TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- sidechain
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch Sidekick 3 doesn't work for me in Cubase 4. I am able to set it up correctly and get it to sidechain my bass. But the next time I load up the project the sidechaining is all wonky.

yep, cubase 4.0.3 broke it.. in 4.0.2 it worked great. but currently i'm using the vanilla compressor on a quadro bus. works somehow better for me as there aren't any virtual routings which introduces latency.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus yep, cubase 4.0.3 broke it.. in 4.0.2 it worked great.

Fuck.
Just updated this morning

Anyone know of any others? Haha...

Cubase 4 doesn't support DX? WTF!? Glad I never considered upgrading, I use an assload of those.

Steinberg... when will you learn, once you add a feature, you have to keep supporting it! And do some damn regression testing, FFS.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Cubase 4 doesn't support DX? WTF!? Glad I never considered upgrading, I use an assload of those. Steinberg... when will you learn, once you add a feature, you have to keep supporting it! And do some damn regression testing, FFS.

who cares about DX.. beside the db compressor i'm not aware of a usefull plugin which is dx only.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus who cares about DX.. beside the db compressor i'm not aware of a usefull plugin which is dx only.

Er... how about all the Waves plugins? (Yeah, I know, there's the crappy WaveShell - no thanks).

Lots of older plugins only have a DX version if you use Windows. Some of them have released new VST versions in the last year or so (Antares comes to mind), but people shouldn't have to pay for carbon-copies of their old plugins just to get them to work in a new host.

Backwards compatibility is simply a reality in the software world. You have to do it. You think Windows 95/2000/XP would ever have taken off if they didn't continue to support 16-bit apps (many of which are still in use today)?

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Backwards compatibility is simply a reality in the software world. You have to do it.

What, like Apple did with OSX?

I'm not too fussed about DX, DB-audioware are the only DX plugins I use.

You're right, Apple doesn't care a lick for backwards compatibility, which is one of the reasons why they're not even seriously considered in corporate environments, much less used on a wide scale. I'm not badmouthing Apple here, I think they design wonderful products, but once you throw away backward compatibility, you're throwing away all but your most loyal customers. The same problem exists with most of the Linux distros, too - they think nothing about breaking compatibility, because everybody should always be running the newest version and couldn't possibly be depending on legacy behaviour, right?

Say what you will about Microsoft, they understand compatibility issues better than anyone and they are rewarded by the market for that. Every version of Windows and Office will open files created by every previous version. It's not always perfect, but it's damn good and you can tell that they've spent thousands of man-hours on it, to the absolutely silly extent of shimming or detecting well-known buggy legacy applications and fixing the bugs for them. People will upgrade willingly when the upgrade is painless.

One of the reasons Sony can sell so many PS2 and PS3 systems is that they are backward compatible. I probably would not have bought a PS2 if I hadn't known that I could play PS1 games on it. Nintendo tries to keep up with this by selling add-ons that let you play older games, but people don't like having to pay extra for back-compat.

Could you imagine if the Core Duo were not backward-compatible with some less-used aspect of the original Pentium lines, like SSE the MMX instruction set?

Steinberg really doesn't seem to get it. They've got good ideas, but it's sad how little they understand the business of software. Breaking DX/DXi not only demonstrates a shocking absence of foresight, it's also completely unnecessary. The DX implementation in SX 3 worked just fine - why on earth would they need to remove it in version 4? Seems like a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Steinberg really doesn't seem to get it. They've got good ideas, but it's sad how little they understand the business of software. Breaking DX/DXi not only demonstrates a shocking absence of foresight, it's also completely unnecessary. The DX implementation in SX 3 worked just fine - why on earth would they need to remove it in version 4? Seems like a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.[/COLOR][/FONT]

they removed it because they didn't want to spend resources for porting the dx wrapper to intelmac and x64. so they tought it would make more sense to spend the resource for other things and to make the projects compatible they removed it from the other platforms aswell..

Just to confirm...

Sidekick still works, try channel b

just wanted to clrify something for those who might not know and seems to be misunderstood on the first pages of this thread:

sidechaing is just the terminology for the technique of linking two channel's via a trigger and effector ralationship - it is not solely related to compression or any other specific effect.

as a sidechain, it is just as valid to use the frequency range of a vocal to trigger a limiter on the background music track (gain ducking) as it is to use a kick to trigger a compreesor on the bass channel.

the term sidechain should not be limited to only compression....try an expander

on another note diginut is spot on - microsofts success is largely attributable to lagacy compatibilty - i'm using a 6 year old PC that has been through three generations of OS, and I can still open files that created in the first week of owning it.

quote:

Originally posted by thecYrus they removed it because they didn't want to spend resources for porting the dx wrapper to intelmac and x64. so they tought it would make more sense to spend the resource for other things and to make the projects compatible they removed it from the other platforms aswell..

And where exactly did they direct those precious resources? Cubase still isn't properly compatible with Vista or x64, the new VST platform isn't implemented yet, they certainly haven't improved the stability of their software, and they definitely haven't tried to improve their support.

All I see are some UI changes (which, IMO, makes it look and feel much worse now), and a few lame "features" like new bundled VST instruments that nobody will ever use.

Unless they've used awful bit-twiddling routines in their DX wrapper, it should be a cinch compiling for x64. As for Macs, who cares, did the Mac version ever have DX in the first place?

I'm just going to repeat what I said before: it doesn't matter what your rationale is, there's no excuse for breaking compatibility.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.