Well, I hadn't gotten any emails to say my SX upgrade had shipped, but I came home to see a Steinberg box sitting by my door... I'm not complaining!
Having been a Cubase 3.x user since the first version of "VST" on the PC, I must say, this version is pretty different. It is radically streamlined and much more efficient. Gone are the days of multiple windows to get something simple done!
SX is basically the guts & audio engine of Nuendo with the best midi bits of Cubase. So far (4 hours or so) SX has not crashed, glitched or experienced any odd behaviour at all. Installation worked perfectly on the first try, as did it's automatic updating to version 1.10
This is what I like best so far:
1. Unlimited undo/redo with process history a la Photoshop style.
2. Project folders!
3. Processing audio directly on the arrange window.
4. The GUI is very easy on the eyes.
5. The automation is excellent!
6. The sound quality is *way* better than Cubase 5.x - nobody is debating this... Everything is more open and detailed (yes, I know about the different panning laws).
Things I don't like:
1. The new inspector window is taking a bit of time to get used to..
2. The overall GUI of the mixer. Not bad, but I like the layout of the Nuendo mixer better.
3. The default short cut keystrokes. For long time VST users, this will be the hardest part. Many of them are completely different. I either need to study and learn the new ones, or change the defaults. I'm more inclined to learn the new ways, it's just a pain.
OK, now for the Creamware part:
I've had SFP 3.10 installed in WinXP since the day it came out, not changes there. It works exactly like it should in SX. Nothing special had to be done or set to get it working properly. All the samplers and synths I've used so far work fine. I really don't like XTC mode, so I haven't tried that yet. I probably won't. :| Aside from the minor bugs everyone else is having, SFP seems to be very happy alongside SX.
I don't own Nuendo, but I've gotten to use it on many occasions and was always very impressed with the layout, speed of editing and general stability. SX seems to have everything Nuendo does as it's built on the same code base, only missing a couple of the features geared towards post production guys.
This is a major, MAJOR deal for any VST/32 user to be able to upgrade for only $150. The part that really kills me is that you keep your VST/32 dongle!! I can either setup another pc to run softsynths (I won't, thats what creamware DSP is for) OR I can sell my vst/32 package on Ebay (I will) and easily get my $150 that I spent on the upgrade back!
All my testing has been done on my WinXP internet partition. My audio install has still been Win98se. This will now have to change.
I'll post more in a day or two.
[Forgot to add my system specs]:
p3 800 Slot 1
Abit 440BX motherboard
320mb pc100 sdram
2 x 40gb Ibm 75GXP "Deathstars"
Pulsar II classic
Midex 8
This system, especially the motherboard is pretty old... I shudder to think how things would run on p4 2.5 w/ 1gb of 533mhz rdram. *drool*
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2002-05-24 07:31 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2002-05-24 07:38 ]</font>
Initial Impressions: Cubase SX & Creamware
-
The Z Station
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
I'm a tripleFANATIC, however, I had to expand to a non-CW DAW (in my case Logic Plat 5) to record my audio and master at 24/96. Thereafter, apply 24bit dithering down to 16/44.1 to tripleDAT for final CD-R mastering.
Looking at the specs, with Cubase now based on Nuendo's engine, it should rock! I think tripleDAT is still superior in its simplicstic approach to audio recording. Having too much items on screen can sometimes be a little too dizzying. SX's interface, I think, is somewhat akin to triple's. It looks very intuative and very easy on the eyes for sure!
I think a killer tripleDAT overhaul is:
Quantum 24 Pro?
- stability
- fully designed and optimised for SFP X and CW DSP hardware engine with the option of a "Classic Mode".
- 24/96 rates
- a fresh new tripleSKINS or tripleMASK (user-definable, able to assign colours, user configurable layouts). For those creative producers, you'll be able to create your own customable skins - make it look like ProTools, Cubase, or Logic?!! based on chameleon interface technology!
- powered by VDAT's engine
- dynamic automation (recordable)
- multiple Sync lock methods (SMPTE,etc.)
