Cubase SX, SL, VST, VST Score, VST/32 whats d diff?

[estregan]

I tried seaching their website but I cant find any info on their differences. A friend of mine recommended for me to use cubase but I dunno which one. Can anyone help me?

[Bag]

SX is the latest and best... it uses a lot of the Nuendo stuff. It HAS to have Win XP or Win 2000. SL is the "Lite" version, meaning it doesn't have all the features. Sorry, but I don't what it lacks. VST and VST 32- same thing -(any version) is the predecessor basically. Still very good, and if you're in Win 98SE land that's your best option. Anything with "Score" means it has the capability to print your music out as a music score, which is not a small thing. You can also edit your music with "real" notation, if you're musically trained.
If you have XP, there's little choice. It has to be SX or SL. I'm using SX myself after having had all the others and I highly recommend it. It's clever and very capable, but the learning curve is steep. Don't expect to just start recording stuff easily straight away. Work out the program and it'll be worth it. The results are smooth and damned impressive.

[heino]

the difference between sx and sl are mentionend somewhere at www.steinberg.net (http://www.steinberg.net) -> products.
i also use sx and the program is awsome!
there is a demo at the steinberg website.

[estregan]

Wow! Thanks for the reply, that's really a lot of help. I'ms still using 98se so I might as well go with VST/32.

Thanks again.

[SoundWrangler]

Just to add to the previous posts (& no sarcasm intended at all) the most important difference is: SX & SL have a future. VST versions don't.

If you're just starting, IMHO you shouldn't waste your time & energy on VST. At most there will be one more maintenance upgrade for it (to support System Link with SX systems); but that's it.

Instead (assuming your CPU is up to the job), buy a big honkin' fast hard drive (which at today's rates costs approximately doodly squat), install a fresh copy of WinXP on it, make sure you have at least 512MB of RAM to be really comfy, & let it rip with SX!

Bag is right. The SX/SL learning curve can be a little steep if you're completely new to all of this. But in many ways the learning curve for VST was much worse, because its interface was so non-standard & needlessly complicated/modal - most of this clutter is finally cleared out in SX.

SX is also more stable (crashes less!) than any VST version. (Haven't worked with the "jr." SL version so I couldn't tell you about that. I know it's cheaper, & might be a good buy-in now, upgrade later strategy for you - however I'm not up-to-speed on the SL features comparison to SX.)

[guymixnyc]

USE SX ONLY!!! don't even try VST or VST32... CRASHES like a hell!!!! all the time.... SX is a diferent thing... more stable! and it records better.... if u want save some money and time buy Win XP PRO and SX... (even this will cost u more now , later you'll save so much time on tuning and reinstalling and etc... then you'll understand what i mean....) SX!!!!

[ALBERTPIKE]

One correction to above -- VST 5.1 can be used with XP. I'm doing it now.
Some questions: Is the interface for SX entirely different than VST? Does one have to start over with SX? Would I have to upgrade my P3 766 (works great) to upgrade to SX? Is there enough difference in audio quality to warrant the upgrade?

[ALBERTPIKE]

Bump!
Anybody with insight into these questions?

[geekboy_Engel]

I use Cubase VST 5.1/32 too. I have a friend who uses SX and there's a diffrence. It's a REALLY nice program. It took me a few days to get use to SX. As for me, I'll wait till SX 2.0 comes out and when I can afford WIN XP.

[pumpkin]

I'm so glad that estregan brought this up 'cause I was wondering about the same thing
I know that SX and VST are totally different thing, but can anyone please tell me is VST 32 the same as VST 5.0?
Like geekboy_Engel, you said, "I use Cubase VST 5.1/32 too.", does it mean that you're using both of them, or is VST 5.1 is the same as 32?

I also saw a online store selling VST 5 and VST 32 for a different price, so I thought that maybe they are two different programs. But I just couldn't find any page explaining the difference between the two. I found a bunch of articles talking about SX, but I don't think I can afford it right now though I have XP.

Any comment?

[+Erik.+]

SX will run on Win 98.

[jecahn]

Jesus! What the hell is going on in this thread?!? Alright, everyone ready? Pay attention now.. First, we'll clear up the false info.

Originally posted by Bag:
SX ...HAS to have Win XP or Win 2000..

Wrong. SX runs quite happily in 98SE. I do it almost weekly.

Originally posted by Bag:
VST and VST 32- same thing...

Wrong again. We'll get to that.

Originally posted by Bag:
If you have XP...It has to be SX or SL. .

Nope, VST/32 runs quite nicely in both XP and 2000 Professional. Although it is no longer supported.

Originally posted by guymixnyc:
..don't even try VST or VST32... CRASHES like a hell!!!! all the time.... .

Not quite true. Rel 5.0 had some quirky stuff that Rel 5.1 ammended. But, to say that it crashes constantly is just not true. Proper, dongled copies work very well.

Ok. Now on to the facts.

Steinberg has (had) several packages running on the "Cubase" chassis. At its most basic, Cubase is called "Cubasis." Cubasis is built around the Cubase 3.0 architecture. It only recorded at 16 bits. It could run 48 channels of audio and 64 MIDI channels. It had only 1 insert and 2 sends from its "board" and a basic, 2 band EQ. It shipped with a limited number of VST effects and VSTi's. New versions of Cubasis are built on the Cubase 5 chassis. Also available is Cubasis Notation which is Score printing software.

Here's where it get's interesting, though. "Cubase 5" refers to release 5 (which really wasn't, but anyway.) Release 5.0 was upgraded to 5.1. If you're able to buy a version of Cubase 5 you're probably getting 5.1. There were 3 versions of Cubase 5: Cubase VST, Cubase Score VST and Cubase VST/32. They all have the following things and number of occurances in common: EQ's, Insert / Send effects, bundled VST extras, stereo groups, graphic based automation, limited internal audio manipulation, unlimited MIDI tracks, MP3 import / export, linear timing. Here are the differences: "VST" and "Score" max out at 72 audio channels. VST/32 can give you 128. Bit Depth: "VST" and "Score" give 16 and 24. VST/32 upped the ante to (shockingly) 32 as well. All packages will dither but I think that only VST/32 let you do it with the Apogee engine. ONLY VST/32 includes "True Tape Analog" functionality. Score Printing: Score and VST/32 provided a "professional" level of score printing ability. VST will print scores but not at the level of complexity of the other 2. So, long story short, VST/32 and VST differ when it comes to bit depth options and track count.

Now, the difference between SX and SL is as follows: professional scoring functions are available in Cubase SX but not SL. Unlike release 5, the mixer section is not the same through both packages: SX has 8 inserts and SL has 5. VSTi slots total 32 in SX and 16 in SL. SX also has an extra de-esser effect and 3 mixer automation modes (touch, X-over and autolatch (SL version will only do touch.) SX ships with full MP3 capabilty and it's an add-on in SL. Lastly, SL will not do "true-tape" recording or 5.1 channel mixing while SX will.

Everyone on the same page, now? Good!


[This message has been edited by jecahn (edited 12-07-2002).]

[pumpkin]

Very clear explanation
Thanks

now I'm thinking about getting either SL or VST (the basic version)
But I don't really know how to choose
What's so different about these two?
And what would you choose?
My OS is XP
It it compatible with VST?
(You mentioned that VST/32 no longer support XP)

[+Erik.+]

i would buy SL over VST. SL is also based on the nuendo audio engine which is superior. XP has proven to be a great OS for audio, in my case.

[bobbyz]

Will Cubase sx read my old Cakewalk files with the extention .wrk?
thanks

[pumpkin]

Hey
Thanks for the advise



[This message has been edited by pumpkin (edited 12-14-2002).]

[pumpkin]

Also, can anyone please explain what this "true tape recording" is?
I searched the phrase at several search engines but couldn't really find the answer.

It doesn't come with SL, so I want to make sure that whether it's something I'll definately need

[jecahn]

True-Tape is supposed to simulate analog tape saturation and it does so using 32bit floating files. To be honest, I was never all that impressed with it. If I want stuff to sound like it was recorded to analog tape, I record it to analog tape. I bought SX when it first came out and for my purposes, SL would've worked fine. I kinda wish that I had waited and used the saved money on plugins.

Personally, I prefer to track my stuff purely digitally and dirty / warm it up afterwards with PredatOHM or PSP's Vintage Warmer if I decide to. Matter of fact, I seem to remember PSP running a special where they'll sell you Warmer, MixPack and StereoPack for $200 bucks.

If the deciding factor for you is whether or not you need True-Tape, I'd say the answer is, "Probably not all that badly." Save your bucks and grab SL if that's what you feel is right.

[pumpkin]

Thanks for the explanation
Now I think I don't really need SX
but the only thing that bothers me is that if you want to save songs in mp3 format in SL, you'll have to upgrade to SX, right?
Is it true that you can only use like 20 times of that mp3 encoding features in SL?

If it's true, it might be a problem for me 'cause I want to post my stuff at mp3.com in the future

Any comment please?

[Cyberjay]

I wouldn't let that put you off getting SL - I always export tracks as .wav and when I need to compress to mp3 I use a decoder.

From what has been said above, SL seems to be your best buy.

[pumpkin]

Hey
Thanks a lot
That's exactly what I neede to know
I'm going with SL
Thanks and Merry Christmas

[jecahn]

Yeah, exactly what cyberjay said. If you're doing this music thing at all you will need or already have a WAV editor. If you have one, you're probably all set with im/export ability. If you don't have one, you can pick up CE2K for $60 bucks and get a lot more than just MP3 functionality.

[gofish]

Can I record more thatn one instrument at a time with the CUBASIS VST version? I am using the TASCAM US-224 system.
How can I record 2 instruments at a time?

Thanks!

[Neil Wilkes]

Just a quick correction.
SX 1.x will install onto 98SE, but is totally unsupported. XP is the recommended OS.
SX 2.x will not, under any circumstances, run under 98SE.
Nuendo 2.x blows them all out of the water. There is nothing in SX that is not in Nuendo.

[grovephil]

Slightly off the original question; With the same I/O hardware does SX sound any better than 5.1? Is there an improvement that can be attributed to software alone? Anyone?