Totally agree.
An ‘iVST’ type off system would be more flexible than the present bussing options. Total recall, patch data within the cubasis project data, and all the other benefits of a fully integrated system, would bring Cubasis more inline with the ecosystem of Cubase and Nuendo.
For anyone using Cubasis as a serious music tool. There wouldn’t be an issue with buying extra VST type add ons, even if they couldn’t be shared outside of Cubasis. A proprietary Steinberg system would only strengthen Cubasis’ position as a brilliant professional music tool.
Although Micrologue is essentially a free extra synth. It is a great example of what can be achieved with an internal VST type plugin. If Micrologue is free and as good as it is, imagine what could be expected with extra ‘payed for’ plugins?
I work with a number of Cubasis collaborators, both in my studio and remotely via email etc. At one point we tried working by mirroring Audiobus apps etc. on each of our systems. But the reality was that when we were sharing our Cubasis projects, there were many instances of ‘total un-recall’ with regard to certain parameter tweaking etc. from one system to another. While there are many brilliant external synths and plugs, it got to the point where we decided to only use Cubasis’ own features for transparency when sharing projects.
Many people will gladly pay £20+ for a nice synth like the classic Korg emulations. But me personally, I would rather have the option of paying that type of money for synths and plugs that where totally Cubasis integrated. And yes of course, any collaborators would also have to have the same plugins if we don’t want to use rendered audio parts. But if it were a transparent integration of all project data, like parameter changes, patch saves, sample data if an iVST Halion or sampler came along etc. Then the flexible options would be a real consideration, even in light of the extra costs.
These workflow suggestions have obvious advantages to local and remote collaborative work. But what may not be so obvious is the ease of workflow for a person working completely in isolation. Imagine being able to do a complete and total Cubasis project save with patches, samples, active present synth parameter changes that are not saved as a user patch etc. The ability to archive such a setup would have immeasurable value, especially when having to reinitialise an iPad, for whatever reason. Or even, just as bigcatrik has suggested, the ability to load up something from years ago for ‘utter and complete total recall’.
It is well understandable that there are many users of Cubasis, who simply treat it as an awesome fun app. And people who’s budgets are stretched with even the initial purchase of Cubasis, after saving up for what to many people is a very expensive piece of kit, the iPad. Then all this suggested extra expense and unnecessary complication, is understandably of no benefit. But, there are a lot of people out there who spend many thousand on audio/midi interfaces, monitors, amplifiers, external hardware processing etc. Who use Cubasis as the corner stone to serious music setups and to their profession.
I hope we do see a move toward this type of ‘complete’ Cubasis environment. But in the mean time, I am still completely blown away by this amazing software, and have been nothing but impressed with Steinberg’s resolve to the Cubasis platform.
Cheers,
Dave.