All user reviews for the Steinberg Cubase SX 2
|15 reviews||58 %|
|8 reviews||31 %|
|1 user review||4 %|
|1 user review||4 %|
|1 user review||4 %|
Steinberg Cubase SX2 works great on my system, I don’t think I had any problems with it ever. Everything with it is pretty good with CPU , keeping your CPU down when working with a DAW or music program is crucial because it can make your system start to get a little fuzzy. When I was using SX2 I was using it with a lot of plug ins and even some hardware running in through my Behringer interface. At first I couldn’t figure out how to get all of my midi and stuff set up with the audio. It was a difficult task, even after reading through the manual it still took sometime for me to get it.
Overall, Cubase has been doing DAWS for years now and they continue to be one of the best on the market. It this is your first time around with Cubase SX2 you could be hooked and wont use any other DAW’s on the market.
theaudioandvideoguy's review"SX2 vs Pro Tools?"
I ran it on a 2 gig laptop from Toshiba and it ran great and never froze up or crashed. Even as my laptop got older and couldn’t run some other programs Cubase SX2 still worked like it did the first day that I purchased it. I know a lot of people who choose cubase sx2 over pro tools 7, (or they did at the time). I myself prefer pro tools because every studio uses it. Not every studio has Cubase SX2 on hand.
Overall, Cu base SX2 has a very good sequencer that is similar to most all the sequencers in most other daw systems. Some of the plus things that I like about Cubase SX2 is the mixer track. I really like the flow of the mixer tracks over any other mixer in softwares. It just works great for me, plus the compression in Cubase SX2 seems to be better than it is in acid pro and fl studio. Cubase’s mixier system with compression and some of the reverbs seem like they model off of Pro tools very closely. Maybe that’s why Cubase is compared to pro tools so much. But I would choose pro tools any day over Cubase SX2. But I still have my SX2 just don’t use it that much anymore.
Steinberg Cubase SX2 is a highly sought after piece of software and its expensive as well. There are a ton of other software's on the market that do the exact same thing as Steinberg Cubase SX2 and cost a lot cheaper. There is nothing special about this software that makes it worth that much more many than other software's.
On things that stands out with Steinberg Cubase SX2 is the power of the mixer and effects. I love the compression and options that come with it. The compression is something that a lot of software's don’t focus on any more. It seemed like Steinberg Cubase SX2 focused a lot on the mixing part of making great sounding music. I really appreciate the fact that you have full control over the compression and and tweak it just right and its quicker and easier in this software than it was in Fl Studio and Acid.
Overall Steinberg Cubase SX2 is a powerful piece of software, its well worth the money spent if you have the money to spend. I suggest downloading a trial version of it first to see how you like that layout of it and if you can see your self doing production , recording, or mixing with it.
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.
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.
enhancer's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)
With the following PC configuration: Motherboard GIGABYTE K8NF9 Ultra / AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 + / 2GB DDR / 2x 300GB HD 7200T 16MB cache / RME HDSP 9632 sound card / Win XP ...
Outstanding performance and stability, it is a no-fault STEINBERG, with his long experience!
Used happily for over two years with great FX and VSTi plugins from different vendors, easy to use (ALL manuals in French can be downloaded at: ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Cubase_SX_2 / Docs_Francais / it is a benchmark for recorder / editor audio / midi; I moved logically to Cubase SX 3.
With - and more - the many tutorials available on the net, forums, and excellent technical support STEINBERG France ... even beginners will quickly find its bearings and to take advantage of the power of the software in its everyday work of creating audio / midi.
1 people found this review helpful
take_it_easy's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)
No incompatibility meeting. Gnrale configuration is easy.
Ct manual is a bit lightweight.
The app is installed on a Pentium IV with 1.5 Gig 3 Gig of Ram and a map EMU emulator x. It runs perfectly: I can run ten VSTi whose load emulator x 1.2 gig of samples and a dozen audio tracks + many effects without any problem (20% of cpu used !). J'tais far a fan of Logic 5.5 but with my config and Logic, I met a few inexplicable crashes (saturation of the memory (not seen my config), fatal errors ...) d 'o my obligatory passage to another sequencer. So far I did not think could Cubase gallery, see emagiC be better.
But I am royal plant. Whether in terms of stability (10/10) or the ergonomics, I sign for Cubase.
I use it for a month and I will not return to E-magic even since the takeover by Apple, was afraid of this ct l.
