Mixing sound better inside cubase or sfp or vdat?

[maky325]

Cubase is the msot advanced midi sequecer around. nothing can beat it when you work with midi, slice parts, quantization, controll information and the easy work with piano roll editor.

cubase for midi
scope for audio


but if SC will bring someday a cubase replacement that fully integrates scope DSP hardware (something like protools) with a good piano roll and controller (midi cc) handling and automation. I would jump off.....

Agree about cubase and midi. I especially liked Midex but my gone dead and they drop support for midex year ago ;( But i have FL Studio here too. You must check it. It really grow nicely within years. Yes i am speaking about midi editing. Though approach is a bit different but these days i am using it more and more as i can lay down ideas more quickly. I am using it for midi only just to control scope. Scope is heart of studio now When you have some time just try it

Regarding SonicCore DAW i will just add that in my opinion it would be better for them to stick with what they do best and focus just on that. There is a lot of choice today s we can pick what suit us best..

[Sounddesigner]

Are'nt Sonic Core already in the business of editing programs? Ralph told me that Cutmaster pro is a full blown mastering program its just listed under 'broadcast' but i'm sure it does alot of the the sequencing and editing most people need. It also run on SCOPE dsp cards 3/6/14, the larger version of Cutmaster requires 14 dsp. I'm sure XITE-1 would make it no problem to use Cutmaster simultaneousely with SCOPE. Sonic Core may just need to add a few more features to it to suit fully most peoples taste.

[hifiboom]

exactly I talked with Ralf on messe also about the old tripledat.

So they got some technology there also.

Add some midi roll and other midi stuff. and there you go

SCubase.

but for the moment they have higher prority stuff to do.

XITE-1 and Solaris.... and hopefully new device stuff in the future....

[krizrox]

My own perspective is based on nothing mathematical - only what my ears are telling me. I've learned to trust my ears. I have good hearing and my monitor chain is top notch. If I'm ever uncertain, I try to live with something for a while and then try something else and live with that for a while. Usually, I will gravitate towards the better sounding solution over time and stick with that. I admit it's difficult to tell sometimes. Sometimes, it's not even really an issue of sound quality. I can sacrifice a small amount of sound quality for a better tool (gets the job done quicker or easier to use).

I prefer to mix in Scope. I find Scope's garden-variety tools are generally better sounding for one thing. But I can go either way depending on my needs and the needs of my clients. Sometimes I can get things done faster working only in Sonar or Samplitude (bouncing down with effects vs. mixing down in real time through Scope).

I say the best answer is choose for yourself. There's always more than one way to skin a cat

[hifiboom]

you can even turn around the thing.

Lets say you wanna act logical and if you say A is better then B technically, so you should choose A.

But what if your ears do always tell you that B sounds better. I guess it wouldn`t make sense to still use A with the fact in mind that it is technically better.
Finally I think a good ear is better than any measurement tool, especially in music buisness and art in general.

I mean we all know that every software has bugs. And most software also has obvious bugs, that people will come across easily.

So I think its not unlikely that many software packs have also bugs behind the surface eventually also in the audio chain. Which are way harder to find out.
So a spec alone doesn`t say anything at all.

And thats why using the ear and not trusting specs is so important.
but regarding the sharcs the specs and my ears tell me the same thing, they deliver superior results.
but its not just the chips, but also a company that was and is not a one-man compnay like many other in the vst developer scene.

So I think the wonderful thing with scope is that it is combination of superior hardware technology, with superior software.

There are some little things that could improve, but the overall system is just perfect.

my2cent.

[astroman]

you can even turn around the thing.
Lets say you wanna act logical and if you say A is better then B technically, so you should choose A.
But what if your ears do always tell you that B sounds better. ...

good point, exactly what happened today
I was playing a bass that the dude from the local shop had setup really nicely - great job - I know the instrument for quite some time ...
it's difficult to sell, as in the days of vintage Fenders people don't buy graphite necks.
Anyway, proper strings - proper adjustment - amazingly warm sound with fingerstyle, you'd only guess the type of neck by the slap sound, if at all.
People usually associate these instruments with 'sterile' or 'lifeless' tone and such attributes - probably due to the high-tech heritage etc bla bla -- snip --

it just sounded great - but it was played over a technical piece of crap
a Roland Basscube 100 to be precise (the new one, not the old orange coated)
if you stand away a few meters from the amp, you can't but adore the sound
step closer, really close... and enjoy the fuzzy noise of digital artifacts emitted by the coaxially mounted tweeter.
there's an undeniable amount of (relatively) slight distortion (modulated noise) in the very near field, which seems to spice the tone of the overall amp just nicely.
The thing is crap - but it sounds good, amazing

cheers, Tom