# Thinking of changing DAW.



## Exitmusicthis2 (May 17, 2014)

Hey all,

Been a Mac and Logic pro user for about 10 years now, l mainly write music for tv and libraries.
I run a lot of samples, various libraries and plugins, I've recently gone down the route of using VEPro and various slave computers and now have a pretty big template, but l'm really starting to find faults with Logic pro x and having large templates.

I'm seriously considering a move to Cubase or Digital performer.

What does everybody think??

Cheers Matt.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 17, 2014)

What problems are you finding, Matt? And what sort of features / workflow are you looking for?


----------



## Jdiggity1 (May 17, 2014)

Pick one, and learn it. Get some video tutorials if need be. They all good man. They all good.

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35147


----------



## Exitmusicthis2 (May 17, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat May 17 said:


> What problems are you finding, Matt? And what sort of features / workflow are you looking for?



l really like the folder and routing possibilities that DP and Cubase offer, I've tried this with Logic and it just does not seem to have these extensive options.


----------



## JT3_Jon (May 17, 2014)

I've personally used all three for various composers and projects (DP, Logic & Cubase), but for my own personal projects I choose Cubase. Really all three of those daws are good and can get you to the finish line; it comes down to if you enjoy how you got there or not. Like others say - either demo the DAW's yourself, or check out youtube videos showing off the features of different daws, and if there are features you think are worth the switch, then go for it. 

One suggestion though, when you demo a new DAW, make sure to make your own key commands ASAP. I know most have key command presets for the other daws which helps in this (i.e. cubase has a "logic" key command template which duplicates logics factory commands, etc). This will save you much frustration when demoing a new DAW. 

Good luck and I hope you find the tool that works best for you. I still use all three for different projects and they really do all have their advantages & disadvantages. 

IMO there is no perfect DAW yet...


----------



## olajideparis (May 17, 2014)

I've also been a long time Logic Power user and recently made the move from Logic to Cubase and it's one of the best decisions I've ever made. Logic really is a great program but when you look at the feature sets and organization side by side against Cubase if you're totally honest and objective you'll see that there is no comparison. For me, Cubase is everything Logic wasn't and then some, in recent months there have been add ons by several third party developers that attempt to provide similar functionality in Logic Pro X as already exists natively in Cubase and they do so in a very clunky way. You mentioned working with libraries and large templates so here are just a few Cubase features that I have found invaluable in my daily work for production libraries using large templates.

1- The Mixer - When Cubase 7 was initially released I thought the mixer was an eyesore but workflow it provides is absolutely brilliant; built in console like channel strip effects, the ability to hide groups of tracks and INDIVIDUAL tracks. 

2- Multi Timbral Plugins - While Logic Pro X has improved on this, things can still get a bit messy working with outputs from multi timbral instruments. The instrument rack in Cubase offers a refreshingly elegant way of managing all of the virtual instruments in your project and I was shocked to find that I was able to access over 50 outputs from an individual instance of Kontakt! Cubase also does a great job of seperating, clearly the midi from the audio outputs of a multi timbral instrument; logic does not do this and it makes for a real PITA come mixing time if you're not careful.

3- Organization - This might sound small but I LOVE the way the everything in cubase is searchable; for example when I want to call up a plugin on a channel strip, like pro tools and unlike logic all plugins including 3rd party plugins are organized by category. So if I wanted to grab my Solid Bus Compressor I don't have to scroll past my compressors list, to get to the third party ones...in fact I don't have to scroll at all because I can immediately type either "compressor" or just "com" or the name of the plugin and it shows up, instantiating it then is just a matter of hitting the enter key at that point. This may not seem like a big deal but if you do this a few hundred times a day those saved seconds really add up!

4- Stems - Okay this is no small matter especially if you need to create stems for archival or delivery purposes to a client, and this little feature here is a pretty good indication of just how much more thought Steinberg has put into a pro work flow than apple. I have always found logic's export all tracks as audio files to be incredible unreliable so I always have had to take a lot of time to double and triple check that all the files were in fact created which was rarely the case when done by automatic means. Cubase on the other hand gives you not only a batch export feature but the ability to individually select which tracks, groups or outputs you would like to export, to take that a step further Steinberg has also given you a very clever and effective "naming scheme" feature, which helps keep your files meticulously organized.

5- Audio - Cubase is the closest thing to Pro Tools I've seen in terms of it's ease, flexibility and workflow for editing and manipulating audio. Let's be honest crossfades and fades in general in Logic are a joke; fade files are easily corrupted and working with and creating them requires a dedicated tool. Furthermore, there exists no assignable key command for crossfade, which ought to be a no brainer. Fades are effortless and elegant in Cubase and so far I've yet to experience a corrupt fade file, which was a common occurrence for me in LP9. Detect Silence (Strip Silence in Logic Pro), is a lot more streamlined and intuitive, allowing you to operate on multiple regions in succession and I generally find it much easier to get the right settings quickly in cubase than I ever did in Logic. The ability to adjust the volume of individual audio regions (clip gain in PT9 and above) is also very useful, this feature does exist in Logic but you can only access it from the inspector and there is no visual representation of the waveform reminding you of how much you have offset the gain by. The range of functions you can perform in the audio edit window are pretty vast, ranging from quantization, transient detection, transposition, pitch correction and PT audio suite like processes. Most of these things have some equivalent in Logic 9 or X but the way they are implemented, their ease of use and flexibility I've found to be superior in Cubase.

6- Arrangement - Chord tracks that allow you to transpose any material (midi or audio) to fit the chords in the chord track are absolutely brilliant. In fact this is one of the feature sets I've seen a third party developer very inelegantly try to address with an add on for Logic Pro and other DAWS. Track Versions take things to a new level, if you know the playlist feature in Pro Tools you'll have an idea of how they work. Also the arranger track can be very helpful for experimenting with different arrangements of a piece...I feel like Logic might have added something like this in X but I haven't had a chance to play with it yet.

7- Midi - I never thought I'd find a sequencer that was better at midi than Logic, but it seems I did. The layout of the controller lanes in cubase, allowing you to access more than once simultaneously is pretty huge if you work with advanced sample libraries to which you need to send different continuous controllers simultaneously, just for starters. Drawing in velocity curves in Cubase is a hundred times easier and consistent than was the case in logic, though i would like a dedicated tool for dealing with the velocities of individual notes which Cubase doesn't currently have. Lastly Articulation mapping is a feature that I am not currently using, only because it requires a lot of forethought and preparation, but I plan to in the future and it's one of those features for which there is no equivalent in LPX and one that third parties have tried to add in a very clunky way. It's too deep to go into but in short it allows you to switch between multiple articulations on a single track, which can be a big deal for a lot of people.

8- Key Commands - Many more assignable key commands in Cubase than Logic and on top of that, macros which allow you to set up strings of key commands in a single command. 

Okay, so now that I've shared some things I enjoy about Cubase here are some things I miss from Logic.

1) Flex Time - There is an equivalent of this in Cubase, but it requires a dedicated window. I miss not being able to do it on the arrange window, but I'll live.

2) Bounce in Place - This one is a littler bigger deal, I loved being able to render a midi part or an audio track with effects quickly at the stroke of a key, in cubase you'll have to do an audio mixdown to achieve this although you have the option of importing the track back into the project.

3) Virtual Instruments & Effects - This is the one area where Cubase does not come close to Logic; while they continue to add more and more effects and virtual instruments with each release of Cubase it's still not as complete as Logic. For the most part I've been able to get by with Cubase's built in audio plugins but I do miss logic's EQ (Cubase's is fine but has fewer bands), Space designer and Delay Designer. As far as virtual instruments, I can't really say I miss the EXS 24 per se...but there were a few patches in there that I did like, but no biggie since I can host those in Kontakt. I do miss sculpture, and while there's no direct third party equivalent I have more than enough options.

That's it really, 3 things logic is stronger in and many more in which Cubase is superior. Remember that no DAW is perfect, they all have their faults but in my opinion Steinberg has created the most advanced DAW out there and their commitment to development and their willingness to LISTEN to their users and learn from their competitors suggests to me that they will stay on top for the foreseeable future. 

I hope this helps. Good luck and if you do decide to go the way of Cubase, I highly recommend macprovideo.com for training.


----------



## holywilly (May 17, 2014)

I also move from Logic Pro x to cubase 7.5.2 recently and I had no regret. Cubase is more intuitive and more customizable than logic. 

One thing I miss from logic is the mixer; logic mixer is much more understandable than cubase at the beginning.


----------



## maestro2be (May 17, 2014)

Cubase for medium\large templates and medium\large projects.

Studio One for smaller compositions. The simplicity in Studio One is amazing and quite refreshing but once you step beyond small into medium/large template projects I go back to Cubase.

The combination of these two DAWs is unbelievable to me. I left Logic years ago and have had zero regrets.

