The CUBASE 5 thread.. pros and cons. stay on topic!

[redroom]

Originally Posted by asylum

does anyone else find the markers track preety bad in comparison to pro tools markers - you can get a visual of the marker as it crosses the whole session in the arrange window, i find i have to keep moving the markers track to see the position - anyone ideas for a visual marker - does this bother anyone else even?

Split the project page and put the Marker track at the top

[Sascha Franck]

Originally Posted by shanabit

NO ONES system should be cramping up with only 10 tracks running

Pretty much exactly. Just that Cubase manages to run that bad on what I think is still a rather decent laptop.

Don't get me wrong, I think Cubase is a very capable program. Under Windows, that is. Under OSX efficiency is a joke, to say the least. It always has been like this.
I'm fine with that, simply because I'm thinking of leaving OSX in a while, so my next music machine might as well be a Windows machine. Yet, it's a little dissapointing that Steinberg don't seem to get their Mac act together since ages. I still think that the idea of an x-platform sequencer is a good one... but well, yeah, Apple is having their fair share in this to not ever happen again, too.

- Sascha

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by Sascha Franck

Pretty much exactly. Just that Cubase manages to run that bad on what I think is still a rather decent laptop.

Don't get me wrong, I think Cubase is a very capable program. Under Windows, that is. Under OSX efficiency is a joke, to say the least. It always has been like this.
I'm fine with that, simply because I'm thinking of leaving OSX in a while, so my next music machine might as well be a Windows machine. Yet, it's a little dissapointing that Steinberg don't seem to get their Mac act together since ages. I still think that the idea of an x-platform sequencer is a good one... but well, yeah, Apple is having their fair share in this to not ever happen again, too.

- Sascha

I FEEL your pain here. I honestly at this point wish they would drop OSX support since they half butt it anyway. Its been crappy for the last 6 years here on the Mac and I dont see it improving one bit. They NEED to just focus on the CORE of the app and quit with all the toys. Ill be moving to the PC as well

[George Necola]

what's the problem with cubase on mac?

facts please

[Sascha Franck]

Originally Posted by George Necola

what's the problem with cubase on mac?

facts please

I guess all you have to do is to read my previous posts. Performance is just extremely lousy and there's graphic glitches all over the place (these apparently started with C5, but I can't tell personally because the last version I used before was SX3/Win).
At 64 samples it's almost impossible to do any serious work on my Macbook 2.4 (4GB RAM).
I know, a comparison with Logic isn't all too fair because the Logic programmers have a certain advantage (being a division of Apple), but still, I can't see how the differences could be that dramatic. Also, from my brief tests with Reaper and Energy XT (both of which are quite lagging behind their Windows versions), they seem to perform better under low latencies as well.

Even back then under Windows, the differences in terms of low latency performance between Logic and Cubase SX (of course measured on a single core machine as Logic/Win can't take advance of multiple cores) were quite noticeable already (I'd say something like around 30% better performance), but very often that was quite fine as Cubase offered some nice features, so there's been a good reason to use it occasionally (apart from the fact that I had to do so because I was teaching it at the local music university).
But what I'm experiencing now is quite something different - it's really like night and day. And I really doubt that it has much to do with my setup (if at all), as Logic is performing very well - plus, as said, within their own limitations also Reaper and Energy XT (plus something else I can't talk about here) are doing fine. It's really just Cubase behaving that bad.
I already checked with 4 different audio interfaces, too, doesn't make any difference.

And believe me, I *wish* this would be any different. Right now I'm looking for a true alternative to Logic (Reaper simply doesn't fit the bill at all yet), preferably one that is x-platform, so I could already start using it today and continue with it once I'm ready to purchase my next music laptop (which would probably be a Windows one again). Theoretically Cubase could be perfect for this, I could start to transfer my older but still active Logic projects, replace plugins with x-platform stuff, etc.
But with that bad performance figures, I really hate to even open it. Too bad.

- Sascha

[George Necola]

I forwarded your complaints to the Steinberg headquarter (Sales department). waiting for answer, and maybe they join in here themselve.

