Cubase 7 - What do you want?

[jruberto]

Originally Posted by popmann

To my earlier point about competing with third parties...this isn't rocket science, folks. Yes, I would like every revision of Cubase to have better sounding channel EQ...

I'm curious -- do you find the current channel EQ to be bad sounding? In what ways?

The only times I don't use it is when I want something specialized -- a really narrow notch, or a "color" EQ that I like the sound of, or a linear phase EQ when I really need that.

It's my go-to for HPF & LPF -- am I missing out on better sounding hi/lo pass filters? I actually really like the II filters (hi-pass II & lo-pass II) where you can do a bump at the corner frequency by adjusting the Q, very usable.

[popmann]

Don't do a ton of filters. Any of the Waves vintage EQs sound better (generally). All different...but, all better. IK or Waves Linear Phase stuff sounds better for unmusical transparency.

When I need them, the ssl and Neve Waves have HpF...Neve adds LPF...pultec does a more musically relevant high attenuation...as does the Kramer tape emu...but, I'm not going to pretend to be a cork sniffer when it comes to filters.

...and my relatively inexpensive Specks pretty well best the software in lots of cases. Point being, no the EQ doesn't sound very good. It "fine"...not saying it sounds bad...but, even the StudioEq bests it easily, proving they actually already HAVE better algorithms...maybe they don't want to cause the increased CPU usesge? Or maybe it causes more latency than the current channel EQs...?

[popmann]

Individual "hide channel" like PT would be nice. I know, you can select some as don't hide...then hide the hide able...but, not really as intuitive. No real visual feedback as to what's hide able. Track color following more than the bottom strip is nice, too. Hell...I'll just get PT and keep Cubase for my midi box.

[Fredo]

Not intending to actively participate here ... I just stumbled upon the comments about EQ.

While it seems to be a good idea to be able to replace the channel EQ by plugins in order to achieve an "SSL", "Api", any, or any combination of channel strip, it brings a truckload of problems.

This would bring many compatibility, maintenance, platform, system issues. It is simply not do-able in the long term. However, it would be nice if you could insert a third party plugin and have the GUI of channel EQ replaced by the GUI of the plugin, so you don't have to reach for the individual plugins anymore. But here we face the same problem. As an example, those who work with controllers, how many third party plugins can you control -in a practical way-? One EQ has 1 band, another has 6. The readings and scales need to be synchronized, etc .... It would require a joint standard by the DAW, Controllers and plugin manufacturers.


About the Cubase/Nuendo EQ. The pre-Seq4 EQ was generally rated as "bad", although it was the favorite EQ of for example, Elliot Scheiner. It has been replaced by a newer EQ which comes very close to the UAD Cambridge. Which is not bad in my book. It is a very good sounding , general purpose EQ. Much better than any mid-budged hardware console on the market. And what is even more important, when loading an old project, Cubase/Nuendo defaults back to the "old" EQ, thereby preserving compatibility. You don't want to open an old project which suddenly sounds totally different .... The Third Party EQ's are all designed to be "specific", for special use, in addition to, or in replacement of, the standard EQ.

I still think this is the most logical way of dealing with this.


Best regards
Fredo

[blacklion]

I suppose what would be an interesting addition would be the expanding the channel eq so that it had a couple more bands but, maybe a graph and different flavors of different analog emulations along with stock. Something like the redline eq.

You could then select whichever you like without breaking old projects and even save one style as default for future use or setup a template with different "channels".

In this case, doing the same with a compressor and making the channel view modular would be neat so that you could control at which point the EQ and Comp are inserts in that strip and save as default setup or template.

[6strings]

Locking markers so you don't have to fix them every time you make a tempo adjustment or insert bars into your arrangement.

[jruberto]

Yep, backward compatibility (and forward compatibility to a lesser degree, tho Cubase is surprisingly good in this respect) is a huge concern.

During the 5.x series of patches Cubase changed how the mix control on Reverence worked, breaking backwards compatibility for a minute. I remember pulling up an older project in front of a client to work on a remix, hit play and all the vocals were in the grand canyon, since all the Reverence instances snapped to 100% wet. I was confused. Client was not impressed.

The cost of developing & testing a major change to how the channel EQ works & sounds would be staggering. The only way to let you drop in your own plugs to replace the channel EQ would be to write some middleware (a la rewire) that would route existing control messages to arbitrary controllers on the plugin, and somehow scale automation data to the values that the plug uses... Probably not going to happen.

[popmann]

That's fine. I'm just saying...you can always offer a compatibility mode EQ. I disagree that vintage recreations are meant for special use, though. You use the best eq you have for the job. Even if it's a small tweak, if the API eq sounds better, it sounds better.

Tonight, during my 30day PT 10 demo I realized the best thing, and something that actually WOULD get me to upgrade to 7--complete import of ProTools sessions. No watered down omf. Full on, someone sends me a ptx file/directory structure, and I can open it and save as CPR. It's been years since I've worked in PT, because I can't afford an HD rig...trying out 10? Still a half ass DAW solution. No SIP? You've got to be kidding. Anyway, it sucks that I'm going to have to buy pt10 just to have session exchange with engineers incapable of proper BWav render/exporting.

Also...back to the backwards compatibility. I don't care to open a mix from years ago for 100% recall. A remix should always reset the board and start over anyway, IMO. Especially if we sacrifice core sonic improvement that would actually make the remix better anyway in order to keep compatibility.

[norbury brook]

Hmm, I keep pro tools around for that reason but I don't want to upgrade to 10, surely there's a way to save so that V9.x will open the session? if not I might as well sell my pro tools HD 9.06 version.



MC

[jruberto]

Originally Posted by popmann

It's been years since I've worked in PT, because I can't afford an HD rig...trying out 10?

Yet you insist that Steinberg should just drop in features that could easily jack up the price of Cubase to similar levels.

Originally Posted by popmann

Also...back to the backwards compatibility. I don't care to open a mix from years ago for 100% recall.

Your clients might have a different opinion on this. But I guess I shouldn't assume that you are servicing clients if you don't care about recall.

[Kaden]

Single-window work environment like Studio One

[popmann]

Hmm, I keep pro tools around for that reason

That's what I'm saying. Why? Until 9, you had to buy Digi hardware to even have the ability to run the software. That's why this is such a great idea.

[davidcol]

Originally Posted by Kaden

Single-window work environment like Studio One

+1...

[claurence]

Originally Posted by davidcol

+1...

+2...

[Ivorydom]

Originally Posted by claurence

+2...

+3

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by 6strings

Locking markers so you don't have to fix them every time you make a tempo adjustment or insert bars into your arrangement.

In the Inspector on the Marker Track, engage the Tempo Button. It appears on every track (Midi, Audio, etc.) and when disengaged, looks like a clock set to 3 O'clock.

In your scenario, it will only work with a tempo adjustment.

[bugs]

If Cubase is going to include instruments and FX as part of a complete "Advanced Musical Production System", the instuments and effects should all be first rate, not just some elaborate place holders for a legitimate VST.

[wakestyle]

What I want in C7? LOTS!!!!

But mostly I just want better audio handling, which I think, should be the major focus on improvement in Cubase (as opposed to new plugs etc).

Let me begin by saying there have been TONS of awesome suggestions in this thread(and others around here and s.net). I admit have not been hitting the session as hard as before, I still am interested to check out Steinberg advancements.

No more Rompler audio file handling!!!! *

* Current Audio implementation is akin to a rompler lol.

I suggest a complete overhaul to the way musical audio is handled. This would likely be (my dream update) to a quantum leap in working with audio files.

- elastic audio manipulation
- non-linear tempo detection

Some of the Audio features C5+6 has is very very good (IMO). Except that it lack that ability to *maliable* audio.

I use program like NI Traktor to show me proper tempo detection and loop-finding (I am not like the average audio-trooper).

This kind of "beat detection" not rely on things like 'loop length' or predetermined timing info. It analyze audio with musical algorithms to recognize rhythmic patterns, IN ANYTHING!!!!

So, with Non-Linear beat detection to automatically phase-align audio that is then reduced to grids to be edited in the arranger much like Pro Tools but better,

That is it!

All Cubase is good except for audio manipulation. *top of class for low latency and heavy plug use* with it's native (tm) Vst 3.0

Bring back the right-click menu to 'Process' audio

Oh, Also;
*Trim!!! (not Volume)
*Multi-Track "Instrument Tracks"
*New Tempo Track Handling (current one is bearable)
*Re-Arrange Mix Channels in Mixer !!!
*Reason Rewire Stereo!!! (I want option to use Stereo Rewire on ALL multiple reason tracks because 16 reason tracks = 32 mono rewire tracks sadface)
side-note -
*deluxe suite (all plugs and Halion 4)

I just want to say I don't expect Steinberg (or any DAW manufacturer) to include "end" plugins. I continue to support Cubase as a high-end host for ultimate DAW creative use with robust audio and midi features unrivaled.

Lets move beyond loop-based audio triggering and handling.

I could give a crap about backward compatibility, that is what mixdown(or import) is for.

[alphaproject]

Right-click audio - process audio exists, you just have to enable it. It's somewhere in this post. I thought it was gone as well but you have to change the menu interface.

[norbury brook]

or ctrl+ click if it's not set up the other way.

