Search found 15 matches

Return

Re: C7.5 - Combining Lanes and Track Versions when comping!


4. Select one of them, do your wanted comp. Select the next, do a second comp. You can now select between two different comps.

I must not understand how this is quicker, faster, or better.

At step #2 why not just "duplicate track" instead of the new feature "duplicate version?"

Then re-name the duplicated track something different than the first track.
Then do your 2 comps as you said and then you end up with 2 completed comps that you can compare.

What am I missing out on here?

If you duplicate the track, you will duplicate any plugins used (taking up CPU power) and you will clutter up your arrange page so Track Versions seems a more elegant solution,
by J-S-Q
Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:04 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Lowering volume on mass

Hi,

How about creating a group channel in mix console (call it pre-out) and route all your automated tracks to it. That way you can use the fader to adjust the volume of only the tracks routed to it!


That's one way to do it. Alas, a little unnecessary.

Why not just lower the master fader? You wind up with the same result. (edit - if the chs are peaking, lowering the master fader wont help there)

If you want to do the auto thing, you can do the following... it's a few steps but is pretty simple:

Ctrl+A/Select All > KC for group (or r-click on any event > edit > group)
KC for Automation > Show all used auto
Ctrl+A/Select All again - now all of your events and all of your auto is selected
Ctrl+click on any event; now all of your events are de-selected and all of your auto remains selected
In the info line change the value accordingly
KC for Automation > Hide all auto
Ungroup your events when finished if you would like

Cheers.

The problem there is that this will only work for the channels that already have automation and it sounds like the OP is saying only SOME of his channels already have automation.

I think using 'Trim Automation' might be a better solution...

In the Mix Console, enable Q-Link
Select all the channels you want to change.
Enable Write Automation for all channels.
Open the Automation Panel (in the Project menu).
In the Automation Panel, enable 'To Start' and 'To End' and 'Trim'.
Now, if you move any fader by say -6dB, all of your channels will have their volume reduced by 6dB, including any automation curves that you have already programmed.
by J-S-Q
Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:57 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: CC121 (eq part) vs. CMCQC (as eq controller)

I am thinking of getting the CC121 but I've read somewhere (Sound On Sound perhaps?) that you can't do a proper sweep through the frequencies with the CC121 since it either in- or decreases the frequency by 1 hz or "jumps" through the frequencies when you turn the knob fast. Is this true?

This is somewhat true. It's certainly useable but the feel/response of the knobs could be improved. Sadly there's no sign of Steinberg making significant developments for the CC121 which is a shame because It's a good product but with a few tweaks for the software it could easily be a superb product.

I also have a CMC QC and yes, the feel of sweeping the EQ's is quite a bit nicer but the downside is that you have to hold down a button (shift I think???) in order to change the Q settings and the EQ band bypass settings.

I use the CC121 for EQ control and I have the CMC-QC setup to control the 8 FX send. It's a nice combination. If I had to pick one or the other it would be the CC121 due to the fader, the additional knobs/buttons and the volume control but it does cost a lot more than the CMC.
by J-S-Q
Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:17 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?

I've seen this topic come up several times (and posted about it myself) but am yet to see an answer that is 100% clear.

Regarding multithread processing specifically, from my observations (simply looking at the Windows Resource Monitor) all my cores seem to have a roughly equal load. The problem I find is that the the Cubase ASIO meter will max out WAY before the actual CPU will be maxed out. So in other words, a lot of CPU power is going unused. And yes... I know, the ASIO METER IS NOT A CPU METER because this is the (unhelpful) response that is always posted when this issue is raised. But WHAT EXACTLY is the bottleneck here? It's usually blamed on poor ASIO drivers (I run a Steinberg MR816 interface so you would hope it would have a well written driver) but I've read various reports of VE Pro being able to run many extra plugins alongside Cubase so what is it that stops these extra plugins being run within Cubase itself? Why does the ASIO driver allow a higher plugin count when split between two pieces of software as opposed to being run in one single piece of software (i.e. Cubase)?
by J-S-Q
Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:54 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?

Why do so many people seem to think the AISO meter indication is any thing to do with the CPU meter in windows?

Hippo

Well I'll quote myself from the post I made in this very thread:

J-S-Q "And yes... I know, the ASIO METER IS NOT A CPU METER because this is the (unhelpful) response that is always posted when this issue is raised. But WHAT EXACTLY is the bottleneck here?"

Well done for being yet another person to post this unhelpful response. Now please explain EXACTLY what it is that is causing Cubase to run out of steam when there is still a lot of CPU power left. Or please explain why, on the same computer, Vienna Ensemble can apparently run 12 instances of Altiverb with no problem when Cubase can only cope with 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsY_5jUoutw
by J-S-Q
Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:31 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?

I've done some more investigation and it seems that how your audio is routed can make a BIG difference to your ASIO meter, and to how many plugins you are able to run.

I ran three tests, each one using 24 instances of Waves Kramer Master Tape (KMT).

#1. ASIO meter at 15% , Win CPU at 15%
24 x stereo tracks, each with 1 KMT, no group tracks.

#2. ASIO meter at 45% , Win CPU at 11.5%
3 x Stereo tracks, each with 8 KMT's, no group tracks

#3. ASIO meter at 100% , Win CPU at 11%
1 Stereo track, with 8 KMT's, routed to two groups in series, each with 8 KMT's. i.e. a continuous chain of 24 Kramer instances.


So... it appears that running long chains of plugins (i.e. like test #3) is a LOT more ASIO intensive than many short chains of plugins. It is also clear from the Windows Resource Meter that long chains can not be spread between CPU cores as effectively as multiple short chains (Test 1 showed a perfectly even spread between all cores. Test 3 was very uneven with some cores seeing virtually no load at all).
by J-S-Q
Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:08 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: C7.5 Multithread processing performance experience?

I just ran the DAWbench test using Waves Kramer Master Tape (160 instances) and to my surprise, Windows Resource Monitor showed all cores fully loaded and the overall CPU load up to 98%. I also see the 'Active Core Count' go to 6 (i.e. all cores). This shows it's definitely possible for Cubase to take full advantage of multiple cores.

However, In a typical real world project, my CPU use might be at 50% or less when the ASIO is maxed out. I think it depends a lot on exactly what plugins your are running and/or how things are routed. I've seen it suggested that using lots of group channels and complex routing can add to the ASIO load in Cubase. No idea of this is true but if I find some time I might investigate this as I tend to use quite a lot of groups/routing.

And for anyone who is interested, I kept a record of when I ran the same DAWbench test on my old i7 920 setup and it could run 82 Kramer Tape instances. Bearing in mind that my i7 920 was overclocked by about 50% from stock speed, these results are roughly in line with what one would expect from looking at their 'CPU Mark' benchmark scores.

Cubase.PNG
by J-S-Q
Thu Jan 23, 2014 12:36 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Track Lanes On Mute - CAN'T COMP!

This is down to preference settings. If you want the old behaviour, where you can comp using scissors/muting, you need to check the preference setting, 'Treat Muted Audio Events like Deleted’. That should solve your problem.
by J-S-Q
Sat May 17, 2014 11:59 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pop Out EQ section?

In case you haven't already noticed, you can also drag the Channel Settings window to make it even wider. If you want, you can have the EQ window fill your entire width of your screen.
by J-S-Q
Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:19 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

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

This can be done using the Control Room. You can set up 4 'Cue Mixes' and then use the 'Cue Sends' to set the levels of drums/bass/vox etc. going to each of these Cue Mixes.

Best to have a read of the manual for the full details.
by J-S-Q
Sat Jul 19, 2014 8:12 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Steinberg - please warn us of update consequences!

To the OP... I'm not 100% clear on the problem you are having but I THINK the solution will be the preference setting called 'Treat Muted Audio Events like Deleted' (in the Editing > Audio preferences section). Try changing that and see if it makes things play as you were expecting.
by J-S-Q
Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:26 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Wave Meters

Ya it's basically a help for those who like to mix old school, 100% in the console. Before now you usually kept an eye on the project window as the cursorfollowed the tracks.
On an aside, one might remark that psychologically the waves are moving in the wrong direction as the top is theoretically the input to the channel so the signal should be flowing downwards - just kidding ;)

Yes, to be honest I can't believe Steinberg made these wave meters run upwards instead of downwards which is the way I PERSONALLY prefer. This renders the entire program completely unusable. What a joke this company is. I'm going back to Cubase SX v1 and I'm never ever going to spend another penny with these con artists. :lol:
by J-S-Q
Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:17 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: CMC Controllers Not Working

Not sure what to suggest but my CMC-QC is working fine (running Win 8.1 and C8 64Bit).
by J-S-Q
Mon Dec 08, 2014 4:47 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Cubase 8 and EuCon

I haven't noticed any changes with the functionality of Artist Mix or Control and both seem to be working perfectly well in C8 / Win 8.1. I had to reprogram my soft keys as it seems Eucontrol views C8 as a completely separate application from C7. See the thread mentioned above.... looks like it's possible to copy your old soft key settings by location the .xml file.
by J-S-Q
Mon Dec 08, 2014 11:38 pm
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Eq save as default preset? This does nothing

Not 100% sure but if I remember rightly, this didn't work in Cubase 7 either. It worked for default presets in VST plugins, but not for the channel EQ.
by J-S-Q
Wed Dec 10, 2014 11:51 am
 
Jump to forum
Jump to topic