- effects handled by SFP
- optimised post production tools for audio and video
- a new CD-R, DVD authoring suite
- a new dynamic user-updatable CD-R/W and DVD-R/W driver library
- a basic sequencer and MIDI control suite
- support for multiple audio formats
- network with other tripleDAT/Quantum *
- aggressive pricing: At $1000USD, I'd definitely get it!
With SFP handling the softsynths, effects suites and routing, CW needs a good Pro Digital Post Audio to complete their product line!
It's like dreaming of having one of those concept cars (2002 Ford GT)
but it is only my tripleDREAM...
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Z Station on 2002-05-24 14:15 ]</font>
Looking at the specs, with Cubase now based on Nuendo's engine, it should rock! I think tripleDAT is still superior in its simplicstic approach to audio recording. Having too much items on screen can sometimes be a little too dizzying. SX's interface, I think, is somewhat akin to triple's. It looks very intuative and very easy on the eyes for sure!
I think a killer tripleDAT overhaul is:
Quantum 24 Pro?
- stability
- fully designed and optimised for SFP X and CW DSP hardware engine with the option of a "Classic Mode".
- 24/96 rates
- a fresh new tripleSKINS or tripleMASK (user-definable, able to assign colours, user configurable layouts). For those creative producers, you'll be able to create your own customable skins - make it look like ProTools, Cubase, or Logic?!! based on chameleon interface technology!
- powered by VDAT's engine
- dynamic automation (recordable)
- multiple Sync lock methods (SMPTE,etc.)
- effects handled by SFP
- optimised post production tools for audio and video
- a new CD-R, DVD authoring suite
- a new dynamic user-updatable CD-R/W and DVD-R/W driver library
- a basic sequencer and MIDI control suite
- support for multiple audio formats
- network with other tripleDAT/Quantum *
- aggressive pricing: At $1000USD, I'd definitely get it!
With SFP handling the softsynths, effects suites and routing, CW needs a good Pro Digital Post Audio to complete their product line!
It's like dreaming of having one of those concept cars (2002 Ford GT)
but it is only my tripleDREAM...
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Z Station on 2002-05-24 14:15 ]</font>
I've never seen or used TripleDAT. I've only been a Creamware user for about 6 months now. The Pulsar II w/ Propack was my first purchase.
I can say this, I can't imagine audio recording getting much better than this. When I started using computers in 1997 to record music, this is what I envisioned. It's not been until now that my "dream" is a reality.
I sold all but 2 hardware synths and everything, mixing, samplers, fx, many synths are all native or on the pulsar.
And I've never been happier!
- sinix
I can say this, I can't imagine audio recording getting much better than this. When I started using computers in 1997 to record music, this is what I envisioned. It's not been until now that my "dream" is a reality.
I sold all but 2 hardware synths and everything, mixing, samplers, fx, many synths are all native or on the pulsar.
And I've never been happier!
- sinix
-
The Z Station
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
-
EarlyFirst
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: The Future
- Contact:
This is from the Nuendo forum seems that Cubase and Nuendo are using the same engine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dimitri did say that Cubase and Nuendo had the same exact audio engine in another trend "Nuendo Audio Engine." Look it up.
I'm dissapointed to. I just spent $1,000 on Nuendo a few months ago because I thought the audio engine and code were completely different. But it seems all I hear about is how 1.5 is full of bugs and that Paria and Logic sound much better, etc.
What a wast of cash. Now I feel I should have gone for Paris.
Please Dimitri or Leon, is there any plans to improve the audio engine in Nuendo, let me know either way so I can wait for the change and go to the dark side (Paris).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dimitri did say that Cubase and Nuendo had the same exact audio engine in another trend "Nuendo Audio Engine." Look it up.
I'm dissapointed to. I just spent $1,000 on Nuendo a few months ago because I thought the audio engine and code were completely different. But it seems all I hear about is how 1.5 is full of bugs and that Paria and Logic sound much better, etc.
What a wast of cash. Now I feel I should have gone for Paris.
Please Dimitri or Leon, is there any plans to improve the audio engine in Nuendo, let me know either way so I can wait for the change and go to the dark side (Paris).
I'm truly sorry, I don't mean to be an ass**le, but I fell off my chair laughing when I read that part;On 2002-05-24 07:25, sinix wrote:
6. The sound quality is *way* better than Cubase 5.x - nobody is debating this... Everything is more open and detailed
According to two of the Steinberg coders that did SX, the core audioengine is exactly the same as in Nuendo, wich is the same as in VST 5.x .....
If it truely sounds better, then I would REALLY like to know why ????????
Kim.
I say this as kindly as possible, I mean no harm, insult or injury.
If you can't hear the difference between Nuendo / SX and Cubase 5.x, something is seriously wrong!
The difference isn't small, it isn't "well, maybe its better", it's night and day different. It's like mixing with cotton balls in your ear, then removing them.
Our studio at work runs Nuendo and VST/32. The engineer stopped using vst/32 over a year ago after spending a week with Nuendo.
Trust me, I'm not making this up. I'm not in "hype"... if I was, I would have kept my Yamaha 02r and outboard gear for mixing.
- sinix
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2002-05-24 15:20 ]</font>
If you can't hear the difference between Nuendo / SX and Cubase 5.x, something is seriously wrong!
The difference isn't small, it isn't "well, maybe its better", it's night and day different. It's like mixing with cotton balls in your ear, then removing them.
Our studio at work runs Nuendo and VST/32. The engineer stopped using vst/32 over a year ago after spending a week with Nuendo.
Trust me, I'm not making this up. I'm not in "hype"... if I was, I would have kept my Yamaha 02r and outboard gear for mixing.
- sinix
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2002-05-24 15:20 ]</font>
Cubase SX sounds better than Nuendo 1.xx..
The reason for that is that it should have a cleaner audio path than Nunedo. They do really share the same audio-engine, but according to a Cubase-rep, Nuendo 2.0 will sound exactly like SX. The question is when will Nuendo 2.0 appear?. I know this subject is widely discussed on the net (which app sounds the best and s.o.), and those discussion can also get really hot. But IMHO Cubase never sounded as good as Nuendo. Nuendo sounds much smoother and more analog (or less digital). Anyway, the differences of Nuendo and Cubase will lie in the ability of doing "Post Pro" things. Those apps will always share similar features, but Cubase will never handle SD2, omf, edl... That´s the same reason why Emagic licensed "Samplitude". They needed a different program to handle this "Post Pro" enviroment. And the reason for "Seqouia" being 5 times more expensive than "Samplitude" although having the same features, also comes from the "total compatibility philosophy", which includes Sonic Solutions, Sadie and Protools. But let´s see what Emagic will do to "Samp". I regard it as a positive thing to be also a Emagic user by using Samplitude....
Regards,
Sunshine
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2002-05-25 02:46 ]</font>
The reason for that is that it should have a cleaner audio path than Nunedo. They do really share the same audio-engine, but according to a Cubase-rep, Nuendo 2.0 will sound exactly like SX. The question is when will Nuendo 2.0 appear?. I know this subject is widely discussed on the net (which app sounds the best and s.o.), and those discussion can also get really hot. But IMHO Cubase never sounded as good as Nuendo. Nuendo sounds much smoother and more analog (or less digital). Anyway, the differences of Nuendo and Cubase will lie in the ability of doing "Post Pro" things. Those apps will always share similar features, but Cubase will never handle SD2, omf, edl... That´s the same reason why Emagic licensed "Samplitude". They needed a different program to handle this "Post Pro" enviroment. And the reason for "Seqouia" being 5 times more expensive than "Samplitude" although having the same features, also comes from the "total compatibility philosophy", which includes Sonic Solutions, Sadie and Protools. But let´s see what Emagic will do to "Samp". I regard it as a positive thing to be also a Emagic user by using Samplitude....
Regards,
Sunshine
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sunshine on 2002-05-25 02:46 ]</font>
I will recieve my copy of Cubase in 2 weeks. I have some completely different questions... Some users stated that "SX" is more like "Nuendo".
But did they keep the the "fast forward/rewind" ability of Cubase, which made Cubase more efficiant as a sequencer?
And what about the Midi Editor sections, do they look the same as before?
Are all key commands really adjustable?
I know that for some older Cubase users it will be not so easy to get accostomed to the new enviroment (file handling). Did you have any such problems?
What about the ability to integrate external editors like "Wavelab" and "Forge"??
Regards,
Sunshine
But did they keep the the "fast forward/rewind" ability of Cubase, which made Cubase more efficiant as a sequencer?
And what about the Midi Editor sections, do they look the same as before?
Are all key commands really adjustable?
I know that for some older Cubase users it will be not so easy to get accostomed to the new enviroment (file handling). Did you have any such problems?
What about the ability to integrate external editors like "Wavelab" and "Forge"??
Regards,
Sunshine
Sunshine, you probably have been to Steinbergs screenshots-site:
It seems like just *everything* got better. Steinbergs say that in SX they actually use Nuendo's audioengine: great!
It seems like just *everything* got better. Steinbergs say that in SX they actually use Nuendo's audioengine: great!
I'm really curious about SX but again, I ask, does it only run on 2000/XP platform? I think the answer is yes.
If it is yes, then that's a bummer for me as I had no immediate intention of upgrading my OS. Frankly, XP scares me but I don't know why. Do any of you feel XP is more stable or a better choice for audio work than ME or 98? Is there anyone out there who isn't having problems with SFP on XP? If someone can convince me that WinXP/SFP/CubaseSX is a winning combination, I'll rush out immediately and plop down hundreds of dollars. Thanks for any feedback!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: krizrox on 2002-06-01 04:57 ]</font>
If it is yes, then that's a bummer for me as I had no immediate intention of upgrading my OS. Frankly, XP scares me but I don't know why. Do any of you feel XP is more stable or a better choice for audio work than ME or 98? Is there anyone out there who isn't having problems with SFP on XP? If someone can convince me that WinXP/SFP/CubaseSX is a winning combination, I'll rush out immediately and plop down hundreds of dollars. Thanks for any feedback!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: krizrox on 2002-06-01 04:57 ]</font>
On the "swing" question: I'm not sure. I never used this function in VST, but I *think* SX retains groove quantise and this function, but I could be wrong.
As for the other question: SX will not install on any other OS other than XP or Win2k. The installer checks to see what OS is being used and will not continue unless a correct version is present.
This is my setup:
Abit BX 440 board (very old)
P3 800 Slot 1
Geforce 2 AGP gfx card
320mb (mixture of pc80 and pc100 ram)
IBM 40gb 75GXP drives x2
NetGear PCI NIC
SB Awe64 Value (for system sounds)
Sony CRX-1611 Burner
Asus Cd-rom
WinXP Pro
Creamware Pulsar II
Midex 8 midi interface
I can assure you, on MY system, WinXP Pro, Cubase SX and the latest version of SFP are all running fine. Everything installed on the first try with no tweaks or funny issues. I don't have any major problems at all. SX has not crashed once in the week or so I've had it installed.
Our studio at work has been using SX everyday since the 1st day it was available (8 hrs a day average) in every session along side a UAD-1 card (no Pulsar) and has had no problems at all. These are all paying clients... Studio engineer runs a p4 2ghz / Asus PT4-E setup.
My ONLY problems is when I have a song fully loaded (CPU around 70%) and the Creamware card near fully loaded (DSP around 70%), I start to get bad crackling and pops whenever the cursor in SX is "following" the song on playback (i.e. when the screen is re-drawing). My ULLI settings are for 7ms latency.
Increasing or decreasing seems to make things worse... so 7ms seems to be the ideal setting in my situation.
I can assure you this is no doubt from the speed of the ram and age of the motherboard. I have a very old BX series board and half pc80 ram. This stuff is painfully slow compared to whats on the market today. I'm surprised (rather shocked) at the performance that I even get as it is.
The system I'm planning on building will be based around a P4 2ghz+ on a i850E chipset.
I doubt the crackling problems will still happening using 1gb of 533mhz rdram and a processor hovering around 2.4ghz!
- sinix
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2002-06-01 10:05 ]</font>
As for the other question: SX will not install on any other OS other than XP or Win2k. The installer checks to see what OS is being used and will not continue unless a correct version is present.
This is my setup:
Abit BX 440 board (very old)
P3 800 Slot 1
Geforce 2 AGP gfx card
320mb (mixture of pc80 and pc100 ram)
IBM 40gb 75GXP drives x2
NetGear PCI NIC
SB Awe64 Value (for system sounds)
Sony CRX-1611 Burner
Asus Cd-rom
WinXP Pro
Creamware Pulsar II
Midex 8 midi interface
I can assure you, on MY system, WinXP Pro, Cubase SX and the latest version of SFP are all running fine. Everything installed on the first try with no tweaks or funny issues. I don't have any major problems at all. SX has not crashed once in the week or so I've had it installed.
Our studio at work has been using SX everyday since the 1st day it was available (8 hrs a day average) in every session along side a UAD-1 card (no Pulsar) and has had no problems at all. These are all paying clients... Studio engineer runs a p4 2ghz / Asus PT4-E setup.
My ONLY problems is when I have a song fully loaded (CPU around 70%) and the Creamware card near fully loaded (DSP around 70%), I start to get bad crackling and pops whenever the cursor in SX is "following" the song on playback (i.e. when the screen is re-drawing). My ULLI settings are for 7ms latency.
Increasing or decreasing seems to make things worse... so 7ms seems to be the ideal setting in my situation.
I can assure you this is no doubt from the speed of the ram and age of the motherboard. I have a very old BX series board and half pc80 ram. This stuff is painfully slow compared to whats on the market today. I'm surprised (rather shocked) at the performance that I even get as it is.
The system I'm planning on building will be based around a P4 2ghz+ on a i850E chipset.
I doubt the crackling problems will still happening using 1gb of 533mhz rdram and a processor hovering around 2.4ghz!
- sinix
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sinix on 2002-06-01 10:05 ]</font>
I've got a mastering post-production type question. I'm fairly new to the digital music scene, but I'm enjoying sinking my teeth into it. In regards to Cubase SX...say you've got your mix all set to go, 24 bits, and you're ready to export to file/burn to CD. Does SX do a good job of dithering down from 24 to 16 bits? Or, do you really need a tool such as Wavelab to get higher quality?
-
Nestor
- Posts: 6688
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Fourth Dimension Paradise, Cloud Nine!
I don't know about dithering yet, but I suspect it'll be a good one in SX.
I'm not upgrading right away cos I don't have the money to do so, but also cos I don't feel it's the moment. There may be incompatibility problems. So I prefer to wait for a couple of months or so, and then start upgrading, when the patches for the bugs are already done. Don't want to risk the job I'm doing at the moment.
I'm not upgrading right away cos I don't have the money to do so, but also cos I don't feel it's the moment. There may be incompatibility problems. So I prefer to wait for a couple of months or so, and then start upgrading, when the patches for the bugs are already done. Don't want to risk the job I'm doing at the moment.
*MUSIC* The most Powerful Language in the world! *INDEED*
Well, dithering in VST/32 was handled by the Apogee UV22 dithering algorithm. This is pretty much the industry standard... that doesn't mean it's the best, but!
I often us this method, but sometimes I take the 24bit mixdown to work and use the Waves L2 limiter and dithering there. To be honest, I can't really tell the difference in L2 vs Agogee dithering.
My mixes that I master at work always sound better, but that's not from dithering, it's from the UAD-1 card.
- sinix
I often us this method, but sometimes I take the 24bit mixdown to work and use the Waves L2 limiter and dithering there. To be honest, I can't really tell the difference in L2 vs Agogee dithering.
My mixes that I master at work always sound better, but that's not from dithering, it's from the UAD-1 card.
- sinix