Search found 26 matches

Return

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

HI GUYS ...
after so many usage mac osx I'm thinking of upgrading to Win 7 64 bit.
prices of apple in value performance no longer justifies the cost of a mac ... :?
I ask you of the forum .... :roll:
Tips for a daw with cubase 7 on win 7 64 bit.
components, the stability of the system, your impressions ...
Help me
thanks :D

I did this exact thing for these exact reasons.

Zero regrets.

The performance boost you'll enjoy is on 6 fronts:

1) It new hardware so it's of course faster than what you currently have.

2) Price-performance is better with PC. Whatever you get with the money you spend, it'll be faster.

3) Modern CPUs are very overclock friendly. Motherboards from, for example, ASUS, come with built-in overclock profiles that can be chosen with a simple menu selection in the BIOS. So your faster hardware will be faster still, because Apple doesn't provide any tools to overclock. Can you overclock a Mac? Sure, but it's tricky and unsupported. With the right Motherboard purchase from ASUS, they'll actually support you OCing it. They have a phone support of technicians called "Overclock Engineers" (I'm not making this up) that will walk you through it for free. It has to be on their "OC Supported" list -- so call them first and find out which ones are.

4) Cubase performs faster, all things being equal (same hardware), under Windows.

5) Windows ASIO performs better at low latencies than OS X Core Audio -- this is well documented over at Dawbench (an old article but still applies)

6) VST Plugins, by many 3rd party vendors tend to be more optimized than their AU counterparts. The affect of this can add up. I have not heard any complaints of the reverse being true, but there are probably instances.

The net effect of all of this will astound you.
by Jalcide
Fri Dec 20, 2013 2:29 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Can Cubase 7 use all 12-cores on the new Mac Pro

Planning to get the new Mac Pro, but the clock speed vs cores are a bit confusing to me. Is there official statement from Steinberg about this?

So if I were to get the 12-core, would Cubase 7 use all those cores or would it be a waste of money? Would the 12-core run more plugins, VST instruments and audio tracks than the 6-core with higher clock speed?

Yes, Cubase will "use" all the cores.

On these PC DAW choices, Cubase is second only to Reaper in its ability to scale across processors. Sonar is the worst at this. Studio One is in second to last place.

On Mac, this changes to somewhat of a tie between Logic and Cubase (Logic winning most of the time), Reaper still taking first place. Studio One last in place.

This was sort of a quest I was on last year. I recreated a very large project in all these DAWs.

Even though Reaper won, I just couldn't use it as my main DAW for nitpicky reasons.

Anyway, the real answer has to do with how you use your DAW.

For example, in Sonar, if you use many live effects on the stereo bus -- what it considers a "serial signal path" -- it will only process what can fit in ONE CORE. It can't split that up across the other cores, free as they may be.

Reaper, in this same example will do it perfectly due to how it does its "audio buffer scheduling / slicing."

Back to Cubase: I'm not sure, but it seems to do better than Sonar in this use-case but not as well as Reaper. So I'm not sure how much it suffered from this limitation that's confirmed in Sonar.

What's not a "serial signal path" from the DAW's standpoint? Well, that is probably unique to each DAW. For Sonar it's been confirmed that any VST instruments on individual tracks, escape the serial path and are now considered on "parallel signal paths" and then, in Sonar, can use other free cores.

How is this in Cubase? I was never able to really get an accurate answer.

One thing is probably true: while there are confirmed cases (Sonar) of DAWs, in certain use-cases, that can't muli-core scale, is the reverse true? Are there DAWs in certain use-cases that can only use part of a core and then seek out an unused core to jump to? I really, really doubt this. So...

To err on the side of caution, I think it would be better to have few, faster cores than more slower cores -- all things being equal. Obviously, in situations where the sheer number of cores provides more, total processing capacity, it has the potential to be a more capable machine.
by Jalcide
Fri Dec 20, 2013 3:05 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Coming to Cubase 7.5 from Nuendo 6 -- it's even darker.

I, for one, won't be fully satisfied until the UI for Cubase is so dark and neon-y, that it could pass as screen graphics for the upcoming TRON 3 movie. :mrgreen:

I think you just need to turn down the lights in your studio.

Kidding aside, what "buttons," specifically, are you wanting to brighten? I don't have a solution, I'm just curious.
by Jalcide
Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:09 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

The main thing is to try to be as platform agnostic as possible, so I can be flexible. What really matters is getting the job done and paying the bills, folks. :) I couldn't care less about a silly Mac/Windows fanboyism on either side.

+1

This is the quote of the thread. ^

(The fact that Cubase is dual platform has been a big factor in why I keep landing back in its seat so squarely, year after year.)
by Jalcide
Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:33 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Mac-osx to win7-64 bit migration

Happy new year to you, too, and all! All unfortunate to be reading this thread. We, the mangy, disheveled, misfit, caffeine-wired, platform-debating, hunkered over our computers when we should be out, music computer nerds. :lol:

My New Year's wish is that this thread stay in 2013. :lol:


And if anyone has any tweaking tips for Mac, I'm all ears.

Boot Camp ?

Oooowwww, BOOM. :lol:

Sorry, couldn't resist and am totally kidding.
by Jalcide
Wed Jan 01, 2014 12:35 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: c7.5 is absolutely ROCK SOLID

The most stable Cubase I've had in years. I'm quite happy.

How stable is it? Really stable when you consider what it has to contend with.

Stable doesn't have to (and can never) mean "perfect." No DAW or any software is 100% free of bugs even when it controls 100% of the code. Cubase has to host all our beloved 3rd party plugins, from all parts of the globe, from all manner of software developers with their own level of expertise, skill and ways of coding. With multiple formats of those plugins, no less. In dual platform, no less. We won't even mention audio interfaces, drivers, or the OS and its layers, itself.

No technology service guarantees 100% up-time. Not even Tier 1 technology providers that get to enjoy multiple levels of redundancy, that a single computer does not.

Even the hardware is not 100% crash-free at a quantum physics level. Naturally occurring radiation and cosmic rays will statistically crash a computer with non error-correcting ram as much as once per month, per gigabyte (if left on).

For our modern computers, which many of us leave on for days at a time, with our non-server-grade, non-error-correcting memory (just about all of us here), this would translate into 32 times a month (for a system with 32 gigabytes), or about once a day, that we could statistically expect the computer to potentially crash, regardless of software ("potentially," because not all ram errors would result in a crash, but many do).

I've even had hardware sequencers lockup and require a power cycle.

A DAW would certainly be in a top ten list of the most sophisticated desktop software products created by humans. I put it at the top of that list, due to how many 3rd party programs it hosts and the real-time, latency-oriented nature of it.

So, yes, Cubase is pretty darn rock solid from where I sit. I'm in awe at how many plugins it juggles and how little it crashes.

iTunes crashes more than Cubase for me. Which gets funnier the more you think about it.
by Jalcide
Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:06 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Perceived Loudness and Mixdown Levels.

Not providing enough dynamic range for the mastering process is bad. Also, but not often discussed, providing too much dynamic range and not enough peak control on individual stems, is also not usually good.

A balance is usually best.

This is DnB not a -85 SPL film score. :D

But even a -85 SPL (K-20) film score needs dynamics and peak control. You can imagine how much anything else might need -- a lot.

Many engineers, myself included, have moved to K-Metering for tracking, buss / stem dynamics and what comes off the 2buss.

Alternatively, you can use Dorrough loudness meters, as its "20" and "14" are very compatible with K-20 and K-14, in terms of RMS weighting and min/max values, peak ranges, Crest and overall ballistics.

Bob Katz, "Loudness War" Grandfather, has even said that he would be delighted to get K-20 stems (that would naturally sum a few db hotter). K-20 is surprisingly "narrow" compared to how untamed tracks can often end up.

It takes a surprising amount of dynamics and peak control to get to K-20, even as wide as it is (and it's the spec for film, the widest of them all).

For DnB that's a bit too wide of a dynamic range, in my opinion. I would suggest K-14. James Wiltshire, and his engineering team, also recommends K-14 and has an excellent video discussing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WigF9IDdcQ

Brainworx (Plugin Alliance) -- experts in the mastering process -- talk a little about this on their BX_Limiter plugin product page.

I also do modern electronic music styles, and lately have been enforcing a strict adherence to a "warm" K-14 stereo mixdown (pre-mastering / pre-pre-mastering) and it's working wonders on all my new stuff. Night and day, actually.
by Jalcide
Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:36 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Perceived Loudness and Mixdown Levels.

very useful post that is, mate. cheers. when you say you like to make you mixes on the warmer side, what kind of PL are you looking at for your bounce before you send it to be mastered?

Thanks, glad to chat about this. It's my favorite engineering topic right now.

The K-Metering system has a small margin of wiggle room in it (not much). One can just tickle into the "yellow," for the RMS part, or could push it hotter well into yellow and pumping ever so slightly into the "red" zone (only during the loudest parts). I tend to do the latter.

Yes, my bounce / mixdown is K-14.

I do my own mastering, been studying it as a somewhat serious hobby for over 20 years now, and have a second, dedicated computer as a real-time master chain that i can mix into at the touch of a button.

It has several stages, each doing a small bit, until it levels up to the target "DR" number (Dynamic Range). I usually target around DR8 to DR6 for my final.

I've been studying a lot of Beatport releases, to see where they fall. I'm seeing a trend in the last year of somewhat of a Loudness War de-escalation. Some artists that were doing tracks as loud as DR4 in 2012, have pulled back to DR6. I think the faster tempo music trend (134 BPM and higher) is helping. Faster tempos can mean less sustain on a kick. Less sustain on a kick can yield a high DR number (more dynamic range). The "Trance-ification" of Electro and Progressive House, for example (or, the other way around. A.k.a. "Trouse"), is bringing those DR numbers up a bit. I think more artists are getting educated about it, as well.

So, K-14 is way, way more DR that one needs for these genres. K-12 might be better, but K-14 works well because it's more friendly to input modeled plugins, at its natural signal strength, without having to gain it down.

If you did K-12, you'd probably want to drop the gain a few db before hitting modeled plugins (unless you wanted the effect). Also, some mastering engineers might find K-12 a bit too hot for their liking. So unless you're doing it yourself, K-14 would be more compatible with most ME's workflow and signal chains.

I experimented with K-20 and also "18" on Dorrough meters and finally landed on K-14. There's a certain quality to it that just lends itself well to electronic music.

I think part of the reason is that it's a really hot "18" and -18db signal level is what most of these plugins model on the inputs. So, it just hot enough to tickle the circuit-modeled saturation on the plugins, but not too much.

Also, K-14's peak control tends to play nice with buss compression. It triggers it enough to get some desirable pumping, but is controlled enough to keep it consistent and polished sounding.

K-metering also speaks about the overall tonal balance and in some ways is a very good guide to how the track is equalized. In fact, a tilt EQ in one direction or another can often be what's needed to hit the desired target dynamics.

In other words, it's hard to screw up a K-14 mix, tonally, cuz when you do, it jumps out of the K-14 spec toward K-12 (or in the other direction of K-20).

Get some good meters and study your favorite artists and mixes. Then a/b with your mix, with a rough "mastered level" dialed in, and compare against the same meters -- use your ears and your eyes. Then, when you remove those limiters and it returns to K-14, you'll know what the mix should sound like at K-14 and will have more confidence that it can, in fact, get to the DR8 to DR6 territory. Don't expect to do this with one plugin or one stage. A few stages, each doing as few db as possible, is what will get you there (and what the ME will be doing).
by Jalcide
Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:38 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?

This topic has been discussed quite a bit lately. You may find some additional food for thought here:

http://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=181&t=52987

I share my thoughts on it, as well.

The short answer to the question is that there is an inherent battle, competing forces, between an architecture that's been built to favor low-latency, and one that's built to "schedule audio tasks" across multiple processors (cores). Each DAW does it differently. Cubase's roots in the low-latency end of this spectrum is why those of us who favor more plugins over low-latency, are feeling unsatisfied.

There are other DAWs that have chosen a different design, that suffer less, but more in other areas and vice versa. Cubase was second in my test of DAWs I own (in multi-core scaling).

VEP on the same machine circumvents the issues because it gets its own cores to work with and has a different audio engine design than Cubase.

Cubase's anwser to all this is ASIO Guard. Clearly, not as aggressive as many of us would like, but it's version 1.0.

Hopefully, awareness, like these posts, will bump it up on their priority list.

I think the future is definitely one that requires ASIO Guard to be in a "Reaper" ballpark of how it schedules audio slices across cores and makes more use of modern, multi-core CPUs. Cubase does use them, but is hampered by its ASIO, ultra-low-latency roots.
by Jalcide
Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:01 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Cubase 7.5.20

I bet we see a farewell to the legacy MDI window system and a complete revamp in v8.0. Just a hunch.

My guess is that it will continue to become more of a scalable UI, like the console is becoming, have full touch support and lots of flexible, dockable areas. Floating windows and z-order will still be present, but a focus on a more modern, z-order-less workflow will be the focus.
I look very forward to this !!! I really wish for more tight midi especially using VSTi to route midi signals and be tight for very fast beats

5.5.20 so good news.. thanks for listening to us SB!!!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

ps I bet most of the fixes are related to Windows, but other wise 7.5 is so stable I cannot come here and compain too much cus busy mixing music><

Timing-wise, for audio, Cubase should be sample accurate at whatever sample rate it's running at and would null-test, no?

For MIDI, internally, it's something outrageously high like 1920 PPQN, since like the late 90's at least, I think. Automation, as well.

I think the only "timing" thing (not really a timing thing), and that plagues all modern DAWs, is the whole VSTs rendering slightly different each time, which is why a lot of producers bounce to audio (and why Cubase's missing "Bounce In Place" feature continues to be high on the wish list). This is an issue inherent with most plugins, themselves.

Describe more of your timing problems, I bet it's a non-cubase issue (DPC latency checker issue, perhaps). I bet it's VST multi-rendering (or freezing) phase issues.

Try printing those tracks to audio and I bet the issue goes away. Or, try triggering raw samples via MIDI without any effects, I bet it nulls consistently.
by Jalcide
Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:11 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Cubase 7.5 MAGNETO II sounds wonderful!

I just tried Magneto II against a drum buss -- it's good!

A very smooth, clean drive.

It won't get "nasty" (in a good way) like the Waves J37, but if a more subtle, woody drive that leaves the low-end mostly intact is needed, it delivers warm, crisp character.

I'll definitely be using this.

Thanks, Freddie for bringing attention to this!
by Jalcide
Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:26 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.20 Impressions...

Guess I have some digging still to do.

Yeah, I'm attempting to solve all my 3rd party plugin issues once and for all. New computer just for DAW, fresh Cubase install. Testing each plugin, one by one. If it crashes during install, use, during scanning, during plugin window updating or on close of Cubase, that it, it's gone. I will do zero troubleshooting on it. Cutting my losses and moving on.

So far, I did find one rotten apple in the bunch. Loved that plugin, too. :cry:
by Jalcide
Thu Apr 10, 2014 6:58 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.20 Impressions...

@Jalcide - out of curiousity, which plugin was that ?

Mathew Lane's wonderful, DrMS spatial processor (basically a M/S control on steroids). Version 4.0.1; Windows, 64bit VST version; running under Windows 8.1 x64.

Such a great plugin, but I do have many other plugins that offer enough methods of M/S control, to cover my bases.

It'll probably take a few more days, but glad I'm doing this exercise.

Btw, this is under 7.5.10. I'm doing this refresh before the 7.5.20 update so that I have a clean 7.5.10 to revert to if .20 causes problems.

Painstaking, but once it's done, it's done -- I'll never have to do this again, cuz I've got a system in place now to image my drive before each update.


Jalcide
That's exactly what i done last year , no other programs on my comp apart from Steinberg Cubase and Wavelab, Halion 5 , automap , UAD and a few very good plugin's and i have ZERO issues with loading and saving . Best move you'll make ;-)

Great to hear. Yeah, that's what I'm thinkin'.

Time to cull the herd and start from a place of known stability.

A computer that one has to update for work and other things is almost impossible to "snapshot" in a way that could actually be restored to, without too many other considerations. But a dedicated DAW computer -- no problem. Nothing important happens on it except the project files and sound libraries, which are saved on other drive(s).
by Jalcide
Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:13 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.20 Impressions...



Great to hear. Yeah, that's what I'm thinkin'.

Time to cull the herd and start from a place of known stability.

A computer that one has to update for work and other things is almost impossible to "snapshot" in a way that could actually be restored to, without too many other considerations. But a dedicated DAW computer -- no problem. Nothing important happens on it except the project files and sound libraries, which are saved on other drive(s).

Im still running the same machine as you and because it's so dedicated , no other Daw software to conflict with it runs like a dream , no crashes , i use Camel plugin's and Alchemy , Sugar Bytes , Ill formed ,sonic charge , fabfilter and this 3770k with 32gb and SSD's and this thing flies for 7 hours a day ;-)

Nice!

