im running sx 3 ,now i mainly use midi sequencing for recording all my out board gear in to cubase audio and so on and so forth ,now i don’t use any vsti as i love my analog and keyboards and modules , but i do use fx 's and the channel strips with dynamics so my question i is there any advantage for me to up grade to c5 or 6 when it comes out ?

old atari head
the freq


I don’t know too much about modern (or vintage) gear for that matter, bit of an old school player however if you want to record MIDI and things it cannot be taken for granted that an older version will function as one would like, particularly on newer operating systems.

The reason I am led to believe is due to the way information is handled on the host OS as opposed to the host application and that in regard to MIDI information it is not such a known quantity as audio and thus can benefit from the engineering that can be provided by application and driver developers since they are the ones with access to all the latest OS specifications.

BTW what system are you running now?

EDIT: did not see your sig while replying :blush:

Free routing, better inbuilt EQ, Control Room, Drag and drop inserts for starters.

any chance of elaborating on these extra perks ,most of my sound manipulation is done with my synths and outboards and i only use basic audio tool and “waves” ,its the midi side that im interested in ,is the midi side the same as sx3 or has that been completely redesigned as well ?,sx3 is rock solid on the midi timing for playback and recording ,never had an issue in the respect so what would i gain from the upgrade , you say routing but what sort ? eq’s i normally either use cuemix or waves and the drag and drop doe’s not seen to me to be any quicker than clicking a mouse and putting on the channel anyway , so is the selling point of the new cubase the new plugins they supply for audio manipulation ?

If you are not interested in new vst instruments or audio or in getting a new computer and you are happy with the way your setup works why change anything? A lot of the advances are audio based. Tuning, time stretching, convolution reverbs etc. I’m sure there have been some MIDI advances, but MIDI has been pretty mature in Cubase for some time. If you are not running vst instruments you don"t even need the power of a new computer until Waves plugins start stressing your computer. If it aint broke don’t fix it. That said C5 is worlds beyond sx if you take advantage of the new technology out there.

thats exactly the term i was going to use lol ,your right ,not even the waves come close to maxin this machine out and your right collin i just wondered what other outboard users actually thought on the matter as every thing in our days seems to be all about the VSTi ,i still have a good friend using 5 atari’s with cubase 2 and 4 replay 16s as samplers lol

you will never keep up with technology

regards old atari head

I use quite a few outboard midi units with both SX3 and Cb5 equally - at the moment because I’ve got old and new projects. If you’re looking specifically at midi then I don’t really see any particular changes at all.

The one thing that’s changed which erks me is the transmission of the program change assigned to the midi track. In SX3 it’s transmitted each time you press stop (or maybe start?), anyway, it’s retransmitted. But in Cb5 it’s only transmitted once when you open the project or when you change it. I prefer the SX3 method for my way of working. Think they should provde a preference for that.

Another thing that’s provided in Cb5 which I’ve not used it the facility to convert controller data into automation data and vice versa. I wish they provided it for pitch shift too but they don’t.

Also provided is multiple controller lane display, not used that either.

I’ll say this though, software synths have come a long way and quite a few of them are now rivalling hardware. I’ve recently found myself using more softsynths than external synths at times, and Cb5 is better for this because it’s more solid and has better routing/rendering features.


What do you mean “only transmitted once in C5”?

I know in VST5 it was done in the inspector but this was sort of removed in SX1 or was it later on?

Actually most VSTs are multi-timbral anyway and I just draw program changes in if necessary using the list editor.

Yes, we no longer have to type in upper case only.

I heard that Cubase 6 is going to be announced in a few days during NAMM.

bentley -

In VST5 you could apply a program change to the track (in the track inspector) and also to the midi parts. The program changes were ‘chased’, i.e. transmitted as the song plays, and transmitted when you located to different parts of the song too.

In SX and beyond they removed the program change on the midi part so it was only on the midi track (pity!). Anyway, that remaining program change in SX is chased when you locate and play, i.e. if you change the program manually on the keyboard it will go back to what SX wants.

