What were you expecting Split?
A detailed explanation regarding the laws of mathematics about why black holes exist?
Just because a null test shows inputs and outputs unchanged doesn’t mean there is no change in realtime applications.
This was already pointed out by discoworx so what more is there to explain?
Oh and as zebbie pointed out in the lounge, my post count is higher than yours.
You said “Read up on Interpolation.”
I asked “What has Interpolation got to do with this topic?”
So far you have not answered the question. I was actually genuinely interested in your answer.
I get frustrated when someone bands a term around and then sidesteps the explanation.
Never mind Brains, it doesn’t really matter as I don’t want an argument, you can have the last word, I’m out of here.
Right you two pack it in! 
In summary.
Cubase 6 in realtime playback is far superior than Cubase 5.
as to the interpolation, internal summing of Audio channels and Vsti output. I have said previously, the jury is still out. but I will add on my part, rendering 40 - 60 audio channels and VSTi output busses, well …I think all DAWs suffer in some ay shape or form.
Internal renering of an audio channel well, that seems to stay the same, but for large mixes, with relatime effects…NOPE not for me, nor Protools, Sonar, Logic, Ableton, or my beloved Cubase in any or all of the incarnations.
My advice is SPEND 100 quid on a second hand Denon/Sony/Panasonic DAT machine, clean the heads, and then Spdif your mixes…same applies with all internal ITB mixing, DONT! It doesnt work !!
buy a decent summing box and regain 30% of your Dynamics and Width,Depth and Separation within your mixes.
It is Clearly superior in every way to internal summing.
ITB mixes are only for demos.
I re-sample and mix all my stuff using high quality converters (better than the original DAW multi-track outputs) via an analog desk.
ITB mixes are only for demos.
Total crap statement Brains.
Cheers,
Chris
Hi Chris
So does that mean there is no difference in the rendering of realtime audio, as opposed to mixing to a flat file?
I use both and as disco said, you get better dynamic range going to an “old school” system, except I actually re-sample, which when I started out I thought I’d get some kind of alising or other frequency related problem but I did not so I got an OEM version of wavelab and will trial Wavelab full (don’t like non-asio apps) when I buy the C6 upgrade but the 48Khz problems are stopping me moving on.
Cheers everyone
Hello Brains,
Please stop trolling here in the Cubase 6 forums. You own Cubase Studio 5 at the moment.
+100
See !..who ever said Chris doesnt have a sense of humour on a friday!
Cubases Internal summing is as good as it gets!
External summing out to 2 MR816’s 's into a SPL MixDream…
play the summed file back in Cubase, and I hear exactly what I heard while playing back the mix live.
.well Happier!
So all in all Cubase sound wicked.! 
so my 27 days left of cubase 6 trial…Im smiling all the way! 
Best sounding version of Cubase ever, and well worth upgrading on this point alone! Im sold.!
Apart from the practical DAT tips, I’m really curious what you hear that is so much more superior to CB5. Because I’m afraid my ears (or monitors) let me down here.
I did an A/B comparison of some recorded realtime playback files of CB5 vs CB6, but I did not hear any noticable difference between the two, not in color nor dynamics.
I run Cubase 5
I installed Cubase 6 Trial 3 days ago.
All material on my hard drive Loops samples etc, using and previewing within Mediabay within C6 just sound BETTER!
with the best explanation that pitchshifts are accurate. Drum loops are 100% definately tighter.
Once again…Drums loops are again clearly tighter. I had been using ableton via rewire for months for previewing loops in this regard.
Bass Loops when being pitchshifted have no artifacts, they do in C5, Pads have no harmonic distortion when pitched, they sometimes do in 5. Lead sounds have more definition, and their timing is better.
My parts are clearly audible, clearly define pitchshifts, and in key with other tracks. (as they should be, but not within C5.
I have only bounced one file out to dat, via summing, but in playback in C6, it sounds the same as when it was playing live, I am happy , nah…I am over the feckin MOON, with the sound quality compared to C5.
Dunno what else to tell you, if you cant hear anything well we can just put that down to it material dependant, and the material I am working with, and not your ears. Ive spent 24 years listening for differences…and I can hear a big one with C5 & C6 realtime algorithim.
ESP within Mediabay!.
maybe thats what your missing . I am not overall about the summing quaility, (that was a bypass hijack by brains)
I am talking about the realtime algorithim within cubase & specifically within mediabay. which is then applied until you bounce the file with a specific algo, if you cant hear it then, sorry and no insult.
This is Not about importing two audio files and listening to them side by side . hopefully thats a bit clearer. 
Ok I lied, but now that Brains has been guested It’s time to pop back in.
Fair enough your hearing a difference in the new time and pitch algorithms and that’s a very good thing.
But for normal audio, recorded without time shifting etc the playback (to me) sounds exactly the same in C6 as to C4 (what I was using before)
I have now mixed 4 songs started on C4 and mixed on C6 (usual real drums, miked guitar amps, bass, etc) and I can tell no difference in audio quality.
Not saying that for your work it isn’t different but I would judge the basic 32bit audio engine is identical.
This is a bout the audio quality of the realtime algo, being applied to audio parts
let me explain better, THis is about parts that HAVE and ARE being pitchshifted and Timestretched!
2 Schools here.
People who play & record audio at the tempo defined in the transport bar. (Normal Musicians lets say.)
Electronic musicians who have almost everytrack either Timestretched , Pitchshifted or both at the same time.
People in Group A wont hear any difference.
People in Group B …read all my above posts.
Clearer?.
I too think it’s quite possible it is material and tool dependant.
I never use MediaBay or Cubase’s pitchshift and stretch functions, so this could well be one of the differences you and others hear compared to CB5 playback.
This makes a lot more sense to me, and I’m happy CB6 does a better job for you.
Cheers for explaining!
Agreed
Those go back in group A again
+1
OP here again. Great debate this.
Playback seems the same with a stereo mix in either 5 or 6 so I’m happy to put last night down to differences in the upgraded VST3 set and Halion/Sonar.
Has REVerence been tweaked? Sounds like it tails off more smoothly. VariAudio has definitely changed (although I will be keeping the old one too as I love the robotic quality it gives) and the TimeWarp on a picked acoustic sounds less burbly, and that’s just the realtime mode.
Don’t I sound certain… I was hoping the readme would have dry, boring list of changes but it doesn’t so I still feel like I’m guessing about this. Anyone where there’s such a thing?
Finally, regardless where you stand in the playback vs rendered debate, if you’ve got some quality AD’s lying around why not use them? This little chat has reminded me of the existence of analog summing and what it can add.
Thanks for all your contributions, lads and lasses, keep 'em coming.
C
It is a good debate, and yes Steinberg are always improving their product.
A stroke of genius Brains, getting yourself guested, told to get out of the C6 forum and now your precious post count is back to the start. Not bad for a days work
Keep up the good work…