I think pro tools has an evil brain of its own.

[Dwayne Russell]

FYI...Cubase 6 can quantize many audio tracks in one operation so a live performance that has tempo issues can now be corrected (including multiple drum tracks with room mics). Also if you don't want to correct it and you like the rubato of a performance you can tell it to map the tempo changes and voila you'll have a grid that accurately reflects the tempo changes.

The only reason I say Cubase is a pain to learn is because the software is so advanced it takes a while to discover everything it can do. I've been working with it about 30 hours a week for 15 months and there are still whole sections of the thing I haven't mastered or even cracked open. Most of these relate to MIDI but there are still quite a few audio operations I haven't gotten around to using. I'm planning on upgrading to 6 (from 5.5) but not right this minute.

What you describe as a "pain" I describe as options and control, which is a good thing not a bad thing.

None the less, with out diving in to those options, Cubase is simple to get around for basic use. Simpler than most.

Pretty much any composer that has worked with a DAW before will learn use it in a day. They just wont know in depth options.

That one can not get it all in a short period of time is good not bad.

[kitchensinkmusic]

What you describe as a "pain" I describe as options and control, which is a good thing not a bad thing.

None the less, with out diving in to those options, Cubase is simple to get around for basic use. Simpler than most.

Pretty much any composer that has worked with a DAW before will learn use it in a day. They just wont know in depth options.

That one can not get it all in a short period of time is good not bad.

I could not agree more Dwayne...and BTW this is my first DAW.

[Dwayne Russell]

What you describe as a "pain" I describe as options and control, which is a good thing not a bad thing.

None the less, with out diving in to those options, Cubase is simple to get around for basic use. Simpler than most.

Pretty much any composer that has worked with a DAW before will learn use it in a day. They just wont know in depth options.

That one can not get it all in a short period of time is good not bad.

I could not agree more Dwayne...and BTW this is my first DAW.

Cool.

I've been waiting on that new editor. I have some live drum tracks that need that.

I might just order my Cubase 6 upgrade today.

[watksco]

You need to go here:
http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=17

Check ur system specs etc. against compatability docs etc...

I'd be looking to upgrade to PT9 if I were you - PT is by far one of the most intuitive packages out there - Cubase'll do ur head in and you'll lose valuable creative time...research system requirements - post ur setup on the forum - the guys 'n gals there will set you straight.

Cheers,

Scott

I could not disagree more.[/quote]

Why? If you've learned one DAW - unless you have a BIG reason - stay and learn the rest - for the most part switching means starting again (or taking a serious step backwards - YMMV). At the end of the day, they all do mostly the same things.

Scott

[Dwayne Russell]

Why? If you've learned one DAW - unless you have a BIG reason - stay and learn the rest - for the most part switching means starting again (or taking a serious step backwards - YMMV). At the end of the day, they all do mostly the same things.

Scott

YEs, but with Cubase your stating with a DAW hat is easy to learn the basics. And if you have used any DAW like PT it is much the same things but organized in a better and easier way.

I know both PT and CUbase. Cubase is so much better in so many ways its not even a close comparison.

[mojobone]

"Better and easier" is subjective; personally, I'd sooner chew off my mouse finger than open Cubase, but that's me. (I find Cubase's layout and endless menus ridiculously counterintuitive) The major DAWs are roughly equivalent, but that doesn't mean there aren't differences, some of which can definitely affect the way you work. There are some good reasons for learning ProTools, (particularly now that Avid has removed some of the barriers to fully professional production on native P/T systems) the biggest being the ginormous installed user base in professional studios.That means that if you work in outside studios or with outside studios, or if outside producers work in yours, you will one day have to deal with P/T sessions. If you spend a lot of time massaging MIDI data, that's reason enough to back away slowly from the P/T; the DAWs that began their life as MIDI sequencers are all far superior to P/T in that respect.

Also, Cubase should work okay with the Mbox I/F, it's designed to be interface agnostic.

[kitchensinkmusic]

"Better and easier" is subjective; personally, I'd sooner chew off my mouse finger than open Cubase, but that's me. (I find Cubase's layout and endless menus ridiculously counterintuitive) The major DAWs are roughly equivalent, but that doesn't mean there aren't differences, some of which can definitely affect the way you work. There are some good reasons for learning ProTools, (particularly now that Avid has removed some of the barriers to fully professional production on native P/T systems) the biggest being the ginormous installed user base in professional studios.That means that if you work in outside studios or with outside studios, or if outside producers work in yours, you will one day have to deal with P/T sessions. If you spend a lot of time massaging MIDI data, that's reason enough to back away slowly from the P/T; the DAWs that began their life as a MIDI sequencer are all far superior to P/T in that respect.

Also, Cubase should work okay with the Mbox I/F, it's designed to be interface agnostic.

as always Mojo you speak with clarity....

[mojobone]

Thanks for noticing; in fact I jes' went back and fixed a grammatical error in the above post, and I was a little worried that Vasek might not know "ginormous", as it's a relatively new word; a mashup of gigantic and enormous.

[DonaldM]

"Better and easier" is subjective; personally, I'd sooner chew off my mouse finger than open Cubase, but that's me. (I find Cubase's layout and endless menus ridiculously counterintuitive) The major DAWs are roughly equivalent, but that doesn't mean there aren't differences, some of which can definitely affect the way you work. There are some good reasons for learning ProTools, (particularly now that Avid has removed some of the barriers to fully professional production on native P/T systems) the biggest being the ginormous installed user base in professional studios.That means that if you work in outside studios or with outside studios, or if outside producers work in yours, you will one day have to deal with P/T sessions. If you spend a lot of time massaging MIDI data, that's reason enough to back away slowly from the P/T; the DAWs that began their life as a MIDI sequencer are all far superior to P/T in that respect.

Also, Cubase should work okay with the Mbox I/F, it's designed to be interface agnostic.

as always Mojo you speak with clarity....

Good points. But I do have to disagree on one point. I'm a PT user and I find the midi editing on PT VERY easy to use and have had zero issues with it, other than user stupidity...but all DAWs have the issue at one time or another!

[Dwayne Russell]

"Better and easier" is subjective; personally, I'd sooner chew off my mouse finger than open Cubase, but that's me. (I find Cubase's layout and endless menus ridiculously counterintuitive) The major DAWs are roughly equivalent, but that doesn't mean there aren't differences, some of which can definitely affect the way you work. There are some good reasons for learning ProTools, (particularly now that Avid has removed some of the barriers to fully professional production on native P/T systems) the biggest being the ginormous installed user base in professional studios.That means that if you work in outside studios or with outside studios, or if outside producers work in yours, you will one day have to deal with P/T sessions. If you spend a lot of time massaging MIDI data, that's reason enough to back away slowly from the P/T; the DAWs that began their life as MIDI sequencers are all far superior to P/T in that respect.

Also, Cubase should work okay with the Mbox I/F, it's designed to be interface agnostic.

With PT i have to push more buttons to achieve the result of the creativity that happens. Work is stifled and ideas lost. With Cubase it just happens fast and quickly. And when an idea is laid down. Tweeking it is far more simple and more creative with Cubase.

And with Cubase 6 out, the distance that Cuabse has left PT behind in just got further.

DOes PT have automatic delay compensation yet? Or do you still have to calculate it? t. I believe that in PT9 you still have to select a delay compensation. Cubase calulates it for you. you never have to even think about it. THis is a perfect example of the kind of thing I am talking about. There are many examples like this.