Which version of Cubase works best with Scope 4.5?

[quantum]

Which version of Cubase, 4,5, or 6 works best with Scope 4.5?

I'm running WinXP 32bit, 3.5GB RAM, Pulsar 1 + SRB (10 DSPs total)

[jhulk]

i used to use 5 with 4.5 but when i upgraded to 5.1 i still use version 5

and i still have vst3.5 which still works great and has the best midi timing for a pc

and its not over bloated and cpu use is low

with the newer versions theirs so much stuff that just gets in the way and cpu usage is so much higher

[quantum]

i used to use 5 with 4.5 but when i upgraded to 5.1 i still use version 5

and i still have vst3.5 which still works great and has the best midi timing for a pc

and its not over bloated and cpu use is low

with the newer versions theirs so much stuff that just gets in the way and cpu usage is so much higher

Thanks and to give you an idea, I'm using FL Studio 10 now and would like to learn Cubase. So I want the simplest but great sounding version that works well with Scope 4.5. As for midi, I have MOTU Express XT, so that's not a problem, and my CPU is i7 Quad 2.66ghz. It handles everything smoothly.

Seems like Cubase 5 is going for the win since 6 was made for Win7.

[jhulk]

yes i use xp as its stable and all the softsynths and scope sample modules work well

[avlon]

I use the win xp (server pack 3) along with the cubase 5 and the scope 4.5 works fine..

[quantum]

Thank you all. Cubase is too expensive, so I settled on Samplitude

[hubird]

Cubase Artist, €300,-, main restriction 32 channels max.

[Mr Arkadin]

Thank you all. Cubase is too expensive, so I settled on Samplitude

Really? I can only see a small difference between them (£20 to £50 depending upon where you look) for equivalent functionality.

And really the half-price Cubase Artist versions are fine for most things. The 32 tracks hubird is refering to is VST Instrument tracks. I would never use 32 anyway having Scope. Audio track limit is 64 and MIDI track limit is 128. Enough for most productions I would imagine.

But Samplitude is good, looked at it myself in my Cubase-wandering days. Didn't quite get on with it though and ended up back at what I know, which is not so bad as Steinberg seem a little better these days.

[quantum]

Thank you all. Cubase is too expensive, so I settled on Samplitude

Really? I can only see a small difference between them (£20 to £50 depending upon where you look) for equivalent functionality.

And really the half-price Cubase Artist versions are fine for most things. The 32 tracks hubird is refering to is VST Instrument tracks. I would never use 32 anyway having Scope. Audio track limit is 64 and MIDI track limit is 128. Enough for most productions I would imagine.

But Samplitude is good, looked at it myself in my Cubase-wandering days. Didn't quite get on with it though and ended up back at what I know, which is not so bad as Steinberg seem a little better these days.

It's missing much more than that. I need the full version because I'm working with external synths only so I need all the external MIDI functions. Of course I'll get it if I find a used one. The only other way would be to ReWire FL Studio to a cheaper Cubase Studio/Artist to get better sound output, and use the MIDI features of FL.

[Mr Arkadin]

It's missing much more than that. I need the full version because I'm working with external synths only so I need all the external MIDI functions.

What functions exactly? I had a very large set-up working with Cubase Studio 5 - Jupiter-4, JD-800, JD-990, SH-09, Moog Rogue, OSCar, R-8M, CR-78, ESQ-1, PC88 as well as Scope 4.5 so I'm not sure what you would be missing, do you have more than 128 MIDI destinations?

Anyway between the full Cubase 7 and Samplitude Pro X as I said I can see a £20-£50 difference looking round online.

[quantum]

It's missing much more than that. I need the full version because I'm working with external synths only so I need all the external MIDI functions.

What functions exactly? I had a very large set-up working with Cubase Studio 5 - Jupiter-4, JD-800, JD-990, SH-09, Moog Rogue, OSCar, R-8M, CR-78, ESQ-1, PC88 as well as Scope 4.5 so I'm not sure what you would be missing, do you have more than 128 MIDI destinations?

Anyway between the full Cubase 7 and Samplitude Pro X as I said I can see a £20-£50 difference looking round online.

On Google shopping I see a $100 difference between Cubase 5 and Pro X. Currently I'm trying out Samplitude 11.5 Demo and can't even get a VSTi to pass sound while the pitch and mod wheel can be controlled. Will have to figure out that first
Here's the link of the PDF comparison between Cubase 5 and Cubase Studio 5: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 7494,d.dmQ

[Mr Arkadin]

Well I see:
Samplitude Pro X £409
Cubase 7 £435

I don't think you can even buy Cubase 5 now anyway. However, I have the latest Cubase 7 licence but run Cubase 5.5.3 on it until I get my new computer. Maybe ask Steinberg if you can do this without having to buy Cubase 5.

I was confusing some of the 7 specs when you were actually asking about 5. Looking at Cubase Studio 5 it has unlimited MIDI tracks unlike Cubase Artist 7 which has 128, so in fact Studio 5 is a bit better than the newest Artist 7.

[quantum]

And really I don't wanna use any other DAW except FL Studio, because I've used it for a long time. I just need to choose between Cubase and Samplitude for a mixing engine, because from what I've been reading, using it with ReWire is supposed to make FL sound better. It's a touch choice for me because Cuabse has drier/crispier mids and highs but but doesn't sound as warm and spacious as Samplitude.

[Mr Arkadin]

Well I can't say I noticed Samplitude being warm or spacious when I demoed it. It recorded what I put into it and played it back the same, same as any other DAW I've used.

[hubird]

agree and if there's a tiny difference it get's burried by what I do with the mix.

[quantum]

I can clearly hear them, even though they are tiny. It's the same as hearing the difference between Amarra and Quicktime or Winamp at 24bits and Windows Media Player. It's easier to hear using quality headphones and DA converter than using speakers.

[hubird]

Maybe you're right, but I would like to reconstruct a 1 to 1 copy of my current mix on your sequencer, as close as possible (same fx as in Cubase and same Scope fx).

Then a blind test...

You can only doing this decently if using the same third party fx, what is not realistic

[Mr Arkadin]

btw I am basing my observations on bussing to and mixing inside Scope - the DAW is just a glorified tape recorder. I very much doubt that one DAW records warmer than another.

[quantum]

btw I am basing my observations on mixing inside Scope - the DAW is just a glorified tape recorder. I very much doubt that one DAW records warmer than another.

I'm just saying that source playback sounds different between DAWs. And therefore mixing will as well. There's a reason good sounding DAWs cost a lot. Yesterday I tested Presonus Studio One 2 by making a simple 4x4 beat without any FX. The sound was very edgy while all samples lost their color. Today I made the same beat in Samplitude Producer 11.5 and every sample had its own character and just sounded warm in general. So to me Samplitude wins so far in sound quality.

[Mr Arkadin]

Are you bussing to Scope? I really don't see the point of using Scope unless you're doing this.

Try that and see how each DAW sounds because then you are bypassing the native summing engine.