What can Studio One 6 offer over Cubase12/Ableton?

[_leras]

Cubase is (or was? Haven't used the newest versions) better for weirdos like me who don't like using the mixer section almost ever.

Really? Would love to know your workflow!!

The mixer is one of the things I like best about Cubase. Yes, it takes a bit of time to set up the groups and routings... (Templates help a lot here) - but once setup it's very nice to mix with imo.

I just wish they would add 'grouping' channels that Bitwig has - which could then be routed into Bus Groups for mixing.

[Trancit]

Cubase is (or was? Haven't used the newest versions) better for weirdos like me who don't like using the mixer section almost ever.

Really? Would love to know your workflow!!

...

I would guess he uses the Channel Editor instead as are doing many others...
Apart from bussing I rarely see people use the mixer in Cubase...

[robdp]

Can anyone speak to the performance with S1 vs Cubase on Mac??

I've been working in S1 for a good few years and never bothered to do any CPU tests, so I only know what I know with S1... Is the CPU that superior with Cubase and generally not that great with S1?

[briefcasemanx]

Cubase is (or was? Haven't used the newest versions) better for weirdos like me who don't like using the mixer section almost ever.

Really? Would love to know your workflow!!

The mixer is one of the things I like best about Cubase. Yes, it takes a bit of time to set up the groups and routings... (Templates help a lot here) - but once setup it's very nice to mix with imo.

I just wish they would add 'grouping' channels that Bitwig has - which could then be routed into Bus Groups for mixing.

I just used the project view 90% of the time and adjusted things on the inspector. I like this a lot better than the mixer view, but I've switched to using the mixer once I went to Studio One because the inspector in Studio One sucks.

The only thing I like the mixer for is getting it initial levels before starting a mix, and that takes only a couple minutes. But these days I'm not recording bands, I'm just making my own electronic songs, and I mix as I write/arrange so there's rarely an "initial" point where I need to level all the tracks before starting my mix.

[Trensharo]

Is it true, that Cubase doesn't offer free point updates (let's say when Cubase 12.5 comes the update is not free even if you already have Cubase 12)? But Studio One and Ableton offer free point updates, only the major updates are paid ones (Studio One 5.5 free, Studio One 6 paid)?

That's 100% ignorable, as Cubase has 0.5 Updates and 1.0 Upgrades.

Updates are $60 and Upgrades are $100.

So, it's only $10 more expensive to keep Cubase up to date year-over year compared to Studio One. That's completely ignorable given the feature disparity that exists between the two products, which Studio One actually didn't do much to eat into with the 6.0 update. Cubase Pro 12.5 is likely going to be hitting in a few months.

The only factorable disparity in cost is in the initial buy-in, assuming you aren't cross grading (where Cubase can be had for cheaper prices due to deep discounts from retailers during promotional periods).

[Trensharo]

This post on the Cubase forum from Mattias Quellmann (works for Steinberg):

Cubase 12.0.50 is already in the beta test. Unfortunately we can’t announce a release date yet.

For anyone on the fence on whether to upgrade now to SO 6 or migrate to Cubase 12, it might be worth it to wait and see what is added on the next Cubase update before making a decision. Just saying...
I own Cubase 12/Nuendo 12 and upgraded to SO 6 yesterday (haven't had a chance to check out all the new features yet). Neither is perfect but I find Nuendo to come closest to having everything I need in a DAW. However I still prefer the workflow in Studio One which is why I use it also.

Nuendo is a waste of money for music production, especially now that they brought Atmos to Cubase. It's a SKU for Post, Broadcast, Game Sound Design, etc.

Buying Nuendo for music production is like buying Sequoia over Samplitude Pro X or Pro Tools Flex over Pro Tools Studio.

That being said, Nuendo is actually decently affordable for a product sitting in that market segment, so it hurts less to "go big" with it than if you were to go to Sequoia/Flex and have to deal with those monstrous Upgrade/Maintenance fees.

MAGIX basically charges Nuendo upgrade prices for Pro X Suite, so... I guess it's not super bad

But you don't really need it.

[Trensharo]

Cubase is (or was? Haven't used the newest versions) better for weirdos like me who don't like using the mixer section almost ever.

Really? Would love to know your workflow!!

...

I would guess he uses the Channel Editor instead as are doing many others...
Apart from bussing I rarely see people use the mixer in Cubase...

I don't know anyone who does all of their mixing in Cubase with the Channel Strip/Channel Editor.

The MixConsole in Cubase is one of the best things about the DAW. If you're going to ignore it, then relative value proposition drops quite a bit.

I can see someone coming from Ableton Live using a workflow like that, though, since it seems a bit similar to how mixing is done in that DAW.

[gentleclockdivider]

Unique to studio one :console emulation (if you're into that )
Other daw capable of that is Harisson mixbus

[briefcasemanx]

The mixer in DAWs almost seems pointless to me most of the time. I guess the faders are bigger? I guess you save a click by having all channels available instead of having to click on an individual track to see and change it's attributes?

But you also have your entire view of events obscured, long plugin chains on a single track become unmanageable and plugin names get less readable.

Are people sitting there all day messing with faders all day? I rarely touch the faders. Most of my mixing is done in plugins, so I'd much rather see plugin chains better and see what's happening with events in the song rather than stare at faders I'm not using.

I really want to understand what people are getting out of the mixer view where most people seem to prefer it.

[lfm]

The mixer in DAWs almost seems pointless to me most of the time. I guess the faders are bigger? I guess you save a click by having all channels available instead of having to click on an individual track to see and change it's attributes?

But you also have your entire view of events obscured, long plugin chains on a single track become unmanageable and plugin names get less readable.

Are people sitting there all day messing with faders all day? I rarely touch the faders. Most of my mixing is done in plugins, so I'd much rather see plugin chains better and see what's happening with events in the song rather than stare at faders I'm not using.

I really want to understand what people are getting out of the mixer view where most people seem to prefer it.

To get the most out of mixer view dual monitors is the way to go. If laptop that second graphics out is not there so yes, obscured view.

Vertically you don't see enough tracks in arrange view, and usually you have to use Inspector view one track at a time to see which plugins are there, which sends are there etc.

The faders are not the main thing in mixer view for me. Easy to grab a plugin or send, mute or solo and stuff. Good overview.

So both views are good complement to each other.

I ran Cubase Pro 9.5, then Studio One 4.6 but in the end went back to good old Sonar Artist 2015 which is what I use since three years.

Cakewalk/Sonar also handles sysex the best, with Sysex manager even. Unless Studio One 6 got it, still lacking all handling sysex. But I use more external midi gear than plugins, so depends how important I suppose.

But dealbreaker Studio One was how it handles midi CC and convert all to automation which complicates things way too much. If you happend to touch a knob on a synth during recording that does not play back the same later, since it makes first recorded midi CC also the start value of the clip, really weird results. I activated leslie on hammond a bit into a clip and later it plays back the clips with leslie on from start of clip.

Cubase and Cakewalk/Sonar let you decide if and when you want to convert midi cc to automation.

For overview Cubase got a neat feature showing audio as it progress on top of mixer view on each track. So a tight window from arrange view, but audio alone, not clips.

What made me leave Cubase Pro was the new video engine which consumed double or triple cpu same project than both StudioOne Cakewalk/Sonar or Reaper. And also a weird event in my computer every hour uptime plus 2 seconds which made audio engine stop. To record I had to watch how much uptime Windows had before so not having to redo because of that.

But stationary computer with dual monitors is really the way to go whatever daw you use. The closest thing to revolution in workflow.

[briefcasemanx]

I barely delve into Studio One because every single time I do I find dumb, baffling design decisions or bugs that I'll have to work around to do the thing I want. Today it's keyboard shortcuts. In the keyboard shortcuts panel, there's no option for paint tool? Why is the split hotkey different inside the midi view than it is in the main view? Why can't I easily change add a new hotkey for splitting in the midi view so that I can just like hold down alt or something and my cursor turns into the split tool while it's held down? Having to leave my normal keyboard position with my hand to press the 2 or 3 key whenever I want to split something is maddening. Maybe there's a way to do what I want to do but it's not in the most obvious spot, the keyboard shortcuts menu (which itself is not in the most obvious spot, I expected it to be in the 'edit' menu).

This is just a single example from today, but every single time I try to do anything in Studio One beyond basic stuff I feel like I'm blocked by the designers, who seem to not actually use their own software or lack the empathy required for good user friendly, intuitive design. The likelihood of someone who is equally lacking the type of empathy in question to chime in and say "Harumph! You didn't read page 132 paragraph 5b in the users manual!" is quite high.

[andypryce]

This post on the Cubase forum from Mattias Quellmann (works for Steinberg):

Cubase 12.0.50 is already in the beta test. Unfortunately we can’t announce a release date yet.

For anyone on the fence on whether to upgrade now to SO 6 or migrate to Cubase 12, it might be worth it to wait and see what is added on the next Cubase update before making a decision. Just saying...
I own Cubase 12/Nuendo 12 and upgraded to SO 6 yesterday (haven't had a chance to check out all the new features yet). Neither is perfect but I find Nuendo to come closest to having everything I need in a DAW. However I still prefer the workflow in Studio One which is why I use it also.

It will be a minor bug update. No new features.
New features will come with 12.5 or if they skip it with 13. Probably next year.

[pixel85]

Cubase is (or was? Haven't used the newest versions) better for weirdos like me who don't like using the mixer section almost ever.

Really? Would love to know your workflow!!

The mixer is one of the things I like best about Cubase. Yes, it takes a bit of time to set up the groups and routings... (Templates help a lot here) - but once setup it's very nice to mix with imo.

I just wish they would add 'grouping' channels that Bitwig has - which could then be routed into Bus Groups for mixing.

If you're using mixer view a lot, then maybe you know how to force mixer to show selected channel in the arrangement view, in the middle of the screen (mixer view)? I don't know if my memory is failing me that much but I remember that it was standard in the past.
Now in C12 it's always opening mixer with selected channel either as the first or last channel in the view (hard left or right). I hate it because when I'm opening mixer, I'm doing it because I want to edit tracks around selected one. Now I have to scroll selected track to the middle of the screen anytime I open mixer view. It's a woekflow killer and now I'm opening mixer view rarely, only for routing of several tracks.

[maanga]

Reminds me of Nokia phones. Blue tooth in one, Radio in another, Wifi in some. They split the models but not all in one until other smart phones and apps arrived. End of Nokia.
After many years of DAW developments, the developers keep some good changes for the next paid release and this keeps going on for few DAW developers.
When new DAW emerges with so many features and similar performance and a team to continually work on development, it wins.

[Trancit]

Cubase is (or was? Haven't used the newest versions) better for weirdos like me who don't like using the mixer section almost ever.

Really? Would love to know your workflow!!

...

I would guess he uses the Channel Editor instead as are doing many others...
Apart from bussing I rarely see people use the mixer in Cubase...

I don't know anyone who does all of their mixing in Cubase with the Channel Strip/Channel Editor.

The MixConsole in Cubase is one of the best things about the DAW. If you're going to ignore it, then relative value proposition drops quite a bit.

I can see someone coming from Ableton Live using a workflow like that, though, since it seems a bit similar to how mixing is done in that DAW.

I can only judge from what I see in YT vids and as I am a Psytrance guy I mostly know people doing this genre...
Dash Glitch, Eclip and Nate seem to do most of the mixing work while they go and using mainly the channel editor... rarely using the full Mixer except from certain tasks which isn´t possible within the channel editor itself...

For me personally I find Cubase´s Mixer far to overblown and I don´t like having to collapse and expand elements to see what I want to see...

But this is all a matter of taste... I really like the channel editor and how it is setup in Cubase and if someone likes better to work with the mixer it´s of course fine too...
Important is to have the choice that everybody can use the method he/she/it likes best...