Originally Posted by Sascha Franck

I guess all you have to do is to read my previous posts. Performance is just extremely lousy and there's graphic glitches all over the place (these apparently started with C5, but I can't tell personally because the last version I used before was SX3/Win).
At 64 samples it's almost impossible to do any serious work on my Macbook 2.4 (4GB RAM).
I know, a comparison with Logic isn't all too fair because the Logic programmers have a certain advantage (being a division of Apple), but still, I can't see how the differences could be that dramatic. Also, from my brief tests with Reaper and Energy XT (both of which are quite lagging behind their Windows versions), they seem to perform better under low latencies as well.

Even back then under Windows, the differences in terms of low latency performance between Logic and Cubase SX (of course measured on a single core machine as Logic/Win can't take advance of multiple cores) were quite noticeable already (I'd say something like around 30% better performance), but very often that was quite fine as Cubase offered some nice features, so there's been a good reason to use it occasionally (apart from the fact that I had to do so because I was teaching it at the local music university).
But what I'm experiencing now is quite something different - it's really like night and day. And I really doubt that it has much to do with my setup (if at all), as Logic is performing very well - plus, as said, within their own limitations also Reaper and Energy XT (plus something else I can't talk about here) are doing fine. It's really just Cubase behaving that bad.
I already checked with 4 different audio interfaces, too, doesn't make any difference.

And believe me, I *wish* this would be any different. Right now I'm looking for a true alternative to Logic (Reaper simply doesn't fit the bill at all yet), preferably one that is x-platform, so I could already start using it today and continue with it once I'm ready to purchase my next music laptop (which would probably be a Windows one again). Theoretically Cubase could be perfect for this, I could start to transfer my older but still active Logic projects, replace plugins with x-platform stuff, etc.
But with that bad performance figures, I really hate to even open it. Too bad.

- Sascha

[George Necola]

here the answer from the techsupport (in German):

Sascha hat nicht beschrieben wann diese Problemen Problemen auftauchen und wass für Projekten er hat. VST Bitbridge ? Hat er die Aktuelle Treiber installiert für seinen Macbook (es gab glaube ich Problemen mit einen Grafikkarten Treiber, bin mir jetzt nicht sich ob der Macbook auch davon betroffen ist)
Des Weiteren gab es diese Diskussion auch auf unser Forum http://forum.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=118420&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60wo aber kein gemeinsamen "Nenner" gefunden wurde. Schau dir die Posts von PookyNR und Weasel mal an in diesen Topic. Dass es Unterschiede gibt twischen Xp und Mac OS X finde ich aber nicht abnormal.

it basically says, that you should list your project-content and to upgrade to the latest drives, and that they have no clue what it might be

cheers

[Sascha Franck]

Originally Posted by George Necola

I forwarded your complaints to the Steinberg headquarter (Sales department). waiting for answer, and maybe they join in here themselve.

Nice one.

As said, I am in no way saying Steinberg are <insertwhateverinsultshere>, more to the opposite. Unlike Apple, they do seem to care about their flagship sequencer. In addition, I obviously had good reasons to purchase my C5 update. Cubase has been my first sequencer (V1/Atari) and I'm still more or less familiar with it, plus I like quite some of the new features - if only I could make proper use of them...

- Sascha

[Sascha Franck]

Originally Posted by George Necola

it basically says, that you should list your project-content and to upgrade to the latest drives, and that they have no clue what it might be

Well (more or less obviously, for a tech nerd like me), I do of course have the latest drivers for everything installed. And regarding the kind of projects, the problems already start to appear with one single VSTi and just one track - as said, one single instance of Zebra 2 using the default patch is already resulting in quite some problems. High CPU load, graphic glitches and crackles.
And I can play several instances of the very same patch in Logic.

Sure, once I raise my buffersize, things are getting a lot better (the graphic issues aren't, though), but that's clearly not in my interest as I'm a guitar player, so I like to use some amp sim plugins - and with something around 10.5ms of overall (carefully measured) system latency (audio in to audio out that is), anything higher wouldn't be exactly desireable anymore.