And in Cb5 it doesn’t ‘chase’ this program change anymore, it is transmitted once when you first open the project, and once each time you change the value. I.e. no chasing during the song. So, if you manually change the program change on the keyboard then it doesn’t go back.

Opinions will differ on which method is best… It depends on your working method I guess. I like the old method because I have quite a few keyboards which are single timbral so program changes for different sections are necessary. Also, it’s not always quite as easy as just a program change because most keyboards have many banks, so you have to be MSB/LSB bank change savvy too… After using the Studio Module in VST5 and the midi devices in SX3 and Cb5 where you get to see the patch names then digging down to the program and bank changes is like going back to the dark ages!

Steinberg recommend that if you want the program changes to be chased then you use something like ‘merge midi in loop’ which ‘freezes’ the inspector values into a midi part - things in midi parts are chased by default. Then you can move these midi parts about. I’ve not used this method, I prefer to record my hardware keyboards to audio when I need different sounds instead.


Hi Mike

I bit the bullet long ago on this.

Although I had used Atari I basically skipped VST and SX1 and went straight to SX2/3 and so on now 5 and will likely move to 6 at some stage since I can’t imagine old versions functioning too well in the environment I put them in (multiple background services, simultaneously running applications, internet etc)

As for program changes, I use them but only in MIDI parts. I never cared too much for the inspector, it’s great for routing and that’s about it IMV.

The problem I have with Cubase is when you draw in a Controller for example there is no “drop-down” list. If Steinberg could put a short list of commonly used controllers I’d find life much easier in terms of time saving, not to mention putting controllers before notes at any given interval.

Of course it will never go back to what it was but that does not mean users should have to put up with clunky methods day in and out all in the interests of ongoing change.


Drag and drop is good for changing insert order and for copying inserts over to new channels. I would say that SX3 is probably very good and stable. Free(ish) routing is handy, the order of group creation is no longer a restriction on group routing for example.

Oh… and side chaining could also be considered an advantage.

I would also recommend the if it ain’t broke…

Probably worth waiting to see if C6 offers you any significant advantages

Not especially on topic - but I’ve set up midi devices for each keyboard, and this enables me to use patch names rather than have to deal with prog/bank changes. Not only do you get patch names but you can also get them sorted into categories, for instance, my Triton Extreme has ~1500 sounds which are in categories as well as banks, and so I have a midi device where they’re sorted into the same categories. I can easily audition string sounds using the inspector in Cubase even when they’re not in consecutive patches on the synth. This really comes into it’s own for rack synths which have categories but also fiddly displays and buttons and live at the bottom of racks near the floor (e.g. JV2080).

I certainly agree with your controllers point. There are still a few things in the midi side which have been left behind when you consider the modern methods of doing things. Yes, controller names would be good, and custom names too. Also, for me, a combined prog/bank change event which uses patch names would be good. Also I’d love to see a special sustain event which is like a note event so I can move the end and delete or create a whole sustain in one go. There are many things which could make our lives easier I think, maybe I should start a new post???

BTW, gotta say that drag and dropping of inserts is just great! That’s my No 1 feature of Cb5.


Final point, hopefully the OP doesn’t mind, but is bank/program changes possible with NRPN’s?

AFAIK that depends on the manufacturer’s implementation of NRPN’s.

I’ve only used them once to program resonance and filter changes on a preset rack unit (Roland MVS-1), and it was a pain because I have to manually turn on receipt of NRPNs via the front panel each time I powered up.


Whatever your hardware and operating system it’s only polite (and sensible) to be prepared to turn off other applications while running a program that relies on real-time media streamong.

With Vista I don’t have to be concerned so much what is happening in terms of processes, as audio functions are shifted in to the User area of the system and thus do not interfere directly in the stability of the system kernel.

Only version 4 and above Steinberg applications support the new audio frameworks, thus running SX3 and below will produce no benefit on newer systems.


Hello Bently,

Are you talking about Cubase Studio 5 oder Cubase 5 ??


Hi Chris,

I’m running CS5 on Vista Ultimate.

I will try Windows 7 one day but for my very basic recording and midi needs I am very pleased with how 5.5 performs and am looking forward to what C6 can offer.

best regards