Search found 33 matches

Return

Re: "POLL" Pay for 7.5 on the way for christmas

Whatever, us Australian will pay 50% more than everyone else, which is galling as it doesn't cost them any more for us download it to here.

Several years ago, BY (before Yamaha), an upgrade was to be 50% more than anywhere else. Australian users, en masse, took to the forums to register their disapproval, basically dismissing dismal justifications from the then distributors about how much it cost to promote, demonstrate and support Cubase, because, as anyone in Australia knows, distributors don't do much to earn their keep and are almost irrelevant in relation to upgrades.
by Patanjali
Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:38 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Stripped windows version.

Remove parts of Windows
Control Panel / Programs and Features / Turn Windows features on or off [upper left panel of window] --> Windows Features dialog.
Toggle to your heart's content, but note that since Win 7, and particularly Win 8, there is not much difference in whether they are uninstalled or not, but you might disable some services that you may come to rely upon, as an OS full of objects and services has quite a hierarchy of dependencies.

Remove indexing
While one could just disable the indexing service, I vaguely remember that because of its dependencies, I was not willing to do that.
However, to stop indexing on all drives:
1. Open Windows Explorer.
2. Right click on a local drive and select the Properties option to open its Properties dialog.
3. Uncheck the 'Allow files on this drive to have contents indexed ... ... properties' at the bottom, and click the OK button to open the 'Confirm Attribute Changes' dialog.
4. Select the 'Apply changes to drive X:\, subfolders and files' option, and click the OK button.
5. If the Access Denied dialog appears, if required enter login details for an admin account, then click the Continue button. The Applying Attributes, then the Processing dialogs appear, leaving the indexing updated without further indication.
6. Repeat steps 2 to 5 for each drive.

I habitually turn off indexing as the number of times I have ever searched is very low, though the newer OS philosophy is to keep your stuff as disorganised as you like, and it will index it all for your queries at the Start screen. Well, a DAW would end up in a mess if left to the 'wherever' philosophy, so I turn it off. With all SSDs, searches without indexing are pretty quick (and silent!).
by Patanjali
Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:41 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: - Cubase 7 with dual Xeons

Fabio Bartolini wrote:your enquiry has been forwarded by a distributor, I replied on the 14th. Did you receive the e-mail?

Thank you for the official Steinberg response. ................................................. NOT :roll: !

That really helps ( :roll: ) anyone else who has this question, like me.
by Patanjali
Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:59 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The bus master works in 64bits?

I wouldn't call someone else and then ask them to find it for me.
Of course, but a phone book is simply an alphabetical list, with the sole content being a self-contained single string of digits with only one interpretation.

A manual for a program as complex as Cubase is nowhere near as linear, has many interrelations with material elsewhere in the manual, nor do the headings always convey the complete contents below them. And the complex nature of the material is not always readily understood from the text and pictures.

Just a few tedious ventures into the manual can be enough to dissuade one from choosing it as the first point of call.

I often find that the material seems to need experience with the program before one can understand it. If one is at the start of the experience ladder, then consultation with experienced users can short-circuit a lot of grief, and can be a whole lot quicker.

As a professional tech writer, I think the manual would need to be several times larger to adequately cover the knowledge and procedures required for a beginner. As it is, it is a rough indicator of Cubase's facilities and a few of the possible usage scenarios.
by Patanjali
Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:29 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Support for Drawing Tablets?

The problem with trying to do such 'playing' indirectly by keyboard/tablet/whatever is that:

a) sample libraries only model discrete scenarios of the continuous spectrum that real performances can transition freely between.

b) the controller action repertoire is very generic and tends to isolate parameters that are interacting dynamically within an actual performance.


For example, on a SoundsOnline thread (http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/showthread.php?t=35479), someone was trying to model a classical violin performance from a video. Their first attempt was good, but exhibited some of the stiffness of a lot of sample-based stuff.

When I looked at the video, I noticed that:

a) during the stronger sections, the notes were not only louder, but the performer took shorter and more abrupt bow strokes, probably reflecting the higher tension in their arms, so that the notes were slightly ahead of the orchestra.

b) during the quieter sections, the performer drew the bow longer, and seemingly more relaxed, so the notes were not only softer, but slightly behind the orchestra.

I pointed these out to him, and his second attempt required a lot of tweaking, but also sounded more natural.


To me, this says we are only going to get good sampler performances if we can:

a) set up parameters so that they interact in the same way a true performer's physiology/temperament/emotion would have them in relation to the actual instrument's dimensions/inertia.

b) control the interaction by just a couple of abstracted meta-parameters, making it easier to perform in real time, or using automation curves.


For example, to get a more realistic violin performance, an 'intensity' parameter, perhaps controlled by foot pedal or automation curve, could:

a) with increasing 'level', simultaneously:
___1) increase the level of notes.
___2) move the notes more forward in time.
___3) blend-in/select the more staccato patches.
___4) increase the initial bow bounce.

b) with decreasing 'level', simltaneously:
___1) decrease the level of notes.
___2) retard the notes more in time.
___3) blend-in/select the more legato patches.
___4) soft start the notes.

Now also imagine another meta-parameter for feel/genre that changes the bias amongst the patches, in much the same way that 'volume' selects between patches that match the timbre for different playing levels.


For guitar samples, tempo would have to inversely vary the time between individual strings in a strum.


I see that while artistry shifts the upper boundary of what can be manifest, analysis and quantification of what makes them so helps to shift up the lower boundary for everyone else.

One just has to see how difficult it was even for a trained professional to use photo editing programs to touch up portraits compared to what an untrained person can do with Portrait Professional in a few simple keystrokes in 10 minutes. That was because someone distilled all the complexity into a few simple key parameters and made a program that made it easy for ANYONE to do it.

Keep making suggestions suntower. One day someone will take up the challenge!
by Patanjali
Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:04 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: entering text or a value using macros

Lack of parameter inputs is how SB keeps the 'programmability' of Cubase simple.

I wouldn't mind being able to enter a valid value for a parameter following a command from a picklist that Cubase generates for me. SB could then simplify the set of commands because then those sets that provide a range of inbuilt values could be reduced to one command following by a value.

Existing macros could be easily be automatically converted to the new format.
by Patanjali
Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:57 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Explanations why you should record and use 32bit floatin

If using 24bits, the computer calculations will be done using 32bit signed integers in its registers, which is faster than with floating point.

Of course coming in and going out will only be at the bit depth of the ADCs and DACs at the most.

However, use any FX and all its calculations will eat into the 24 bits with all the arithmetic rounding. Basic engineering dictates that ALL intermediate calculations MUST be done at higher precision than that required at the end. How much higher is dependent upon the type and number of calculations likely to be encountered.

Many hardware digital mixers internally calculate at 48 or 56 bits, but that could also be to make sure no internal summing points get overloaded, which 32bit floating would NEVER reach practically.

Since 32but floating still only has 24bits of significant binary digits, it provides NO guard bits to prevent calculation rounding affecting the resulting precision, so I support Cubase going to a 64bit internal floating format.

As we use all SSDs, although 64bit files would use twice as much space, there should be plenty of disk performance to spare, so I have no problem supporting the 64bit external floating point as well.

Of course, use of 64bit files in Cubase should just be another one of the file format options.
by Patanjali
Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:39 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Mastering --> Some suggestions

Plugins cited is not exhaustive, but indicative.


How many projects?
I use a single project file.

When we did our CD 10 years ago, I used a separate project to do all the mastering steps for a CD, like working out inter-track gap lengths, relative levels, fade ins and outs, crossfades, etc.

The world has moved on since then, and with single digital downloads being the norm, I find a separate project is not necessary for our relatively simple material. Of course, if there is lots of things going on in your tracks, your CPU capacity may be stretched, so you may want to render stems for import into a mixing project, as Keith99 does. You might even break up your main project if your CPU is stretched, but that will require careful management and keeping your wits about you.


Mastering 'hat'
I think that the most important step in mastering things yourself is to 'wear a mastering hat', so you may need some time to 'forget' what it sounds like, 'forget' what it took you to get it to that stage, and 'forget' your personal emotional investment in it. Let what the track requires to make it work dictate what is to be done with it.


Minimal mastering set
If you plan to work this way from the start of a project, you might find that you will record and mix so that there is not much mastering to do, except the definites (in plugin order) of:

1) Optionally, some form of spectral and stereo adjustment, like using:
__ a) iZotope's Ozone Harmonic Exciter, or
__ b) UAD's Precision K-Stereo Ambience Recovery

2) Optionally (really?) a maximiser (but don't push it), like iZotope's Ozone Maximizer.

3) Mandatory and last, a ditherer/sample rate down-converter, like included in iZotope's Ozone Maximizer.

The last two MUST be done post the final fader, so they MUST be within the final two insert slots on the output track in Cubase.

These could be in your single project, or in your mix project.


CD track timings
If you are making a CD, then you will need to determine what gaps are required between tracks so they sound like thay hang together. Advice (from where I cannot remember) is to group your tracks as if they are sets, as when played live, which may also help with your ordering of them. The gaps between sets need to be a bit larger than between tracks of a set, with about 1 bar of the previous track sounding about right.

I found that the best gaps between tracks of a set were a bar or two of the first track's timing, though if the second track was slower, you may want to stretch that a bit, and vice versa.

Note that the gaps are set in your CD burning software, and the units required are a cryptic 75 per second. Who decides these things?


Mix once, listen everywhere
In Bob Katz's Mastering Audio , he states that the only self-mastered tracks he liked were those done by someone who had auditioned them in multiple environments.

When we did our CD, we were fortunate to be able to audition mixes in a large reverberant hall (which even ripped apart some commercial mixes), a large room with JBL monitors, a large room with lesser monitors, my mixing area with my Tannoys, our loungeroom on the cheap surround system, and in our car.

I started with raw non-compressed rough mixes, and we listened to each refinement of the mix over all the environment. By the end, I knew exactly how the mixes would sound in each environment after I had mixed them on the Tannoys.

That is ear training and you CANNOT master unless you know how your mixes will sound in other listening environments.

What I found to work the best then was to put some compression on each track, to tame the typically large fluctuations in note levels and tonal balance that go with acoustic material, and then use automation to control the relative channel levels throughout the track. Samples/synths are already levelled so they will probably not need compression as compensation for variations.

With our newer material, I tend to permanently adjust the individual levels of very variant notes, and only use mild compression if necessary, unless I want a particular sound, like a Fairchild compressor on the vocals.

I explain this here just to illustrate that getting as much done right in the mix makes the mastering a whole lot more straightforward.


If you must post-fix tracks
If you must fix tracks after you have mixed them, then there are some tools you need to be able to do some surgical adjustments:

a) Adjust mid-side mix, so you can adjust the level of vocals or lead instrument relative to the backing, which can be done with plugins like the UAD Precision K-Stereo Ambience Recovery, though some compressors, like the Fairchild have it, which means you can compressor or expand the mid separate from the sides. With automation of the process, you can really make some differences to the balance of the track. There is so much that can be done with such a tool.

b) Digital EQ, to precisely control frequencies without introducing phase changes. Thes will be multiband parametric, with adjustable Q, frequency and level for each.

c) A utility like RX3 that really has the tools to remove extraneous noises, and even recover mis-hits on strings that mere level adjusts couldn't handle.


You can mix and match mid-side mix, EQ and compression, by paralleling differently processed streams, say for mid and side, and then mixing them back together.
For example, if you want to isolate something mixed partially to the side to process it separately, you can:
1) Use balance to bring it to the centre.
2) Use mid-side to pass only the mid as one stream
3) Use mid-side to pass only the side as another stream.
3) Rebalance the sides stream to match the original balance.
4) Balance the mid stream to its original position.
5) Process each stream as required, like bus compression, reverb or EQ.
6) Blend to suit, using automation if required.

If there are a couple of instruments in that position, you can possible split them into separate streams based upon frequency.
If you are only making changes that are not too dramatic to the isolated item, one can omit steps 3 and 4, and just mix in the processed item with the original mix.
It will not match a deliberately mixed version, but it can rescue a mix stuff-up.
Of course, you will need to be up to scratch with routing into and out of groups with sends.


For overall washes to a sound, some plugins are:

a) Bus compressor, to smooth out the sound, and add a certain feel. SSL and UAD have a plugin of the popular bus compressor that is on the SSL G series desks.

b) Analog EQ to smooth the frequency balance, especially to provide the gentle sloping off of upper frequencies if that doesn't happen already.

c) For personal preference boutique sounds. There are heaps, and a search of your genre + 'plugins' will bring up some suitable candidates.


Hope this helps.
by Patanjali
Thu Feb 20, 2014 1:58 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Tips Tricks And Workflow Goodness.

johnstaf wrote:For me, it's a screaming red ribbon tied to the dongle. I have a second e-licenser, but I can't find it...

Attach one of those alarms for keys that beeps when you whistle. But turn it off while mixing, else it might be triggered by something in the mix.
by Patanjali
Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:51 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Tips Tricks And Workflow Goodness.

[... its their software i guess they know all of the tricks.
That assumes they defined ALL the possible usage scenarios, and PREVENTED ANY others, otherwise just providing a whole bunch of facilities will guarantee that there will be a myriad of things users will be able to do that were never thought of in the design.
by Patanjali
Tue Nov 12, 2013 2:07 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Anyone using a touchscreen with C7.5?

I have three Dell ST2340T 23.5" touchscreens, though I have disconnected the one in the studio since I got Cubase iC Pro for our Samsung Note 3s. I still might use it to mirror the Note showing the time location, so I can read it without my reading glasses when doing YouTubes, though it doesn't need touch for that.

Cubase makes NO concessions to touch at all, in that like any other Windows program on a touchscreen, touch is basically the same as clicking with a mouse. There are no gestures, and no multi-touch support, so you cannot do things like manually multi-channel mix on-the-fly!

The other thing is that Cubase does not have touch-friendly versions of controls, so things like scrub, which would be just as useful as hardware controllers if the controls were the same size as on them, is even more fiddly than the tiny controls are to use with a mouse.

That being said, it is easier to just reach out and touch a control when your hands are full with an instrument, than reach for a mouse.

I suspect that unless OSX goes touch, Cubase may be hamstrung, because Windows versions, if taking advantage of the opportunity to have more touch options (gestures and versions of controls), could really depart from the common code base to more than SB may be comfortable with.


Oh, and ignore those -- who don't have touchscreens -- that display huge paranoia about Cubase turning into a giant iPad DAW. Touch is really just another way to interact with Cubase, and like any other input medium, there are situations for which it is good, and others for which it is poor, but it would be helped a lot if SB catered more for touch.

Search the forums for other threads about touch.
by Patanjali
Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:18 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

You guys are talking a lot about mono mixes and I'm not sure why. I don't listen in mono. Ever. I have two speakers on my stereo system. My headphones have an earcup for each ear. My car has I don't know how many speakers, but it's running in some sort of redundant stereo. My TV runs in stereo. Hell, I think even my Mac Mini might have onboard stereo speakers.
Yes, there are very few situations where one might be listening to mono these days, with perhaps most listening being done with earphones with stereo by default. However, when listening to sound without such isolation, in 'free air', the further from the speakers, the more mono the sound becomes.

Testing in mono is required to ensure that components of one channel are not detrimentally out of phase with those in the other channel. Those out of phase instruments or vocals will sound unnaturally diffuse, instead of being focused and clear, even with earphones.

Stereo enhancers typically work by making the 'sides' -- components more in one channel than the other -- more out of phase. However, in mono, some components of the results may subtract too much and appear low in the mix.

The typical culprit for out-of-phase signals is incorrect mic placement when using several near each other, even if they are not recording the same instrument/vocal. Sometimes toggling one or more channel's phase switch will produce a less objectionable result.


Human hearing is actually using two mechanisms to tell the direction from which sounds come, with the transition point being the frequencies with wavelengths around the distance between the ears, centred about 1.5kHz. The mechanisms are:
a) Lower frequencies - primarily by the phase relationship between the sounds in each ear.
b) Higher frequencies - phase relationships become harder to discern, so the relative levels at each ear.

Basically, panning in audio devices is done by adjusting levels as in the latter method above, but for ALL frequencies, and it seems to work, or at least we are fooled enough that complex phase-processing algorithms are not required for low-frequency mixing.
by Patanjali
Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:10 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

I think (just my opinion) that there are two key concepts that are required to make stereo work, especially if you are 'mixing it up':

a) Musical weight - Where one channel has more going on in it, the things happening in the other must carry more 'weight' to balance things out.

The 'golden age' for unsymmetrical mixes that worked were the 1960s, when stereo was new and people were willing to try many things out, often just to differentiate themselves in the new paradigm. Many of Ray Charles' hits from then, especially with his lead female vocalist, highlights the right balancing of the constant with the incidental, with the latter managing to hold its own while being a lot less in actual time.
However, after all the experimentation, things retreated to mainly aural representations of the conventional stage positioning.

With this musical weight in mind, leaving things unbalanced for too long just highlights the absence in the sparse side.

b) Musical story - With the stereo mix you have an opportunity to map out your characters in your musical play. If they have something to say, they must be able to be clearly heard. Does the 'scenery' overwhelm them? If the scenery is meant to be important, it needs to occupy a good slice of the stage.

Some of the 60s stuff used stereo to great advantage in the story-telling. For example, Ray Charles' Hit the Road Jack , with the contracting activities in each channel highlighting the adversarial tone of the song.

Things can be novel, but they need to relate to the musical story. Also, where you place things aurally, people will 'see' them there, so they must make sense to the listener for them to be there.

To the mixes
To cover several points in relation to what I describe above.

a) Musically, the performances were good. I liked them.

b) Left guitar goes too long to not have any even occasional counter-balancing in the right.

c) Lead male is too low in relation to the guitar. Personally, I would either:
__ i) duplicate the guitar (on our CD, I used Autotune to duplicate the left guitar with a copy of itself, detuned by a few cents, and panned right) to provide the drive for a stronger centred single male, or
__ ii) to better counterbalance the later solo female, have a two to four male choir mixed behind a central guitar.

d) Not sure how moving the male voice around enhances the story. If meant to represent multiple 'opinions', then perhaps use a choir, with individual (and different) male voices from different positions taking a solo (and louder) phrase or line at various times.

e) Too little going on in the right for too long. Putting the female protagonist with the scenery and the guys with nothing happening on the right is definitely unbalanced to the point of seeming faulty.

f) Balance is much better when things pick up, though there is still a lean to the left, and the moving male is still without a reason.

g) Once the major mix balance things are in place, then it is worth fine-tuning individual sounds. Otherwise it is like spell checking a document when the subject matter hasn't been finalised.

As I say, it is just my opinion. Hope it helps.
by Patanjali
Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:22 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pan Law for the biggest sounding mix

@Patanjali and anyone else who's interested in providing constructive feedback, I updated the mix.
First thing ---> Fan-bloody-tastic. Night and day. Sounds like you have the story worked out and pretty much the shape you want it in. What an immersive experience! Congrats! :D :D :D

Now to some specifics:

a) Vocals are not clear, and sound smeared in with the rest so much that it is hard to make out the words.
For vocals, if you want them to be understood, you do need to leave some space around them, typically by:

__ i) Sculpturing other things around them. If you want guitar up loud to be driving things along, you need to use ducking or automation to drop the notes down, including the one immediately before a vocal line starts, and fading back in at the tail of vocal lines. Guitar notes during significant vocal pauses in the line can be brought back up.

I typically set the vocal level and sculpt everything else around them. But then, our music is sparse. Your mileage many vary!

__ ii) Don't apply the same effects to them that you are using heavily for everything else. Perhaps use a different reverb (plate) just for them so the quality of their space stands out from the rest.

b) My opinion, but the first time the female vocal appears, I suggest starting at the centre, just so we know that she is important. Then you can move her around to show her confusion.

c) I feel the male and female vocals are meant to be equal, but the male is more out from the centre and mixed back. Sort of takes a bit away from the beautiful blending of their short duo lines.


Again, beautiful! You are close, and may not need much more to be getting something out the door. I am impressed with your creative producing skills. They will carry you into areas others could only dream of going!


Regarding notes out of tune, I'm singing a D on an Asus2/4 down to a C# on a F#min11/A chord - the notes might sound weird to you, but the pitches are correct.
One thing I learnt from tech writing. If a reviewer mentioning difficultly with something, it usually meant something wasn't quite flowing right, so I would usually make a change, mostly minor, but it improved the flow.

Just because the notes may be right, does not mean they sound right. Here, it is not the overall note pitch, but the flow of the pitch during the note. It sounds like the note pitch is wavering a bit too much in the wrong way.

Cubase has some neat stuff to change tuning. You can chop the note up and flatten variation in a section, or change the slope of the pitch variation. Might be time to learn a couple of Cubase tricks?
by Patanjali
Fri Mar 21, 2014 3:41 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Benefit of recording 32-bit audio?

CappacinoKid wrote:I read that 32 bit float reduces rounding errors caused by plugins and reduces noise from dithering?

Having the same number of bits of precision as 24bit integers means that there is essentially no difference.
by Patanjali
Mon Mar 24, 2014 12:40 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Benefit of recording 32-bit audio?

If your A/D convertor in your interface is 24bit and as such can only deliver 24bit digital data, what is the use of padding the signal with nothing when storing it in your computer? Cubase already works internally on 32bit float, regardless of what the bit depth of your recordings is.
Do any of you know if there are interfaces available that convert at 32bit?
Jan
32 bit floating adds NO more bits to 24 bit integers. In fact, below 0db, there is NO practical difference.

The ONLY advantage of 32 bit floating is that it is impervious to overloads, which helps DAWs cope with a wider range of users as gain staging is not as critical.
by Patanjali
Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:26 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: If you like the 7.5 update...+1 this and reply

Henceforth, i will play the devil's advocate, simply because there is no explainer. There is no problem with adding features; it is now embedded in the release and in .5 updates but we must now band together and make our problems known to Steinberg since it cannot be assumed that forum staff even use the program in any capacity let alone on a professional basis.
To me, you just come across as a troll and a fool, spamming a perfectly legitimate focus for a thread just to push your narrow-minded focus, which has been covered in all the proper places.

I have been considering whether the upgrade has some value added over 7.0.6, particularly in performance, and from the overall majority of comments here, it would appear so.

However, once you started hijacking the thread, you have only added FUD and incitation to disruption and anger.

By the way, a thread doesn't have to be 'balanced' as, by their nature, each will tend to deal principally with the issue started by the OP, unless, someone with their own agenda, like yourself, acts disrespectfully and tries to make it about something else.

So please just go start your own thread and leave this thread to be useful for those who do NOT have the same focus as you. Troll, disappear forthwith!
by Patanjali
Thu Dec 26, 2013 6:20 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: If you like the 7.5 update...+1 this and reply

MovingWaves wrote:not the update procedure :?: fiasco :?: imposed by Yamaha Japan

:?: :?: :?:
by Patanjali
Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:53 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Can someone please clarify OUTPUTS vs CONTROL ROOM?

OK, can you please explain what the "Phones" option is in Control Room? (I know I can get my signal to pass thru there as well, just not sure what it would be used for since it doesn't seem to be flexible like Cues, and there is only one of them available)... I wish Steinberg had just named Cues as "Headphones" instead!
Headphones are meant for the 'mixing engineer', not the performers. As such, they can select from the main mix (from the Output), or any of the cue mixes, so they can set any of them up.

The cue mixes can be fed directly from the Cue Sends on any channel, unlike the Phones output.

That is, you set up cue mixes by adjusting the Cue Sends on individual channels, then use the Phones output to select from the cue mixes, or the main mix.


The main problem I find with setting up cue mixes is that the controls on the channels are fiddly, and because they are horizontal, not really easy to get comparative levels, nor are they easy for a performer to set up.

Cubase iC Pro changes all that, allowing each of up to four devices (Android and iOS) to have a 'normal' mixer that has the Cue Sends and main level for one of the Cue channels. It slows each performer to easily set up their own mix, even selecting which channels they want in the mix. That is how it should always have been done!
by Patanjali
Tue May 06, 2014 3:13 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Checked My IRQs - Some Shared Numbers - Question

The issues with shared IRQs that existed with older Windows are in the past.

I believe that the OS now has efficient jump table redirection of interrupts to the correct handling routines that may have been held up in the past versions. In other words, they found out how to overload (share) IRQs without unnecessary performance hits.
by Patanjali
Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:18 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Windows 8.1

Sorry if this has been covered but the search here is not great. Just about to upgrade to I7 4790K/Asrock Extreme 4 and contemplating Windows 8.1 for Cubase 7.5. Don't have a heap of plugs but there are some 32 bit. Opinions?
All our computers are on 8.1, including our i7-4930k ASUS P9X79-E WS system, which has a 4K TV and two Dell ST2340T FHD touchscreens attached, and running Cubase at 192k with 4ms round-trip latency.

I found that was not a huge step from W7, as when using multiple monitors, the desktop is the primary GUI for interaction. Many complained about the loss of the Start menu, though I found that many for whom it was an inconvenience were the minority still using it for program launching or who had built a lot of their workflow around it, when clearly W7 has shifted emphasis to the Taskbar (which is what the new GUI expands upon), and telemetry from millions of users showed that the majority had followed the hint and switched their primary launch focus from the menu to the taskbar.

It will all evolve, but I have found that the DAW side has not suffered from the upgrade to W8 then 8.1, especially since the need to control power usage resulted in reductions of numbers and spurious activities of OS utilities and drivers for all users.

Whatever of the two platforms Cubase runs on, we are being herded into distinct preferences by the platforms main drivers. With OSX, heavyweight users are being herded to hardware that is clearly biased to video and not audio, whereas, at least Windows is 'blessed' with a substantial and majority business user-base that keeps MS from making the same kind of blanket development decisions that may leave a minor user-base like DAWs out in the cold as well.
by Patanjali
Sat Jul 05, 2014 4:08 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: SSD for project files - worthwhile?

I recently migrated to a new PC with an SSD system disk. Being able to boot up so fast is great, but it makes me notice even more how long it takes to open a Cubase project. I'm thinking of getting another small SSD to store just a few "currently in progress" projects. So a question for anyone with experience on this front - Is this a worthwhile thing to do, or will I not see that dramatic an improvement?
Time to load Cubase is dependent upon the OS drive transfer rate. If you leave all you VST plugins on the OS drive as well, the scanning of those will also be dependent upon that drive.

