MIXING IN CUBASE OR SFP

8-Bit · Post by **8-Bit** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:14 pm

ALL,
Ok, i've got 2 SCope-project cards now, 12 DSP, and i'm trying to centralize my audio production so i can spend more time working/playing and less time setting up lame azz I/O bizness. Basically, I have an A16 ultra and 2 external/hardware synths. I plan to have a micpreamp running in also, maybe a 3rd HW synth too (virus c).

Well, i've run everything ASIO into Cubase SX3, and i can direct monitor the inputs (without channel inserts *frown*). I keep hearing about cubase mixing being crap, but I also know a fair amount of electronic music has been done on it very well. I used to use the SFP mixers, but now I am planning on running it all through CUBASE.

Would my latency issues be better addressed if i ran it all through a SFP mixer instead? I plan to use VSTi and VST fx in my mix as well... Thats why I want to use the CUBASE mixer, because i want to harness my CPU power with VSTi...

Any ideas?
8-bit

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:19 pm

I don't think Cubase mixing is "crap" in any way, but I do know that most Scope users prefer to buss out channels seperately via ASIO to SFP and mix there. Just load your ASIO module and expand it to as many channels as you need, then set up the output busses in Cubase accordingly. You can of course still use all your VST effects and intruments in this way but with the advantage of being able to use scope effects on all your channels as well. You could "bypass" the Cubase mixer in the sense that you wouldn't use the faders in cubase but in sfp instead.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2005-02-28 12:19 ]</font>

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:39 pm

I do a combination of the two -- I mix some of my tracks in Scope, some in Sonar (which is what I use). I believe in using all tools in my studio.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:11 pm

exactly.
you have many tools. the best way is the way that serves you best. cubase sound quality may not be as good as, whatever, but it is good enough for professional use. sfp mode is probably a little better sounding(if you are very picky...most listeners aren't...sfp is a lot better).

for ergonomic's sake, however, and because you like certain vsts or dxs, you may want to, at least partially, mix in cubase. getting stuff into cubase's mixer is as easy as getting cubase into scope's mixer. just make sure you have the needed asio connections available before opening cubase. sometimes i'll use xtc mode for mixing, since it sounds similar to using the scope mixer to me. setting up the routing in a complicated project using external hatdware effects can be kind of confusing in xtc mode, however. it almost requires a map...

tracking and production is a no brainer, use sfp mode.

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:44 pm

I've mixed in both, but have to say that SFP mixing is a bit clearer. But the difference is definitely small.

Liquid Len · Post by **Liquid Len** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 1:47 pm

I don't want to call Cubase mixing 'crap', to each his own, but since I've started piping everything out of Cubase separately (for the most part) to the SFP and mixing there, I find a big improvement in how clear my mixes sound. Also, 16 tracks of 32 bit mixed together sounds better to my ears than 16 tracks of 16-bit. You can't hear a difference on a single track, but when you mix them all together, it's noticeable.

Music Manic · Post by **Music Manic** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:04 pm

On 2005-02-28 13:47, Liquid Len wrote:
I don't want to call Cubase mixing 'crap', to each his own, but since I've started piping everything out of Cubase separately (for the most part) to the SFP and mixing there, I find a big improvement in how clear my mixes sound. Also, 16 tracks of 32 bit mixed together sounds better to my ears than 16 tracks of 16-bit. You can't hear a difference on a single track, but when you mix them all together, it's noticeable.

8-Bit · Post by **8-Bit** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:26 pm

Thanks guys. I think i'm still going to go for mixing completely in Cubase for the time being... I've always done mixing in SFP, but with my new centralized setup, I am aiming for efficiency in time/effort. I might end up using the SFP mixers in the end... I've still got to wait for my mackie control to come in the mail. That will definitely change everything i've ever felt about mixing... (i've always used a mouse)

Thanks for the puntos,
8-bit

wernercarrasco · Post by **wernercarrasco** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:31 am

Hey, I have always used Cubase for just about everything audio-wise.

I use the Pulsar (most probably to my demise) only as a sound card. ALthough, for recording I use the mixer for monitoring, headphone sends, etc.
But on the whol 1 ASIO driver for the in's and 1 for the outs.

I AM however intersted in using Pulsar for mixing. My querie would be in regards to automation. Where Cubase sx series do this brilliantly, how does one get similar results by bussing to SPF. Also, how about exporting mixes if they are coming out of the SPF outs?

I am sure there is a simple explanation. Perhaps I should pay more attention to the manual.

Anyone?

thanks,

werner

Post by **irrelevance** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:42 am

I find it easier to mix in cubase with SFP but I'm having problems setting up my sends from cubase to scope.
Inserts aren't a problem I just assign an external FX buss in cubase (SX3) and channel out to an 8way aux fx block but I'm not sure how to setup sends. Can I do it the same way and then just set wet and send amount to suit?

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Wed Mar 16, 2005 9:08 am

The middle way of doing this would be to bus-out through ASIO to i.e. 4 stereo stems and then mix these with a 4 stereo channel mixer in SFP.

Now, have drums and bass occupy output 1-2
guitars output 3-4
vocals output 5-6
etc.

You could use more stems, and you could i.e. use Vinco on each bus and even some mastering effects if needed on the stereo mix.
This proceedure will make Cubase-mixes less crowded. Actually, this should count for most 32-bit float apps. The nice thing is that you still maintane automation and VST possibilities.

This method is actually used by many pros, though through consoles or dedicated analog line-mixers.
SFP should be able to benefit your mixes aswell.

krisrocco · Post by **krisrocco** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:57 am

i've also recently came up with the idea of having a go at mixing in sfp. BUT probably due to my low iq i just can't set the routing/connections right. i use sx2 and pulsar II. i've tried creating some more outs in sx vst connections and then expanded my asio2 24bit source to the number of channels i needed then routed them to 24/48 mixer. and nothig. i can't get these individual channels in the mixer.
can anyone enlighten me, please?
so far i've mostly used xtc mode and sfp for recording but never needed more than to analog ins, but i'd like to move forward and learn more of sfp possibilities.
cheers, kris

Jah Servant · Post by **Jah Servant** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:23 am

you need to set your asio source to the number of channels you want before you start cubase, at least that's how I do it. Then you can create the outs in cubase once it starts up, I think that if you need to create the asio sources and cubase recognizes them upon start up.

Vasfed · Post by **Vasfed** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 8:49 am

Scope mixer sounds unambiguously better than cubase one, i do all my mixing only in scope and samplitude (more often, cuz "master normalize" rocks

)
Despite all audio claims, cubase and nuendo are still just good midi-seqs

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:19 pm

On 2005-03-26 08:49, Vasfed wrote:
Scope mixer sounds unambiguously better than cubase one, i do all my mixing only in scope and samplitude (more often, cuz "master normalize" rocks )
Despite all audio claims, cubase and nuendo are still just good midi-seqs

Ups... that's too much to say man... I have heard Nuendo and this is somehow quite different in sound clarity, I find it very professional indeed. It's maybe cos I like its sound personaly.

at0m · Post by **at0m** » Sat Mar 26, 2005 6:36 pm

Check this here on z: only Cubase users rave about the SFP mixers, Logic users seem to prefer to use the Logic mixer. Any Logic users still reading topics on 'mixing in SFP', please let us know. But my impression is that they leave us be with our 'Fisher Price' (;I read their minds) SX mixer. Oh well, we got continued platform support, and Logic's on a dead end pc-wise. But that's another story.

I once recorded the same sawtooth on 2 tracks, and Cubase deceided they were not in phase - the tracks were a couple of samples offset. Can't Cubase put the 2 samples at the exact same position as they were transmitted from SFP? No wonder we prefer VDAT for recording.

Just some impressions,

at0m.

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:38 am

On 2005-03-26 18:36, at0m wrote:
Check this here on z: only Cubase users rave about the SFP mixers, Logic users seem to prefer to use the Logic mixer. Any Logic users still reading topics on 'mixing in SFP', please let us know. But my impression is that they leave us be with our 'Fisher Price' (;I read their minds) SX mixer. Oh well, we got continued platform support, and Logic's on a dead end pc-wise. But that's another story.

I once recorded the same sawtooth on 2 tracks, and Cubase deceided they were not in phase - the tracks were a couple of samples offset. Can't Cubase put the 2 samples at the exact same position as they were transmitted from SFP? No wonder we prefer VDAT for recording.

Just some impressions,

at0m.

I have used Logic; still prefere SFP.

The phase issue is rather common actually, even Tracktion is wierd there. Do this: try to phase out a couple of sine-waves, it seems pretty random whether you get silence or audiable distortion.

SAW seemed to work fine.
I guess not all seqs are sample-accurate.

Vasfed · Post by **Vasfed** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:48 am

On 2005-03-26 18:19, Nestor wrote:
Ups... that's too much to say man... I have heard Nuendo and this is somehow quite different in sound clarity, I find it very professional indeed. It's maybe cos I like its sound personaly.

Of course, nuendo 2.3 sounds better than cubase sx 1, and even cubase sx 1 sounds enought for professional application, but when compared to CW mixers like 2448 it already cannot be called "the best in my DAW".

I did a some kind of test and mixed same track using mentioned mixers and product of pulsar and samplitude sounded more clear and detailed than steinberg.
May be it is not because of errors and quality of mixers themselves, but we're interested in result

symbiote · Post by **symbiote** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:06 am

I've used Logic PC from 3.x to 5.5.1, and I mix in SFP all the time. Tried mixing the same project in Logic and SFP, unity gain and all, and mixing with STM2448 definitely sounded much better, not just a small tiny barely audible difference, it was a definite improvement. Now I mix entirely in SFP, never looked back.

I've also gotten some comments along the lines of "wow your sound is so clean" from various individuals involved in one way or other with audio/music thinkering, and whose opinion on the subject I respect, so I know I'm not the only one hearing things.

You can definitely get some good results from Cubase and Logic and most other sequencers, for sure, but if you have the DSP cards sitting in your computer already, there's no result not to indulge =P

thomashenrydavies · Post by **thomashenrydavies** » Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:17 am

I've read so much about scope mixing being better than mixing in SX2 that I'm gonna try it myself.

I'll take one of my projects, and render each track down as it is, then I can load them all into SX at unity gain, and do one mix internally, and one mix by bussing them all to scope channels.

I'll be interested to see if there is an audible difference, I am not really expecting one, but I shall see.

If there is, then I spose this will become my method of working - finish the project in SX then do a final mixdown in a scope mixer.