Cubase SL vs SX? What's the difference?

[elangbach]

I am looking into upgrading from my Cubase VST 5.1.

However what is the main difference between SL 3.1 and SX 3.1? Except from the price...

best regards
erlend

[Josmoker]

It's mainly the surround functionality. There's also 2 or 3 synths and fx that you only get with sx and the in-line midi editing and integration of external effects.
There's a detailed comparison chart somewhere on the steinberg site.
Cheers, Jo

[cold c]

From steinberg-

Cubase_SL_SX_3.1_Feature_Comparison.pdf

Cubase_All_Versions_Feature_Comparison.pdf



In a related previous topic I wrote-

(I use SX3) I don't use some of the features such as Fraunhofer MP3 or WMA surround encoding, or the extra plugins (Monologue, Embracer , Tonic etc) much, or the score. However, the configurability of the SX mixer is useful, the inplace editor and the extra fx slots, and if I had spare I/O the external FX would be useful.

As I upgraded from a previous version it was worth the minimal price difference. However, the price difference between the retail versions of SX3/SL3 may not be worth it to many users.

[elangbach]

superb... then the choice is easy... SL...

cheers
erlend

[Pouckypluysch]

Are projects exchangeable between SX and SL?

[Lunch Money]

Last I heard, upgrades from 5.1 are no longer valid...? Unless Steinberg reversed that decision after a huge backlash. In which case, you'll be buying the whole package at full cost.

It's very possible that I'm either a) mininformed; or b) unaware of a reversed decision. However, I thought it was worth mentioning so that someone can correct me or confirm.

Greg

[red_giant]

from what i know, all files created by a version can be opened in a higher versions, but not lower

[Pouckypluysch]

from what i know, all files created by a version can be opened in a higher versions, but not lower

SX2 will not open SX3 files. But I'm not sure SL3 won't either...