All user reviews for the Steinberg Cubase SX 2

Used with M-Audio Ozone, no problem, configure all took me a minute

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

My Nforce 2 chipset problem wonder usb management, but has nothing to do with the software that runs like clockwork. It is stable and management-vst rewire is perfect

OVERALL OPINION

+ What I like:
Automation fantastic, perfect intgration-vst rewire the audio edition drives (There's he really need a external editor), Interface o All functions are accessible One-click, and discovering all that small small (routing, scores, management rex loops, surround ...).
It's expensive, but it's pro and overkill.
Logic user for years, I can tell you that cubase has nothing to envy the use, it's all the same (when connate with the procedure to import a rotten audio file in logic ... ah if: the reverb might be a little better in logic)
I buy it eyes closed (it would beat me up)

Relatively fast, we can not say that ca be done in 2 minutes but it comes close.
No worries so the cot of the software installation.

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

I'm running cubase two BCAN a P4 3Ghz 512 DDRAM, and a 733MHz with 512 also.
It's clear there's no picture! When with one I can rock a ton of VST without any concern, the other shows some weakness when automation are too heavy and the plugs are multiplying on the slopes!
BUT I have acquired the 3ghz there until a few months .. the models went through my old machine and frankly if you did not know better and if it fits comp follow your exact skills may impress!

OVERALL OPINION

For the past 2 years and a half I use cubase to record, mix etc ...
Its ease of use (condition to dive once and for all) is downright enjoyable but I regret a little busted plug ins is so expensive! (But hey we can provide software is also excellent three course ... tons of plugs.)

PRO TOOLS? yes yes I know, I have test, but if your like me and you can not afford to pay you the digi rack to go with, go your way and adopt Cubase!

Hello. j'viens arrived and I scan the forums. I'm working on SX2. actually it has nothing do with the old version. He benefitted from the same engine as Nuendo, and I will say it is even better and less Austr. Asio it with two runs without problem. My e-mu 1820 card is delighted. on the other hand for large mix, I prconise a minimum of 1 gigabyte of RAM, otherwise the link will crak. Bouncer effects, not bad too, it leaves the resource. Finally, for the installation, everyone knows that Steinberg (Pinnacle) is the least boring because no big con manipulation as some apps that shall remain nameless ....
A +

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

ASUS P4 C 800 E DELUXE RAID / 3.2GH P4 / 512 MB RAM / EMU 1820
CUBASE stable? let me laugh! No, it's true they have made efforts. the SX2, although there's no problem days.

OVERALL OPINION

I record everything in 32 bit float is the foot.

I beginners computer music on Cubase VST 32. I then pass SX1 and SX2 (have to do things in order).

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.

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

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.

OVERALL OPINION

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.

BIG problem with the dongle installed on my bike to the point that I have to fight with Steinberg France to install the tool, it's a bad start because without the dongle not soft!

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

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!

OVERALL OPINION

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!

Linstal no problem very fast explicit
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.

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

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!

OVERALL OPINION

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)

No problem with the installation.
No incompatibility meeting. Gnrale configuration is easy.
Ct manual is a bit lightweight.

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

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.

OVERALL OPINION

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.

Installation is transparent to any user with respect to the protection Steinberg Key, do not hesitate to get the latest version of Syncrosoft at: http://www.syncrosoft.com/Download-78-11.html. This Protection will install the software on as many workstations as necessary, with a single computer used at the same time.

SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

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!

OVERALL OPINION

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.

Steinberg Cubase SX2 is a solid piece of software. It worked great on my Rain Quad Core computer and never crashed once. I have used Steinberg Cubase SX2 for about a year before leaving to go to Acid. But all Cubase users will tell you that this software is great. When I first started using it was difficult for me because of the layout of the program, but once I picked up the manual and read through a few parts it was really clear to me how to do everything that I needed to know. I used Steinberg Cubase SX2 more for recording, it has a simple workflow for recording and its extremely quick.


SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE

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 OPINION

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.

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.