Compyfox

If there`s written "multitrack" on it, then it's a multitrack recorder. DAT has an own symbol. If its neither of both, it's a normal tape recorder. Well I have a 24track mixer here. Everything is lined up to the mixer (hardware synths, mic, guitar amp, etc - though I still have probs with the GuitarPort - but that's okay, I barely use it anyway). I use my "group" busses for recording (4 mono subgroups, meaning 2 stereo bussed). Sometimes even the "insert" slots for direct outs (I have a EWS88MT). The rest is processed in the PC. And yeah, I use the mixer for monitoring too. The Output of my multitrack card (4 stere channels) have their own ports on the mixer. My Mixer is then hooked up to the amp and my speakers. So yeah. That's a commong thing. I'd use a digital mixer, but the Behringer Digital and the Yamaha Digital mixers are still expensive as hell. Though they have 2 advantages: 1) They can be used for automation 2) Everything is recorded digital (S/PDIF) and routing possibilities are fairly simple

Right, you do. Well then another question. Do you want to record with the mixer,then you can't get off with a 50bucks Behringer. I'd recommend digital mixers lately, but theyre still pricey. But a Behringer 12something where you have a send channel, is a good start. Enough ports for mixing "analog" and recording properly with the EMU cards. Then... I'd exchange your tube-preamp with the TubePac Amp/Compressor, as it's more rich sounding. With the NT1 from Rode you have a fairly good microphone (large membran if I'm not mistaken). For the rest you can use your old preamp. Dunno... it really depends on your preferences and what you want to do. I'd hook it up in parallel mode (meaning all run through a mixer - the outboard hardware at least) and record it as needed. Else you gotta experiment a bit. Routing and the like. Maybe you find a middleway. Ah yeah, is the Tascam PortaOne a MultiTrack device, or DAT? Just curious.

If you're on IRC, dude. I can help ya quickly. But first of all, I need to ask you if you have a any mixer? Cause this would help you a lot.

And there it happens again. Out of a simple question regarding Cubase...

Then you sure didn`t get all conversations in the last couple of weeks/months regarding "what sequencer to get" and "Cubase help needed". They mostly turned into flamewars that Cubase is crap, and the user should switch. I'm not writing names here, but those I mean know what I mean. And can we get back on topic please? Thanks.

Nah I'm sure he ment the noobs are loving this stuff.

The best guide in my opinion is the "quickstart guide" bundled with SX3 (it's a PDF). If this doesn't help, the best tutorials I found for Cubase SX3 are from ASKVideo.com - 3DVDs, very cheap and they cover everything from the basics to some more advanced stuff. (the videos are in QT, so it runs fine on a Mac). Or you try to find something on the internet. A good start might be this page: http://www.sx-tutorials.de/ Though it is aimed at SX1 and it's in german. But very detailed in terms of screen snapshots. YOu might also get some answers at www.cubase.net , the official boards. But here you need a USB Key number or your posts will all be locked. You need to be registered unfortunately and the support is also meh (at least at the moment). However you can still read all sections, even without being registered at their boards. If you have more specific questions, just ask. But I really advice you to read at least the quickstart guide of Cubase first.

I wonder where you folks all take the money for these samples. I mean. It's 995USD, sure is no cheap cake. And actually, as good as it might sounds, it is "too dramatic" and has too much reverb. 9DVDs for a choir that only fits into "uber-large orchestra" environments is just not my thing. Then again, I'd love to have a wordbuilder for Miroslav or Siedlaczek choirs. And no, don't come with that "but those samples aren't realistic" crap. Cause I don't give a frack!

First... there is no "official Cubase thread", cause the "majority" thinks, that there's nothing like that needed, not to mention that this board is mainly aimed at "Fruity Loops" and "Reason". *to those who don't get it, that was sarcasm!* Second... Cubase exists for years now, and also has the most different forms, names and the like. If you can tell us which version you use, we might give you more detailed hints. Third... Speaking of hints. Your question is pretty general. But if you have a specific question, some of us Cubase users might be able to help you a bit better.

