Quite a big disadvantage in Cubase SX3 !!!!!

[spaceman]

spaceman, sorry, regarding the Logic arpeggiator I beg to differ... unless it was *massively* overhauled in v7.
And, admittedly, Logic would do well with MIDI FX... one of the things I really like in SX.

it was overhauled I believe, yes (mind that I spent limited time in v5.5). but I wouldn't go as far as massively

it's a darn powerful arpeggiator nevertheless

oh and don't forget that in logic you can chain arpeggiators for some real sonic mayham

[Sascha Franck]

stag, I'm done with you in this thread. You're just a freaking moron with not a single clue. I won't reply to your brainless fartings anymore.

Sorry, had to be said.

[spaceman]

@sascha

not too sure now if there's a big difference between the v.5.5 and v7 arp.. can't find much details of the 5.5 one now

but anyway, with the ability to chain them, the auto function and Lim param.. I think it's pretty darn powerful

[advaya]

..some crap which showed that he either did not read my post or is too thick to understand it

I want to hear wet reverb only when I solo the Reverb FX channel. (Got it?)

Cubase is not set up to do this.

And f**k off with the infantile fanboy bullshit - what are you 14 y.o.?

Take it easy tiger...

As for the soloing of an fx channel, I think it works like this... (though I am not 100% sure, as I am not infront of Cubase right now).

In the mixer window, if you solo an FX channel, it'll also group-solo all the channels being routed to it (I think you can see how that would make sense right?) If you only want to hear the FX minus the routed instruments, simply un-solo those instrument channels on the mixer (while leaving the FX channel solo'd).

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty certain that is how it is done. Although, it isn't something I'd normally do, as I've never really found it useful to edit the wet signal without the presence of the dry signal as well...

Alternatively, you can also just first hit the global-mute button in the mixer, and then solo the FX channel in question. If I recal correctly, that will avoid the group-soloing of the routed instruments.

[egbert]

As for the soloing of an fx channel, I think it works like this... (though I am not 100% sure, as I am not infront of Cubase right now).

In the mixer window, if you solo an FX channel, it'll also group-solo all the channels being routed to it (I think you can see how that would make sense right?) If you only want to hear the FX minus the routed instruments, simply un-solo those instrument channels on the mixer (while leaving the FX channel solo'd).

Consider yourself corrected - if you unsolo the channel its contribution to the reverb is removed also. That gives some indication I guess why this is (not) working the way it is - you can't separate the operation of the channel from the operation of the send.

Same goes for the other poster's rather amusing suggestion that you chase all around the mix turning off the solo buttons (that's why we have computers isn't it - so we can do everything manually). Surely someone besides SF and myself can see that this is broken? On a decent hardware mixer you would route FX returns to a stereo channel (or a pair of mono channels) with mute and solo buttons and when you hit solo you hear exactly what is coming back on that channel (FX return). I have seen live desks set up this way in many venues since God was a boy.

BTW if somebody has been sniffing spray paint (or whatever it is that he does) and decides to quote my post and append evidence of his brain damage below and then attempts to insult me by calling me childish names I don't really see any point treating him with kid gloves. Call a shithead a shithead - you know it makes sense.

[Sascha Franck]

not too sure now if there's a big difference between the v.5.5 and v7 arp.. can't find much details of the 5.5 one now

but anyway, with the ability to chain them, the auto function and Lim param.. I think it's pretty darn powerful

Yeah well - thing is, the arpeggiator in SX is indeed quite more powerful. Plus, it also works while SX is in stop mode, something the Logic arp. doesn't allow for (I'm almost certain this hasn't been changed).

Actually, even better than the arpeggiator: Step Designer. Think of it as an arpeggiator on stereoids. Especially mad when you actually use BOTH, a slow step designer and a fast arp in addition.
Really, those MIDI FX in Cubase are pretty neat to have.

Btw, I just love the arpeggiator in U-He's Filterscape - soon to be seen in Z2 as well

[grymmjack]

And IIRs, yes, Tracktion might be great, but as I'm pretty much a MIDI nerd, I'm afraid I won't be all that happy with it.

I consider myself something of a MIDI nerd.. I used to earn a living programming MIDI using Cubase VST.. but I find Tracktion's piano-roll offers all the essential features I need, and its simplicity is like a breath of fresh air that helps me to focus on the music.. and anyway there are several aspects of Tracktion's MIDI implementation that I actually prefer to the old Cubase method, such as the groove quantise and the ability to super-impose MIDI clips on top of audio clips so you can position notes with reference to a waveform display.

<edit> I'm not saying Tracktion's MIDI is perfect, but I am confident it will develop further.. and meanwhile I find it a very small price to pay for Tracktion's elegant and intuitive solution to all the other problems you listed earlier in the thread.

IIR; yes I agree the essentails are there and aside from that toolbar (which can be worked around BTW by assigning a hotkey to the function to show/hide it and defaulting it to off in options) covering the timeline, I don't have a single complaint about what it /already/ does. And I also agree that it's not perfect. I gotta thank you also because I did not think to try superimposing clips (so THAT's why transparency is core to T2!).

Many of the shortcomings in T2 MIDI can be overcome as well by using 3rd party solutions (modulR, NDC, haydn plugs and of course eXT). I don't say this to start another tangent or argument, either. Just pointing it out. I've had to use workarounds in every other host too for MIDI.

[spaceman]

Btw, I just love the arpeggiator in U-He's Filterscape - soon to be seen in Z2 as well

i was waiting for that one too

[Sascha Franck]

On a decent hardware mixer you would route FX returns to a stereo channel (or a pair of mono channels) with mute and solo buttons and when you hit solo you hear exactly what is coming back on that channel (FX return). I have seen live desks set up this way in many venues since God was a boy.

Exactly. There goes all the "SX's mixer is like hardware" paradigm.

[...]to insult me by calling me childish names I don't really see any point treating him with kid gloves.

I found the "Egg-Bertha" mildly amusing nonetheless

[advaya]

As for the soloing of an fx channel, I think it works like this... (though I am not 100% sure, as I am not infront of Cubase right now).

In the mixer window, if you solo an FX channel, it'll also group-solo all the channels being routed to it (I think you can see how that would make sense right?) If you only want to hear the FX minus the routed instruments, simply un-solo those instrument channels on the mixer (while leaving the FX channel solo'd).

Consider yourself corrected - if you unsolo the channel its contribution to the reverb is removed also. That gives some indication I guess why this is (not) working the way it is - you can't separate the operation of the channel from the operation of the send.

Same goes for the other poster's rather amusing suggestion that you chase all around the mix turning off the solo buttons (that's why we have computers isn't it - so we can do everything manually). Surely someone besides SF and myself can see that this is broken? On a decent hardware mixer you would route FX returns to a stereo channel (or a pair of mono channels) with mute and solo buttons and when you hit solo you hear exactly what is coming back on that channel (FX return). I have seen live desks set up this way in many venues since God was a boy.

BTW if somebody has been sniffing spray paint (or whatever it is that he does) and decides to quote my post and append evidence of his brain damage below and then attempts to insult me by calling me childish names I don't really see any point treating him with kid gloves. Call a shithead a shithead - you know it makes sense.

OK then... consider me corrected...

I guess the only other option you're left with is to set the send path pre-fader, and then mute the instrument channel with the volume fader...

Sorry that any suggestions might seem so amusing to you. I'll now quietly bow out of this thread, and leave you folks to battle this one out.

[Sascha Franck]

I've had to use workarounds in every other host too for MIDI.

Oh yes, my next statement *will* show off some fanboyism, but seriously, regarding MIDI operations, I seriously can't see how anything could do much better than Logic.
Ok, there's no MIDI FX, but then, I'm sure they'll come one day (under Windows you can actually work around it partially, using eXT and a virtual MIDI port).
There's no dedicated drum editor either, but once you're familiar with hyperedit, you may not look back.
And there's no "inline" editing, which can indeed be a nice thing as you can compare parts more easily (especially MIDI and audio).
Others than those, I can't seem to find a single thing I'd be missing. Guess that's where their expertism shows off (because in other areas Logic defenitely falls kinda short, namely anything related to audio editing).

[grymmjack]

I've had to use workarounds in every other host too for MIDI.

Oh yes, my next statement *will* show off some fanboyism, but seriously, regarding MIDI operations, I seriously can't see how anything could do much better than Logic.
Ok, there's no MIDI FX, but then, I'm sure they'll come one day (under Windows you can actually work around it partially, using eXT and a virtual MIDI port).
There's no dedicated drum editor either, but once you're familiar with hyperedit, you may not look back.
And there's no "inline" editing, which can indeed be a nice thing as you can compare parts more easily (especially MIDI and audio).
Others than those, I can't seem to find a single thing I'd be missing. Guess that's where their expertism shows off (because in other areas Logic defenitely falls kinda short, namely anything related to audio editing).

eMagic had roots in MIDI though didn't they? What came first, sound diver or logic? Sound diver, even now in it's aged state, is better IMO than MIDI quest XL (the only competitor to sound diver), and for the same reason you mention in all of your points on logic, they are better to work with. I think it's an important point to realize about this host wars stuff we all find ourselves in again and again.

Every host shares common attributes that makes them a "host", and usually these basic core attributes are implemented in an equally fair manner across the board, what happens is that people have preferences to how they /WORK/ and that is where the real issue is I think. We all have different preferences and ways we want to work, and there will never be a host that can accommodate every single preference (can you imagine how completely weird that host would be?), so we all settle for the host that comes closest to the way we enjoy working.

I say settle because even the ones we like the most (for me it's Tracktion and FL Studio, for you Sascha it's Logic and Cubase), they /STILL/ don't do it for us in the most ideal manner.

Really host wars should be redubbed "workflow" or even "preference" wars. And yes it's obvious that there are indeed certain shortcomings to existing 'hardware emulation paradigm' but I think it is also fair to say that all of these /computer software programs/ do many more things light-years better than the hardware we all grew up on (and usually it's only because you have a bigger display with more common controls and thus greater usability and by proxy, greater creativity). To compare a piece of software to hardware, or how software should work like hardware (mixer argument) is therefore a non-comparison because they are two entirely different things and once again it all goes back to workflow preference.

that's my twofitty.

[Kingston]

Cool thing this thread isn't actually about host wars, apart from that annoying kid stag.

I quite enjoy discussions where everybody knows the topic (or the softwares in question) inside out. Not much room for fanboyism there.

[spaceman]

There's no dedicated drum editor either, but once you're familiar with hyperedit, you may not look back..

indeed, it takes 2 minutes to create one using a multi-instrument and hyperedit which you can then save as part of your environment.. it's an absolute joy to use

[grymmjack]

Cool thing this thread isn't actually about host wars, apart from that annoying kid stag.

I quite enjoy discussions where everybody knows the topic (or the softwares in question) inside out. Not much room for fanboyism there.

Yes it's great to pick the brains of guys using this stuff for years, but they always seem to digress into this:

participant 1: "x is better because of y"
participant 2: "actually, x is worse because of y"
participant 3: "i use z because..."
participant 4: "z is the worst! z sucks! x for life!!@"
participant 5: "you are all whankers"
participant 6: "foo forever!"
participant 1: "prove that x is worse"
participant 2: "f**k you, participant 1! you rape goats every tuesday."
participant 1: "f**k you more, participant 2! i dont rape goats on tuesday! you do on friday!"
participant 5: "hehehe"
participant 3: "actually, z is better than x too."
participant 6: "screw that, foo is better!"

ad nauseum.

What's funny though is that when I evaluate options and alternatives my brain goes through the same arguments... Except sometimes I substitute the farm animals for zoo animals.