It’s all carefully thought out, though, so dangers of product cannibalization and feature-bloating are kept in check. A significant chunk of the latter owes to Steinberg adapting functionality from the rest of its flagship software (namely Dorico, SpectraLayers, and Nuendo) to its DAW. The core user interface and its paradigms are not to be tampered with – they are practically burned into the memory of long-time users, approachable for novices, and able to accommodate Cubase’s evolution. Where it falls in price point will determine what those comparisons are.On the surface, Cubase 12 doesn’t look much different. But when it moves from free to "paid for", it will draw new comparisons. There are a lot of other quirky things that you just have to figure out - like you can't solo FX channels unless you specifically enable the Listen bus for solo.Ĭakewalk is a fantastic, extremely flexible DAW. it's a specific type of quick grouping, for something I use frequently. I found in S1 the "select" to solo is perhaps better than what I've been doing. I also don't see the ability to group specific controls - in my CW workflow, I do a lot of group of mutes with solos to toggle tracks. I'm certain more of my time would be spent with the mixer/console open in S1 vs. You can still do this in S1 by creating the envelopes for any specific inserts or parameters and then edit those separately in track view. So - I thought - "why do I need separate" tracks per instrument"? The main reason outside of liking to work in track view, is for automation envelopes. It just simply isn't possible unless you explode the instrument to multiple midis (who wants to edit 12+ different midi tracks for drums), or you freeze to audio. One thing on the multi instrument out Mike failed to mention - while S1 is super easy for mapping the output to busses in the console view, it does not create tracks in the track arranger, which is where I do most of my work in Cakewalk. I'm finding there are just different ways to do a lot of it in S1. I do think mixing will be faster and my layout/structure will be cleaner (really like folders as busses in both Reaper and S1).īut like any switch, there are things I'm used to in Cakewalk. I'm in the process of evaluating Studio One (also looking at Reaper) - and there's a lot I like, particularly the UI which is super clean and friendlier for adjusting views in single screen. ![]() Old code, stability and compatibility with the older versions. In addition they are getting the exact same problems all the older DAWs suffer from. Sure S1 is getting better and is a decent DAW but still not in a league with the big players, though they think they are. ![]() ![]() Don't get fooled by their advertisement and their big mouth □ Studio one is far behind in many ways when it comes to workflow and customisation. Compare the abilities to render out and the abilities to export! Studio one don't has lenses, workspaces and many other features that I'm happy to have in Cakewalk since many years or decades. Also the features are hidden in studio one so you have to search and search. Try to find dimmed solo, compare Cakewalks recording features with studio one's but don't be surprised or disappointed to miss push in/ out or other things. Now, after many years of development it is a decent piece of software that has a few great features but in other fields still don't has the functionality of Cubase or Cakewalk. I have tried it several times and can tell you guys that it was unstable and had a lot of bugs. But they where very aggressive marketing that Software. Presonus came centuries after sonar with a DAW called Studio one and it was horrible for years. Well, comparison between DAWs can be boring or confusing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |