# Cubase or DP ?



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 6, 2017)

Hi! I'm one of the people that is lost and astray after the Sonar development cease. 
I mainly do orchestral trailer music. I don't compose for films (but might in the future). So, in a way I need good sync to pic but it's not a must since most production music for trailers you just do it on the fly without a specific video to score to, except you might use a random video as inspiration.

I've read that most composers working for film, use DP (maybe it's a generational thing). Since I compose orchestral stuff, MIDI editing possibilities need to be the best, and afaik Cubase is the king in that subject.

I need to move to a new DAW and want to make a wise decision.

By the way, I use PC and most of the orchestral libraries I use are EastWest's and Orchestral Tools. 

So how do Cubase and DP compare regarding MIDI capabilities, sync to picture, music sheet (staff scoring), stability, audio dropouts, vst compatibilities.

thanks a lot!


----------



## MarcelM (Dec 6, 2017)

cubase and dp both offer trials. though for cubase pro you will need a steinberg dongle to run it. cubase elements runs without but misses quite a few important functions from the pro version. 

i guess you should try out the demos and see how you like em yourself. maybe you also wanna try out studio one.

in the end, cubase is by far king when it comes to midi editing and they are listening to the community to include even more.


----------



## clisma (Dec 6, 2017)

With the parameters you specify, I would choose Cubase. MIDI is handled better as you know and permits a faster workflow. While DP, which I still happily use today on occasion, has some nifty features like Chunks, V-Racks and Tempo-finding tools, I find the CC editing tedious and stuck in a different era. Plus, DP was Mac-only for a long time, so it may be worth checking in with some DP/PC users to see about stability and bugs. Cubase has worked on both platforms for a lot longer.

So if MIDI is your bread and butter, it’s hard to do better than Cubase. This is coming from a happy Logic user.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 6, 2017)

+1 to what Clisma suggested. DP is pretty cool, but has a very steep learning curve IMO. I think you're right about the generation thing, a lot of the "old school" composers still run DP. Try the trial and see what you think. But ultimately, Cubase is simply wonderful for scoring to picture. I'm also a happy Logic user, but have been using Cubase as well for many years.


----------



## MatFluor (Dec 6, 2017)

I was a Sonar user and switched to DP. Mostly because I got my hands on a cheap copy, but after demoing I loved it. Some stuff reminded me to Sonar, and although the learning curve is there, I was able to set up my template and start fiddling around with tracks in two days. The film scoring features are the best there is in my opinion, the church is are simply awesome.

I'm on PC and have no problems using DP, in fact it seems to handle template based work better than Sonar did (YMMV).

As the others said, demo it and Cubase and decide what fits your workflow best - for me it was DP, the workflow reminds me of Sonar. And CC editing isn't that bad - you can draw, move etc, and separate out CCs (up until DP9 I saw that it was somehow cramped in one lane, but not anymore).


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Dec 6, 2017)

I am a Cubase User that has used DP on the odd project.
If notation and writing to staff is important to you, then DP might be the better choice. Cubase has never had a fantastic notation system, and while we all hoped to see a "Dorico Lite" sneak in, it hasn't happened yet.
Both are used extensively for film scoring, though I believe the adoption rate of Cubase has been huge in the last few years, and thus there is an enormous pool of resources and tutorials available for Cubase, not to mention the wealth of knowledge on this forum.
I honestly believe I could be happy in either one, though I do choose to use Cubase for now. It's particularly popular among Windows users.

And yes, there does seem to be somewhat of a generational influence. Seems to me that Digital Performer is to Cubase what Finale is to Sibelius.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 6, 2017)

I have used DP forever. It's great, especially if you like to play freely and then move bar lines around. That's how I do a lot of draft composing.

I've heard great music written in all the programs. I don't know that it matters that much.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 6, 2017)

Jdiggity1 said:


> Seems to me that Digital Performer is to Cubase what Finale is to Sibelius.



I don't think that's really fair, since Finale really makes me want to commit murder, whereas DP is easy to use.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 6, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> a lot of the "old school" composers still run DP



I think it's not even a preference, but merely because we started on it and it does basically everything you need, so why change? A lot of great music is written in all the programs.


----------



## zolhof (Dec 6, 2017)

JohnG said:


> I think it's not even a preference, but merely because we started on it and it does basically everything you need, so why change? A lot of great music is written in all the programs.



Someone made quite an extensive list of who uses what, wish I could remember who to properly credit him/her, but there you go:

*Digital Performer*
- Thomas Newman
- Randy Newman
- Danny Elfman
- Marco Beltrami
- Elliot Goldenthal
- Theodore Shapiro
- Michael Giacchino
- Howard Shore
- John Debney
- Ed Shearmur
- Trevor Rabin
- Elia Cmiral
- John Corigliano
- Jerry Goldsmith (RIP)
- Basil Poledoris (RIP)
- Don Davis
- Alan Menkin
- John Ottman
- Austin Wintory
- Bear McCreary
- Mark Watters
- Gordy Haab
- Conrad Pope
- Joey Newman
- Penka Kouneva
- Brian Ralston
- Kevin Kliesch
- Alexandre Desplat
- Dario Marinelli
- Roque Banos
- Paul Leonard-Morgan
- Robert Fok
- Michael Patti
- Kubilay Uner
- Miriam Cutler

*Logic* (*In conjunction with PT for audio / video)
- Alan Silvestri (former DP)
- John Powell*
- John Frizzell
- Jeff Rona
- Mark Mothersbaugh
- Mychael Danna
- Jeff Danna
- Neal Acree
- Frederik Wiedmann
- Jim Dooley*
- Klaus Badelt*
- Michael Wandmacher*
- Ryan Shore*
- A.R. Ramen
- Adam Barber
- Michael Levine*
- Jeff Cardoni
- Charlie Clouser
- David Newman
- Danny Lux
- Nathan Barr
- Scott Starrett
- Abel Korzienowski
- Gregg Lehrman
- Reinhold Heil
- Henry Jackman*
- David Arnold
- Blake Neely
- Daniel Licht
- Alex Wurman
- Jeff Beal
- Heitor Pereira*
- Paul Christo
- Christophe Beck
- Bill Brown
- Clint Mansell
- Jeremy Soule
- Ramin Djawadi
- Christopher Tin*

*Cubase* (*In conjunction with PT for audio / video)
- Hans Zimmer*
- James Newton Howard*
- Harry Gregson Williams*
- Rupert Gregson Williams*
- Steve Jablonsky*
- Benjamine Wallfisch*
- Paul Haslinger*
- Lorne Balfe*
- Junky XL*
- Trevor Morris*
- Christopher Lennertz*
- Jack Wall
- Gerard Marino
- Edwin Wedler
- Rob Bennett (former DP)
- Jason Graves (former DP)
- Pinar Toprak
- Abel Korzeniowski
- Christopher Young (former DP)

*ProTools* (with midi sequencing)
- Brain Tyler (no midi)
- Fil Eisler
- Jeff Cardoni
- Tyler Bates
- Kyle Newmaster
- Deborah Laurie
- Nathan Johnson
- Joe Trapenese


----------



## sazema (Dec 6, 2017)

zolhof said:


> Someone made quite an extensive list of who uses what, wish I could remember who to properly credit him/her, but there you go:
> 
> *Digital Performer*
> - Thomas Newman
> - Randy Newman



Wow, what a waste of time... But really, who cares?
It should be added to list:

* W.A.Mozart - Piano + billiard table + imagination
* L.V.Beethoven - Piano + imagination + hearing loss at some age
* F.Chopin - Piano + imagination
* J.S.Bach - Piano/Organ, imagination + church
* etc, etc

They had piano even without midi, but they composed such a eternal master pieces.
Now, ask yourself why they succeeded? Because these guys was concentrated on music itself and not to type and manufacturer of piano.
As time goes I definitively see this modern age today kills imagination, ideas and everything. People masturbate on software skins, VU meters, and plugins - especially compressors... But where is music?


----------



## zolhof (Dec 7, 2017)

sazema said:


> Wow, what a waste of time... But really, who cares?
> It should be added to list:
> 
> * W.A.Mozart - Piano + billiard table + imagination
> ...





You do realize it's 2017 and you are in a forum about writing music with virtual instruments and digital audio workstations, right? I'm sorry you feel you are wasting your time, here's an image of Mozart buck naked for your pleasure.


----------



## Guillermo Navarrete (Dec 7, 2017)

Hi, 



Leandro Marcos said:


> Hi! I'm one of the people that is lost and astray after the Sonar development cease.
> I mainly do orchestral trailer music. I don't compose for films (but might in the future). So, in a way I need good sync to pic but it's not a must since most production music for trailers you just do it on the fly without a specific video to score to, except you might use a random video as inspiration.
> 
> I've read that most composers working for film, use DP (maybe it's a generational thing). Since I compose orchestral stuff, MIDI editing possibilities need to be the best, and afaik Cubase is the king in that subject.
> ...



Besides everything that has been mentioned, we are also offering a very attractive Crossgrade for Sonar users: https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/CubaseP95CG and yes, Cubase MIDI is quite unique considering we have Expression Maps and individual note expression which is quite handy. 

You should also check our the Hangout about migrating from sonar: 

Best regards,
GN


----------



## sazema (Dec 7, 2017)

zolhof said:


> You do realize it's 2017 and you are in a forum about writing music with virtual instruments and digital audio workstations, right? I'm sorry you feel you are wasting your time, here's an image of Mozart buck naked for your pleasure.



I'm really sorry that you didn't understand my comment or you did, but you're just want to be provocative... However.


----------



## Origin8tor (Dec 7, 2017)

I have struggled to use DP 8 on PC since its release I even purchased a MOTU interface to "compliment" the software. The software is good with one very big caveat, and I've banged on to support and the forums about this for years, the fonts are simply too small on Windows to be comfortable. All the technology in the world doesn't make up for not being able to read the words on the screen.
I have trialled DP9 which didn't make any difference and tried the various skins.
I so wanted to use DP, it makes so much sense and Im sure on mac is great.
I went for the recent Cubase 9.5 crossgrade and even though Cubase doesnt "feel" quite as nice and clean to me, I can at least read the information its presenting me. 
Just my 2p's


----------



## holywilly (Dec 7, 2017)

Cubase user here, no complain whatsoever on both audio and midi workflow. However, I really wish one day Cubase can bounce video file instead of “replace audio from video”. 

DP and PT can bounce video and Cubase should really catch it up.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 7, 2017)

@zolhof that is a cool list you posted, just interesting to see what the big dogs are using. Just goes to show that great music can be made in any of the DAW's out there.

One thing I love about DP is the streamers, I really wish Cubase and Logic would add this feature.


----------



## ceemusic (Dec 7, 2017)

This reminds me of the Fender Vs Gibson debates.

My suggestion would be to try the demos, better yet get both if you can afford it.!


----------



## DS_Joost (Dec 7, 2017)

One thing, and it's a very important one regarding DP, is that on Windows, it gets very flaky and buggy the more tracks you add to a project. This happens around the 400 track mark, and it gets seriously unstable (as in, random shutdowns without notice) after the 700 track mark (doesn't matter what type of tracks, even empty midi tracks do this). This is only on Windows, and is an acknowledged (but as of yet unsolved) bug. If you don't use that many tracks, say in a template, I'd say go for it, but for me, DP is too buggy to really rely on (I work with big templates, so yeah). Damn shame, because I like the rest of the program very much, and would easily move over it these issues were fixed.

Cubase for me has been rock solid. For, me, it isn't the most inspiring piece of software, but it works, and that is important. Although I hear many people saying that 9.5 hasn't been the most solid on the stability side. I don't have those problems, but you might have.

I'd say demo them first, and (most importantly) stress test these programs on your setup the way you would do your day-to-day work. You don't want to spend 400 or 500 dollars on something that can't handle what you want it to. Some programs on some setups do better than others, but you should always test yourself.


----------



## LFO (Dec 7, 2017)

I am a long time Cubase user who thought that moving to DP when I moved from a PC to a Mac would make sense. There were features I really like in DP and I really like the UI. However, when I started using DP I found I could not get my head to work well with the workflow. I gave it a few months, but in the end it didn't work out.

My point is, how you think workflow-wise will be a huge factor in which is better for you. You should demo both and find out as then you can't go wrong.

[EDIT] I will add that for me, Cubase is rock solid. I haven't had a freeze or crash in years, except a few times when for when scanning VSTis at startup after having upgraded. Not everyone has this experience, but for me Cubase is highly reliable. (Knock on wood!)


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 7, 2017)

thank you guys. You are sharing very valuable information and experiencies.
I am mostly inclined to Cubase. I've seen that MOTU is having a competitive crossgrade offer to DP for only $199 until December 21st (Cubase is also running the Cubase competitive crossgrade offer for around $255). Maybe I should get both? Use Cubase as my main DAW, and when a job comes that needs sync to picture, use DP instead? Or that sounds like a totally waste of money?


----------



## clisma (Dec 7, 2017)

Leandro Marcos said:


> thank you guys. You are sharing very valuable information and experiencies.
> I am mostly inclined to Cubase. I've seen that MOTU is having a competitive crossgrade offer to DP for only $199 until December 21st (Cubase is also running the Cubase competitive crossgrade offer for around $255). Maybe I should get both? Use Cubase as my main DAW, and when a job comes that needs sync to picture, use DP instead? Or that sounds like a totally waste of money?


That’s what I do with Logic/DP. For library work it’s the former, for sync to picture it’s DP. Even if it’s a relaxed score (not a ton of hitpoints) I tend to use DP to lay out the tempo map and arc of the cue, then import that to Logic, as I prefer the MIDI editing overall. A bit of a luxury really but I have a soft spot for DP ever since the 90s, so I try to keep it in the workflow once in a while.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 7, 2017)

Leandro Marcos said:


> Maybe I should get both? Use Cubase as my main DAW, and when a job comes that needs sync to picture, use DP instead? Or that sounds like a totally waste of money?



You can write great music with either one, and you can write rubbish with either one. 

It's possible to get accustomed to working a certain way that is influenced by the strengths of any particular DAW or notation software, and once you've done it "that way" for a number of years I can picture that it's hard to change.

If you are on a Mac, DP is a good option. But DP is still a bit new to Windows, so if you are there, maybe go with Cubase.

I would not get both programs, myself.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 7, 2017)

Agreed, I would not get both programs. You'll spend too much time trying learning each DAW and will be overwhelmed. Pick one, and dive right in and learn it inside and out; they are both excellent for scoring-to-pic.


----------



## zolhof (Dec 7, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> @zolhof that is a cool list you posted, just interesting to see what the big dogs are using. Just goes to show that great music can be made in any of the DAW's out there.
> 
> One thing I love about DP is the streamers, I really wish Cubase and Logic would add this feature.



hi @Wolfie2112 yes, some of us may want to land a job as a composer's assistant, or work as the tech guy, so I think it's relevant information to keep track of. I've watched Jongnic Bontemps at NAMM talking about his work for other composers (Elfman, Desplat, Beltrami, etc) and it was quite enlightening to see their workflow. He even played some cues straight from their sessions, pretty neat!

I've been using Cubase since forever, love it to bits, but always had a thing for Digital Performer. The Conductor Track is fantastic. We can do similar in Cubase with "merge tempo from tapping", but it feels clunky, while DP nailed this one. The chunks feature is also something I'd like to see in Cubase. Both great DAWs, but I think if I had to start over I'd stick with DP.


----------



## shomynik (Dec 7, 2017)

sazema said:


> Wow, what a waste of time... But really, who cares?
> It should be added to list:
> 
> * W.A.Mozart - Piano + billiard table + imagination
> ...


On the contrary, I am pretty sure those guys talked about creators of their instruments. Wether they like more stradivari or guarneri violin, english or french harpsi...


----------



## InLight-Tone (Dec 7, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> Agreed, I would not get both programs. You'll spend too much time trying learning each DAW and will be overwhelmed. Pick one, and dive right in and learn it inside and out; they are both excellent for scoring-to-pic.


I agree, both programs would be overkill. Life is too short for that, if we're talking proper mastery which takes time. Like having too many sample libraries and barely scratching the surface of each, (wait that's me...).

My vote is for Cubase, I tried DP and couldn't stand the midi editor, the tiny fiddly, velocity flags, the lack of the note name on the note and a bunch of others I forget.


----------



## sazema (Dec 7, 2017)

shomynik said:


> On the contrary, I am pretty sure those guys talked about creators of their instruments. Wether they like more stradivari or guarneri violin, english or french harpsi...



 I doubt. Symphonic pieces, operas are written with piano, imagination, experience and good alcohol and later played on gigs.

My point here was clear, as I'm reading this new posts I see people spend a lot of time above software itself, but it's not the point in software at all. If David G. uses that guitar that must be a good choice for me too... Who says? Maybe that's not the truth at all.

Key is very simple. Most of the software today has demo versions, so you should demo some of them and then decide what will fit your needs and your hardware. How can someone tell you what is good for you, at the end !?? What if I say now - buy DP because is great, which it is at the end. What if Max Richter uses Logic or Mike Verta moved to Pro Tools? What has to do with you? Are you going to be satisfied with Pro Tools as orchestral composer?

So, recipe is simple:

1) What I want from software? I want that, that, this...
2) What is available on market for that purpose? This, this, that
3) Demo 30 days, do some work orchestration, composing, watch youtube videos, read manuals, whatever, youtube is full of that stuff

I can understand questions like, between these two which one is better value for that money or what about resources or I can't decide between these two because with this I will get this and with that I will get this etc...
But, question which one is better !??
What should I buy, latest Audi or latest BMW? Well man, you should go and seat in your future car, do a test drive, etc, etc, How can I tell you what is better for you.