In terms of one mixer to another, or difficulty to learn etc. I find that the only one that was easy to learn was Studio One because of it's simplicity design. Other than that, the more complicated DAW's such as Logic and Cubase simply require jumping in, putting your negative thoughts aside and your "it doesn't feel like Logic/Cubase" differences and learning why/how they do things in the new DAW world you chose.

You will always find you love something much more than your last DAW, just as you will find things that "you really miss" and then begins your begging your new DAW vendor in their forums for "feature requests" to get back what you once had .

Maestro2be


----------



## emid (May 17, 2014)

+1 for S1 simplicity. I wish it had more complex/detailed midi functions and good that they are continuously upgrading it.


----------



## KEnK (May 17, 2014)

olajideparis @ Sat May 17 said:


> I've also been a long time Logic Power user and recently made the move from Logic to Cubase...


Been thinking of making this move for a while myself.
Thing is I've grown to love the Environment and use it all the time to create any number of tools as I need them. 

Any thoughts on that regarding the switch to Cubase?
That's the only thing that seems missing from Cubase- 
though I suppose Bidule might be a good replacement.

k


----------



## Exitmusicthis2 (May 17, 2014)

wow olajideparis,

That really is a detailed list, thanks for that.
In actual fact the things that you list are the exact reasons l was thinking of making the switch to cubase.


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 17, 2014)

Cubase is great and would be even better if they would adopt Sonar's window management system and docking abilities. 

The one thing I can't stand about Cubase is their outdated 80's windows.


----------



## olajideparis (May 17, 2014)

Glad that I was able to shed some light on the matter. I tried my best to be as honest an objective as possible. If you have any questions or need any help transitioning shoot me a message.

Have a good day.


----------



## maestro2be (May 17, 2014)

InLight-Tone @ Sat May 17 said:


> Cubase is great and would be even better if they would adopt Sonar's window management system and docking abilities.
> 
> The one thing I can't stand about Cubase is their outdated 80's windows.



I will add that yes I agree with this, especially when I compare it to S1. Just undock, relocate, maximize etc. It's absolutely awesome. But that becomes one of those things I love about one and miss in the other .


----------



## olajideparis (May 17, 2014)

KEnK @ Sat May 17 said:


> olajideparis @ Sat May 17 said:
> 
> 
> > I've also been a long time Logic Power user and recently made the move from Logic to Cubase...
> ...



The environment in Logic was pretty cool but in my opinion very outdated and clunky.While you don't have anything like Logic's environment in Cubase you do have:

1) Logical Editor - A tool similar to Logic's Transform Window.

2) Input Transformer - Similar functionality to the above but can be instantiated directly on midi tracks and works in real time.

3) Midi Inserts - If you've experimented with Logic Pro X's midi FX then you have an idea of what these can do. This feature was directly borrowed from Cubase, but there are many more inserts to choose from.


----------



## Imzadi (May 17, 2014)

Exitmusicthis2 @ Sat May 17 said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Been a Mac and Logic pro user for about 10 years now, l mainly write music for tv and libraries.
> I run a lot of samples, various libraries and plugins, I've recently gone down the route of using VEPro and various slave computers and now have a pretty big template, but l'm really starting to find faults with Logic pro x and having large templates.
> ...



If you are planning to switch due to issues with large template then use Cubase and don't touch DP. I've use both extensively and thanks to VST3 Cubase handles VIs and VEP better than anyone. DP has way to many issues with VEP and large templates (can't freeze event input channels, drop midi notes, sluggish performance with many VEP instances, etc). Cubase does all that better.

However....DP is a better program for scoring. It's a shame that it has those issue because the workflow a incredibly efficient. With Cubase everything takes one more step or mouse click, DP is fast! Then again, all this goes away when you start getting crashes and a sluggish performance because you are using many VIs, which Cubase handles with ease.


----------



## KEnK (May 17, 2014)

olajideparis @ Sat May 17 said:


> KEnK @ Sat May 17 said:
> 
> 
> > olajideparis @ Sat May 17 said:
> ...


Thanks for your input.
Didn't know about those particular Cubase features.
Did a little reading about the Input Transformer.
Looks promising.

I think Apple never added a single thing to the Env since they bought it from Emagic.
By rights it should be everything that Max or Bidule is.
but...

k


----------



## AlexRuger (May 17, 2014)

I was in a similar boat to OP. I started on DP, moved to Logic, and eventually ended up at Cubase. Very happy here. Every now and then I check out the other two (and I keep updating them just in case), but to me Cubase wins in nearly every way, especially when applied to large templates/deep MIDI editing/scoring to picture.