Cubase itself does not appear to load up complete files at startup, except perhaps for the small image files so that it can display the waveforms. The audio files themselves will probably not be loaded at all, but just the blocks immediately required once playing. Seek and transfer times of the project drive will play a big part in responsiveness when dealing with lots of tracks.

MIDI is included in the project file, which is small enough to be fully loaded.

We have been all SSD for the last few years, but when I got tired of keeping only current projects on the projects drive, and SSDs were now cheaper, I went for a Samsung 250GB 840 EVO to store them all on a dedicated drive, along the VST(i) dlls, rather than a common data drive, which is now a smaller SATA II drive holding less timing-dependant stuff like documents, etc.
by Patanjali
Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:04 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: The last word on Hyperthreading (4930k)

I was wondering since Windows 7s thread scheduler spreads the workload over multiple cores, if ticking the "multi Processing" box in Cubase device setup is as good as I originally thought.
The OS offers the threading facility and access to multiple CPUs, plus support functions, but a program must take advantage of that as it must do some special things (like program and data synchronisation) to make sure it stays in control of them all.

The OS is focussed on the needs of the system and tries to treat ALL programs even-handedly, by trying to spread them across all cores all the time (to keep the CPU thermals even), but unless a program specifically requests more, it will be left on only one thread on one CPU at any one time.

So, keep the box ticked, unless you have other high-priority programs running (like instances of VEP) that you don't want Cubase hogging the system.
by Patanjali
Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:44 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Automatic backup for Cubase settings?

... robocopy script ...
I tried using xcopy and robocopy, but abandoned them when I discovered that they did not faithfully mirror the source to the target.

The aggregate target numbers and sizes regularly didn't match up, and I am not referring to files that had names or paths that were too long (which no utility can handle), but to GBs of normal files of varying sizes.

I eventually went for SyncBack Free , which I verified mirrored properly.


...<username>\AppData\Roaming\Steinberg\<program name>
Like I did with Outlook files, one could use a hard link to put the actual files on a data drive that is completely backed up.
by Patanjali
Sat Jul 05, 2014 2:45 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: SSD for project files - worthwhile?

though that SSD's still had issues with repeated deletions and re-recording causing dead areas and that this was the reason they were recommended for the C drive, but not for the project drive. This sounds like old info, but no one has mentioned it.
Each block on an SSD has a limit of 10,000 writes for an MLC drive, which is what most consumer SSDs are.

Now, to prevent any one block being thrashed to the limit ahead of others, SSDs use what is called 'wear-levelling' to spread the writes evenly over all available blocks, that is, empty ones. The drive only pretends to write to the same block as far as the OS knows, but it is being directed to different ones all the time. This is similar to bad block management on HDDs

To further allow some redundancy for future write-exhaustion, SSDs keep some capacity from being directly used, and swaps blocks with the 'visible' ones to further level the wear.

Now, even if a block has reached its last write, it can be read indefinitely, so data is never lost, but the capacity reduces for new writes.

However, even writing the same block five times a day, it would last 5 years, so as long as there is enough spare space on a drive, it will have enough wear-levelling blocks to probably get to fail completely before one block ever reaches write-exhaustion. For project drives, most blocks will be static (recorded tracks) and any one block may go for days without being written to again.

Of course, for sample users, an OS or data SSD that may have started to lose capacity can be used for less used libraries until it fails.


Now, over the years, people have brought up that the Windows page file may write thrash an SSD. However, writes are cached in memory, so that, as telemetry has shown, there are many small reads from the page file, but few writes, and mostly of 1MB.
by Patanjali
Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:05 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Cubase 7.5 Project - extract information

I just wish the project file was an xml file, because that would mean that all information (including MIDI) could be extracted.

It would also allow for using XSL transform sheets to clean up, reorganise or print out one or more projects. Of course, a badly designed one could thoroughly mangle your projects, which is possibly why SB locks down the internal format from over-ambitious experimenter's eyes.

Mind you, xml files can be made to have cryptic structures as well.
by Patanjali
Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:52 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 30th Anniversary, anything for loyal customers?

TheNavigator wrote:Which is the root cause of many, many problems, yes.

Which is a product of the whole non-holistic budget-by-division thinking that cannot fully determine opportunity costs.
by Patanjali
Thu Jul 17, 2014 12:39 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 30th Anniversary, anything for loyal customers?

To me, the conduct here is immature.
Yes. You are right. We should never bignote ourselves so much that we think we should be allowed to express what we think to SB.

After all, they have been so gracious in deeming us worthy to use their products that we should be forever grateful and absolutely subservient to their needs forever and for always.


NOT!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
by Patanjali
Thu Jul 17, 2014 5:40 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 30th Anniversary, anything for loyal customers?

What would you like to see as your reward for being a loyal customer on their 30th anniversary?
Acknowledgement and recognition! You know, something like:
On this our 30th anniversary, we would like to extend a hearty thanks to all our customers who have chosen to stay with us, supported us by keeping up with the latest versions, weathered design changes, and the bugs, and helped us improve Cubase so that it is the most full-featured DAW on the market today. Again, thank you.
by Patanjali
Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:47 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Separate headphone mixes for drums, guitar, vox, etc. H

This is what the cues are for, but setting them up for individuals to use was a real pain until Cubase iC (Pro) came along.

If you each have an Android (even a sub-$100) or iOS device (I don't know if you can have a mixture), each can have a touch mixer (side-by-side vertical sliders for easy comparison, as shown on the product page ) with all the sources (as set up in each source track) for one of the maximum of four cues on it.

The picture is for a tablet, but a phone will show only the mixer section. So if one of the performers is controlling the session, they are better off with a tablet, or a couple of phones with the cue mix on one and the transport controls on the other!

Makes it much easier than the fiddly horizontal ones in the standard mixers.

The actual outputs used for each cue will need to be assigned in your VST Connections dialog, and you may need a headphone amp for each performer to drive their phones.
by Patanjali
Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:22 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: PC-users: Dependency on Apple

I personally don't use ... iC Pro just because I don't wan to install any Apple soft. on PC.
You can use Android iC Pro, without ANY PC Apple software by using a fixed IP address on your PC and specifying that in each iC Pro device at connect time.

Unfortunately, SB forgot to include remembering the IP as an option. How lazy of SB, and how much like sheep do they think we are. I think they think that we are too stupid to know about IP addresses that we need to have a whole Bonjour service installed just to do that small thing.

I disable the Homegroup services in Windows because I don't want so-called 'smart' programs trying to usurp network control.
by Patanjali
Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:21 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Separate headphone mixes for drums, guitar, vox, etc. H

Is it possible to have more than 4 cues?
Not 'official' cues, but there is nothing to stop you having as many outputs as you want with normal sends from channels. If running out of sends, each of those sends can go to a group which gives another eights sends, ad infinitum, meaning that the number of foldback channels is really only limited by the number of physical hardware ports, and the capability of the computer to manage and feed them.
by Patanjali
Sun Jul 20, 2014 7:29 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Please drop the x32bit versions of all your new software

Same with legacy versions of Internet Explorer. I remember spending up to 70% of project time (!) making websites work in old versions of IE, just because people didn't care enough (or were too scared, mostly system administrators) of updating to new versions.
IE was a very special case because in its earlier days, there were really only two horses in the race, and only one was providing enough programming and management facilities for businesses to reliably build a lot of business infrastructure around, and well ahead of where any of the standards were at. That lead to a lot of B2B infrastructure also relying heavily upon IE.

The issue that most businesses have is that many of their processes have a lot of inter-dependencies. This means that to change any one of them requires a lot of careful design and consultation and regression testing against ALL dependent processing to make sure nothing will be broken when rolled into production.

The consequent deep embedding of IE6 in businesses was probably a major consideration why there was a lot of resistance to changing from XP, because that forced abandonment of a lot of the idiosyncrasies around which a lot of development had bound itself, with a very high cost to change.

It was a very small tail in its own right, but it wagged around most of the big dogs!


But even in today's climate of interoperability and standards, there is still a lot dependent upon a few key pieces of infrastructure. The last contract I did involved an organisation that was faced with an immanent end-of-life for a particular version of WebSphere. We had a lot of consultation with all the dependent app teams upon to which version to standardise, along with the other products in the web infrastructure stack. To cut it short, while the actual cost of the WebSphere upgrade was much less than $1M, the bill to update all the apps and other pieces of dependent infrastructure, including hardware as well as software, was not going to leave a lot of change from $50M, as well as take several years to complete. Everything in business is non-trivial, even to just think about, and consequences usually far outweigh the primary subject of focus.


The point I am making here is that while we are looking at it from our small sphere of association with the product, SB has to deal with ALL the inter-dependencies and consequences. An unenviable position to be in.
by Patanjali
Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:35 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic