Page 2 of 2

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:23 am
by nexis
Go with the Pro Q 2. Here's something that can make the deal even sweater... On top of the holiday sale they are running right now, I can get you an additional 10% off! Just PM me your email and I'll send you a personal code. No, I don't work for them, but if you end up making a purchase, I too will get an additional discount! I have my eye on their new reverb!

nexis

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:39 am
by In_Stereo
jose7822 wrote: I wished Steinberg would go back to be innovative like they used to and stop trying to compete with 3rd party plugin companies. They're not gonna win, EVER! Just focus ALL development on the DAW itself.
YES! I agree with this 100%.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:11 am
by Musicalkat
Well, thanks everyone one for your replies. I appreciate your input.

I have decided to sit Cubase 9 out and go for the FabFilter bundle. I'm sure Steinberg's new EQ is awesome, but the Pro-Q 2 is going to be a better fit for me on my current aging set up.

Thanks again...

Kat :)

Raphie wrote:Ofcourse I compared them, what makes you think I would post uneducated statements?
ProQ and DMG stuff have been demo-ed by me many many times. I had H-EQ, but sold it.
ProQ was even on my xmas list this year, but xmas came early.
We can sell Waves plugs?? I would love to get out of some of mine....I know there's a hefty fee if the plugin was more than $700 and the plugins needed to have an active WUP.....(yikes, mine haven't). How did you go about that?

EDIT: Actually, just checked and a few of mine are still covered under the WUP. H-COMP, H-DELAY, Element 2.0, Metafilter....right, time to look into selling!

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:46 pm
by Raphie
just paid the fees and took my losses.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:46 pm
by LarsErik
I want to be buried with my Pro-Q2. There, I've said it, feels good to that that off my chest.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:30 pm
by Raphie
That's fine, you'll need to let your undertaker know your storage preference though :lol:

But ProQ2 is all good gents, more features, more bands, full screen.
All I'm saying is, that if 6 bands are plenty and you don't use any of the bells and whistles not in FreqQ, you've got a damn nice EQ and no further need for PRoQ2.
IF you already have ProQ2 and love it, by all means, enjoy it and be happy :D it's not a contest

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:06 pm
by jimknopf
In_Stereo wrote:
jose7822 wrote: I wished Steinberg would go back to be innovative like they used to and stop trying to compete with 3rd party plugin companies. They're not gonna win, EVER! Just focus ALL development on the DAW itself.
YES! I agree with this 100%.
And I diagree 100% with both of you.
I want a DAW which delivers everything I need for recording and mixing, like Logic does for Mac users. And I want to regard all other investments into fx plugins as purely optional, just for pleasure, taste and additional boni, but NOT as a basic necessity.

The FrequencyEQ is a good example: with the old EQ, it was close to a necessity to look for alternatives, but with the new one it's definitely no necessity at all, just an additional option. That's exactly the way to go from my view.

Just saying, to state that your views don't have to be common views at all.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:21 pm
by In_Stereo
jimknopf wrote: Just saying, to state that your views don't have to be common views at all.
Of course they don't! It's just our opinion, and of course every opinion is valid. It's impossible to satisfy everyyone... I don't envy Steinberg in that way. :)

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:44 pm
by jose7822
jimknopf wrote:
And I diagree 100% with both of you.
I want a DAW which delivers everything I need for recording and mixing, like Logic does for Mac users. And I want to regard all other investments into fx plugins as purely optional, just for pleasure, taste and additional boni, but NOT as a basic necessity.

The FrequencyEQ is a good example: with the old EQ, it was close to a necessity to look for alternatives, but with the new one it's definitely no necessity at all, just an additional option. That's exactly the way to go from my view.

Just saying, to state that your views don't have to be common views at all.
Cubase already has EVERYTHING you need to compose, record and mix music. Even the old EQ was good enough to get the job done. That said, there will always be better alternatives offered by 3rd party plugin companies because that's ALL they do. They don't have to split development with a full featured DAW.

Steinberg is simply wasting resources trying to compete with these plugin companies instead of investing that time and money into developing the core functions of Cubase. That's what they need to focus on, in my opinion. Yeah, they upgraded the EQ and made it easier to use. But I already own a bunch of EQ plugins that are even better and offer features that the new Frequency EQ can only dream of. For that reason, I won't be using it (nor do I use a lot of the plugins Cubase comes with).

I'm sure anyone who's been doing this long enough feels the same way, since they already have their own arsenal of 3rd party plugins (and hardware) they use regularly.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:30 pm
by Fabio Bartolini
The point is to provide a DAW which includes a complete set of plug-ins. Which is a must. And to satisfy the requests of expanding StudioEQ and provide M/S and Linear Phase. I perfectly see that most have other EQs already, this is my just-recently-stripped-to-the-core collection
EQ.png
(17.46 KiB) Not downloaded yet
Certainly the point is not competing with 3rd party plug-ins developers which would be completely worthless and stupid. Especially stupid would be to provide the SDK for free and then not wanting them in the business - many of us here are actually customers of plug-in makers. Understandably, close to no-one is going to use Cubase only with the included FX and VSTi... most musicians and technicians want alternatives (I want to have at least two different processors doing the same thing - problems with one, even temporary? Use the other-s)

And again, no resources are 'wasted' or taken away from Cubase, as it is developed by different people.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:43 pm
by ColinPark
I was very glad to see the new EQ because I like what it does, and now I don't have to go with FabFilter. This means I save time and money, and I get to keep my DAW a little simpler. I use 3rd party plugins only sparingly because I don't want to make the sysadmin of my DAW any worse than it has to be. There's so much to do as it is.

I agree with Ralphie about concentrating on learning a smaller number of plugins.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:53 pm
by jose7822
Fabio,

What I meant by you guys "wasting resources" is that, instead of investing on a separate team dedicated to plugin development, why not invest that time and money (resources) on Cubase itself? You'll gain more man power into making the core functionality of Cubase even better.

Cubase has had the bread and butter stuff covered for years. It's time to focus ALL development into the DAW itself, in my opinion. In your own screenshot you have just proven my point that most of us already have an arsenal of 3rd party plugins that we use. We already have plenty of plugins to work with. The people who will benefit the most from the stock plugins are mostly new comers to the DAW world. I'm sure most of them would not even know how to use M/S processing, or when to use a Linear Phase EQ.

BTW, im not trying to insult anyone here. But the fact of the matter is that, most people working with DAWs professionally, or even semi-professionally, already have their go-to toolset. The new comers will eventually get there but, in the mean time, they can still take advantage of the many offerings found in Cubase which will enable them to produce great music. That's basically what I was trying to convey :-).

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:21 pm
by Jack Burtons Truck
Counterpoint: I have almost all of the UAD plugins plus a bunch of other third party stuff, plus a good bit of outboard, and I still use the Steinberg ones all the time. Hell, the built-in Channel EQ is the first thing that all of my tracks hit for some light buffing of the junky frequencies. I, for one, want to see these continue to be developed.

Don't knock cuz it's stock :lol:

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:26 pm
by djw
I like the bread and butter plugins to be modern and competent. Too many people think that a DAW means having to buy a million plugins just to do basic mixing. Good built-in stuff will push less people down that path.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:53 pm
by Winter Rat
jose7822 wrote:Fabio,

What I meant by you guys "wasting resources" is that, instead of investing on a separate team dedicated to plugin development, why not invest that time and money (resources) on Cubase itself? You'll gain more man power into making the core functionality of Cubase even better.

Cubase has had the bread and butter stuff covered for years. It's time to focus ALL development into the DAW itself, in my opinion. In your own screenshot you have just proven my point that most of us already have an arsenal of 3rd party plugins that we use. We already have plenty of plugins to work with. The people who will benefit the most from the stock plugins are mostly new comers to the DAW world. I'm sure most of them would not even know how to use M/S processing, or when to use a Linear Phase EQ.

BTW, im not trying to insult anyone here. But the fact of the matter is that, most people working with DAWs professionally, or even semi-professionally, already have their go-to toolset. The new comers will eventually get there but, in the mean time, they can still take advantage of the many offerings found in Cubase which will enable them to produce great music. That's basically what I was trying to convey :-).
110%!
I think that a rare pro user would not switch to Cubase from another DAW because of lacking of plug-ins of any kind.
Nowadays all Cubase need is a perfect workflow. One can buy a substitution for any of SB's plug-in but I will never find a plug-in which let me freeze multiple tracks etc...
Newcomers (not pro's) are newcomers ;) SB just has to claim that Cubase has all they need to make music (and it's true) and they will believe.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:41 pm
by jimknopf
djw wrote:I like the bread and butter plugins to be modern and competent. Too many people think that a DAW means having to buy a million plugins just to do basic mixing. Good built-in stuff will push less people down that path.
That's exactly the point. I want a basic set of really up to date plugins (and no, the old EQ and others were NOT up to date any more), neatly integrated into Cubase for immediate workflow. My experience with the endless flow of alternatives over many years has been, that apart from a few real goodies I return to, I have wasted MUCH too much money, and even more time, on endless choices between third party plugins, instead of concentrating on songriting and recording with a small set of tools I know really well, and get satisfying first results on the spot.

So nowadays my main priority has become much more concentrated and simple again: to get a basic mix, before even touching any of the possible alternatives for fine tuning. To me as keyboarder this is a much more musical approach than the widespread, toy-like plugin overkill gambling from so many self acclaimed "pros". All real pros I ever met have a really streamlined, focused workflow - in sharp contrast to the tool-drunken "I wanna have it all and use it all" fraction.

So no, the basic set of Cubase plugins should not at all be a lame set of second rated extras, which Steinberg could just as well drop, or leave like ten years ago! Just the contrary: it should be and become even more an essential and integral part of the DAW for immediate, well known workflow (like in Logic), before all other options of bringing in additional possibilities and flavors.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:03 am
by jose7822
No one said you can't get professional results with the included plugin set Cubase comes with. In fact, I said the opposite in my posts. What I did say is that most people who've been doing this long enough already have a good plugin collection and, because of this, Steinberg should divert resources spent developing their stock plugins into the core of Cubase. Yes, you can get professional results with the stock plugins. But there's no denying that a lot of 3rd party plugin companies are way ahead in their respective areas.

Anyway, I said what I wanted to say. Now I'm just repeating myself :-).

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:38 am
by Jalcide
I'd have been a bit more excited about the new EQ if its GUI had been integrated into the console channel.

Like Cubase does with some other tools. And how both Sonar and Studio One do even better, in a more free-form, flexible manner.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:54 am
by djw
Jalcide wrote:I'd have been a bit more excited about the new EQ if its GUI had been integrated into the console channel.

Like Cubase does with some other tools. And how both Sonar and Studio One do even better, in a more free-form, flexible manner.
I also hope Frequency will become integrated into the MixConsole in one way or another.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:30 am
by greggybud
Hopefully someday there will be a developer of a professional DAW for...professionals..and every day users.

The DAW will cost a lot. Much more than any other DAW.

It won't have any processing that comes stock. All VST's and VSTI's can be purchased from 3rd parties who usually "do it better" sometimes much better. I love ProQ2. But I also love Massenbergs MDWEQ5 for surgical EQ. Different tools for different tasks. Let the 3rd parties compete with each other and let the DAW developers focus on the core functions of the DAW.

The DAW will be fully integratable and customizable. This means you order the DAW with a custom SSL, API, Harrison or whatever you choose as the GUI mix console, and whoever else is willing to work with the developer of the DAW. I would hope Waves and UAD would be candidates.

You want Melodyne/Autotune then custom order it. Same goes for Score.

So the developers can devote their time toward the actual core functions of the DAW. No Mac, and probably strict requirements for the hardware build. Far less bugs than any other DAW. The best workflow...and by the way it's a DAW for desktop...not laptop. That alone eliminates a lot of workflow headaches and compromises. No need for zones when you have enough real estate.

It will have just as easy or even better export/import than ProTools.

It will have human technical support 5 days a week. No emails, no support tickets...just someone who answer the phone and solves the problem or elevates it. Sort of like the old fashioned Maytag man.

It won't be available at Guitar Center and no LoopMash...ever. Leave those things for the other DAW's to fight the race to the bottom.

That is my dream.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:40 am
by djw
greggybud wrote:That is my dream.
This post is my nightmare.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:56 am
by Jalcide
greggybud wrote:The DAW will be fully integratable and customizable. This means you order the DAW with a custom SSL, API, Harrison or whatever you choose as the GUI mix console, and whoever else is willing to work with the developer of the DAW. I would hope Waves and UAD would be candidates.
Agreed. And this sounds a bit like the 3rd party integration in both Sonar and Reason (Sonar's channel modules and Reason's rack extensions).

Although, in both cases, I'd prefer if the GUI were designed entirely by a core team with consistent vision.

Reason, being the best at this, imo. They have a relatively strict graphic standard and suggested UI guidelines, but some of the vendors' stuff veers from it and is a bit fugly.

I don't see this replacing plugins or stock plugins, but as add-ons that tightly integrate into the host (just like Sonar and Reason do).

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:55 am
by jose7822
greggybud wrote:Hopefully someday there will be a developer of a professional DAW for...professionals..and every day users.

The DAW will cost a lot. Much more than any other DAW.

It won't have any processing that comes stock. All VST's and VSTI's can be purchased from 3rd parties who usually "do it better" sometimes much better. I love ProQ2. But I also love Massenbergs MDWEQ5 for surgical EQ. Different tools for different tasks. Let the 3rd parties compete with each other and let the DAW developers focus on the core functions of the DAW.

The DAW will be fully integratable and customizable. This means you order the DAW with a custom SSL, API, Harrison or whatever you choose as the GUI mix console, and whoever else is willing to work with the developer of the DAW. I would hope Waves and UAD would be candidates.

You want Melodyne/Autotune then custom order it. Same goes for Score.

So the developers can devote their time toward the actual core functions of the DAW. No Mac, and probably strict requirements for the hardware build. Far less bugs than any other DAW. The best workflow...and by the way it's a DAW for desktop...not laptop. That alone eliminates a lot of workflow headaches and compromises. No need for zones when you have enough real estate.

It will have just as easy or even better export/import than ProTools.

It will have human technical support 5 days a week. No emails, no support tickets...just someone who answer the phone and solves the problem or elevates it. Sort of like the old fashioned Maytag man.

It won't be available at Guitar Center and no LoopMash...ever. Leave those things for the other DAW's to fight the race to the bottom.

That is my dream.
I like your dream, except I think there needs to be support for Macs and laptops. Also, bread and butter stock plugins need to be present (just not a focus to where they feel like they HAVE to release a new plugin every year). Otherwise, this DAW sounds exactly like what I've always wanted too.

To this day, I still don't get why most DAW developers don't just focus on making the core functions of their software as robust and stable as they can. Also, the one year development cycle just isn't enough to accomplish much. It makes the product feel rushed, which I'm sure is usually the case.

Another thing I would add, is frequent updates ala Reaper. A team dedicated to make sure that the most critical bugs are fixed in the current version before moving on to the next. Every feature needs to work as advertised, and when it doesn't, it gets fixed immediately. That's why this DAW will cost more but, at the end of the day, people using it don't have to worry about not being able to use their favorite feature due to it being either broken or half baked. All of the features in this DAW will be fully realized before release. The developers then just need to fix any remaining bugs.

If I had the money, I would hire developers to create this dream DAW.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:29 am
by Raphie
I like the idea of a framework, but i work predominantly with outboard, a SSL Sigma and Avid Artists.
I would cringe if I had to chose one of waves, harisson or Slate guis as my console :lol:
Cubase is fine as it is gents, the included plugins do the trick and if you want to use 3rd pty toys you can do to.
It's a bit strange to call 3rd pty plugins more "professional" it's all just maths and juice routines.
And I personally HATE with a passion, gui's that try to look like outboard. It's a PC, it needs an agnostic PC interface. Not some kind of "3D mockup" of a faceplate.

To get back on topic, that's what guys as fabfilter and Valhalla understood very well, don't to look like real gear, just pick an ergonomic interface.

Re: Cubase 9's new EQ - A question to FabFilter Pro Q 2 owne

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:06 am
by Fabio Bartolini
Needless to say, this went way off topic. The OP already made a decision, and this is just going downhill to arguing.
Before closing it, let me say I pretty much dislike this recent trend of criticising everything including the company structure and use of human resources - which is an ill-informed opinion if you don't actually know the workgroups' details.

Let's consider for a moment as legitimate the request of moving work-force from the plug-in set to Cubase from the practical / technical point of view. What would happen in a hypothetical short/mid-term is this:

-- Discontinuation of the plug-ins set
-- Removal of the channel strip
-- Discontinuation of retro-compatibility
-- Discontinuation of support for all but projects created with the latest version, running on the latest and subsequent versions (when this 'split' occurs).

Gains: assigning one more person to the teams coding Cubase (which would barely notice the difference, given the size and the work-force assigned).

This will be my very last post about non-technical stuff.