The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Cubase Divorce
Old 2 days ago
  #1
Here for the gear
 
BrendanMc's Avatar
 

Angry Cubase Divorce

Been using Cubase for 20 years. Would consider myself a high-end, expert user. There’s very few features of Cubase that I haven’t used to the full extent at one time or another.

However it seems that Steinberg have lost the plot since being acquired by Yamaha. The never ending tower of new features are simply not regression tested. For example tempo maps and analysis for 96k projects is simply broken. Multiple bugs reports and forum posts over 3 years have failed to have the issue addressed. Multiple support requests to Yamaha have been ignored. Now midi seems to be broken - works great on everything other than Steinberg instruments. For a particular project I have, Steinberg instruments (and I have most) simply fail to play from a midi track whereas NI alternatives work fine. No idea, but I’m done with spending yet another 3 hours of studio time chasing Cubase bugs rather than producing music. And I’m also done spending $$ on yet another upgrade for a bunch of new features I don’t need and still no progress on fundamental engine integration.

In short, I’ve had a gut full and as much as it pains me, it’s time to move on from Cubase.

Expert level DAW use is a huge learning curve which is why it’s taken so long to commit to moving.

Now that the time has come, it seems that Pro Tools remains the stand out choice for a high end DAW.

A few questions for the community before I take the plunge:
- PT is likewise old tech. Does it have similar issues to Cubase regarding bugs and back integration of new features?
- Has PT successfully transitioned to become more contemporary?
- Does PT play nicely with new plugs and drivers etc (last time I looked it seemed extremely sensitive to use of proprietary PT audio drivers and was unstable on anything other than a clean pure PT machine)?
- Has anyone else made the transition? What will I be losing in moving from Cubase to PT? What was your experience?
- Is there any other standouts that I really should consider? Studio One seemed useful when I played with it years ago.

Any other advice to talk me off the ledge before I jump?

Thanks heaps,
Brendan
Old 2 days ago
  #2
Gear Maniac
 
cubic13's Avatar
To each his own, as usual. Cubase has some bugs (I would evoke the Generic Remote defintions, as a first example coming to mind) but all DAW have some also. I am presently using 10.0.60 Pro on an Ryzen 3700X/Win 10 Pro based system. Seems like it is even more stable than 6.5.5, which means a lot for me, as I've been using it for several years, skipping several upgrades while trying to get a usable workflow from Reaper, to no avail...

To be honest, I don't use tempo maps and am sticking with the old 44.1 kHz/24 bits as, in my amateurish approach to music, I still don't see what 96 kHz would truely bring me, beside an useless stress to a setup which is perfectly working. But beside this, I have no issues using any VSTi in Cubase, whether it is Steinberg (GA5 SE, Halion SE3) or a third party one, and I have a bunch of them. So, maybe you could detail your exact issue, so we could try to help...

At the end, the last thing I would do is to consider PT as an alternative, seeing the mess that Avid has done with their new subscription scheme, this with their questionable financial health.

But again, YMMV, whatever floats your boat, etc.
Old 2 days ago
  #3
Here for the gear
 
BrendanMc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cubic13 View Post
To each his own, as usual. Cubase has some bugs (I would evoke the Generic Remote defintions, as a first example coming to mind) but all DAW have some also. I am presently using 10.0.60 Pro on an Ryzen 3700X/Win 10 Pro based system. Seems like it is even more stable than 6.5.5, which means a lot for me, as I've been using it for several years, skipping several upgrades while trying to get a usable workflow from Reaper, to no avail...

To be honest, I don't use tempo maps and am sticking with the old 44.1 kHz/24 bits as, in my amateurish approach to music, I still don't see what 96 kHz would truely bring me, beside an useless stress to a setup which is perfectly working. But beside this, I have no issues using any VSTi in Cubase, whether it is Steinberg (GA5 SE, Halion SE3) or a third party one, and I have a bunch of them. So, maybe you could detail your exact issue, so we could try to help...

At the end, the last thing I would do is to consider PT as an alternative, seeing the mess that Avid has done with their new subscription scheme, this with their questionable financial health.

But again, YMMV, whatever floats your boat, etc.
Thanks for the feedback. Particularly on PT. Agree each to his own and nothing wrong with 44.1/24. Trouble is that my studio has been running (semi-pro) for 10 years or more with everything tracked at 96 and the whole rig including outboard, RME DA/AD etc is all set for 96 etc etc.

