Cubase 10.5 is here now....

[telecode]

Just out of curiosity, for the people that are having issues, can you also post how many tracks and how many 3rd party VSTs are you using in the projects.

[Mushy Mushy]

Just out of curiosity, for the people that are having issues, can you also post how many tracks and how many 3rd party VSTs are you using in the projects.

Is this question 10.5 specific or Cubase generally?

[telecode]

Just out of curiosity, for the people that are having issues, can you also post how many tracks and how many 3rd party VSTs are you using in the projects.

Is this question 10.5 specific or Cubase generally?

I guess 10.5 specific.

[v1o]

I switched from a Focusrite Scarlett 2i4 (first gen) to a Steinberg UR44 last year. The difference is HUGE.
With the Focusrite I always had driver issues and regular BSOD's. The Steinberg just works.

Also with the Focurite I had to switch off my speakers before rebooting my PC, because otherwise there were some very loud pops. The Steinberg just stays silent.

Another reason why I chose the Steinberg UR44 is because it actually has 6 analog inputs as described on the box. Many other brands claim to have like 6 inputs or more, but you need some expensive third party gear to be able to use them, or there are 2 digital inputs via SP/DIF. I don't know/own any synth that has such an output, so these digital inputs are useless to me.
Some brands even count the MIDI in/outs in theirs interfaces number of inputs/outputs, just to make the number look bigger.

To be fair the first gen Scarlett is now very old. I doubt Focusrite still support legacy products. When buying an audio interface what you want to look for is the amount of analogue inputs and outputs. That information is normally on the spec sheet on the website. On marketing materials they normally just sum the total amount of both digital and analogue inputs/outputs.

The first gen Scarlett's were known to have unstable drivers, poor latency for many users including myself. Even after the 2nd generation came out they did continue to work on the drivers for the first gen and got them to a decent latency , stable. Currently mine is working flawlessly on win/cubase 10. Still does 'pop' at boot-up
Part of me does wish it it would die so I could get something more modern with improvements all round but it refuses to do so

It's a shame about the poor driver performance. I had similar driver issues with my EMU audio interface, until I permanently made a switch to RME and never looked back.

AFAIK that loud pop cannot be resolved with a firmware update. The pop thing when powering on is because of how the hardware was designed. Better audio interfaces have a circuit to protect speakers from loud pops.

[jancivil]

Don't take this personally, the you is universal 'you', it's this statement which is stupid: "Terribly convoluted workflow."
No tool, no DAW/Host has a workflow. You have a problem with yours in Cubase. This is 100% your responsibility.
And with Cubase what this always works out to be is you don't know it.

Assign key commands or even macro strings of commands to what you use and they appear immediately, VOILA, like magic. Or, disappear. You can even dock the main bits in the lower zone.

I have a workflow which is very direct and as simple as anything.

Also, midi is midi, there is no not supporting a particular midi controller unless the controller or connectors are faulty.
Or it uses some botched mapping routine, that can happen.

[Synthman2000]

God only knows how I made it through the last 180 track tune I made in Cubase on an 8 year old i7 . Though I was was pegged at 95pct ASIO for the last few weeks of it. I am really happy with my Cubase 9.2 here with a RME PCI HDSP 9632 (which I believe counts for a lot of the mind boggling performance I seem to get given the machines age) I will update when I find a problem or something totally stops me from making a track. Untill then loving it and being productive, end of story. Thanks Steinberg .

I will get an update to Cubase when I get a new machine, with luck that will not be for at least 5 years. Personally speaking I have no need to take an update risk for now, everything is running very nicely, I won't fix what is not broke.

Thus far, a case of old is gold.

What I learnt is buy an RME card predominantly for driver quality/future OS compatibility updates and stability (even if it is €200-€300 more than the alternative), keep well away from the software "bleedin edge" and any CPU/PC upgrade never produces the performance increase you think it will (just bounce and don't bother updating, run your machine till it dies, just back up everything). Now I revel in saving a lot of money, being more productive than ever and actually getting a buzz on how much I get done with old PC hardware/software. Do what makes you personally feel best though.

[BONES]

180 tracks!?! WTF!?! Our most complex song has fewer than 20 tracks and since we moved to Cubase, it's more like a dozen. Better still is that over those dozen tracks, I reckon I probably only use four or five effects (and most of those are on my vocals). I'm not even doing a lot of EQing any more. Changing hosts has given me a great opportunity to streamline many aspects of my production process and to take more advantage of all the features of modern softsynths (on board effects being the most obvious one).

