Search found 24 matches


Re: Any plugs to remove acoustic guitar string squeaks?

No magic bullet.

Try a parametric EQ. Start with very narrow Q, gain all up. Sweep the frequency band to find the offensive freq. Then cut gain to notch it out and listen for unpleasant artifacts. If is sucks all the "air" out of the guitar, it's too much, bring the gain up a bit. I wouldn't try to remove all the squeaks, it's a natural part of steel-string performance and will sound weird and unnatural if completely removed.
by swamptone
Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:50 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Apologies to the board for my earlier remarks.

Aloha guys,

This is not the place for personal remarks and I stepped
waaaay over the line. :|

Please accept my humble apologies and regrets.
I am very very sorry. And it won't happen again.


Would you please repeat it (whatever it was, I missed it), so I can know what won't happen again? ;)

by swamptone
Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:26 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: One dimensional vocal - lost its mojo

Mike Elliot's Guide to Mixing

The art and science of mixing, Part One by Mike Elliott

Mixing: probably the most misunderstood element of the recording chain. Some believe it to be completely incomprehensible, an arcane art form best left to those who are somehow more gifted than mere mortals. Others believe it to be a matter of just setting everything the same volume, add some reverb, and turn up the bass, done. Simple. Neither is anywhere close to the truth.

These are the facts. Mixing is a blend of art and science. A manipulation of textures, musical colors, and the application of ones own personal taste in music. It is also the understanding and application of a mind bending plethora of electronic gear to enhance the music. (The "science" part). The result is simple. Something homogenous, brilliantly executed, and most important, invisible! Something the listener may ignore, indeed be virtually unaware that anything like "mixing" ever took place, while enjoying the music. If the listener can "hear the mix" (other than pros listening to pros), it's a poor mix.

No one can "just start mixing". There is too much to be learned and experienced. It's not magic, but there is much trial and error, experimentation, and "it's almost right, but something's missing", to be gone through before you can actually lay claim to being a mixdown engineer. I suspect that I was at it for at least five years before I turned out my first respectable mix, even though some of my early efforts found their way on to major label releases. I finally arrived at that point only through experience, and the good advice I received from many helpful and patient people already well skilled at the task. It is some of that good advice that I will endeavor to pass on to you through this series of articles.

Starting at the bottom.

A good mix starts at the bottom. The sonic bottom is, the kick drum and bass. It is the bottom end that will determine if the mix is to be successful. If you miss it at this point, you will never get it right. All the automated fader moves in the world, EQ, compression, reverb, chorus, panning, doubling, sonic mangling, and/or anything else you might do after this point will not save you if the bottom end isn't right. Welcome to mixdown hell.

Kick starting your mix:

How many times have you reached a point in your mix where everything has become too loud, and you want to pull everything down a bit? Of course doing that, being a pain in the posterior, will mess up your mix anyway. How to avoid it? Start by setting the kick drum at -6 to -10 at the master fader. The kick channel fader level doesn't matter, unless of course you can't GET to -10. (Time to re-cut the kick). If you start with the kick at between -10 and -6, after adding everything else your final mix will magically be within a db or two of zero, every single time! It doesn't matter if you're mixing rock or country, jazz or pop, dance or trance. Every form of "conventional" music shares this application. Ah, if it were only that simple. Now comes the hard part. (Read "experience"). You must, at this point depending on the musical genre, and to the best of your ability, set the sound of the kick drum. Decide on the EQ: "Big" bottom? Maybe a bit of "Smack"? How about "Hip Hop" low mid? And how about compression? Will you use it? How much? There's the experimentation part. A good understanding of EQ and their functions will help immensely here. You might want to take a look back at one my earlier columns, on EQ. Once you've decided on the sound of the kick drum, NOW set that kick fader so that you are getting between -6 and -10 at the master fader. Never touch it again. Make the mix cooperate with the kick. If somewhere along the line you find you mist change the kick sound, do that WITH the mix, then solo the kick, and reset the level. Now reset your whole mix. (There's that nagging "experience" thing again). By the way, I can almost hear you asking, "So, what is it...-6 or -10?" Well, it's not that exact a science, but most cases, probably closer to -6. Ok, let's add something else now.

It takes two.

Now for the second element of the bottom end, the bass of course. It's time to match the bass to the kick. Just how that match will be done is entirely dependent on the type of music you're working with. In Country music for example, you want the bass "just inside" the kick. That is to say, the kick should sound essentially as if it were the attack of the bass. For rock, more evenly matched. For Dance, most likely more kick than bass, and the bass will be playing a different role here anyway. More n that later. Here's a biggie. DO NOT use the same EQ on both the bass and the kick. You are definitely going to want to create an individual sonic space for each. For instance, if you're looking for "thunder bottom", you might be tempted to boost 50 to 80hz on both the kick and bass. Don't do that! My personal preference on most types of music is to use the bass instrument for the extreme low end, and the kick for definition. For the kick, cut (yes, I said cut) , 60hz and down significantly, say -15db or so low shelf, and put around 3-5db boost at around 3k, narrow Q. Assuming electric bass, add in 3-5db at 80hz, again with a narrow Q. Match that with the kick, and see how that suits you for a bottom end. Again, I refer you to my prior article on EQ.

Now that we have set up a solid foundation to build our mix on, let's mute the bass for the time being and go on to the drums.

As the drums go, so goes your mix!

The drums are the single most important element of any mix. Be prepared to spend as much time getting your drum sound right as the rest of the mix put together. Of course we want to start with a great drum sound in the first place. (See last month's column on mic'ing). These days we must be prepared to work with drum samples as much or more often as live drums, but the way we treat them in mixing once again remains the same.

No gates. First, unless you have some sort of tragically recorded drum sound, avoid the use of gates. You really want to use the complete mic array to get that great sound of the drums. We have the kick (don't touch it), so let's add the snare next. First, pull up the snare to slightly below the desired level in relation with the kick. Make any compression settings you want to the snare at this point. (More on this in part two). DO NOT make any EQ settings at this time. Now mute your snare and pull up the overheads. (solo) and make EQ adjustments for the cymbals. You will probably want to add a bit of 10k or so to shine up the brass overall. Try phase reverse on one channel of the overheads and see if you like the result. (Keep checking the overhead phase as we add the rest of the kit).

Next, add the snare and listen your complete (almost) snare drum sound for the first time. (The level with the kick should be about right now) You may now start to play with the snare EQ. You will most likely find that you will not need to add any high end to the snare, as it will be showing up nicely in the overheads. This also has the added benefit of not pulling more hat into the snare channel. (Don't mess the overheads right now; remember they are set for the brass).

Next, with the kick, snare, and overheads all in pull up the hat. Hey, how about that, you hardly need to add much hat at all, as it sounds great in the overheads. Up till now we haven't panned anything. Kick, snare, and bass are all straight up the middle, and the overheads are panned stereo full. So now we use the pan on the hat to place it in the proper perspective with the kit. Don't pay much attention to the position of the pan knob, just put it in the right place aurally. (Remember the overheads?). You might want to lose some low end (100hz and down) from the hat. There's nothing much down there on the hat anyways, and it will help separate the hat from the snare.

OK, are you pretty much happy with the "time" elements of the drum kit now? If so, let's add the toms. It helps if you can find a nice tom fill section on the track and loop it, so you don't have to wait all day for another tom hit to come along. We are looking for two basic elements from the toms, attack and decay. The latter can be impacted greatly by compression, but we will have to get to that in part two of this tutorial. Depending on the way they were played, you might want to EQ a bit of attack on the toms. Look for that in the 2.5 to 4k area on all toms, small to large rack.

You will find that tuning on your toms has affected your snare somewhat. Probably not a great deal if they were well mic'ed in the first place, and you will not have to turn them up louder either. How about those overheads! Don't you dare gat those toms! You don't really want the sound of the entire drum kit changing completely every time the drummer hits a tom, now do you? You are ready for small tweaks across the whole kit now. Work slowly, and listen for any impact on the other elements of the kit other than the one you're currently tweaking.

For all of you drum SAMPLE users out there (that's me too), getting jealous of all this live drum tweaking, check out the excellent MixTended kits at, and you can join in the fun too. They are awesome!

Alright, and the bass back in and turn up the rest of the tracks up real loud, throw on lots of reverb, and you're done...NOT!

We have much more to talk about concerning drums, like compression, EQ reverb and more, but that will have to wait,along with adding some more tracks to the mix and what to do with them, until part two, next issue.

Until then, happy mixing, and check out my website at

Be cool

by swamptone
Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:09 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: One dimensional vocal - lost its mojo

Mike Elliot's Guide to EQ

Probably the most misunderstood, misused, and downright abused of all the fundamentals of recording, EQ (equalization), is the easiest to remedy. All that's required is some knowledge of the fundamental principal of EQ, and a bit of experience.
Have you ever said "My mixes sound bottom heavy on other monitors"? "Everything sounds all squashed together, and no definition"? "My mixes sound dull and lifeless"? All may be fixed through the proper application of EQ. And, I am talking about during the mixing stage of our project. This is NOT something best left to mastering. Before we can intelligently discuss the proper application of EQ, we have to have a clear understanding of just what we are equalizing. Every note played by any instrument consists of a series of frequencies known as the fundamental and upper harmonic structure. The upper partial harmonics are why a piano doesn't sound like a Tenor Saxophone when both play the same note. The unique length and amplitude of each instruments harmonic structure is what yields the specific timbre of every voice in the orchestra. Every instrument has its fundamental frequency range, and then its harmonic structure as follows.

* 1st Harmonic: One octave above the fundamental
* 2nd Harmonic: a fifth above that
* 3rd Harmonic: the next octave
* 4th Harmonic: yet another fifth up
* 5th Harmonic: the dominant seventh above that
* And so on...

Let's take the fundamental frequency of A 440 Hertz. That's the A above middle C. On the guitar, 1st string, 5th fret. If we apply EQ at say, 5000 Hertz (5kHz) to that note, even though the entire fundamental range of the guitar doesn't go much above 1100 Hertz, we will make a substantial change to the quality of that note, as we are altering one or more of the upper partials.

So Now, On To the Application of the EQ Itself.

OK, what follows is a broad general description of frequencies and how they translate to recorded music. These are indeed broad parameters, and are very much impacted by bandwidth, (Q), bell curve, and so on. Let me reiterate, these are GENERAL approximations of the frequency range(s), and should not be taken as law, just a guideline.

Starting from the bottom up, here's your "map":

* 50Hz "Hip Hop" bottom. Stay away from this unless you are mixing with and for subs.
* 80Hz Solid bottom end.
* 100Hz "Warmth" for low end, use SPARINGLY!
* 125 to 250Hz Mud. Lose it.
* 300 to 600Hz Fundamental frequencies for most instruments, best left alone for the most part.
* 600 to 900Hz Almost always subtractive to lose "nasal" quality.
* 1 to 2kHz Irritating. Perceived by dummies as "loud". (Peavey guitar amps, sorry Hartley)
* 2k and up a bit more can be useful for Bass Guitar presence/definition.
* 3 to 4k Presence for low-end instruments. Read: kick drum.
* 5k Presence for mid range instruments. Near all of 'em.
* 6 - 8k Sparkle.
* 8 - 10k Shine.
* 10k and up, Air. The higher you go, the more you can use. Season to taste.

OK, now that we have discussed the frequencies that we will concern ourselves the most with, let's discuss how to treat those frequencies. Fundamental through mid range tweaks are almost always SUBSTRACTIVE. Adding EQ in these areas will yield mostly disastrous results. For instance, boosting the low end of both the Bass and Kick Drum in quest of that "big bottom" end, will completely overpower the rest of your track, and no amount of mastering compression et al will ever be able to overcome that. You are far better off to get the low end from the Bass, and use the Kick as definition! Actually cut some low end from the Kick, and listen as the interaction between Kick and Bass tightens up and becomes solid.

Do not fall into the trap of locating your favorite sounds in the track and accentuating them. Just the opposite is best, and in that light let me forward to you the worlds oldest, and best, engineering tip: Find what you DON'T like and diminish it. Solo your instrument, boost level, narrowest Q possible, then sweep through the frequencies till you find what you hate, and cut it. (A little, don't go overboard).

In Closing

For this month, let me just quickly cover these important EQ principals.

1. Use as little EQ as possible, applied in very small increments.
2. Use subtractive EQ whenever possible.
3. Try not to duplicate EQ from instrument to instrument.
4. ALWAYS make your final EQ decisions in the mix, not soloed.

In trying to keep this column to a reasonable length, I have discovered what a gigantic subject EQ is, to say nothing of how subjective the topic is as well. We have only scratched the surface of the uses of EQ in this article, but luckily, each of you posses the most important learning tool of all, your ears. Experiment with EQ. Notice how changing EQ on one track impacts others. See how you can alter the sonic space of an instrument simply with the application of EQ. And so on, and so on...

Remember, with EQ as with everything else in the recording world, "Less Is More!" Don't overdo.

by swamptone
Tue Feb 25, 2014 12:08 am
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Signatures, signatures...... (??)

I find the tech info in a sig. is not only important for helping someone with a problem, but also helpful to see what people are using who have no problems ;)

True enough ....... however, the only folks that have NO problems, have no gear ...... if you know what I mean and I think you do. ;)
by swamptone
Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:25 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Would you be happy if Cubase 8 offered Pattern-Based Seq

Negative, no, niet, nein, non, nay, nai, nei, nej I do not want that.
by swamptone
Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:01 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Acoustic Guitar Recording

Close mic with two hyper-cardoid small diaphragm condensers, one pointed slightly off center towards the 12th fret, and another slightly off center towards the sound hole. The tight cardoid-polar pattern will reject most off axis breathing noise.

Alternatively, close pic with one hyper-cardoid small diaphragm condenser pointed at the sweet spot (that will require experimentation to find), and use a large diaphragm condenser mic about 6-to-8 feet away to pic up the room sound (the breathing noise should be mitigated at that distance).

Either way ...... breath quietly ..... or make it part of your signature sound (a la' Ian Anderson's flute solos). ;)
by swamptone
Sat Jul 27, 2013 8:35 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Windows to Apple?

I left the Apple Mac platform because of many problems with their hardware (and incompatibilities with peripherals necessary for DAW), and migrated to Win7 64 bit. Having used both, I've found the Win7 environment for Cubase is far superior.

by swamptone
Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:46 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Why Does Cubase Rune My Creativity Every Time?

So I feel like doing some music for the first time in a couple of weeks, boot up Cubase and it has decided to scan EVERY SINGLE NOTE again. :twisted:
I have a lot of notes.
I am still weighting music heavily towards having more and more of them .............. but Cubase converts every one of them into tiny, little runes ..... like zeroes and ones, at the atomic level, inside a silicon chip!

And before anyone mentions time changes, it is irrelevant, it happens with every time signature I have used, 7/8, 9/8, 5/4 ..... all of them ....... because Steinberg have had years to connect the time sigs.

This is a common thing with Cubase, my random, pointless notes happening at inconvenient times from my skill, or lack thereof, to make music.

In Life, I can get started faster and get ideas down much faster on paper, but the mixing/sound is not as good, so I prefer Cuabse overall, because it is so frustrating when my brain freezes, yes .... I get virtual cortex blue screens (Yes in 2014! Miles did an album about it .... Kind Of Blue) which generally throws a spanner in my cranial works.

Steinberg are so completely the obvious solution to fix simple issues of my, otherwise, analog workflow (drawing flyspecks on notation paper).

I always say "Sort simple things out before adding more bells and whistles". Like doing the guitar overdubs before adding the tubular bells and penny-whistles.

But I know this will happen, as they are neither negligent, nor purposely making there (they're, their) product half finished so that everyone buys the next update in the hope they will be fixated on some new feature set.

I am in the process of going through all my Cubase projects and bouncing all over the studio all happy and gleeful, and when I am done, I am going to smell Cubase, the way I used to open vinyl albums and whiff in the *flower* essence, like perfume.

My notes have finally finished scanning, rant over...........

by swamptone
Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:08 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Hey guys. So what's new? Upgrading from SX3. Dinosaur.

There is a post I wrote about that that highlighted 5-10 reported and confirmed issues that would make my life a nightmare. Read this:

Although I perfectly understand your point and sticking with whatever works for you, that thread is very old and all the issues in your post have been solved in either 7.0.2 or 7.0.3 (except one that does not exists anymore). I don't think it really applies to 7.5.

Excellent information. Thank you Fabio!
by swamptone
Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:40 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Is anybody here from the good old days? (yrs2000-2005)

I used to go by the handle "prism" back in the day. Sadly, lots of former, highly-active members have left the forum here.
by swamptone
Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:41 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Is anybody here from the good old days? (yrs2000-2005)

surfer wrote:The crowd in the cloud
Too loud
Rain of pain
On Steiny's brain

I knew a muso from Nantucket
When a MIDI note jammed, he'd unstuck it,
He played a mean guitar,
When noise arrived from afar,
He'd reverse the coils and buck it!
by swamptone
Sun Sep 21, 2014 5:31 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Is anybody here from the good old days? (yrs2000-2005)

What ever became of Trogdor the Burninator?
by swamptone
Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:29 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Is anybody here from the good old days? (yrs2000-2005)

Here is a blast-from-the-past ..... the line-up of players on the 21st Century Blues forum collaboration from the mid-2000 era:

21st Century Blues Roster

The Soloists:

69BPM Sections
[Time: From - To][Section] [from Bar #] [to Bar #]
[00:00 to 00:50].....1..............Intro..........15.......P. J. Geerlings - lead guitar
[00:50 to 01:30].....2..............15.............27.......Doug Hazelrigg (twilightsong) - vocals & guitar
[01:30 to 02:13].....3..............27.............39.......Joe "numnutz" Wilk - Slide guitar
[02:13 to 02:53].....4..............39.............51.......Dave Smith - vocals and lead guitar
[02:53 to 03:35].....5..............51.............63.......Peter "Sternen" Climie - sax Memphis, TN. USA
[03:35 to 04:17].....6..............63.............75.......Phil (phild05) Donald - vocal & lead guitar
[04:17 to 04:55].....7..............75.............87.......Glyn "Zenda" Powell - lead guitar
[04:55 to 05:43].....8..............87.............99.......Glyn "Zenda" Powell - vocals & guitar

There is a break at Bar 99 thru 101

119BPM Sections
[Time: From - To][Section] [from Bar #] [to Bar #]
[05:43 to 06:10].....9............... 101..........113.......Vaughn "NTR" Fowler - lead guitar
[06:10 to 06:33].....10..............113..........125.......Vaughn "NTR" Fowler - vocals and guitar
[06:33 to 06:55].....11..............125..........137.......Mart - piano Solo
[06:55 to 07:19].....12..............137..........149.......Nick "prism" Crosby - vocals and lead guitar
[07:19 to 07:46].....13..............149..........161.......P. J. Geerlings - Guitar
[07:46 to 08:10].....14..............161..........173.......Newman - lead guitar
[08:10 to 08:34].....15..............173..........185.......Rob "Herbal Monk" - piano solo
[08:34 to 08:59].....16..............185..........197.......Braunie - vocals and lead guitar
[08:59 to 09:23].....17..............197..........209.......Wim "HornforHire" Koopman - tenor sax
[09:23 to 09:47].....18..............209..........221.......Uwe "schroeder" Schrödersecker - lead guitar
[09:47 to 10:11].....19..............221..........233.......Dave Smith and Vaughn "NTR" Fowler - guitar dual
[10:11 to 10:38].....20..............233..........245.......Wim "HornforHire" Koopman - vocals and Rhodes piano

There is a break at Bar 245 thru 247

153BPM Sections
[Time: From - To][Section] [from Bar #] [to Bar #]
[10:38 to 10:57].....21..............247...........259.......Ian "Sherz" Rushton - piano lead
[10:57 to 11:16].....22..............259...........271.......Marcel "Impulsive" Ritsema - vocals
[11:16 to 11:35].....23..............271...........283.......Uwe "schroeder" Schrödersecker - lead guitar
[11:35 to 11:53].....24..............283...........295.......Phil (phild05) Donald, Nick 'prism" Crosby - vocal chorus
[11:53 to 12:19].....25..............295...........307.......Joe "numnutz" Wilk - Guitar

Trainwreck Finale:
[Time: From - To]
[12:19 to 12:37].....Joe "numnutz" Wilk - lead guitar
[12:21 to 12:37].....Uwe "schroeder" Schrödersecker - lead guitar
[12:30 to 12:36].....Peter "Sternen" Climie - sax
[12:20 to 12:29].....Phil (phild05) Donald - vocal
[12:25 to 12:37].....Vaughn "NTR" Fowler - lead guitar
[12:19 to 12:37].....Nick 'prism" Crosby - ebow guitar

"The 21st Century Horns":
Chris "Little Fat Nut" Cooper - Memphis, TN, USA - Trumpet
Peter "Sternen" Climie - Memphis, TN, USA - Tenor Saxophone
Fleetis "Doc Bone" Hannah - Memphis, TN, USA - Trombone

The Band:
Alex "Anduin" Friesen - Drums
Marcel "Impulsive" Ritsema - Bass
Peter "Desert" van de Woestijne - Hammond Organ Extraordinaire
Mart - Piano
Nick "prism" Crosby - Rhythm Guitar

If you'd like to listen to the track, click this link:
by swamptone
Sat Oct 04, 2014 6:51 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Rejection of digital emulations - just arrogant behaviou

Why even ask? Who cares? That is an old, old, old argument that goes way, way, way back. In the early days of synthesis, people complained that synths would put "real" musicians out of work. The status quo always challenges and complains about shifts in paradigms. Prog rock musos complained that punk/grunge ruined their careers. Before that, rock-and-roll musicians complained that disco was ruining music (okay, they were probably right ;) ).

Use whatever you want. Use one of the many splendid synthetic symphony orchestras if it serves your Muse. Let the naysayers stick to their lofty principles. And when they can't afford to hire a real symphony orchestra for their opus, and instead do a kazoo orchestra (using authentic kazoos, not sampled ones), you can present your synthetic work and see which piece listeners gravitate (and groove-itate) to. Don't want to shell out tens-of-thousands-of-$$$$$ for "authentic" analog Moogs? Get the emulations, and don't tell anyone. "They" can't really hear any difference, especially not in a mix.

Just do the best you can, with what you can reasonably afford. Carry on.
by swamptone
Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:57 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Rejection of digital emulations - just arrogant behaviou

Woodcrest Studio wrote:Amp sims bend over for amps. Then the cow and amp have their way with it. ---->>>>

Udderly true! :lol:
by swamptone
Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:19 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Future Music Mag drops Cubase support

I stopped buying Future Music about 10 years ago. The magazine title is an oxymoron. I learned that spending the time it took to read the Cubase articles was better spent on direct exploration of, and experimentation with, Cubase.

by swamptone
Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:17 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: What Makes Nuendo @$1700 vs. Cubase @$500?

