Page 1 of 3
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:47 am
by seb
DAMN !!!
I have been disappointed by Cubase and abandonned it since a long time, but the brand new SX version is amazing...
amazing !!!
exactly all what I dreamed of before...
I could download the PDFs before the site "explode"... :
>>
* Operating System : Windows 2000, Windows XP
* Computer Hardware PC :
- Required system : Pentium III 500 Mhz, 256 MB of free RAM
- Recommended system : Dual PIII / Athlon, 1 GHZ or faster, 512 MB RAM
<<
RECOMMENDED : DUAL PIII, WIN XP !!!!!!!
I hope... really I hope, Creamware will follow this.....
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:54 am
by seb
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:16 am
by Ben Walker
RECOMMENDED : DUAL PIII, WIN XP !!!!!!!
I hope... really I hope, Creamware will follow this.....
Not sure I get you - You hope that CW raise the minimum spec of PC's that want to run Pulsar hardware? Isn't that one of the advantages of CW cards - that the DSP power is to a certain extent independent of PC Spec?
Maybe I misunderstand you.
Anyway, just downloading the PDF's to read on my way home - looks like I will have to upgrade my system at last if I'm going to upgrade from VST 32. Been waiting for a good excuse for a while.
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:57 am
by King of Snake
This looks completely awesome and it seems they have adressed just about every single issue Cubase users have been moaning about the past years. Imagine what you can do with just Cubase SX and Pulsar/ScopeFusion!
The upgrade from standard VST 5 costs almost as much as the 3.7 cost me at first, but I think it will really worth it.
The coming year will be very exciting for the "virtual studio" with previously hardware only companies comitting their support to sotware products (like the Akai plugins)
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:34 pm
by seb
Ben : << Isn't that one of the advantages of CW cards - that the DSP power is to a certain extent independent of PC Spec? >>
Of course it is
, the CW DSP power is a great alternative. But rather than speaking of the recommandation to have a Dual CPU for exemple (which may concern a minority of users), at least, asking for a real good and effective support of CW products on WinXP isn't a whim. Even if lots of people are totally satisfied with W98 - and that's cool
...
Cubase SX represents a great jumping off for Cubase users asking for Nuendo specs, and vice versa..
Here is the beast, and not only for Cubase, but Logic, Sonar etc.. this as a price, and this price is the increasing need of computer power, and most of all a reliable OS.. soundcards must follow
for now, I have just the impression that WinXP users aren't all unanimous about the reliability of CW products on it.. but well, let's see.. the 3.1 ?
and again, SX specs are so impressive
awaited...
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 1:21 pm
by sinix
Dual cpu's are *not* the recommended or required... that was a misprint that's been cleared up by moderators on cubase.net
Minimum is 500mhz, recommended is 1ghz.
It will of course support dual cpu's, but as we all know, this still isn't anywhere near mainstream for most folks.
- sinix
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:35 pm
by brain1
Cubase SX looks awesome - i can't wait!
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:44 pm
by dxl
file not found.....
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:46 pm
by brain1
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:48 pm
by brain1
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:15 pm
by at0m
I bought Cubase 3.7, I bought the Upgrade to 5.x. So did my house mate.
Cubase 5.0 Upgrade installation doesn't require 3.7 key. I feel ripped off, because of that.
What will SX upgrade procedure be like? I hope it's more professionally protected. After all, they wanted strong copy protection (I even offer an IRQ to it, thru printer port enabling) and then bring up such a lazy upgrade protection!?
To sinix:
Most people don't use 1000$ soundcards,
most people don't have dual cpu,
most people don't have dual monitors.
Most people don't make music.
_________________
<font size=-1>He who always lays on the floor will never fall down.</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: atomic on 2002-03-13 18:29 ]</font>
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:56 pm
by Spirit
Looks very tasty
But what strikes me as strange is that the recommended system doesn't mention the P4. Do I surmise from this that a good PIII is better than a P4 for native audio ?
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:22 pm
by algorhythm
YES! - I have three principle complaints with Cubase -
1. audio engine quality [lack of transparency]
2. no multi-level undo
3. only one controller window in MIDI editor.
These are all fixed in SX !!!
Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 10:33 pm
by brain1
i doesn't say if the audio images are drawn in realtime like nuendo - this would also be an added bonus!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: briank on 2002-03-13 22:33 ]</font>
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2002 6:38 pm
by Air_PoLLo
Oh my fucking god.... OSX!
This means I can use it at home! (logic at the studio though)
to CW: Get them osx drivers
OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*OSX*
Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:15 pm
by sinix
To sinix:
Most people don't use 1000$ soundcards,
most people don't have dual cpu,
most people don't have dual monitors.
Most people don't make music.
I don't understand? This is what I said:
Dual cpu's are *not* the recommended or required... that was a misprint that's been cleared up by moderators on cubase.net
Minimum is 500mhz, recommended is 1ghz.
It will of course support dual cpu's, but as we all know, this still isn't anywhere near mainstream for most folks.
What does this have to do with $1000 soundcards, dual monitors or people who don't make music?
What did I miss?
- sinix
Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:37 am
by at0m
No offence, sinix
I just wanted to say that we, people with DAW's, use non-standard setups. We have
special needs for our computer, we use high end chipsets etc. So support from CW for dual cpu's would be cool.
Anywayz, I think I'll wait some more and go to P4 for my Pulsar system, and use my dual PIII system for an RME card or something. Or I might sell it. If anyone wants an Acorp 6A815EPD/dual PIII 1GHz/512MB Apacer CL2 @ 133MHz... lemme know
If the price is right, I'll sell the deck -only as an assembly!
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2002 1:42 pm
by King of Snake
Cubase 5.0 Upgrade installation doesn't require 3.7 key. I feel ripped off, because of that.
When you upgrade to 5 you need to return your 3.7 Dongle, so why would it ask for 3.7 key? Why do you feel ripped off? Sorry I don't understand.
You can keep the V5 dongle when you upgrade to SX so you will really have 2 Cubases if you upgrade. I think that's pretty generous, although it won't matter much for me as I don't have a spare computer to put it on anyway.
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2002 2:28 pm
by sinix
When I upgrade to 5.0 from 3.7 I had to return my 3.7 dongle... thats odd (or maybe luckly) that you didn't.
Now with the upgrade from VST 5.0/32 to SX, from what we have been told on cubase.net, you get to keep your 5.0 dongle! You can use a 2nd PC as a "system link" PC to run more vsti's and additional audio tracks.
I think thats very intelligent, kind and forward thinking of Steinberg. Personally, I'll grab SX as soon as its out, regardless of growing pains and bugs as I'll still have my 5.0 dongle to use if I need too.
- sinix
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2002 10:17 pm
by at0m
Nobody's asked me for my 3.7 keys. They're still here, in a box. As a supportive (hm hm) user, I don't abuse that. But I can imagine some people do. Maybe it's just that the 'tech' guys from keymusic.be don't know what they're doing. I've had that impression a couple of times. They're amateurs.