Don't take this personally, the you is universal 'you', it's this statement which is stupid: "Terribly convoluted workflow."
No tool, no DAW/Host has a workflow. You have a problem with yours in Cubase. This is 100% your responsibility.

That's only true up to a point. The interface design places limits on workflows. I will never be able to get close to the smooth, logical workflow of Orion in Cubase, simply because of the interface. It's a fundamental restriction that I can't work around. I can develop other workflows, which I've done, but it will never come close to the speed and convenience of Orion.

Anyway, got my UR44C last night and so far I am really impressed. It took quite a bit of effort to get it all set up, mostly downloading an re-downloading software, but it runs very reliably now with a 256 sample buffer and I'll swear the sound coming out of it is fuller, richer and more detailed than any of my previous interfaces (although that probably just means it's louder). Tonight I will hook up my hardware and test out the DSP effects.

[THE INTRANCER]

Don't take this personally, the you is universal 'you', it's this statement which is stupid: "Terribly convoluted workflow."
No tool, no DAW/Host has a workflow. You have a problem with yours in Cubase. This is 100% your responsibility.
And with Cubase what this always works out to be is you don't know it.

Assign key commands or even macro strings of commands to what you use and they appear immediately, VOILA, like magic. Or, disappear. You can even dock the main bits in the lower zone.

I have a workflow which is very direct and as simple as anything.

Also, midi is midi, there is no not supporting a particular midi controller unless the controller or connectors are faulty.
Or it uses some botched mapping routine, that can happen.

DAWs do have a workflow, workflow is simply the steps or number of steps in which to achieve a task that can be clearly followed, understood, remembered and recalled quickly. So in that instance, a DAW that is intuitive, is one that is designed well. There are two sides to every coin though.... For example if you have been trained to follow a set of procedures to perform a task, then those learnt procedures may need further mental learning to be established. The greater degree of difference, the higher the degree of difficulty it will impose at the neurological / cognitive level to process what one is trying to achieve.

Software by it's very nature is designed by a set of rules, these rules are used universally, but if the result of how these rules are implemented don't follow the natural way in which we as human beings are able learn and understand with what we interact with, then there can be a fundamental problem with in which something is created to be easily comprehended.

It's ultimately about communication, and it's both the challenge for the creator / designer to be able to follow established conventions and to do it in a way that can be understood by those who don't have to fathom things which should be naturally intuitive. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line...

___

@ Synthman2000 » 180 track projects... I recall from another thread I posted in where I showed a screen grab of a single song with around that many 180 Track Project In Studio One. This on an I7 920 CPU which I'm still happily using.. Typically I found it better to composite multiple song tracks on top of each other to maximise my CPU usage. 80 to 120 tracks is more normal, but sometimes and because of concurring projects like for video, I create with much less.

[BONES]

DAWs do have a workflow, workflow is simply the steps or number of steps in which to achieve a task that can be clearly followed, understood, remembered and recalled quickly.

But that's what she's saying - in Cubase you can create macros to condense even the most complex, convoluted series of steps into a one-step process. So, in theory, everything you need to do in Cubase can be made to be a simple, one step process. Of course, you will first need to learn how to make macros, something I haven't the first clue about, so the learning curve gets steeper but the rewards can be substantial.

So in that instance, a DAW that is intuitive, is one that is designed well.

I wouldn't say that at all because what's intuitive to me will not necessarily be intuitive to you. Cubase being a perfect example - I find it very easy to use without having to refer to the manual or any other on line resources, where others clearly struggle to get their head around it. I think the reality is that the intuitive application is the one that's designed to work the way you work.

Software by it's very nature is designed by a set of rules, these rules are used universally, but if the result of how these rules are implemented don't follow the natural way in which we as human beings are able learn and understand with what we interact with, then there can be a fundamental problem with in which something is created to be easily comprehended.

Except that software is designed to be used by humans, so of course it will work for humans. Problems arise when applications mature and different people want to work in different ways. This becomes a big issue for so-called "industry standard" applications like Photoshop or Cubase - you have to keep your long serving customers happy whilst, at the same time, making sure you are keeping up with all the latest and greatest. It becomes a very difficult balancing act but I think Cubase does it way better than Photoshop..

