|
|
Post by henge on Jan 21, 2015 6:42:46 GMT -6
Man, i just watched a few cubase how to vids, it may as well be a different language, it is laid out almost nothing like a real console, and has a bunch of strange features that are too hidden and honestly seemed not very useful for me, i'll pay what ever avid asks before i switch to what seems i'd need to re learn from kindergarten curve? It honestly looks like it'd take a year just to get the basics on the thing? Maybe i'm just set in my ways, or old school? but just gimme a virtual console that looks like a real "console", and give me an edit window thats laid out close to what you'd expect from a real console, with a waveform window, with as many tools visible as possible without having to open a bunch hidden ?'s. Pro tools is a much simpler workflow from what i can tell, and the look is all business, honestly cubase also looks video gamish to me, sorry. The learning curves on a new DAW are a real bitch! I've tried different daws and it's just not worth it like you say. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jan 21, 2015 7:34:59 GMT -6
They lost practically EVERYONE, but that's because they are now outsourcing all the heavy lifting to the USSR and have no need for US designers. If the old guys that left get Steinberg up and running like PT, let us know. We may want to jump on board. I'm honestly confused as to what you think PT has that Cubase doesn't. What do you mean by "up and running like PT"? |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 7:41:21 GMT -6
"Up and running", meaning, they have never tried Cubase or they would be using it. It is super easy to run with a fantastic work flow. You and I know this, Cowboy, but to those guys who spent thousands they didn't need to on PT have to tell themselves something to continue to justify it.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jan 21, 2015 7:45:09 GMT -6
Man, i just watched a few cubase how to vids, it may as well be a different language, it is laid out almost nothing like a real console, and has a bunch of strange features that are too hidden and honestly seemed not very useful for me, i'll pay what ever avid asks before i switch to what seems i'd need to re learn from kindergarten curve? It honestly looks like it'd take a year just to get the basics on the thing? Maybe i'm just set in my ways, or old school? but just gimme a virtual console that looks like a real "console", and give me an edit window thats laid out close to what you'd expect from a real console, with a waveform window, with as many tools visible as possible without having to open a bunch hidden ?'s. Pro tools is a much simpler workflow from what i can tell, and the look is all business, honestly cubase also looks video gamish to me, sorry. Any software looks famished to me personally. As for the mix window looking like a real console, I never use the mix window anyway, it's just double the work for me. I work straight from the edit window 99% of the time. Super fast and intuitive. The end game is a song that's listenable. I honestly couldn't care less which workatation it was created on. To the uninformed "producaass" who go to a studio because they "have Pro Tools" it might. I have Pro Tools. I use it when sessions come in that are in that format to save the hassle if stemming out, but I honestly don't like it. Very clunky to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 8:09:24 GMT -6
Man, i just watched a few cubase how to vids, it may as well be a different language, it is laid out almost nothing like a real console, and has a bunch of strange features that are too hidden and honestly seemed not very useful for me, i'll pay what ever avid asks before i switch to what seems i'd need to re learn from kindergarten curve? It honestly looks like it'd take a year just to get the basics on the thing? Maybe i'm just set in my ways, or old school? but just gimme a virtual console that looks like a real "console", and give me an edit window thats laid out close to what you'd expect from a real console, with a waveform window, with as many tools visible as possible without having to open a bunch hidden ?'s. Pro tools is a much simpler workflow from what i can tell, and the look is all business, honestly cubase also looks video gamish to me, sorry. Tony, you have never spent any time with Cubase whatsoever, or you would know that you can customize it to whatever looks and features you want it to be. You are in the mindset of a vanilla PT daw that gives you little back in terms of visual appeal and asthetics. I have my rig dimed to my usage/workflow and went to a studio last week for piano/B3 overdubs using PT. Just digging through the playlists to find a better chorus take seemed so lethargic to me after using the editing process of Cubase. I know for a fact that my editing time is at least cut in half using Cubase when vocals and other high track count editing is required. Being able to see all of the performances and mark them on the fly as the "best take" during tracking is a handy feature. Add to that a dual display of input and output console metering (you can have 3 if you need them), all custom sized, colored however you like and set up exactly to personal preference allows a user to see quite accurately if you are getting close to red during tracking. I have mine set exactly like an analog consoles input meter bridge when tracking (on my top 40" screen) and I hit one button and its all set up for editing mode. There are so many features that I use about half of them. Now that I have the Smart AV console, I am getting through the learning curve with it and setting up Macros to speed things up even more. PT won't even share the coding with them so they can work together. 800 million dollar company, as you say, and they can't keep up with Steinberg, who are state of the art as it gets. In speaking of further customization, I have all of my colors set very soft (and matching my purple theme in the studio) so I can stare at the screens for 15+ hrs a day when I am tracking a band or pushing a deadline. Now, there are the major motion picture guys' input to consider here also, since they are doing mega high track counts and work very fast in high definition surround sound. There are reasons why those guys (links below) like and use Nuendo and Cubase. www.steinberg.net/en/artists/community_stories/hans_zimmer.htmlwww.editorsguild.com/FromTheGuild.cfm?FromTheGuildid=165 -and this is version 5 mind you. R |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jan 21, 2015 8:14:46 GMT -6
Look...I have a few good reasons to bag on Avid but I won't! I mean I can't even use Pro Tools 11 non HD with my Avid Thunderbolt/Omni setup...are you KIDDING me, I can use every other DAW but not Non HD PT. The reality is I love the software and I think Digidesign did a lot for DAW software and I feel we are lucky to have these types of tools at our disposal whether it be Cubase, Logic, Reaper, etc... These are exciting times in Pro Audio. I truly feel this company is changing it's business model and I believe it has to for survival because of companies like steinberg. That is why competition is good. Will the business model work?  Who knows but if Cubase keeps pushing the envelope, things may change. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 21, 2015 10:00:56 GMT -6
"Up and running", meaning, they have never tried Cubase or they would be using it. It is super easy to run with a fantastic work flow. You and I know this, Cowboy, but to those guys who spent thousands they didn't need to on PT have to tell themselves something to continue to justify it. R Everyone go buy cubase and a RTZ rack right now! Or ur a stupid head, and Randy's gonna tell on u!  |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 10:03:06 GMT -6
Or keep using your archaic software and quit bitching about it.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 10:04:39 GMT -6
That was extremely childish, Tony and I began to follow your lead. You have got to be more mature than that in real life. Am I not allowed to have a very informed opinion on here now? By your standards, I am not. I would prefer to keep this forum intelligent and giving, which I have been as much as possible. I am not forcing you to try or use anything.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 21, 2015 10:15:20 GMT -6
Wow randy, I was clearly kidding man, ratchet it back a couple notches buddy, your seem very aggressive, this threads about pro tools not cubase? Those of us who use PT clearly like its function, we have some issues with the behavior of the co, we'll work it out, and maybe go cubase or something else at some point, we KNOW u love cubase, and that's cool, but ur hard sell is a turnoff, and ur persistent insinuations that we are "dumbasses" for using PT's is over the top! Geez man...
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 10:23:24 GMT -6
Wow randy, I was clearly kidding man, ratchet it back a couple notches buddy, your seem very aggressive, this threads about pro tools not cubase? Those of us who use PT clearly like its function, we have some issues with the behavior of the co, we'll work it out, and maybe go cubase or something else at some point, we KNOW u love cubase, and that's cool, but ur hard sell is a turnoff, and ur persistent insinuations that we are "dumbasses" for using PT's is over the top! Geez man... Your tone was very taunting and antagonizing to say the least and was not said in a kidding manner or you would have said so. I don't sell Cubase, I use it. I have never made any accusations regarding PT's users being "dumbasses". I simply said that you haven't checked out Cubase enough to know what its even about to compare the two properly. I can tell by reading your words calling it "gamer-like" and such. R |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 21, 2015 10:26:50 GMT -6
A DAW is a very personal workflow. What suits one person won't be acceptable to the next. I'm fine that the Cubase folks like cubase. I don't understand why they keep trying to convert me though, I've tried Cubase a couple of times. Felt it was not a good fit both times. I can get it for free. What more needs to be said? That I'm stupid or something? Seems like some people have something to prove. Use what works for ya. Me? I'll stick with PT until something better shows up. For me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 21, 2015 10:32:02 GMT -6
I thought it was a lighthearted way to get u to notice that ur belittling PT users( go back and read some of ur posts), I have no "tone" as this is written word, I was meaning to be a little sarcastic so I used words that my bros and sis's used as kids, and a face/tongue icon to show that I was kidding. ur interpretation wasn't my intention, sorry it came off that way to u.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 10:35:10 GMT -6
My apologies in return. I would love to have you come by and we can discuss Cubase with it all sitting in front of us here in the studio sometime.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jan 21, 2015 10:36:59 GMT -6
A DAW is a very personal workflow. What suits one person won't be acceptable to the next. I'm fine that the Cubase folks like cubase. I don't understand why they keep trying to convert me though, I've tried Cubase a couple of times. Felt it was not a good fit both times. I can get it for free. What more needs to be said? That I'm stupid or something? Seems like some people have something to prove. Use what works for ya. Me? I'll stick with PT until something better shows up. For me. Nobody is trying to convert you. And I don't think anyone cares what you use. I've seen you post before that your opinion of Cubase is that it's "amateurish". You have a right to that opinion. But I think the overwhelming majority of users would disagree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 10:40:04 GMT -6
Only those people that haven't really used the product to its potential feel that way, Cowboy. It is intimidating at first because things are in different places than PT. Once you see why they are, you become a fan of the product. IMO, anyways.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 21, 2015 10:47:46 GMT -6
But I think the overwhelming majority of users would disagree with that. I'm absolutely sure they would. But it doesn't suit ME - and I don't thing that makes me a freak or stupid. If I'm the one using it here, it has got to work like I want it to. Like I've said many, many times - beyond the conversion, they all sound the same. Use what works for you. It's really a silly argument either way. We all gravitate towards what works best, be it a microphone, DAW or comp. To have to make everyone use the same thing is denying the fact that we're all different - with different workflows, different objectives, different clients, and different musical tastes. PS - and Randy - absolutely NOT intimidated, sorry. Maybe find some other belittling reason I don't use it. Geez.... |
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jan 21, 2015 10:48:32 GMT -6
Randge not that it matters and Im not trying to stir the pot but I thought I read in another thread that you represent Steinberg or sponsored or something. Also, I don't think Cubase, Logic or any other DAW is amateurish...usually it's the operator that makes it amateurish!
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 21, 2015 10:49:13 GMT -6
Well, like I said earlier, I like PT and prefer to stay put, but if avid thinks they're going to put a tap on our wallets, they will see a mass exodus of us moving to other platforms, cubase or reaper is what I'm thinking as of now. We'll see.
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jan 21, 2015 10:53:27 GMT -6
The thing I worry about with the subscription is that just like an early release of 12, Avid will release a so called new version more often to "put a tap on your wallet" instead of fixing bug issues and calling 11.03 or whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 21, 2015 11:00:21 GMT -6
Damn...I go out and get drunk for one night and this is what happens with the board... LOL Anyway, as the great Rodney King said, "Can't we all get along?" I don't know why we take this stuff personally - it's just weird. I mean, who cares what freaking tool we use to get this shit into a computer? I mean, really?
I spent a week with Cubase 8 last week. I'm more familiar with Pro Tools, so I tend to favor it. I probably won't leave PT's until it becomes economically un-feasable. So be it. Who really cares?
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 11:19:57 GMT -6
Randge not that it matters and Im not trying to stir the pot but I thought I read in another thread that you represent Steinberg or sponsored or something. Also, I don't think Cubase, Logic or any other DAW is amateurish...usually it's the operator that makes it amateurish! I am endorsed by Steinberg as a user only and I am under no obligations to sell it for them and am in no way involved with stock in the company either. I just really like it and want people to know how killer it is and at least really give it a try without immediately dismissing it. I have used PT's a lot in many studios in many different situations, so I am coming from a pretty informed viewpoint. R |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jan 21, 2015 12:59:05 GMT -6
I can see the great benifit of PTHD in the past. Before computers got so powerful, it was a must to have the strength of HD. Now with a Mac Mini, I can run 50+ track sessions with dsp all over it with not even a hiccup. And that's at 88.2. Never came close to a ceiling at 44.1.
I think I said it earlier in the thread but the big obatical for PT is the exuberant price. 12k for a platform? Seriously??
Native is so powerful these days. No one "needs" HD to take up any slack. They may want HD but it isn't a must.
And if sub 2 millisecond latency isn't enough for non HD users, then monitor analog. Zero latency.
All that said, there is a great gulf between HD and vanilla. The native PT's is what I don't like. First of all, the software was never designed to work with third party. They threw that on much later to turn a few extra bucks. And it shows because it is very unstable in my experience. HD is not unstable, rock solid because it was designed right for certain hardware.
Anytime you see me grip about PT it is from a Native standpoint. Cubase lapped PT years ago for Native daws. This is not an opinion of mine but an observable fact. Go down the list ticking off the features of each and anyone can see.
Now as far as real eastate or eye candy goes? Well that's a matter of taste. Personally, I think Cubase bites ass visually. It's ugly, but I don't care. I don't look at music when it's done, I listen to it. And my time is worth more to me than anything else in this world, so I use it.
Peace be unto all my Avid friends, I mean that from the bottom part of my heart.
Love,
Cowboy
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 21, 2015 13:30:42 GMT -6
(This is def NOT directed at Randy, it's about all of us)
Considering the downhill slide the integrity of GS took at the hands of self serving moderators, I think it should be a an unwritten rule, and self policed, that any endorsement, or user sponsorships of any kind should be disclosed when asserting a product in a thread here at RGO
I talk about my appreciation for J Williams and Capi products ad nauseum lol, but i buy every piece I own from both co's, If i was to start talking about Paiste cymbals as being the "shit"!(which i think they are 8), I should disclose that I have a simple (builder/public/pics)user endorsement with them, no biggie at all, and not mentioned till right now(i think?), but it's kinda important to mention in the aforementioned context...no? I feel stupid putting the "I have an endorsement!, look at me!" post on my avatar, so i won't, but the connection should be stated in the context of any personal advocation.
JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jan 21, 2015 14:43:46 GMT -6
I have a very long list of products I endorse and it would look ridicules in my avatar, so I mention it when I feel that it is appropriate and never would hide the fact that I use said products. I totally realize that you aren't pointing me out, Tony, just wanted to make that clear. The list is on my website at randykohrs.com/endorsement/ for companies that I am an endorser of. Now that the site is functioning correctly for everyone, please stop by! R |
|
Who knows but if Cubase keeps pushing the envelope, things may change.