As said, this is a very wellknown problem with Cubase on Macs (and partially as well under Windows, other hosts allow for low latencies under high CPU load as well), something that seems to exists since quite some years already. Everything is fine once you raise your buffersizes. But in case you want/need to work with the lowest possible buffersizes, the problems arise. Along the same lines: It's quite common knowledge that Cubase users often raise their buffer sizes once it comes to mixing, simply because you can get a lot better performance out of it in that case. And well, that's in fact not an issue of Cubase vs. Logic on Macs, but it has always been like that. Even back with Logic 5.5.1/Win, the differences in CPU load when using high vs. low buffer sizes were rather minimal whereas with Cubase they were more than just noticeable, sometimes even like night and day.

Fwiw, feel free to forward those Steinberg folks my mail adress, I'd be more than happy to help them out or at least elaborate things a bit further. It's s(dot)franck(at)gmx(dot)de.
I could as well re-sign up to Cubase.net or so, but I lost my old account details years ago (due to a changing mail adress and some (fortunately otherwise irrelevant) backup HDD ****up), so I haven't felt too much of a need so far.

In case someone's interested, I could as well come up with a few testing scenarios. Such as using the very same audio/MIDI files and the very same plugins under either host. I'd bet the differences would be quite more than noticeable.

Cheers
Sascha

[Sascha Franck]

Oh, and in addition: As I only live like 150km away from Hamburg, as I sometimes pass it (on the way to my parents) and even have quite some friends there, I would happily visit the Steinberg headquarters with my more or less entire setup (or at least the relevant portions of it, those being my Macbook and some audio interfaces), so they could tell me what's wrong or so. I'm absolutely open to all suggestions. As said, I wish things would work at least somewhat better.

- Sascha

[shanabit]

Originally Posted by Sascha Franck

Oh, and in addition: As I only live like 150km away from Hamburg, as I sometimes pass it (on the way to my parents) and even have quite some friends there, I would happily visit the Steinberg headquarters with my more or less entire setup (or at least the relevant portions of it, those being my Macbook and some audio interfaces), so they could tell me what's wrong or so. I'm absolutely open to all suggestions. As said, I wish things would work at least somewhat better.

- Sascha

If you do stop there tell Angus to get a hair cut

[George Necola]

Originally Posted by shanabit

If you do stop there tell Angus to get a hair cut

hei, that is part of his personality

[smoke]

Originally Posted by Sascha Franck

Well (more or less obviously, for a tech nerd like me), I do of course have the latest drivers for everything installed. And regarding the kind of projects, the problems already start to appear with one single VSTi and just one track - as said, one single instance of Zebra 2 using the default patch is already resulting in quite some problems. High CPU load, graphic glitches and crackles.
And I can play several instances of the very same patch in Logic.

Sure, once I raise my buffersize, things are getting a lot better (the graphic issues aren't, though), but that's clearly not in my interest as I'm a guitar player, so I like to use some amp sim plugins - and with something around 10.5ms of overall (carefully measured) system latency (audio in to audio out that is), anything higher wouldn't be exactly desireable anymore.

As said, this is a very wellknown problem with Cubase on Macs (and partially as well under Windows, other hosts allow for low latencies under high CPU load as well), something that seems to exists since quite some years already. Everything is fine once you raise your buffersizes. But in case you want/need to work with the lowest possible buffersizes, the problems arise. Along the same lines: It's quite common knowledge that Cubase users often raise their buffer sizes once it comes to mixing, simply because you can get a lot better performance out of it in that case. And well, that's in fact not an issue of Cubase vs. Logic on Macs, but it has always been like that. Even back with Logic 5.5.1/Win, the differences in CPU load when using high vs. low buffer sizes were rather minimal whereas with Cubase they were more than just noticeable, sometimes even like night and day.

Fwiw, feel free to forward those Steinberg folks my mail adress, I'd be more than happy to help them out or at least elaborate things a bit further. It's s(dot)franck(at)gmx(dot)de.
I could as well re-sign up to Cubase.net or so, but I lost my old account details years ago (due to a changing mail adress and some (fortunately otherwise irrelevant) backup HDD ****up), so I haven't felt too much of a need so far.

In case someone's interested, I could as well come up with a few testing scenarios. Such as using the very same audio/MIDI files and the very same plugins under either host. I'd bet the differences would be quite more than noticeable.

Cheers
Sascha

Yeah, Cubase on Macintosh doesn't like complex synth programming, doesn't like convolution, amp modelers... these sort of things tax my system immediately. Basically with Mac Cubase, the CPU meters determine what you can have in your project. You learn how to get by with just a few instruments. It would be nice to see how it feels to actually layer 7 synths, run an amp, and have 3 REVerences going. But no way in hell that's happening here, and I'm all updated as well. That's quite an insult from them... are they not aware of the issues Mac users have? People complain about it at Cubase.net. Is anyone reading over there?

I'd be willing to do some tests. Would be good to get some solid numbers and stats rather than come off ranting.

[shanabit]

Smoke, its been like that for YEARS. It aint gonna change either. Same old song and dance. I could post you all the promises to optimize Cubase on the Mac but I threw them away KNOWING it wasnt ever gonna happen. Cubase Mac sucking my CPU since 2003 LOL

George, heres the facts you asked for. CUbase on the PC, diff story

Cubase.net .:::. View topic - Cubase 5 HUGE Performance Problems on OSX

[Sascha Franck]

Originally Posted by shanabit

Smoke, its been like that for YEARS. It aint gonna change either. Same old song and dance. I could post you all the promises to optimize Cubase on the Mac but I threw them away KNOWING it wasnt ever gonna happen. Cubase Mac sucking my CPU since 2003 LOL

I just read through the Cubase.net thread you posted and what's written in there plus your statement above are 100% what I'm experiencing since a number of years.
Unfortunately, C5 seems to even make things a little worse. I remember running a Cubase vs. Logic comparison back some time, using a G5, SX3 and Logic 7. Logic was already winning hands down but as said before, there were some situations when it actually made sense to use Cubase instead. On my current system (which actually outperforms that said G5 in most aspects, using Logic, even if it's only a Macbook), I fail to see how I would ever open it to get any work done.
As said, I want to work at the lowest possible latencies my system is able to deliver without choking. With Logic, 64 samples is just working great all throughout a project (yes, even when doing my lousy mixing attempts), to get a remotely similar performance with Cubase, I'd probably have to switch to 512 or so. No thanks.

Is there a bunch of freely available plugins in both VST and AU format that we could use for some reallife tests? Preferably, they should also be available for Windows.
Of course these tests wouldn't be exactly scientific as comparing VSTs vs AUs might not be too fair sometimes, but I think that at least some coders do a great job for either format.
Perhaps Crystal and Smartelectronix' Ambience would be a good start - from what I know, both of them come in all three plugin formats.

- Sascha

[Lemontree]

I just upgraded from CS4 to C5. I have to admit I hung off with the upgrade till the first update was released for C5. This was mainly because I am a Yamaha N12 user and although the mixer bares the cubase logo it was never actualy tested with C5 before it was released.

That aside I have to say this is the most rock solid DAW I've had to date. I do pretty intense stuff like recording roland V drums triggering superior drumer 2.0 through the N12 midi in at 32 samples for 1.2ms latency, good enough for any drummer to keep time and record bass, 2 guitars vocals and keys at the same time. Couple of times I've had to bump up to 64 samples on mixdown but that's with 24+ tracks

I haven't explored all the new features yet, many I think are aimed at one man band projects like the loopmash and autotune although I see how they could be very usefull tools in another scenario.

My N12 has never been more solid. This front end marries perfectly with C5 and increases the workflow 10 fold.

Delighted.

[Jovas]

A little something about the included plugin's/instruments;

Mystic, Spector, Beatdesingner, Loopmash, GooveAgent sound pretty good.

I can't seem to get a decent strong and warm analogue sound out of Prologue though. If I compare it with Sylenth1 demo for example, I just can't get that sound out of it..

Another bummer is that the changes I make in for example lfo settings are not saved correctly, this also goes for Spector and Mystic..

[Trevor G]

Been using C5 nearly 24/7 for about 3 months now.
Pros;
Generally CPU is lower than C4(even with Reverence working)
Vario Audio and Pitch corrector are GREAT.
Beat designer over due addition.
GA One is good but no replacement for RMX
LoopMash is great fun but similar to Reaktor instruments.
Automation panel is a life saver
VST Expression works very well
GUI much prettier and easier on the eye for long periods
REVerence is GREAT
Batch export is a huge relief
Halion One is a good bread and butter workhorse.
SOME plugin are fantastic
Media Bay saves a lot of time

Cons
Window sizing constantly changes giving it an amateurish feel!
VST Instruments still inferior to most 3rd party VSTIS
No DXi support.

[Jorg]

vari audio is good to have but unfortunately you cant set a key and make the notes snap to only notes within the key. That is one of the most basic and fundmental features of ALL other pitch correction programs.

[smoke]

Originally Posted by Jovas

A little something about the included plugin's/instruments;

Mystic, Spector, Beatdesingner, Loopmash, GooveAgent sound pretty good.

I can't seem to get a decent strong and warm analogue sound out of Prologue though. If I compare it with Sylenth1 demo for example, I just can't get that sound out of it..

Another bummer is that the changes I make in for example lfo settings are not saved correctly, this also goes for Spector and Mystic..

With the exception of A1, Cubase's synths, however great they are, they tend to work for colder raster sounding synthesis.

Actually, Prologue, for me is the warmest, because it is the most like an analog additive synth. The distortion panel is important.

HALion One to me can be plasticky for acoustic instruments, horrible for anything that depends on delicate velo dynamics.

Groove Agent One, has a horrible filter. Just disgusting and tinny.

Overall though, I'm not complaining about Cubase features. I love Cubase, just wish it would run more efficiently.
I don't think anyone questions Cubase on PC, it's Mac users that get the short end of the stick.

[Jovas]

Originally Posted by Trevor G

Cons
Window sizing constantly changes giving it an amateurish feel!

Also noticed this, and it is a real pain in the ass. This is a confirmed bug, right..?

[Sascha Franck]

Originally Posted by Trevor G

Window sizing constantly changes giving it an amateurish feel!

This is really one part of Cubase that simply sucks since ages. They are defenitely not getting their window handling act together. Especially as soon as the various keycommands start changing in an almost random fashion once you mix float windows and workspaces, it's getting horrible.
The resizng issue has been there since ages.

- Sascha

[Jovas]

Originally Posted by Sascha Franck

This is really one part of Cubase that simply sucks since ages. They are defenitely not getting their window handling act together. Especially as soon as the various keycommands start changing in an almost random fashion once you mix float windows and workspaces, it's getting horrible.
The resizng issue has been there since ages.

- Sascha

I work on one screen, and 4.5.2 didn't give me window problems at all. 5.0.1 is pure drama for some reason. Usually I use the window minimize all function, cause that is the only way to organise things in chaos, but sometimes this doesn't even work ether.. How hard can it be to program a system which remembers your window and VSTi settings?

I hate to be negative, but this is a huge bummer..

[studiogear]

i moved from pc to mac...new intel nehalem...it's been great..also much more ram available than pc...managed to get 7GB ram usage...thanks to the way os x addresses ram usage...

[TheMarqueeYears]

Originally Posted by Lemontree

I just upgraded from CS4 to C5. I have to admit I hung off with the upgrade till the first update was released for C5. This was mainly because I am a Yamaha N12 user and although the mixer bares the cubase logo it was never actualy tested with C5 before it was released.

That aside I have to say this is the most rock solid DAW I've had to date. I do pretty intense stuff like recording roland V drums triggering superior drumer 2.0 through the N12 midi in at 32 samples for 1.2ms latency, good enough for any drummer to keep time and record bass, 2 guitars vocals and keys at the same time. Couple of times I've had to bump up to 64 samples on mixdown but that's with 24+ tracks

I haven't explored all the new features yet, many I think are aimed at one man band projects like the loopmash and autotune although I see how they could be very usefull tools in another scenario.

My N12 has never been more solid. This front end marries perfectly with C5 and increases the workflow 10 fold.

Delighted.

+1

Same here, most solid DAW for me ever - just never crashes. Fantastic job by Steinberg.
I also use C5 with V-Drums into SD 2 and the timming is great on C5 as 32 samples - amazing!

I built a new DAW to run it:

Intel Q9550 4GB RAM on DP35DP.

I can run 340 instances of Stereo Sonnox EQ and filters before I get overloads (1024 buffer) amazing performance. (only a test naturally LOL)

I actually use a F/W Powercore 6000 and PoCo Express PCI card, 2x UAD-1 all loaded to 90% and I get almost zero CPU hit, so I am finding C5 to be great at running DSP.

The work flow for mixing and tracking is wonderful and the GUI is just up my street - like Logic Plat 5.5 used to be before Apple f**ked up the GUI in 8.

(I still use LP8 on an iMac for sketching out ideas but C5 is my main mix rig)

For the very first time I have stopped longing to get PT HD - than you Steinberg.

For what it's worth it does feel like a "coded for PC" program - I've tried C5 on my iMac and it just didn't feel as at home as the PC. Funny can't really say why - just less crisp and responsive?
TMY

[Continental]

cubase 5 need more cpu-performence like cubase 4......
with all the controller-information.....confusing for me....
to much information kills my workflow.......

i never like 4 & 5

but vari audio is very nice....

[clivek]

Originally Posted by TheMarqueeYears

+1

Same here, most solid DAW for me ever - just never crashes. Fantastic job by Steinberg.
I also use C5 with V-Drums into SD 2 and the timming is great on C5 as 32 samples - amazing!

I built a new DAW to run it:

Intel Q9550 4GB RAM on DP35DP.

I can run 340 instances of Stereo Sonnox EQ and filters before I get overloads (1024 buffer) amazing performance. (only a test naturally LOL)

I actually use a F/W Powercore 6000 and PoCo Express PCI card, 2x UAD-1 all loaded to 90% and I get almost zero CPU hit, so I am finding C5 to be great at running DSP.

The work flow for mixing and tracking is wonderful and the GUI is just up my street - like Logic Plat 5.5 used to be before Apple f**ked up the GUI in 8.

(I still use LP8 on an iMac for sketching out ideas but C5 is my main mix rig)

For the very first time I have stopped longing to get PT HD - than you Steinberg.

For what it's worth it does feel like a "coded for PC" program - I've tried C5 on my iMac and it just didn't feel as at home as the PC. Funny can't really say why - just less crisp and responsive?
TMY

+2

Hell yeah Cubase 5 is rock solid. In fact it hasn't crashed yet. And I got it as soon as it was released.

Buy quality PC components and you cant go wrong.....

[steveschizoid]

Are any of you using the External Effects much? I typically will mix with between 2 and 6 channels making the round trip. I am hoping Steinberg will add a preset menu that will assign your routing for you; in 4 you have to keep going back and assigning every channel - sometimes even when you haven't done anything to warrant it. For example say you just rendered a file and closed cubase, then decided to go right back to the same project. Sometimes the External fX will then have lost their return connections. I will soon be adding the new Aurora Audio 8 channel eQ, so I'll be sending 12 channels out at a time, and i'm wondering how the system as a whole will fare. Does anyone have any idea which system resources this taxes?

[Jovas]

Originally Posted by smoke

Groove Agent One, has a horrible filter. Just disgusting and tinny.

Yeah, but I actually have a shaker going on in that thing in a current track now which sounds pretty good!

Unfortunately ran into another problem, since the automation of the Groove Agent One filter in a seperate out instrument channel isn't working out that great.. I can't type in specific values in the info bar for an automation point, when I do and press enter, it jumps back to the previous value.. I managed to draw/record some desired stuff just by listening to the mix, but after saving it and playing back the project it sounds awfull... Only after re-opening the GAO and pressing on the shaker pad makes it sound decent again. It looks like the GAO and the project window info bar values are not opti(khz, hz etc..).

Oh well, I guess I will route it to a Fabfilter tommorow and see how that works out by automating that. Allready talked to Steinberg about it on the phone, and sent them a file, let's hope it's not a bug....

EDIT: I noticed that other VSTi's with seperate output tracks won't allow entering automation values in the info bar above. The strange thing is that you can enter position values, but no automation parameter values..

Can someone confirm this please?

[JMWS]

Can someone check out for me, what is the maximum audio track amount in Cubase 5?

(Their website states unlimited tracks, but they stated the same with Cubase 4 and the limit was 500 = not unlimited by a long shot. Samplitude´s website states for example 999 tracks and that is true).

Thanks in advance!