disapointed with sx

sandrob · Post by **sandrob** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:46 am

am i only one who still prefere vst over sx?
can somebody comment sx's: drum map, markers, cursors, logical editor, automatisation, mixer... ?

Eurocide · Post by **Eurocide** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 6:07 am

I think the automation tools of SX are incredible.
I can snip-snap all the audio parts where and how I want. I can adjust volume, panning, eq, fx..... wherever I want.
Automation of plugins is easy as well.
No problems in handling so far.

On the MIDI funtions I just use record, quantisation and the key editor most.
I did never like the Drum edit of VST or SX.
So for me there was no significant change in use.
Yes, step input has become uncomfortable. And repeating events with a rest at the end of the loop is a bit fiddly.

I took about 7 days to get used to the new markers but now I can work as fast in SX than in VST.

Don't wanna go back to VST because of its performance, audio functions and audio quality.

Just my 2 ct.

Eurocide-HQ

AndreD · Post by **AndreD** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 6:16 am

I like SX too, but I´ve never been using VST..
As a Nuendo-User I´m really happy with SX midi-features...
Greetz.
André

sandrob · Post by **sandrob** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 6:54 am

On 2002-07-03 07:07, Eurocide wrote:
I think the automation tools of SX are incredible.
I can snip-snap all the audio parts where and how I want. I can adjust volume, panning, eq, fx..... wherever I want.
Automation of plugins is easy as well.
No problems in handling so far.

it was same in vst! only diference what i can see is: sx remember all the time every fader's positon while vst remember only moment when you move something and i think it's much comfortable. hm, if you know what i mean (sorry, my english is not so good to explain)

I took about 7 days to get used to the new markers but now I can work as fast in SX than in VST.

i can handle with new markers too, but old way is much comfortable. i need markers always on top arangament (like before), way of moving left/right cursor is anoying and i don't know how to use markers function from drum map or from key editor. it was possible in vst by useing "ctrl+alt>mouse click" function. i miss that!

i agree that sx have some nice new things but also have tons of little anoying uncomfortable things

i can't understand why sx didn't keep good continuitet of vst?!

anybody can comment new logical editor?

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 8:04 am

Cubase has great features but audio is still terrible in my view.

raztalove · Post by **raztalove** » Thu Jul 04, 2002 1:59 pm

As opposed to what?

AudioIrony · Post by **AudioIrony** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 10:24 am

I've been reading on lots of forums about the "Sound Engines' of different sequencing packages.... it's all pretty subjective.... what most people agree on is that Cubase, Nuendo, Logic, Digital Performer... etc etc do nothing to your sound until you start adding EQ, compression...etc.
Basically the sound you get is the sound of your "Sound Card"......
I'm a Cubase/Pulsar user and I'm very happy with the sound I get.... and if I'm not happy with it, I generally know it's my own fault and realise that it's just my mix that isn't working.
There's an interesting story on the Cubase (Macintosh) forum about a ProTools user who claims he spent up to $60,000 on a ProTools system and thought he was getting a "Boxy" sound that he wasn't happy with. He was given a demo CD to listen to and couldn't believe it was all done in Cubase by some kid in his bedroom (???????)... just goes to show.. there's no accounting for personal taste...
The item is here if you want to read it.
http://linux1723.dn.net/forum/Forum1/HTML/009583.html

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 11:26 am

In the Nuendo forum we also have an thread going on about summing.....

http://www.nuendo.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/008994.html

It´s not the "summing" that causes those differences. I think it might be more the "processing" of plugs and EQs that make two apps sound different..

Regards,
Sunshine

The Z Station · Post by **The Z Station** » Mon Jul 08, 2002 11:55 am

Very interesting.....

I'm taking Steinberg's offer to Xgrade to Cubase SX, not because of Apple's acquisition of Emagic but because Steinberg's offer is just too good to pass! After fiddling with Logic 5 Plat for a few months, I'm beginning to get familiarised with the environment and totally think that it is one SOLID DAW! It's too bad that any future developments will not be available for the WinPC platform. Ahhh se la vi!
I read a lot of people debasing SX. I respect their opinions but I'll reserve my judgements until I hear SX for myself.

Sound quality IS subjective and I appreciate and respect other's opinions, but I trust my own ears above all. And I concur that the sounds that do come out from all these's audio tools are driven by the user (e.g. me) And, if I'm good at applying digital processing on post, then I'll probably get good results. Both platforms (Logic & Cubase) are well established and have long earned their reputations. If these DAW's are being used by the "Pros" and the end results are being marketed commercially, then, I think they're all good enough for me! And besides, the very "mouthpiece" for which these DAWs run on (CW DSP cards) sounds pretty freakin' amazing!

I like that fact that I get to keep my Logic, even xgrading to SX. I like to learn many different DAWs and become efficient on how to work with different paradigms of producing music. That will make me more versatile in my craft!

_________________
Go and make music, regardless!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Z Station on 2002-07-09 10:38 ]</font>

brain1 · Post by **brain1** » Sat Jul 20, 2002 9:20 pm

i think sx sounds great and people are trying to judge audio quality without even using the software- there is a noticeable difference in audio quality from vst - it just sounds better!

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 5:08 pm

On 2002-07-03 06:46, sandrob wrote:
am i only one who still prefere vst over sx?
can somebody comment sx's: drum map, markers, cursors, logical editor, automatisation, mixer... ?

As an "audio sequencer" I think "SX" has really some improvements to offer. As a "midi sequencer" I find VST better than SX. I find the automation style to be more for "audio" tasks than for "midi". I´m missing the easy handling of single parts whith the "inspector" where you could assign each part a different "transpose value". I don´t think it´s possible anymore... I have only spend a few hours whith SX, so I might be wrong on this one... Also there´s no "Acoustic Stamp" function although the pdf states that this feature will be included... I understand why some people find it hard to get accustomed to the new "Gui". On first sight you really have to click each bottom in order to find out what function it has. Also the "fast forward/backward" function is too much like "Nuendo". Can you adjust it´s speed to your preference? I have not looked it up so far...

Regards,
Sunshine

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 5:37 pm

How can qualty be better when audio engine is same.
Like I've said time and again in different forums.I've used Cubase against Logic and Samplitude and monitored,realtime,everything through Pulsar.This includes external instruments.The only programs that didn't give me "true" sound was Cubase/logic.Samplitude did.I burnt sounds on cd A/B'd it against Sequqencers and Samplitude was the only thing that gave me same sound.Cubase was always tinny and hard.
Of course you can get good results with these programs but my point is they aren't true monitors and there summing is terrible
the more wav files you add.Somebody proved this to me.I've used Cubase for years because it was in thing,but it does not give you what your soundcard gives,trust me.

On 2002-07-20 22:20, briank wrote:
i think sx sounds great and people are trying to judge audio quality without even using the software- there is a noticeable difference in audio quality from vst - it just sounds better!

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 6:09 pm

Sorry I misread I thought people where comparing Nuendo to VST which have same audio engine.Still I'm vey suspect about Steinberg products audio.I mean if they can't fix the midi stability for so many years,where do there priorities lye?
Nuendo SX are copying the Samplitude format,so this tells me Steinberg are aware of SEKD's power over them I tell you The audio representation in Samplitude is phenomenal.You can here the slightest of reverbs,the exact amount of compression etc.VST dries the hell out of it.
Sorry to keep going on but I love the truth and not biased to products.
Samplitude's midi side stinks though.

algorhythm · Post by **algorhythm** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 7:32 pm

AFAIK - Nuendo Audio Engine = SX Audio Engine /= VST Audio Engine. I thought the idea of SX was Nuendo Audio with VST MIDI, roughly. MusicMan - Have you tried SX?

brain1 · Post by **brain1** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:43 pm

"I thought the idea of SX was Nuendo Audio with VST MIDI"- it is!!
the nuendo/sx audio engine and vst audio engine are not the same.

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Wed Jul 24, 2002 11:53 pm

Haven't examined deeply yet.
Midi features look very nice,but I'm weary about audio,and don't believe it's any good for professionals.
I heard VDAT produces good audio,but how many things can you buy.I'm happy with Samplitude at minute and believe v6.5 will bring it further forward with ASIO support and better midi features!
What do you think of audio in Sequencers?

On 2002-07-24 20:32, algorhythm wrote:
AFAIK - Nuendo Audio Engine = SX Audio Engine /= VST Audio Engine. I thought the idea of SX was Nuendo Audio with VST MIDI, roughly. MusicMan - Have you tried SX?

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 3:43 am

According to Steinberg, the differences in audio quality lie in the "cleanness" of the signal path. They further state that the audio-engines are all the same (Nuendo, SX, VST) but have different internal routings which lead to different sounds.

IMO the main differences must lie in the percieved stereo width, because human ears are most sensitive to such "ultra sonic images". But the funny part of all this is...if one wants to prove a difference to be there one always seems to fail.

The thing that bothers people most are the differences between "online" and "rendered" playback. In "Protools" world those discussions are going on since the birth or Protools.

Also many people seem to hear differences when played in realtime... But again phase-cancelling tests predict that those apps do sound all the same...but not in my opinion! "Nulling" files and listening for "apparent silence" may not be conclusive enough because very "low level" differences in a 24 bit file which is only audible around -140dB is hard to hear or measure.

However, when no fader is touched and no plug was enabled the sums seemed to be the same... But, when a single eq-band in Nuendo gets enabled (whithout any gain change) the outcome was not the same. You can use Wavelab´s file compare to see the differences, but technically there shouldn´t be any...

There are facts and there are doubts, I think I learned to live whith it....

Regards,
Bernhard

remixme · Post by **remixme** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 4:08 am

Just goes to show that your ear is still the most sensitive sound measuring device available, even if it is almost impossible to quantify.

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Thu Jul 25, 2002 11:32 am

Wavelab´s file compare to see the differences, but technically there shouldn´t be any...

There are facts and there are doubts, I think I learned to live whith it....

File comparison has nothing to do with playback.It just shows that all 0's+1's are the same.The audio engine is the decider.
You have a copy of one script,give it to 2 people to read and it will definitely sound different.That's my analogy which I base my beliefs around.
After hearing the Minimax I believe I chose the right soundcard too.
Regards,
Bernhard

Sunshine · Post by **Sunshine** » Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:34 am

Whith this "enabling EQ-band" thing I just wanted to point out that even when no gain change was applied the file gets altered. Nothing more...

The "file comparer" of Wavelab not only indicates the position of some differences, it also lets you create a "delta" file and amplitude it. So when there´s a tiny difference in-audible around -130 or -140 db, you can make it audible... When something is at -140, it´s like dropping a "Pepsi-bottle" from 3 miles away. Under normal circumstances one should not be able to hear that incident...

Yes of course, the "audio-engine" is responsible for playback, but how each program accesses the engine also seems to play a role. Furthermore nobody really knows what happens when the signal hits the converter. I mean when the signal is converted back to integer and all of those "floating" points become "fixed". Truncating errors occur in any app - no matter how slight...

When two files are "bit-identical" I don´t think they sound different... I´m not saying that they always play back constantly the same way, so when someone hears differences between two bit identical files I´m not saying it´s "imagination", because when we are talking about sound quality and try to compare different applications you have to make sure that your test was done whith a "properly clocked" system under the exact "same circumstances" whith the same motherboard, soundcard, OS, room, monitors, listening position, cables and converters...

Anyway, most things that run on "DSPs" sound better than "native", even "fader movements"... And since each application gives us an "acceptible" result it only takes small adjustments to compensate...

Regards,
Bernhard