Vegas vs. Cubase

Jireh wrote on 3/11/2003, 4:32 PM
Hi. I have been using Cubase VST/32 5.1 for audio work for quite a while. I also use VV3 for video editing on a hobby level.

I have had some problems with Cubase lately because I am trying to upgrade from Win98 to Win2K. I really love VV and I have been seriously considering moving to Vegas for audio work. Do any of you have any experience moving from Cubase to Vegas?

Comments

drbam wrote on 3/11/2003, 6:01 PM
IMO at this point the only reason(s) to continue using Cubase would be if you're using midi and/or want to use a control surface.

drbam
PHATDRUMS wrote on 3/11/2003, 6:56 PM
synths real time control of many more plugins than you get with vegas (many of them free)
vegas is ok simple to use at but least two years if not more behind other serious pro apps and you dont have to be a pro to use them try cubase sx it come a long way
since the version you are using and the ability to link it as the other post says to a hardware control surface with knobs that move or change the progs parameters
is a god send and a merciful realease from the mouse alone these controllers work
with many if not not all companys making their progs apart it seems from
sonic foundry who doesnt seem to think advances in technology are important until they get backed into a corner and are forced to implement changes

iwould have suggested logic but apples buy out has rendered that comment useless to the pc user
oh and if you are serious lets not forget protools not my fave but it is industry standard worldwide and probably the by far the best !
good luck
vegas 4 nice but but way out date honest
JohanAlthoff wrote on 3/11/2003, 7:54 PM
Hm, Cubase / Logic (it still exists on the PC, you know) is better for music work, Vegas is more suitable for audio. I use it mostly for dialogue, sound effects, voiceovers, even some quick-and-dirty music mastering.

But, as others pointed out, if you're gonna make music, use a sequencer. They're better in all ways.
Geoff_Wood wrote on 3/11/2003, 10:24 PM
JohanAlhoff said

"But, as others pointed out, if you're gonna make music, use a sequencer. They're better in all ways."

I prefer real performers myself.....

;-)

geoff
Sari wrote on 3/12/2003, 12:59 AM
Hey PHATDRUMS;

If Vegas is years behind, why are you here ?
JohanAlthoff wrote on 3/12/2003, 2:19 PM
I don't, they smell =)
Rednroll wrote on 3/12/2003, 5:04 PM
"I prefer real performers myself....."

With a sequencer you still need a "real performer". Their skill level just doesn't need to be at Virturoso to get virturoso results. The same thing can be said with "real performers" and audio editing, retakes, cut and paste editing. It's all doable in the "real performer" audio recording editing tools now. I can record at a slower speed, change the tempo and keep the pitch the same, shift notes and hits around....just like I can do in the MIDI/Sequencer world. The only difference is that sometimes you get side effects in the "real performer" audio editing, when you pitch shift or timestretch something. In this day and age, the "real performer"/"sequencer" argument is a mute argument. You can do just as much editing of the performance in both instances now.
stakeoutstudios wrote on 3/15/2003, 5:36 AM
oh for gods sake. Vegas is not specifically behind... it has simply put priority to different features!

How good is the interface in Cubase firstly? it's not. Then, how advanced are the video features in Cubase...

No wait, Steinberg has just been bought by a video editing company!... Now who's behind?

Ok, so Vegas doesn't do MIDI. so what? ACID does. The only major sore point is you can't hook them up together (as well as other apps with rewire), and you can't use hardware control surfaces...

Funny though, the better the interface is, the less calling I feel for a hardware control surface. I can do everything do damn quick anyhow with mouse and keys. I've used hardware control... it's useful if your interface sucks in the first place. Vegas' interface is killer.

Many people are using Vegas in a professional context, including myself.

Ok, in my studio I mostly use live musicians. I can however knock something up in ACID easy if I have to.

I can play Gigastudio instruments into Vegas... ouch, you should hear those sounds.

Ultimately the application is only ever as professional as the person who uses it.

Jason
momo wrote on 3/19/2003, 9:49 AM

I use both VV3 and Cubase SX. Like others have said, the main reason I use Cubase at all is for midi, but ASIO and VST (virtual instruments) is another reason I use it. The ability to use soft synths as well as being able to monitor VST effects on audio in realtime is a big plus on the Cubase side. However, I still prefer VV for straight tracking and audio capture because I know it well and its user interface is, quite frankly, second to none. Cubase has a lot more functionality but the learning curve required to get at that functionality is decidedly steeper than Vegas. I don't mind switching back and forth and exporting data between the two, especially since I just recently acquired a sound card that supports ASIO and provides ultra low latency. However, if you just need to go with one package, Cubase at the very least provides all the goods. Just be prepared to sit down and read a lot of poorly translated German before you're comfortable with it. :)

momo

Jacose wrote on 3/19/2003, 10:02 AM
that is exactly what I was going to sAY!!!! lol
rmjdesigns wrote on 3/19/2003, 11:24 AM
i design systems for many types of studios and have converted many hardcore cubase users with a simple demo and they have never looked back to cubase!
rmjdesigns wrote on 3/19/2003, 11:33 AM
not to mention the vst support in acid!