So many choices

  • Thread starter Thread starter track pusha
  • Start date Start date
T

track pusha

New member
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
 
thank you warble. so cubase sl can record audio right. I was told by somebody that you could only record midi.
 
track pusha said:
thank you warble. so cubase sl can record audio right. I was told by somebody that you could only record midi.
Click to expand...

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
 
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).
 
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?
 
stian said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, SX has the most features. SE, however, is a very nice program at a reasonable price.
 
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.
 
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.
 
As far as I know, yes they do use the same engine. The differences are purely concerning feature set, and maybe some cosmetics.
 
mrbowes said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
^
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?
 
mrbowes said:
^
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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).
 
xstatic said:
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).
Click to expand...

I have SL3 and it does not come with the UV22 plug, so in SX can you bounce without using that plug? Just curious???
 
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.
 
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:D
 
xstatic said:
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:D
Click to expand...

All this time I didnt know that! Thanks
 
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:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top