I prfre is ergonomics: Most paramtres a track are visible from one pannel: we should not spend time double click To create an all-out track. automation tracks trs is clear on this point there is nothing inferior logic.
Treatments such as time stretch audio are better than those of E-magic (prcis faster and, according to prcoute trs useful).
Only regret: the plug-ins for E-magic such as reverbs and delays: on Cubase, it's a little less pro.
Quality / price: even if a 10/10 is a good budget.
hey hey's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)
the inconpatibiliter (pr linstan must say no ke jai a PC to dedicate to this program) vs the machine going to believe me a c 500mhz with 512 ram and yes is better but as long as config ke it works (with some difficulty javoue c jarrive a slow but do what I want)
c that the basic config as I used exclusively men pr audio editing (via roland vm 3100) in my group then not very complex
the manual! nan I'm not really a fan of this kind of bedtime reading I bouquinne so I really had other Kan Marash the cheuveux c tt.
Config as I said above lai 500mhz 512 ram 20G dd catre I know its not really say a vr (pc in spare jai gro win a lot c ki me the most beautiful Brel machine right?) on the other hand jai 1catre video screen in two and one agp pci ca tro allows me to not piss me off all my pr get way more small
If it works well? yes pr me that fits me I dont really scouci of perfection but ke koi if I could have better why not!
It's been two months now I ke Preska PACX with this software (unemployment requires dici hopes to find a little tit job lol but these )<=== conserne mdr ca me
the special ... I would say kan ke su ke jai lon can connect via port twelve one tite Digital vr c ke c ke interesting I think for me c the connecting buses tt (subgroup) on the console little roland vm 3100! it works well (console MX 9000 pr ki want to know them a bus 8)
Mafoomafoo's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)
My config is powerful enough to do what I have to do, 3000XP athlon 64 bit, 1 Gg of RAM with 5 hard drives X2 80, 120, 160 & 200 Gg (I work a lot) and two sound cards, an Edirol 2496 I could change in some time and a m-audio firewire audiophile!
The software works well after a careful installation, the galley j'escuse hardly suffered for it!
Anyway Cubase is comparable to other programs, it is very powerful and in my case, I use only 40% of its editing capabilities, as I work on Protools and I had bossé on Logic, my choice is listed aussid'un friendly, intuitive and practical, I love working on these 3 Cubase software but still my favorite!
I work on Cubase long ago, I started with him 88-89 on the Atari 1024 and continues with him, despite some infidelities, via SX2 since January 2004! it's the hair with the config at home!
A rule condition that damn dongle problem, I will repeat that choice!
Anonymous 's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)
Everything works nickel, stable and all with Reason + vsti.
Few weeks of use make me say that this app is a tnor audio and has at least nothing envy logic for example. It's expensive, but worth its price for the services rendered. A real treat and a complete software architecture. New plugs and synths useful, automation and ergonomics super freeze function .... love
MyKeyBass's review (This content has been automatically translated from French)
Never any trouble during installation. No worries either TC plug-ins.
The manual is clear but my plutt got to play is MODR suddenly, After you install the software and configured my sound card, I go straight into the html help when I ask a question.
I turned up the software on a config "Gentillet" K7S6, Athlon XP 1600 +, 256 MB RAM (yes, yes, I assure you), 40 GB HDD 7200tr, SB 1024. Everything c'tait because too many more to invest in a new machine.
Against all odds, despite crashing with qq I Accommodation (need not be as demanding with a config has computer music) I qq qd mm Russian Registration cool stuff (my level, I ' mean).
APRS a good year to work on soft Steinberg, I invest DCID DS hardware: Gigabyte 8I915P DUO PRO, P4 530 3GHz, 512MB Corsair, HDD 160 Maxtor SATA 8MB cache 7200tr, and by a couple of days, I order an EMU 1820 (thank you to the AF forum for all opinions found there).
I can not put a bad mark for perf as a given that I was working on a low-end PC. Even when it is not the fault of Cubase.
I never had the opportunity to use tools such as ProTools and some friends had suggested that Cubase n'tait not very friendly!
Honntement, even though I am far from using all the capabilities of such software must reconnatre VST32 that I have never in terms of grip. The transition SX and SX 2 (despite the change of interface) was done without too much trouble either.
Report qualitprix? In my opinion, it's all good. We have a software pro, stable and friendly enough I got.
1 people did not find this review helpful