Talk:Steinberg Cubase/Archive 1

Untitled
Well, Hello! :):):)

Greetings, my extremely excellent friend Subpantelis! :):):) Br0d 14:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts & questions:

1) I am a current CubaseVST 5.1 user. I have read some negative comments about CubaseSX (esp version 1) re: "loss" of MIDI functionality. My understanding is that CubaseSX 3 addresses these problems to some extent and also adds a lot more audio functionality. So my question: Is the evolution of the SX series worth discussing here?

[Yes - I have moved from 3.7 through all version to SX3.1 and there some real significant TECHNOLOGY - UNDO history for example, 'in-place editing' etc. I will definitely be building on the knowledge base here]

2) Any thoughts re: the impact that Yamaha's purchase of Steinberg will have on the direction of Cubase? [Is this really the place for speculation?]

3) Is it worth adding something on the influential role that Cubase played in the evolution of the modern MIDI+audio sequencer? [Yes - the colds facts speak volumes]

1)Could it be discussed here? Technically yes. Would the Wikipedians prefer it? Probably not. Would the discussion be more thorough and attended over at cubase.net? Certainly. Does my answering my own questions annoy you? I thought so.

2) Motorcycle VSTis. And a better budget.

3) Absolutely. I think its "underground" history should be included too. And there is no mention of its Pro24 predecessor. Fear not, once the rapscallions at cubase.net get ahold of this page it will probably undergo many [beneficial] edits.

-br0d, who is going to get around to creating an account sometime

=
====================================== Adding to this:

There needs to be a section on the Atari and Cubase as the first real midi sequencer. So far, the article skips from Cubase to Cubase VST 5 to Cubase SX without describing the evolution of the product from midi sequencer to digital audio workstation or the addition of supported platforms.

Am I right in thinking that later versions of Cubase incorporated C-Lab Notator? Or something like that? Chris Thornett 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)



Could we add a section for listing well known artists that record with Cubase?

Copy protection section
I don't understand the purpose of the information about cracks in this section. It certainly isn't usual to include info about cracks for other software on wikipedia, so why for Cubase then?

RE the copy protection section: the reason I think this has been included is because of Steinberg being the most successful company at keeping hackers at bay. I believe it holds the longest record of keeping hackers at bay for a popular piece of software. Therefore I think it should stay at least on a trivia level.

Paul Skinner 81.152.210.118 20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the dongle protection was broken by the underground team H2O. While remaining anonymous in terms of personal identity, the team itself is a widespread name in piracy of audio applications. The articles insinuation that they are anonymous is misleading in the sense that most cracking teams do not publish a list of members, however it varies whether a group will claim responsibility for their work by 'tagging' it with their group title. I would change the article myself but I cannot verify whether the group was actually first, so I suggest simply removing the implication the team was unidentified. 3dom 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether Steinberg is "the most successful company at keeping hackers at (thepirate)bay", but indeed they fought a long lasting battle with cracker groups like H2O to protect their software from being cracked. Therefore it might well be important to add that "Cubase 4 has managed to avoid being hacked" up to the current date (since autumn of 2006); I think it was incorrect to remove this piece of information from the article (the change log says "Cubase 4 has been cracked for many, many months now." which is not true, there are no known and working Cubase 4 cracks out there).

Some may even doubt that Cubase will ever be cracked again, since the well-known cracker group H2O (which took responsibility for cracking Cubase SX3) stated in their "release notes" of the Cubase SX3 crack that they spent a tremendous amount of man-power which they were not willing to spend again.

Therefore, I undid the change and added the above sentence again. Dirk Stegemann 12:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The copy protection section is important because it is more about the extent to which Steinberg was willing to punish their paying customers. I know a number of other people and I dumped Cubase because of their attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.117.216 (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

No mention of SL series in article
There is no mention on the SL series in the article - I'm not sure of the differences myself but perhaps someone who is more experienced could add some info about it? Mobius131186 17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The specific feature differences between SL, SE, and SX are comprehensively broken down at KVR Audio. I would add the information to the article myself but I'm uncertain as to what differences to mention (there's far too many to include in an article of this size). 3dom 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only is there no mention of the SL series, but the SE series is only mentioned in passing, and there is nothing on Cubasis at all.

Joe Gerardi (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about Cubase AI either.184.147.123.113 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph 1.
I'm sorry! I know, I know -- I could have edited it. But frankly, it seems as though paragraph two rather nicely summed up most of what was in the first paragraph. If anyone objects strongly, then at least clean it up (if you decide to restore the original text). I'm not a bull-in-a-china-shop kind of writer. It just felt cleaner and more to-the-point without all of that stuff in the opening paragraph.

SammyJames 07:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)SammyJames

Incorrect spelling and grammar
There are a number of incorrect uses of "its" and "it's" which i have taken it upon myself to correct, although i can't be bothered to find all of them. Just to clarify: the apostrophe is only used in "it's" when saying "it is" but no apostrophe is required to say something possessive, for example "Although it would run on a colour screen the best resolution was obtained by using the SM 124 monochrome monitor which gave, for its time, an amazing resolution of 640x400" (which i had to correct)
 * yeah cheers for that . My bad. I usually check but missed those :)

Yes... this article is in dire need of some spell checking and wikification. I read a single paragraph that had persistent conversational tone and multiple, obvious, typos.
 * Did you correct them?

SX Sound??
The paragraph on SX has this line in it: "One notable improvement of Cubase SX was its sound". This must be specified and substantiated somehow. For the record, speaking as a Audio/DSP programmer, if a recording software has "a sound" it is broken. Several tests have also been made (at KvR for example) that shows that the difference between two daws typically lie under -150dB which is what you'd expect from rounding errors. But no human can hear that. So VST is just as transparent as SX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.144.198 (talk) 09:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[i]unless you sum up more than 1000 tracks with each at +10 db/A or so, because then a 32 bit summing/driver had no chance. ;)[/i]

Format
The format of this article is confusing, uninformative and just all around pretty confusing.

The article needs more background on the program itself and less about all the different versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.248.246 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * More background on the program itself is good but the different versions define the background to the program Vexorg (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Room for improvement
This article is too technical imho, its written for people who already know a great deal about sequencers. I took the liberty of writing an introduction. I try to answer The basic question regarding most wikipedia topics which is "what is this, what does it do" All the versions of the programme is not very relavant. IN 2008 Cubase works on PC and Mac machines its quite demanding when it comes to use of computerpower. ~ Finn Bjerke (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bugfixes and Feature Issues section
This section is obviously biased. Either list the problems without the sob story of musicians who need to make a living etc. or else delete the section altogether.

Agreed. This reads like a review, not an encyclopedia article. Sentences like "why decisions are made to leave (for example) the advanced automation system in Nuendo 4 out of Cubase 5 is a mystery" have no place in an encyclopedia article. I'm not going to edit this now, because I don't have any knowledge of recent versions of Cubase, but someone should. --Tremolo (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Versions?
Do we really need to have every release documented? Might make more sense just to change it to just major versions, with their own summaries. Jampot23 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And if we do what about the budget friendly Cubasis (cutdown version of VST and Cubase X)

Jou should mention Notator too as the father of Cubase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.191.120.136 (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TDM
the table say cubaase VST 24 v.4.1. would have added TDM support. they never officially released a cubase 4 with TDM support, and the few copies around were called "cubase TDM", and not "cubase VST".

VST
Version 3.7, from 1999, is described as "the first version to support VST instruments. Not only was it the first Cubase version to allow the use of VST instruments, but it was the first sequencer ever to support that format (since Steinberg invented the VST Instruments interface).". What were Cubase VST3.0 (1996) and Cubase VST3.5 (1997) named after, then? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

At first, the VST protocol didn't include MIDI input. There were VST effects before VST instruments.LuisCarloz (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've amended the article, and included mention of Neon, which was presumably the first ever VST instrument. That part of the timeline threw me - I used to have VST32, which supported VST instruments, and it was odd that this was less advanced than VST 3.5, but of course the names have subtly different formats. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jargon and update
"comping"? Can someone vet this meme for jargon, please? If it is necessary (and I doubt it) then a fuller explanation of every jargon term used should be added in sub-memes.

The intro sounds like an outdated sales pitch by Steinberg, and it is certainly imbalanced in saying what was added in Cubase 6 and nothing about Cubase 7, let alone 7.5. You should list the principal features of the current edition and relegate the rest to a history section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.83.164.66 (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe "comping" is used in the context of editing the best bits of various takes into one version. See http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr11/articles/reaper-0411.htm for an example of its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChumPocket (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

content from Pro-24
There is a separate article for Pro-24 which is currently a couple sentences that starts with Cubase, an oversized image, and a couple external links. Clearly not a stand-alone article, so I'm going to go ahead and turn it into a redirect. I'm copying the content here, however, to be worked into this article. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to do that given the current article structure and don't have time at the moment to reorganize from the structure that at the moment appears as a giant changelog. Incorporate how you see fit. Content collapsed below is a full copy of the current article less the categories and stub/orphan templates, with the image thumbnailed and reflist turned into reflist-talk. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cubase evolved originally from Steinberg's 16 track MIDI recording software called Pro-16 for the Atari ST. The last version before Cubase was Pro 24 designated "Pro-24 III" and offered 24 tracks of Midi.

It would run on a TV or colour monitor in Low Res but by far the best option was to run in mono Hi res on the SM124 Atari Monitor. Even today it offers significantly better latency than Cubase on a PC or MAC. There are websites that offer solutions to take Pro24 *.snd files and upgrade them in steps to the modern Cubase equivalent, should you wish to revisit your earlier compositions.


 * Cubase for Atari Cubase Atari still available and in-use demos/upgrade path]
 * PRO24 on Atari Cubase/PRO 24 on Atari ST - 'History']