OK then. Her's a list of things in Nuendo, that is NOT in Cubase:

Feature comparison - C7 vs N6

- ADR-Taker Tool
- 64Bit support for Blackmagic and Decklink video cards
- new codecs
- AAF-exchange
- nice Pro Tools compatibility
- bounce-to-markerpoints
- clip-packages/groups
- enhanced automation system
- automation flexible passes technology
- direct stem routing/mixer
- Wave Meters
- Monitor Matrix
- additional post-production plugins, e.g. Nuendo post filter
- PitchDriver, realtime pitch plugin
- MXF audio support
- enhanced EuCon support
- EDL List im/export
- enhanced scrubbing engine
- complete network integration via LAN, WAN
- export Note pad data
- enhanced surround panner V5
- surround matrix decoder/encoder
- additional postpro IRs for REVerence
- enhanced crossfade editor...
- Multiple marker-tracks
- Two video tracks
- Batch Export/Multiple stems export by cycle markers with advanced naming
- Proper Edit mode
- Anymix Pro Surround Panner with upmix/downmix
- Video pull up/down
- Video overlay for text
- Auro 3D format support / up to 13.2 surround support
- Support for IOSONO SAW / Wavefield synthesis products
- ProSoundEffects 1.5 GB FX post-production library included
- extended synchronization/machine control options / Syncstation connection
- EBU-compliant measurement with Loudness Track

+ more exclusives coming with Nuendo 6.5:
- BASS management
- AAF 2.0
- ... more to be added...

For the Pro Post Studio, many things are doing the price difference unimportant. If they need it, the buy it (and the clients pay for it ;-)).

As one who has used both Cubase and Nuendo since SX1 and N1.6, I can for the first time see very clearly the bounderies between their Music app and Post app.
Finally has Steinberg's nagging about the "two different apps" come through to many users, with the difference between Cubase 7.5 and the upcoming Nuendo 6.5.

As a music only producer, the choice of going Cubase only is for the first time easy.
Because I don't like certain parts of Cubase 7/7.5 and Nuendo 6, Nuendo 5.5 will be my last version.
If Cubase 8 will "fix and/or change" the things nagging me, I will go Cubase only.

But yes there are many things in Nuendo that justifies the price difference, if............if you run a pro Post Studio. For pro Music studio's only (and/or hobby), Cubase is the way.
Finally I agree with Steinbergs statement on differentiating the two apps. Not so clearly in earlier versions.

Yeah, but apart from those things ...... what's the difference? ;)
by swamptone
Mon Jul 07, 2014 4:39 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Pono [UPDATED]

I'm surprised he hasn't jumped on the new, trendy vinyl bandwagon. Or maybe he's concerned about the needle and the damage done? ;)
by swamptone
Fri Jan 16, 2015 3:04 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Anybody here from the blue forum days?

The Dr. is back in the house!

by swamptone
Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:32 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: Link to "21st Century Blues" ???

Glyn Powell wrote:Ah ... just popped in and saw this thread. Here's the version that I have. ... -22-05.mp3

Belated happy new year and take care, all :)


That's it! Well done Glyn 8-)
by swamptone
Sun Feb 01, 2015 9:21 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: is cubase dying a slow death?

Only a poor craftsman blames his tools.
by swamptone
Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:00 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic

Re: is cubase dying a slow death?

... and statistics.
You have to have the stats before you can determine whether they are lies!

However, it often not the stats that are the lies per se, but the interpretive license taken with them.

For me, bring on the stats!!!

Mr. Clemens astute observation calls into question whether statistics can be discerned as Truth of Lies (i.e. interpretive license). The fallacy of man-made global warming, and the enormous popularity of that fiction, demonstrates that the great thundering herd of humanity is utterly inept at such discernment. They "believe" that computer models are scientific fact, that consensus of scientists interpretive license is equivalent to clinical, double-blind tests, and that the word of self-professed experts trumps the ability (willingness) of the common man to think for themselves.

I call into question nearly every premise in the OP; and interpret all that fol-de-rol as an obtuse Op-Ed (opinion, editorial) piece wallowing in a vast sea of internet chatter and noise ....... which I, even now, am contributing to. As such, the only thing worth discussing here is what a complete waste of bandwidth the bankrupt premise that Cubase "has been nailed to its perch" is.
by swamptone
Wed Mar 25, 2015 2:03 pm
Jump to forum
Jump to topic