Steinberg General Sequencers

Well, since you are here, you probably are considering an interface that bundles Cubase with it against another interface with another program. I want to let you know right now that Cubase is probably the biggest pain in the butt that you will set up. I do not mean to sound overly sensational, but if you are considering trying to use a lite version of this program, it is likely because you are just getting started. Cubase is not incredibly intuitive to open for the very first time because of all of the menus you have to go through to start to route the audio and set up the inputs and outputs and midi devices and what not Without a doubt, just about every other program out there is easier to learn the basics of audio on than Cubase. SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE Cubase is in and of itself a tried and true program that does indeed get the job done once you figure out its ins and outs. That being said, Cubase is known in the industry at being particularly great at handling data from midi files and inputs. This means that Cubase lends itself well to electronic and computer musicians. The thing that makes this particular lite version of Cubase less appealing then, is that this version is geared toward the beginning recordist, which means that it is lighter on features. It has less of the plugins that make the main version of Cubase appealing, and it certainly lacks the amount of options for midi file manipulation that the main point and selling point of this digital audio workstation is gone. Did I mention that so far, all versions of Cubase are unbelievably draconian in how they handle audio resources, and tend to crash a lot if you strain the program? Well, now I have! OVERALL OPINION There is absolutely no point to this program. It is simply hands down a worse option than any of the other lite digital audio workstations because it is frustrating to beginners, and because the main version's eventual draw and appeal do not sufficiently apply to it. Stick to something else more intuitive than Cubase and focus on music instead of fiddling with your program.

I've been using cubase for years. Since SX 2 basically. It's great for someone like me who needs a fully functional recording environment that won't break the bank. In the past, cubase has been an "almost there" program, riding the curtails of Pro Tools and Logic. But I'm confident that Cubase 5 is a real competitor. Everything has been figured out. Audio tracks are laid out well and the program does a good job of customizing itself quickly to the users needs. SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE I use Cubase for a number of recording purposes. Typically either live tracking or studio song recording. It does everything I need. VST integration is flawless assuming my VST's work correctly. It's MUCH more stable than previous versions of cubase. In past builds, I would experience crashing sometimes when I messed with interface or driver settings. Latency was always an issue. Not anymore. Cubase 5 is very stable and crashes pretty rarely. I've been a happy user for over a year now and I must say the organization of the mixer is improved a lot. The quick options on each audio track are usually all you need. Cubase has done a nice job of minimizing the need to go into the menus and mess with settings. One issue that still needs to be solved is the metronome sound. It's a really annoying beep sound. Why they don't include some type of old style click or tap is baffling to me. This is a small complaint, but as a musician I need a good click to track to. The one included is terrible. OVERALL OPINION I like the simplicity of Cubase over some other interfaces. Like anything, it has a learning curve, but once you get the ins and outs Cubase is a dream to work in. I am hooked on Cubase for life because I have so many hours invested in learning it, and this new revision is well worth the money for me. It solves a lot of my little gripes in one update. If you already use cubase, this is a must have. If you're trying to pick a software for recording, I would say to at least look at this one. In my opinion it can't be beat for the price. I know a lot of pro's who use it and they say it hangs up there with Pro Tools and Logic.

I used Steinberg Cubase SX 3 for a brief while before I switched systems and changed over to Pro Tools a number of years ago. I ran SX 2.0 for the most part, but also ran this version for a little while. This version is now pretty outdated, but it does still float around there. I didn't have any issues as far as installation goes, as it was a pretty simple process overall, however, after using it for a little while I did have some performance issues which I will speak more about in the next section. As far as the interface of Cubase SX 3 goes, it is definitely better than its predecessor in 2.0. It is easy to use and offers up a lot more features as well. The manual for SX 3 is pretty complete, but I didn't need to consult it too often since it is a pretty easy piece of software to use. SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE When I ran Steinberg Cubase SX 3, I ran it on a Hewlett Packard Pavilion dv8000 lap top. The computer had a 3.0 GHz single core processor and 2 GB of RAM. I was also running SX 2.0 on the same system before I upgraded up. However, I found that 3.0 wasn't as friendly in terms of performance as 2.0 was for whatever reason, which is part of the reason that I switched over to a Mac and now run Pro Tools. Every so often I would get some error messages and the whole session would crash, which is definitely not something that I was interested. I was able to recover the session afterward without a problem. While it didn't happen often, it was often enough where it became annoying. However, as far as the performance of the software in terms of speed, I was able to run the software just fine with a good amount of tracks and plug-ins... OVERALL OPINION While Steinberg Cubase SX 3 is definitely a powerful piece of software, if you're interested in a sequencer of this type, I'd recommend looking into the newer versions of Cubase. Although I haven't used the new ones as extensively, they have a better interface and offer up more plug-ins and better performance. Having said this, SX 3 is a fine piece of software on its own that will get the job done for the most part. If you're looking for your first piece of recording software and are on a tight budget, but like the Cubase family, it might be worth it to get this version and save a bit of money if you don't necessarily need all of the new features that come with Cubase 4 and 5.

Steinberg Cubase SX 2.0 was easy to install as I had no compatibility issues with it. Overall, Cubase is an easy program, and is quite user friendly. I find the lay out easy to follow and the capabilities powerful. The manual can definitley come in handy as it has most of what you would need to know about this sequencer. SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE I have run Cubase SX 2.0 on both a Mac Book Pro with a 2.2 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 4 GB of RAM, and an Hewlett Packard PC lap top with a 3.0 Ghz processor and 2 GB of RAM. In both situations Cubase has worked great for the most part, with few errors. It has been quite stable for me and while I now Pro Tools instead, Cubase always has run great for me. OVERALL OPINION Cubase SX 2.0 was the first sequencer I got about five years ago I used it for about two years before I got Pro Tools. Cubase always worked great and did everything I needed it to do, but the convenience of having most studios using Pro Tools forced me to switch. While I have come to love Pro Tools and now prefer it, Cubase is a great multi-track sequencer, capable of capturing great recording with ease. Like most high end sequencer, the price is somewhat expensive, but you are getting a well thought out piece of software that has vast capabilities. I have never run out of tracks with this and I'm a huge fan of the plug-ins that come with this. The EQs sound great, while the compressors are clean and do the job well. While 2.0 is now out of date, as they have up to Cubase 4. Cubase SX 2.0 worked for me quite well when I used it and I would definitely vouch for Steinberg Cubase.

Not a revolutionary product, more EVOlutionary... but still a very comprehensive feature set. Price paid $500 US would like the dockable windows as mentioned by someone else... it is 2003 isn't it? SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE Haven't noticed any sound quality problems yet... haven't used any tech support yet... the updates have seemed to be effective. OVERALL OPINION A must have for any desktop oriented studio... absolutely! Originally posted on FutureProducers.com Posted by: Unknown ( 6-, 2003)