Once Steinberg got ahead of the curve in terms of technology, it stayed there. Really, it was the first iteration of the Cubase that can be seen today. It vastly improved VST performance and added professional sequencing and automation tools to the lineup. This pivot came in the form of Cubase SX, based on Steinberg’s flagship post-production audio software, Nuendo. However, as home computer hardware began to catch up, VST performance was found lacking in comparison to Pro Tools’ DAE. It added Virtual Studio Technology (VST) support, opening the gamut of third-party effects and plugins to be added to the software. It came pre-bundled with a variety of different midi instruments from Yamaha which helped spearhead the software as an audio staple.Įventually, this grew into a full DAW, released a few years later as Cubase VST. Originally, the software was intended only as a midi sequencer, running on the Atari ST computer. With all that out of the way, let’s dive into these two pieces of audio software.Ĭubase, released by the German company Steinberg, was released all the way back in 1989. We’ll run down a bit of history and basic information about each and dive into the strengths and weaknesses. We tried out both of the DAWs to give you a little more insight before making a decision. While price point and operating system is certainly a contributing factor, it’s hard to sniff out which is better for you. It’s a bit difficult as both Logic Pro and Cubase show great upsides in their respective areas. Once you’ve decided to step away from Pro Tools, though, you need to make the distinction between the two. A larger and faster-growing feature set is a sure sign that these may be the better choices going into the future, especially as more and more engineers make the jump from their costly Pro Tools rigs. Two such options are Cubase and Logic Pro, both of which are strong contenders to the DAW king. However, as that grip begins to slip from Avid, some other options become far more attractive. For many, Pro Tools is a go-to as it has been a standard in the audio world for nearly 20 years. Not because there are too many options, no, but because each of the few options seems so close together. 7 Most Comfortable Gaming Headsets - March 23, 2023įinding a professional DAW isn’t easy.Bose 901 Review: Are these Speakers Worth it? - May 23, 2023.Astro A40 vs A50 Gaming Headsets Comparison - May 25, 2023.I think I also tried using an External Instrument device in Live, to take Virus Control out of the picture, but I don't remember if I actually did that, or what the results might have been. Play a fast part (16th or 32nd notes) live on the MPK49. Repro steps: In each DAW, start with an empty project and add Virus Control to a MIDI track. Audio interface: MOTU PCIe-424 with 24I/O, set to 256 samples, 44.1Khz in both Cubase and Live. Has anyone else experienced this? Is there something I can do (other than Live mode in the plugin) to bring the two DAWs closer in feel? With both USB-out and analog-out the latency is imperceptible. In Cubase, however, I had never even experimented with the Live mode in the plugin it always just worked and felt natural in Cubase. I also switched the audio out on the Virus from USB out (the default) to analog out, and the perceived latency was exactly the same. If I switched the Virus Control plugin into Live mode, it reduced the delay to the point where I could play properly again, but it still felt a little off. In live, when I played a part on my keyboard, the latency between key press and hearing the note was at least 100ms- it was bad enough that when I played a part with 16th notes, I reflexively kept playing extra notes because I wasn't hearing what I'd just played soon enough. I was switching back and forth between Live and Cubase the other night when I noticed a distinct difference in my Virus's responsiveness on the two DAWs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |