I do. Well...if that what you can call it. I prefer to call it 'smashtering'.
I use Cubase because I can create a track for each song, seque them together if needs be, and compare each final version of the tune for consistency. Then I mix all that down to one big audio file, take it into Wavelab, index each part in to separate tracks, and burn to CD.
As far as the audio processing goes, it's as good as any IMHO.
No. I use Cubase SX3 for all my sequencing, then I 'master' the final wav in Sound Forge 8. I say master, but I'm not a mastering engineer, I just tweak the EQ and maximize the signal using Waves and create the fina master wav.
No. I use Cubase SX3 for all my sequencing, then I 'master' the final wav in Sound Forge 8. I say master, but I'm not a mastering engineer, I just tweak the EQ and maximize the signal using Waves and create the fina master wav.
What do you mean 'no'? It's as good a package as any. You may use Sound Forge to 'master', but that doesn't mean that Cubase isn't a good enough final product. The only feature it doens't have is CD burning. But on a per song basis, there's nothing wrong with 'mastering' in Cubase and burning that .wav to CD using nero or whatever.. I have Wavelab and still prefer to do my processing in Cubase.
Yeah I didn't mean to come across as pissed off at all. But on rereading my post i can see how it may have seemed that way. I just worded it badly I guess. Sorry bout that. .
Yeah I didn't mean to come across as pissed off at all. But on rereading my post i can see how it may have seemed that way. I just worded it badly I guess. Sorry bout that. .