So, after som pre-even trying C6 complaints, where R we now?

Well you read the title…

Just there seemed a wave of reaction and from some a fair bit was pretty negative. This as soon as released and before most had tried. particularly about mixer colours etc. Some have said of 3rd party plug in/VST issues but i dont see many direct references… (Waves excluded)

So yeah where are we people… overwhelnmed? disapointed? thinking same as before? or is it just completely cool… bit of a general one but im interested on your views now?

I’m genuinely surprised by a lot of small but useful changes made under the hood.
Congratulations Steinberg :smiley:


I had my doubts about the track type colours being removed. Maybe because in the rush to condemn Steinberg for everything they do, EVEN before anyone actually had the program, I confused the reports/rants about 'No More Mixer Colours" with what Steinberg have done.

The new mixer I find actually easier to find my way around: That small piece of intense colour that I, as a user choose, ‘pulls’ my eye much better to the channel I want than that big coloured blog behind the channel indicating the type.

Also it looks much better - the visitors in my studio (2 of them) are both very impressed with Cubase 6, but they were both judging by first impressions - and as we know count for nothing. :smiley:

id actually be annoyed if they forced track type colours back on us… im actually quite suprised but… i prefer this new visualisation… your eye is drawn towards the few colours that remain… any more and it would be cluttered…

of course… 1 size doesn’t fit all… id be happy if they added it as an option for track colours or perhaps a Default track colour for different track types

Under the hood is probably the best description I’ve heard so far. After installing and just working around the basic interface and menus it initially feels like, " what did I just pay for?" theres nothing different. All the basic functionality seems exactly the same, except for some basic buttons and such. Were I not aware, due to web seminars and such, that there are new features, I would probably be taken back a bit.
In the past updates things seemed much more drastic in change.
I’m being very careful here with the thumbs up thumbs down thing, because I want to really work through a project to see all the differences. I’m talking here only of initial first impressions.

Well, I can certainly live without this. On the other hand, from images attached by people on some topic showing the fader caps and channel type in matching color, I have to say that it certainly would be appreciated.

Overall, as I have stated elsewhere, I am very impressed by Cubase 6.

Noticable things: solid code, snappy and pleasing graphics and some major improvement in some of the “tools”, like elastique and my all-time-favorite “note expression” (what an invention that is!!!). I own HALion 3 and HALion Sonic myself, but I think the inclusion of HS SE (with its features and quality) for less fortunate is outstanding.

Cubase 6 has better’ed the Steinberg “sequencer” (I am an avid Steinberger since the Atari ST era, lol) significantly, IMO. (Not that 5 was “bad” in any way, but 6 improved that much!)

I owned Cubase 5 Essential and some time ago decided to switch to Cakewalk Home Studio 7XL with Cakewalk hardware. It realy looked like the perfect guitar recording system to me. It was supposed to be Windows 7 friendly but it realy wasn’t. Unstable and unpredictable and I ran into bugs that were going back for years. Cakewalk support was friendly but absolutely slow and incompetent.

Then I had to decide what to do and bought the Cakewalk Sonar X1 Essential upgrade hoping it would make my earlier purchase worthwhile. Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggg mistake! It was the ultimate disaster and biggest dissapointment I ever had on a DAW purchase. Snap was broken, Crashes, Unexpected behaviour of all kinds. Numerous problems that realy made it impossible to finish a project. I completely lost my confidence in Cakewalk. I decided not to join the whining on the Cakewalk Forum. Actually I wanted to smash it to tiny little pieces but thought it would be a better idea to sell everything with the name Cakewalk on it. Sounds harsh but after more than a half year of struggling it can get to you…

So bottom line is that I upgraded from Cubase 5 Essential to Cubase 6 Artist. Feels like coming up for air. Ofcourse it’s a step up from Essential to Artist but on top of that I absolutely liked the look and the feel of everything. And most of all I like the stability and proffesional implementation. Shure it’s personal but I am absolutely happy with it.

Very good audio engine, rock solid performance, all features you need to record your music, well thought setup etc…

Steinberg… I think 6 is an absolutely great version!!! Back to what’s realy important… INDEED IT SURE FEELS LIKE THAT :smiley:

So far so good. I had an issue with Cubase 6 not recognizing Blue, but I somehow managed to spoon feed it, and it works fine now.

Well you read the title…

Didn’t understand it though… :wink:

“After installing and just working around the basic interface and menus it initially feels like, " what did I just pay for?” theres nothing different. All the basic functionality seems exactly the same, except for some basic buttons and such."

Yes other than dulling down the colors of the GUI, C6 doesn’t seem like a major version upgrade.
This might as well have been version 5.6 instead. Well at least Steinberg isn’t charging the
usual insane upgrade price of $249-$299. I wonder if anyone else noticed an improvement or
justifiable feature addition for this new version ? I would have preferred more stability, an
improved VST bridge, simplified Group/FX/Instrument (especially multi-outs) routing set up.

It IS stable, at least here. So if it isn’t at yours, you need to check your system.

And “other than dulling down the colors of the GUI”,

“After installing and just working around the basic interface and menus it initially feels like, " what did I just pay for?” theres nothing different. All the basic functionality seems exactly the same, except for some basic buttons and such."

its funny to get quoted on the most negative thing i said, makes me laugh a bit. but let me Reiterate, that’s only a first impression on the user interface right out of the box. Now going forward, I’ve had a little time (not enough) to start to dig deeper and I’m beginning to see quite a rich new feature set.
The VST amp rack has more than a few brilliant classic sounds, well done.
The track comping lanes, although that option was somewhat available before it is streamlined and easier to use.
The vst3 note expression and halion se stuff is something. And the list goes on.
I have always been very surprised at the intellegent design of Cubase ever since I started with it, especially coming from other programs. I’ve always felt cubase did the better job of implementing whatever it is they chose to do with the direction of the software. And for the most part, and to me this is the most important part, what ever they designed in the program, worked the way it was supposed to. Many times in other programs, a feature is implemented, described in the manual, and totally broke in real operation. I have not found that to be so with steinberg, and cubase. I applaud the designers and all their hard work, ( I can only imagine), anyway all that being said, Cubase 6 may not jump out at you on first opening, but it is without a doubt, new feature rich.
As to stability, for me so far, installation was perfect, and no operational issues at all.

Hm, seeing it all one one web page like that emphasises how little benefit there is for ME in the new features…

Nearly everything I do in Cubase is MIDI (hardly any audio recording/manipulation). The only things on that web page that catch my eye as possibly useful are extensions to the Key Editor (depending what they are), and the new “scaling tools for controller and automation data” (depending on what it does). Perhaps I’ll find something useful to do with Elastique time-stretching now that it’s available inside Cubase.

But Note Expression won’t work yet (or ever?) with the VIs that I use. I don’t use drum editor; don’t use loops; don’t like software synths (except emulations of old hardware, and then more for fun than for making music - and for re-creating Atari Cubase sequences with s/w synths in place of the h/w). In the unlikely event of wanting amp simulation, I’ll use Guitar Rig.

I wouldn’t try to deny that C6 might be a wonderful upgrade for a lot of users. But that doesn’t mean it would automatically do much good for me or others with similar ways of using Cubase.

Of course, the personal “use” of something may be questionable for many. My somewhat brusk response was in regards to “teqnotic”, who generalized the new version as “other than dulling down the colors of the GUI, C6 doesn’t seem like a major version upgrade. This might as well have been version 5.6 instead”.

This type of generalized statements are just basically ignorant.

It continues with “I wonder if anyone else noticed an improvement or justifiable feature addition for this new version”.

Someone, does not read (or comprehend) what others write.

“teqnotic” posted these statements on February 6, at which time he had evaluated the entire C6 and noticed no improvement or justifiable feature addition from Cubase 5, but he rather found it unstable, it didn’t work well with his other plug-ins and the routing is too complicated. :unamused:

I have used Cakewalk Sonar for years. It is very stable for me, and is a great piece of software. The only reason I use Cubase is for its fantastic midi and tempo tools - something Sonar seriously lacks despite years of dialogue with Cakewalk. I don’t use Cubase for its audio capabilities at all at the moment, as I find the workflow a bit confusing and not at all what I am used to. I guess when I have time I will explore Cubase a bit further, but it is always a joy when I can fire up Sonar to record, and to process my audio after doing all my midi in Cubase. I guess it is just horses for courses - and down to what we are used to and familiar with, but Sonar is a great piece of software and it does work - but as with any software you need to learn how it works, and that isn’t always easy…

Note Expression works with any virtual instrument you already use because in addition ot the new VST3 controller (which are independent per note) it allows you to use any MIDI controller as well. In that respect it’s working just like your controller lane. The difference is: now you have the choice of using (specific) controllers either in the controller lane or as note expression. Pitch Bend for example is ideal for note expression. Editing is much more musical in that case.

We provide special functions to deal with overlapping MIDI controllers, which allow you to resolve controller conflicts when using Note Expression with MIDI.

So in order to use Note Expression with any VSTi:

  1. Check “MIDI as NoteExp” in the Note Expression inspector tab

  2. If controller conflicts should occur, just select “Consolidate Note Expression Overlaps” in the MIDI>Note Expression Menu.

So you’re NOT saying that Cubase can bend the pitch of just one note while the MIDI track plays other notes on the same instrument without pitch-bend? (It can’t because my chosen VI is designed to bend all the notes.)

And you’re NOT saying that, for those who (for instance), instead of recording three independent French-Horn tracks, play chords on the keyboard, Cubase can apply (for instance) a cross-fade between soft and loud samples (by use of the mod wheel) to one of the sustained Horn notes, while leaving the others unaffected. (It can’t because my chosen VI applies controller data to all notes on the selected MIDI channel.)

But you ARE, it seems, claiming that, in order to prove that Note Expression works, it need do little more than translate one controller into another and sort out conflicts between controller data.

Well, I buy that idea like I buy the idea that a car is working if nothing but its radio is operational.

Of course you cannot pitch bend ONE note using MIDI, because the MIDI protocol nor the instruments allow for this to happen. What he does say is that Note Expression has the capability of using MIDI controllers (like pitch bend for example) per note, but it will of course affect all notes, only because of the way that MIDI operates.

Note expression capsulates not only the new VST3 controllers, but incorporates the MIDI controllers as well. It cannot resolve the technical restrictions of MIDI, of course, but it sure does create a neat way to assimilate MIDI controller data with newer controller technologies. This is a feat that has been researched, pondered and tried in the past, but nothing has emerged as standard. I for one, believe VST3 is the solution. It works with my hardware synthesizers as well as my software synthesizers. NOT the per one note, without a bit of tweaking, but that is no different than it was before.

So no, Note Expression won’t work on individual notes the way it does with VST3 plug-ins. And yes, Note Expression certainly works with older VST plugs and hardware MIDI instruments, but of course not the way it does with VST3’s.

An argument that a number of people has brought up, was that VST(2) COULD have been made to work like the VST3 plugs. This is of course true, but it would’ve changed the VST(2) protocol, and extra code would’ve had to be added to the plug-ins (if supporting it was desired). The argument is that the rest of the technology would’ve been backwards compatible. However, if the VST(2) vendor turnout would’ve been like the VST3 support is, then why even bother with a petty change. My opinion is that Steinberg made the right choice. The older VST’s would’ve had to be changed anyways (to support the added feature), so why not choose the better concept by adding an abstraction layer. This is how many platforms in the software industry works. A good example is Microsoft’s DirectX technology.

I do see what the opposing minds are saying, but I strongly disagree. We COULD still be using a hammer and chisel, a cart and a few donkeys to communicate, but I prefer email, IM and forums. :slight_smile:

Sometimes things stagnate and it’s hard to move on, but eventually someone always has to take it on. Steinberg has never been afraid to try! You either lead (like Steinberg) or you follow (like most).

And no, I don’t work for Steinberg. :smiley:

That depends on your car. Not our roads. :wink:

If you understand MIDI, you understand that we can’t change the way MIDI works. However, we can provide a solution for this kind of limitation in MIDI. That’s VST 3.5. And we provide a workaround for the MIDI problem. That’s the “Consolidate Overlaps” feature.

If you actually try Note Expression - for example with MIDI pitch-bend - you will realize that editing is much more musical and intuitive with Note Expression. Specially when you move notes around and all the controller data moves with it. This is an advantage you have with both VST3 and MIDI controllers.

Oh, I see. I think. It’s also about the way Cubase behaves when you edit ordinary MIDI tracks, because, with Note Expression, Cubase associates the controller data with the note, not the track/part, and that is reflected during editing(?).

So, to take an example, if you use a VI where the mod wheel makes a cross-fade between soft and loud samples, and if you’ve used Note Expression for a particular note, moving the note will move the mod wheel data as well? And copying the note will also copy the controller data? Meanwhile, you could still have normal controller data, associated witht the track/part, such as CC7 adjusting the track volume.

That does sound useful.

Now, what about controller data recorded in real time? Suppose you record the MIDI notes for an intrumental part by playing on the keyboard, whilst similutaneously recording other MIDI data, such as mod-wheel data (for sample cross-fades) and extra MIDI notes that are key-switches to select different articulations. Can you then, for a chosen note:

  1. cut the mod wheel data out the place where it was recorded and paste it as Note Expression instead?
  2. cut or copy a key-switch MIDI note (typically recorded slightly before the actual sounding note) and paste that as Note Expression? Of course, one key-switch note often applies to several successive (sounding) notes, so it wouldn’t always make sense to associate it with just the note that comes after it.

Is all the Note Expression data sent to the VI that the MIDI track is outputting to, or is there a way (a “supplementary” MIDI output) that the Note Expression can adjust something else (eg a parameter of a send effect)?