Going from Cubase vst 5.1 to sx 3 whats the learning curve l

[musiclinks]

like to adapt to SX?

[Milkman]

Unfortunately, I went from SX2 to 3, and not vst5.1 to 3, so I dont have the answer for that...
I will say working with 3 has been a pleasure, though! It was by far the easiest install/upgrade of any of previous versions Ive used. I was even able to allow SX2 to remain installed and continue functioning side by side, in case anything went wrong with 3. (in prior version upgrades, the old and new versions didnt get along too well on the same system...)
SX3 is very nice with many great features, but I hope you have a powerful system. The reason being that their copy protection module creates an inefficiency in performance. The app itself would probably run a ton better without it. That inefficiency added to the drain of any high end plugs you may use can choke slower systems.
So anyway, I love SX3 and am happy I upgraded. Steinberg dropped in some nice, new effects and instruments since 5.1, such as a great reverb, filter, and mono/poly synths. Ive been using it for months now and feel pretty comfortable, so if you have any specific questions when you do install, let me know, I love to talk about this stuff.
Enjoy!

[bluedad]

I went from 5.1 to SX2..haven't upgraded and probably won't. There is a bit of a learning curve, but a lot is similiar, it just looks a bit different. It won't take much to get the hang of.
However, I love(d) 5.1 and got a lot, lot, lot done in it. I've had hardware conflicts and have given up reinstalling SX, maybe on the next comp.

[musiclinks]

I really like 5.1 as well, an I'm really comfortable with it. I am putting a new system together as I would like more power. I would rather keep my old setup, which includes windows 98. and just go for the amd 3800 x2. my existing computer is a p4 1.6 ghz.
I know alot of new mobo's don't have parallel ports so that may be a problem if I want to keep vst 5.1

[HHaynes]

http://www.auxbuss.com

Cubase SX UNLEASHED is the best investment you can make after paying for your upgrade.

[TeeLangSun]

I really like 5.1 as well, an I'm really comfortable with it. I am putting a new system together as I would like more power. I would rather keep my old setup, which includes windows 98. and just go for the amd 3800 x2. my existing computer is a p4 1.6 ghz.
I know alot of new mobo's don't have parallel ports so that may be a problem if I want to keep vst 5.1

I would steer clear of the 3800 X2. I have one and the performance is pretty poor actually. I also have an Athlon
3200+ which I bought a year earlier. The X2 machine can be overloaded by a couple of the demo songs in FL Studio 5. Those same songs don't even begin to tax the 3200+ machine. When working with SX3, I have to set the latency two settings slower than on the 3200+ or there are pops and clicks and more. I expected that these dual core machines would really show what they were made of when Applications are coded to take advantage of the dual core setup, and when Windows XP goes to 64 bit, but definately never expected that it's performance would be a fraction of the 3200+. I switched machines with my wife and went back to using the 3200+. I sure hope that software and the OS catches up with this machine's specs some time next year or I will feel even sillier for having bought this machine so long before it was ready for the world. Right now, it's definately not ready for the world.

[Milkman]

Im running a P4 3.8ghz HT (dual logical CPUs) with 2gb RAM, and an Emu 1212m DSP. I dont get pops unless I do stupid shit with latency set at 2ms. Stupid shit being defined as: running many inserted plugs while slaving Reason3 and scrolling the editor too quickly (in reason). This causes small pops probably caused by ReWire freaking the hell out, generally.
Yeah, Cubase SX3 using the dual CPU is very nice indeed. I rarely have any issues with performance.
I do occasionally have issues with the Emu card's onboard effects, however. They are very latency/environment sensitive and do strange things when used as sends in chains containing other VST based effects. Im thinking of dumping it eventually and getting something else.
I also agree with HHaynes on SX unleashed. I broke down and bought it at Guitar Center a few months back. I STILL havent gotten through all the useful sections. I learned things about stuff I thought I already knew about SX3, lol. You can get it for around 50 bucks - totally worth it.

[musiclinks]

So I should stick with a single core chip?
maybe just the amd 3500 athlon?

[Bas]

First, thank you for the great comments on SX3 Unleashed. It makes the work worthwhile knowing that the tutorials are useful.

As for VST to SX, the hardest thing is learning new keystrokes, when you have got to the stage of 'auto pilot' working with VST, it can be frustrating. But having said that, once you get into the tools in SX, there is so much more that can be done, and the new tools open up more creative ways to approch recording and mixing. And once the new keystrokes are learned or re-programmed, the tool becomes every bit as fast as working with VST.

Bas.

[Manc Chris]

I did the leap from 5.1 to sx2.

Generally it was pretty painless but I STILL cannot get used to the lack of a kicker tool. God knows why that was left out of sx. Other than that, get your head around the 'projects' idea and you'll be fine.

[dirtnap]

SX3.1 has support for multi core/cpu. You'll get way more performance out of the x2 3800 on it than a single core. Period.

I went from VST 5 to SX 2, and now to SX 3 as of the 3.1 update. I never get a new version of a software until it has had time to mature, and I can say that SX 3 is now mature. If you already have SX2 though, there really isn't a whole lot to convince you to go to SX3, unless you have a multicore cpu. Most of the new stuff is alright, but not groundbreaking.

As far as the learning curve... I find that the setup is more logical in SX2 and SX3 than VST 5.. which I've got to say I didn't care much for. If you know VST 5 well, then you won't have much trouble adapting to SX.

You know... i didnt even notice the kicker tool was missing until now!

[TeeLangSun]

So I should stick with a single core chip?
maybe just the amd 3500 athlon?

I definately think so. Someone else who had an even higher spec'd X2 Athon based machine posted some dissappointing results around here recently. I'm sure that these machines are good, but there not exactly the same as the "dual processor" machines which have been around for a long time. None of my software, performs as well on this machine as it does on my older machine. I would definately at least get a professional opinion on how these machine perform with regards to audio applications. But with my exact same setup on both machines, the Athlon 3200+ is much better. There are never pops and clicks at any latency setting, and certainly, none of the demo songs from FL Studio 5 can overload the processor or even get close to overloading it.

I also would say that the transition to SX or SX3 is not a very difficult one. In my opinion, SX is generally one of the most logical sequencers available. When I transitioned from Cubasis to the SX range, I never even thought of the "learning curve". The things I needed were still close enough that I've never had to spend much time in the manual. The one thing that I did have to spend time in the manual to learn mapping my midi controller's knobs/faders to software knobs and faders in Cubase. This is one area where Cubase is fairly ugly. Maybe the worst I've seen. These things have to be done in some separate illogical longwinded confusing window instead of "right click a knob, chose midi learn, and tweak the knob on your controller".

[Kingston]

with my exact same setup on both machines, the Athlon 3200+ is much better. There are never pops and clicks at any latency setting, and certainly, none of the demo songs from FL Studio 5 can overload the processor or even get close to overloading it.

Sounds like you're having a serious hardware/driver/setup/bios related problem. If everything worked as intended you should get equal performance with both CPUs in applications that only support single CPUs and something like 80% more performance on apps like SX/nuendo 3.1

The only difference worth mentioning between dualcore and two separate CPUs is the fact that dualcore uses the same L2 cache for both cores, and it only accounts for 1-3% difference.

[Kingston]

Teelangsun

Here are some good realworld benchmarks,

http://www.adkproaudio.com/benchmarks.cfm

That's what you should be seeing.

[vstliefhebber]

I'm still a 5.1 user. Until recently I worked mainly with midi and external synths. The reason I didn't upgrade yet is the MidiMixer for sysex handling. I've read they dropped that feature in SX1 and SX2, only to implement it again in SX3. Does anyone knows if it's (.mix)format is fully compatible? If you're an external synth user this might be a serious item to consider.

Cheers,
H