I just made the jump from Cubase 5 to Cubase 7.5.30 on mac OSX10.9.4 from 10.7, took advantage of the current sale
Brilliant! I am sure the sound is more defined even though the engine may be the same.
All my plugs, which are all legit and updated are working well.
WAVES, SOFTUBE , SLATE, IZOTOPE,PSP , MELODYNE , TRACKS.
Incredible actually, track versions and chord tracks are effortless.
I was impressed how seamless the update was , all my old sessions are fine.
I also have a motif xs rack which is WICKED within cubase 7.5.0, it is SOLID!
Any questions let me know.
WELL DONE STEINBERG! I am so relieved to have made the leap and to be rewarded by such a great DAW!
I am a fellow Cubase 7.5 + Yamaha Motif user, although I have the XS8 keyboard.
Do you mind if I ask - how have you connected your Motif to Cubase? Firewire direct to the computer, by-passing any audio interface? Or analog out, through an audio interface? Maybe S/PDIF? MIDI?
I ask because I found that while going Firewire direct to the computer would, in theory, mean direct digital signal recording, when you do that you have to use the Motif as its own audio interface - meaning worklfow becomes doing all Motif tracks first, then disconnecting the Motif and re-connecting the audio interface for any other tracks.
How’s your set-up / workflow with your Motif & Cubase?
Hi Bramish,
I have the firewire card installed in the motif xs rack but have not configured that part yet.
But I DO have the MOTIF XS rack going directly into my mac via USB which allows full use of the Yamaha vst motif editor within cubase. i just choose it as a VST instrument and I can begin to use it. if you have issues choosing your midi inputs let me know. I route the main outs of the motif rack into the front two mic pres of my MOTU 828 firewire then choose them as a stereo track within cubase to get my sound.
I should add that, yes when I used the motif via firewire in cubase in the past it did seem to use it as its own audio interface, so had to choose it from settings. which i think is cool if you wish to get pure recordings the you can import those audio recordings into any session. It offers all those awesome multiple recording tracks so you can record up to 16 parts at once within cubase I believe. I will definitely be trying this
For technical reasons I had to use 6.5.5. I also tested 7.5.30 with a large project, 125 VST instruments/tracks, 24 & 32 bit/96 kHz. 6.5.5 performed well with the vst meter @ 50%. The same project in 7.5.30. The VST Perrformance meter was overloaded. Projects over 50-60 tracks at 24 & 32 bit/96 KHZ don’t performe well in 7.5.30.
All my recording is done at 24 bit/48KHZ therefore I never had issues but I can see that Cubase 7.5.30 could use some performance improvements compared to 6.5.5.
Cubase 7.0.7 didn’t performe well… Did large projects @ 24 & 32 bit/@ 96 or 88.2 performed well in 7.5-7.5.20 ?
Yes and I have the same experience on own build INTEL-PC powerful workstation with Windows 7 Ultimate x64, INTEL-12core, INTEL SSDs, 32GB of RAM. I’m working in LARGE projects everyday in the studio, productions with + 100-200 tracks at least and massive use of plugins.
Cubase has been great for me since the release of Cubase 7.0. I’m using Cubase 7.5.30 x64 now. The new mixer, the new meter sections, the new control room, VST connect, be able to use icons, track version, track presets, VST-Instrument 2.0, color GUI of own liking and countless of other great functions included.
Cubase 7.5 series are extremely stable and I’m using complex routings, hardware control surfaces and external hardware inserts in the loop too. Its the best professional DAW out there on the market right now and stability is the most important when it comes to a professional environment. I have no time with crashes in my daily work and Cubase just deliver, it just go on and on like the Duracell bunny in the commercial.
Its the most stable DAW I have ever used and that is a lot of DAWs thru my years working with computer and music.
Started back in the days in the 1980ths early 90ths with Cubase on Atari. Then worked with Logic “THE GREAT- Emagic years” before the fruit company bought Logic. After that it were no “logic” anymore and it went downhill pretty fast. I have worked and co-work in different studios and my own studio with Pro Tools HD, DP, Nuendo, Samplitude and SONAR a couple of years.
Many other professional producers, songwriters that I know say also that the new 7 and 7.5 series sounds much better VS Cubase 5 and 6 audio engine. I don’t really know? Cubase 7.5 sounds sweet in my studio for sure.
I have no real complains about the audio engine even though I would like an update to “x64bit double precision” audio-engine in Cubase/Nuendo like the same as in Pro Tools 11 HD, SONAR X-series.
Professional advice:
Mostly I use at least 48kHz, 32bit floating. 96kHz 32bit sometimes.
You will not find any professional producer, mixer/studio engineer that knows his stuff record anything in less then 48kHz or 96kHz, 24bit. You should use 32bit floating or higher and there are countless of reasons why you want to do that. I just don’t have no time to go thru all of them and present them here right now.
Long story, short version = low resolutions like 44.1kHz 24/16bit format is just waste of time and waste of disk space.
Its just not going to happen, period.
You should always use and record at least in 48kHz, 32bit floating even though the converters are only 24bit. Its available in Cubase and all other DAWs for a reason. If we hade 64bit floating wave-files in Cubase available that other DAWs have already, I had used that instead of 32bit floating wave-files.
I can run 50-100 tracks at 88.2KHz 32-bit floating point (and probably 96KHz but I prefer 88.2Khz) with my ASIO buffer set between 256 up to 512 depending on plugins used without dropouts. I’ve never had dropout issues with my setup from 5.0 through 7.5. My 7.5.30 Average Performance Meter overload issue was confirmed by Steinberg to be caused by activating MTC to external units. Disabling this feature is the workaround for now or to downgrade back to .20 release. Confirmed it will be fixed in 7.5.40 maintenance release.
I see you have a RAID system and I remember in another forum someone having issues with DAW performance and it turned out to be his RAID configuration causing the problem. Have you tried as a test where you broke the RAID and recorded to an Non-RAID drive? I even recall this person having to break the RAID and drivers associated in order to see that it was causing the issue. In other words, just recording to a Non-RAID drive while the RAID is still active on the other drives didn’t yield different results. I believe RAID configuration will tap into your CPU cycles and this is why you are having issues at the higher, more demanding sample rates and higher track counts.
Here’s a quote on RAID from an article that talks about how it affects performance with Video editing software. I’m going to assume it is a similar situation with DAW software:
Re 2. Performance
Opponents of RAID will often say that any modern disk is fast enough for video editing and they are right, but only to a certain extent. As fill rates of disks go up, performance goes down, sometimes by 50%. As the number of disk activities on the disk go up , like accessing (reading or writing) pagefile, media cache, previews, media, project file, output file, performance goes down the drain. The more tracks you have in your project, the more strain is put on your disk. 10 tracks require 10 times the bandwidth of a single track. The more applications you have open, the more your pagefile is used. This is especially apparent on systems with limited memory.
RAID0
The Band AID of RAID. There is no redundancy! There is a risk of losing all data that is a multiplier of the number of disks in the array. A 2 disk array carries twice the risk over a single disk, a X disk array carries X times the risk of losing it all.
A RAID0 is perfectly OK for data that you will not worry about if you lose them. Like pagefile, media cache, previews or rendered files. It may be a hassle if you have media files on it, because it requires recapturing, but not the end-of-the-world. It will be disastrous for project files.
Performance wise a RAID0 is almost X times as fast as a single disk, X being the number of disks in the array.
thank you for the detailed reply !!! Yep I just ordered ( in fact yesterday ) 2 x 1TB SSD drives but won’t RAID0 them.
hopefully this will sort it all out. I did get better results when I ran the same large projects on my OS > SSD (unfortunately my SSD OS drive is nearly full)
what I cannot understand is that in 5 ,6 I could run RAID0 in large projects but not in 7
anyway thank you once again for the post. I will be able to compare apples with “better” apples in a few days and post the results
First off: You don’t need internal RAID 1, 5 or 10 for backup for redundancy, so please stop using RAID in your workstation working with audio and multimedia or any program for that matters. That’s just old and outdate method.
Secondly: If you looking for disk speed use SSD. Use any INTEL SSD disks in various sizes from 240GB up to TB-disks. Extremely stable and fast. SSD run over and back up 10X times and run it over again compared to any normal conventional harddrives in RAID 0-format.
If you looking for backup for Redundancy. Use either external NAS-drives in various RAID format on your local (Internet) or internal local (no Internet) network in the studio or use USB 3.0 external harddrives for backup. USB 3.0 external harddrives comes in different flavors and sizes. LaCie Porsche Design products for external USB 3.0 backup disk… Very stable, very fast! Write and read speed between 300MB -600MB /per second (Megabytes).
Copy an project of 2-4GB takes a couple of seconds with LaCie Porsche Design USB 3.0 external drive.
For recording disk, use normal conventional 7200-SATA 6Gb harddrives. Today all standard harddrives 7200-SATA 6Gb/s ports are fast enough for any extreme recording session.
The future, even faster!
And in the very near future, end of this year 2014, the new standard USB 3.1 will be released.
USB3.1 will be backward compatibility to USB 2.0 and the speed will 4x-Times faster speed then Thunderbolt technology today. Its also “plug and play”, Thunderbolt are not.
And not just that the new USB3.1 will also have the ability to send out a whooping 100WAT power to all its external units connected to the USB3.1-port.
The new USB 3.1 will replace Thunderbolt, there are no doubt about that! That is why Thunderbolt will not come to PC platform at all. Expert has already said that Thunderbolt and Thunderbolt 2.0 will die out like Firewire has already.
Thunderbolt will probably only be available for a very limited time on MAC platform only.
