# Why would you choose Cubase over the rest ?



## Tareck117 (Dec 15, 2016)

Hey,

I'm currently using Ableton Live as my main DAW because initially I had a huge discount on it

But, Ableton seems more interested in providing functionalities to its PUSH controller then to the software itself.

One of my friend suggested me to try Cubase and I would like to know your opinions concerning that DAW.

More like *What makes you keep using Cubase over other DAWs ?
*
Also, if one of you have a Cubase LE license somewhere that you are not using, I might be interested  !


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 15, 2016)

Win or Mac? I'm assuming Win because you didn't say. There are definitely more choices than Cubase.
Save some money and check out Reaper.


----------



## Tareck117 (Dec 15, 2016)

I'm on Windows. Tried reaper but I did not like it. Don't really now why. 
But my question is more for Cubase's users. I tried a bunch of DAWs and I'm currently trying Bitwig and Studio One.

I asked the question because, if I remember correctly, a bunch of the users on this forum uses Cubase


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 15, 2016)

1 - I can control midi CCs over EuCon - physical motorised, touch sensitive faders that are labelled dynamically and follow my movements in the DAW. Still nothing else in the world can do this except the Avid Artist series and Cubase's Quick Controls. Literally nothing.

2 - Very narrow track widths, yet still very useable.

Those two are the features that keep me at Cubase. If anybody else takes 'em on, I'll look seriously at whatever it is.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Dec 15, 2016)

One of the biggest things for me is the logical editor being able to edit the midi I just recorded without having to open up any editors. I haven't checked if any other DAWs can do it all so easily. I also find working with large numbers of tracks and the routing really easy. I had to work in Logic for a while and found it very difficult to work with large projects and complex routing. The only lacking part in Cubase for me is some audio editing and automation found in Pro Tools. Nuendo adds some of that functionality but not everything.


----------



## Fab (Dec 15, 2016)

Good points given and as your friend suggested > Try cubase, then try studio one, logic or maybe DP....the more the better, probably. Plus, cubase gives a free trial so if you have the time... and, eventually it would be good to be proficient with at least 2 of the widely used DAW if you can.

> I like cubase for its midi, and ableton for its plugins


----------



## Tareck117 (Dec 15, 2016)

Fab said:


> Good points given and as your friend suggested > Try cubase, then try studio one, logic or maybe DP....the more the better, probably. Plus, cubase gives a free trial so if you have the time... and, eventually it would be good to be proficient with at least 2 of the widely used DAW if you can.
> 
> > I like cubase for its midi, and ableton for its plugins



Since cubase 9 came out, the trial has been removed from the website and I contacted steinberg and they told me that it would be available in 6 weeks :(


----------



## Tareck117 (Dec 15, 2016)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> One of the biggest things for me is the logical editor being able to edit the midi I just recorded without having to open up any editors.



A Logical editor ? What does it do ?


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Dec 15, 2016)

Tareck117 said:


> A Logical editor ? What does it do ?



Allows me to manipulate notes, velocities, and CCs using preprogrammed procedures which I assign to my control surface so I do those things without having to open any editors.


----------



## khollister (Dec 15, 2016)

Expression maps


----------



## Stiltzkin (Dec 15, 2016)

Expression maps, wouldn't go back to keyswitches, ever.


----------



## Studio E (Dec 15, 2016)

I don't know how other DAWs handle routing, but to me, Cubase's mixer and track routing/selecting is amazingly intuitive and easy to use. I do a lot of track folders, group tracks, FX tracks, sub-groups, stems, etc etc. It handles it all really well. Then again, I've been with Cubase since 2001.


----------



## ZeroZero (Dec 15, 2016)

I am a long time Cubase user, and don't use other DAWS - prejudice? Yes sure.
Cubase has a reputation for being the most powerful fully featured DAW. I can't say, but I have no reason to doubt it. I have had it since 93, left it in Cubase 5, to play the piano, then returned to the studio in September. Since then I have been relearning Cubase full time, and I have not finished yet. There are so many powerful features you can often find yourself knee deep in them. Whilst your waiting for the trial, may I suggest looking at the Quick Start Videos and maby the advance tutorials from Steinberg on the web (depending on your level). Don't worry about the fact that these may be Cubase 8 videos - the concepts apply still.
For composing there are many powerful features. Principle among them are expression maps which allow you to change an instruments articulations (say legato, staccato, accent) in one track with one click. Disabling tracks might not sound like much of a feature but it enables composers to create huge templates with all their instruments orgranised and ready to run. Note expression lets you craft individual notes in ways that other daws cannot do. The Key editor if learnt properly can be used almost like a painter can use a brush, with great speed and flexibility. The score editor, though old and possibly about to be replaced, can handle a full orchestral score. It is a little clunky but it can do all that you need. An audio track can be turned into MIDI using vari audio (like Melodyne). It has many powerful VST instruments Halion Sonic SE and Groove Agent being among them, and some very good plugins like Frequency EQ. It has a fine mixer too.
Everything is very powerful and it will take a few years to get really up to speed, but creating a track is quick and easy and the basic interface is straightforward enough, the power is beneath the hood.
You may find a lot of winging (inc me) about the latest update. The truth is it was a minor update, not really buggy or anything, just a bit less than the latest .5 update. People expected more.

Z


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 15, 2016)

Expression maps
True VCA's


----------



## MarcelM (Dec 15, 2016)

GUI,performance,midi editing.


----------



## heisenberg (Dec 15, 2016)

I echo a lot of what has been said above.

My circumstance was I moved from Mac to PC just over 5 years ago due to Apple screwing over professional video editors by dropping support for FCP 7 without warning and JUST after their juggernaut was complete on the video industry by getting editors to move from AVID over to FCP and so on.

This meant I had to find another DAW that was fully integrated with timecode and tools to play well with video and sound editors in the film biz. I tried them all including MOTU Digital Performer which has timecode integration but the miniscule size of the type in the GUI was an instant turnoff for my older eyes. Protools, no way as a primary composition tool and the thought of the parent company gives me the hives.

Nuendo, a close cousin to Cubase, was by far way more expensive than the others including ProTools but Nuendo's use of MIDI was sophisticated and with the NEK module it had all the goodness of Cubase and Nuendo rolled into one. Cubase and Nuendo are cross platform so you can move from one computer platform to the other and not waste the thousands of hours one puts in to become proficient with an app like this.

I have no regrets about getting involved in Steinberg's audio products even if I had to pay a premium to get Nuendo.


----------



## J-M (Dec 15, 2016)

I have a few (somewhat silly) reasons:

1. I like how it looks. I watched a bunch of videos about other DAWs and to me they looked almost...depressing? Go figure.

2. The drum editor

3. Cubase (like many others) has a ton of good-quality samples available when you start the program.

I've got into the whole home studio thingy just a few years back...An LE version of Cubase came with my interface so I started on that and haven't felt the need to switch DAWs ever since because it quite simply does everything I've ever needed it to do.


----------



## Symfoniq (Dec 15, 2016)

No longer having my eggs in Apple's basket was reason enough. And after that, I came to like Cubase.


----------



## LucasLax (Dec 15, 2016)

Im fully on studio one 3 and feel like its on par with cubase. I just prefer PreSonus as a company because they are always moving things forward and i feel like they actually listen to customers unlike steinberg. Moved from Logic about 2 years ago since it became so unstable.


----------



## Tareck117 (Dec 15, 2016)

Thank you all for your replies.

This helps me a lot figuring what I really want.



MrLinssi said:


> 1. I like how it looks. I watched a bunch of videos about other DAWs and to me they looked almost...depressing? Go figure.


I hear ya, Ableton UI is ugly as hell. Bitwig on the other end is really nice but I think its missing some midi editing capablilities.



Studio E said:


> I don't know how other DAWs handle routing, but to me, Cubase's mixer and track routing/selecting is amazingly intuitive and easy to use


 I haven't done a lot of routing yet in my composition but maybe I should take that in consideration



Heroix said:


> GUI,performance,midi editing.


About midi editing, do you have some examples about how Cubase is different from the other DAW on that point ?



ZeroZero said:


> The Key editor if learnt properly can be used almost like a painter can use a brush


It seems like Cubase, Studio One 3 and FL Studio really focused on their Piano Rolls and that puts them far away from a ton of other DAWs like Ableton and Bitwig...



ZeroZero said:


> You may find a lot of winging (inc me) about the latest update. The truth is it was a minor update, not really buggy or anything, just a bit less than the latest .5 update. People expected more.


At least they god rid of their floating windows...thats one of the reason I can't work with FL Studio.. I just hate that sooooo much !


----------



## AlexRuger (Dec 15, 2016)

Guy Rowland said:


> 1 - I can control midi CCs over EuCon - physical motorised, touch sensitive faders that are labelled dynamically and follow my movements in the DAW. Still nothing else in the world can do this except the Avid Artist series and Cubase's Quick Controls.



Wait, so you do CC's with Quick Controls? I.e. you record them as automation and not in the piano roll?


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 15, 2016)

I'm a Music Industry professor at a local college and my co-worker and I always have DAW debates. He is a die hard Pro tools guy and I use Logic. We are both Mac users. But we both like Cubase. I actually had Cubase 1, I think, running it on an Atari 1040. But, I digress. We are both composers and the midi functionality is of utmost importance to me. I am pretty happy with Logic, but I might try cubase again. Some say Cubase runs better on windows, but I ain't making that change. Sorry, I was an apple genius for 4 years and the OS is engrained in me. 
Other than the Expression maps, I can do everything in Logic. No, I'm not a Tim Cook fan, but I wouldn't be able to deal with windoze. 
So, without trying to derail this thread, is Cubase running smoothly on Macs?


----------



## Hidden_Path (Dec 15, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> So, without trying to derail this thread, is Cubase running smoothly on Macs?



Very! No complaints here.


----------



## jvsax (Dec 15, 2016)

Cubase 8.5 runs great on my MacBook Pro. I use the chord track to control midi loops, and the chord assistant feature is something I plan to use soon. Drum maps are handy, and I also plan to use expression maps soon as well. Variaudio is a great feature, and the audio-to-midi function works well.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Dec 15, 2016)

I do not like Cubase. I also do not like green eggs and ham. I will not like Cubase in a car. I will not like it near or far. I will not like them Project Sam I am! Mainly, I am a recording engineer. I am also a computer programmer, but Cubase to me seems like it was written by software engineers who never wrote or recorded one track of music themselves. They just thought it would be cool for everyone to write the software the way that they did. It is way off base. If you were were in a studio in Hollywood in the 1980s and 1990s, like I was many times, Cubase would be baffling to the real world engineers. I just think that Cubase is what everyone got used to so everyone loves it. Yes, I admit it, I am a Sonar man. Still acts like a real recording studio, yet very powerful today. I don't work for them. I tried to switch to Cubase when I hated them, when Roland was in control. Now that Gibson is in control they are wonderful. To me, as an engineer, and as a composer, Cubase is not the best choice. But that's just me.


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 15, 2016)

Cool, thanks! I do think it would be nice to use a program that is cross platform, just in case.


----------



## greggybud (Dec 15, 2016)

ZeroZero said:


> I am a long time Cubase user, and don't use other DAWS - prejudice? Yes sure.
> Cubase has a reputation for being the most powerful fully featured DAW. I can't say, but I have no reason to doubt it. I have had it since 93, left it in Cubase 5, to play the piano, then returned to the studio in September. Since then I have been relearning Cubase full time, and I have not finished yet. There are so many powerful features you can often find yourself knee deep in them. Whilst your waiting for the trial, may I suggest looking at the Quick Start Videos and maby the advance tutorials from Steinberg on the web (depending on your level). Don't worry about the fact that these may be Cubase 8 videos - the concepts apply still.
> For composing there are many powerful features. Principle among them are expression maps which allow you to change an instruments articulations (say legato, staccato, accent) in one track with one click. Disabling tracks might not sound like much of a feature but it enables composers to create huge templates with all their instruments orgranised and ready to run. Note expression lets you craft individual notes in ways that other daws cannot do. The Key editor if learnt properly can be used almost like a painter can use a brush, with great speed and flexibility. The score editor, though old and possibly about to be replaced, can handle a full orchestral score. It is a little clunky but it can do all that you need. An audio track can be turned into MIDI using vari audio (like Melodyne). It has many powerful VST instruments Halion Sonic SE and Groove Agent being among them, and some very good plugins like Frequency EQ. It has a fine mixer too.
> Everything is very powerful and it will take a few years to get really up to speed, but creating a track is quick and easy and the basic interface is straightforward enough, the power is beneath the hood.
> ...



And the drum editor. Don't forget the drum editor. 

Also it has 3 mix consoles that can be linked or unlinked...giving a lot of flexibility to a user with multiple video monitors. I use 4 video monitors side by side.


----------



## Brian2112 (Dec 16, 2016)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> Yes, I admit it, I am a Sonar man. Still acts like a real recording studio, yet very powerful today. I don't work for them. I tried to switch to Cubase when I hated them, when Roland was in control. Now that Gibson is in control they are wonderful. To me, as an engineer, and as a composer, Cubase is not the best choice. But that's just me.



I'm with you in some ways though our experiences are different.

I used Cubase on a Mac to replace my good old Dr.T Omega stuff from the 80s (before DAWs mind you). When digital audio became available for home use, the Mac hardware was just too expensive at the time, so I went for “Cakewalk Pro Audio” as it was called at the time. I’ve been using it ever since (Now called Sonar). I always thought Sonar was way underrated, and still do in many ways.

This past year, after some frustrations, I went to Cubase 8.5 and now 9. As I mentioned in another thread, Cubase seems to me to be a more “musical” environment to work in while Sonar feels like a spreadsheet.

As far as “Power”, I think Sonar can still do a lot more than most (Dynamic Buses, and now “Load balancing” for example. )

There are a few things that are missing in Cubase (as far as I can tell at this point) that Sonar has nailed (Window management etc.). That being said, I have found that Cubase does the basics better. Better midi editing, Better VST3 support (obviously), Better use of color and organization and so on. (“Better” being an opinion of course).

My biggest issue right now has been that one of the reasons I never even looked at anything but Sonar had to do with non intrusive copy protection (serial number – no dongle , activations etc) but I have had issues recently with Sonar deactivating itself after updates. Thanks to the Unlimited update offer which sucked all their support capacity, I found I couldn't use Sonar for months while waiting for a reply for support.

The good news is with VEP Pro, I can go back and forth or be undecided and it's all good. I would check out Sonar as well as others before buying Cubase, but after using both, I do have a preference for now...


----------



## Tatu (Dec 16, 2016)

Symfoniq said:


> No longer having my eggs in Apple's basket was reason enough.


Why I switched as well. But I still think LPX is superior to Cubase in terms of general logic, look, feel and content. And it has received tons of new content during its existence from which Steinberg would've made you pay, multiple times.


----------



## tokatila (Dec 16, 2016)

Expression maps and disabled Tracks. Two killer features.


----------



## dog1978 (Dec 16, 2016)

Tareck117 said:


> A Logical editor ? What does it do ?



Here is an Logical Editor example.


----------



## AR (Dec 16, 2016)

If I'd say I use it for the features that would be a little bit of a lie. Cubase is great, as is Reaper (or so I heard). But I use it more out of a tradition. I started right at the update from Cubase SX 1 to SX 2. Back then Logic & ProTools were so bulky and not really layed out for MIDI. I remember there was Ableton (which was more of a one window application) I didn't like. I would say that I grew up with Cubase shortcuts and workflow. For me now, 15 years later, changing the software would be like going from PC to Mac. My eyes and cursor go to the exact point on a screen where I find a setting. Changing that would cost me a amount of time and stopping my creative workflow. The same reason I still use Finale instead of Sibelius or other notation software, although Sibelius and all the new ones are better.


----------



## Daniel James (Dec 16, 2016)

I use both. 

Ableton Live to me feels more fluid when sound designing and doing scores that require a lot of audio manipulation.

But when it comes to scores that are more orchestral in nature Cubase blows it out of the water with midi features.

I made sure to set up a template in each which is pretty much identical so it doesn't really matter where I start, I can do similar in both, but if you know the kinda score you are going to write I choose which DAW based on the above.

At the end of the day its just a tool, you are where the music is coming from, you just want to pick the one that gets the music from your head, into the world, with the least amount of hurdles. 

Oh and with Cubase 9's new tabbed editors its feels more familiar to live users than ever. A perfect time for those who have been on the fence to try it out!

-DJ


----------



## Rctec (Dec 16, 2016)

Tareck117 said:


> Thank you all for your replies.
> 
> This helps me a lot figuring what I really want.
> 
> ...



I've used Cubase forever now. Wouldn't change. I've never not been able to get things done, or figure out how to solve a problem - and that in itself can lead to new inspiration. Yes, over the years there have been crashes, missing functions, irate 8500-word emails, personal visits to Hamburg, arguments... exactly the way it should be, when Our livelihood depends on Their livelihood.
They are working their Arses off. They have so many ideas and a way of implementing things that has to be efficient and safe. Yes, there will be bugs, yes the tempo editor needs a complete overhaul and actually influences my style of writing more than Chris Nolan does...but no programmer likes to read about some bug he missed after thoroughly testing. Programmers are people and get just as embarrassed as artists. In fact, I think the line between a programmer and an artist I'd say more often than not invisible...
But VST3 is build for the future. New - not even dreamt off sound modules can take advantage of that technology.
And Expression Maps. Come on! It might seem obvious, but it turned out to be quite a job...
It all integrates flawlessly into the film world. (The tedious legacy protocols of 24fps compared to 23.97fps I have to deal with every day... and someone Sat down and wrote that rather dull bit of code, rather than some dream synth.
It never, ever crashes for us - and we have redicolously experimental templates running. Can categorically say that if it crashes for you, you're doing something wrong!
I fully understand now that there is no one that can actually really read, comprehend and retain the complete manual. It's impossible, life's too short. But here at RCP, there is always someone who'll have an answer... and yes, I admit it, it's a luxury to have techs on staff that just deal with the knowlegepool that a deep program like Cubase presents.
But - even though you can use it just for fun - it is the backbone of something like 150 of my movies, it runs our tour without crashing (38 shows with something like twenty systems on stage), it's a thoroughly professional system, ever expanding and refining.
Without trying not to sound too gross and vulgar, but there are only two filmcomposers out there who's movies grossed well over ten billion: one uses pen and paper and one uses Cubase. It seems that there are a lot of reasons for both approaches...and that both systems work - only restricted by the imagination of the individual. And horses for courses.
While the upgrade costs seem high to some, i hope everyone remembers that Steinberg have a lot of very talented and hardworking people working with them that want to make a living as well. I think the possibilities that an artist is afforded with such a tiny lay-out is so vast. That layout is in no way in relation to the value and potential of your creations that these tools help you make and maybe you should just feel a little greatful and lucky that there are people out there whose whole ambition is to build beautiful and inspiring tools for artist, that never think about getting as rich as the artist making music with their tools and take great joy and pride inventing the impossible.


-HZ-


----------



## Nils Neumann (Dec 16, 2016)

Daniel James said:


> I use both.
> 
> I made sure to set up a template in each which is pretty much identical so it doesn't really matter where I start, I can do similar in both, but if you know the kinda score you are going to write I choose which DAW based on the above.
> 
> -DJ



Since when do you use a template? Or do you mean your empty kontakt instances and some routing?


----------



## Daniel James (Dec 16, 2016)

Nils Neumann said:


> Since when do you use a template? Or do you mean your empty kontakt instances and some routing?



The same set up of empty Kontakt instances! I'm not a huuuge fan of preset templates.

-DJ


----------



## IoannisGutevas (Dec 16, 2016)

I have used Cubase since version 6. Although once it was a fabulous and innovative DAW nowdays its lacking basic workflow features and its left behind. Most of its success in being used from most composers is cause of its marketing, its success story that dates back years now and the routine. If a composer used Cubase for 5 or more years now its not easy to change or trust another DAW. The habbit is the problem. 

And if Hans Zimmer uses Cubase then its easier to be "fooled" and say "Hey if Hans uses it then he cant be wrong! I will use it too and i'll be as great!". But you cant think like that. You have to find what works for you. Like Daniel said you are where the music comes from not the DAW. 

I have used Cubase, Studio One and Ableton Live and the most comfortable i feel is with Studio One. The DAW is amazing for me. Workflow is unparallel to any other DAW i used and i can write fast without worrying about all the technical issues or trying to find faders and write automation with pencils. 

With all that said nowdays every DAW is amazing in its own way. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. In Cubase for example you can score to picture easier than any other DAW. Finding cut points and syncing them to tempo is just amazing. Studio one workflow is incredible and Ableton live sound design is without equal. 

But you can always mix and match! Im using cubase to get the tempo map for a clip and then transfer it on Studio One and write the music there. And if you want some serious sound design you can always rewire Ableton live through Studio One! But thats just my workflow and my opinion.


----------



## AR (Dec 16, 2016)

IoannisGutevas said:


> I have used Cubase since version 6. Although once it was a fabulous and innovative DAW nowdays its lacking basic workflow features and its left behind. Most of its success in being used from most composers is cause of its marketing, its success story that dates back years now and the routine. If a composer used Cubase for 5 or more years now its not easy to change or trust another DAW. The habbit is the problem.
> 
> And if Hans Zimmer uses Cubase then its easier to be "fooled" and say "Hey if Hans uses it then he cant be wrong! I will use it too and i'll be as great!". But you cant think like that. You have to find what works for you. Like Daniel said you are where the music comes from not the DAW.
> 
> ...



As you said yourself. The veterans praise their thing. Quite understandable. But I know also famous Hollywood composers who work with DP (Chris Young), Logic (John Powell), ... so, as an advice. Don't go by names. Go with the flow. I'm sure every developer has a trial version. One should test everything and stick with the most fitting. We veterans praise our own DAW, but we've come a long way....doesn't mean, all new is bad


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 16, 2016)

AlexRuger said:


> Wait, so you do CC's with Quick Controls? I.e. you record them as automation and not in the piano roll?



Yes indeed - a bit weird, but conceptually not much different to regular automation so got over it pretty quickly. It's staggering to me that people are still waiting for their holy grail controller - it's been around for 5 years for me, and still nobody else has stepped up to the plate.

Forgot my (3) reason - yes, Disabled Tracks.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 16, 2016)

AR said:


> The veterans praise their thing. Quite understandable. But I know also famous Hollywood composers who work with DP (Chris Young), Logic (John Powell), ... so, as an advice. Don't go by names. Go with the flow



^^ this. 

For years, we've all read claims in "I love my DAW software" threads about the supposedly unique properties of this or that DAW. Few of them are, in fact, unique, and those that are quickly are adapted / adopted by rivals.

Cubase, DP, Logic, others -- I have friends who write excellent stuff on each. At the risk of stating the obvious, all of us would do well to focus more on picking better notes, varying tempos, and learning new harmony or orchestration.


----------



## j_kranz (Dec 16, 2016)

JohnG said:


> ^^ this.
> 
> For years, we've all read claims in "I love my DAW software" threads about the supposedly unique properties of this or that DAW. Few of them are, in fact, unique, and those that are quickly are adapted / adopted by rivals.
> 
> Cubase, DP, Logic, others -- I have friends who write excellent stuff on each. At the risk of stating the obvious, all of us would do well to focus more on picking better notes, varying tempos, and learning new harmony or orchestration.



Ditto to what John mentioned... and honestly, even better than whatever the shiny new feature is, is really learning the DAW that you've already got from top to bottom, whichever DAW that might be.


----------



## khollister (Dec 16, 2016)

AR said:


> As you said yourself. The veterans praise their thing. Quite understandable. But I know also famous Hollywood composers who work with DP (Chris Young), Logic (John Powell), ... so, as an advice. Don't go by names. Go with the flow. I'm sure every developer has a trial version. One should test everything and stick with the most fitting. We veterans praise our own DAW, but we've come a long way....doesn't mean, all new is bad



I don't think that the point of Hans' response was "if I use it, you should too", but that Cubase can support a huge operation like his, so it can't be _too_ lacking. I also think his comment about John Williams using pen and paper (yeah, we know who you meant, Hans ) and the high tech RCP using Cubase actually reinforces your point. I'm sure somebody out there is knocking out great music using Opcode's Vision on a Mac IIcx - that doesn't mean we would ever recommend it.

I realize I'm probably putting words in Hans' mouth, but the point is that Cubase may not be your choice but don't claim it's because it isn't up to the job technically.


----------



## zolhof (Dec 16, 2016)

My main five reasons:

Cubase is a delight to look at. Studio One close second. I find other DAWs uninviting;
Rock solid. I honestly can't remember the last time it crashed (not counting the random annoying exit bug, when you have to force close Cubase);
Logical editor + key commands = 

Expression maps;
AI Knob. Less mouse clicks and it feels gooood.


----------



## Tareck117 (Dec 16, 2016)

JohnG said:


> At the risk of stating the obvious, all of us would do well to focus more on picking better notes, varying tempos, and learning new harmony or orchestration.



I agree completely ! I didn't want to start a DAW war by creating this thread.

I only wanted to know what Cubase was good for compared to Ableton and Bitwig.

In the past two days, I downloaded and tested the demo version of Studio One 3 (since Steinberg removed the trials of Cubase when releasing version 9) and I'm very impressed by its functionalities compared to Bitwig and Ableton.

From what I've heard Cubase and Studio One have a lot in common.

I mean, I just discovered things like "Step Recording", "Scratch Pad", "Arranger sections", etc.

I was like : Woa... that's nice !

I would like to test Cubase's Chord Assistant functionnality.. but I guess I'll need to wait for the demo of version 9 to come out


----------



## Tareck117 (Dec 16, 2016)

zolhof said:


> My main five reasons:
> 
> Cubase is a delight to look at. Studio One close second. I find other DAWs uninviting;
> Rock solid. I honestly can't remember the last time it crashed (not counting the random annoying exit bug, when you have to force close Cubase);
> ...



Thanks for the details


----------



## Vik (Dec 16, 2016)

If I would choose Cubase over other solutions, the reasons would be:

Expression Maps
The fact that Steinberg is dedicated to creating a good score app
Better control/better workflow for CC automation
The sad fact that the DAW I use now is developed my someone who seems to have made a decision about not putting time into improving how it deals with the above


----------



## khollister (Dec 16, 2016)

Vik said:


> If I would choose Cubase over other solutions, the reasons would be:
> 
> Expression Maps
> The fact that Steinberg is dedicated to creating a good score app
> ...



Right there with you


----------



## Tareck117 (Dec 16, 2016)

Vik said:


> The sad fact that the DAW I use now is developed my someone who seems to have made a decision about not putting time into improving how it deals with the above


Which DAW a you using right now ?


----------



## Vik (Dec 16, 2016)

Logic.


----------



## jvsax (Dec 16, 2016)

A related question for those who use multiple Daws: Are the Cubase features that allow midi tracks to be morphed by the Chord Track, real time midi input to be morphed by the Chord Track, and the Chord Assistant replicated in other Daws? (I haven't kept up to date with all the latest features in all the Daws.)


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Dec 16, 2016)

zolhof said:


> AI Knob. Less mouse clicks and it feels gooood.



what is this?


----------



## zolhof (Dec 16, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> what is this?



You hover the cursor over a parameter and adjust with the knob. Instant gratification.  It's available on the CC121 and CMC-AI (discontinued)


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Dec 16, 2016)

zolhof said:


> You hover the cursor over a parameter and adjust with the knob.



It works inside VST/VSTi's? Synths, no-steinberg plugins?


----------



## zolhof (Dec 16, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> It works inside VST/VSTi's? Synths, no-steinberg plugins?



Yes, VST 2.4 & 3 plugins. It didn't always work with 3rd party stuff and sorta went unnoticed throughout the years, but now it's great!


----------



## dgburns (Dec 16, 2016)

Maybe this is a bit of a rant from a Power LPX user (not so much so on Cubase). It was never my intention to fall into Logic, it just sort of happened over time.With Cubase always in the wings but never really taking flight.I have done real world scoring duties in Cubase however.This list is just some observations of issues in my personal journey.

1- *Constantly losing midi mapping across many vepro instruments*. Never happens to me in LPX.

2- *Audio engine always running even when transport stopped*-not energy efficient like LPX._(The slave pc's are always running hot, and need to be setup to be at full power all the time. Not an issue for super power users, but the only fix at the moment is to load an empty session and activate it while planning some time away.)_

3- *On my 30 inch screen, I get far less instruments in Cubase at the smallest zoom. *
_(Doesn't look good and the fonts and buttons clearly not designed for this zoom size.)_

4- *Folders/Groups/FX NOT included in track presets, *so loading stuff "in situ" requires far more clicks and makes the feature time inefficient. _(Track archives import overwrite your tempo map -unless I'm overlooking an import option to unclick...)_

5- *Colour palette editing should be all in one window *with all options shown, not the menu based option we have now which requires too many mouse clicks.

6- *The mixer*- while the graphics are pretty, still can't get used to the overhaul they did back before 7.

7- *Screensets/Screen Scrolling *on mac are clunky. (LPX far superior here.)

8- *The comp swipe feature in LPX is FAR superior* to the Cubase comp tool. _(The best comp tool imho and should be the standard.)_

9- *No way to frame forward by one frame increments and sending out mmc/mtc info to Protools.*
_ (This is huge for me as Protools is slaved to LPX/Cubase and I frame forward/back to find exact hit points all the time. In Cubase, so far, I can only sync Protools while using standard transport functions. I've been tempted to build a lemur function to send to both daw's, but this is not ideal in any case. Bums me out like nothing else.)

10- _*Integrated audio pool/mediabay on the right hand side*_. (Again one of those things LPX just did right from v9. Many of the new 'features' in C9 seem to be pulled from the LPX playbook.)_

Cubase offers up some glorious writing/daw possibilities,if it didn't, I wouldn't be so damn passionate about trying to get it to work for me, but some things are just plain ass backwards imho. Any daw will get your nickers in a twist at some point, and LPX has screwed me in epic ways in the past, so it's not immune from detractors-but at the moment, it still has some fundamental layout design ideas that are still ahead of Cubase.(again imho)


And @Rctec and all film ppl, No discussion about film/tv scoring can honestly be had without acknowledging that Protools is the other side of the equation that gets scores to the mix stage, whether it start by pen or by pixel, Protools is the glue that connects.


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 16, 2016)

I have been using cubase since cubase SX to Cubae pro 8.5 but last year i have done more project with Logic pro X and i like it. There are some nice things in Logic ( i like more than in Cubase ) related to general feel in my composing process.

Use whatever works for You.


----------



## khollister (Dec 16, 2016)

If Apple would just work on 2 things, I would be happy to continue to use LPX (aside from my failing confidence in Apple's commitment) - articulation management that doesn't require some kludgy bolt on and either updating the AU spec to deal with multi-out elegantly or just support VST 3.

Everything else is crap I could deal with on either platform. It seems Apple is viewing Logic as primarily a vehicle for composers and producers of non-orchestral music (which I concede is by far the bigger market). I'm moving to Cubase for exactly 3 reasons

Expression Maps
Able to keep from having a bazillion VEP instances because multi-out handling in Logic is effectively broken
Having an escape route to Windows if I need to pull that handle at some point in the future.
I realize a lot of people more talented than I are dealing with it (and I could too if I had to), but I don't want to and don't have to since I have an option I'm satisfied with.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Dec 16, 2016)

Daniel James said:


> Oh and with Cubase 9's new tabbed editors its feels more familiar to live users than ever. A perfect time for those who have been on the fence to try it out!
> 
> -DJ



OK, I going to upgrade to 9 and try it out. DYD......Damn you Daniel.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Dec 16, 2016)

JohnG said:


> ^^ this.
> 
> For years, we've all read claims in "I love my DAW software" threads about the supposedly unique properties of this or that DAW. Few of them are, in fact, unique, and those that are quickly are adapted / adopted by rivals.
> 
> Cubase, DP, Logic, others -- I have friends who write excellent stuff on each. At the risk of stating the obvious, all of us would do well to focus more on picking better notes, varying tempos, and learning new harmony or orchestration.




Good point and I agree, John. You helped me make up my mind. Instead of a new Thunderbolt UAD sound system, I am going to buy a Loree oboe and start playing woodwinds again.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Dec 16, 2016)

Brian2112 said:


> I'm with you in some ways though our experiences are different.
> 
> This past year, after some frustrations, I went to Cubase 8.5 and now 9. As I mentioned in another thread, Cubase seems to me to be a more “musical” environment to work in while Sonar feels like a spreadsheet.
> 
> ...



Great post Brian. We are indeed different. Cubase feels like a spreadsheet to me. Sonar feels like an old-timey studio from the 1980s. It is probably because I am old myself. But I write software myself for a living. I live in both worlds. I have no idea why I can't get into Cubase. I should love it, really. Like John said, it is about the notes so I think that Cubase has way more steps to get to the notes than Sonar. I appreciate the reply.


----------



## jononotbono (Dec 16, 2016)

I love Cubase. I've used it since SX1. It's what I started using and I kept with it. It's amazing and just keeps getting better.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Dec 16, 2016)

jononotbono said:


> I love Cubase. I've used it since SX1. It's what I started using and I kept with it. It's amazing and just keeps getting better.



Dammit! Another person who I like likes Cubase.


----------



## URL (Dec 16, 2016)

One more CB user- great software.


----------



## ceemusic (Dec 16, 2016)

Being an avid Cakewalk user since the first release I started working with Cubase out of frustration when Cakewalk released their X series. 

In hindsight it was a blessing, Cubase is now my main daw. (Sonar Plat has improved since but Cubase is now my top choice for music creation)


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Dec 16, 2016)

ceemusic said:


> Being an avid Cakewalk user since the first release I started working with Cubase out of frustration when Cakewalk released their X series.
> 
> In hindsight it was a blessing, Cubase is now my main daw. (Sonar Plat has improved since but Cubase is now my top choice for music creation)



OK, I'll give Cubase another shot. But wow do I love the new Platinum Sonar since Gibson bought Cakewalk. It is going to be difficult to give that power up.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 16, 2016)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> Instead of a new Thunderbolt UAD sound system, I am going to buy a Loree oboe and start playing woodwinds again.



this feels like brutal irony, though no doubt well-deserved.

If not, oboe is a very nice instrument.


----------



## agarner32 (Dec 16, 2016)

Another Cubase convert. I used Logic Pro for a number of years and made the switch to 8.5 and now 9. Overall I like it better, but I have had more problems with Cubase than I did with Logic. Right now it's stable. It's a pretty intuitive program for me.


----------



## ceemusic (Dec 16, 2016)

SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. said:


> OK, I'll give Cubase another shot. But wow do I love the new Platinum Sonar since Gibson bought Cakewalk. It is going to be difficult to give that power up.



I still use Plat for my older projects, it's a good daw but I still prefer Cubase & it's now my go-to.


----------



## dgburns (Dec 16, 2016)

khollister said:


> If Apple would just work on 2 things, I would be happy to continue to use LPX (aside from my failing confidence in Apple's commitment) - articulation management that doesn't require some kludgy bolt on and either updating the AU spec to deal with multi-out elegantly or just support VST 3.
> 
> Everything else is crap I could deal with on either platform. It seems Apple is viewing Logic as primarily a vehicle for composers and producers of non-orchestral music (which I concede is by far the bigger market). I'm moving to Cubase for exactly 3 reasons
> 
> ...




Expression maps turned out to be no big deal for me. Surprising since in theory, I was SOOO excited about it.
I was using Cubase way back on the Atari, and actually miss some features they had back then like the ability to send sysex to your gear all at once (can't recall the module, but it was way ahead of it's time). 
I also really liked the "Interactive Phrase " thing they had, it's since been removed, or I can't find it anymore. You could do some way cool midi manipulations in that thing. Again nothing like it elsewhere, but it's been pulled. It's pre SX days.

It's kinda like driving a car, once you get behind the wheel you can feel how it responds while driving. Cubase is like an american made family sedan while LPX feels like a manual shift german sports tuned turbo engine with better cornering. But I digress, not trying to change anyone's mind, go buy the car you want.

Just wait till au3 is out. Despite my Apple headquarters marketing reservations, the Emagic team is still the most efficient coders from what I can see.

Das Auto


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 16, 2016)

dgburns said:


> Cubase is like an american made family sedan while LPX feels like a manual shift german sports tuned turbo engine with better cornering.



Yep!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 16, 2016)

dgburns said:


> Expression maps turned out to be no big deal for me. Surprising since in theory, I was SOOO excited about it.



Me too. Expression Maps was one of the big reasons I jumped from Sonar. And I tried with them, I really tried. Then I gave up. Then after some time and much badgering, I tried again. I really really really tried again. And they never once stopped annoying the crap out of me. So I gave up again.


----------



## Rctec (Dec 16, 2016)

khollister said:


> I don't think that the point of Hans' response was "if I use it, you should too", but that Cubase can support a huge operation like his, so it can't be _too_ lacking. I also think his comment about John Williams using pen and paper (yeah, we know who you meant, Hans ) and the high tech RCP using Cubase actually reinforces your point. I'm sure somebody out there is knocking out great music using Opcode's Vision on a Mac IIcx - that doesn't mean we would ever recommend it.
> 
> I realize I'm probably putting words in Hans' mouth, but the point is that Cubase may not be your choice but don't claim it's because it isn't up to the job technically.



They where the right words! John Powell and I have done so many projects together, but the different Daws never got in our way. Mind you, I started on "Notator", the precursor to "Logic". I just got fed up with the Logic guys always telling me my ideas ("Can I run this on two monitors?" - " that's stupid! No one wants two monitors", etc...) where crap.
And STEINBERG was just a more democratic environment for me.
But most daws are pretty much equals these days. So it's all down to what you're used to.
I'm working with Jacob Collier at the moment, who treat logic like a virtuoso instrument....


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Dec 16, 2016)

JohnG said:


> this feels like brutal irony, though no doubt well-deserved.
> 
> If not, oboe is a very nice instrument.



On the way this week . We will see how it goes, ironic or not. But is it brutal honesty or brutal irony? Time will tell. Love all of your posts John.


----------



## Kony (Dec 16, 2016)

Rctec said:


> I'm working with Jacob Collier at the moment, who treat logic like a virtuoso instrument....


Jacob is a genius ... does he prefer/use logic for his live performances?


----------



## Walra48 (Dec 17, 2016)

Happy Cubase user since 1995.


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 17, 2016)

I like Cubase and I have done 90% of my work on it but the biggest difference between Cubase and Logic is that Logic feels more like big workstation/instrument and I'm starting to like it more.


----------



## Vik (Dec 17, 2016)

luke_7 said:


> big workstation/instrument


Please elaborate?


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 17, 2016)

Vik
Smooth adding elements like Instruments,exs 24, InsertFX,Bus tracks, manipulating audio tracks with flex mode, more modular type of working with adding channel presets etc. ( I'm not big fun of templates) all without stopping music.
I feel more creative flow on Logic. With music for picture especially TV project, deadlines are very important and somehow logic helps in this area.
I don't claim that Cubase is bad, it's fantastic DAW with even more fancy stuff !!! And I'm big fan of Hans Zimmer and I truly admire his work and in terms of creativity and innovation i think we all agree HE IS THE NUMBER ONE COMPOSER in film industry right now and almost last two decades. We also know He is Cubase user so we can't claim that in general Logic/dp/pro tools/ pen and paper gives us more creative power then Cubase.
The funny thing is that all my life I was big Cubase fanboy ( ok and Pro Tools HD to be honest ) at the same time logic was just a bad joke...i know shame on me. But after while logic becomes my good fellow.

Whatever works !


----------



## Dani Donadi (Dec 17, 2016)

I love Cubase, in fact, i have Cubase and Nuendo.
My favorite feature is the VST System Link with sample accurate sync.
I use Cubase as my main composing DAW (master) and I slave Nuendo that carries the video (and all the stems) with VST System Link. That way, everything is sample accurately in sync, including tempo changes, and time selections, that's really amazing.


----------



## j_kranz (Dec 17, 2016)

To answer the original question of this post... for me it was quite simple, my mac died and I had a powerful PC.... Cubase works on both, so I knew if/when I bought a new Mac I could just keep on working. Other than that, I think there's been a lot of great insights here already.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Dec 17, 2016)

I'll probably use Cubase as long as I use a DAW. Everything else (Logic, PT, Live) has cool features and it's place...but Cubase is really the one that makes sense to me and isn't pita to use. It's just easy to get around midi, audio, routing, bouncing, etc.


----------



## dgburns (Dec 17, 2016)

The Apple team is not known for it's open dialog with users. Much frustration comes from this. And the uneasy feeling that they might just decide how exactly we should be working in the future. The change from Logic 9 to X was not a smooth one for me.
I tend to worry about backwards compatibility, and every so often a project comes back and requires much attention to bring it up to the present setup. It marks a change in my thinking about what tools to keep around, and what is in danger of not keeping up to date. Nothing worse then that plugin you relied on five years ago, and now is eol'd.

Cubase users can take comfort in the fact that Yamaha owns it and they are MI (music intruments) centric.

Apple are a bit busy building a car at the moment. 

Cubase/PC is a smart combi for future proofing, and the upgrade cost of plugins is far less then on Mac. I have to look for a replacement to my still functional SSL madixtreme card that looks eol'd now that Sierra is the end.

And to be honest, alot of the code in LPX is old, which is why it might be running so fast.


----------



## Vik (Dec 18, 2016)

Here's a list from another forum, showing some stuff Cubase has that Logic doesn't have. Some of them may be quite minor, but several of them are really major for me. I've marked the functions I find the most important with a "•" ...Should I move over to Cubase, those would be the main reasons. 



Track versions
Multiple CC lanes in the editors
(Multiple) "inline" CC lanes in Arrange regions as well
Piano Roll in each Arrange region
Always non-destructive audio editing
VST Note Expression
•Expression Maps (but no dedicated articulation ID solution??)
Better time stretching algo (Elastique)
•Note names in each of the roll events
•ASIO Direct Monitoring
A “Control Room” feature
•Development Speed
Audio to MIDI which translates pitch bends /vibrato/volume
Custom "tags" for all samples, loops, synth & effects presets 
Project Logical editor 
•Steinberg has a large staff working on a “Cubase friendly” score app
Audio Pool
Allows use of key commands to trigger Logical Editor presets
Fast scaling/fading of velocities and CCs. 
•Better Freeze (unloads samples, partial freeze)
Works better with large templates
Mouse based crossfades across several tracks is possible
More buses
•Everything related to articulations/CCs/Kontakt/ VI automation
Gain handle on each audio region in Arrange
Pans on sends
Choice of panners built into the mixer
Chord track/Assistant
"Harmony"
Can disarm tracks from record mode without pressing stop
Uncluttered automation view (nodes are only shown when you need them)
Can import MusicXML
“CC automation setup”
Auto Track Colour mode
Customisable UI colours
Tool modifiers are user assignable
Can switch/load/save preference files from the pref. area
A lot more key commands
Variaudio can automatically create harmonies for you. With Variaudio you can also edit multiple vocal tracks simultaneously in the same window.
Drag a clip (w/ Shift) from the Media Bay onto a clip into Arrange: Cubase will ask you if you want to replace just that clip or all instances of that clip.
Inter-link functionality between Cubase and Wavelab
Global preset banks for external MIDI gear


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 18, 2016)

The point, I believe that is being missed, is that Cubase runs considerably better on Windows than on a Mac. This is pretty well documented.
Personally, I could care less. They all do the same thing, more or less. It is more about the person using them. I tell my students at school that they are just tools. A red hammer, blue hammer, black hammer all do the same job. I think the same thing was said earlier in this thread by a composer with a lot of experience.


----------



## khollister (Dec 18, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> The point, I believe that is being missed, is that Cubase runs considerably better on Windows than on a Mac. This is pretty well documented.



I'm not as convinced of that as I once was. I tried CB9 on my 5.1 Mac Pro hex (Sierra) and on my i7-4930 slave (Win 10) - RME UCX via USB in both cases. I didn't see any great differences in casual use and I liked a few things about the GUI better on the Mac. In particular, the real time ASIO load while playing demanding patches in Kontakt wasn't any lower on the PC, which was rather surprising since A) it was a PC and B) the Ivy Bridge i7-4930k, while similar in clock speed to the W3680 in the MP, is a couple generations newer. I was expecting something else based on everything I had read over the years.

I'm new to Cubase, so I can't speak to anything before 8.5 (just ran it for a couple weeks before the v9 update).


----------



## Vik (Dec 18, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> The point, I believe that is being missed, is that Cubase runs considerably better on Windows than on a Mac.


Well, if that still is true (and I've heard people say that it isn't), that would be the easiest problem to solve: Just buy a PC. The Mac Pro hasn't been updated for three years, and there are no Mac laptops with 32 gb RAM, so it wouldn't only be a problem solved, it would be three (getting Cubase, saving money, and getting a fast new computer).


----------



## dgburns (Dec 18, 2016)

Vik said:


> Here's a list from another forum, showing some stuff Cubase has that Logic doesn't have. Some of them may be quite minor, but several of them are really major for me. I've marked the functions I find the most important with a "•" ...Should I move over to Cubase, those would be the main reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gosh, I don't want to disagree with this list, but quite a few of the observations are not what I experienced in my travels. I find myself posting more because I'm so conflicted about this LPX versus Cubase at the moment. To go Cubase for me means really thinking hard about going Win10. While I could go on with Mac, it's the constant replacing of gear and supporting products (you just forget how many interconnected apps are related to your setup, and how they all live in harmony), The whole point of the switch for me would be to gain from getting away from Mac.

Some things I might disagree with your list-
- Track versions can easily be accomplished by simply duplicating the arrange track in LPX. I do this so often it's second nature. Any object can populate any number of arrange tracks. Top track takes playback, and lower tracks after that. 

- Transform editor in LPX is their equivalent to Logical editor. LPX imho far more efficient at large templates on mac, I say this after comparing my larger templates in both, took a few days to build and compare. 

- Want your own colours, there's a whole community creating color mods.(yes it should be built in to the app)

So far, LPX has not stopped me making music with an older mac with far more efficiency then I could with Cubase. In my case, score with tight deadlines where I need speed and a finished product as I work.


----------



## Vik (Dec 18, 2016)

dgburns said:


> - Track versions can easily be accomplished by simply duplicating the arrange track in LPX.



...wondering what you mean: by using take folders? Multiple tracks beneath each other? Track Stacks?






> LPX has not stopped me making music with an older mac with far more efficiency then I could with Cubase.


With all due respect - I don't think threads like these actually are about things being either so bad that one cannot make music. It's about whether tools matter or not (I insist that they do), and about which DAW that suits the needs/wishes each of us have. I've tried Cubase a few times, and while I'm still on Logic, I found quite a few things that was much easier in Cubase.
You got me curious: In which ways did you find Logic far more efficient?


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 18, 2016)

Via your list is totally outdated, 90% of this list is able to achieve in logic and some works even better...
The biggest difference between Cubase and Logic is efficiency on mac of course.


----------



## Vik (Dec 18, 2016)

luke_7 said:


> Via your list is totally outdated, 90% of this list is able to achieve in logic and some works even better...


 I know only one thing from that which is outdated. And I'm sure they're working on something, it's just that with the very modest focus the Logic product designers have on notation, articulation control, better CC automation workflow and composition in general, it will take a decade before all the things on that list is on par with Cubase in those areas - and meanwhile, Steinberg has probably full integration between Dorico and Cubase. 
Out of sheer curiosity: Which are the 10% which you think _are_ valid on that list? And which things to you think are better in Logic?


----------



## dgburns (Dec 18, 2016)

Vik said:


> ...wondering what you mean: by using take folders? Multiple tracks beneath each other? Track Stacks?



Yeah, just multiple tracks beneath each other. I use a shortcut, command-return ?? it's just 2nd nature to me now, and topmost track takes playback, with audio, there's a crossfade, so you can comp this way too. I use this alot if adding cc's too if I'm not ready to commit and merge into one mdi region. I use this as well to duplicate the comps so I can leave the topmost track with all the comp takes in it and copy it down to another track (same object) and flatten. It's all about being able to go back in case you need to.

Ha ha, two Logic guys talking about the virtures of Cubase


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 18, 2016)

Vik said:


> Well, if that still is true (and I've heard people say that it isn't), that would be the easiest problem to solve: Just buy a PC. The Mac Pro hasn't been updated for three years, and there are no Mac laptops with 32 gb RAM, so it wouldn't only be a problem solved, it would be three (getting Cubase, saving money, and getting a fast new computer).



1. Ya know, some people just do not want to use Windows.
2. Logic X does not crash, for me.
3. There are threads everywhere about crashes with Cubase, old and new.
4. If I were on Windows, I would use cubase.


----------



## Vik (Dec 18, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> 1. Ya know, some people just do not want to use Windows.


I know what you mean. I used Logic since it looked like this...






...and I don't I've even touched a PC. I don't *want* to use a Windows PC. I want to use Mac, and to use a DAW with strong focus on the areas I've mentioned above. I also need a new Mac pretty soon, but as I said - it's not a good time to buy a Mac Pro or a MacBook Pro now (for some of us).
If I'll make a change, it's probably not to go PC; but buy Cubase and Dorico for Mac.


----------



## ZeroZero (Dec 18, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> A red hammer, blue hammer, black hammer all do the same job.


The black hammer may be bigger than the blue, the red smaller hammer might be better for fine work. They are not all the same unless they are the same, Logic, Protools and Cubase are different - logically speaking.
Z


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 18, 2016)

ZeroZero said:


> The black hammer may be bigger than the blue, the red smaller hammer might be better for fine work. They are not all the same unless they are the same, Logic, Protools and Cubase are different - logically speaking.
> Z



My music will sound the same with Logic, Pro tools, or Cubase. My point again, is (to me) its about the composer behind the tools. I am only saying this to try and help people, not argue. I have far to many composition students getting hung up in the tech and specs and not the music. This is just my opinion. I'm not a commercial musician, so my views will surely be different from some. I'm just trying to share. I've been composing computer music since about 1982. It doesn't make me special, it just means I've seen a bunch of stuff over the years.

Peace to all


----------



## Vik (Dec 19, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> My music will sound the same with Logic, Pro tools, or Cubase.


From a sound (engineer) perspective, I'm sure you are right, or at least 99% correct.

But will the music end up the same - if you use your DAW for composing as well? 

I don't know if we agree or disagree, and none of us are here to argue, but I think my _perspective_ is different than yours. I agree that it is "about the composer". But I'll go further than that, and say that it's about the composing process. Inspiration vs perspiration. That process can change from one day to another. But can our software influence this process; influence wether we end up in a good "flow" or not? (sorry if this sounds newage'y, but I think flow is an important word in this context.

I also started out with music/computers in the 80s, and even had to learn the art of writing software reviews - since I needed some extra income. For a while, I ended up reviewing others reviews as well. They had to be not based on likes/dislikes or what we "felt", but on reality. 

And again and again (and I still experience this): some products work much better than others in terms of a) how productive I become when using them, and b) how "good" the results are.

So I started to look for what it was that made things flow well using product A but not so well using product B. At the same time I was reading a lot about psychology (I planned at some point to become a psychologist), and left brain vs right brain activity was a fascinating topic. Merging these topics, my conclusion was that some software makes you think more. And when the left brain hemisphere (for right handed people) take over, emotions / inspiration / aesthetics etc gets less focus; or at least, we perceive it as less such activity. In that left brain mode, we are better at understanding software, troubleshoot, identify problems, read and understand manuals and so on. Most likely, if we really are in "left brain mode", we make music which may have less "feeling", and at the same time we are a lot more OK with having to learn new functions, accept a workflow which often need 4 steps instead of one etc. 
But the ideal isn't to be totally right brain based either. It's about balance. 

Next: it's about _how_ we compose; about what _kind_ of music we make. Orchestral music, with lots of instruments, articulations etc is the most complex task we can expose ourselves to as composers. Even with a good DAW and good sound libraries, one needs to stay focused and relate to all the details we actually have to deal with when mocking up a symphony orchestra. Even Mahler and Bach had to do that. But they didn't have to deal with [insert any/all the important, technical topics we discuss here or VI-C]. 

After a long break from even thinking about orchestral samples, I found myself struggling a lot with finding a good workflow for Spitfire Mural and Logic Pro. I could list a number of things both in Logic and Mural which makes it cumbersome to get a really good workflow, but believe I have done that in other threads. Since I don't want to get too much into left brain mode (this has already happened too many times), what I really want are tools which requires as little reading/googling/troubleshooting as possible, and which needs as fews and abvious steps as possibe to get things I want to do done.

Btw, I also have many students, and I keep telling them the same thing: keep focused on the actual music.

But what if the libraries of DAW we use too often makes us start focusing _something else_? 

Starting to use Berlin Strings instead of Mural, btw, solved some of these too-much-left-brain situations. (This was before Spitfire released their more "adaptive" legatos. 

But the biggest surprise was that after some hours with a Cubase demo, I found that several things I had spent many months with in Logic, trying to find an intuitive workflow, was done quite easily in Cubase - after a few hours.

I almost switched to Cubase then, but before the demo period was over, I found a number of things Cubase were missing as well (which I had in Logic). But I'm now closer to getting Cubase and Dorico than ever (even if Dorico as far from being in a ready-to-go mode).

I'm convinced that the team behind Logic has a rather extreme lack of interest in notation, in the classical composing process in general, in proper articulation control, and in a good CC automation workflow. These are the four topics that interest me. And I don't blame them, maybe there simply aren't any/enough people in the group which designs Logic that have any personal interest in any of these topics. And maybe the ratio between market share focus vs music focus is different between Apple and Yamaha. But I think, for the sake of good music and musical diversity, Apple changes that ASAP. 


Oooops... too long post! All I meant to write was that it's not only about the composer, it's about the composing process. Sorry.


----------



## ZeroZero (Dec 19, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> My music will sound the same with Logic, Pro tools, or Cubase. My point again, is (to me) its about the composer behind the tools. I am only saying this to try and help people, not argue. I have far to many composition students getting hung up in the tech and specs and not the music. This is just my opinion. I'm not a commercial musician, so my views will surely be different from some. I'm just trying to share. I've been composing computer music since about 1982. It doesn't make me special, it just means I've seen a bunch of stuff over the years.
> 
> Peace to all





Peace too.
Just discussing this, like "grown ups" (with a child within) . Yes its definitely true that composition students get hung up in the tech. Truly this is a considerable barrier, very different from Mozart days.
Though you can get writing straight way, it's like your walking a tight rope blind, you know there _is_ more, but you don't know _where_ it is. All of the DAWS present these hurdles.

Speaking as a musician (not an engineer - that comes hard to me) the very first question I asked about Cubase in 93, was where is the legato? I was told there was none!
The whole experience of learning a DAW seems to me hell bent on taking you away from that gut emotion you can get right out of the box with a real instrument. I agree that a learner can start on any DAW, but I diverge and say they _are_ different tools - that's all. It's an observation.

Aside:
After focussing on piano for about 8-10 years, I am back on the DAW, I just spent three months or so rebuilding my system from Mobo to Daw templates and libraries. I have buried my head in tutorials and the net for 6-12 hours a day in tutorials, tracking down those little misconceptions, learning every corner of the tech.

Even listening to every sound in your library _once_, can take several weeks - I know because I did it, when creating my template.
Although I can use all my libraries, that's not the same as saying you can get the best from them, and no musician likes to feel they did an average job. It's just not in our DNA.
What I am doing at present (after re-learning Cubase again), is learning my tools _thoroughly_ - finding out what is really there - _all_ of it. Omnisphere alone took many weeks, and would repay a year of learning. Orchestral sample libraries are less deep, but they still repay a detailed knowledge. It's my second time round on this path, but still it can feel a little daunting - but very worthwhile.
I have enough piano and other instrument experience to know the music is there inside me, and how to get it out on a real instrument. I still can't do this well in the virtual world. I do have fussy ears, sure, I can paste together bits and pieces, even make a song, but this is not sufficient. Here.

Next step for me after these technical months is some short compositions. Test pieces, work my system into my muscle memory.

I think the best have all of this - a full deep knowledge and muscle memory.

Anyway - that is my modus operandi

Z

Z


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 19, 2016)

ZeroZero said:


> Even listening to every sound in your library _once_, can take several weeks - I know because I did it, when creating my template.
> Although I can use all my libraries, that's not the same as saying you can get the best from them, and no musician likes to feel they did an average job. It's just not in our DNA.



Yes, you are correct! I seem to find new things in my libraries every day. One string or brass template will sound wonderful on one piece and sound like crap on another. And, we as musicians, not only don't want to sound average, most of us would like to sound original. I hope.


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 19, 2016)

Vik said:


> I don't know if we agree or disagree, and none of us are here to argue, but I think my _perspective_ is different than yours. I agree that it is "about the composer". But I'll go further than that, and say that it's about the composing process. Inspiration vs perspiration. That process can change from one day to another. But can our software influence this process; influence wether we end up in a good "flow" or not? (sorry if this sounds newage'y, but I think flow is an important word in this context.


Hi, I think we pretty much agree. The tools can get in the way sometimes. I usually like to sketch my ideas out on piano, record and save them, then come back to them later. I don't like composing with my orchestral templates loaded, it can be too distracting. Also, I came up as a Jazz musician and didn't even begin college until I was 29. Improvisation is in my blood. This caused a few heated debates in school. lol So, I'm sure my compositional process differs from many here. And "newage'y" is ok with me. I am a big believer in going with the first "spark" idea of inspiration. It always seems to turn out best for me.
Thank you for your input! Its great to hear other viewpoints.
One other thing, can you elaborate on what processes were quicker/easier in Cubase, as opposed to Logic? I'm still intrigued with trying Cubase again.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 19, 2016)

All you have to do is look at the list of successful composers who use each, Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer, etc. to know that while each has some theoretical advantages over the others, good work, and bad work, can be done in each.

The best DAW is the one you are most skilled with. Is is ALWAYS "the guy more than the gear."


----------



## Vik (Dec 19, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> The best DAW is the one you are most skilled with.



Nevertheless, this is about which DAW we want to become skilled in... kind of. 

Is is always the guy more than the gear, but that has never been the topic. :-P 


fritzmartinbass, I'm no Cubase expert at all (haven't even bought it yet!), but....

Expression maps are faster in Cubase than in Logic because Logic doesn't have any.
It helped having multiple labels of CC automation happening at the same time.
Being able to freeze a track and automatically unload samples (and reload them again later) is better in Cubase, because Logic doesn't have this.
Global preset banks for external MIDI gear would have been a godsend if I still used my old hardware stuff.

The time I spent in Logic trying to set up a user friendly, good flow for automating CCs in Logic simply wasn't needed in Cubase. In Logic I tried several solutions, including automatic set up of Smart Controls (which aren't really smart) for Kontakt instruments, manual assignment of Smart Controls (which certainly isn't smart either, for a number of reasons). 
I found that that the easiest solution was not to use Logic's smart controls, and always use Region automation, not track automation, but then your parameters only come up as eg "Ctrl 3" or "General 1"; it doesn't say "Vibrato". You can teach Logic's "Smart Controls" various things, but in order to set things up, and get simple names for what you automate in the relevant windows, one needs to deal with changing parameters in several windows and so on. And after one has manually assigned vibrato to Host automation #044 in Kontakt, Logic still doesn't show "Vibrato" in the automation slot in the track it says Kontakt 5 (unless you make your track very wide). And while the assigned parameter actually pops up in the Kontakt submenu (automation parameter slot) when you click on it, you need to scroll past 500+ empty parameters (called #000, #001 etc) before you find it. It took me some time before I even tried to scroll so far down that list. The while thing is implemented in an unbelievably counterintuitive way. 








When I tried the same things in Cubase (and maybe I was lucky), things just worked after relatively short time. Today, 2-3 years later, things are still cumbersome/counterintuitive in Logic - for the kind of stuff I talk about. For loop/synth based music, probably not. 
Sorry for not being as detailed about how Cubase is good as I am about how Logic isn't (in these areas) - all I know was that it was easy to achieve what I wanted in the limited time I had with it. I know Cubase users want improvements in these areas (eg expression maps etc), but I don't know exactly what they miss.


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 19, 2016)

Precisely !




Ashermusic said:


> All you have to do is look at the list of successful composers who use each, Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer, etc. to know that while each has some theoretical advantages over the others, good work, and bad work, can be done in each.
> 
> The best DAW is the one you are most skilled with. Is is ALWAYS "the guy more than the gear."


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 19, 2016)

Guy Rowland said:


> Me too. Expression Maps was one of the big reasons I jumped from Sonar. And I tried with them, I really tried. Then I gave up. Then after some time and much badgering, I tried again. I really really really tried again. And they never once stopped annoying the crap out of me. So I gave up again.


 
I gave up either.


----------



## molemac (Dec 20, 2016)

luke_7 said:


> I gave up either.


I have been on logic since emagic days ie since the eighties and am trialing cubase now because I read somewhere it sounded better ( Thanks Hans) obviously rubbish but I do think it looks better and the editor is much better.
Its not too big a change even at my age, once you get your own key commands in.
However what is really annoying and will surprise most cubasers is that expression maps is more limited in cubase than logic.
Using Artzid in logic is better because not only can you have the same articulations on different midi channels on one track ie flute 1 midi 1 leg , stacc etc flute 2 midi2 , leg,stac etc and so on but you can also record the different articulations on one track at the same time. ie on your flute track you can have flute 1 playing legato and flute 2 staccato at the same time. This is because each note has a seperate id which tells logic which articulation and midi channel it is like cubase but in cubase you can only have either leg or stacc on 1 midi channel only at the same time. Yes you can have leg on midi 1 and stacc on midi 2 but not duplicates on different midi channels.
In logic I would also use this for Brass for instance where I have one track for horns say and can switch from solo horn all articulations or , 2 horns or 6 all on one track and play all at the same time if need be. All articulations triggered by touchosc and I just press a midi button labeled 1 horn , 2, 6 etc...
As far as I have worked out this can't be done in cubase. Anyway I will stick with cubase and just use extra midi tracks for the timebeing.


----------



## IFM (Dec 20, 2016)

Take some time and watch the Creative Cribs series. Both LPX and Cubase make an appearance multiple times and everyone loves their workflow. I use both and really they are hardly different anymore. Sure there are some gives and takes to the workflow but CPU wise each now can get the job done. Sometimes Cubase wins, sometimes LPX does.

Some people will hate me for this but I like the channel strip in Cubase. I did a project la few months ago with a singer and I needed to warm her voice a little. I didn't need any additional plugins to achieve the necessary result as the Cubase channel strip did the job. When I worked with her again and used LPX I went with iZotope plugins to to the trick. Just a little observations there.

The point is both jet the job done...I just do always have the soft spot for Cubase because I've had it off and on since version 1.0 (Cubase Score).


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 20, 2016)

Thanks everybody for input. I think IFM is correct. It seems to me it is a personal preference of workflow. I can't see shelling out the money for Cubase, having a dongle, and spending all that time to change right now. If I were going back to Windows, I would.

Important items for me:

Expression Maps - Cubase
Artzid - Logic

Freeze Tracks - Cubase 
Freeze Tracks - Logic

Saving Channel strips - Logic
Saving Channel Strips - Cubase (I think)

Midi Editing Cubase - Great
Midi Editing Logic - Great (a few annoying bugs though)

Running both would be ideal, but time consuming.


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 20, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> All you have to do is look at the list of successful composers who use each, Cubase, Logic, Digital Performer, etc."


 
That would be interesting to know logic successful composers, can You share some names ?


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 20, 2016)

luke_7 said:


> That would be interesting to know logic successful composers, can You share some names ?




Allan Silvestri, Jeff Beal, Sean Callery, David Newman, just for starters.


----------



## URL (Dec 20, 2016)

...and John Powell


----------



## Parsifal666 (Dec 20, 2016)

Cubase's automation gets me hysterically frustrated at times...I've never been happy with that set up. But it's been the only DAW for me. I love the blocks, the overall look, the relatively new rendering is AWESOME imo.

But, keep in mind the only other I've tried is Cakewalk/Sonar, and I hated that.


----------



## Musicam (Dec 20, 2016)

FL STUDIO is a great option, free updates and amazing!


----------



## fritzmartinbass (Dec 20, 2016)

DP - Goldenthal, Giacchino, Elfman, Shore, Marianelli, Desplat.
Nick Pheonix - maybe Logic


----------



## Vik (Dec 20, 2016)

molemac said:


> This is because each note has a seperate id which tells logic which articulation and midi channel it is, like cubase - but in cubase you can only have either leg or stacc on 1 midi channel only at the same time.


I agree that Articulation IDs in principle and potentially is a better idea - the drawback is that Logic has had Articulation IDs for years but the concept still hasn't matured inside Logic. ArtzID may be the best workaround (kudos to Ski who took the time to develop it!), but with hundreds of projects and hundreds of Kontakt Instruments, there will be quite a bit of extra work to get this stuff into the Logic projects.

This is not to discourage people from buying it - I'm just commenting what you wrote ("Using Artzid in logic is better"). Ski has put a lot of time into developing what he has... I think Apple should give him a generous offer about being a tester/
counsellor, or developer (if possible) for a 100% built in articulation switching solution inside Logic itself.

It would be even better if Apple and Steinberg would get together and create an Articulation ID solution which worked across all systems.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 20, 2016)

fritzmartinbass said:


> DP - Goldenthal, Giacchino, Elfman, Shore, Marianelli, Desplat.
> Nick Pheonix - maybe Logic



Nick Phoenix does indeed use Logic while TJ uses Cubase.


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 20, 2016)

Oh NO this fantastic forum is the best way to procrastination...
logic users

John Powell,
Allan Silvestri,
David Newman,
Klaus Badelt,
Henry Jackman,
Clint Mansel,
Daniel Pemberton,
Patrick Doyle,
Heitro Pereira,
Geoff Zanelli,
David Arnold,
Michael Danna,
Bill Brown,
Mark Isham, 
A.R.Rahman,
Rob Simonsen,
Charlie Clouser,
Atli Orvarsonn,
Jeff Rona,
Daniel Licht,
Pedro Bromfman,
Michael Brook,
Blake Nelly,
Nathaniel Mechaly,
Michael Price,
John Lunn,
Jeff Beal,
Sean Callery,
Nick Phoenix,
Maarten Spruijt,
Mac Quayle,
Andy Gray,
Sheridan Tongue,
Christian Henson,
Paul Thomson,
...


----------



## Vin (Dec 20, 2016)

http://vi-control.net/community/thr...nd-the-who-uses-what-list.35147/#post-3747805 

+ Jóhann Jóhannsson - Cubase.


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 20, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> Heitor



haha sorry


----------



## stonzthro (Dec 20, 2016)

I've used Logic for decades now, and I've promised myself I'd give them at least one more cycle before I jump ship. I like so much about it, but fundamentally, it assumes you do not use a very large template and I've grown tired of seeing other developers deal with this problem while LPX continues to expect me to use singular approach. Why can't I hide/reveal lots of track groups in a simple way? View filters seems like a very simple thing to implement. I use logic's to its fullest extent, and find it very limiting (more than 9 please - I do more than just mix audio!). I should be able to load up whatever I want, and just park it on my slaves, and then use view filters for each project. It doesn't cost me anything to have all my samples loaded up. This has frustrated me for years! There is a workaround though - I can put something in the first measure of each track I want to use, and then hide the rest, but again, this is a work around and is limiting.

On the articulation front, SkiSwitcher/ArtZiD is fantastic, but it cannot translate to notational articulations, which Cubase can. Peter figured out that the backend was already there, but why did they stop developing it? If you look into some of the EXS instruments, you can see there are other articulations, but no documentation to access them - it really looks like they started and then got sidetracked, and have just left it undone. 

These seem like such basic concepts that they should have been implemented 3-5 years ago. Possibly I chose the wrong horse back in the 90s, but I'd like to see LPX make some real changes - here's hoping for some useful updates in January (only guessing, but NAMM seems to be the magic time). If not, I guess I'll dust off the old Cubase install and give it a whirl...


----------



## Vik (Dec 20, 2016)

stonzthro said:


> View filters seems like a very simple thing to implement.


Logic has a Hide function for tracks, but the "H"-button is hidden until you manually hide your first track (in another way than pressing "H", of course).


And then there's "track folders" (they're actually called "Track Stacks") which lets you hide/show groups of tracks in another way, and more. 

But maybe you are thinking of something else?


----------



## Vik (Dec 20, 2016)

There's also a Group function, with a special Hide subfunction:



Hide Track (H) checkbox: When selected, selecting the Hide Track button of a grouped track selects the Hide Track buttons of all tracks in the group.


----------



## stonzthro (Dec 20, 2016)

Vik said:


> Logic has a Hide function for tracks, but the "H"-button is hidden until you manually hide your first track (in another way than pressing "H", of course).
> 
> 
> And then there's "track folders" (they're actually called "Track Stacks") which lets you hide/show groups of tracks in another way, and more.
> ...



yes, and you can set groups to 'hide' and control up to 9 with different key strokes - I'd like it if LPX had much deeper view filter options. If I have a huge template it would be a real pain to scroll down then entire setup to find which tracks I don't want. I'd prefer to not have to do that every time i open a template.


----------



## IFM (Dec 20, 2016)

I admit the different mixer views incan set in Cubase is pretty nice.


----------



## Vik (Dec 20, 2016)

stonzthro said:


> yes, and you can set groups to 'hide' and control up to 9 with different key strokes - I'd like it if LPX had much deeper view filter options. If I have a huge template it would be a real pain to scroll down then entire setup to find which tracks I don't want. I'd prefer to not have to do that every time i open a template.


Ah, I see what you mean. You want more key commands (how many?), because you use the Group hide key commands.


stonzthro said:


> much deeper view filter options


 what other changes do you miss specifically?


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 20, 2016)

Is there any way to contact apple logic team and give them our thoughts ?


----------



## Vik (Dec 20, 2016)

luke_7 said:


> Is there any way to contact apple logic team and give them our thoughts ?


http://www.apple.com/feedback/logic-pro.html


----------



## luke_7 (Dec 20, 2016)

Vik said:


> http://www.apple.com/feedback/logic-pro.html


 Thanks Vik. 
Is it gonna be rhetorical question if i will ask did someone tried it with success ?


----------



## Vik (Dec 20, 2016)

Yes. (Maybe we should continue the Logic stuff in a thread which isn't about Cubase?)


----------



## molemac (Dec 21, 2016)

Vik said:


> I know what you mean. I used Logic since it looked like this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Seeing that Notator pic has made me reminisce. I once turned up for my first movie/orchestral session with my Atari under my arm with Notator Logic. The programmers from the previous night's session for Gerry Goldsmith, were breaking down their 6 Powermac Macintosh computers. My Atari looked very lonely by comparison on the big desk but there it was ready with the whole score on multiple floppy discs and yes 1 whole meg of Ram.






Although I also had a 70 piece orchestra, I had to use a Roland JV1080 digital synth module to replace the trumpets that the director taceted ( his first film too ). Just goes to show how spoilt we are today , with all the DAWs and sample libraries in the world , it's still the best thing I ever did. And recording was like magic because the demos in those days were nothing like the real thing.


----------



## Ashermusic (Dec 21, 2016)

I scored "Zorro" with Atari Notator for MIDI with several E3's and a Memorymoog and a 24 piece orchestra, with the orchestra parts and scores parts prepared with Notator.


----------



## Wes Antczak (Dec 21, 2016)

Ashermusic said:


> I scored "Zorro" with Atari Notator for MIDI with several E3's and a Memorymoog and a 24 piece orchestra, with the orchestra parts and scores parts prepared with Notator.



The ST was also my first music computer. I had Steinberg on there even before it became Cubase... I think it was called something something "24". The good thing about the ST was that in all the time I had it, it only ever crashed one time. And I knew the programs inside and out so that I was very productive on it. I could do things without even pausing to think about it. 

Of course, in those days computers were not able to record audio... it was one of those things that we talked about as probably "some day". You would need to have enough hardware instruments and effects to cover everything live and the result went straight to DAT or PCM.


----------



## molemac (Dec 21, 2016)

Wes Antczak said:


> The ST was also my first music computer. I had Steinberg on there even before it became Cubase... I think it was called something something "24". The good thing about the ST was that in all the time I had it, it only ever crashed one time. And I knew the programs inside and out so that I was very productive on it. I could do things without even pausing to think about it.
> 
> Of course, in those days computers were not able to record audio... it was one of those things that we talked about as probably "some day". You would need to have enough hardware instruments and effects to cover everything live and the result went straight to DAT or PCM.


and it was tighter than a duck's a.... 

And I knew the programs inside and out so that I was very productive on it. I could do things without even pausing to think about it. 

too true , now we spending days on end worrying about setting up a goddam template rather than writing music.


----------



## IFM (Dec 21, 2016)

I had the 520ST for a while...don't remember what happened to it. Built
In MIDI was pretty cool though.


----------



## Gabriel Oliveira (Dec 21, 2016)

molemac said:


> now we spending days on end worrying about setting up a goddam template rather than writing music.



speak for yourself


----------



## molemac (Dec 21, 2016)

Gabriel Oliveira said:


> speak for yourself



Got me there haha


----------



## AdamAlake (Mar 2, 2017)

Rctec said:


> I've used Cubase forever now. Wouldn't change. I've never not been able to get things done, or figure out how to solve a problem - and that in itself can lead to new inspiration. Yes, over the years there have been crashes, missing functions, irate 8500-word emails, personal visits to Hamburg, arguments... exactly the way it should be, when Our livelihood depends on Their livelihood.
> They are working their Arses off. They have so many ideas and a way of implementing things that has to be efficient and safe. Yes, there will be bugs, yes the tempo editor needs a complete overhaul and actually influences my style of writing more than Chris Nolan does...but no programmer likes to read about some bug he missed after thoroughly testing. Programmers are people and get just as embarrassed as artists. In fact, I think the line between a programmer and an artist I'd say more often than not invisible...
> But VST3 is build for the future. New - not even dreamt off sound modules can take advantage of that technology.
> And Expression Maps. Come on! It might seem obvious, but it turned out to be quite a job...
> ...



I read somewhere that you have also used Ableton, how does it compare to Cubase in your mind?


----------

