# Best DAW for media composing



## Russell Anderson (Apr 4, 2022)

Hello all, I’m a longtime FL Studio user wanting to move.

I’ve narrowed my focus to Studio One and Cubase. Reaper I’ve considered, but for the time being want to steer clear of scripts and user libraries and just focus on putting notes on the page. I’ll take it into consideration in the future.

Here are my goals:

- Easy to navigate large templates
- Easy to adjust mixer routing to group tracks/busses/sends
- Easy to hide/unhide mixer/playlist tracks
- Able to quickly and fusslessly setup parallel and multiband processing using the mixer or stock bandsplitting/host plugins
- Easy to use articulation management (BRSO in FL Studio worked just fine for me)
- Ability to keybind MIDI channels (I.e. swap from ch. 1 to ch. 7 using either a controller or a computer keyboard)
- Easy workflow for scoring to picture (not sure if S1 tempo snapping has been adjusted to improve this or not)
- Easy to maneuver large chunks of music around during arranging to try stuff out
- Parameter linking would be welcome as well, or at least a very accessible macro that doesn’t require a keybind or fiddling around with multiple windows (Reaper can do this I know)
- Doesn’t have significant issues with plugins from multiple developers
- Ability to assign PDC delay values to a macro (to turn off PDC while recording, then back on afterward)
- Ability to load portions of a template into a new project?

Much of these questions are subjective, I’m sorry; I am hoping to generate some discussion about what users of either workstation like and dislike while working, but within the next 2 weeks I will be doing my best to demo both DAWs (already tried and REALLY enjoyed the first 45 minute surface scratching in S1) and learning as much as I can regarding the above bullet points and what it’s like recording or using the piano roll or other basic and constant tasks. But presently, I am very busy and I’d appreciate some feedback from regular users. Also if you happened to read this far the title is clickbait

Many thanks!


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Apr 4, 2022)

They both have free demos - have you tried them? "Easy to..." is very subjective. What might be easy to me may be unnecessarily complicated or difficult to you.

Both DAWs can do your list - but when it comes to large templates and scoring to picture, Cubase is still ahead of S1.


----------



## KEM (Apr 4, 2022)

Cubase


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 4, 2022)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> They both have free demos - have you tried them? "Easy to..." is very subjective. What might be easy to me may be unnecessarily complicated or difficult to you.
> 
> Both DAWs can do your list - but when it comes to large templates and scoring to picture, Cubase is still ahead of S1.


Indeed. I addressed the demoing in the OP, I will be within the next 2 weeks, but I am super busy right now, and I’m hoping to hear some features of each that I might not discover very quickly that some users absolutely love or hate about one or the other. I appreciate your replies, I was actually thinking of just saying “screw it” and going with S1 for the developer activity, but the mixer views and scoring to picture have probably saved and even elevated Cubase for me. I’ll be demoing S1 and Cubase side by side and getting a feel for how each of them flows. 

I should have probably just made this post “What’s the best DAW?” and walked away, because for some reason it’s always the clueless generalizing posts that actually generate discussion, lol… I think it’s something to do with that law of the internet that states that you’re more likely to get the correct answer to a question by posting the wrong answer than by asking a question.


----------



## sundrowned (Apr 4, 2022)

Don't really have anything specific. I mainly use S1 but have cubase too. Generally S1 has better workflow (things are quick to do, navigation is more intuitive, less menu diving, drag and drop etc) but cubase has more functionality. I enjoy and get annoyed by both generally for those reasons. 

Like you say, demo them.


----------



## dylanmixer (Apr 4, 2022)

A lot to unpack here, but my take - Studio One will be easier to use right off the bat. Cubase will take some time to learn all of the deep integrations and things it is capable of. However. Speed after learning Cubase> speed of Studio One imo. The learning curve is more difficult and longer, but once you have it down the potential workflow speed is still unparalleled.


----------



## José Herring (Apr 4, 2022)

I use Cubase and Studio One. Studio One is Cubase but a lot more stable, less bloated, and more fun. But.....Cubase has more advanced features and with Cubase12 it's got some cool stuff that I quickly learned to like which is saying a lot because I was about'a bail after I switched to C11 last year. But it turns out C11 was like those awkward tweener years where it wasn't quite C12 yet but it defintely wasn't the previous iterations I had before which was C9.5. So I couldn't get use to it. C12 brought out the work flow and features that C11 was only hinting at which is good.

Studio One was programmed by guys that use to work for Steinberg I believe, I found there to be absolutely no learning curve. Even a lot of the key commands are the same.

If you didn't need to more fancy stuff then Studio One is killer for sure. If you're looking at working with large templates and need the extras, Cubase12 is solid and the built in FX are actually getting really good now. The more complex ones though add considerable latency but it's good to have on the mix stage of things.


----------



## cedricm (Apr 4, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> Hello all, I’m a longtime FL Studio user wanting to move.
> 
> I’ve narrowed my focus to Studio One and Cubase. Reaper I’ve considered, but for the time being want to steer clear of scripts and user libraries and just focus on putting notes on the page. I’ll take it into consideration in the future.
> 
> ...



[Answer in progress]

With huge templates, Cubase still has an advantage over Studio One, but it's rapidly diminishing, especially since the latest Studio One update.

Articulation mamagement: Sound variations are a great Studio One feature:




Mix scenes are amazing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8D17SttUWg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c89u3P6ckNk

I really love the chord features too, and they keep improving every update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_3CMsyfWqo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QueA0-yK-uk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov6YTTRTQQw
https://youtu.be/fcoxHw_N2ag?t=75

It's very easy to move things around with the arranger.


So is the handling of buses and groups.

Hide/ unhide tracks: there's a full management system where you can choose individually which you see, select by type (audio, instruments, folders, ...), a text filter,
Show all, Show selected, Show soloed, Show with events (aka midi or audio part), show event under cursor.




You can event save it as mix scenes, choosing only visibility or more:






Not sure what you mean with parameter linking.
You can certainly do macros with Studio One. It does not reach Reaper's script sophistication, but you can do interesting macros:





Ability to load portion of a template in a project: yes, there's a very powerful Import Song Data feature:





Parallel processing: like most DAWs, add a bus or an FX Bus.
Alternative, also for multiband: use the Splitter.


The only thing that really bothers me with Studio One is that it's mono/stereo only, wherease Cubase goes to 5.1, and possibly Atmos sometimes this year.

Want it or not, Atmos Music looks like it's not a fad.
I've been praying for multichannel in Studio One for years, I hope it'll come sooner than later - but nothing has ever be promised by Presonus.

Video handling is ok in Studio One but better in Cubase.


From the handling / UI, it's really a question of taste, but I find it superior to Cubase or Reaper.


What's really great with Studio One is also the Blog and the YouTube channel, with lots of great videos regularly. I also highly recommend Marcus Huyskens channel (bonus point, he has used Pro Tools for years so he also has a series of Studio One for ProTools users).

Even if it takes time, it's really worth the hours to test both DAWs and find tutorials, since you'll probably use the chosen one for years afterwards.
For Studio One, you can get a Sphere subscription by the month, a great way to evaluate in depth.


----------



## KEM (Apr 4, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I use Cubase and Studio One. Studio One is Cubase but a lot more stable, less bloated, and more fun. But.....Cubase has more advanced features and with Cubase12 it's got some cool stuff that I quickly learned to like which is saying a lot because I was about'a bail after I switched to C11 last year. But it turns out C11 was like those awkward tweener years where it wasn't quite C12 yet but it defintely wasn't the previous iterations I had before which was C9.5. So I couldn't get use to it. C12 brought out the work flow and features that C11 was only hinting at which is good.
> 
> Studio One was programmed by guys that use to work for Steinberg I believe, I found there to be absolutely no learning curve. Even a lot of the key commands are the same.
> 
> If you didn't need to more fancy stuff then Studio One is killer for sure. If you're looking at working with large templates and need the extras, Cubase12 is solid and the built in FX are actually getting really good now. The more complex ones though add considerable latency but it's good to have on the mix stage of things.



Interesting, I always thought of Studio One to be the poor man’s Cubase


----------



## José Herring (Apr 4, 2022)

KEM said:


> Interesting, I always thought of Studio One to be the poor man’s Cubase


Studio One just is a bit more focused on 2 track music and getting it out to various steaming platforms, but it can also do some fairly serious music production on the 2 track level. I really like C12 though so the chances of me using Studio One over Cubase isn't going to happen. Though I was seriously considering it after I got C11.


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 4, 2022)

Cubase Pro is probably the most feature rich DAW out there, and that makes it more challenging to conquer than software with fewer features. Pretty much like one would expect from a more complicated machine vs. a simpler device. -- And the number of little annoyances* in software also tend to be somewhat proportional to the number of different things you can do. 

Most recently, Cubase 12 upped the ante a bit via going to 8 channel surround and 2 video tracks and a pretty cool way of custom configuring midi controllers for use with Cubase. The new "MIDI Remote" functionality isn't yet on feature parity with the already long available Generic Remote, but it's a lot easier to program a few knobs and buttons in plugins being controlled by one's own hardware, even older controllers (I like to buy aging and therefore less expensive midi controllers). And while it's still being developed, it's already quite cool for a number of use cases.

However, Cubase will end VST2 support over the next couple of years, so anyone really loving specific VST2 only plugins (mostly older and/or free plugins), will probably be quite stressed about that. 

* "little annoyances" a.k.a. "how could they possibly not fix that? - it's the worst thing ever! - I hate them!!!" (stomping feet in disgust and posting angry forum messages).


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 5, 2022)

so, anyway...




Nico5 said:


> Cubase Pro is probably the most feature rich DAW out there... pretty cool way of custom configuring midi controllers for use with Cubase. However, Cubase will end VST2 support over the next couple of years, so anyone really loving specific VST2 only plugins (mostly older and/or free plugins), will probably be quite stressed about that.


At least it's not so feature rich as Reaper, or a theoretical Meldaw lol. VST2 unfortunately I do have quite a few of which I'm pretty fond... We'll see what happens. The devs aren't all MIA, but some are. Precedence.


cedricm said:


> Not sure what you mean with parameter linking.
> Parallel processing: like most DAWs, add a bus or an FX Bus.
> Alternative, also for multiband: use the Splitter.
> Video handling is ok in Studio One but better in Cubase.
> For Studio One, you can get a Sphere subscription by the month, a great way to evaluate in depth.


The mix scenes idea is great, the arranger seems decent although I'm actually pretty happy with how FL Studio works for arrangements, so I'm curious to see how any of these standard "linear DAWs" handle it. The sketchpads in S1 seem like a nice analogue to FL's parallel arrangements, where you can have multiple iterations of a song in the same project in parallel, though sharing the mixer. I strongly prefer S1's mixer aside from the adjacent dry/wet knob FL Studio provides. Splitter is basically Patcher! Super convenient. Video and folders I'll need to check out pretty much first thing.


dylanmixer said:


> Speed after learning Cubase> speed of Studio One imo. The learning curve is more difficult and longer, but once you have it down the potential workflow speed is still unparalleled.


This is quite possible. The main workflow enhancements I've noticed in Studio One have for me been the splitter, the adding duplicate plugins across multiple tracks, and the Song > Project workflow which I admittedly don't understand yet. However, the slower parallel/multiband processing in Cubase could potentially be solved via a keybound macro for opening MetaPlugin or PatchWork. I checked out the Cubase piano roll on youtube at work today, and the available tools were just what I was looking for like in S1. Any kind of group modification of velocity was never fun in FL Studio, for percussion parts specifically.

Honestly seems like I'd have little to complain about either way, so far.


----------



## easyrider (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> Interesting, I always thought of Studio One to be the poor man’s Cubase


----------



## jmauz (Apr 5, 2022)

I like the Trax app in my Tesla...


----------



## samphony (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> Interesting, I always thought of Studio One to be the poor man’s Cubase


Thing is if you haven’t used a DAW in a tight pressure/ deadline moment with your custom workflow there is no chance to make correct statements. 

I’m not saying you’re wrong I’m just saying it is difficult to say which is the best DAW for whatever task without using it to its fullest capacities and learning its limitations. 

I use Cubase/Logic/Studio/Pro Tools and Live for different tasks and to my advantage. 

I also like to exercise and bend DAWs to my needs and put them to halt but never with synthetic benchmarks rather with real projects. 

My answer to such question will always be one or multiple questions. 
What would you like to achieve?
How would you like to work. 

And always dedicate time and commit writing a track in any trial version. 

Don’t be fooled by marketing!

What is the best food to stay healthy? 😉


----------



## myfeltgood (Apr 5, 2022)

sundrowned said:


> Don't really have anything specific. I mainly use S1 but have cubase too. Generally S1 has better workflow (things are quick to do, navigation is more intuitive, less menu diving, drag and drop etc) but cubase has more functionality. I enjoy and get annoyed by both generally for those reasons.
> 
> Like you say, demo them.


Definitely this. I loved working in Studio One but I need a lot of the functionality in Cubase. However, I feel like if the developers at Presonus really hunkered down, Studio One is one major update away from really surpassing Cubase.


----------



## Crowe (Apr 5, 2022)

Throwing in my opinion as a Cubase Pro user...

If Steinberg actually supported their software and didn't ignore breaking bugs it would get my full recommendation.

If Steinberg actually supporter their hardware and didn't ignore their drivers, firmware and compatibility, it would get my full recommendation.

I love and run my Cubase 9.5 with great pleasure. But I also have 10.5, which doesn't work on my machine with the Steinberg Interface I have.

I really, really love Cubase. I really, really hate Steinberg.

So, I can't help you. I've been assimilated. But it's not too late for you. Studio One is Rent-to-own on Splice. Just go test it. If it works for you, that can be your DAW. Cubase has a 30-day trial. If it works for you, that can be your DAW.

Just try it. Yes, Cubase pro is better featured, but I can't, in good conscience, recommend Cubase because I feel there's a good chance it just won't work and Steinberg support is *awful.*


----------



## gedlig (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> Interesting, I always thought of Studio One to be the poor man’s Cubase


That's cause you're a victim of major headline grabbing composers' influence 

There are problems in both of them, but I like S1 the most. And damn is Cubase ugly. Not as ugly as pro tools or ableton, but still.


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2022)

For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


----------



## cedricm (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


Do you apply the same logic to, say, monitors and server rooms?


----------



## Noeticus (Apr 5, 2022)

I love Presonus Studio One.


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2022)

cedricm said:


> Do you apply the same logic to, say, monitors and server rooms?



If my budget permitted it, absolutely!! I can afford a $500 daw, but $20,000 monitors, that’s a different story…


----------



## mscp (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


But because you use Mac, not PC, you can only be half as good since half of these composers use PCs.


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2022)

mscp said:


> But because you use Mac, not PC, you can only be half as good since half of these composers use PCs.



Well Ludwig is the greatest composer of all time and he uses Mac, so I’m on the right track don’t worry


----------



## mscp (Apr 5, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> Hello all, I’m a longtime FL Studio user wanting to move.
> 
> I’ve narrowed my focus to Studio One and Cubase. Reaper I’ve considered, but for the time being want to steer clear of scripts and user libraries and just focus on putting notes on the page. I’ll take it into consideration in the future.
> 
> ...


Very simple...test them all. See what clicks with you the fastest and most efficiently...not everybody thinks the same way.


----------



## TimCox (Apr 5, 2022)

Digital Performer is amazing and I've been using it for years so I wouldn't sleep on it.

That said, its been said over and over; the best DAW for composing is whatever you're fastest and most comfortable at


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Apr 5, 2022)

I would suggest you to wait for next major update of Studio One(Version 6) before making final decision. 

If PreSonus follows their unspoken schedule, it should be released at the end of May. But, it's not "official" information. You can actually check dates of their releases in Wikipedia and count it yourself.


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 5, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> At least it's not so feature rich as Reaper, or a theoretical Meldaw lol.


I would classify Reaper as maybe the most extensible, rather then the most feature rich. Although Ableton can probably also be extended far via Max.

As someone who has all the Melda stuff, I’m guessing that a theoretical MelDAW would probably have a really different, yet rather consistent GUI, and the smallest disk and CPU footprint. But the wait may be longer than for _Duke Nukem Forever _


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 5, 2022)

TimCox said:


> Digital Performer is amazing and I've been using it for years so I wouldn't sleep on it.
> 
> That said, its been said over and over; the best DAW for composing is whatever you're fastest and most comfortable at


I ran across someone yesterday talking about how it’s even better for scoring to picture/video games than Cubase, due to chunks. I suppose it’s worth a shot… I mean I’m waiting 20ish more days for Cubase to release their v12 trial anyway :/ but it may be one of those things where I am presently too amateur to appreciate it just yet, perhaps in a few months/years my orbit will terminate and I’ll dive into the chunks. We’ll see.



Faruh Al-Baghdadi said:


> I would suggest you to wait for next major update of Studio One(Version 6) before making final decision.





Crowe said:


> I can't, in good conscience, recommend Cubase because I feel there's a good chance it just won't work and Steinberg support is *awful.*





myfeltgood said:


> I feel like if the developers at Presonus really hunkered down, Studio One is one major update away from really surpassing Cubase.


Yeah, I feel it. Steinberg. But then also, Fender acquisition. 