Cubase, since 7.04 has been amazingly stable for me, 3rd party plugins aside. But I'm looking forward even more stability with plugins and peace of mind when updating. Waves v9r15 took me out of commission for several months. I was especially busy with day job, so it worked out, but I can't let that happen again.

Ha, just noticed Waves release v9r18 yesterday. Here we go again. This time, I'm ready!

I need to update my signature, this new dedicated DAW is actually a i7 4770K. Too early to tell, but it looks like it will be beating my overclocked 3770K, even without much OC -- slightly. I think the floating point is getting better with these new processors (finally). The 3770K is still a beast though, no need to upgrade for that alone.
by Jalcide
Thu Apr 10, 2014 8:50 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

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

+1

The usual false starts with 3rd party plugins and prefs, but sorted itself out. A timely release, core-oriented, strategic step forward for a reasonable price.
by Jalcide
Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:35 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.20 Impressions...

All I had to do with Reaper was download the White Tie Imperial Theme.

http://www.houseofwhitetie.com/reaper/imperial/wt_imperial.html

If only Cubase looked like that, genuinely thinking of jumping ship after seeing this.

Yes, it's very nice. As are a couple other themes (RADO is another one I'm using).

The problem is that it has zero hope of ever becoming "resolution independent" across Retina (and PC equivalents).

Not a big issue now for most of us, but it already affects Apple / Retina laptop users.

I'm glad to see Cubase taking these future-proofing steps toward a true, scalable, razor-sharp, resolution independent UI, but there are tradeoffs: growing pains.

A lot of the complaints about font sizes and clarity are likely a causality on a larger battle Steinberg is waging for us, behind the curtain.

I know it's not an easy battle for them, as they used to be king of the pixel-perfect font thing (one of the reasons I gravitated toward earlier versions) -- so their designers definitely "get it."

Having the pixel-perfect, almost photo-realistic look and having resolution independence is really hard problem to solve.
by Jalcide
Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:50 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Side Chain architecture question

I create SC "broadcasting" arrays of group channels, usually about four of them: SC (Part 1), SC (Part 2), and so on. Each feeds into the next to create a single long chain of side-chains. The 4 chained channels just null-terminate (they don't connect to an audible output). This gets around Cubase's horribly arbitrary and outdated 8 send limit.

The 4 new group channels (that act as one), each with its 8 slots for sends, combine to a total of 32 sending areas.

Now, just send your kick to the SC (Part 1) -- it will flow through all 32 slots. You'll have 32 slots to play with, to send out to the various group channels and stems with your Pads, Noise washes, Risers, etc. I mean, a little SC on just about everything, is not off the table. :mrgreen:
by Jalcide
Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:09 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: 7.5.20 Impressions...

Are you guys still talking about the freakin' mixer?! (kidding) :D

I'm finally back up, on 7.5.20 with my new DAW build.

I had to do a from-scratch install of everything (you know how long that can take) in Windows 8.1, only to find 8.1, several plugins and Cubase wouldn't play nice.

So, I had to start all over from scratch with Windows 7.

:x

Painstaking.

But, it solved most of the 3rd party plugin problems.

Since Microsoft doesn't sell Windows 7 anymore (except in some "replacement parts" department) it's nearly impossible to find a non OEM version of Windows 7 in the wild. So, I had to use the license from one of my other computers (that would be fine with my Windows 8.1 license). So, I had to setup another computer, too.

At some point there's gonna be some music making here, I think. :D
by Jalcide
Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:33 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: How do you use dual monitors and Cubase?

http://jalcide.com/downloads/cubase-dual-monitor-700px.png

Monitor 1 (first half of image) upper left and part of lower left: track metering (enabled via a send I put on each track).
Mon 1 upper right: track editor.
Mon 1 lower: arrange window.

Mon 2 (second half of image) upper left part of it: transport. Below that Mix Console for viewing VSTi's and FX.
Mon 2 upper right: meters, lots of meters. The first column of 6 Dorroughs are what my final 6 stems are, pre-fader; second column, post-fader.
Mon 2 lower: the final 32 stereo stems / subgroups.
Mon 2 far-right-side strip top and bottom: meters showing stereo mixdown, some gain structuring and a final Dorrough showing what goes to my real-time mastering chain (it also has the "2bus" inserts on it -- buss compression, limiters, etc.) That's on yet a 3rd monitor.

