Cubase "Classic" features (like a mono button on the main outs.)

[auxbuss]

[negativeinjury]

I didn't make a suggestion! In fact, I described an alternative approach used by a competitor for comparison. This seems to be half the battle sometimes: exploring an idea as opposed to seeing things in black and white.

Additionally, MIDI Controller info and VSTi automation are separate in what I described. So your premise is also incorrect.

I use outboard too, very much under MIDI control. In contrast to your supposition, Live 4's approach makes it a very creative tool for controlling outboard gear.

The method used in Live 4 is not perfect, by any means, but it provides a deal more flexibility than SX in many ways. However, much of this is enabled by its imaginative routing setup.

Hmmm... am i wrong in saying that what you describe for the way Live handles it's routing, is a subset of the way SX2 does, in a way?

Not so. Nuendo 1 and SX 1 had the [F7] key command for this - a dedicated function. Gone in SX2!

I was thinking about how one accesses them from the mixer itself, as opposed to key commands. I wonder if this has something to do with the new audio engine - multiple equal output busses as opposed to a single master buss?

And thee make a lot of assumptions about others

I only make assumptions because I can't make anything else!

squig ☼

[negativeinjury]

like a mono button on the main outs.

According to the documentation for previous versions of cubase (VST, anyway), the "mono" button actually set the pan pots to have no effect, rather than to combine the left and right outputs like any sane engineer would have done... Whilst in theory this SHOULDN'T make a difference, one has to remember about the 'panning laws' implemented by pan circuits.

Now i don't know if the docs were accurate...

NegI