I’m just going to use S1 for now until Cubase opens its trials back up, maybe try DP12… ultimately in 10 years one of these is probably still going to be good and I’ll be happy using whatever works.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


Yeah and all the A list composers like Zimmer have a 'team' that takes care of their computer maintenance, setup, and troubleshooting. By the time Hans sits down with Cubase, his IT team has it all tweaked in for him. Imagine you have a deadline in a couple of days to meet, and you've still got lots to do, and then your main CPU craps out, or a storage drive, etc. You're the one that will have to fix it.


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 5, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Yeah and all the A list composers like Zimmer have a 'team' that takes care of their computer maintenance, setup, and troubleshooting. By the time Hans sits down with Cubase, his IT team has it all tweaked in for him. Imagine you have a deadline in a couple of days to meet, and you've still got lots to do, and then your main CPU craps out, or a storage drive, etc. You're the one that will have to fix it.


That could happen with any DAW! But then I guess you’d hear back from support sooner than in a week with another company.

Studio One crashed a few times last night when I duplicated a few Kilohearts convolvers inside of Multipass in Phase Plant. Three times in a row; then for whatever reason, it worked properly. Oh, technology…


----------



## myfeltgood (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


These are good points.


----------



## greggybud (Apr 5, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> However, Cubase will end VST2 support over the next couple of years, so anyone really loving specific VST2 only plugins (mostly older and/or free plugins), will probably be quite stressed about that.


I wouldn't stress too much. There are solutions such as Blue Cat to run a VST2 wrapper. However that iirc, depends on VST2 going forward...not for example opening C12.xxx (when its only VST3) then opening an old project created with C11 or prior.

Really, at some point you have to say..."lets get on with this" because VST2 is beginning to hamper development. VST3 has been around for how many years?


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 5, 2022)

KEM said:


> For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


So loads of composers, and Misha Mansoor. 

I wonder what his metal 'template' looks like?

20 tracks of 7.1 mixed guitars?


----------



## KEM (Apr 5, 2022)

TonalDynamics said:


> So loads of composers, and Misha Mansoor.
> 
> I wonder what his metal 'template' looks like?
> 
> 20 tracks of 7.1 mixed guitars?


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 6, 2022)

Not your typical 'metalhead', I'll give you that!

But then, nothing about Periphery was ever 'typical' (I've listened to their work for a long time).

I've actually bought loads and loads of really amazing ampsim plugins from a company called NeuralDSP (every one in fact) for my own production needs, and Adam Getgood participated in one of the projects, he's become a producer these days as well.

What struck me hardest and heaviest though, is hearing them talk about how they would actually lose money touring at one point, to the extent that it just made 0 sense to keep doing it...

It makes me imagine a world in which musicians of this caliber can't even make their nut performing their craft, and then I wonder how much less time they'd be spending producing in a home studio if they could have gotten their due with performance and recording.

But alas, these are merely my musings... conversations for another day


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 6, 2022)

He did spend a solid minute or more talking and continuing to talk about an Italian man’s member… still a metal head 

Can one not download a Cubase trial until the new version is 30 days old? That’s what I read from Steinberg about the version 10 release… But I can’t even use a demo of version 11?

Do I seriously have to talk to their support and wait a week to probably just be turned down for a demo copy until 12 has matured? S t e i n b e r g ?


----------



## Monkey Man (Apr 6, 2022)

TimCox said:


> Digital Performer is amazing...


This!


----------



## Markrs (Apr 6, 2022)

Also consider buying on the 2nd hand market (knobcloud.com, KVR Buy and Sell forum and VI-C for sale forum) as both Cubase 12 and Studio One 5 are often sold quite cheap.


----------



## quickbrownf0x (Apr 6, 2022)

Markrs said:


> Also consider buying on the 2nd hand market (knobcloud.com, KVR Buy and Sell forum and VI-C for sale forum) as both Cubase 12 and Studio One 5 are often sold quite cheap.


Mark, what are you doing posting bargains on the interwebs this early? Go manage some stakeholders, damn it!


----------



## easyrider (Apr 6, 2022)

Markrs said:


> Also consider buying on the 2nd hand market (knobcloud.com, KVR Buy and Sell forum and VI-C for sale forum) as both Cubase 12 and Studio One 5 are often sold quite cheap.


I’m guessing selling Cubase 12 is easier to sell now due to not having to post a dongle via pigeon all around the world?


----------



## Markrs (Apr 6, 2022)

easyrider said:


> I’m guessing selling Cubase 12 is easier to sell now due to not having to post a dongle via pigeon all around the world?


I imagine so, as I did a quick check and I now can't see any Cubase Pro 12 for sale now but a few days ago I did see a couple. So I think it has improved the ability to resell them.


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 6, 2022)

I’ve seen a lot of S1 copies for sale, which is great. And I’ve liked using it.. But I’d still like to demo Cubase, edit: there is a dongle for v11 though… I need a nap

sigh. I’d like to start building a template in one DAW and not two, I may just stick with S1 for now… I’m sure I can deal with the video scoring part, I’ll just demo it next


----------



## stigc56 (Apr 6, 2022)

If you are using VEPro on another machine, I think Studio One is far much elegant in the routing. Also S1 is snappier, well I know if I ever have a 800 track template in S1, of course.


----------



## TimCox (Apr 6, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> I ran across someone yesterday talking about how it’s even better for scoring to picture/video games than Cubase, due to chunks. I suppose it’s worth a shot… I mean I’m waiting 20ish more days for Cubase to release their v12 trial anyway :/ but it may be one of those things where I am presently too amateur to appreciate it just yet, perhaps in a few months/years my orbit will terminate and I’ll dive into the chunks. We’ll see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Chunks make scoring so easy with all my cues arranged to picture within one session but they operate as individual sequences. Combine that with the V-racks so all of my instruments are already loaded and the only thing I have to load between cues is any additional instruments or plugins used strictly in that cue. Most recently, you can now have folders for chunks so I have a folder for the film and separate folders for alternate versions of cues for example. It keeps my cue list nice and tidy.

Then when you’re ready to export you just mark your cues down in the song timeline, drag them over from chunks and create a new sequence where they’re all in one track in the right spot on the timeline

Don’t sleep on DP!


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 6, 2022)

TimCox said:


> Then when you’re ready to export you just mark your cues down in the song timeline, drag them over from chunks and create a new sequence where they’re all in one track in the right spot on the timeline


I’ll have to do some research on the v-racks, to see what you mean by already loaded (like better than a normal template with instruments being loaded?) The above sentence sounds great, as well as the chunk folders. I like that a lot.

I just located a cheap copy of Cubase and bought it to upgrade to v12, don’t want to wait 3 weeks to demo. Now I can demo S1, Cubase, and maybe even DP side by side. I may opt for multiple DAWs for awhile, having something specific for picture/not picture may be better than stretching Cubase/S1(/FL) into working on everything (which I reasonably could). Or not, but now I can find out!


----------



## JohnG (Apr 6, 2022)

I really like using Digital Performer too, for what it's worth.

I glanced through this thread and I never quite worked out what the O.P. is composing, and what for. If you're writing songs, that's one thing, but for film you probably want either Logic, Cubase, Digital Performer or some other "tried and true" that:

1. Can handle thousands of tracks without getting wonky;
2. Can deliver in 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever; and
3. Works with picture in a sophisticated way (DP allows streamers, if you care).

I really like the Chunks feature and V-racks as well in DP. But you can write good music for picture on any of those big three.

And bad music too...


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 6, 2022)

JohnG said:


> I really like using Digital Performer too, for what it's worth.
> 
> I glanced through this thread and I never quite worked out what the O.P. is composing, and what for. If you're writing songs, that's one thing, but for film you probably want either Logic, Cubase, Digital Performer or some other "tried and true" that:
> 
> ...


The goal is game music, music for libraries, and personal projects about which I’m a lot less picky since it’s not as demanding (but every time it involves orchestral music it is nice to have a workflow in any DAW which can handle 500+ tracks without being super annoying to navigate, I like mouse wheels and scrolling shortcuts but… not for long). Film music… If I tried it and enjoyed it sure, as I did for playing in pit orchestras as an oboist, but from the outside looking in film music looks like a hell of recalling and executing on tropes. Game music seems more fun and engaging to create, especially with how it’s dynamic structure is different from linear film. Not that there isn’t plenty of adventure in filmic motifs and development, I just… am probably better suited to just playing oboe in scores than writing them. For now. Is my guess.


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 6, 2022)

TimCox said:


> Digital Performer is amazing and I've been using it for years so I wouldn't sleep on it.





JohnG said:


> I really like using Digital Performer too, for what it's worth.


If Digital Performer would have been multi-platform by 2000, I likely wouldn’t have switched to Cubase back then.

For context: It was the dark times for Apple when I reluctantly switched my DAW hardware platform to Wintel. And that meant abandoning DP.


----------



## TimCox (Apr 6, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> If Digital Performer would have been multi-platform by 2000, I likely wouldn’t have switched to Cubase back then.
> 
> For context: It was the dark times for Apple when I reluctantly switched my DAW hardware platform to Wintel. And that meant abandoning DP.


Yeah I happened to hop on DP when they released their first (I believe anyway) Windows build


----------



## TimCox (Apr 6, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> I’ll have to do some research on the v-racks, to see what you mean by already loaded (like better than a normal template with instruments being loaded?) The above sentence sounds great, as well as the chunk folders. I like that a lot.
> 
> I just located a cheap copy of Cubase and bought it to upgrade to v12, don’t want to wait 3 weeks to demo. Now I can demo S1, Cubase, and maybe even DP side by side. I may opt for multiple DAWs for awhile, having something specific for picture/not picture may be better than stretching Cubase/S1(/FL) into working on everything (which I reasonably could). Or not, but now I can find out!


Right so V-racks for me essentially run as my loaded template that remains loaded and consistent between chunks. Think of a chunk as an entirely new session but contained within one master session so you don’t have to open a new one every time. So V-Racks basically operate over top of those so if all of my instruments are in V-Racks I don’t have to reload them when I click on a chunk.

Does that make sense? Lol 😅


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 6, 2022)

KEM said:


> Cubase


I've tried moving from Reaper to Cubase early on. Ran into so many problems - vst errors and installation/authorization errors (after I'd been using for a while, mind you). Went back to Reaper. 
Maybe they've improved by Cubase at this point.
I see a lot of pros using Reaper, so I'm not sure the rationale that "this famous person uses it" is really the best way to go. 
I think it's really about personal preference. And you'll only know what's best for you by trying them out.


----------



## parapentep70 (Apr 6, 2022)

Erick - BVA said:


> I've tried moving from Reaper to Cubase early on. Ran into so many problems - vst errors and installation/authorization errors (after I'd been using for a while, mind you). Went back to Reaper.
> Maybe they've improved by Cubase at this point.
> I see a lot of pros using Reaper, so I'm not sure the rationale that "this famous person uses it" is really the best way to go.
> I think it's really about personal preference. And you'll only know what's best for you by trying them out.


This!
King of stability and also king of performance. When they added notation (possibly not the best) and video in the same version I stop trying to find anything better.


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 6, 2022)

Erick - BVA said:


> Maybe they've improved by Cubase at this point.


kind of difficult to contextualize your comment without knowing how long ago and which version and which OS you had trouble with


----------



## myfeltgood (Apr 7, 2022)

parapentep70 said:


> This!
> King of stability and also king of performance. When they added notation (possibly not the best) and video in the same version I stop trying to find anything better.


My experience is actually the opposite. I've had major instability issues that disappeared when I went to Cubase. It's funny that my "buggy plugins" that crash REAPER (at least that's always the blame on the forums) seem to work flawlessly in Cubase.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Apr 7, 2022)

There’s a lot of professional media composers that use Cubase daily to make a living. A lot. Majority of them don’t have separate techs. If it was unstable or didn’t allow them to do their job efficiently and effectively, it would not be used by so many in the industry. You don’t need to use the same thing as your favorite Oscar winning composer to be successful, but contemplate why so many do. There might be something to it. Same goes for why certain other tools have zero professional endorsements.


----------



## myfeltgood (Apr 7, 2022)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> There’s a lot of professional media composers that use Cubase daily to make a living. A lot. Majority of them don’t have separate techs. If it was unstable or didn’t allow them to do their job efficiently and effectively, it would not be used by so many in the industry. You don’t need to use the same thing as your favorite Oscar winning composer to be successful, but contemplate why so many do. There might be something to it. Same goes for why other tools have zero professional endorsements.


That's been my thinking. I'm not saying Cubase will get you an Oscar but there's a reason why the big pros use it.


----------



## parapentep70 (Apr 7, 2022)

myfeltgood said:


> My experience is actually the opposite. I've had major instability issues that disappeared when I went to Cubase. It's funny that my "buggy plugins" that crash REAPER (at least that's always the blame on the forums) seem to work flawlessly in Cubase.


Which "buggy plugins"? Just curiosity.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 7, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> kind of difficult to contextualize your comment without knowing how long ago and which version and which OS you had trouble with


Cubase AI7 - Windows 10. I think the main issue came when I had to switch machines from a laptop to a PC tower. Never could get it authorized properly. But the vst issues were happening long before that.
I'm sure it's improved since then. I remember it was kind of the butt of a joke at the time though - people were making fun of how they were the inventors of vst but couldn't get it to work on their own platform. 
They gave me an upgrade offer to 8 or 9 I believe, and I did pay for it having the hope that I would have a better experience with a later version. But again, experienced authorization problems. Tried contacting them, took several weeks for them to reply. By that time I had moved on and gave up.
I personally have nothing against Steinberg. I've been using one of their interfaces for 8 years with no issues. For whatever reason though, just haven't had luck with their software.


----------



## samphony (Apr 7, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> The goal is game music, music for libraries, and personal projects about which I’m a lot less picky since it’s not as demanding (but every time it involves orchestral music it is nice to have a workflow in any DAW which can handle 500+ tracks without being super annoying to navigate, I like mouse wheels and scrolling shortcuts but… not for long). Film music… If I tried it and enjoyed it sure, as I did for playing in pit orchestras as an oboist, but from the outside looking in film music looks like a hell of recalling and executing on tropes. Game music seems more fun and engaging to create, especially with how it’s dynamic structure is different from linear film. Not that there isn’t plenty of adventure in filmic motifs and development, I just… am probably better suited to just playing oboe in scores than writing them. For now. Is my guess.


That’s a start! The more you reveal about what you want to achieve and how you would like to work the better the „opinions“about the daws will be!

Don’t underestimate other factors too like 

- track and visibility management 
- export/ stemming workflows 
- template setup

As stated before I highly recommend picking one random DAW from your pool and produce at least one cue/track/project from start to finish. 
Then repeat the exact same with another one. What you’ll learn on the way is your own experience and is sometimes worth more than any outside opinion!


----------



## samphony (Apr 7, 2022)

You might also consider a ready made template if creative output is more important to you than learning the ins and outs of how to setup a project from scratch. A template can also be a starting point to learn how things are connected and why. 

I can highly recommend the spitfire template

And the ones by @Dirk Ehlert available in his store over at composing tutorials online


----------



## Saxer (Apr 7, 2022)

KEM said:


> For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


It's mainly because Studio One is about 20 years younger than the careers of the established Hollywood composers.


----------



## samphony (Apr 7, 2022)

Saxer said:


> It's mainly because Studio One is about 20 years younger than the careers of the established Hollywood composers.


And I love it.


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 7, 2022)

Erick - BVA said:


> Cubase AI7 - Windows 10.


Cubase 7 release: 2012 --- interesting how long bad memories can last

also: Windows 10 release: 2015 --- interesting ...


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 7, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> Cubase 7 release: 2012 --- interesting how long bad memories can last
> 
> also: Windows 10 release: 2015 --- interesting ...


Memory is tricky. It was so long ago and I've moved on from Cubase. I wasn't posting this for Steinberg customer support or a trial lol otherwise I'd dig through receipts.
This is one area where I ironically have some more authority - never got a degree in music or anything. But do have one in psychology and took memory electives. Anyways, you are right. I was mistaken on the operating system. It was likely Windows 8 or whatever came with my laptop.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 7, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> Cubase 7 release: 2012 --- interesting how long bad memories can last
> 
> also: Windows 10 release: 2015 --- interesting


Nah, I don't really have bad memories. More good memories than bad I'd say. I loved how you could easily access EQing and other FX for each track instead of having to load up a vst.
For me though, the ship has simply sailed on it. I've become accustomed to another DAW.
This was early on when I was getting back into music after 10 years of "quitting" - so I was still testing the waters on other DAWs. It's pretty much too late now, and I've yet to see a reason to change.
I still don't understand the idea of using what you see others using as a determination of what to use for yourself. For certain you can point out any number of DAWs that various famous people use, but I actually (personally) wouldn't trust the most famous ones because you never know what kind of contracts or deals they have going on.
Just use the DAW that works best for you, it's really that simple. Anything other than the functionality and purpose I think is almost like smokescreen. Honestly, who cares who uses it? I'm sorry to be so blunt.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 7, 2022)

myfeltgood said:


> My experience is actually the opposite. I've had major instability issues that disappeared when I went to Cubase. It's funny that my "buggy plugins" that crash REAPER (at least that's always the blame on the forums) seem to work flawlessly in Cubase.


I did have some of these issues with Reaper throughout the years. Usually just a clear cache and scan would fix it. But they update so often, haven't noticed any issues recently.


----------



## Trash Panda (Apr 7, 2022)

KEM said:


> For me it’s very simple: Hans Zimmer uses Cubase, Ludwig Göransson uses Cubase, Lorne Balfe uses Cubase, Junkie XL uses Cubase, Misha Mansoor uses Cubase, everyone I look up to uses Cubase, so therefore I use Cubase. I don’t know a single Hollywood composer (at least not one that I like) that uses Studio One, so I’ve never even given it a single thought


You are a marketing team's dream come true.


----------



## myfeltgood (Apr 7, 2022)

parapentep70 said:


> Which "buggy plugins"? Just curiosity.


Superior Drummer 3, Sonible’s stuff, and a slew of Slate’s stuff.


----------



## dts_marin (Apr 7, 2022)

All of them work but it depends a lot on how you define film scoring. For my particular level and requirements only DP, Cubase and Pro Tools (no experience with Logic) work without any huge limitations.


Spoiler: An opinionated and not extensive breakdown



*DP*
Pros:
The scoring features are amazing. You can move and sync stuff effortlessly.

Most modern implementation of articulation maps. The only thing missing compared to Cubase's exp maps are concurrent articulation groups.

Support is the best available (IMO). At least they are open to feedback. Much more open to it than the more corporate companies that are unreachable and very out of touch.

Cons:
If you need extensive audio features I would avoid it. It can slow you down significantly on complex mixes. The audio routing is very outdated.

Outdated UI design. It has a very 90's feel to it.

VST3 compatibility is very temperamental.

Very mouse heavy. A lot of actions aren't accessible at all by the keyboard. You will need to use Keyboard Maestro or AHK but in some cases even that won't work because the interface isn't made with automation in mind (e.g. track color palette - try automating that!! )

Laggy with lots of embarrassing bugs. You need to test it thoroughly on your particular system because there are bugs that may become showstoppers.

The majority of its user base are old folks (no offense) and that causes the software to fall behind because users don't put pressure on MOTU to modernize the software. One strange thing I've noticed with DP's user base is they take pride in how old their copy of DP is. For them it's also very important to note that they use DP since it was Performer!

*REAPER*
Pros:
If Cockos improved the film scoring features this would be my dream DAW. Tiny installation footprint, rock solid, no egregious DRM, infinite tinkering and customizability and the most advanced routing I've seen.
Cons:
Not a fan of Reaticulate.

Reaper sadly is a huge PITA for film scoring. I tried all sorts of tricks but syncing to picture and adding count-in bars of the same tempo that your cue has (you don't know the tempo until you compose the cue) is pretty much impossible.

The UI is an eyesore.

Power users can be a bit culty. Don't you dare criticize it on the forum.

*STUDIO ONE*
Pros:
Slick & modern. Sound Variations are very good Great mixing features. You can do some unique stuff with it.
Cons:
a PITA for film scoring for similar reasons to Reaper.

*CUBASE*
Pros:
Safe & proven choice. Great audio export features. Logical Editor and other stuff that I don't know very well.
Cons:
Clicks can't be based on dotted durations like in DP and Pro Tools. Very important if you work with live players. I do a fair bit of orchestration work and when composers use Logic or Cubase their tempo maps are a mess if they do lots of metric modulations with compound meters.

I really don't like Steinberg. They push a lot of bloatware just to install their products. You need a download a manager that downloads the license manager. Very corporate like AVID.

*PRO TOOLS*
Pros(?):
Pro Tools (Ultimate) is mostly on par with DP for film scoring features.
Cons:
MIDI editing, oof.
f*ck AVID Link. I hope you enjoy ads(deals) on your system notification panel.
Expensive
AVID is a truly evil company, they make Microsoft look like a good samaritan.


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 7, 2022)

But seriously, what are some actual hard improvements Cubase 12 has over 11, specifically regarding a composing workflow?


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 7, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> The goal is game music, music for libraries, and personal projects about which I’m a lot less picky since it’s not as demanding (but every time it involves orchestral music it is nice to have a workflow in any DAW which can handle 500+ tracks without being super annoying to navigate, I like mouse wheels and scrolling shortcuts but… not for long). Film music… If I tried it and enjoyed it sure, as I did for playing in pit orchestras as an oboist, but from the outside looking in film music looks like a hell of recalling and executing on tropes. Game music seems more fun and engaging to create, especially with how it’s dynamic structure is different from linear film. Not that there isn’t plenty of adventure in filmic motifs and development, I just… am probably better suited to just playing oboe in scores than writing them. For now. Is my guess.


Honestly man just get Studio One, really _only_ surpassed by Cubase in terms of sheer depth, but chances are you will never notice:

For $15/mo. You can get Presonus Sphere, which includes Notion 6 and all Presonus other goodies/plugins (quite handy for score import/export - you don't even have to 'finish' the parts in Notion, you can simply export them out from the MIDI of your song straight into Notion, then save as MusicXML and open it in Musescore or Dorico if you want)

The Studio One team is also incredibly productive content wise - those guys are putting out instructional videos about S1 _constantly_, and there's a huge library of their videos to ingest along with your morning coffee (better than RTFM, believe it or not). 

Also with the introduction of the macro system and now a scripting UI, the realm of possibilities for doing rather advanced operations has become quite dense, and people make loads of them and put them on Presonus Exchange which you can download directly from inside the DAW.

I have a 'music editing' macro set that I downloaded from there and it's got some nifty features, like highlighting a part and click 'make legato w/ overlap', and I can choose 5/10/20/ MS legato overlap on the notes.

Now imagine if you accumulate a whole library of useful macros - it can make programming score MIDI quite efficient and I am all about that.

Granted I'm biased because I've used S1 for a long time, but I've seen it progress by light years over the last decade and this is my personal experience with it.

Cheers


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 7, 2022)

Erick - BVA said:


> Just use the DAW that works best for you, it's really that simple. Anything other than the functionality and purpose I think is almost like smokescreen. Honestly, who cares who uses it? I'm sorry to be so blunt.


I wholeheartedly agree, but I'm mystified why you are writing that quoting my post.

And unlike you, I have not made a denigrating comment about your choice of DAW software, so you don't need to defend it in response to one of my posts.

I'm not trying to evangelize any DAW or piece of software. But I also try to refrain from negativity about software that isn't my preferred choice - other than mentioning maybe something factual like supported compatibility.

And admittedly sometimes I get triggered a bit when someone offers a comment denigrating other software, especially without offering enough context relevant to a current discussion. In this case it was your comment about meaningful bugs you experienced without originally mentioning that your experience was 10 years ago. And I do honestly wonder, how meaningful 10 year old experiences matter in a discussion about making choices today.

I generally try not to offer negative commentary about software that I may like less for one or other reason. I typically view the different DAWs as having different strengths, rather than different weaknesses. Most DAWs are little miracles of achievement by groups of very bright people, who are likely laboring as much for love as for salary, since I doubt that programming DAWs pays as well as many other top programming gigs. And competition in music making software (and soundware) is brutal these days.




Erick - BVA said:


> I still don't understand the idea of using what you see others using as a determination of what to use for yourself. For certain you can point out any number of DAWs that various famous people use, but I actually (personally) wouldn't trust the most famous ones because you never know what kind of contracts or deals they have going on.



I also never offered commentary about famous individuals being proof of the superiority of some software. So I'm also a bit mystified why that paragraph is in response to my post, rather than quoting the relevant post(s). At least I think proper response quoting would have been superior forum etiquette.


----------



## greggybud (Apr 7, 2022)

TonalDynamics said:


> Imagine if Steinberg did this how much it would please their users


I guess this isn't enough?


https://download.steinberg.net/cubase-on-youtube


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 7, 2022)

TimCox said:


> Right so V-racks for me essentially run as my loaded template that remains loaded and consistent between chunks. Think of a chunk as an entirely new session but contained within one master session so you don’t have to open a new one every time. So V-Racks basically operate over top of those so if all of my instruments are in V-Racks I don’t have to reload them when I click on a chunk.
> 
> Does that make sense? Lol 😅


It does… am I the only one who is reminded of FL Studio’s arrangements feature by the chunks/v-racks? Depending on how good Image-Line's video player is (I don’t own it), FL Studio could work for scoring with a smaller template, as that's one of the main limitations…


samphony said:


> You might also consider a ready made template if creative output is more important to you than learning the ins and outs of how to setup a project from scratch. A template can also be a starting point to learn how things are connected and why.
> 
> I can highly recommend the spitfire template
> 
> And the ones by @Dirk Ehlert available in his store over at composing tutorials online


I’m happy to do the setup, it's just better if the DAW makes setting these things up easy. Studio One's mixer I find super attractive. The one thing that might be a little weird is the sidechain functionality once a template gets large, unless folders factor into the sidechain selection to keep my list of sources from being 500 items long... Haven't tried this yet (haven't learned how to make folders for mixer tracks yet).


TonalDynamics said:


> Honestly man just get Studio One


I feel similarly about Presonus' productivity with S1 and my hopes for it are pretty damn high. I'm going to be using both for awhile, as I actually now own Cubase 12 thanks to some KVR sleuthing and I'm just going to subscribe to Presonus until V6 release.


dts_marin said:


> If you need extensive audio features I would avoid it. It can slow you down significantly on complex mixes. The audio routing is very outdated.
> 
> VST3 compatibility is very temperamental.
> Very mouse heavy. A lot of actions aren't accessible at all by the keyboard.


That is challenging... Granted, one can run FL Studio inside of any other DAW and it is fabulous for sound design, but heavy mixer activity is thus far a big part of my workflow... As are keybinds. Hmm. I appreciate all of your feedback on each DAW!


stigc56 said:


> VEPro


I don't own it yet, but it and other similar software are on radar due to the ability to more efficiently use CPU cores. My individual tracks often choke up my poor little 5950x. I love Studio One's mixer so far!



parapentep70 said:


> Which "buggy plugins"? Just curiosity.


Melda, a year ago at least. I have little doubt I'll eventually end up using Reaper for something, but I can't afford to focus on it right now. I love the idea of it and how lightweight it is, and the customizability is cool.... once I can figure out what to do with it.


Nico5 said:


> how meaningful 10 year old experiences matter in a discussion about making choices today.


I think his formatting was intended to feature his reply in his first paragraph, and the latter two were directed generally toward some sentiments from earlier in the thread. 

I'm glad my degenerate title was able to lure people into actually helping me find some resources/some useful pointers about what to look for in each DAW. I hope it doesn't lead to us fighting!


----------



## Monkey Man (Apr 8, 2022)

Russel, the "simplest" way of looking at V-Racks IMHO is thusly:

They're Virtual Racks, which is what the term stands for.

IOW, virtual outboard-MIDI racks. They can be switched off or on, but are always "there" and are "accessed" the same way - routing MIDI tracks to them.


----------



## Roland-Music (Apr 8, 2022)

I have Studio one, and it's not designed for scoring to picture.

No video track, the video viewer is poor, no timecode display, etc.
No Beat mapping, no time ramp, it needs a lot of workarounds for hit- or waypoints to tempo.
No 5.1 or 7.2 Surround mixing.

And all features requests for this topics are more or less ignored, the S1 focus is on Show page, and more show page and more show page....


----------



## samphony (Apr 8, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> Studio One's mixer I find super attractive. The one thing that might be a little weird is the sidechain functionality once a template gets large,


Yeah I hope they’ll implement search/filter options throughout the program similar to Cubase/ Nuendo.


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 8, 2022)

The V Racks part of DP really does sound similar to FL Studio lol.

Studio One's weakness for video scoring may be amended in v6, not just due to speculation, but one of the S1 youtube influencers replied to a comment about just that with "Wow, this many likes on this comment... I will pass this along to the team."



samphony said:


> Yeah I hope they’ll implement search/filter options throughout the program similar to Cubase/ Nuendo.


I hope so too. There are many reasons I like Studio One more than Cubase, but that is an important feature. It is not going to Steinberg's favor though that I am having to go through the number of hoops I am having to go through to even load up their product for the first time. 4 pieces of extra proprietary security software, and still here I am waiting on an email from their support team about a licensing issue. After buying Cubase _because_ you can't just demo it after a release. This is after coming home from 12 hour shifts at work dealing with constant network issues and Adobe problems and printers going down every god-damned minute and a half.

My patience, I don't think, has ever been even close to this low. If I don't get a day off, soon... ...


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 8, 2022)

Alright, well, Steinberg couldn't help with the dongle situation unfortunately.

Except for a support person named Tori, who singlehandedly turned the entire situation around and I now have Cubase downloading. My eyes have stopped rolling backwards and my eyebrows are raised for the idea they thought of to get the license updated without having to mail the dongle lol. Time to get demoing!


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 8, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> I wholeheartedly agree, but I'm mystified why you are writing that quoting my post.
> 
> And unlike you, I have not made a denigrating comment about your choice of DAW software, so you don't need to defend it in response to one of my posts.
> 
> ...


Yeah, my entire post wasn't meant to be responding to you. I should have clarified. Sorry about that.

I have experience with a limited number of DAWs. So I can only give opinions that I have on those I've used. I did use Cool Edit Pro back in the early 2000's but that's basically obsolete at this point.
I'm just being honest about my experiences, and I think with the aggregate of everyone's experience, the OP is in a better position to make an informed decision. 

I've had many issues with Steinberg's authorization procedures and customer service. This led me to basically walking away from Cubase, unfortunately. It was a good experience in the DAW while it lasted. I'm not deriding any DAW. 
I've admitted that many of these issues may have been fixed, but I'm sharing my own experience.
I was actually wrong to second guess myself on the years I used it. I decided to take a look in my Steinberg user account. When I picked up my UR22 it came with a free Cubase license for V7. I didn't register it right away. It was indeed windows 10 that I used it on. I registered Cubase 7 in 2016. I even tried upgrading to V9 in 2017. That's when I tried to contact Steinberg customer support and they took weeks to respond. I feel like this would be relevant in a discussion about DAWs. I'm not the only one who has experienced issues with various licensing processes. IK Multimedia is another one with a notoriously complicated process, and I've also had issues with them. This isn't a derision of a company or DAW, it's just my experience.

Most DAWs can be demoed. So I think trying a demo is always the best bet. It's a big commitment.


----------



## Erick - BVA (Apr 8, 2022)

Russell Anderson said:


> Alright, well, Steinberg couldn't help with the dongle situation unfortunately.
> 
> Except for a support person named Tori, who singlehandedly turned the entire situation around and I now have Cubase downloading. My eyes have stopped rolling backwards and my eyebrows are raised for the idea they thought of to get the license updated without having to mail the dongle lol. Time to get demoing!


Good luck!


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 8, 2022)

Erick - BVA said:


> Yeah, my entire post wasn't meant to be responding to you. ...


thanks for clarifying - and sharing additional relevant details! -- Now I can understand, how your experience made you hesitant to get deeper into that ecosystem.


----------



## dts_marin (Apr 9, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> What do you mean by count in bars at same tempo in Reaper? Do you mean this below, or something else?


In DP you can add negative bars whenever you like and it will calculate the correct negative timecode.

The important thing is that I do this only after I've decided my tempo. I can't know it before I finish composing my cue. Also If I change the cue later on I also want to change this offset to the new tempo.

When I tried Reaper there was no way to reliably achieve this. You need to do a lot of steps and it didn't work right most of the times.

Also cue conforms were not ideal compared to DP.

Maybe something has changed since I've tried Reaper two years ago. And by trying I mean I used it for a year and I did lots of custom stuff in it. I had created a really nice workflow but film scoring was not practical.


----------



## richiebee (Apr 9, 2022)

I've been with Cubase since around 1993 so I am a bit biased, but after leaving music production for a while, when I came back to it last year, I tried a few DAWs including Reaper and S1. It could be just familiarity, but S1 just seemed to be missing too many useful functions for me, and so I'm back with Cubase. Version 12 seems to have taken over some of the look of S1, so there's clearly good things happening with S1, and I know they have history together - developer-wise. Ultimately, you need to be comfortable with what you're using. If possible take your time to figure out which one is right for you and stick with it.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 9, 2022)

Monkey Man said:


> This!


But not on a PC. Too many bugs still on the Digital Performer PC version.


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 9, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> But not on a PC. Too many bugs still on the Digital Performer PC version.


Just curious: is that your own experience with the current version - or one of the older one's?


----------



## Monkey Man (Apr 10, 2022)

Yeah, I don't know about the current version but IMHO there were more issues encountered with the PC version historically.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 10, 2022)

Nico5 said:


> Just curious: is that your own experience with the current version - or one of the older one's?


Version 10

I couldn't even record my guitar into it using my Apollo Twin. I notified them, and they could not fix it. So I gave up, but I did ask others that had it on PC and they also said it's got problems on PC. So, not trying to give DP a bad name, because I've heard those on a Mac love it, and have used it for years. But for PC, I'd rather they had never released it for PC.

And that is the not the only example of buying software that won't run on PC. I bought Finale 25 for Windows 10, having used previous versions on my Windows 7 rig. But the version 25 has a bug with the sound engine. It doesn't work on my Windows 10 Surface Pro. And Finale has a webpage telling me to call them if their recommended steps don't work. Their steps didn't work, so now I've got to call them personally to work it out? What's that about, don't they have programmers up to snuff on the Windows 10 platform?


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 10, 2022)

greggybud said:


> I guess this isn't enough?
> 
> 
> https://download.steinberg.net/cubase-on-youtube


That's quite nice actually, wasn't aware of that.

Kudos


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 10, 2022)

Roland-Music said:


> I have Studio one, and it's not designed for scoring to picture.
> 
> No video track, the video viewer is poor, no timecode display, etc.
> No Beat mapping, no time ramp, it needs a lot of workarounds for hit- or waypoints to tempo.
> ...


The other things are valid points, but it does actually have tempo-mapping via Melodyne integration, I believe:



As far as timecode goes, I'm pretty sure there is also a way to display the timeline in beats and seconds at the same time as well now with a recent change?

Cheers


----------



## Nico5 (Apr 10, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Version 10
> 
> I couldn't even record my guitar into it using my Apollo Twin. I notified them, and they could not fix it. So I gave up, but I did ask others that had it on PC and they also said it's got problems on PC. So, not trying to give DP a bad name, because I've heard those on a Mac love it, and have used it for years. But for PC, I'd rather they had never released it for PC.
> 
> And that is the not the only example of buying software that won't run on PC. I bought Finale 25 for Windows 10, having used previous versions on my Windows 7 rig. But the version 25 has a bug with the sound engine. It doesn't work on my Windows 10 Surface Pro. And Finale has a webpage telling me to call them if their recommended steps don't work. Their steps didn't work, so now I've got to call them personally to work it out? What's that about, don't they have programmers up to snuff on the Windows 10 platform?


Thank you - I think this level of detail makes for much more valuable commentary.


----------



## greggybud (Apr 10, 2022)

TonalDynamics said:


> That's quite nice actually, wasn't aware of that.
> 
> Kudos


Sometimes, when I have an issue, I look to that before even looking at the pdf. There is a wealth of information there, and most of it is still very applicable.


----------



## greggybud (Apr 10, 2022)

An aspect of Stuidio One I find somewhat disingenuous is their marketing toward newer users.

As a former ME, I will state that you can master in anything, especially if most of your tools are outboard, and you can create PQ codes, meta data, error checks etc. However some, such as Wavelab are much better suited than a typical DAW.

However the "mastering" tools and set-up provided with S1 IMO are very misleading. The eventual result is occasional user disillusionment, users asking "why would I need Wavelab because I have S1" and ultimately cost realization of a physical engineered sonic environment not to mention the need for fresh, trained, and unbiased ears. 

If they were honest they would replace mastering and call it self-finalizing, but they don't do that because they want to sell more units, and make people think Studio One does it all. Again, it's not just Studio One who is guilty. Steinberg is guilty of this too with their "mastering" template.

Mastering, with the help of deceptive marketing such as S1 and countless other developers, continues the blur between commercial ME's results and what I refer to as finalizing.


----------



## b_elliott (Apr 10, 2022)

I wonder if this thread and the OP's eventual choice will simply boil down to which of the two DAWs has the better marketing....


----------



## myfeltgood (Apr 11, 2022)

Has been using Studio One for the past 9 years (and Pro Tools and Logic before that) and while it is amazing for bread and butter production, due to my getting involved with film scoring, the lack of relevant features in S1 made the switch to Cubase necessary. Don’t get me wrong, you can use any DAW for film scoring but Cubase just seems to get it right…hence its popularity with big name film composers.


----------



## Spid (Apr 11, 2022)

The best DAW is the DAW we know the best.

I know, it's easy to say, but it's true. Due to my previous work, I had to test virtually all DAW to check their compatibility with our hardware. So I tested almost all of them. The only ones I haven't tried are Studio One and Digital Performer.

What I retained from all those tests of Cubase, Protools, Logic, Ableton Live, FL Studio, Reason, Sonar, Traction, Samplitude and such... is that all DAW have like 90% of features that are just the same. So regardless what DAW you pick, you could do whatever you want to do. However, they all have their 10% of differences and specificities.

Some are more practical to work in realtime, while others ware more practical for manipulating loops, or recording audio, or editing MIDI, having multiple takes, or find quickly your track or instruments, etc...

The Best DAW is the one you fully understand and you've learned to be as efficient as you can be, so the DAW functions become a second nature to you and while you're working on music, composing, editing, mixing, etc... you're not thinking about the application, but you're focusing on the music. So the best DAW is the DAW you know the best.

I know the easy answers would be to say "use Cubase Pro if you're on Mac or PC, or use Logic Pro if you're on Mac"... or "if you're working audio, use Studio One or Protools"... or "if you're doing EDM and urban music, check FL Studio"... or "if you go on stage, work like a looper or manipulate audio, check Ableton Live", etc...

But those are clichés, and in reality we don't have to follow and do like everyone else does. Everyone is different, so it's good to find what works for us. There's not only one way to make music, and each way has its own advantages and challenges.


So I would suggest to try demos to figure out if their workflow would work for you. What others do or use, doesn't really matter.


PS: Sometimes, figure out what we don't like is just as important as figuring out what we actually like.


----------



## Russell Anderson (Apr 11, 2022)

Spid said:


> The best DAW is the DAW we know the best.
> 
> I know, it's easy to say, but it's true. Due to my previous work, I had to test virtually all DAW to check their compatibility with our hardware. So I tested almost all of them. The only ones I haven't tried are Studio One and Digital Performer.
> 
> ...


Yep, the statement is trite and true, but I appreciate the leaning into dispelling cliche strengths and weaknesses. I actually love FL Studio and I work around what doesn't work, but what I ran into that I just couldn't do something about was the track limit. There is a workaround, but... it sucked, and I've never tried another DAW so it seemed apt to try. There are also some customization features I'm happy to now have and some resource-sparing features FL unfortunately lacks. And I look forward to continuing to use FL Studio! Probably, anyway... I haven't learned enough yet to say for sure. Presently I have a hard time imagining working without it.


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 11, 2022)

greggybud said:


> An aspect of Stuidio One I find somewhat disingenuous is their marketing toward newer users.
> 
> As a former ME, I will state that you can master in anything, especially if most of your tools are outboard, and you can create PQ codes, meta data, error checks etc. However some, such as Wavelab are much better suited than a typical DAW.
> 
> ...


The problem I think is that even perfectly capable modern 'producers' don't fully understand what a good mastering engineer is capable of, and how many skillsets he is using during the course of a session.

They just think 'loudness, EQ, buss compression, bada bing" and they're done with it.

But the true ME will use all those tools and more, know how to not crush dynamics while still emphasizing/preserving transients, and not just once per song like with a mastering plugin, but at possibly dozens of points in a very busy piece/song.

Honestly it's another one of those areas where budget concerns are king, but for any serious work, trying to master everything yourself is generally shooting yourself in the foot in a major way.

It's like thinking you can do the color grading in post for an entire film just because you're pretty good at photoshop - can you do it? Possibly..._should_ you, though?


----------



## TonalDynamics (Apr 11, 2022)

myfeltgood said:


> Has been using Studio One for the past 9 years (and Pro Tools and Logic before that) and while it is amazing for bread and butter production, due to my getting involved with film scoring, the lack of relevant features in S1 made the switch to Cubase necessary. Don’t get me wrong, you can use any DAW for film scoring but Cubase just seems to get it right…hence its popularity with big name film composers.


Yeah just to emphasize, the lack of surround mixing alone is enough to not use S1 for big film stuff... kind of hard to believe they haven't implemented that yet, seems a glaring and obvious, dare I say almost unforgivable omission?

For my humble stereo mixes of my own music though, it's pristine!


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 15, 2022)

Which DAW? My input... pros and cons...

I'm a PC user, so I cannot really speak much for Mac users and DAWs like Logic Pro. But I do love what I've seen with Logic Pro's MIDI functions for composing, and layout of music staves in the MIDI window.

My first real DAW was SONAR 6. It worked well, but it had 'iffy' error code maintenance. By that I mean, you could overload your computer's memory with too much processing from plugins, etc., and SONAR would simply reduce the polyphony of your MIDI instrument samples, behind the scenes and not tell you about it. Thus SONAR was not designed to handle large templates and orchestral composition with many instruments.

Pro Tools is still my favorite, but I hate the short track name labeling, and having to buy their hardware unit just to get a higher instrument track count, and MIDI features are somewhat lacking. But for mixing, still probably the best DAW for mixing. Pro Tools no doubt has the greatest error catch programming. That might be why some don't like it. But when it comes to audio post production, that's what you want, error free audio masters. Could be why it's still number 1 with the post production industry.

Studio One - I love the workflow, easier than any other DAW I've used (Pro Tools, SONAR, Cubase, Reaper, Ableton, Audacity). Still has problems with saving of large templates, takes a long time. Still lacking in some MIDI features that Logic Pro has. A huge plus with version 5 is the addition of a toned down version of Presonus Notion for the DAW's music staff page option. If you like to compose in notation software, this is a nice option for Studio One 5. Whatever you write on the music staff is what you get automatically notated in the MIDI piano roll in the DAW. That's not a surprising statement since most other DAWs have done that, but the quality of the staff display and accuracy of entering notes has always been very lacking in those other DAWs. Not anymore, not in Studio One 5. I wish they had Logic Pro's waveform display though, with better track name display, like Logic has. I don't like Studio One's useless track folder category line across the waveform display either. If you have an instrument category as one color, the individual instrument's waveform color ought to be enough to know what instrument category you're seeing. The only way to keep those folder category lines from showing is to not put any of the instrument tracks in folders.

Cubase - large learning curve, mainly because of so many features. More MIDI features, yet some MIDI operations are actually easier in Studio One. I'm still learning this DAW.

Dorico - I mention this because even though it is mainly a notation software, it actually has a DAW in it too. This appears to be a great tool for those who like to compose in music staves, a big plus for the orchestral composer. The staff note lengths can be modified for playback while not affecting the actual note displayed on the staff. Dorico is full of these little kind of tweak features for increasing mockup realism in playback. Usage in addition to Note Performer has produced some very good sounding mockups.


----------



## Lukas (Apr 15, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Still lacking in some MIDI features that Logic Pro has.


Which?


----------



## sundrowned (Apr 15, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> If you like to compose in notation software, this is a nice option for Studio One 5.


The basic notation looks quite good but I don't find it very practical because the midi can't be separated from the notation. So anything off the grid tends to be a bit of a mess with no ability to clean it up.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 17, 2022)

sundrowned said:


> The basic notation looks quite good but I don't find it very practical because the midi can't be separated from the notation. So anything off the grid tends to be a bit of a mess with no ability to clean it up.


Not sure what that means. There isn't anything written in the piano roll window in MIDI that won't display on the music staff, and visa versa. And that function is the same in ALL other DAWS that also have a staff display.


----------



## Lukas (Apr 17, 2022)

@sundrowned probably meant that you can't change the note positions and lengths (move them off the grid) in the piano view without affecting the notation view.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 17, 2022)

Lukas said:


> Which?


I like Logic Pro's piano roll display for the velocity of notes, the hotter velocity showing towards red, while the lower velocity notes show green. In contrast, Studio One only shows the note velocity with bar fills, and with short notes that doesn't help see the different velocity at all.

In Logic Pro you can have multiple automation lines showing within the same window. Studio One separates them into separate windows.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 17, 2022)

Lukas said:


> @sundrowned probably meant that you can't change the note positions and lengths (move them off the grid) in the piano view without affecting the notation view.


Which why would one not... want the notation to change also? Doesn't make sense.

Dorico does allow you to modify the length of notes without affecting the staff display. But still, if you lengthen an eighth note to sound like a quarter note, why would you not... want the staff to display a quarter note?


----------



## Per Boysen (Apr 17, 2022)

Lukas said:


> Which?


Having used both Logic and Cubase I would guess he is thinking about the MIDI plugins. I've always found Logic's big number of presets useful to play around with for inspiration. Having said that, I mostly use Cubase these days (and some Bitwig).


----------



## Lukas (Apr 17, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> In contrast, Studio One only shows the note velocity with bar fills, and with short notes that doesn't help see the different velocity at all.


Really?


----------



## sundrowned (Apr 17, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> Which why would one not... want the notation to change also?



Because this





looks like this





And there isn't anything you can do about it.

It's very easy to end up with line like this if things are off the grid





Most daws you can clean up the notation without affecting the underlying midi. But not S1. Yet. Hopefully something gets added.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 18, 2022)

Lukas said:


> Really?


So how did you do that, because it looks like a Logic display pasted on top of Studio One piano roll?


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 18, 2022)

Lukas said:


> Really?


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 18, 2022)

sundrowned said:


> Because this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see. I write in the staff before doing anything in the piano roll. And I don't use the staff display to print a score. So everything is quantized when writing in the staff display. Well, Dorico allows you to display that how you want without affecting the playback.


----------



## Lukas (Apr 18, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> So how did you do that, because it looks like a Logic display pasted on top of Studio One piano roll?


I just set "Note Color" to Velocity in the editor toolbar. (It's set to Part in your screenshot.) Possible since version 4.0 (2017). No Photoshop.


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 18, 2022)

Lukas said:


> I just set "Note Color" to Velocity in the editor toolbar. (It's set to Part in your screenshot.) Possible since version 4.0 (2017). No Photoshop.


OK, thanks. Hadn't realized that feature.

But what about multiple automation lines within the same automation window below the piano roll, like Logic has?


----------



## Lukas (Apr 18, 2022)

waveheavy said:


> But what about multiple automation lines within the same automation window below the piano roll, like Logic has?


You can have as many automation lanes on top of each other as you want. Is that what you consider different windows? I'm not sure how it looks exactly in Logic when you have 3 or 4 automation lines in the same view and they are all overlapping.. aren't they hard to see and edit...?


----------



## waveheavy (Apr 18, 2022)

Lukas said:


> You can have as many automation lanes on top of each other as you want. Is that what you consider different windows? I'm not sure how it looks exactly in Logic when you have 3 or 4 automation lines in the same view and they are all overlapping.. aren't they hard to see and edit...?


I looked again in Logic, it's not multiple automation curves, but only one with a subdued view of the notes in the background, which I suppose is so you can know where to start and end the automation curve.


----------



## Lukas (Apr 18, 2022)

Automation Lanes in Studio One:


----------



## Scripter (Apr 18, 2022)

Lukas said:


> Automation Lanes in Studio One:


Studio One for me is a dream. Only think i hate is the lack of a proper batch export and scripting capabilitys.


----------



## Ricgus3 (Apr 18, 2022)

I tried to get into Cubase 10.5 but after the 30 day trial I still was scratching my head a lot and not really felt the workflow was for me. I have S1 at my office which I am slowly learning but it also feels very clunky too use. After my failed attempt at cubase I was recommended reaper by a college 2 years ago and it just clicked with me. Have been using reaper ever since!


----------



## Scripter (Apr 18, 2022)

Ricgus3 said:


> I tried to get into Cubase 10.5 but after the 30 day trial I still was scratching my head a lot and not really felt the workflow was for me. I have S1 at my office which I am slowly learning but it also feels very clunky too use. After my failed attempt at cubase I was recommended reaper by a college 2 years ago and it just clicked with me. Have been using reaper ever since!


Yes Reaper is great too. Just liked the interface of S1 more but that’s really personal preference. For me the learning curve of S1 was really easy. Needed 2 weeks.


----------



## Ricgus3 (Apr 19, 2022)

Scripter said:


> Yes Reaper is great too. Just liked the interface of S1 more but that’s really personal preference. For me the learning curve of S1 was really easy. Needed 2 weeks.


Any good tips on where to look to get a good start on S1?


----------



## Chris Schmidt (Apr 19, 2022)

Audacity


----------



## myfeltgood (Apr 19, 2022)

Ricgus3 said:


> I tried to get into Cubase 10.5 but after the 30 day trial I still was scratching my head a lot and not really felt the workflow was for me. I have S1 at my office which I am slowly learning but it also feels very clunky too use. After my failed attempt at cubase I was recommended reaper by a college 2 years ago and it just clicked with me. Have been using reaper ever since!


REAPER is cool it just needs an overhaul. IMO, it'd be so much better if REAPER...
- switched to a vector-based GUI for the default (yes themes are cool but some of us want a really clean and sophisticated look)
- overhauled the look of their plugins (while it doesn't affect functionality, we have to look at a DAW for hours and it couldn't hurt for it not to be the most unappealing out of all the major DAWS),
- made a great deal of script functions native (it sucks to have to depend on third-party scripts or Reapack),
- had a big draw (Studio One has harmonic editing, Ableton has clip launching, Cubase has the Logical Editors, Logic has Flex Pitch and the Logic Drummer--just a have-to-have feature that no other DAW has).


----------



## Scripter (Apr 20, 2022)

Ricgus3 said:


> Any good tips on where to look to get a good start on S1?


Presonus itself has good short tutorials on Youtube, aswell as Gregor from Presonus. Quanta has also done some great tutorials. Just search for Studio One on Youtube. And of course if you have any special question feel free to ask here. But really S1 is build and works like any other DAW.


----------



## Monkey Man (Apr 20, 2022)

DP's just been updated to v11.1.

"Conventional" (combined MIDI & VI) tracks are now possible.

You can use this method or the old one as well as convert old MIDI-linked-to-VI tracks to combined ones.


----------

