C5 a short report

[electronaut]

Have installed Cubase 5 on my Vista32 bit / Core2Duo system without
any problems.

Programm settings from C4 are transfered automatically to C5 without problems.

Tried all new Plugins, they seem to work fine so far, you can discuss if you need hem, but you dont have to use them.

Pitch Correct and Vari Audio works, Vari Audio seems to be for slight corrections and working in the Song context.
For Sound design both work fine.
Wanted to buy Auto Tune EFX, so the C5 Update gave me for a litle more Money what i want and some more plugins.

User Interface seems more streamlined ( cant explain, but ist feels better and responds faster than in C4 ), the Colour ist sweet ( darkness is waving :-)


For more reports feel free to ask.....

PS.: It seems to be like a streamline Update for C4, i have to say now Cubase seems to respond as C4 should have.
Like windows 7 as beta works even smoother than Vista - Win7 seems to be Vista with Service Pack 3 - just with a new name.
Same does Cubase 4 / 5...for me.

[electronaut]

Mediabay is even more streamlined and responds faster and smoother.

[katapulse]

For more reports feel free to ask.....


Actually, if anyone is using C5 with EWQL Orchestra, i'd love to hear about the new VST expression ... anyone?

regards,
k

[MattiasNYC]

Thanks for the report !

[Sam]

Can you select just a portion of a fie in mediabay and just spot that to your cursor, or to a new track etc?

Until this (amongst other niggles like being able to set a snap point for spotting) can happen MB is pretty useless for us wanting to use it for post/soud design editing in conjunction with our SFX Libs.....it just creates unnecessarry work to trim up and place.

I just hope that the real v5 is like what happened in v4 where all the big stuff was actually in 5.1 which Nuendo will be released at....just guessing ;)

I too welcome the new plugs! I was about to sping for AT and it pisses me off to no end that I cannot edit tracks once I have tuned them in melo plugin without printing the trax first - having a more integrated method with vari-audio will be a great timesaver.

Glad to hear it feels good to use too..having confidence in a snappy responsive app is important in heavy sessions with a lot of pressure riding on ones shoulders.

I think this is the first version we have seen with a fairly developed Yamaha/SB releationship happening - so I will give it its due look in.

I just really hope that the basic stuff like the complete lack of useful grouping, take-management for multitrack sets in the same tracks (a la playlists and lanes together like PT8), and session data exchange gets sorted out over this version. Multi mono stereo tracks like PT So we can make use of all the stupid OMF's from FCP and PT and all other apps that use multimono stereo sets. The more reasons people have not to worry about compatibility the easier they part with their cash and get on board - people arent going to not buy it because it handles multi-mono are they?. There really isnt much more left to make Cubendo my only required tool.

[Audiocave]

I'm curious about the new track rendering functions. I assume that when you select tracks to render in sequence they work the same way as they do now, render directly from the track output so there would be no need to bypass master section plugins. I also assume that mono/stereo is handled automatically.

I like the direction they're going with this and I hope they continue to refine it by adding things like "Add Render as Active Take" (on audio tracks) and optionally disable plugins. I also would like to see a separate folder in the audio pool for those renders by default.

In a perfect world...

A. Export track (optionally pre-fader/pre or post FX)
B. If it's an audio class place it as new take on the same track.
C. If it's not an audio track class (vsti?) render pre-FX, place on a new track and copy paste track settings from the original VSTi output track, and disable it.

I still think having no pre-fader / post FX export point is a HUGE oversight in the routing. It's the main reason I never bought the third party thingy, what I really want is pre-fader/optionally post FX renders.

Have you had a chance to try this new featue yet?

[sealaw]

I just really hope that the basic stuff like the complete lack of useful grouping, take-management for multitrack sets in the same tracks (a la playlists and lanes together like PT8), and session data exchange gets sorted out over this version. Multi mono stereo tracks like PT So we can make use of all the stupid OMF's from FCP and PT and all other apps that use multimono stereo sets. The more reasons people have not to worry about compatibility the easier they part with their cash and get on board - people arent going to not buy it because it handles multi-mono are they?. There really isnt much more left to make Cubendo my only required tool.

