Yup, that’s right, I’m thinking of moving back to Cubase.. I can still get back to it with the modest $200 upgrade cost.. it looks like.. …so I’ve been sorta evaluating the new version: Cubase 5. The last version I worked on was Cubase SX3… so its a few versions beyond…

Comparing Cubase with Digital Performer

I haven’t really been on Digital Performer, in a serious way, for all that long.. lets say a year maybe.. So I don’t really fully understand DP… and DP is.. arcane in places.. I’ll give you a for instance…

DP gripes

Workflow and the Arcane 

In Digital Performer.. you have two modes a plug in can run under.. ( I wasn’t even aware of this till the other day ).. one way is the new fangeled way… err, don’t even remember what they call it.. but essentially DP will render out what’s on a channel.. into an audio file.. and swap stuff around.. in order to save on CPU loads.. This is a groovy thing.. of course.. but seeing as my main computer has 8 processors in it.. it’s not a feature I actually need.. and the negative of this operating mode is that it can cause some plugins to go unstable.. which would explain a lot of the frustration I’ve had on recent projects.

The other mode is a “real time mode” where.. well.. plugs work in real time.. here things are stable..

But.. you know.. DP is a strange beast.. on mix down.. according to something someone said in a forum.. you have to separately mix down real time plugs.. Why? And um.. further more.. ReWire.. only works in real time.. and is a pain in the freaking ass.. at least in my experience.. to mix down via DP… which means Ableton Live and Reason.. in my case.

It may very well be that all this makes sense once one gets a little more advanced then I am.. but for me.. it’s just a pain in my butt.. 

Effects 

Why yes, it is true.. DP does come with a number of effects..  but how many of them would I use if I had a choice? Umm.. probably Master Works EQ, MW Limiter, Proverb, Delay, and the Master Works Leveler, are the effects I’m regularly given to using.. out side of that there’s a few that are ok.. but after that the rest are rather crapy.. and those that are good are.. not really all that exciting.

Instruments 

Frankly.. if you are the sorta person who uses virtual instruments.. or is interested in such things.. Digital Performer is NOT good enough unless you invest in other instruments. They are not wholly without merit… they are just.. well I turn my nose on them anyway.

[editors note: None of the DAWs out there, really, come with instruments that you’d want to be limited to using.. the point is Matt almost never uses and of the instruments in DP] 

Beyond all that

I’m not really sure what I can say about DP.. I feel as if… well I’m not as good with it, as I need to be, to really judge.. there’s a lot of things I don’t like about DP… and I think a lot of it is just where I stand on the learning curve… I’m slow with it.. not as productive as I like.. I find myself fighting the tools.. which has got to be some sort of an issue.

Onto Cubase

Effects

It’s a little hard to talk about Cubase’s effects as I haven’t really used them… but I’ll give you my presumptions anyway… and mind you I’ve been using cubase since.. I want to say version 3 or 4? That is way back in the OS 9 and earlier days! So.. I know my way around a bit…. and some of the older, more legacy effects, I do indeed know.

EQ

My impression is that DP’s Master work EQ probably beats out Cubase as far as EQing for color is concerned.. but then I don’t know really.. [Editors Note: Its pretty safe to say you want one good transparent EQ, and then as many for color as you can afford, so you probably wouldn’t rely on the EQs that come with you’re DAW, at least not entirely ] Cubase has 4 EQs.. one of which, the channel EQ, I have used before.. What I like about it is its just there.. as a part of every channel.. you don’t have to bother adding a plug in.. and I just sorta like that design better. I really like the user interface to.. good for making EQ adjustments. I also like that Cubase comes with a graphic EQ.. well actually 2 of them.. as sometimes.. don’t just want to work with a graphic EQ instead of a parametric?

There’s also a high pass low pass filter with resonance.. which to me could go under the EQ category.. this is probably where we are talking about color… but I have nothing to judge on.

Compressors and Dynamics

Cubase offers basically 3 Compressors… what looks like a standard compressor.. a multi band compressor.. and a vintage compressor. [editors note: In compressor speak, vintage usually means color.. and are often modeled off of one or another “famous compressors” again, you probably want lots of color orientated compressors]

What I will tell you is DP has a multi band compressor.. that I don’t much like using.. and there leveling amplifier.. which counts as a vintage compressor.. (though it does have “modern” modes to) I’ve generally liked the interfaces of Cubase’s compressors better..

Beyond this Cubase ships with a number of dynamics shaping effects that Digital Performer lacks.. including transient shaping, expander, and maximizer.

Distortion

DP has one distortion unit and.. well.. it leaves much to be desired.. its ok in one mode.. but try and push it hard and it turns into.. well.. bad sounding crap…

Cubase has DaTube.. which.. it’s not the best thing in the world.. but you know.. its not terrible.. for adding a certain sorta warmth… I actually kind of like it more then I would usually admit.

Since I’ve been away from Cubase, it looks like Cubase has added an amp simulator, tone boost, distortion, and soft clipper… some of which might be old stuff with redesigned interfaces but.. at the very least its more options then you ever got with Digital Performer.. and I’m guessing its better.. well.. it is a low bar to be better then but… and some of Cubase’s offerings in this department are purely for color.. and you know.. can never get enough of that sorta thing.

Reverb

Cubase offers 2 reverbs… really.. room works.. an algorithmic type reverb and a new convolution reverb. The convolution comes, by default. .with stuff that will give you the sounds of various speakers and analog gear as well as reverb sounds.. which… is more then you get with DP.. though I understand you can load, if you can find them, such things into DP’s pro reverb.. and I understand its not too difficult to find… but ether way, I think Cubase has to have the leg up.

I can’t say much about this room works.. accept that I was happier with Cubases reverbs when I left Cubase.. then I was DP’s reverbs.. when I went to Digital Performer..  so again.. points to Cubase.

Delays

It looks like Cubase has this area going on a little better then DP..

There’s lots of other stuff.. but I’ll leave it here, as this is sorta what I care about.. so.. onto instruments.

Instruments

Its hard to say much about Cubase’s Instruments without using them.. I’ve never been big on Cubase’s instrument.. but tend to like them better then Digital Performer’s.. And my impression, admittedly based of marketing materials.. is that Cubase wins this area by a land slide.. though.. it doesn’t have too much of a bar to get over.. and I’m certainly intrigued by the newer stuff.

But do I really care?

In my studio is Komplete, Kore 2, Omnisphere, Reason, Ableton Live, the Audio Ease all in Bundle.. and a bundle from VirSyn.. plus Cantor… oh yeah, and Native Instruments Machine plus Liquid Mix, never mind Melodyne…

My point is that the quality of built in effects and Instruments.. when looking at a DAW, is not really the most important thing to me…. as the level of stuff in my instruments and effects plug in library is several orders of magnitude better then what I could possibly expect to find in a DAW.

I love having lots of options, so I look forward to having a new set of options.. but it’s not as if I’d actually be relying on them or anything.. well.. unless they turned out to be surprisingly good… and I do think there’s some chance of that.

Other things

I prefer the way Cubase works with surround sound mixing.. I prefer the way it works with ReWire.. I have a lot more experience with Cubase.. so I expect to be more productive and to produce better work.. I hate the dongle key Steinberg forces on you.. and I hate there tech support.. and the way there company treats me.. It seriously feels like, from time to time, that they are penalizing you for paying money for there software instead of using pirated copies..  and not only that.. but in there videos where they explain there new features.. they have the balls to suggest offering a 9 week demo on another product of there’s constitutes “a feature.”

..Though they do, apparently, offer you the upgrade from the demo for “a special price”.. which.. I don’t know.. if the price is good enough.. the other product is actually quite good according to reviews.. it being there sampler.. I mean its no Kontakt but.. it does offer a good sample library.. and that combined with it’s Cubase integration.. probably makes it worth something to me.

Other odd thing is they only support sample rates up to 98kHz? Umm.. why? DP def wins that one out.. though I usually only work at 44 kHz because liquid mix’s instance count goes down once you go beyond 48 kHz.. so.. it’s not something that’s normally an issue for me.. but still!  

I kind of have the impression.. and I couldn’t easily explain this to you.. that digital performer is a lot deeper then Cubase.. and that much of my frustration comes from not having yet mastered those depths.. That MOTU, Digital performers developers, seems to treat me better.. and are not insulting in there marketing material.. is a big deal to..

Oh yeah.. um… just the way Steinberg uses hyped up marketing language..  I mean..  

1. Stienberg has always been an innovator in a lot of ways.. but they also have a habit of putting out lemons.. throwing at you VST instruments that suck ass.. that get repealed in the next version.. or two versions into the future.. and then sometimes they repeal stuff you actually like! So when they’re hyping it.. telling you how golden it all is.. you kinda look at them like “um.. what’s that smell?”
2. A lot of the features.. they hype as if to say “look how freaking innovative we are with these wonderful new features” when the reality of the matter is that in many situations they are playing catchup with there competition.
3. They have no credibility.. just because of how much they hype.. you get the feeling they are targeting new users whom are new to music production and kinda.. don’t yet know the ropes.. and are sorta trying to take advantage of you on that front.. where as with MOTU and DP.. you feel like they sorta care about you.. there customers.. And it may be interesting to compare this with a company like Ableton where you feel like “wow, these guys are really hip.”
4. Please Steinberg.. don’t try to convince me you got the best stuff since sliced REX –I mean bread.. Anyone with a brain knows there’s pros and cons to all the DAWs out there.. all I want from you is.. well I’d like information that didn’t feel like manipulation.. tell me, “what’s the virtues of you’re product in the current technological climate?” ..and do so honestly.. you know “authenticity?”

A light speed look at other DAWs

To be honest.. if I were to buy a new DAW.. and was starting from scratch as far as investing in stuff… I’d be looking Logic, Ableton, and maybe Reason… The one really stand out feature of Cubase is that it’s cross platform. .which means.. if you’re a Mac Guy.. you can also boot into windows and use Cubase over there.. with software that doesn’t run on the Mac..

My sense of DP is that its strong suit really lys in.. well.. post production.. working with Film..

Ableton’s biggest strength is just.. creative composition process.. but it’s super weak in terms of conventional sequencing.

Reason, of course, doesn’t do anything with recorded audio.. it’s basically a virtual instrument work station.. totally modular.. or pretty close to totally.. all be it a closed modular system, right? It’s very good.. emphasis on simple.. a few weaknesses here and there.. but very good..

Logic.. I couldn’t tell you.. I think it’s biggest strength is all the content it comes with.. loops, samples.. its effects and instrument library.. I think you can’t beat it for the price.. it probably has other places its strong to.. Although I must say, fooling around with it in an Apple store not to long ago.. I wasn’t all that impressed with the effects it came with… seems like it could use some updating.

I can’t really speak to Cakewalk on the PC.. but I hear good things.

FL Studio.. if you’re on the PC.. and if you do electronic music.. I think it’s pretty much a must have.

Pro Tools.. ProTools is a standard in a lot of places.. and if thats important to you.. I’d go that route.. but.. there’s much I don’t like about it.. just that its a closed system.. and I really want to choose my own control surfaces and audio interfaces… its expensive.. and.. I have no idea why I should even consider Pro Tools.. oh.. and not only that.. but you have to be very careful about updating your OS with Pro Tools.. it has some strange conflicts with Avid of all things.. 

Some final reasons I’m considering Cubase

I have a lot of old projects produced in Cubase.. many of them being very good I think.. all be it with some flaws.. the ability to go back into them.. fix the flaws.. well.. that could really make all the difference.. and probably makes it worth a lot more then $200 to me. 

Indra’s Net, is of course some music I made some years ago.  I find myself showing it to people, listening to it, and reflecting on it.  It’s not my latest work, that would be Zar Matt A Thustra’s Deep Space Adventures.  Indra’s net is probably more representative of things to come inso far as ZarMattAThustra’s Deep Space Adventures was rushed to be put together..  and is..  more experimental, and made with different tools on a weaker computer.  Though I imagine my next work will be something of a combination of the positives of these things.

Of course you can find both CD’s for free by clicking here.  And I invite you to comment back here your thoughts on it.

Indra’s Net is a crazy piece of work.  It’s ambient electronic music of a sort unlike anything you’ve heard before.  (Which is not to say that it is without aggressive moments.)  It takes you into these alien worlds.. places unlike any place you’ve ever been to before.  It is a hypnotic trip of the mind.   

In the story of my work it represents a huge step forward from my Viveka project (which you can currently only hear parts of, for free online) in that it is a quantum leap forward in terms of the tools I was using.  At least in terms of the digital instruments, Indra’s Net is uncompromising.  But the full breadth of what they are capable of was not realizable on the system I was using.  

And this is what brings me to the day dreams about a new project:

1.  On the old system you had limited processor power.. and one of the places this effects is your ability to create an ambient space inside of which the music happens.  Reverb tends to be a computationally expensive effect, especially convolution reverb.  A part of making a mix, that sounds like it has a lot of depth, will involve creating multiple layers of reverb, sometimes EQ’d and compressed in different ways.. where instruments are placed into those spaces in varying degrees.  For the sort of work I’m doing you’d see these instruments and sounds moving in and out of those spaces.  Some of the tracks on Indra’s Net have very little of this going on due to how much power the instruments took up.
2.  Because you have a very limited amount of power you tend to be very judicious in how you place effects on instruments..  I suppose this goes with #1.  The implication is that stuff doesn’t always get crafted as much as you might like.
3.  I have a lot of new tools.  I think most of Indra’s Net was done with Komplete 2, and I’m at least on 3 now, plus Kore.   Some of the software of Komplete 3 wouldn’t even run on the old system, never mind run well.  In addition to this I’m now working with new versions of Reason (Reason wasn’t even used on Indra’s Net) and Ableton Live.  So this represents a huge kind of technological leap forward.. particularly when used on a system that can handle all this.

So all of this represents an evolution in the production tools.  Beyond this we also have me at a much more sophisticated place in terms of my production and mixing skills, and there are certain point in the Indra’s mix that I’m not 100% happy with.

Latter that day:

As I sit here writing this, I wonder what is likely to come.  We are days away from MacWorld where new equipment is likely to be unveiled.  If the Mac Pro line gets a bump I will surely buy that, other wise there’s at least some chance I might go with the new Mac Pro.  I’m currently in the process of doing research into the various tools I’m working with to see what sorta multi core support they might have, to get a feel for what difference a Mac Pro might mean to my work.  Is a Mac Book Pro “good enough?” What’s the power difference between a Mac Book Pro and a Mac Pro look like?

In my mind Mac Pro = uncompromising power.  Uncompromising power = Amazing possibilities.  But what’s in my mind, and what exactly might be real are probably two distinct things.  I have a will to ‘kinda sorta over do it.’  What I’d like to do is plop down another $450 for the Komplete 5 upgrade, and then another $700 or so for Liquid mix, and go from there.  But spending that sorta money isn’t sanity, even if it would do wonders for my work.  It would make sense if some label came up to me and offered me some sorta contract that including some sort of an advance, or it would make sense if I had some kind of income going on, but for the moment, we must hold back.

It’s ok though, because we are talking about something amazing without even going that far, so let us try to explore some this:

Conventionally I have a limited number of instruments I’m able to work with at anyone time, as well as a limited number of effects.  While this is still to be the case, the limitations are no where near so stringent..  Which means we can enter into more complex soundscapes.  Imagine if you will..  a complex arsenal of sounds.  This is a production process that would take a good deal more labor per second of audio then Indra’s Net..  But imagine you have all these sounds.  Just because it leaps into my mind, imagine you have an orchestra.  Given, this is a somewhat limited orchestra, but imagine its there.  Our orchestra is playing something..  The composition has complex interrelationships of performance dynamics, to such an extent that it can remind you of a real orchestra playing the great classical music of a great composer.   Not only this but our orchestra is a microtonal orchestra.  There is an expressive quality to the music, that as a result of the microtonalism, simply makes us feel as if we are in a world with a greater tonal fidelity then anything we’ve heard before.

Ok great..  Now imagine it really sounds like we are in a real concert hall.  But that’s not all.. Imagine the music is a 5.1 Surround Sound Mix, and we are in the middle of the sound.  The orchestra is, in mix engineer language, on a virtual sound stage in front of us.  It sounds more or less real, and we are captivated by it.  This until the reality goes too far:

Somewhere behind us, somewhat faintly in the background, we being to hear the whispers of a conversation.  Out of this conversation emerges a fight.  All the people around the fight are great disturbed by the fight, by it getting in the way of hearing the performance, and then before we know it, security is called in.  Imagine, if you will, that this was something like an audio play.. something you weren’t really expecting.  We, after all, thought we came to listen to the music!

The next thing you know we are following our fighting couple as they get thrown out of the hall.  So that the 5.1 Mix takes us through the crowd, and out side..  As we travel out, the orchestra moves further away from us..  and the acoustic space of the where we are, changes to suit where we are..  And there’s a suitable level of sound design to reinforce all this.  The sound design is a kind of composition.  A composition that plays with the ambiguity as to wether we should interpret it as noise, sound design, or composition… but tries to be read, if you’re reading superficially, as the sound of the environment.

Now what of these characters we are following, what’s there story?  Hell, what’s our story, why are we following them?  

Out side on the street we can hear cars driving buy, often with stereos blaring.  Each one represents a different sonic cluster, should we call it.  Another words the stereos superficially mimmic different styles of music..  metal, hip hop, whatever. And in a Charles Ives sorta way, as they move around in space.. there music links up with each other..  so that we might hear as a kind of whole.. Wizing around the streets… as we move through the streets.

Ok, lets stop this right hear.  I don’t know that I would ever try to make music like this.. It at least sounds interesting on the level of an idea, but who knows what happens when we try and execute it.  One of the ideas I think of as I write about it is the idea that we could have a range between realism and formalism.  Another words, at what point do the sounds sound real, the space sound real, like we are really in it..  And then at what point is, as if on some sorta acid trip, melt into some other reality?  The other reality was there all along after all, just masquerading as a more conventional reality.  Perhaps the music is an investigation of metaphysical presumptions, or perhaps the unconscious in everyday life?

What I’m describing to you is sorta how my music works..  Though we are not normally in settings that sound so… specific or like a known reality.

One thought I had while imagining this was “what if we scored the story?”  Another words, ok, you have an orchestra over there, and then you have this fight over there, and then we are over here, and all around us are the people of the audience.  What if we scored these stories.  How might the orchestra react to this going on in its midst?   

A few latter:

I don’t know that that story really describes where I really see my music going.  Technology is really only one small part of it..  And in the end its more about creativity and ideas.

Do you mind if I speak with some arrogance?  If you’re reading this you probably fall into one of two camps:

 

1. You never heard of me in your life.
2. You’ve met me, but don’t really know too much about me, or about what sorta work I might do.

Depending on the camp you fit into..  Well I have no idea…  and you might not be coming from a place where what I’m doing makes any sense..  I mean I think there are some people for whom my work clicks, and others for whom it doesn’t.  I’m afraid that what I’m about to say might sound terribly arrogant to the first group..  

I think this music kicks ass.  I think it kicks ass on a level that is far beyond conventional ass kicking.. I mean I think we have a certain set of expectations that we have of work we find in our culture.. a range if you will.. at the top of which is “kick ass” and I think this stuff is a little off the charts. 

So far I’ve blogged very little about my music..  Not really enough so that you’d really get deep into what its really all about..  Hell I haven’t blogged too much at all yet.  I’m just trying to get used to blogging via wordpress..  out in the open.  But I promise you this.. if you stick with me..  I’ll show you some serious ass kicking like you never saw before.  I know from the surface it might not look like that at all.. like you could expect such a thing.. but trust me..  beneath the surface, tucked away in a secret compartment somewhere.. are the tools of ass kicking.  Right now I’m just sorta fooling around..  but soon… shit will fly!

LOL which still doesn’t get at it, ha?  But to really get to it is going to take a lot of blogging on my part. We are going to have to explore a lot of different subjects together.  I have some idea.. a kind of philosophy.. lots of people have there philosophies.. and I don’t know if I can really call my self a philosopher or not..  but I have some amazing ideas.  I have ideas that could change the way you think.  I have ideas that could open you to whole new worlds.. whole new ways of experiencing life.  These are my gold.  And with them I hope to knock your socks off.