Cubase: Classic or Dud?

I think whether or not a given sequencer/DAW app is classic or dud depends on how you like to work and the relative focus of the feature set. All of the major players (Cubase, Logic, Sonar, Digital Performer, ProTools) have something to offer, but each does something far better than the others.

I use MOTU Digital Performer for MIDI work (mainly because I started with Performer back in...1986?), Emagic Logic Audio Platinum for MIDI and VSTi tracking, and then ProTools TDM for all audio tracking, editing, processing and mixdown.

I think Reason is a great app not so much for its individual components (even if Dr. Rex is like crack!) as much as its ability to provide an environment where ideas can quickly germinate and be prototyped. The degree to which it can “get out of the way” is without parallel. I think the lack of audio recording is because of the provided ReWire functionality - they expect you to integrate it with a sequencer/DAW. The fact Reason does not offer any plug-in functionality necessitates that integration IMHO...and what the hell is up with no VST plug hosting in the forthcoming 2.0?! If Reason added VST-hosting, audio tracks and some other tools in terms of the sequencer, it could easily become one of the major sequencer/DAW apps. Only time will tell if Propellerhead want to move in that direction.

I'm a dinosaur still using Emagic's Notator on the Atari ST. It's absolutely fantastic for midi (very easy to deal with controller info and sysex as well as notes), *NEVER* crashes etc., but obviously it doesn't do audio. I've always hated Cubase whether it be on the Atari, the Mac or the PC. It seems to be incredibly illogical and bug- ridden to me.

I think the Propellerheads expect you to use Reason with Cubase (although I hear Sonar is probably a better program).

Cubase is a piece of shit. I hate it. Even if it didn't fuck up playband and rendering every 5 minutes or so, the interface is lame as far as looping wave file segments go... which is my main operation of song construction... While Vegas is pretty elementary and has shit for good effects/plugins, at least it's stable and has a good interface.

I hate cubase with a passion. It works for some people, but I can never get good results with it. I find I get a lot more work done with my mpc2000xl, it is bare bones, but it makes it very easy to get an idea into a sequencer and then manipulate it without any software bugs or timing glitches. It is spartan, but rock solid.

I still use Cubase for my ultimate track sequencing. It's not the best at experimenting with or editing sound files, but since I have a sampler to take care of those things, Cubase works well enough to set the track pieces in a solid arrangement. I'm not exactly an expert with pro-audio software so I'm probably ignorant of better applications, but I've grown on to the program without having to mess with any *major* glitches.

okay, a bit off topic, but I have trouble understanding how Reason "doesn't get in the way". I don't see how it can be used as much more than a toy to fool around with, and even then it sucks in so many ways. Can anyone explain to me why the designers felt it necessary to imitate old hardware that had a shitty user interface to begin with? For instance, when you have an LFO why can't it show you the waveform shrink and expand as you change the frequency so that you can get visual feedback in addition to what you hear? In software this is easy to do and is very useful...instead you have the original hardware limitations imposed on you without being able to touch anything. Yay! the worst of both worlds.. Also, the built-in filters sound really flat compared to the ones in fruityloops or almost any other piece of software. Okay, I don't want this to turn into any more of a rant (don't get me started on the "virtual cables"), but doesn't anyone else find the UI completely back-asswards? I usually don't get angry over computer software but something about Reason just gets to me...

I hate cubase soooo much. I cannot believe anyone can use software with such a terrible user interface. "Oh how do I set the tempo to fit this sample" - "well you right click on the bit of space below the button that says "--.kkk", drag your cursor half way across the world, chat an acient spiritual and you should get something like what you want, only you won't be able to see it until you restart". Well, ok, but you get the picture.

I've been using Pro-Tools Free recently, which I'm *far* happier with, and it has the added advantage that I'm not breaking the law by using a cracked copy. It still crashes now and then, but things make far more sense than in cubase. Only problem is that I just got a MAudio Delta 410 soundcard with the 8 separate outs and Pro-Tools can only make use of two of them... grrr. Anyone care to compare Logic Audio to Cubase and Pro-Tools?

Cubone is cool, but Marowak is better.

Wow Cubase is still around? I remeber just being happy that it mapped drum notation. Ran beautifully on a 486SX 4Meg ram which more then I can say for some of its competitors.
Which product was/is made by Mark of the Unicorn? It blew chunks on mac, to put it nicely.

No, no, no.

Hardware is your friend.

For MIDI at least. For audio, VST thingummy, sure, use software... I'd probably go along with Logic at a pinch, the Cubase isn't exactly dreadful. Reason's an entirely seperate approach and in many ways more limited... it's more generic.

I've heard great things about DP, though.

I'd agree with the first poster that everything does something better than another. Having said that completely obvious statement, what you're ultimately working with is digital audio, and as long as your means of conversion between analog and digital is very clean, you should have few problems with the end result being of quality. The interface varies for what you're working on. I use Cubase when I just want to pile on the effects and do some quite and dirty work-- ProTools in the studio, as always. But lately I've been using Samplitude, which is a German program, but is wicked powerful. It doesn't really behave ala Windows (the ctrl-x/c and all that can sometimes be assigned to other key-combo's,) but it has a lot more flexibility in terms of wave editing. However, since Cubase handles a lot of effects which aren't shabby, and so far under XP it hasn't crashed once, I'm actually going back to it. So if you want a ton of effects for cheap + VST inputs, go with Cubase. If you want industry standard, ProTools. Depending on which version you have, Vegas does a lot more than just audio, but as an audio system, it's solid but not necessarily groundbreaking. Samplitude does crazy things, like capturing reverb in a room via an echo sample and rebuilding the reverb settings and stuff... it's insane, but also very German and difficult to figure out. And Nuendo, Steinberg(maker of Cubase)'s new baby, is fairly neat and beautifully designed, but apparently very crash-prone. Nuendo and Samplitude both offer non-destructive editing, which means that you can save several different versions of a mix without disrupting the original wav files.

Regarding Reason, I think there was an older thread discussing this issue (I think I actually posted it, silly me,) but basically Reason is a different beast altogether. An unfriendly, obnoxious, but very cute beast. Like another poster, I also can't figure why they decided to stick with the old fashioned interfaces--I mean, yes it's cool-looking and there's low entry for seasoned programmers, but for chrissakes, twiddling knobs realtime in virtual space just sucks. By comparison, Fruityloops is so much more layout friendly, and cheaper.

Cool.

Right now, the only things I like about Cubase are the Arpeggiator and the Pro 52. When the Absynth is released you can add that to the equation. But Qbase will crashe and therefore suck whatever. Fruity Loops is OK, but in all seriousness Reason pisses over it from a giddy height and Arturia's Storm is a wasted sperm of a program.

I don't know what to compare the virtual-analog synths to - using a mouse to control "parameters" sucks I agree, but at the end of the day I LOVE the sounds. Yeah, you should rewire Reason into Cubase, I've just been lazy. Worked it out today.

Can I just say, I don't use cracked copies of software because it's illegal and what is illegal is unequivocally immoral. The UN sanctions against Iraq are 100% legal and have led to the completely legal and moral deaths of 1.5 million Iraqi citizens. We should all respect that. I have never smoked a marijuana cigarette in my life let alone tried any Class A substances and those that do or have done should clearly be sent to jail.

I don't know much about Sonar.

Chris Sallis

blimey! turn over a thread, find a buncha boffins...

Digital Performer is MOTU's sequencing suite.

I think Reason was very wise to use the rackmount paradigm. to be perfectly honest, I get it, you know what I mean? As a guy who came up on hardware, it makes sense to plug your virtual synth into a couple virtual processors, and then route the signal into a virtual mackie. I have messed with the program a bit, and I though it was alright, wouldn't sell my hardware though.

I have been messing with Reaktor, I almost sold my gear and went laptop because of that program. Sounds gear and is very powerful. I do understand why Eno distrusts computer music, the computer interface does tend to give certain results. I hate to say that the computer has allmost wrecked IDM, too many loopy twee melody tracks, no real song writing.

Cubase is a fantastic program. Most of the people who winge about it, either have dodgy software, dodgy hardware or lack of knowledge on how to use the system properly. The VST instruments are a godsend as is the plugin support. Let's not forget, it's a professional package, and as is quite often the case with such software, it's not always obvious how to operate it and set it up without a bit of technical nouse and a look around the manual. If we we're handing out points for a package's pros and cons on all levels, MIDI, Audio, FX, Instruments, Compatability, etc Protools would fall behind cubase no question. If you were after an audio only engine, that may not be the case, but hey, in the grand scheme of things, we're still fairly new at this housing a recording studio in a small white box thing.

Cubase is a fantastic program. Most of the people who winge about it, either have dodgy software, dodgy hardware or lack of knowledge on how to use the system properly

I don't tink it's that - it's just I don't have the patience to work with shoddily written and unintuitive user interfaces. I'm sure it suits many people who have been using it since MSDOS days but I'm used to a GUI. I'm sure the underlying technology is fantastic but they make it far too hard to get at.

I'm sure it suits many people who have been using it since MSDOS days but I'm used to a GUI.

It wasn't available in MSDOS days. It was released in 1989, I think, on the Atari ST platform and didn't become available on PC or Mac until a few years after that.

I'm using it on the atari platform - i have the last-but-one version, with the "Midex +" which gives U 4 extra midi outs, as well as SMPTH sync. Basically it's fucking great, and in my experience very transparent & easy to use.. I occasionally use cubase 5 on the PC at the dance guy's place, and it's generally similar IMO, and the only problem I have that's not down to his shitty soundcard & poor configuring skillz0rz is that floating transport window which always seems to be in the way wherever U put it. Possibly this year I will upgrade my atari plus hardware hard disc recorder setup to a PC I will build (I would go for g4 dual processor, but U cannot assemble these from selected components like w/a PC. Bummer) Certainly Cubase will be the first prog. I will buy. I like it a lot, and do not want to switch to another interface at this stage.

Does anyone have experience with working on the same Cubase project on both Mac and PC? I'm considering doing this, taking files back and forth between a tracking facility that runs on Mac and editing at home on my PC via an external hard drive. Any words of wisdom?

This line of discourse seems somewhat silly and illogical to me.
There is still a great matter of preference,as to what program should be used. It is not only about this program being better than that one.

As well most musicians who use software are completely removed from the world of true art, and are seeking consolation and refuge behind equipment and fx. If one is going to compose on software progs. I say use 'em all!!
Acid, Ableton, FL Studio, Reason, Cubase, Pro Tools, Nuendo, Sonar, Melodyne, Logic etc.

Being a composer of music, Hand writing Note for note (which seems to be something archaic) is still the very best way. For one is still entirely immersed in their artistic world.
With software, one needs to use all the tools available to get as close to the music as possible and stay honest to what they initially experienced, as opposed to letting the prog do the work.

If you are to slow or lazy to figure out a program .... well cut your losses .. too bad for you.

Now instead of complaining get back to work!!!(or design your own prog)

Oh and Now a question Haha :)

No one has mentioned Acid, or Ableton 3.0 how does the community feel about these programs??

"Being a composer of music, Hand writing Note for note (which seems to be something archaic) is still the very best way. For one is still entirely immersed in their artistic world."

I've tried composing techno in this way but it's difficult to indicate the precise nuances of the filter sweeps, the speed of the low frequency oscillators, the timbre of the synths etc so I stick to software sequencing, which is admittedly seeking "consolation and refuge behind equipment and fx"...

For 15 years now I have preferred a rudimentary sequencer - any kind - to a PC / Cubase approach, as I think I write faster and more intuitively that way. I don't know how informed my opinion is, but I have noticed that PC based programmer friends of mine write more slowly, and their music is structurally a lot more predictable (in spite of the greater programming flexibility).

My theory was that it encouraged more of a presequenced approach and discouraged performance at mixdown. But this may only be part of the problem, because highly technically minded people who have trouble just running with ideas are often attracted to this gear. Collaborating with producers using elaborate PC-based sequence set-ups in other studios is an odd experience, as things seem to slow right down. I also had the very, very odd experience of being in a successful techno act which moved from primitive digital sequencing (not much analogue) with no visual screen interface to Cubase, and suddenly lost our audience. Whatever that feeling was that we had, we lost it at that point. The music suddenly became less satisfying even to us. Sort of glossy and uninteresting. Mysterious stuff.

Did it not occur to you to change and adapt at all?

Change and adaptation are important, yes. In my case, there is a financial constraint. I can't afford to upgrade. Nevertheless, I have found that, yes, change and adaptation are very possible without depending on upgrades. Instead of going for more powerful set-ups, I've had to resort to using my old gear in new ways... writing in new styles and so one.

I suspect that even if I could afford to upgrade, I probably wouldn't at this stage, as I'd rather change the style and feel of my music at the mental level first, then go to the studio and apply the new approach and idea, rather than upgrading in the expectation that my music would suddenly blossom. Not everyone would agree obviously.

Yeah - most of the kitheads I know who constantly are getting the lastest of every package are basically using it as a way of avoiding actually making any music. Wierd bunch. I'm a huge advocate of getting more out of your current setup rather than running to anything new. There's a time and place for it, but it shouldn't be a constant state of affairs.

the music mole - I'd rather change the style and feel of my music at the mental level first, then go to the studio and apply the new approach and idea, rather than upgrading in the expectation that my music would suddenly blossom.

This is a much better approach I feel as well.

I've tried composing techno in this way (On paper) but it's difficult to indicate the precise nuances of the filter sweeps, the speed of the low frequency oscillators, the timbre of the synths etc so I stick to software sequencing, which is admittedly seeking "consolation and refuge behind equipment and fx"...

Yes this is true virtually impossible, but one could definately work on many and pretty much the most important aspects of a piece on paper or internally such as Structure, Melody, Harmony, Rhythm once this is done it becomes much easier as well, to drop it into a program...then... well use the hell out of software! and take full advantage of all the computer has to offer.

The reason why I stress the importance of the compositional aspect is due to the fact that although we are having great technological advances we are living in an artistic dark age.

I agree, although I'd like to say that in my opinion there is a renaissance hidden deep within the artistic dark age, if you can find it.

Even if, like me, you have no compositional skills in the formal classical staves and notes sense, you can certainly formulate 'inner visions' that go right down to loose conceptions of how the way the sounds are, and how they are programmed, and the effect the music is meant to have on the listener or dancer. In my experience, once things are worked out this way, the studio part is the tail of the snake, and things happen very quickly.

Also, some producers I know who also have no formal/classical training are able to develop their own rudimentary notation systems which they rely on to work out their ideas. One guy I worked with used to use arrows to represent duration and channels to represent different sounds. It was a notation system loosely based on the mixing desk and guided us at the mixdown stage.

To summarise my rather inchoate thinking on this matter, it seems as if software can have a normalising influence on peoples' creative thinking by stealing their innate capacity to adapt and innovate in their own eccentric, interesting ways. However I wouldn't want to run with this view too far, as it's just a tendency, as far as I can see.

I knew how to use it, once!

Anyone know which is the best program to make decent Pop music? I have no experience in sound engineering or technical knowledge of any sort. I got a second-hand copy of Reason 2.5 recently and I was just overwhelmed. All the knobs sort of actually made me depressed. Is there an easier program with powerful effects/editing abilities?

Um, what are you going to edit/add effects to?

Ha, na, okay if you are a beginner or a person who can't spend that much time with this stuff but wants to play around anyway (like me, I'm like both of those things) then a neato thing to do is get ("get", you know?) like Ableton 4 or something and a whole bunch of cool vsts that do all sorts of different things off of kvr-vst.com (there's really no competition to that site, they are awesome) and mess around with all of it. You won't end up getting creatively stifled like those guys are talking about up there because you've got a basically never-ending supply of completely different toys to play with. And you can rewire Reason in there too if you want to use some of its cool features as well (you know you can just ignore like 99% of the knobs on most of these things, right? Presets are totally Street, remember, even in software).

Stay away from Fruityloops. Just say no.

Just for balance - vote YES for Fruity Loops. If you've no real prior experience it's a good intro.

I used Fruity Loops for a while when I had a really old and slow computer (400MHz, 64kb RAM) because it was about the only thing I could get to work.

:(

i used to use fruity loops. it's ok i guess, but i found i would end up altering the hell out of any songs or loops i made with it to make them sound better or more interesting. it's good tool for beginners though.

cubase should never have gone past the atari. once they attached audio that was it. used cubase since ity came out and i still prefer the atari version. on the pc, it's ugly and clunky. you either have to have this piece of hardware or that piece of something else.at least cubase is better than pro-24.

I've got a Cubase question, if anyone can help. I've got my midi controller setup working great, but I can't get any VST instruments/soft synths besides the ones that come with Cubase to be recognized. I have them saved in the VST Plugins folder, but I can't bring them up in the program. This is SX2 btw. Thanks!

Ok... let's break this down for the beginners here.

What is the best place to start, I'm getting confused here. Is it better to start with Reason, Cubase or Digital Performer? From what I understand so far, Reason is a sequencer/sampler/synth... and Cubase & DP are just sequencers, is that correct? If so, then how does the VST thing come into play?

I just want to make music... and I'd like a program that has expandability and room for creativity. Any suggestions?

Cubase is the full package - live recording, audio editing, VSTs, everything. I haven't even done much of what's traditionally considered sequencing on it (what IS traditionally considered sequencing, anyyway?).

Sequencing would be MIDI, right? i.e. Using a pre-recorded-or-programmed set of MIDI data to control (a) synth(s) or sound module(s).

Sonar is the full package too, plus it does the looping thing the same way that Fruity Loops does.

There is a smaller-with-less-features version of Cubase called Cubasis that ships with some hardware (like soundcards) and I think is available for free). Cakewalk makes programs for Home Recording or whatever that are cheap and kinda based on the same idea (look & feel) as Sonar if you wanted to go that route.

VST isn't worth getting into here cause there's plenty to say about it, but most of it's already been said in hundreds of recording forums on the net.

You never said what kind of music you want to make. I mean if you're planning to play actual instruments and record them, you'd be looking for something different than if you want everything contained in one box.

I just sort of avoid MIDI. I have some guilt about this...I'll record keyboard parts from a MIDI controller/VST instruments into Cubase, but then export & import so I can deal with them as audio files.