So many choices

track pusha · #1 10-29-2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been recently thinking about buying cubase, but before i get i want to know what's the difference between sx, sl, and se. also would they work with the emu 1820 soundcard

warble · #2 10-29-2004

They will all work with that sound card.

For comparisons of the different versions of Cubase, see here:

ftp://ftp.pinnaclesys.com/Steinberg/...Comparison.pdf

Make sure you have the Acrobat Reader installed...it's free.

track pusha · #3 10-29-2004

thank you warble. so cubase sl can record audio right. I was told by somebody that you could only record midi.

Kevin Deschwazi · #4 10-30-2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by track pusha

thank you warble. so cubase sl can record audio right. I was told by somebody that you could only record midi.

All of the programmes you've asked about record 'normal' audio and MIDI.

I would strongly advise that you buy SE and see how you get on with that. I own SE and am very happy with it. It does everything I need it to for now and I imagine for sometime in the future. If I owned SL or SX I think I would have paid a lot more money for features I wouldn't be using.

If you feel you need to upgrade to SL/SX then you'd only be paying the difference anyway so it wouldn't cost you any extra.

Hope this helps

Garry Sharp · #5 10-30-2004

^ +1. Excellent advice.

warble · #6 10-30-2004

I second Kevins advice - start with Cubase SE. All versions of Cubase record audio, don't know why anyone would say otherwise. SE has some nice features from the SL and SX versions, but is stripped down (as you can see by the comparison chart link).

stian · #7 05-21-2005

So, I i've got this right, the best version of Cubase is the SX version, but since that's expencive, the SE version is more suitable for me, on a hobby basis?

scrubs · #8 05-22-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by stian

So, I i've got this right, the best version of Cubase is the SX version, but since that's expencive, the SE version is more suitable for me, on a hobby basis?

Yes, SX has the most features. SE, however, is a very nice program at a reasonable price.

xstatic · #9 05-22-2005

Starting with SE is an excellent idea. The upgrade path is actually $1 cheaper (at least it used to be) than buying the next version outright. I knew I couldn't use SE in my studio, so I tried SL first. In the end I missed some of the things that SX offered, so I bought a full SX from a friend. I am pretty much a "power" user though and the majority of the feature things that I needed are not used by a lot of people. SE may suit you just fine. If you decide you might want more than SE, my SL is for sale at $200 shipped with the dongle, box, disc, manual, and unopened demos of Hypersonic and Halion.

mrbowes · #10 05-22-2005

do SE, SL, and SX use the same audio engine? I would assume they would, but I just want to make sure. Cubase has always been regarded as sounding "better" than other audio recording apps.

xstatic · #11 05-23-2005

As far as I know, yes they do use the same engine. The differences are purely concerning feature set, and maybe some cosmetics.

Carter · #12 05-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbowes

do SE, SL, and SX use the same audio engine? I would assume they would, but I just want to make sure. Cubase has always been regarded as sounding "better" than other audio recording apps.

Im sorry to chime in but all of those programs do not use the same audio engine....SL and SX uses the same engine (top of the line) and SE uses the last generation audio engine.

mrbowes · #13 05-24-2005

^
why are you sorry to chime in??? that's the answer i was looking for! thank you!

but based on the comparison spec sheet, it seems that SX uses different dithering than the other three products.

i don't even know what dithering is - could someone explain, and whether it makes an appreciable difference on the end product?

Carter · #14 05-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbowes

^
why are you sorry to chime in??? that's the answer i was looking for! thank you!

but based on the comparison spec sheet, it seems that SX uses different dithering than the other three products.

i don't even know what dithering is - could someone explain, and whether it makes an appreciable difference on the end product?

Ok I just didnt want to sound like a smartass....Dithering is when you break your waves down from 24 bit to 16 bit to burn to a CD, SX has a better dither plug I think it is a appogee...Hince the name..Expensive!!!
I would say that it makes some difference for the final product.

xstatic · #15 05-24-2005

SX itself doesn't use different dithering (if I remember right). It just includes the UV22 plug in (one of the extra's that you may not get in LE).

Carter · #16 05-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by xstatic

SX itself doesn't use different dithering (if I remember right). It just includes the UV22 plug in (one of the extra's that you may not get in LE).

I have SL3 and it does not come with the UV22 plug, so in SX can you bounce without using that plug? Just curious???

mrbowes · #17 05-24-2005

based on the comparison .pdf posted above, Cubase LE through SL all have Apogee UV22 dithering, while Cubase SX has Apogee UV22/UV22HR.

what UV22HR means is beyond me.

xstatic · #18 05-24-2005

By default the UV stuff is not used unless you load the plug-in in your master section. Its located under the "tools" heading in your VST plugins, or maybe it was the "other" setting. I know its somewhere wierd

Carter · #19 05-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by xstatic

By default the UV stuff is not used unless you load the plug-in in your master section. Its located under the "tools" heading in your VST plugins, or maybe it was the "other" setting. I know its somewhere wierd

All this time I didnt know that! Thanks

xstatic · #20 05-25-2005

I can understand that. i didn't either until I recently switched to Cubase SX from SL. Somehow I just noticed it sitting there in some wierd folder that didn't seem too logical to me. At least not anywhere I would normally be looking for something

Carter · #21 05-26-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Dettner

The SL 3.0.1 update is now available, but without UV22 so far, sorry.
I will announce soon when this plugin will be back for SL3 users.

I knew I wasent tripping SL3 does not come with the UV22 plug.. Stienberg fucked up

, The quote above came from Christian Dettner one of the moderators over at Cubase.net Oh well I still have my Waves Diamond Bundle to finish my tracks

Carter · #22 05-26-2005

*Bump* I just want to make sure that SL3 owners read my last post......

Carter · #23 05-26-2005

*bump*......................

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)