Cubase vs Logic editing question

Cubase
1

Hi –

I’m a long time Logic user and I finally got around to installing Cubase 7 (I know - I’m a version behind, I’ll catch up later) and WOW. I’m loving it so far, and I’ve kind of fallen out of love with Logic. But I have one question, and it’s a bit difficult to explain. It has to do with how Logic defines an individual sequence vs. the way Cubase seems to do it, at least with the settings out of the box.

I can explain this by example - assume that I would like to record a four-bar sequence on a single instrument track and this sequence will start on bar 3. This will be PLAYED on the keyboard (I am quite a good keyboardist), and will not be quantized or step-entered, etc.

The first note is on the first beat of bar 3. The problem is that I will be deliberately be playing ever so slightly ahead of the beat, so the first note will actually have a starting tick value of 2.4.4.400 or so instead of a tick value of 3.1.1.1 (I upped my PPQ base to 2048 ticks per quarter note, but you get the idea).

In Logic, when you play slightly ahead of the beat like this, it will still show the sequence on the timeline as spanning only from bar 3 to bar 6, and when you move this sequence around in the Arrange window, it correctly moves the note that was played ahead of the beat along with the rest of the sequence - it doesn’t attempt to split the note or leave the note cut away, it understands that you meant that note to be part of the sequence starting on bar 3. You can also loop this sequence and it will work the way you’d expect - meaning the early note is repeated perfectly.

However in Cubase, at least the way I have it set now (defaults), it will show the sequence as spanning from the beginning of bar 2, even though bar 2 only has one event that is at the very end, and is really actually the first note of the next bar.

So my question is - is there a setting somewhere in Cubase that will cause such a sequence, with the first couple of notes played slightly ahead of the downbeat of the first measure, to be displayed as though the sequence starts on that downbeat, rather than the start of the previous measure? For the kind of music I do, this would be enormously helpful and frankly it’s one of the main reasons I stuck with Logic for so long.

Thanks!!!

2

Hi (and welcome to Cubase :wink: ).
the quick answer is “No”… at least, not if you want that early note to be heard… you can drag the Part start to the beginning of bar #3, and the note will be preserved, but it will be muted (at least, until you expand the Part boundary again).
So, I am guessing you have Cubase Preferences set to Record>MIDI>“Snap MIDI Parts to Bars” (such that the MIDI Part starts at bar #2). You can of course disable that option, then the MIDI Part will start [edited] exactly where you hit Record[/edit]. In that case, for editing (moving/copying etc), if you switch Snap Type (in the extended toolbars) to “Grid Relative”, it should give you what you are hoping (e.g. with Grid Relative, and Snap=Bar, move that Part by four bars and it will arrive at 6/4/4/400).

3

Thanks, Vic.

Yes, I would want the early note to be heard. And I’m guessing here that what Logic calls a “sequence” is called a “MIDI part” in Cubase terminology, correct (that would be one contiguous group of MIDI notes on one track in the Arrange window)?

I just looked up “Snap MIDI Parts to Bars” and yes, that’s what I need (Logic does not allow you to do anything else but that to my knowledge). But as I said above, the start of the part is exactly one bar too soon, at least compared to the way I’ve been used to working in Logic. I really do think Logic got this right and everyone else has it wrong - I’ve also worked with MIDI in both Pro Tools and Sonar, and they even do crazy stuff like split notes in half, which I don’t think is EVER what anyone would want.

I don’t think I want to go with the “Grid Relative” method you suggest, but it’s at least good to know it’s available. I did notice that Cubase allows you to overlap parts (sequences), which no one else does, so that is at least a reasonable workaround - since there’s nothing in the beginning of the first measure, there’s not really a problem overlapping it with the last measure of the previous part (sequence), at least until you need to loop the part. But I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.

Thanks again,

– Tom Mc@