PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Well,
I'm beginning to think that it is time to upgrade my Cubase.

I currently use VST 32/5.1 and I like it, but for a variety of reasons I think I'm ready to come up to date.

If anyone out there has any recommendations for me, I'd be grateful.

Cubase 4 Studio is only £255
Cubase 4 is £553

So what is the difference?
Is Cubase 4 studio a lot better than the version I have?
Should I look for a copy of SX3?
Are there any problems with any of these under SFP 3.1c?
Or should I just stay as I am?

Any help would be welcome
Thanks

i have VST 5.1 - what a great program. Pity they 'upgraded' it. Tried SX3 for a while at a friend's place - never got on with it. i've now given up on Steinberg and can't even be bothered to look at C4 since their arrogant open letter to 'valued customers' regarding the lack of a final SX3 update they promised, but oh look we just happen to have this C4 you can buy. Thanks. i am looking at Samplitude but am also trying Reaper too. At least these people update rather than ask you to buy a completely new package.

i did look at the Cubase 4 specs - if you go for it you may as well get the cheap one. The differences from what i can see are not life changing to a Scope user. Like you have 128 physical inputs rather than 256, 47 instruments rather than 66, no surround, no printed manual - that sort of thing. Not stuff you're really going to be bothered with if you have Scope.
Here's the comparisons:
http://www.steinberg.net/1051_1.html

i don't want to put you off Cubase if that's your choice, but for me they lost the plot after 5.1. They just seem to be a company with no focus and Yamaha don't really seem to be doing an awful lot to improve Steiny's image.

I have Cubase 4 and I got 2 printed manuals and tons up improvements over Cubase SX 3. You are totally wrong about all of that.

i think he's comparing cubase 4 to cubase 4 studio

I don't mind what I compare really.
If Cubase 4 is better than 5.1 and the cheaper version of 4 is better than 5.1 then that's fine.
If SX3 is still around and any good I'll go for that perhaps too.
All comments are welcome

Thanks for the replies so far.

braincell wrote:I have Cubase 4 and I got 2 printed manuals and tons up improvements over Cubase SX 3. You are totally wrong about all of that.

Wrong about what exactly - check Steinberg's own link that i gave .

Thanks Stardust - comprehensive reply.
I haven't watched anything about the versions for years so what features that were in 5.1 are missing in SX1, 2 & 3 ?
And will those features be in the cheaper version of 4 or only the full monty?

Ta mate.

Braincell - which version of 4 do you have please?

I have to say i like Cubase4. Since i nowadays mostly do 5.1 things, it almost perfect. Nice plug-ins and synhts (dont ).
The main advantage, the controllrom, i have diabled

I still need to test the v4.1, witch isn't so nice to scope asiodrivers, i'm told,
but looks ok so far here at 44.1 - but only a few hours running yet.

Cubase 5.1 is VST not SX, it has nothing to do with Cubase 4. The code for SX was rewritten from the ground up.

I have Cubase 4.1 (a free upgrade to Cubase 4) and I have the manual for Cubase 4 right here and I am very familiar with it and Cubase SX 3. They marked all the effects that they improved in Cubase 4.1 over version 4 which are many and you can hear the difference plus new effects and new synthesizers. I don't need to look at a website because I use it. You don't use it. No offense but you don't know what you are talking about. As for Cubase Studio, I do not know anything about that.

Neil B wrote:I don't mind what I compare really.
If Cubase 4 is better than 5.1 and the cheaper version of 4 is better than 5.1 then that's fine.
If SX3 is still around and any good I'll go for that perhaps too.
All comments are welcome

Thanks for the replies so far.

Sorry, was that reply directed at me? If so no offence but try learning to read. Where did i state 5.1, SX and C4 were the same?

braincell wrote:As for Cubase Studio, I do not know anything about that.

Hence i gave a link which compares the two. It's there that it states that the cutdown version doesn't come with a manual. i didn't say it Steinberg did.

... which is what i trying to say in my reply

The vst 's are now up to vst 3's I suppose where as I'm on sx3 with vst 2 instruments, the control room, where it's easier to direct your outputs in sx3 there's only the studio output. I'll probably upgrade for the sampler library alone.

I would probably get SX 3.1 if I were you, but certainly not version 4. It is a waste of money right now, and I think that you will hardly use the features coming in the 4. You'll be pretty amazed at what you can do with this the 3.1 version if you learn it. The jump from VST 5.1 it is quite important, because of the MIDI implementation in the SX. You’ll get a precise MIDI work with SX.

Good luck

I don't know what the cost difference is but I would not use Cubase SX3. Nestor there is a big difference between Cubase 4.1 and Cubase 4.0 in sound quality of the effects, synthesizers and newer synthesizers which are quite nice. I'm using it with Scope and with no problems so I don't know what the problem is for some people although I am sure they have a big problem with it. My upgrade cost was about the same as one NI plug-in would cost so it was well worth it for me. At this point I won't be buying anything else for a long time. People shouldn't be offering opinions on items that they do not use. In the past I had problems with Creamware that most other people didn't have so this is a refreshing switch for me. I noticed everyone is blaming Cubase 4.1 for it. Usually when this kind of thing happens it is up to the smaller company to fix it. Fat chance of that happening.

I stick with SX3...it connects everything in my setup midi, usb and ADAT, I still use Phatmatic Pro VSTi a lot, and the rest is for Scope and external gear.

hubird wrote:I stick with SX3...it connects everything in my setup midi, usb and ADAT, I still use Phatmatic Pro VSTi a lot, and the rest is for Scope and external gear.

No offence hubird, you don't know what you're talking about.

freeze track and realtime timestretching, wasn't it?
yes, I confess, I regret the freeze function, at the same time I seem to be able to keep the number of tracks and fx in the right order, so I don't miss it so far.
Excluding these two points I indeed don't know what I'm talking about
I doubt I should have sleepless nights about that tho

i forgot:
Almost all effects are surround capable

I'm with you there Star...

You guys are neglecting something very important. Cubase 4.1 sounds better than Cubase SX 3. This is rather obvious to me.