180 Track Project In Studio One.

I would be very keen to hear what this sounds like. I find it hard to imagine more than about 10% of the tracks are actually necessary. My band mate does this a lot and I find I can strip out half his tracks and it still sounds the same, only it is now much easier for me to make it sound even better. That's kind of my mantra when I am producing - where most people seem to keep looking for things to add, I am always trying to find things I can get rid of.

[THE INTRANCER]

But that's what she's saying - in Cubase you can create macros to condense even the most complex, convoluted series of steps into a one-step process. So, in theory, everything you need to do in Cubase can be made to be a simple, one step process.

Of course, you will first need to learn how to make macros, something I haven't the first clue about, so the learning curve gets steeper but the rewards can be substantial.

/\

Based upon these two sentences I've emboldened from your posts.... it's clear that there is a direct contradiction in what you're saying here. Which should be pretty obvious to anyone reading...so no need for me to explain why. Also what I said in reference to what I'll call an 'entity' as I'll call it, as it could apply to anything that one interacts with, 'being intuitive' wasn't a 'You' or 'Me' statement... it is what it is.

\/

I wouldn't say that at all because what's intuitive to me will not necessarily be intuitive to you.

Cubase being a perfect example - I find it very easy to use without having to refer to the manual or any other on line resources, where others clearly struggle to get their head around it.

I think the reality is that the intuitive application is the one that's designed to work the way you work.

____________

Except that software is designed to be used by humans, so of course it will work for humans. Problems arise when applications mature and different people want to work in different ways. This becomes a big issue for so-called "industry standard" applications like Photoshop or Cubase - you have to keep your long serving customers happy whilst, at the same time, making sure you are keeping up with all the latest and greatest. It becomes a very difficult balancing act but I think Cubase does it way better than Photoshop..

Comparing Cubase with Photoshop is like comparing apples and oranges, not only did they start life in what are really two different decades unless you're going to be pedantic and include that of the training and experience that any programmer may have had prior whilst working on 16 Bit or even 8 Bit graphic design programs in the 1980's. Personally I started back in the 1980's, line drawing images with a joystick and an Atari 800 XL from a BASIC coded program my brother had created...so my first Photoshop experience was back in 1986, but anyway less I digress further afield...

Having said that... Photoshop, fundamentally has barely evolved much since the 1990's.. the tool pallet being just one example... I've been using Photoshop since 2006 at home and in 2013 I moved up to CS6 opting not to pay more for the 3D features that cost £200 + as I didn't need them. Other than that the only real differences that have made any difference is the 'Mercury Engine' and the addition of the video timeline. There's a scattering of other things like image transfer compatibility for example with the Z-App link..to / from ZBrush, but Photoshop has largely remained the same. Cubase has had more dramatic changes from when it first appeared than Photoshop has.

I would be very keen to hear what this sounds like. I find it hard to imagine more than about 10% of the tracks are actually necessary. My band mate does this a lot and I find I can strip out half his tracks and it still sounds the same, only it is now much easier for me to make it sound even better. That's kind of my mantra when I am producing - where most people seem to keep looking for things to add, I am always trying to find things I can get rid of.

As for the 180 track song... you can hear it here...
https://soundcloud.com/scott-moncrieff- ... hour-night

[BONES]

ased upon these two sentences I've emboldened from your posts.... it's clear that there is a direct contradiction in what you're saying here.

No, there isn't. Good workflow and simple to learn are not the same things. You can get to a good workflow in Cubase, it just won't necessarily be there from the first time you open it.

Of course, the other thing to understand is that I haven't learned about macros because I have found a perfectly usable workflow that doesn't require knowing any of that stuff.

Also what I said in reference to what I'll call an 'entity' as I'll call it, as it could apply to anything that one interacts with, 'being intuitive' wasn't a 'You' or 'Me' statement... it is what it is.

No, it is all relative. If you are used to doing things a certain way, moving to a new set-up that works in a completely different way will not be intuitive to you. OTOH, if your old set-up works a lot like your new one, it will seem completely intuitive.

Comparing Cubase with Photoshop is like comparing apples and oranges

Not in the context in which I was comparing them, it's not.

not only did they start life in what are really two different decades

Cubase v1 - 1989, Photoshop v1 - 1990. Technically two different decades but in reality just a few months apart.

