Can Cubase Do These Things? ...

:open_mouth: Steady on Steve :open_mouth:
Now you want to learn how to cheat ? :stuck_out_tongue:

  1. Audio to midi ; yes but only monophonic lines .
  2. See http://www.youtube.com/user/SteinbergSoftware#p/u/44/nNoB-VVILKw

:slight_smile: :wink:

Here’s MIDI replacement
http://www.youtube.com/user/SteinbergSoftware#p/u/45/ALGTdlNnZ30

First, all versions of Cubase as far back as VST/32 had a lane system for loop recording, maybe even before that. But that’s when I discovered them. The capabilities of the loop system have changed dramatically. I don’t find it to be an improvement. It’s great if you have a segment where you are trying to do something that is relatively the same over and over and you just want to get the best version of ONE thing done in THAT exact spot. But, if you are trying musical ideas that you would like to use throughout the song, it is not so good. In other words that take/comp process is stagnant for a given section. What we really need is a way to save

It’s still not possible to assemble non time linear takes from lanes. In other words, all cuts on a lane are vertically aligned. Also, you can’t easily make multiple edits of the takes and save them in a comp list to use elsewhere in the project. The old take system was much better for this as you could slice things up and bounce the comp to the pool easily. The improvement would have been a comp list for the track. But, instead we went backwards IMO. It’s even worse for MIDI. Hopefully they will address some of the shortcomings of the new take/lane system in the upcoming patches and releases.

To be fair, for the straight ahead approach of linear takes, it’s very effective.

This type of post seems to me to indicate a misunderstanding of what sort of musical tool Cubase is. Sure it’s a wonderful thing in many ways but it will be limited in some areas due to developments not happening due to commercial and practical reasons. Basicaly it’s a recorder with tools, both good and less good, bolted on.
Like a word processor will not write a journalist’s articles for him but it’s handy to have the spell-checker if he skipped that class at uni.
I think it’s quite easy, and I’m guilty of it myself, to find something that Cubase does that you think is so obvious that everyone is doing it and that it’s lack of development is somehow wrong. But the reality is that when you go to other studios that you will rarely see the engineers doing anything other than tracking and FX processing and automation is most always minimal and very rarely applied to anything other than the faders and comping is seen mostly by surprisingly few specialists as most engineers seem to prefer one take for continuity and the occasional drop-in where necessary.

Cubase can do most things but do not be surprised if the development of some areas falls short of the idea that you have of it in your head. But it shouldn’t stop you trying though. If you have a good enough idea and it catches on with everyone then the devs may look at it with new eyes and improve the functionality.

Conman, the difference is that in this case the software performed a certain way and was very functional. It is irritating when that functionality is removed. Other than that, I agree with the majority of your comment.

Oh, my God … your killing me! You never cease to amaze me with your way of wording things. :laughing: