Given the obvious price difference between the two (close to $2000 USD for the Console 1 MkIII Console plus Fader package, about $400 USD for the Nektar CS12), I’m wondering if the Console 1 Fader+Console is just light years better than the Nektar CS12 for Cubase users.
I know probably not many Cubase users have tried both, but for those who have, or those who have researched these two systems extensively, what does the Console 1 system bring to the table that the Nektar CS12 lacks?
Lots better Cubase integration? More sturdy/less breakage? Just a whole lot easier to use in general?
Are you heavily invested in the Softube ecosystem already? The Console 1 only works with Softube’s stuff and a few UAD and Fabfilter plugins. I wouldn’t go this route unless you intend to start using their plugins exclusively.
I have the Console 1 Channel III, but I’ve just bought the CS12. The Console 1 is great, but the Softube and UAD plugins it controls can slow down the system quite a bit and I have the occasional crash.
I’m experimenting with using Steinberg Stock plugins exclusively for some projects as they generally have low overhead and are more reliable. Until someone writes a Midi Remote Script to allow the Console 1 to control the Cubase Channel Strip and stock plugins, I think the CS 12 is ideal for this purpose. Time will tell.
Mainly one-to-one mapping of all the knobs and controls plus two small but useful screens that depict the plugins visually. Build quality is in another league, but that’s not so important for everyone. I still prefer my Behringer X-touches to the Console 1 fader, now that there’s a MRC script that fully integrates them.