To Illustrate the Cubase frustration try this (I am likewise on 10.0.60): Create new project; project setting / change ge to 96k; drag in some audio material; copy to project folder & sample convert if needed. Select Project/Tempo Detection. Select Analyse. Tempo track should be added with a tempo map. Now try to adjust a tempo point left or right. 1. It doesnt work and just snaps back. 2. Keep trying for up to 30 seconds, total freeze up.

It works fine at 44.1.

Grrr. Don't know where to start on the steinberg instruments. I've been using them for years and years...... instrument indicates that its getting events (orange ligght flashing), but the instruments simply do not play. Manually pressing keys/pads works fine. MIDI just aint triggering them! Midi channels are right, Instrument track patch / routing is visible from the MIDI track inspector; mutes are fine; MIDI, MIX, and every tab within instrument checked thoroughly and seems right. MIDI through / record / monitor selections fully explored.... this is just playback anyway.... If I use an NI instument instead it works fine!
Old 2 days ago
  #4
Gear Maniac
 
cubic13's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendanMc View Post
Thanks for the feedback. Particularly on PT. Agree each to his own and nothing wrong with 44.1/24. Trouble is that my studio has been running (semi-pro) for 10 years or more with everything tracked at 96 and the whole rig including outboard, RME DA/AD etc is all set for 96 etc etc.

To Illustrate the Cubase frustration try this (I am likewise on 10.0.60): Create new project; project setting / change ge to 96k; drag in some audio material; copy to project folder & sample convert if needed. Select Project/Tempo Detection. Select Analyse. Tempo track should be added with a tempo map. Now try to adjust a tempo point left or right. 1. It doesnt work and just snaps back. 2. Keep trying for up to 30 seconds, total freeze up.

It works fine at 44.1.
As I don't want to change evrything in my setup, I'll just acknowledge it. Did you contact Steinberg concerning this ? Everyone says that Steiny support is horrible, but I have a mixed view on it : when I had a problem installing the 10.0.20 upgrade last summer (actually, there was a missing Windows 7 component on my old i870 based system), I got an answer from them in 48 hours. Beside this, maybe the Steinberg forum could help : even if it has a bad reputation, there are several professional members that truely know what they are talking about, for in depth issues such as this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendanMc View Post
Grrr. Don't know where to start on the steinberg instruments. I've been using them for years and years...... instrument indicates that its getting events (orange ligght flashing), but the instruments simply do not play. Manually pressing keys/pads works fine. MIDI just aint triggering them! Midi channels are right, Instrument track patch / routing is visible from the MIDI track inspector; mutes are fine; MIDI, MIX, and every tab within instrument checked thoroughly and seems right. MIDI through / record / monitor selections fully explored.... this is just playback anyway.... If I use an NI instument instead it works fine!
Just tested it, in both following ways, with Halion Sonic SE :
- by adding an instrument track.
- by creating an instrument rack (Studio>VST Instruments>Rack popup menu), allowing Cubase to add a MIDI track with it.
Both ways perfecly work, after having chosen a preset in the Load panel. Something more or less hidden is involved, here, and it's not MIDI related (audio routing ?)...
Old 1 day ago
  #5
Here for the gear
 
BrendanMc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cubic13 View Post
As I don't want to change evrything in my setup, I'll just acknowledge it. Did you contact Steinberg concerning this ? Everyone says that Steiny support is horrible, but I have a mixed view on it : when I had a problem installing the 10.0.20 upgrade last summer (actually, there was a missing Windows 7 component on my old i870 based system), I got an answer from them in 48 hours. Beside this, maybe the Steinberg forum could help : even if it has a bad reputation, there are several professional members that truely know what they are talking about, for in depth issues such as this one.



Just tested it, in both following ways, with Halion Sonic SE :
- by adding an instrument track.
- by creating an instrument rack (Studio>VST Instruments>Rack popup menu), allowing Cubase to add a MIDI track with it.
Both ways perfecly work, after having chosen a preset in the Load panel. Something more or less hidden is involved, here, and it's not MIDI related (audio routing ?)...
Agree. Steinberg forum has been responsive on many issues. But on this I’ve hit a firewall. And I can’t raise it directly because they bump me to Yamaha in Australia. (Whom have ignored me)

Here’s the start of one (of several) threads I raised. Check the date! https://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=128781

Yep, don’t reconfigure your rig.

Per your workflow, it works fine. Even at 96k.

This case, it’s an existing midi capture of a drum session (was on a Roland TD20). Have audio from the TD20 as well. The drummer, deceased recently under tragic circumstances, laid down this session for about a dozen tracks. Trying to resurrect it to do a memorial with the band. So the midi track is pre-existing (captured at the time with tracking the drums inc guide track from the whole band). I simply want to route it to a virtual kit to then work with better articulations with a view for the band to finish an album working with the deceased members drum track.

Just doesn’t work. (Though does with non Steinberg instruments eg NI Battery).

I think it’s a regression test problem.

Btw thanks for responding again. I’ve already burnt lots of time on these issues and don’t want to burn yours too! Pretty sure it’s a systemic regression test failure of Steinberg. Not hopeful of a resolution. Thus my question on alternatives. Studio One looking interesting.
Old 21 hours ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendanMc View Post
Been using Cubase for 20 years. Would consider myself a high-end, expert user. There’s very few features of Cubase that I haven’t used to the full extent at one time or another.

However it seems that Steinberg have lost the plot since being acquired by Yamaha. The never ending tower of new features are simply not regression tested. For example tempo maps and analysis for 96k projects is simply broken. Multiple bugs reports and forum posts over 3 years have failed to have the issue addressed. Multiple support requests to Yamaha have been ignored. Now midi seems to be broken - works great on everything other than Steinberg instruments. For a particular project I have, Steinberg instruments (and I have most) simply fail to play from a midi track whereas NI alternatives work fine. No idea, but I’m done with spending yet another 3 hours of studio time chasing Cubase bugs rather than producing music. And I’m also done spending $$ on yet another upgrade for a bunch of new features I don’t need and still no progress on fundamental engine integration.

In short, I’ve had a gut full and as much as it pains me, it’s time to move on from Cubase.

Expert level DAW use is a huge learning curve which is why it’s taken so long to commit to moving.

Now that the time has come, it seems that Pro Tools remains the stand out choice for a high end DAW.

A few questions for the community before I take the plunge:
- PT is likewise old tech. Does it have similar issues to Cubase regarding bugs and back integration of new features?
- Has PT successfully transitioned to become more contemporary?
- Does PT play nicely with new plugs and drivers etc (last time I looked it seemed extremely sensitive to use of proprietary PT audio drivers and was unstable on anything other than a clean pure PT machine)?
- Has anyone else made the transition? What will I be losing in moving from Cubase to PT? What was your experience?
- Is there any other standouts that I really should consider? Studio One seemed useful when I played with it years ago.

Any other advice to talk me off the ledge before I jump?

Thanks heaps,
Brendan
If there are features on another DAW you desperately need, then yes, you can do the jump. But if you change because "grass might be greener", you're probably doing a huge mistake. Bug free DAW doesn't exist. How many people complaining about ProTools errors and lack of updates at this exact time ? How many people complaining about Avid subscription model ? (hint: A LOT).

I think Cubase 10 and 10.5 have one one of the best engine out there. It performs was better than any previous version, the new VariAudio is awesome, and the new UI goes well with high res monitors. 100% bug free ? No, but I can do with 1 crash every couple days.

Now if you really want to invest on a new DAW and are on Mac, the latest Logic Pro version is kicking serious asses for a very small investment. But it ain't bugs free either.
Old 7 hours ago
  #7
Here for the gear
 

Re: Studio One

I've been extremely happy with Studio One. It seems it was built with the idea of taking the best aspects of other platforms, and improving upon them. The founders of S1 came from Steinberg, and one of them (Kundrus) was part of the development team for Cubase.

S1 has a significantly more modern look and feel than the rest the market, and I don't mean that in just the context of a pretty GUI. It's really easy to learn and establish an efficient workflow. As an example, I didn't realize the tedious "time-draining" steps users of other DAWs went through to edit in Melodyne until I watched a tutorial. In S1, you click on the track, choose "Edit in Melodyne", and you're track is immediately ready to edit.

Another large benefit is the way they integrated the mixing and mastering modules. Transitioning a master bus to their Mastering module is practically an automated process. There's actually a lot to like in their Mastering module but I don't know if that's important to you.

I've never used Cubase so I don't know the extent that S1 borrowed from it, but there's potential you will recognize familiar things. It's also likely that the amount of progress made since the last time you looked at S1 is substantial. I know they took a major step forward from v2 to v3, and several more steps forward in the different iterations of v4.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump