Cubase SX2 or SX3 - any SX3 users?

[celebritymusic]

Hi

I'm planning to buy Cubase SX, and was wondering which was the more stable, less power hungry version - 2 or 3?

Anyone have experience with these?

Thanks!

Shaun

[mrbowes]

One big thing SX3 has over SX2 is delay compensation for external fx, such that they can be used as plugins. Pretty snazzy if you ask me.

[Kiwiburger]

Using SX3 (I started with SX1 when Emagic went evil). SX has a few quirks - be prepared for the inevitable midi timing problems. But they are solvable - register at steinberg.net and don't make a pratt of yourself on the forums, and you will get the help you need.

Steinberg seemed to have addressed the plugin delay compensation issues very well, which is my concern about other DAWs.

The plugins that come with SX are dire poop, compared to - say - the plugins that come with Logic. However, this is a very good thing. Because - you will be forced to start looking at third party plugins, and you will soon find that you can replace everything with excellent free VST plugins - and then you will find some reasonably priced commercial VST plugins that will blow your socks off. I truely believe PC VST plugins are the cutting edge of cool stuff, and other formats are lagging behind. Especially if you hang out with developers who make unique things that probably will never become commercial. My favorite instruments are all freebie/beta/custom plugins - go figure.

[aevan]

Using SX3 build 944 and it's worlds away from SX. Delay compensation is cool, external fx as plugins etc. I use a bit of analog outboard (ureis, shep,amek)'and have them all plugged to the external fx routing when I mix, but also have 2 UAD-1 cards for plugins. That and some waves stuff. The native stuff is just ok, not fabulous but you could get away with it if you had to on some smaller stuff, or for writing and demos.
Get 3 and the updates from the Steiny website. And for god's sake look after your dongle (my grandma use to tell me that).

[crypticglobe]

3.x is incredible. I would use that personally. However... the dongle you get with 3.x will authorize all previous versions. So... you could download 2.x from their FTP site and run it as well if you like....

[DAWgEAR]

Be aware that, TTBOMK, once projects are saved in SX 3, they cannot be opened in SX 2.

I'm one of those having no stability problems with SX 3.1.

[drummin4christ]

I'm on SX3 and love it. It has been very stable for me.

[iziphonics]

SX3 here too. Like it a lot. Have never had any problems with it. Very stabile.
3 is not more CPU hungry than 2. At least I didn't have such impression after upgrading.

[Rogervandeberg]

Use it, love it! the external effects delay compensation is just great!

[dpianomn]

another vote for sx3!

[TornadoTed]

I stepped up from SX1 to SX3 and love it. I've been in since it was first released and had no problems until 3.1.933 or and a patch (944) was brought out days later. It's an amazing programme and 100% rock solid for me.

[garymusic]

I use Cubase as well but I am still on SX2.2.039 release. It is very stable. I do own a license for SX3 but had trouble with the early releases. I should try SX3 at the latest patch level but I think there is going to be a SX4 or something like that soon. There seems to be some talk about it on the net. Nothing from Yamaha/Steinberg as of yet. For what I use, SX2 works great.

-Gary

[John The Cut]

Originally Posted by celebritymusic

I'm planning to buy Cubase SX, and was wondering which was the more stable, less power hungry version - 2 or 3?

Its difficult to tell. I didnt notice any significant increase in CPU when upgrading from SX2 to SX3. If anything its more stable, more efficient. Projects certainly load quicker with SX3 - and you get the feeling that 'under the hood' whatever it is that makes a program seem 'solid' is certainly working better. Call it more responsive or whatever, but SX3 seems to be working harder and doing its job properly.

Given that you get a whole bunch of new features in 3 (many making a return from VST) I would say that SX3 is the less power hungry.

..oh, and it rocks too

[Kiwiburger]

With Steinberg, the early version (the CD) is always buggy as hell. After the Second upgrade, it's stable. SX3 has been out long enough, it's a no brainer.

[Mantra]

Another thumbs up for SX3

I've used SX SX2 Nuendo 1, 2 and 3.

[lowswing]

sx3 no problemo

[andyspiller]

SX 2.2 was great until I had an XP issue - I lost my original serial number (fell off the chassis and Digital Village do not keep a record, so no joy there) so had to purchase and install SP2 - forget it - before SP2 it NEVER crashed, since SP2, cannot use MOTU 2408 Mk2 PCI interface as it refuses to record SPDIF without sweeping, frequently hangs and crashes with 828 Mk2, unreliable Halion operation.

The program itself is fantastic (I've been a Steinberg fan since Pro16!) so I would heartily recommend it, and if you have a reliable audio interface it will be fantastic, just try and steer clear of MOTU stuff in conjunction with SP2 until they find a way of fixing it. . . . . (How long has SP2 been out??) Maybe an SX3 upgrade will help in resolving these issues, but somehow I doubt it - such a shame as with SP1 by comparison was absolutely perfect - anyone know where I can buy a legit SP1????

[jdg]

sx 3 used about 5% more CPU then 2.. but it was worth it!

[Einstein]

SX3 also has a freeze function on every channel that will open up alot of processing if you get bogged down.

[6strings]

Still hangin' with SX 2.2 here. Very stable. I chose not to pay for a CPU hit for some new features I won't likely use (warp, external effects).

What I don't get is, if the audio engine hasn't changed, then why a performance hit if you don't use the new features? I'm no software engineer, but it sounds like the code is getting a little bloated to me...

[Synth80s]

I'm been using SX3 (3.1.1.944) for a few months without any problems. For me, it's been more stable than any previous release of SX.

-Synth80s

[uvc1977]

Originally Posted by Synth80s

I'm been using SX3 (3.1.1.944) for a few months without any problems. For me, it's been more stable than any previous release of SX.

-Synth80s

Agreed, upgraded from VST 5.1 begin of 2005, SX3 has been reliable, not a single crash for over 12 months. Would love to see a overhall of SX3 plug-ins. I only use the double delay plug-in on a regular basis.

[illynoise]

sx3 is hot, but in comparison to my L7, it's not close. But for the pc, it's the best.

BaseJase
Illynoise

[dione]

Originally Posted by celebritymusic

Hi

I'm planning to buy Cubase SX, and was wondering which was the more stable, less power hungry version - 2 or 3?

Anyone have experience with these?

Thanks!

Shaun

3 is a little more cpu-hungry and takes longer to start-up as 2...but is also more stable and has way better features...go for 3,you won't regret it..

[Faderjockey]

I'm mixing in SX3 lastest version...no problem. Works great.

[neve1073]

Originally Posted by celebritymusic

Hi

I'm planning to buy Cubase SX, and was wondering which was the more stable, less power hungry version - 2 or 3?

Anyone have experience with these?

Thanks!

Shaun

SX3 is definitely more stable in general. I only ever start to notice performance issues when I'm over the 42 enabled track mark and running some plugs.

[pounce]

i still only have sx1, i had primarily switched over to other apps and hadn't upgraded it. otoh, i'm looking into getting a yamaha digital console and the integration between cubase and the yamaha consoles is stellar. if i do the transition to the yamaha board as planned, i'm pretty sure i'll also bump up to the latest version of cubase to see how that treats me. just like the reports here in this thread, i've heard many reports that cubase it really happening now.