Personally i feel the way Cubendo handles audio has always been a leader in the field, it's one of it's strengths. I mean it's taken pro tools to get to version 10 to be able to handle audio as well as Nuendo 10 years ago. The whole clip based off line processing as well is amazing and been there since the early days. I would watch in horror as my pro tools friends used volume automation lanes and plugin automation to tune and level vocals. In cubase I could just cut a section and drag the volume handle up or down to taste. Or to tune a vocal word; right click,bring up the plugins menu,add auto tune, audition it then hit apply. It would always be there in the offline process history so I could change it at any point too.


MC

[wakestyle]

Originally Posted by norbury brook

or ctrl+ click if it's not set up the other way.

Personally i feel the way Cubendo handles audio has always been a leader in the field, it's one of it's strengths. I mean it's taken pro tools to get to version 10 to be able to handle audio as well as Nuendo 10 years ago. The whole clip based off line processing as well is amazing and been there since the early days. I would watch in horror as my pro tools friends used volume automation lanes and plugin automation to tune and level vocals. In cubase I could just cut a section and drag the volume handle up or down to taste. Or to tune a vocal word; right click,bring up the plugins menu,add auto tune, audition it then hit apply. It would always be there in the offline process history so I could change it at any point too.


MC

For a DAW performing a virtual tape-machine and mixing yes. I agree 100%

For a remixing tool to handle cutting and splicing and creative arrangement... yes but not so much. Always is required to need ADDITIONAL Rewire applications and Recycle type application.

For example. Take a Drum loop and copy it 4 times ok. Now change the 4th one and they all change see? That's not easy to use, that's difficult 8 or so extra mouse clicks to manually create new audio files 4 times.

[re-animator]

Originally Posted by popmann

Simply put to NOT be looking at a computer screen. It's not for reference--PDF is fine for a simple "what the hell does X knob do" find...but, if you need to read a whole section, being on the couch or out on the back deck on a pretty day is a MUCh better way to absorb material than a PDF. I bought an iPad just to deal with this new BS paradigm. Kronos's 1500 page manual--PDF only. Ironically, bough mainly to turn the computer on LESS!! And I have to turn it on to read the manual? Nope. Not-a-gonna-happen.

....
....
.... but it's a computer program.

[blacklion]

Originally Posted by wakestyle

For example. Take a Drum loop and copy it 4 times ok. Now change the 4th one and they all change see? That's not easy to use, that's difficult 8 or so extra mouse clicks to manually create new audio files 4 times.

I thought you could select "new version" or equivalent and apply changes to only the 4th loop leaving the rest as is. Or am I mistaken?

In any case, I would like bounce in place and object editing with undo options for each object. That and right click on object and save to folder or drag/drop for easy sample creation.

Another thought I had was the ability to audition notes from the drum sample editor just as you would with a piano roll.

[norbury brook]

exactly, you just need to learn the program properly you have the choice of ghost, or normal copies you're using ghost copies in that scenario.



MC

[Ivorydom]

Originally Posted by wakestyle

For example. Take a Drum loop and copy it 4 times ok. Now change the 4th one and they all change see? That's not easy to use, that's difficult 8 or so extra mouse clicks to manually create new audio files 4 times.

No, they don't all change. That's the beauty of Cubase. If you make a change in an audio file it asks you if you want to change all same events in the project or create a new version. I think there must be something wrong with your settings if this happens to you.

[norbury brook]

I think he was talking about midi tracks.

MC

[wakestyle]

no I was talking about audio, that was a bad example. Not something that hard, your right. I honestly have given up with trying to use Cubase to work with audio beats and time aligning.

/p

[Syncamorea]

Originally Posted by Mike P

Yamaha/Steinberg can request all they want. Apple said no. That's why the overwhelming majority of Steinberg users are on PC's. Better performance.

Agreed, although there are GS Mac users that will fight this point to the death.

[mfx]

Modular style track grouping for vsts, effects and the like. Particularly useful for exporting.importing track parts between projects. In other words instead of mixing down to audio/exporting audio and importing audio again but for vst tracks.

A better routing system, I love Reapers method.

Drag and drop samples from desktop into host.

VST instrument input - have Access Virus in mind here and I believe uhe's Zebra is due the feature ....

Simple sidechaining for non vst3 instruments and sidechaining without the quaddro workaround, come on SB this is an old wound since version year dot!!! (see routing).

Auto grouping option for vst plugin miditracks/channel playback.

(Ability to have plugin GUIs (and mixer) outside of Cubase gui please....) Scratch that thank you for the reply , see 3 posts down

x64bit rewire, which I think is due in a coming update hurrahhh.

Better saving and recall using vsts with external soundbanks (hope that makes sense).

Thats it for now....

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by Syncamorea

Agreed, although there are GS Mac users that will fight this point to the death.

Yeah, I've seen that. Weird.