----------



## shomynik (Dec 7, 2017)

sazema said:


> I doubt. Symphonic pieces, operas are written with piano, imagination, experience and good alcohol and later played on gigs.
> 
> My point here was clear, as I'm reading this new posts I see people spend a lot of time above software itself, but it's not the point in software at all. If David G. uses that guitar that must be a good choice for me too... Who says? Maybe that's not the truth at all.
> 
> ...


Yea, totally got your point, and I agree with you for the most part.

Just this small part got my atention, coz talking and thinking about your instrument (quality, tone, playability, etc...) is just a part of being a musician. They all were instrumentalists as well as composers.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 7, 2017)

Not to mention that Beethoven used Cubase (he was German).


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 7, 2017)

InLight-Tone said:


> Like having too many sample libraries and barely scratching the surface of each, (wait that's me...)
> .



That's all of us!


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 7, 2017)

Making music with vi's is all about articulations. Articulation management is what Cubase is all about!


----------



## sazema (Dec 7, 2017)

shomynik said:


> Yea, totally got your point, and I agree with you for the most part.
> 
> Just this small part got my atention, coz talking and thinking about your instrument (quality, tone, playability, etc...) is just a part of being a musician. They all were instrumentalists as well as composers.



Understand, but this is my point



This can be even toy piano  Did he first analysed manufacturer of this piano? Of course this is a movie, but you will understand.

And listen this



From now days perspective this Beethoven's forte piano sound so plastic.


----------



## sazema (Dec 7, 2017)

jamwerks said:


> Making music with vi's is all about articulations. Articulation management is what Cubase is all about!



Reaper too.
This is now generalization of things. Which music? I didn't see Armin V.B used articulation management at all 
Even with orchestral music some people tend to use articulation key switching and some not!


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 14, 2017)

Some users claim that DP has better MIDI capabilities than Cubase. Is that true? I thought that there was unanimous affirmation that Cubase is "MIDI king".


----------



## JohnG (Dec 15, 2017)

zolhof said:


> The Conductor Track is fantastic.



That is the number one feature that I like in DP as well, since I like to play in freely and then drag bar lines around to use notation editing (and export to a notation programme to orchestrate). I also use a lot of mixed meters and it's quite easy to alter and customise them -- for example, if you want 7/8 as 3-plus-4 or to alternate with 4-plus-3 it's easy.

A long time ago these features were especially easy to use and not available in all competing DAWs. I assume they are today, however, which brings up another point:

*Nonsense and Misinformation*

Every time the "best DAW" discussion pops up I read breathless comments about "only Cubase can do this..." or "only Logic can do that..."

But most of the time, those statements are actually --- wrong! First off, most people don't "really" know more than one DAW, or at most two. Second, I have never seen a major feature that wasn't quickly imitated by the other programs, and they've all been out for decades. Consequently, the pet feature that, five years ago, was "DP only" is very likely filtered into every major DAW.

All the major DAW programs will allow one to write music. Whether the music is any good or not is up to us.


----------



## clisma (Dec 15, 2017)

Agreed almost whole-heartedly John. Maybe except for DP’s Chunks feature? Point holds true though, all the DAWs are well-equipped for most tasks today and it simply becomes a choice about workflow.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 15, 2017)

JohnG said:


> That is the number one feature that I like in DP as well, since I like to play in freely and then drag bar lines around to use notation editing (and export to a notation programme to orchestrate). I also use a lot of mixed meters and it's quite easy to alter and customise them -- for example, if you want 7/8 as 3-plus-4 or to alternate with 4-plus-3 it's easy.
> 
> A long time ago these features were especially easy to use and not available in all competing DAWs. I assume they are today, however, which brings up another point:
> 
> ...



Thank you John! Since you seem to be very proficient into DP, do you know if there's a workaround to solve the issue in my post here https://vi-control.net/community/threads/digital-performer-users-i-need-help-from-you.67378/

thank you!


----------



## JohnG (Dec 15, 2017)

Hi Leandro,

I am sorry for your trouble but your problem, unfortunately, seems typical of Windows setups, with driver problems etc. It's not necessarily a DP problem, but some kind of issue with your sound card.

I use DP in a Mac so I can't even begin to hazard a guess. I do use PCs as well, and have had to update Windows 10 over and over again on four different machines; even then, one of them remains fairly unstable. Quite frustrating.

Sorry!

John


----------



## Sami (Dec 15, 2017)

If there were a viable solution for articulation switching in DP I would have switched years ago


----------



## JohnG (Dec 15, 2017)

Sami said:


> If there were a viable solution for articulation switching in DP I would have switched years ago



There is a "viable" solution, though maybe not the one you prefer, and maybe not the best or even a terribly good one. I switch articulations all the time in DP for Spitfire libraries; I don't use keyswitch patches in East West libraries (I don't really like them in Spitfire either but I surrendered).

This is the kind of thing I scratch my head about, a statement that implies that because something doesn't work the same way in one DAW as in another, or the way you want, that it somehow doesn't work or is impossibly unwieldy.

I don't like keyswitches because it's not uncommon that the volume levels are different, or I want them to be different from they way they are presented in a given library. I prefer control.

Also, it is more clear to the orchestrator receiving a midi file that something is supposed to be "trem" or "sul pont" or pizz or what have you.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 15, 2017)

JohnG said:


> Hi Leandro,
> 
> I am sorry for your trouble but your problem, unfortunately, seems typical of Windows setups, with driver problems etc. It's not necessarily a DP problem, but some kind of issue with your sound card.
> 
> ...



No problem at all! Thanks anyway!


----------



## enyawg (Dec 15, 2017)

Another Reaper tragic from Sydney here 

Together with Reaticulate and add-scripts-to-taste can be very powerful. I also run Pro Tools HD2 and Cubase in my studio. But for Orchestral and Cinematic midi/ audio it's always Reaper.


----------



## Sami (Dec 16, 2017)

JohnG said:


> There is a "viable" solution, though maybe not the one you prefer, and maybe not the best or even a terribly good one. I switch articulations all the time in DP for Spitfire libraries; I don't use keyswitch patches in East West libraries (I don't really like them in Spitfire either but I surrendered).
> 
> This is the kind of thing I scratch my head about, a statement that implies that because something doesn't work the same way in one DAW as in another, or the way you want, that it somehow doesn't work or is impossibly unwieldy.
> 
> ...


Not sure I understand what you mean. In essence you're saying there is a solution but it is a compromise.
In my opinion, any solution that isn't as streamlined as Cubase's Expression Maps or one of the Peter Schwartz solutions is a compromise. It can be made work, but as a user we should not be "made" use a certain product with compromises. We pay for the products, and not too little, so we should get the stuff we ask for implemented. Look at Studio One and DP, in my opinion the only reasonable alternatives to Cubase and Logic for media composers. The companies are not even giving a timeline about when the most basic of things, a solution to articulation switching, on which ALL of orchestral composition is dependant, will be implemented and how. It's a shame.


----------



## MarcusD (Dec 16, 2017)

Does DP have expression Maps? If not, that's one good reason to grab Cubase.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 16, 2017)

MarcusD said:


> Does DP have expression Maps? If not, that's one good reason to grab Cubase.


afaik it doesn't. However it should be easier for MOTU to replicate the expression maps than for Steinberg to replicate chunks. More complex coding I guess.


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 16, 2017)

MarcusD said:


> Does DP have expression Maps? If not, that's one good reason to grab Cubase.


I switched to Cubase from DP for that reason. I do miss the Chunks though.


----------



## C-Wave (Dec 16, 2017)

jamwerks said:


> I switched to Cubase from DP for that reason. I do miss the Chunks though.


What is Chunks?


----------



## brek (Dec 16, 2017)

C-Wave said:


> What is Chunks?



Within the same project you can have multiple sequences. So if you're working on a film, you might have one project for the whole thing or for a reel but each cue gets its own "Chunk" within that project. It's great for sharing ideas and parts quickly and easily between separate cues. You might also use it for creating alternate arrangements of a song, for instance. Many many many years ago Cubase offered something similar called "Arrangements" and I miss it dearly.


----------



## C-Wave (Dec 16, 2017)

brek said:


> Within the same project you can have multiple sequences. So if you're working on a film, you might have one project for the whole thing or for a reel but each cue gets its own "Chunk" within that project. It's great for sharing ideas and parts quickly and easily between separate cues. You might also use it for creating alternate arrangements of a song, for instance. Many many many years ago Cubase offered something similar called "Arrangements" and I miss it dearly.


Thank you.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 28, 2017)

clisma said:


> That’s what I do with Logic/DP. For library work it’s the former, for sync to picture it’s DP. Even if it’s a relaxed score (not a ton of hitpoints) I tend to use DP to lay out the tempo map and arc of the cue, then import that to Logic, as I prefer the MIDI editing overall. A bit of a luxury really but I have a soft spot for DP ever since the 90s, so I try to keep it in the workflow once in a while.



would you mind explaining a bit more your workflow on using DP for tempo mapping and hitpoint spotting and then composing in Logic? I'm considering doing that with DP and Cubase. Thank you.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Dec 28, 2017)

Everyone: https://vi-control.net/community/threads/should-i-buy-dp.67708/


----------



## altruistica (Dec 28, 2017)

I've been using hardware since giving up on software in the 1990s and Cubase 3.0 running on an Atari. This included dedicated recorders like the Fostex D80 x3 and analogue mixer then ROLAND VS machines then AKAI DPS24, then Yamaha AW2400, then Propellerheads Record then Reason. A range of samplers including EMUs and AKAIs. After using Sibelius from about 2005 onwards I jumped ship last year with Dorico and have just gone back to Cubase 9.5PRO.

Cubase is going to be a perfect fit for me now. It sounds amazing....so much so that I'll be selling my reel to reel machines and analogue mixer in the New Year. The sequencing and processing point means it now sounds human.....The learning curve is massive though, especially for someone like me who quit software a generation ago, but I know this software (Dorico and Cubase) will now be the last ones I need to learn as they encompass everything I'll need in my music-making projects. I did use Sonar for a while during 2004-6 with a Roland V7200-Mixer setup and this setup now feels a little like that one. I've coupled my setup with an aging Yamaha 02R mixer with ADAT cards and an RME Hammerfall 9652. It sounds amazing even at just 16-bit, so much so that I'll be selling my RME Fireface UFX which does 192kHz. The O2R gives me enough simultaneous inputs to the computer and offers a control surface to the Cubase mixer but I still have to configure that. Here's my first test project in Cubase, although the final mix made it through the 02R and recorded back into Cubase to a stereo pair, simply because it was easier for me to manage and I was against the clock. In future I envisage mixing everything in Cubase unless it ends up sounding worse.



Good luck
Al


----------



## clisma (Dec 28, 2017)

Leandro Marcos said:


> would you mind explaining a bit more your workflow on using DP for tempo mapping and hitpoint spotting and then composing in Logic? I'm considering doing that with DP and Cubase. Thank you.


Sure. I usually get a rough idea in my head about how a cue will be constructed harmonically, rhythmically, melodically - where the static moments are, the shifts, all points I want to hit. First thing I do is to make sure I’ve got the motif worked out. 

Then I move to DP, import the video clip into a new sequence, and place markers at the above-mentioned hitpoints. Once I have all the hitpoints marked, it’s a simple matter of locking the markers so they don’t move when I change tempo, and finally I use the Find Tempo For Locked Markers feature to find a range of tempi that will get me as close to those hitpoints as possible while respecting the tempo of the motif I have in mind.

Once found (there’s usually more than one that could work well), I export the MIDI file to Logic, which imports it along with the tempo information. You are ready to write your cue.

The only caveat for me with this approach is of an aesthetic nature: I’ve noticed that when using DP in such a way, it becomes crucial to spot the correct shifting points in the scene. The Find Tempo feature can be tempting to use for a really long cue, say 4 to 5 minutes, making it an uphill battle to properly space out your music without using lots of odd meters. It’s sometimes better to break such cues into two or more sections and using different tempi for each. You are still able to use DP for this of course.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 28, 2017)

Sami said:


> Not sure I understand what you mean. In essence you're saying there is a solution but it is a compromise.
> In my opinion, any solution that isn't as streamlined as Cubase's Expression Maps or one of the Peter Schwartz solutions is a compromise. It can be made work, but as a user we should not be "made" use a certain product with compromises. We pay for the products, and not too little, so we should get the stuff we ask for implemented. Look at Studio One and DP, in my opinion the only reasonable alternatives to Cubase and Logic for media composers. The companies are not even giving a timeline about when the most basic of things, a solution to articulation switching, on which ALL of orchestral composition is dependant, will be implemented and how. It's a shame.



So you repeat the same thing. We get it. You like Cubase. I'm saying that I use keyswitch patches all the time in DP and it works fine.

Just because you prefer one way of doing things doesn't justify this operatic hand wringing. It works. People write scores and get on with it.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Dec 28, 2017)

Sami said:


> The companies are not even giving a timeline about when the most basic of things, a solution to articulation switching, on which ALL of orchestral composition is dependant, will be implemented and how. It's a shame.



This is a personal preference. I do a ton of orchestral composition....and never use this method (and never will).


----------



## DS_Joost (Dec 28, 2017)

Sami said:


> Not sure I understand what you mean. In essence you're saying there is a solution but it is a compromise.
> In my opinion, any solution that isn't as streamlined as Cubase's Expression Maps or one of the Peter Schwartz solutions is a compromise. It can be made work, but as a user we should not be "made" use a certain product with compromises. We pay for the products, and not too little, so we should get the stuff we ask for implemented. Look at Studio One and DP, in my opinion the only reasonable alternatives to Cubase and Logic for media composers. The companies are not even giving a timeline about when the most basic of things, a solution to articulation switching, on which ALL of orchestral composition is dependant, will be implemented and how. It's a shame.



It is a compromise for YOU. That is what you always have to keep in mind. I went from Cubase to Studio One, which does not have Expression Maps or the sort. I don't miss them, because I love the old 'one track, one articulation' method. Just feels much easier for me.

Also, I can turn what you say around. Studio One has multi-instruments, with which you can have multiple instruments on one track, controlling them through elaborate macros. Cubase does not have this. Steinberg is not even giving a timeline about one of the most basic of things, a solution to multiple instrument manipulation, on which ALL of synth programming and sequencing is dependant, will be implemented and how. It's a shame.

See how easy that is? And yet, I've also done a lot with synths in Cubase. Different strokes for different folks, you know?


----------



## Sami (Dec 28, 2017)

Should have anticipated this going out of control... I am not satisfied with Cubase, in fact I would like to be able to use Studio One or DP or any of them; but it's made hard by the lack of feature parity on this level. Now whether I was being operatic, I dont't know; we are musicians, we have an affinity for the dramatic. Sorry for offending people's sensibilities, I guess


----------



## eboats (Dec 28, 2017)

DS_Joost said:


> That is what you always have to keep in mind. I went from Cubase to Studio One, which does not have Expression Maps or the sort. I don't miss them, because I love the old 'one track, one articulation' method. Just feels much easier for me.



Different strokes. For me, just like a violin player doesn't switch instruments to play a different articulation, I want my solo violin on 1 track and use Expression Maps to cleanly switch between articulations. If I had every instrument's articulation on a separate track across a project, it'd be an ugly proliferation of tracks to deal with, and to remember what's what. Also, Expression Maps means not putting those low notes (for keyswitching) in Midi parts, which adds garbage to the Midi data (especially when you want to swap out the library).


----------



## Havoc911 (Jan 2, 2018)

brek said:


> Many many many years ago Cubase offered something similar called "Arrangements" and I miss it dearly.


Arrangements are still part of Cubase. You can create an arranger track and accomplish what you described above.


----------



## Leandro Marcos (Jan 2, 2018)

I finally sticked with Cubase. Time to learn all the powerful tools it has to offer. I would like to thank everyone who drop a line in this thread. Happy new year to you all.


----------



## brek (Jan 2, 2018)

Havoc911 said:


> Arrangements are still part of Cubase. You can create an arranger track and accomplish what you described above.


That's not really the same thing. Chunks (and arrange windows in ancient versions of Cubase) allow you to have a completely new and separate sequence (different tracks, different tempo map, different mixer), whereas an arranger track just reoganizes an existing sequence.


----------



## Pianopaul (Jan 2, 2018)

*DP’s Controller editing in Notation Edit Window *

I’m a longtime DP user and having been trying out the demo version of Cubase 9.5.

There are a lot of things I like about Cubase so far. It’s less cluttered and easy to get around and feels fresh to me. I haven’t gotten into the expression maps yet so have nothing to miss yet when I go back to DP. Chunks is a big DP feature as most seem to agree on this forum.
Both programs have Piano Roll editing environments with controller lanes below available to edit away. I would agree with many that Cubase’s lanes are somewhat more user friendly but DPs are there and you can get used to them.

A Huge difference for me with DP is that the it’s Notation edit window (not Quick scribe which is also far superior from what I can see to Cubase for multi track instant notation) also has controller lanes available.

With DP’s Notation editor you can edit the controllers right below the notation - far easier and more pleasurable for me than looking and editing the controllers below the piano roll type editors in either program. I can try and include a pic later. I can’t see this available in Cubase or am I missing seeing it? All the controllers are available and if you read Notation it’s just so much more natural to refer the controller lanes to notation and not a piano note grid.

Again you can get used to almost anything but this is a great and perhaps over looked DP feature.

Any comments ?


----------