If anyone is interested, here's the full image: http://jalcide.com/downloads/cubase-dual-monitor.png
by Jalcide
Sun Aug 17, 2014 4:36 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Cubase 7.5 / 8 - 'Unlimited' Inserts

-1

If I need that many effects, I just bake it into the part. Plain and simple and no drag on the CPU. I don't want them to alter the mixer if it is going to cause me any problems. They changed it a lot recently. For gawds sake just leave it alone. This is like picking at a scab. It's complex enough!

They've already laid the foundation with the new Mix Console's expanding / collapsing sections. So we already know how it would work. It shouldn't cause much confusion. I'm sure it could default to showing only 6+2 slots, like it does now.

As for drag on the CPU, that's what the freeze button is for. That way, we get non-destructive and don't have to print the effects AND get CPU freed.

And for those of us freezing, the number of inserts we current have is only 6 (six freezable).

Put a 3rd party virtual console at the end (common), now it's 5.

Put a 3rd party peak-check-limiter before that (also common), now it's 4.

If it's a vocal (or bass), or a synth part with untamed dynamics (pretty much every channel I deal with) an 1176 + la2a combo is common (and awesome) one-two punch for controlling dynamics. Now only two slots are left and we haven't even started with the real, unique, creative sound design stuff.

Basically, this pattern is common enough for me that I feel like I start with really only two insert slots to "go crazy" with.

And this doesn't even allow inserting meters or gain staging plugins. Ideally, I'd like to have a trim plugin between each plugin that doesn't offer its own output volume so that I can hit the next plugin the way I want -- not even possible in Cubase when I'm left with 2 inserts after my bread-and-butter plugins.

I've resorted to using Magma and it's a royal pain seeing "Magma" in every channel and having no idea what is what. And it uses more CPU.

Cubase is the only DAW in the world with so few inserts.
by Jalcide
Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:06 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: [Solved / Unconfused] Set Definition from Tempo Confusio

Here is the recipe, to clarify, so that it might help others:
To tempo adjust a, say, a 127 bpm (even when it drifts and varies slightly) audio file to a 125 bpm project:

1) Import the audio file / drag to an empty track.
2) Select it and choose Project -> Tempo Detection...
3) Change that first time signature marker that gets created from its default 1/4 to 4/4 (if appropriate).
4) Temporarily change every other track in the project from Musical time base to Linear time base.
5) Select the audio file track and choose Audio -> Advanced -> Set Definition from Tempo...
6) Deactivate that new Tempo Track and/or delete all the events on it and set it to the original (or desired) tempo.
7) Change all the tracks back to Musical time base (as appropriate).

The imported audio file should now lock to the tempo (as well as all the other tracks).

Keywords: tempo detection tempo match tempo matching tempo editing tempo map tempo mapping beat detection beat matching detect tempo tempo lock analyze tempo audio warp time warp timewarp audiowarp audio warping sync out of sync timing off time base timebase tempo-varying fixed beat beat locking
by Jalcide
Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:20 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: CPU Usage

It's based on overall "ASIO performance" which is based on Cubase's ability to "schedule audio packets" across available CPU cores.

Enabling ASIO Guard helps in most cases. ASIO Guard is similar (speculation) to Logic's "hybrid" audio engine. Basically, some sort of pre-rendering happens to tracks that aren't "live / real-time."

Increasing the audio interface's buffer is the main way to improve this. Latency is the tradeoff.

The job a "audio buffer (packet) scheduling" is a complex one that all DAWs do slightly differently. It's a tradeoff of raw latency vs. ability to splits up the job across more cores.

Factors in the signal chain such as "serial" vs "parallel" chains, factor in. Live effects on the stereo bus are usually examples of the "serial chain" and tend to be the hardest to split up across cores, for most DAWs. Reaper being the exception.

Individual VSTi channels, that feed into the stereo bus, are often examples of "parallel" chains for some DAW (notably, Sonar). They can often be split across cores more easily (again, Sonar works this way).

The Reaper DAW is an example of a DAW that does the most aggressive "slicing up" of the scheduled audio packets across all cores, and is why it will utilize the most of a CPU of all the DAWs (and therefore most closely matches the Task Manager meters).

Cubase, especially with the new ASIO Guard, probably comes in second place.

As ASIO Guard improves, the VST performance meter will start to more closely match the Windows Task Manager meter.
by Jalcide
Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:33 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Generic Remote Problem

Generic Remote, depending on the ORDINAL POSITION of Group Channels and tracks, instead of some internal ID of that object, is just poorly executed coding best-practices.

Those objects should be key'd off an internal id, not an ordinal position.

There is no defending this.

It will surely change.

in the meantime, enjoy creating robust "static" templates with hundreds of unused group channels and you'll be fine. :roll:

But really, you will be.

Anything new "to the right-hand side" of the generic remote consideration, that's added, won't affect the ordinal position limitation.

So you can still grow your project, just not the Group Channels.

And, the good news is that Cubase handles all those "dead" dummy channels (that mostly go unused in such a bloated temple), without much CPU hit.

Such is the life of Generic Remote users.
by Jalcide
Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:50 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Backing up Cubase Projects to the Cloud?


Do I need some kind of server tech?


Yes. A Network-Attached-Storage device, is just that.

Think of it as a personal, local "cloud" of your very own -- that you control and with no size limits or monthly fees.

BTSync will run on the NAS and on your DAW (with internal or external drives it uses), keeping the NAS in sync with your DAW projects.

The NAS will also run services like Crashplan at the same time, so that it can upload those synced projects to a proper fee-based, online, offsite backup.

You might look at the ReadyNAS line of NetGear NAS products. I think both BTSync and Crashplan will work on the ReadyNAS OS (it sits on top of Linux).

Or, maybe there is a service pre-built into NetGear ReadyNAS that may work for you. I have not reviewed them myself, but there are a ton of them. I think Dropbox, Owncloud, etc. are available on ReadyNAS (as well as BTsync and Crashplan).

Or, roll-your-own NAS with linux, and any "cloud" type apps you like, if you're up for the technical rabbit hole.

I think these devices start around 130 bucks.

I'm simply using another PC with VNC (remoting software) and BTsync and Crashplan, because I already have a rack of PCs for audio, video and 3d rendering.

But a proper NAS is the "right" way to do it in 2014.
by Jalcide
Sun Sep 07, 2014 7:36 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Problem with ADAT optical

I can at least confirm for you that I've sucessfully synced two Focusrite audio interfaces via ADAT without doing anything special except for setting the master unit's Focusrite driver to sync source "internal" and the slave unit's sync source to "ADAT."

I suspect it's not a setting in Cubase.
by Jalcide
Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:46 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Daylight saving changed = Cubase plugin rescan [again]


Hi there.

Majority of all plugins you referring to I haven't even heard about?

Like I said earlier I only use x64 plugins from major leading 3part manufactures like NI, Spectrasonics, WAVES, Steinberg, Nomad Factory etc. = zero problem with rescan.
I can rescan all day long in my studio without any issues.
I have also plugins from other serious minor manufactures like example Voxengo and LiquidSonics. All those manufactures have serious programming skills and all their plugins are build with help of C++.


So think twice before you install anything to your setup.
Its better to have 3 or 4 "real" legit bought professional plugins that work and sounds great then to install amature, free vst plugins that you can find by the thousands at KVR for Free.
I'm not saying that all are bad plugins because they are free but majoirty are actually just junk. Why do you think they are free?


So if you stop add free, crap and old x32 plugins to your setup you will not have these kind of problems. Adding cracked plugins are even worse.


I'm just saying so nothing personal aimed at you. I just referred to you post here but there are many other posts like this at other forums too. I just saying what all these problems come down to.


Best Regards
Freddie

Not bad suggestions at all. Thanks for the reply.

I'm 100% 64-bit, too. I have the the main ones you mention, as well. All working fine. Of Fxpansion, only DCAM Synth is crashing, the others are fine.

Tone2 has been a repeat offender on my system, for some reason, for over a year now and they haven't updated in quite a long time, so I'm just cutting my losses on those two synths.

Spire self-resolved after a couple reboots.

There were also a few plugins that crashed and/or reauthorized, but ended up working after several reboots.

I do think the VST 2.x spec's validation, combined with all these roll-your-own authorization schemes is a slightly brittle system. The rescan tends to shine a bright light on it.

I do have a lot of plugins, I guess percentage-wise, only a small amount balked.
by Jalcide
Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:00 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic