Thoughts on Cubase SX for Non-Tecnophile

R

rkellus

New member
This post is a variation of one I posted elsewhere.

Are there any of you out there who are already using Cubase SX? If so what do you think of it? My VCR does not flash 12:00 but I am new to the art of computer recording. Do you think I would be better off buying Digi 001 with Pro Tools LE?

See, I began shopping around the internet today and discovered that the Digi 001 with Pro Tools LE runs roughly $799. Cubase SX runs around $599. Because Pro Tools LE is a "light" version of the Pro Tools HD, I give the advantage to Cubase SX. Critics so far have not had any cruel words for SX.

So I begin leaning heavy towards Cubase SX and then......

I realized I am still going to need a sound card with Cubase SX and that is when I stopped leaning in one direction (and am now "on the fence").

When I asked for a good sound card/interface a number of readers strongly suggested the Delta 1010. The rub is that the Delta 1010 runs roughly $599.

In essence, if went the SX and Delta 1010 route, I will spend roughly $1200 (versus $800 for Digi 01/Pro Tools LE). Now, if it is trully worth it, I am prepared to bite the bullet for quality. In all honesty, however, I have some reservations.

For starters, do I really need 10 out puts and 10 inputs? If I were to mic drums the answer would be "yes." I doubt I would. I do, however, need a light pipe or some way to move data to and from an ADAT.

Thus, the question of the hour becomes what about staying with Cubase but using a card comparable to Delta 66 ($299). This option would run me a total of about $900. Are there any readers out (especially veteran commentators) who would please chime in.

I feel like every time I use this BBS I get one step closer to being able to make clear choice.
 
SX is MOST EXCELLENT........!

Been using it for several weeks now -- I can't imagine how I got thru with using 5.1 VST.........

SX makes SO MUCH more sense.......

I don't do a lot of midi-oriented stuff, so I can't really comment from that perspective, but for audio editing, it's a dream...............!
 
My opinion? (Granted, I'm a very happy Cubase SX user, so keep that in mind...)

ProTools made it name in pro gear with its hardware/software marriage (TDM) that takes the load off the computer. The Digi001 doesn't do that. Therefore, ProTools LE and the Digi001 are just consumer level products like everything else. Good consumer level, but not up to the full ProTools TDM snuff.

So why would I buy recording software that requires me to use that company's hardware, when that hardware offers no significant advantages over a host of other options?

Cubase SX, on the other hand, is based on the very successful Nuendo post production package. Its not a dumbed down version of pro software- its the flagship of a company that straddles the consumer/pro fence. And I can use it with any hardware that my computer can use- even the built in soundcard.

If you are running Windows XP, I'd go with SX, as well. PT is just now XP compatible, I hear, so it might sitll be a bit buggy.

My .02. I hope it is at least a little helpful. :)
Chris
 
and here comes another SX user...

i like Sx, everything from nuendo with added features...the midi is good to, though i don't use midi...

Sx is easy to use. if you used vst32 you'd be a little lost for a little bit, but us nuendo users fell right at home just with a new interface/features/midi etc...

i use a delta 1010 over here with nuendo and SX... not one problem under XPpro....with the delta 66, you won;t have the same quality as the 1010, but its still damn good...

the digi 001... not a bad package, the better package with the plugs i think is 1100, but either way..SX is much stronger...unless you have the hardware.. to me, it makes no sice to even look at PT...
go with SX and a nice soundcard....it should only take you a weekend to learn it, if that...
 
I was in your shoes literally two months ago. My cousin owns his own recording studio and so I asked him for some advice. As I understand it (and keep in mind I have only read about DigiDesigns) with Pro Tools Light you are limited to 24 audio tracks and the MIDI situation blows. Cubase SX (I use 32VST but SX is on the way) I have 128 Audio tracks at my disposal. Do I use them all? Heck no, but it's nice to know they are there...in a real big project I could see using more than 24 tracks. Then there are all the Plug-In's and VSTi's that you get for free. Cubase is fully expandable and only seems to be getting better. I set everything up and within 2 days I had some sweet sounding tracks already going. The learning curve is not as imposing as the sheer volume of the documentation might make it seem. I moved up from 4 track recording very easily.

So I had asked myself...a light version of one piece of software (thats biggest appeal was it's name brand), or for a bit more a full blown version of different piece of software that can do more.

I went with Cubase and am totally happy with my decision.
 
Just wanted to add that SX can also take advantage of VST and DX plugins, as well as VSTI'S [ virtual synths, & what not]
Where as protools, only does its own proprietary plugs,etc.
Peace,
Shredzilla
 
SX has been rock solid for me, as well- I'm not going back... Steinberg's plugs are very usable, but add in some of the PSP plugs, and/or something like the UAD-1, and you have a real powerhouse on your hands. The PT folks certainly have an installed base advantage, but with SX the widely-believed audio quality advantages for PT seem to be much less.

It's more DAW that I'm likely to need for a long, long time. Lots of horsepower, and it's not a light/limited/partially-functional version of _anything_.
 
chipping in...

If you needed to go even lower in price, you could get the Delta Audiophile 2496, which is IMO a great soundcard for even less than the 66.


Chad
 
skippy said:
SX has been rock solid for me, as well- I'm not going back... Steinberg's plugs are very usable, but add in some of the PSP plugs, and/or something like the UAD-1, and you have a real powerhouse on your hands.
Click to expand...

Who/what is PSP short for? And what is the UAD-1?
 
PSP is a small, relatively new, and up-and-coming plugin company from (seriously!) Poland. They make some incredibly tasty plugs, the best of which IMNSHO is their VintageWarmer compressor/mastering processor. They are *extremely* cost-effective, when compared to the very popular Waves bundle, for example, and are well worth checking out. Their MixPack bundle is incredibly cheap, and provides some very interesting stuff. Check them out: http://www.pspaudioware.com

One of the big knocks on the native-processor DAW is that the processor that is doing all the blinkylights and flashycolors is also doing all the audio processing. If you do a lot of crunching, you certainly can run out of horsepower. Add-in DSP cards can offload some of that processing overhead from the main processor, and let you do more with more tracks than you possibly could with just the native processor's horsepower. A couple examples are the UAD-1 and TC Electronics' Powercore. I got the UAD-1 ( http://www.mackie.com/products/uad-1/uad-1.asp ) because I liked the vintage compressors it had models for at the time, and I liked the RealVerb better than steinberg's reverbs of the time. Since then they've added the Nigel guitar processor plug, and the Pultec EQ plug (which is a damned accurate rendering of a real Pultec, BTW)- both as free upgrades. And free sounds good to me, once I've invested in the hardware!

Cubase SX by itself, is very powerful, very flexible, and an excellent platform. But augmenting it with a few thirdparty items like these can make it be a _monster_. There are boatloads of other such add-ons out there. Your mileage may vary, but these are things I personally found to be incredibly useful for my style of music back in the 5.1 days, and they all work _frighteningly_ well with SX... Your mileage may vary, but these work for me.
 
I'm thinking about getting SX but I'm not sure if I am ready. I am still a newbie and learning more everyday. I have a Tascam 234 4 track analog recorder, a 14 channel mixer w/effects, an outboard compressor - limiter, a SB Live card, windows 98 and I am using Cubasis which so far has been just incredible. I'm only recording single tracks and won't have my band ready for at least another six months or so for recording anything live. I am convinced so far to go the SX and Delta 1010 route but I don't know if the time is right. Should I wait? Will prices drop or will new technology replace these within six months? I know no one can predict the future but what's the trend?
 
Hey, NYM.

My suggestion is to wait. SX isn't likely to become cheaper, and the hardware is always improving- though audio hardware develops more slowly than other kinds of computer stuff.

Key here is to get really good at getting a good recording with that 4-track and SX will work like a dream for you. Its the recording skills that are important, not the recording device.

Get SX a good couple months before you need it to record your band with it, though. It will take some time to get used to the interface and all the different things you can do with it. Give yourself some time to get good with it.

Have fun!
Chris
 
I am a new SX user and have an M-Audio Audiophile 2496. I am overwhelmed with the abilities of this setup. The good news is that it can do infinitely more in the way of editing and tweaking (and everything!) than our MiniDisc multitrakers and Korg D16 of yesterday. The bad news is that I get to play computer technician on a regular basis as a result. Not knocking the system, but I highly recommend becoming very comfortable with the behind-the-scenes world of computers no matter which DAW you choose.
 
fredlanger said:
The bad news is that I get to play computer technician on a regular basis as a result. Not knocking the system, but I highly recommend becoming very comfortable with the behind-the-scenes world of computers no matter which DAW you choose.
Click to expand...

Hey Fred, welcome to the BBS. What kind of behind the scenes world of computers are you referring to? Do you mean you need to be proficient at windows, software, programming or just operating a computer in general?
 
I'm just saying that with our Sony, Yamaha, and Korg dedicated hardware recorders - we made music the moment they were out of the box. They didn't crash, have software/hardware/driver issues. I spent very little time thinking about the left-brained recording process (and deeply analytical problem-solving) and most of the time engaged in right-brained music-creation.

It was a different story when it took weeks to straighten out the new audio computer issues (built by a company specializing in audio PCs no less). When you don't know the source of a problem - who do you call? The PC manufacturer? The audio software company? The sound card company? Microsoft?

With all that said, you won't believe it when I tell you I wouldn't turn back now. All the new headaches still seem worth it when I weigh in the power and capabilities of a computer-based DAW. While I would never point a newbie in this direction before cutting their teeth on easier platforms - I highly recommend it for the adventuresome and power-hungry!
 
I guess I should be in the back kissing and caressing my computer right now then....

I seem to be one of the lucky ones who bought a computer specifically for recording, researched it to make sure I had parts that were all compatable and work well together, and I have had virtually no trouble with setting the system up (except for setting up MIDI with was user error :rolleyes: ).

Sorry to hear you were having so much trouble. I will say that setting up the system is a bit more intimidating than say, pulling a BR-8 out of the box and plugging it in (although even there my friend took a good week to get comfy with his BR-8) but like you said it is worth it because of all the power that is at your disposal once you get it up and running.

My friend considers his BR-8 an $800 sketching tool now that he has seen my Cubase. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top