What's new

Cubase 10.30 Update

greggybud

Active Member
The built in tools are good, but personally I feel the implimentation of some are poor I.E the channel strip. The whole mixer should be a clean lunchbox format, not a vertically scrollable mess. It puts a lot of people off using the built in channel strip tools, I'd rather open the channel editor to use the strip, then try use the mixer for strip settings..
I shouldn't be a "vertically scrollable mess" unless the user insists on too much being open at once. There are options about how it will be seen as well as how for example the inserts etc are shown. I hate the skinny scroll bars there. I think most users feel or believe like you, and therefore are focusing more on the channel editor. Especially younger users who have no background with a real mix console.

When C7 was released I personally thought "wow this is wonderful!" But in reality, I was on the fast track of more Waves, UAD, Soundtoys etc...and sub-consciously sort of forgot about the console. Maybe I thought higher quality through 3rd party? I know UAD for emulations not available in the console, makes sense. And task specific tools such as Massenburgs MDWEQ for precision EQ surgery, or if I feel I need a top EQ FabFilter3. But personally, I can't help but wonder if I should have given these tools more chances over the years.

The beta group has discussed whether or not the improved channel editor will revive interest for the 3 consoles. And there is more channel editor improvements to come in a few months! Regardless, I'm very happy the meters are back!
 

greggybud

Active Member
Well since the re-vamp of the channel strip I am trying to use it more. As I mentioned in the thread about saturation I haven’t tried that yet but I am using the Pre section rather than using my 3rd party EQ for the filters.
When you purchased the 3rd party filter EQ, did you feel obligated to use it vs. the built-in one? Or maybe the question is why you purchased it assuming it wasn't free?

I too am trying to use it a bit more. So far, my feelings are along the lines of what I like about for example all the UAD 1176's. The 1176's seem to work more quickly in a mix vs. the console compressors.
 

ChazC

Cryogenically frozen in 1986 and just thawed out
@greggybud Yeah, the whole look of the Steinberg mix consoles is shocking. They look horrible. Really horrible. Especially if you come from an analogue background and are used to physical mixing desk operation.

The only thing Pro Tools still has going for it IMO is that it’s mix window is by far the best looking mixer on any DAW available. It’s just a shame everything else in it (with possibly the exception of ease of audio editing) isn’t up to the same level as any other DAW available!
 

Dewdman42

Senior Member
It has a few more things going for it. If you read the AdmiralBumbleBee reports, PT is the only one that keeps passing all these fader noise and automation timing tests with flying colors, pretty much all other DAW's have all sorts of quirks. Is that worth the price Avid wants to subscribe? Not for me.
 

ChazC

Cryogenically frozen in 1986 and just thawed out
When you purchased the 3rd party filter EQ, did you feel obligated to use it vs. the built-in one? Or maybe the question is why you purchased it assuming it wasn't free?

I too am trying to use it a bit more. So far, my feelings are along the lines of what I like about for example all the UAD 1176's. The 1176's seem to work more quickly in a mix vs. the console compressors.
I was using 3rd party plugins for years before I even looked at Cubase/Nuendo. I switched from analogue workflow with Pro Tools 5 so I already had my workflow entrenched in 3rd party pluginswhich is why, as well as the Cubase mixer looking terrible, I never even looked at the in-built strip. With the re-vamp the strip has become more usable but the mixer still looks a real mess but I am trying to use it more.
 

ChazC

Cryogenically frozen in 1986 and just thawed out
Is that worth the price Avid wants to subscribe? Not for me.
Without de-railing the thread - Avid derailed Pro Tools as soon as they introduced their extortion plan of ‘support’ subscriptions for permanent licenses - that’s where I got off the Avid train. Their latest move is even more insulting especially with how they sold the original subscription plan to the user base. “This new plan will enable us to roll out updates more frequently”. Yeah right.
 

ChazC

Cryogenically frozen in 1986 and just thawed out
It has a few more things going for it. If you read the AdmiralBumbleBee reports, PT is the only one that keeps passing all these fader noise and automation timing tests with flying colors
Numbers on a page at the end of the day - find me one client that has complained about fader noise or micro delays in automation! :)

I just really wish Steinberg would take a look at the mixer. Even the colour scheme is off-putting. I really am trying to use the in-built strip more but as MarcusD said, it’s a vertical scrolling mess if you put everything you need onto the mix screen. So for now it’s just the Pre section getting used really.

I went touchscreen a couple of years back but I’m now looking at getting a fader bank again so I can go back to having my second screen dedicated to the channel editor/plugin windows - just because the mix window is such a mess. It’s infuriating really.
 

greggybud

Active Member
They look horrible. Really horrible. Especially if you come from an analogue background and are used to physical mixing desk operation.
I have abused plenty of very expensive real desks, so yes I come from a real analog background.

mix console 13.jpg I really like the look. Or maybe we are not addressing the same thing? I don't like the skinny scroll bar. I guess if you want really real looking you go with Reaper and one of those really real looking skins, but that has plenty of drawbacks. What is bad about the colors? Do you have the rack settings configured the way you wish? (the separate down arrow next to the racks down arrow)

If someone could give a step-by-step repro of what is meant by a "vertical scrolling mess" I might agree, but so far it works for me.
 
Last edited:

ChazC

Cryogenically frozen in 1986 and just thawed out
If someone could give a step-by-step repro of what is meant by a "vertical scrolling mess" I might agree, but so far it works for me.
If it works for you that's great - it doesn't work for me.

I like to have my fundamental mixing controls readily available, not having to scroll through or click drop downs to get to them (how many analogue desks do you know where you have to open a drawer or reach under the table to get to your EQ controls?!) :) .

That's why I find Console 1 far more conducive to the creative mixing process than the Cubase channel strip hence it very rarely gets used - which is a shame.

Does anyone here use the CC121 - does that improve the situation at all? I'd be curious to find out.
 
OP
MarcusD

MarcusD

Active Member
a
I shouldn't be a "vertically scrollable mess" unless the user insists on too much being open at once. There are options about how it will be seen as well as how for example the inserts etc are shown. I hate the skinny scroll bars there. I think most users feel or believe like you, and therefore are focusing more on the channel editor. Especially younger users who have no background with a real mix console.
Apologies, my explanation was poorly worded... Here's what Im trying to explain. The issue I have is with the design of the strip in the mixer. Logically it makes sense but the implementation of it could be better from a design point of view. My problem with the built-in strip is that it starts to become cumbersome with a lot of scrolling / expanding & closing of boxes / features that are taking-up a LOT of wasted space.

Expanding all the strip slots (EQ, Compressor, Shaper, Tape, Limiter etc...(Not the inserts, sends etc...) means you need to scroll up & down to view them constantly, regardless of the channel width. If you want to utilise the strip + inserts, sends etc... the mixer becomes counterproductive in the sense you're having to navigate in a unnecessary fashion to do a simple task. This is because all the boxes, menus and text acumilate causing visual congestion. It could be more streamlined and de-cluttered so you're not messing around so much.

For me, opening the channel editor is far easier (only I want to use the strip features) simply because everything is right there with no messing. 2 tabs vs the 6 expandable strip tabs (wich BTW are SLOW as hell when re-ordering) is more efficient to work with. It has nothing to do with having any sort of experience on a mixing console. I've worked on a console in the past, this should be a smooth experience. It just isnt. If Steinberg want people to utilize the in-built features more they need to implement them better by design. It's as simple as that. (no offence to the guys at Steinberg)

The Strip could work better if was actually a part of the channel fader. Then from the left tabs (where zones are) have a separate tab that allows you to switch between each tool in the strip (like mixhub). From the fader you could have a pop out region, that lets you re-order the signal chain for the strip too.

Here's a quick pick of what I mean, by no means do I think this is how they should do it. But it's much easier to work with IMO. Also save's confusion on what I'm trying to explain.. (Sorry to derail the thread with this)
 

Buddy

New Member
I was hoping this would make Vocalign Project 3 work in Cubase. No luck yet. Seems like it won't let you pull in any guide track outside of the clip you've currently loaded the extension on.

Anyone figured this out?
 

greggybud

Active Member
you need to scroll up & down to view them constantly, regardless of the channel width. If you want to utilise the strip + inserts, sends etc... the mixer becomes counterproductive in the sense you're having to navigate in a unnecessary fashion to do a simple task. This is because all the boxes, menus and text acumilate causing visual congestion. It could be more streamlined and de-cluttered so you're not messing around so much.

For me, opening the channel editor is far easier (only I want to use the strip features) simply because everything is right there with no messing. 2 tabs vs the 6 expandable strip tabs
Okay thank you for the explanation. I get it. And I too use the channel editor much more often than the 3 consoles.
 

novaburst

Senior Member
rolled back to 10.0.20, found 10.0.30 very sticky at loading project, no marked improvement feel very relaxed and confident with 10.0.20 and not prepared to go through head bangs trying to figure out why things are suddenly braking in new updates.

I guess the program needs to grow but i am not prepared to Beta test for them and run around in circles.
 

DS_Joost

One day I'll fly away!
a

Apologies, my explanation was poorly worded... Here's what Im trying to explain. The issue I have is with the design of the strip in the mixer. Logically it makes sense but the implementation of it could be better from a design point of view. My problem with the built-in strip is that it starts to become cumbersome with a lot of scrolling / expanding & closing of boxes / features that are taking-up a LOT of wasted space.

Expanding all the strip slots (EQ, Compressor, Shaper, Tape, Limiter etc...(Not the inserts, sends etc...) means you need to scroll up & down to view them constantly, regardless of the channel width. If you want to utilise the strip + inserts, sends etc... the mixer becomes counterproductive in the sense you're having to navigate in a unnecessary fashion to do a simple task. This is because all the boxes, menus and text acumilate causing visual congestion. It could be more streamlined and de-cluttered so you're not messing around so much.

For me, opening the channel editor is far easier (only I want to use the strip features) simply because everything is right there with no messing. 2 tabs vs the 6 expandable strip tabs (wich BTW are SLOW as hell when re-ordering) is more efficient to work with. It has nothing to do with having any sort of experience on a mixing console. I've worked on a console in the past, this should be a smooth experience. It just isnt. If Steinberg want people to utilize the in-built features more they need to implement them better by design. It's as simple as that. (no offence to the guys at Steinberg)

The Strip could work better if was actually a part of the channel fader. Then from the left tabs (where zones are) have a separate tab that allows you to switch between each tool in the strip (like mixhub). From the fader you could have a pop out region, that lets you re-order the signal chain for the strip too.

Here's a quick pick of what I mean, by no means do I think this is how they should do it. But it's much easier to work with IMO. Also save's confusion on what I'm trying to explain.. (Sorry to derail the thread with this)
Reason does this. It's pretty cool. Though the rest of the program wouldn't be your cup of tea, the mixer shines in my opinion!
 

greggybud

Active Member
how did you get yours colored?
What part are you referring to?

If you mean the mix console tools, it's in color preferences, then completely open the tree to see everything and alter your colors.

At this moment due to a bug, once you get things the way you want, don't save it as a preset. Instead, close Cubase, then restart and it should open with your color settings. If you don't do this, Cubase restarts with everything reset factory default.
 

Dracarys

Senior Member
Anyone exporting to locators and it adding extra length? Very annoying for game audio, I've been using ProTools and my work flow has decreased
 

Attachments

Top Bottom