----------



## HeDa (May 17, 2014)

I like Reaper. It is very fast and very customizable. It has also been reviewed as the DAW of the year in some magazines. The philosophy of Reaper is not the same as other DAWs but if you like it and you like to customize the DAW to your workflow instead of adapting yourself to the DAW, then you will love it and you won't look back.
I think all Reaper users here will understand what I mean.


----------



## JohnG (May 17, 2014)

I keep hearing great stuff about Reaper too, and Cubase. Glad they are working well for you all.

Have been on DP for so long I would be very reluctant to try changing, but I have a Mac DAW / multiple slave setup, so perhaps that accounts to some extent for my not having seen a ceiling on capabilities.


----------



## dcoscina (May 17, 2014)

I decided that for orchestral work, I'm chucking all DAWs and working in Notion and Sibelius until the new Steinberg notation program comes out. I just cannot compose music I hear in my head using DAWs and samples. Oh sure, I will still port over my scores to DP8 for full realization using CineSamples. EW, LASS, Project SAM, and Spitifire but conceptually I just cannot screw around with playing in things line by line. It's antithetical to proper orchestral composing (to me- some of you guys are wizards with these DAWs).


----------



## Farkle (May 17, 2014)

dcoscina @ Sat May 17 said:


> I decided that for orchestral work, I'm chucking all DAWs and working in Notion and Sibelius until the new Steinberg notation program comes out. I just cannot compose music I hear in my head using DAWs and samples. Oh sure, I will still port over my scores to DP8 for full realization using CineSamples. EW, LASS, Project SAM, and Spitifire but conceptually I just cannot screw around with playing in things line by line. It's antithetical to proper orchestral composing (to me- some of you guys are wizards with these DAWs).



+1 with a resounding =o , Dan!! 

Mike


----------



## Ozymandias (May 17, 2014)

REAPER has some incredible features (ReaScript, JSFX, theme editing, native OSC support, etc.), but I don't envy anyone figuring it out from scratch. Perfect for comp sci students, but for me it was the mother of all learning curves.


----------



## clarkus (May 17, 2014)

I am just learning Logic & so am not inspired (yet) to learn another DAW. Can someone say more about the limitations of making large templates? It's not clear to me why I can't make a large template in Logic. 

I've been assuming I will need to use VE Pro at some point to allocate resources more efficiently & use less CPU. But what's the issue of doing this with Logic?

I'm on a Mac, by the way.

Thanks for any insight.


----------



## chimuelo (May 17, 2014)

I think having several hosts is the way to go.
I use a DSP rig for effects and mixing, so for really quick recording of MIDI tracks I use Reaper, for advanced synth dance automated stuff I prefer Cubase.
BitWig is looking to be a great choice too.

I wish Micosoft (M$) would hire a developer or buy Reaper and make an OS for audio.
Imagine the load times and real time parameter modulation of hardware or DSP in a PC,.... >8o 

That would be a gift from above......


----------



## KEnK (May 17, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat May 17 said:


> I am just learning Logic & so am not inspired (yet) to learn another DAW. Can someone say more about the limitations of making large templates? It's not clear to me why I can't make a large template in Logic.


"Large" is somewhat relative or vague.
Lots of people have massive templates in Logic.
It's more about RAM, and having several drives to split your libraries on.
Guy Rowland (I think) has a thread here somewhere about the benefits of running
a Kontakt based template w/ all samples purged.
Running purged is a great idea. 
That saves a lot of resources.
If you use Play on a Mac it's allegedly better to use one instance per instrument.
I think (but not sure) that Kontakt is the same.
And possibly it's better to have one of them load before the other
(I don't remember which, as I stopped using Play)

So it has less to do w/ your DAW than how the rest of your system is set up.

k


----------



## Daniel James (May 17, 2014)

Jdiggity1 @ Sat May 17 said:


> Pick one, and learn it. Get some video tutorials if need be. They all good man. They all good.
> 
> http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35147



Clearly you havn't worked with Ableton Live  jks

Although no score editor, no dedicated mixing, not being able to import MIDI data (like tempo change) is absolutely infuriating....not to mention the video player in 64bit is buggy as fk.

I have been looking at Cubase 7.5 for my move, I already own 6 (had to get it to import midi tempo data for a gig) so I know the basics pretty well. Renew my subscription to MacProVideo and I am sorted.

-DJ


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 17, 2014)

Time to jump brother, Live is great for screwing around and looping but for what you're doing Cubase is the proper move...


----------



## Dani Donadi (May 17, 2014)

Just moved from Logic Pro X to Cubase 7.5.2 and so far, I don't regret it.

One thing I miss about LP is the Bounce In Place feature and especially the "to selected track" BIP, but I've found a work around in Cubase.

These are a few features I really love in Cubase.

- Chord Track: Makes my life easier, no need to write chords on paper, lose them, etc.... They are right there in front of you, synced up with the project, and you can make them big, as a matter of fact I have them on an iPad with V-Control Pro and the musician follows inside the recording booth.
- Cycle Markers: I use them to indicate the region that I'm bouncing in a cue, very useful.
- VST Expression: Anyone scoring with orchestral libraries will understand how useful these are, every DAW should have them.

I'm getting very few crashes with Cubase, and when it does, it related to the Steinberg Hub.
Performance is as good as Logic Pro X, but less buggy (Logic does weird things sometimes).
Cubase feels more like a professional program, a bit like Pro Tools feels or Logic 9 was.

I have to say that I bought DP8 last year, hopping to switch from Logic Pro X.
Love the features, but somehow the performances were really bad on my aging MacPro.
I now use DP8 to host my videos on another Mac and slave it to Cubase, works perfectly!!

Dani


----------



## Jdiggity1 (May 18, 2014)

> Clearly you havn't worked with Ableton Live



Ha! No arguments there.
But of course I was referring to the three mentioned by the OP - Cubase, DP, and Logic.

Personally I prefer Cubase, but I have recently used both DP8 and Logic X to do work, and all are very capable.
I love DP's V-Rack feature, and its tempo/beat-mapping functions, AND its marker system.
Logic X gives me the shites about a number of things.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 18, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat May 17 said:


> I am just learning Logic & so am not inspired (yet) to learn another DAW. Can someone say more about the limitations of making large templates? It's not clear to me why I can't make a large template in Logic.
> 
> I've been assuming I will need to use VE Pro at some point to allocate resources more efficiently & use less CPU. But what's the issue of doing this with Logic?
> 
> ...



The big gripe with Logic for most people is that because of its "Live" mode process, which allows it to load more software instruments than any other, it is not great at multi-timbral,as all the patches go to 1 core.

Years ago one of the members of the development team told me that they thought multi-timbral was a dated workflow left over from the tone module days and necessitated by computers not being powerful enough. He believed that when computers became really powerful, as they are now, and sample engines like Kontakt became more CPU efficient, which they did, that multi-timbral would no longer be desirable.

However, people are conditioned to that workflow and are reluctant to let go of it. They like to open a patch and see all the instruments in it. So for those who want to take advantage of many of Logic's areas where excels ( and NO, I will not now get into a "Why Logic is better than Cubase at" discussion) but want multi-timbral workflow, VE Pro is really helpful.


----------



## 5Lives (May 18, 2014)

I think it is also important to take into account the type of music you do, as some DAWs are more suited for certain genres (and the functionality those genres tend to rely on) than others.

For example, if you're doing EDM, Ableton and FL Studio are pretty well suited.

For orchestration, Cubase and Logic have great MIDI and VI functionality.

For recording a rock band, Pro Tools has a wonderful workflow.

That's not to say you can't do all of these with any DAW. 

I personally own PT 11, Cubase 7.5, and Logic X. I have also owned Ableton and Studio One in the past. Overall, I like Logic probably the best - it seems like the best compromise in terms of functionality and really well-thought out workflow. I think Cubase is awesome in certain respects - great MIDI functionality, a lot of audio functionality, but a less "refined" workflow IMO compared to Logic or PT (automation editing and the range tool for example - much harder to automatically make nodes than either PT or Logic). I find PT's audio workflow and UI the best in general, but their MIDI functionality and workflow lags behind a fair amount. All three are super powerful and pretty great these days.


----------



## Daryl (May 18, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun May 18 said:


> The big gripe with Logic for most people is that because of its "Live" mode process, which allows it to load more software instruments than any other, it is not great at multi-timbral,as all the patches go to 1 core.
> 
> Years ago one of the members of the development team told me that they thought multi-timbral was a dated workflow left over from the tone module days and necessitated by computers not being powerful enough. He believed that when computers became really powerful, as they are now, and sample engines like Kontakt became more CPU efficient, which they did, that multi-timbral would no longer be desirable.
> 
> However, people are conditioned to that workflow and are reluctant to let go of it. They like to open a patch and see all the instruments in it. So for those who want to take advantage of many of Logic's areas where excels ( and NO, I will not now get into a "Why Logic is better than Cubase at" discussion) but want multi-timbral workflow, VE Pro is really helpful.