Would have been much easier if you used 1,4" jack to RCA adapters (plugs only) and a V-adapter (2xRCA plug to 1,4" or 3,5mm jack). Then you could have put your headphone into the adapter. (something like this with something like this but in 1,4"), no? Way cheaper than a Behringer UB802. At least IMO.

Sorry Xerol, but how can this screen be LCD if the borders of the screen indicate that this is a CRT screen/TV hybrid (a friend of mine has a Pioneer VGA/16:9 flatscreen TV hybrid, which is why I'm a bit puzzled)? LCDs are usually flat. Then again, CRTs show the "Hz flickering" in worst cases on pictures. Can you clear us up "what" this thing exactly is?

Then go to a pawn shop and ask for used parts or look for cheap deals on the internet. No spoonfeeding, use google. I know that there're coils out there for dirt cheap.

Remixers are usually not getting paid for their work (unless the remix is commercial) - most of the people don't really care, don't feel the hassle and the like. In other words... they want to get their stuff to the masses. Audiophiles might think different, but the majority goes the mp3 way. Dolby HD is the future, according to Dolby. Same counts to MLP or DTS+, or in short: the new formats for BlueRay and HDTV. Though as with the eternal struggle between "DVD-A and SACD", even here there's no set standard yet. It's a fact that the majority still uses boomboxes (aka crappy amps, portable systems, CD players, mp3 players). And those systems can't reflect everything perfectly anyway. Only highend studios can level that out. Testing the files with "special testing tools" is another thing, but without completely perfectly setup room/environment, you can forget to hear anything drastic in terms of "artefacts". Like I said... it depends on the system you listen to, and in this case even on the encoder. For this "audiophile babling", there's Hydrogen Audio. Ton of crackheads who ate the wisdom with spoons and flame everybody who thinks different (I had to feel the wrath of them a while ago, this is why I wrote "flame war" and "deja vu", as this discussion turns out the same). It also depends on the music material. For example: An orchestra track that is in -14dB to -12dB RMS (like the Chrono Symphonic project) can sound totally awesome in 128kbit, while rocksongs in -8dB to -6dB RMS can sound totally messed up. Depending on the encoder of course and each listeners tells different things (like I said: different environments, not to mention preferences). Difference technically between 320kbit and FLAC. *pft* I barely know anybody who can distinguish the mp3 from the FLAC. Well if we talk about dynamic and not "squarewave pushed" music again. I see where you come from, but I don't see any practical use in this "crusade", if I may say so. I totally agree here. I used tons of mp3 players so far. Most of them can't even play something different than mp3 in 44kHz. I'm lucky that my latest one can play mp3s in VBR and 48kHz 24bit, which is rare. But "getting inspiration" is so much easier this way. Most players can play mp3 VBR however, but only in 44kHz. And we don't wanna talk about DRM (WMV and AAC) issues here. Anyway... just my 2c on this issue. Do whatever you feel like to do. But don't expect too much from the mixers. I stick to mp3 however, in the kbit I want, not somebody "forced" me too. Same counts to FLAC - so "sorry" from my side already.

Well there's another problem. There's always screaming "OMG I want FLACs!" or "OMG I want OGGs cause they're the future", etc. But it depends on the one who submits the track, too. As example: If I say "okay this track is fine as is, and it's only for internet purposes", then I sure wouldn't go the FLAC way, but the mp3 way (VBR encoding up to 192, encoders are as good already and without oscilators and very detailed FFTs you don't recognise a difference at all). On the other hand, if I really want to produce in high-end, I go with 48kHz and save the files for later use (Redbook Audio) on data DVDs. Storing possibilities are kinda endless nowadays. But it still counts: if it's for the internet, mp3 is where it's at. FLAC is a nice possibility but you can be sure that 95% of the users won't send you source files or anything. Like already mentioned, it's also a bandwidth issue. (even with 6MBit DSL I need 5-7hours to upload a RAR packed audio CD pack with 500-600MB!). At the moment, the Fraunhofer institute is working on "lossless Dolby" formats, and a new "user format" that is lossless too, but this still takes a while - and will also include certain licenses. Then again... we consumers heard everything so far: Vinyl Records, Audio Tapes, the first era of CDs, then mp3s. From dynamic material to overcompressed material. To be honest... some really don't care what format it is in, as long as it's accessable (and mp3 is the majority, also in terms of portable players). Only the audiophiles are like "can't you release as FLAC?!" - then again, those people don't really buy CDs (anymore). Vicious cycle.... And "this" is why I wrote that this discussion is very familiar. A wonder that this didn't turn out into a flamewar yet.

It might be a deja vu, but I'm pretty sure I heard this discussion before... OMG I'M IN THE FUCKING MATRIX!!! o_O

Actually, no. The Regular Edition (with 25 Tracks) will get 10 additional tracks (which is the bonus disc). All in all... 35 tracks on 3 CDs. That's all "without" the bonus stuff like "outtakes", interviews, etc. At least this is how it is planned.

"No more" is not really true. If Larry gives me the remaining files, all shows will be finally released. heh. Ah yeah and *bump* btw.

I can only say it again, every question about sequencers, and even if it's specific about Cubase/Sonar, turns out into a "Get FL instead" crusade. So it's not me that starts this crap. I just give you an insight on "other tools" outside of FL. And you know what, zirc? I don't give a crap about FL. I don't use it, cause I don't like it. It's unintuitive, it limits me. If you want to take it into your grave with you - so be it. But for gods sake - LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE WITH YOUR "Pro's use this and that" crap, if you don't even know what Pro's really use or what "standards" they have (or the AES declared). Just my 2c. FFLeviatan has it's answers and if he has more Q's about Cubase, I'm glad to answer them. Do "your crusade" somewhere else, please.

My experience with Finale wasn´t that great in terms of "saving MIDI". It's a bit troublesome, but possible. The most work you'll have though, is changing velocity. Else it's fairly acourate in terms of export/import into other sequencers. For this pupose, you can really use FL however. Especially if you want to apply Soundfonts only (as it has a built in SF2 player and tons of users in here can help you out - THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN START YOUR CRUSADE IN HERE AGAIN!). But if you want to do more spreaded material, I recommend something else. First of all, it's Wave capabilities are fairly new. You can can apply some vocals to an arrangement, but I found it fairly intuitive (IMO). Others might tell you something else. But what I tried so far... Recording is not simple, arranging is difficult too. And automation? Oh well... This is why Cubase and Samplitude are so great in this section. They're aimed at Multitracking. Fruity Loops is still in Kindergarden in this section. Not that you "can't" use it. But it still lacks something. Again... others might tell you different - for sure. *oh golly will I love the flamewar!* Well SX4 won't arrive till Q4 2006. So this is still a bit far from now. So you can go with SE3/SL3/SX3 without prob. This is a very tricky question which can result in yet another flamewar. Cubase is a very high standard, but lacks some support lately. This doesn't mean that it's "bad" - no... it just depends on what preferences you have. I also have to add here that Steinberg are the creators of the VST technology and Sonar is still hovering around with MFX (MIDI FX) and DXi. Cubase however can use the VST technology and the DX technology (so it'S a bit more versatile). Else they pretty much have the same stab at creating music. One tool isa bit better in one section, but less powerful in another, and the same applies to the other sequencer, too. In the end, it's up to you what you use. However Cakewalk agressively tries to get some customers. They recently released a software/hardware bundle with an Edirol USB Module for 475Euro which includes Cakewalk Sonar Studio. Steinberg however still has Cubase System 4 with Cubase SE and a hardware module for around 300-400bucks. Not to mention the "Studio Case II" with tons of bundled "LE versions" of most of their house-internal VSTi's. BUT... Cubase SE is limited in terms of VSTi usage (only 8 if I can still remember), the audiochannels are run down massively and a lot of functions and internal plugins are missing (I'm not sure on the notation, but you should better check on that). Nothing that can be waged up with free plugins however. So this might be another solution, too. Well you could try to get Cubase SE as Demo. As far as I know it doesn't use any dongle (USB stick) at all. Also, that with the "support hotline" isn't true. You can still call Steinberg even though you don't have a product registered there if you got some questions. Just ask yourself through. More convincing is a bit difficult. I can only say that Steinberg with Cubase, M-Audio ProTools and eMagic Logic are the most powerful and most versatile Studio Standards. If you want to do music on a hobby basis, you can nearly go with everything that's in your pricerange. But if you want to go Professional sometime, or also to an engineering school. You won't get around Logic/Cubase/ProTools. And no, I'm not getting paid for this.

I'm just stating the obvious, as it happens really everytime if there is a question about "what sequencer to get", even if it's a specific question about Finale/Sonar/Cubase - there're ALwAYS "FL Crusaders" who hijack and kill the thread. I can only say it again... why not simply call this board "Inofficial Reason and Fruity Loops Support Board"? I sound like a whiny bitch? You know what? I don't f*cking care - go to unmod and start a new thread about it. Truth hurts. INTERNET - SERIOUS - BUSINESS

This... ...was the only question regarding FruityLoops. You really make a "FL Crusade" out of EVERYTHING. Thanks for killing this thread, folks. FruityLoops - LOL!

Why not simply call OCR the "inofficial Fruity Loops tutorial and support" board?! THERE IS MORE IN OUT THERE IN THE WORLD THAN FRIGGIN FRUITY LOOPS AND REASON! Not to mention that all questions were answered - so stop it already to "convert him/her". *geez!*

Humbucker coils are coils where one is winded up to create a "negative" polarisation, and the other "positive polarisation". At least in the theory. So using 2 normal coils wouldn't work. Not to mention that you'd make the coil slots bigger (with a mills or something) to fit a humbucker in it. Too much work and a lot can go wrong. I wanted to do this with my guitar too (instead of having a single coil at the fretboard a humbucker), but my befriended guitar players all didn't recommend that and said "get a real humbucker instead". It's up to you.

Slim Slow Slider Sidechain Compressor... Well... it's in VST standard and should work everywhere. If it doesn't in Live, then you're screwed. Here might be a good starting point for you. But don't expect to get everything for free. Sidechaining is not mandatory, it's more like a bonus feature. But before you say that Ableton can't use the Slim Slow Slider plugins you should ask yourself if Ableton is even able of using sidechain plugins. Cubase needs some special treatment, but it is possible. If you're a registered user, you might also take a look at the Ableton boards.

Go to www.steinberg.net (or com) and browse on their FTP. If you can't find a demo there, then write them an email or call the customer support and ask for a demo. I know there are demos,cause I have one with Halion 2, Halion 3 and the Waldorf Edition. Cubase is way longer in business than FLStudio. Both tools are completely different in terms of approach. While FL has built in samplers like tracker (for example for drum pattern) and was first aimed at a 808 and 303 emulation (FL2 and FL3) it grew into a full fledged studio with VST/VSTi support later. It depends... what are your preferences. I for example use Cubase since v1.4 on the IBM PC while it was still aimed at "hardware only" and grew up with it. It can be a multitracker only, a pure software synth engine, I can use hardware/software/wav tracks, I do engineerings with it, etc. The possibilities are endless. Others might tell you the same about FL but still you have limitations. The WAV multitrack engine for example is fairly new and still a bit limited, you have no surround support (if you want to use it sometime), etc. Cubase is also shipped fairly blank (well it has 2 awesome synths by Waldorf, and SX4 is on the front door, too), while FL comes with a bunch of stuff "bundled". It's really up to you. But I prefer Cubase over everything else due to the possibilities I have - I'm not limited in any way. SX has a couple of more features than SL. For example: Surround, more VSTi slots, a couple of plugins that're exclusive to SX are not available, etc. There's a datasheet over at the Steinberg page that you can read for yourself. The worthwhile difference for you might be the price however. SL is only 399,- if I'm not mistaken, while SX is 799,-. It can. FL has no notation editor, Cubase has. In the end it's up to you. Hope I could help.