I'm a bit baffled why these features weren't in Cubase 5, honestly. C5 seems to lock down its market position relative to Sonar and Logic, but not Pro Tools. I don't think they can wait two years, not when PT8 gets its kinks worked out.

I ordered an upgrade from CS4 to C4, which gets me a $10 upgrade to C5. It was a no brainer for me to move up a notch for about the same price as C4-C5 upgraders. Still, I had a hard time deciding whether to use that money on Cubase rather than PT8. I decided to go this way now and see what the future brings for both platforms.

[Daryl]

I'm a bit baffled why these features weren't in Cubase 5, honestly. C5 seems to lock down its market position relative to Sonar and Logic, but not Pro Tools. I don't think they can wait two years, not when PT8 gets its kinks worked out.


I think that PT is much further behind Cubase than either Sonar or Logic, and it seems to me that Logic is what the Digi developers have their sights firmly set on. Maybe PT will eventually catch up Cubase in the MIDI arena, but it won't be any time soon.

D

[sealaw]

I probably should have been more specific. I was just referring to PT's audio handling, which still has some advantages. I thought C5 would have something more for audio-oriented folks, which is PT's biggest market.

Steinberg can't compete in every area with every release, so this is probably the best marketing move for them. I just wonder if they can leave it this way for two years. As of today, for me Cubase 5 was the best choice.

[Audiocave]

Just curious, but besides multitrack drum editing does PT have in the audio handling arena that surpasses Cubase?

Not starting a debate, I just wonder what people mean specifically when they say that.

Thanks.

[Daryl]

Just curious, but besides multitrack drum editing does PT have in the audio handling arena that surpasses Cubase?

Groups, Playlists, er, Solo/Mute. :wink:

D

[Audiocave]

Groups, Playlists, er, Solo/Mute. :wink:

D

Ermmm...solo/mute I'll give you. :D Mix groups also.

Playlists... not sure... I prefer the Cubendo take system, comping and Arranger Track over PT's playlists. On the other side of the coin is the Control Room (audio handling), pre-fader envelopes and some other audio handling type things that don't even exist in PT... and (subjectively to me) the goofy bussing in PT.

For overall "audio handling" without cherry-picking I much prefer Cubase although I own and use both. PT's grouping is superior though... it's so darn easy to slide in and out of mix groups and way easier to arrange channels in the mixer and show/hide etc.

[Daryl]

Playlists... not sure... I prefer the Cubendo take system, comping and Arranger Track over PT's playlists. On the other side of the coin is the Control Room (audio handling), pre-fader envelopes and some other audio handling type things that don't even exist in PT... and (subjectively to me) the goofy bussing in PT.


Playlists are great for Multi-Track editing. Lanes is useless in that regard and I don't want to know about folder cutting.....! However, for single instrument editing, Lanes is great. When it works properly, without the bugs biting you in the arse....!

D

[sealaw]

Just curious, but besides multitrack drum editing does PT have in the audio handling arena that surpasses Cubase?

Not starting a debate, I just wonder what people mean specifically when they say that.

Thanks.

I liked Sam's list above. It's not an extensive list. Moreover, I like how you can toggle a list of regions in the main view.

I also think it's something people just say to sound like they know what they are talking about even though they really don't. (Does that describe me? :D ) ....and because it's Pro Tools, and "everybody" uses Pro Tools, therefore it must be best for audio. Having said that, I do think it has a few advantages that Steinberg could match which would kind of put Cubase in a unique position amongst its peers.

It's abilities are already more than adequate for my purposes, but as I said, I was a bit surprised they didn't tie up the loose ends compared with PT. But, when viewed against Logic and Sonar, C5's featureset makes a lot of sense.