TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Upgrade Cubase Sx 2 to Cubase Sx 3


Posted by Reactance on Sep-21-2005 09:00:

Dunno Upgrade Cubase Sx 2 to Cubase Sx 3

Hi all,
I have been using cubase sx 2.0 for some time now and I wondered what is the significant change cubase 3 has over cubase sx 2.

Also can some comment on the priced difference? Is it worth while upgrading?

Thanks for your input.


Posted by Project 7 on Sep-21-2005 12:12:

Hell no, not yet anyway... its unstable, and when i tested it, it was

Personnally i couldnt see any major changes or anything, sx2 rules


Posted by thecYrus on Sep-21-2005 13:22:

i wouldn't like to miss SX3.1 it's much more stable for me and has many features which i use daily. for example the much faster/usable freeze function, the direct integration of external hardware (like VSTi plugins), freeze for hardware synths, audio warp, midi device maps, ...


Posted by DigiNut on Sep-21-2005 22:09:

Re: Upgrade Cubase Sx 2 to Cubase Sx 3

quote:
Originally posted by Reactance
I have been using cubase sx 2.0 for some time now and I wondered what is the significant change cubase 3 has over cubase sx 2.

The main difference is that SX 2 works.


Posted by djbruuen on Sep-21-2005 23:10:

sx3 looks like it has some nice extras that have been mentioned like the audio wrap and freeze...but i'm content enough with sx2 for now. I think i'll most likely remain a cubase user through my production career unless i can strongly be persuaded otherwise, cuase its definately the most enjoyable and intuitive interface to work with. I'll be anxious to see what the next installment of cubase has instore, but i don't think i'll bother with the jump to sx3


Posted by Reactance on Sep-22-2005 13:09:

Also freeze takes to long on Sx 2.0 I hope 3.0 has a faster freezing can make a cup of coffee and eat a sandwich and the freeze function is still running.
Eem it takes to way tooo long for me most of the time I leave the freeze function.


Posted by Reactance on Sep-22-2005 13:10:

Also freeze takes to long on Sx 2.0 I hope 3.0 has faster freezing.I can make a cup of coffee and eat a sandwich and the freeze function is still running using sx 2.0

Eem it takes to way tooo long for me most of the time I leave the freeze function.


Posted by Reactance on Sep-22-2005 13:31:

quote:
The main difference is that SX 2 works.

I know that man,i just wanna know


Posted by thecYrus on Sep-22-2005 13:58:

quote:
Originally posted by Reactance
Also freeze takes to long on Sx 2.0 I hope 3.0 has faster freezing.I can make a cup of coffee and eat a sandwich and the freeze function is still running using sx 2.0

Eem it takes to way tooo long for me most of the time I leave the freeze function.



yes, the freeze function is with sx3 usable/good


Posted by Subtle on Sep-22-2005 16:11:

if the audiowarp would have worked in a positive way, an upgrade would have been recommended.. but it doesnt work so save ur money for now, it is just as stable as SX 2 in my experience though


Posted by DigiNut on Sep-22-2005 22:53:

quote:
Originally posted by Reactance
Also freeze takes to long on Sx 2.0 I hope 3.0 has faster freezing.I can make a cup of coffee and eat a sandwich and the freeze function is still running using sx 2.0

If you want to speed it up, first turn off all your other VSTs and effects. The reason it's slow is because it doesn't turn off your other plugins while it does the freezing, so it's only got 20% of your CPU to work with (or whatever is left over).

Also make sure your track length isn't longer than it needs to be in the project options.

It usually takes me about 2-3 minutes to freeze when doing that.


Posted by dRale on Sep-23-2005 07:14:

sx 3 unstable? are you using a cracked version or the real one??

to me it seems much more stable than sx2
i would definitely upgrade if i were you

also, check out the main improvements upgrades on the web site

peace


Posted by Reactance on Sep-23-2005 07:19:

Hahahah,its funny i always thought the time taken to freez in cubase sx would take a couple of secs and zap there u are eem i think i was thinking wrong hey,

Maybe i miss understood how frezing works,maybe can some explain then ?

Most of the time i never use the freez function reason why is, beacuse i never get it right to get my synth sit tight in my mix theres always changes that occurs, and all kinds of funny stuff.

Im only now starting to get the hang of cubase so i guess upgrading is not going to help me make or improve my production skills looks like i will be hang on to sx2 for some time now until i see fit to upgrade for now all is ok !


Anyway all is good !

Thanks for the input people.


Posted by george_hales on Sep-23-2005 17:25:

The freeze option is really pants. I do it manually and export a loop of an instrument that (hopefully) i wont need to edit again after its made. This takes up pretty much nothing depending on weather you export a dry or wet loop. I notice it really helps with getting more detail into a track due to the lower CPU usage


Posted by DigiNut on Sep-23-2005 22:07:

quote:
Originally posted by dRale
sx 3 unstable? are you using a cracked version or the real one??

to me it seems much more stable than sx2
i would definitely upgrade if i were you

*sigh*

I see this same tired old argument on the Cubase forums... one or two people have a better time with SX 3 than SX 2 and so they ASSUME that everyone should have the same results. The problem is, the vast majority of Cubase users have had serious problems with SX 3. Worst of all, the people who get along OK have the chutzpah to accuse everybody else of using cracked versions. Why would a cracked version be any less stable?


quote:
Originally posted by Reactance
Hahahah,its funny i always thought the time taken to freez in cubase sx would take a couple of secs and zap there u are eem i think i was thinking wrong hey,

Maybe i miss understood how frezing works,maybe can some explain then ?

I'm getting tired of hearing this question too. Someone else on this forum actually posted a thread a week or two ago asking if any sequencers have a "freeze" function where you can still move things around and automate the synth parameters.

Newsflash: freezing instruments is not a way of magically making them use no CPU whatsoever. If that were possible, then why the hell would we need to freeze in the first place? All freezing does is bounce the instrument's output channel to audio and lock the MIDI events. That's it! What else would it do? What else COULD it do?

Follow the steps I posted earlier if you want to speed it up. Rendering a track to audio requires CPU, and if you have instruments and effects active that are already hogging 80% of your CPU, then the freeze will go a lot slower. Turn them off, then freeze, then turn them back on. It's really not that hard.



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