I think your development contact is probably right, but let's not forget that Live mode is also a hangover from the times when Mac OS was so inefficient that this workaround was needed. I don't think it really is necessary any more, and I think that it can cause more problems than it solves. :wink: 

However, none of this is going to go away as long as we have old fashioned sample players that don't make it easy for you to use all articulations on the same track, and until people stop farting around with one articulation for each MIDI track.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 18, 2014)

Yes and that is why I use a separate V-frame for each instrument and program change my way through the articulations with my friend Peter's SkiSwitcher. Just like a staff on score paper: )


----------



## gsilbers (May 18, 2014)

i like logic x and as now, my only gripe is the the AU limitation to 16 midi channels. and also that deal with one core processing instead of being ditributed better. 
but now that midi plugins have been implemented in LPX and products like this
http://www.audiogrocery.com/a.g_toolkit_pro.htm also, and you can organize plugins by category: http://auganizer.com
im happier with lpx.


----------



## MediaComposer88 (May 18, 2014)

I'm using DP8, and in terms of workflow it's by far the best for me (it's flexible, crystal clear, and the chunks/v-racks/film scoring features are great). Don't have any experience with Logic X, but used Logic 9 for some time and its workflow/organization didn't seem to suit my way of doing things very much.

That being said, DPs handling of VIs is a major gripe. Even after boosting up RAM, adding a SSD, and buying a new audio interface, performance did not improve as much as one would hope/expect. I'm always keeping an eye on Cubase, and were they to add an equivalent of the Chunks-functionality, I would seriously consider a switch (always liked the look of Cubase and its features, especially Expression Maps). Of course, if next versions of DP would improve VI-handling, I would be very glad to stay.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 19, 2014)

Exitmusicthis2 @ Sat May 17 said:


> wow olajideparis,
> 
> That really is a detailed list, thanks for that.
> In actual fact the things that you list are the exact reasons l was thinking of making the switch to cubase.



One more critical one (for me) to add to Olajide's list - Cubase is the only DAW on the market that enables an Avid Artist controller to access midi CCs. I use the Artist Mix exclusively to control everything - volume (obviously), auxes, pans but also 8 custom midi CCs (set up via each track's Quick Controls).

It's a shame no other DAW has thought to offer this functionality (including Avid's own Pro Tools), it transforms workflow to have all this on touch faders on a small form factor. But as it is, I'll be staying with Cubase indefinitely.


----------



## clarkus (May 19, 2014)

As I am still quite new to DAWS, some of the language is also new to me and I'd like to understand more: as a new user, I'm one of the people "farting around with one articulation for each MIDI track."

Can you tell me if the alternative is using a Multi for any given instrument? Or are you speaking of using keyswitching? You also mention "Live mode."

I realize this is likely a deep topic. If anyone can point me to a tutorial, I think this is one of the next bridges I need to cross.

Thx


----------



## ThomasL (May 19, 2014)

I'm not in any way "on the fence" to change from Logic but find the info here very interesting. Keep it coming...


----------



## apessino (May 19, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sun May 18 said:


> I use the Artist Mix exclusively to control everything - volume (obviously), auxes, pans but also 8 custom midi CCs (set up via each track's Quick Controls).



Wait, are you saying that using the Artist Mix you can map MIDI CC automation to the motorized faders? I have been unable to do that with any of the control surfaces I have tried - volume/mix console stuff? Sure, but being able to assign, say, CC1 to a motorized fader, with proper latching modes, etc. has never been possible for me. I tried a bunch of options (including a Panorama P6 and the Steingerg CC121) without luck.

If you can do that I am ordering an Artist Mix TODAY. 8)


----------



## chimuelo (May 20, 2014)

FWIW Bidule as a VSTi in Reaper out loads all DAWs I have seen, and Bidule in standalone can pack away MP Assigned pathways and load much faster than any DAW out there.
My fast ass SAS HGSTs make little difference really or fast CL9 RAM either, it's an OS issue, so less bloat, means more meat and potatoes to eat.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 20, 2014)

apessino @ Mon May 19 said:


> Wait, are you saying that using the Artist Mix you can map MIDI CC automation to the motorized faders? I have been unable to do that with any of the control surfaces I have tried - volume/mix console stuff? Sure, but being able to assign, say, CC1 to a motorized fader, with proper latching modes, etc. has never been possible for me. I tried a bunch of options (including a Panorama P6 and the Steingerg CC121) without luck.
> 
> If you can do that I am ordering an Artist Mix TODAY. 8)



Get out your credit card  

It's a bit fiddly to get set up in Cubase initially in the CC automation setup page, but once you're working its great. The main caveat to be wary of - if you use both the hardware modwheel and the Artist to control CC1, you can only sensibly work with that in the project window, not the key editor. Kind of a bore, but I'm over it now.

All you need to do to control it is press and hold the EQ button - that then accesses the Quick Controls. I usually then fader flip and switch to channel mode, two more keypresses but that becomes second nature pretty fast. That enables full automated fader across the 8 controls for the selected channel.


----------



## JohnG (May 20, 2014)

clarkus @ 19th May 2014 said:


> one articulation for each MIDI track.
> 
> Can you tell me if the alternative is using a Multi for any given instrument? Or are you speaking of using keyswitching? You also mention "Live mode."



I load one articulation per midi track.

This is an alternative to keyswitch patches. Example:

Alternative A: one midi track that triggers a keyswitch string patch. This patch, depending on the keyswitch you use, can trigger tremelo, pizz, sustain or trill.

Alternative B: four separate midi tracks; one for tremelo, one for pizz, one for sustain, one for trill

I believe it's just a matter of preference.


----------



## apessino (May 20, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Tue May 20 said:


> apessino @ Mon May 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, are you saying that using the Artist Mix you can map MIDI CC automation to the motorized faders? I have been unable to do that with any of the control surfaces I have tried - volume/mix console stuff? Sure, but being able to assign, say, CC1 to a motorized fader, with proper latching modes, etc. has never been possible for me. I tried a bunch of options (including a Panorama P6 and the Steingerg CC121) without luck.
> ...



Damn! :lol: 

All right, seriously thinking about it... the only reservations I have are with the EUCON implementation, I have read that EUCON itself is very buggy on both PC and Mac (I am on PC, latest Cubase) and that the Steinberg integration is hardly stellar. You say you use the Artist Mix for "everything," so you are saying that for your needs the integration is sufficient and reliable? 

I was thinking about getting the Artist Control instead of the Mix - the programmable touchscreen seems really great and 4 faders are more than enough for me. Are you able to easily program "groups" for the faders as you can with PT?

Sorry to keep pestering you with questions... :mrgreen:


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 20, 2014)

apessino @ Tue May 20 said:


> Damn! :lol:
> 
> All right, seriously thinking about it... the only reservations I have are with the EUCON implementation, I have read that EUCON itself is very buggy on both PC and Mac (I am on PC, latest Cubase) and that the Steinberg integration is hardly stellar. You say you use the Artist Mix for "everything," so you are saying that for your needs the integration is sufficient and reliable?
> 
> ...



Yes, I've read a lot of people with EuCon problems. I've been super-lucky perhaps, mine has been rock solid for years. The only issue I ever had with it is on startup, where it tries to start three background apps at the same time and falls over itself (you get some error saying BAD COBRA NULL or some inexplicable nonsense). Solution - use a batch executor to stagger the programs by a second each.

I'm in EuCon 2.5.7 btw, might have to brave EuCon 3 which (I know was a hassle for some) as and when I brave PT11.

I'm not a fan of the Artist Control, I must admit. I find the touchscreen not nearly as useful as it should be - if you had a graphical representation of EQ, for example, I can see how it would improve workflow, whereas as it is it's just a bunch of softkeys which, honestly, you could program as keys on the keyboard if you wanted. Worse, there's no LCD above the faders, and that's a disaster. That LCD strip on the Mix makes it all work, you can always see exactly where you are, what mode you're in and generally what you're doing. Without it, you may as well work with a blindfold on. Also don't forget 8 faders = 8 quick controls, 8 aux sends etc - it's surprising how often it's so much simpler having everything there in a line.

Groups for faders - if you mean VCA then no, because Cubase doesn't support VCAs. TBH I don't use VCAs even in pro tools all that much (sometimes its just the right thing, mind) - 90% of the time I work with conventional groups, and of course Cubase is fine there.

You can set it up to have faders from different parts of the mixer as presets, but I've never bothered cos that screws up the workflow. I have it set up so it always follows what's on screen, it's so easy to get about in that mode. With my dubbing hat on in Pro Tools, I genuely prefer working with a single Artist Mix that those huge ICON D Command desks that are 200 meters long, but still not long enough for a big session so I'm forever banking and getting lost - there doesn't seem to be a simple "just follow me" mode in those.

Anyway, I digress on something that's a tangent anyway. But the crucial point is - all that good stuff, all that great one-box-solves-all solution for midi and audio you can ONLY do in Cubase.


----------



## Ozymandias (May 20, 2014)

Guy,

This is probably a stupid question, but... Is the Artist Mix able to receive feedback from MIDI CC lanes within MIDI parts, or does it only work with CC data recorded as automation?

From what you've said further up about the mod wheel issue, I'm guessing it's the latter, but perhaps I'm not following.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 20, 2014)

Ozymandias @ Tue May 20 said:


> Guy,
> 
> This is probably a stupid question, but... Is the Artist Mix able to receive feedback from MIDI CC lanes within MIDI parts, or does it only work with CC data recorded as automation?
> 
> From what you've said further up about the mod wheel issue, I'm guessing it's the latter, but perhaps I'm not following.



Not a stupid question at all - that's precisely the thing that bugged me for ages. And you're right - it only works with CC recorded as automation.

I'm sure all this is more complicated than it needs to be in Cubase. It should just treat all midi automation the same imo, having two conflicting sources is endless trouble. If it gets an input from whatever source, that should overwrite the data from that point til you stop writing / recording. There may be a way to convert the stuff in the Logical Editor, I don't know - that thing scares me.


----------



## tmm (May 20, 2014)

Interesting hearing all these opinions. I've been a long time Reaper user (10+ years, I think), and many times thought about switching, but I'm comfortable with Reaper, and finding new things all the time. Agree with a previous post, that it has a bit of a learning curve… but I'm a programmer by trade, and when I finally took a look at ReaScript and realized it used Python, I was pretty happy. Before I got into using Kontakt, I had actually created a script that broke the MIDI from X channels out into Y other channels, and fed that into custom-mapped Reaper sample players. It was nothing to look at in terms of GUI, and a bear to reroute when I decided to change something, but got the job done (for free!) for a long time before I got into Kontakt.


----------



## Tod (May 20, 2014)

tmm @ Tue May 20 said:


> Interesting hearing all these opinions. I've been a long time Reaper user (10+ years, I think), and many times thought about switching, but I'm comfortable with Reaper, and finding new things all the time. Agree with a previous post, that it has a bit of a learning curve… but I'm a programmer by trade, and when I finally took a look at ReaScript and realized it used Python, I was pretty happy. Before I got into using Kontakt, I had actually created a script that broke the MIDI from X channels out into Y other channels, and fed that into custom-mapped Reaper sample players. It was nothing to look at in terms of GUI, and a bear to reroute when I decided to change something, but got the job done (for free!) for a long time before I got into Kontakt.



Heh heh, I've been on board with Reaper for about 4-1/2 years now and I have to agree with you tmm. As far as being a regular DAW, it's okay, it has the basics and get's the job done. However, when you put customizing into the equation it's a whole different matter, there's almost literally nothing that you can't do. 

I've been building/customizing Reaper for my own purposes for 4-1/2 years now, it's constantly evolving and getting better for my exact needs. I don't think there's any other DAW that's as customizable as Reaper, all the way from the skin right down to your menus and toolbars, not to mention shortcut keys. 

I'm an old fart but I have to say, Reaper and Kontakt, that's all I need. o-[][]-o


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 18, 2014)

Cubase and Digital Performer. Tough choice. In some respects they are very similar but with some interesting differences. DP is a great film composer's DAW. 

As far as VEPro goes, yes Cubase supports VST3 and DP does not. That might be an issue for some, although it hasn't been an issue for me. The Event Input works fine for me. And MOTU is smart enough not to be stubborn about sticking to AU. DP supports AU, MAS and VST2. I'm sure they'll adopt VST3 at some point. 

Besides that, I prefer DP. I like that MIDI tracks are seperate. That means they are always multitimbral. I like the consolidated CC lane underneath a MIDI track better than Cubase's multiple lanes. I like DP's conductor track. I don't need expression maps. Then there's Chunks. That puts it over the top for me. 

DP can disable and enable VI and audio tracks without having to freeze them, removing that track's load on the CPU. That's a great feature. I use it all the time. Does Cubase have that? 

Not to mention DP is a very strong audio DAW. I've been using the audio part of DP for many years and it's as good or better than Pro Tools, IMO. (Yes, I've spent much time with both).

DP is very stable, and feature rich. There isn't much I don't like about DP, but I will say I don't like it's notation editor. That's a let down. But I don't use it much anyway. 

Having Chunks and seperate MIDI tracks outweighs VST3 and expression maps for me. 

That being said, I think you are looking at the two right DAWs. Can't go wrong either way. Download both demos and compare. 

Logic is still fun for some stuff though.


----------