Having said that... Photoshop, fundamentally has barely evolved much since the 1990's..

I used to say that but stepping from CC 2019 at work back to CS6 at home is like stepping back in time. It may seem that Photoshop has hardly changed but the reality is very different. I'd agree that you probably don't notice much change from Version 7 or 8 to CS6 but CS6 was released in 2012, it's ancient now.

the tool pallet being just one example...

That's one thing that has changed noticeably. It used to be a floating palette with two columns of icons, now it's a ribbon of icons down one side of the main window with flyouts (like everything else has been for 30 years).

Other than that the only real differences that have made any difference is the 'Mercury Engine' and the addition of the video timeline.

That will depend on your needs. The biggest daily improvement for me is Select & Mask, which gets better with every update. Making keyart today takes about one-quarter of the time it took just a few years ago and the results are almost always much better. In a professional setting it is a huge boon to productivity. I didn't even realise that Mercury support was in Photoshop, I thought it was a Premiere/AfterFX thing.

As for the 180 track song... you can hear it here...
https://soundcloud.com/scott-moncrieff- ... hour-night

Cool! Thanks, I'll have a listen when I get home tonight.

[reggie1979]

Poor guys. They duped you? Um, this crap has been going on since .........forever!

Steiny is going to get you, BUY NOW, it will be the best!

Sorry for being so cynical, but it is what it is. Not the first dick move they've made, not the last. Does the software work for you? Then good.

it is what it is? well duh. and yes it is a sneaky move from Steinberg. I was being deliberately facetious in my post as, after all, it's only $7. Sometimes it's the little things that can sway a purchase one way or another though.

What I'm saying is that if the software doesn't work for you, then ditch it. If it does, then embrace it. It's really that simple.

[kdogg]

Scoring for Film / Games can require a lot of tracks and complexity of gestures, hundreds/thousands of tracks and wide use of macros. The music and sound design all can merge into a single session and your talking big complex sessions, I love Cubase because it handles this so well. You do have to learn the DAW inside out and that demands a certain commitment but the rewards are great, definitely build your own workflow type of thing, as simple or as complex as it needs to be.

[LeVzi]

Cubase has a very nice workflow as a whole, it was the main reason I left FL Studio and came to Cubase in the first place, was due to FL Studio's workflow getting strangled and made too complex, but after a short time with Cubase, I got to know it and like how it works, I don't want any changes to that now, but there were a few from the jump from V6.5 to 9.5 when I made that jump.

I constantly am learning tips n tricks to speed up my workflow, and nice little touches that make things easier to understand, but this last update, really doesn't add to that, even though I keep hearing stories how it's improved workflow, I just ask HOW ?

What i'd really love to see, and pay good money to see is a massive optimization of it, where CPU use was reduced a lot. I doubt that's even possible, but would be so nice.

[Synthman2000]

Using an i7 2600 3.4gHz 16GB RAM so not quite as vintage as your CPU. This is 1 song, I need so many tracks as everything is eq'd, processed and effected differently, multiple versions, layers etc. it soon adds up. I have a lot of fx returns with eq and processing on them as well, the track count includes many spot effect types sounds that I make and bounce from synths. Of course every track does not all have sound playing back at the same time otherwise it would just be a carcophony. Truth be known I am a control freak and very much enjoy that, computer music is perfect for this.

At a guess I would have around 700-1,000 plug ins in the session and why ASIO is pegged (95pct) yet stable courtesy of RME PCI card. There is at the very least always a DMG Equilibrium on every track and Slate VCC, just for starters, that's 360 plug ins off the bat. (luckily VCC uses virtually no CPU)

I have become very used to it now scrolling up and down all the time even on a 17inch monitor. All works fine in practice, I have no deadlines, it is my own dream world to escape into.

But track count does not mean anything unless the end result is good. I only bring it up because people love moaning about Cubase for literally any reason. When actually there are people running significant track counts in a stable manner. Cubase since v9.0 for me personally has been truly exceptional, I am sure other sequencers are great as well.

You have to be responsible for your own passage with PC's and updates. New is not always better, if you are serious about music when you have a working system you most likely leave it alone and make music. Otherwise you are more of a tech afficianado. I cannot remember the last time a new DAW function that has made my music better, other than stability when I went to 64 bit throughout.

Whatever you enjoy most, get into that I guess.