Help me compare S1 6 and Cubase Pro 13

Midi to audio track transform is probably my favorite feature of studio one. And it's definitely more perfect than the freeze track feature. You can easily do all kinds of editing with audio transform, and when necessary, you can return it back to its original state with midi transform. I don't understand why they haven't brought this feature, which allows you to work with such performance, to Cubase yet. Freeze track feature is history now!

I absolutely can't stop using Cubase or Nuendo, but if I had the chance to switch to Studio One just for this feature, I would do it in a heartbeat.

r-sd said:

Hello,

I plan this week end to intensively evaluate the two and make my choice. Any suggestion of things to try, from strong adopters or any of the two, is super welcome. Here is a few things I m thinking about writting this

- Ease between navigating from main view to midi view. Multi midi view when editing.
- Midi articulation management, midi quick things with edits, CC lanes, transposing, etc....

-Exploring a lot the browser to the right in S1 and in particular the preset management system. Hoping to see an equivalent in cubase.

Thank you !

Click to expand...

To answer your questions directly:

-Cubase's MIDI editing is vastly more advanced than Studio One. The multi-view in Cubase 13 just got a vast upgrade that puts it ahead of any DAW, not just Studio One. Now, Studio One is no slouch either, but for really advanced filtering/multi-editing/customization and selection filters and/or presets for chord editing, note selection within chords all the way to per note attribute articulations and the range tool for both notes and velocity and CC-ranges, Cubase beats every DAW. And I am not even talking about the Logical Editor as well. This however depends on how deep you need to go. You might not need this functionality at all. In fact, for some people, it slows them down!

-The browser in Studio One pales in comparison to the Mediabay. The first is a browser, the other one is an actual database tool. No comparison in depth, actually. Do you need a database tool? That's the question. Also, Studio One has a better track preset system that also remembers routings/sends/busses and even creates them if they are not already there. But Cubase's Mediabay is a lot more feature heavy in terms of organisation and filtering. Cubase can remember routing and sends with presets too, but only from Track Archives that are not within Mediabay. And this is important: Cubase has more functionality, but it's also more scattered sometimes.

Outside of your question: I love Studio One, but found out I am a heavy large template used in conjunction with Vienna Ensemble Pro. I use Nuendo instead of Cubase, but for this it shouldn't make a difference.

If you need large templates (1000 tracks or more) Cubase is your only option. Studio One can't do this, period. I love the track preset system in Studio One, in theory. In practice, I don't work that way.

Studio One is faster and leaner on the surface level. Cubase stays stable at extremely high load with high track counts, sends, returns, multi-level bussing and all that. In that regard, Studio One cannot compete at all. But the question is, do you need it, and how do you work?

Like presets rather than a large template? More ad-hoc in the moment thinking? On the fly improvisation and go with the flow workflow that keeps you in the loop? Go Studio One.

Like everything organised and deeply integrated with one another with complex routing and advanced functionality? Slow, methodical cooking of music in complex systems rather than on the fly? Go Cubase.

I can't compare them clearer than that. Cubase is less lean than Studio One because it can do a lot more. That lack of lean (although they have been hard at work on this at Steinberg) in Cubase might put you off.

I don't want to work without Nuendo/Cubase, but I can see it's flaws. But for me, Studio One has greater flaws because of no large templates and less complex editing. At first glance, however, Studio One is faster. Which might do it for you, or not. I like the above comment about the way Studio One can go between audio and MIDI: that's certainly powerful. I however don't need it because of VEPro: I never have to freeze, no matter how large the project. Without VEPro, this would probably be a different story.

The big thing for me is how Cubase stays snappy under very heavy load; no other DAW does this (not even Reaper). It is specialized in that. Studio One isn't. Don't go over 300 tracks. Thank me later.

This is so helpful thank you.

Here is a little more context. My approach is, partial template, that inclues 30% of the tracks with the instruments loaded ( and purged) as they are almost always needed ( core strings art, core brass, core percs etc...). Obvisously the foldering, parenting, all routing and verbs etc... are part of the template.
For the rest of the instrument tracks, with the hybrid scoring in mind, not a strategy I want to embrace to have it all ( or event mostly) there. Projects will require these or those ethnic plucks/bows/winds, this or that amount of hybrid synth, texture instruments, etc... Same for percs that would go insanely busy if I had all or even most options in a template.
The idea of 1k tracks is a stretch for me, but 300 + is definitely not a strech. So I m taking this in consideration. The track preset I found interesting bust mostly for the instrument all setup in contains. Seeing how the media bay seems to be a massive beast that includes plugins presets, with this amount of customization for the categorization etc... This is insabely attractive for me, and connects with another thread I have going on on the forum asking how people are managing their owned libraries. I am definitely going to stretch test this this weekend.
Thx again

Crossroads said:

To answer your questions directly:

-Cubase's MIDI editing is vastly more advanced than Studio One. The multi-view in Cubase 13 just got a vast upgrade that puts it ahead of any DAW, not just Studio One. Now, Studio One is no slouch either, but for really advanced filtering/multi-editing/customization and selection filters and/or presets for chord editing, note selection within chords all the way to per note attribute articulations and the range tool for both notes and velocity and CC-ranges, Cubase beats every DAW. And I am not even talking about the Logical Editor as well. This however depends on how deep you need to go. You might not need this functionality at all. In fact, for some people, it slows them down!

-The browser in Studio One pales in comparison to the Mediabay. The first is a browser, the other one is an actual database tool. No comparison in depth, actually. Do you need a database tool? That's the question. Also, Studio One has a better track preset system that also remembers routings/sends/busses and even creates them if they are not already there. But Cubase's Mediabay is a lot more feature heavy in terms of organisation and filtering. Cubase can remember routing and sends with presets too, but only from Track Archives that are not within Mediabay. And this is important: Cubase has more functionality, but it's also more scattered sometimes.

Outside of your question: I love Studio One, but found out I am a heavy large template used in conjunction with Vienna Ensemble Pro. I use Nuendo instead of Cubase, but for this it shouldn't make a difference.

If you need large templates (1000 tracks or more) Cubase is your only option. Studio One can't do this, period. I love the track preset system in Studio One, in theory. In practice, I don't work that way.

Studio One is faster and leaner on the surface level. Cubase stays stable at extremely high load with high track counts, sends, returns, multi-level bussing and all that. In that regard, Studio One cannot compete at all. But the question is, do you need it, and how do you work?

Like presets rather than a large template? More ad-hoc in the moment thinking? On the fly improvisation and go with the flow workflow that keeps you in the loop? Go Studio One.

Like everything organised and deeply integrated with one another with complex routing and advanced functionality? Slow, methodical cooking of music in complex systems rather than on the fly? Go Cubase.

I can't compare them clearer than that. Cubase is less lean than Studio One because it can do a lot more. That lack of lean (although they have been hard at work on this at Steinberg) in Cubase might put you off.

I don't want to work without Nuendo/Cubase, but I can see it's flaws. But for me, Studio One has greater flaws because of no large templates and less complex editing. At first glance, however, Studio One is faster. Which might do it for you, or not. I like the above comment about the way Studio One can go between audio and MIDI: that's certainly powerful. I however don't need it because of VEPro: I never have to freeze, no matter how large the project. Without VEPro, this would probably be a different story.

The big thing for me is how Cubase stays snappy under very heavy load; no other DAW does this (not even Reaper). It is specialized in that. Studio One isn't. Don't go over 300 tracks. Thank me later.

Click to expand...

I, 1000+ percent agree and concur on all points written above...

Crossroads said:

To answer your questions directly:

-Cubase's MIDI editing is vastly more advanced than Studio One. The multi-view in Cubase 13 just got a vast upgrade that puts it ahead of any DAW, not just Studio One. Now, Studio One is no slouch either, but for really advanced filtering/multi-editing/customization and selection filters and/or presets for chord editing, note selection within chords all the way to per note attribute articulations and the range tool for both notes and velocity and CC-ranges, Cubase beats every DAW. And I am not even talking about the Logical Editor as well. This however depends on how deep you need to go. You might not need this functionality at all. In fact, for some people, it slows them down!

-The browser in Studio One pales in comparison to the Mediabay. The first is a browser, the other one is an actual database tool. No comparison in depth, actually. Do you need a database tool? That's the question. Also, Studio One has a better track preset system that also remembers routings/sends/busses and even creates them if they are not already there. But Cubase's Mediabay is a lot more feature heavy in terms of organisation and filtering. Cubase can remember routing and sends with presets too, but only from Track Archives that are not within Mediabay. And this is important: Cubase has more functionality, but it's also more scattered sometimes.

Outside of your question: I love Studio One, but found out I am a heavy large template used in conjunction with Vienna Ensemble Pro. I use Nuendo instead of Cubase, but for this it shouldn't make a difference.

If you need large templates (1000 tracks or more) Cubase is your only option. Studio One can't do this, period. I love the track preset system in Studio One, in theory. In practice, I don't work that way.

Studio One is faster and leaner on the surface level. Cubase stays stable at extremely high load with high track counts, sends, returns, multi-level bussing and all that. In that regard, Studio One cannot compete at all. But the question is, do you need it, and how do you work?

Like presets rather than a large template? More ad-hoc in the moment thinking? On the fly improvisation and go with the flow workflow that keeps you in the loop? Go Studio One.

Like everything organised and deeply integrated with one another with complex routing and advanced functionality? Slow, methodical cooking of music in complex systems rather than on the fly? Go Cubase.

I can't compare them clearer than that. Cubase is less lean than Studio One because it can do a lot more. That lack of lean (although they have been hard at work on this at Steinberg) in Cubase might put you off.

I don't want to work without Nuendo/Cubase, but I can see it's flaws. But for me, Studio One has greater flaws because of no large templates and less complex editing. At first glance, however, Studio One is faster. Which might do it for you, or not. I like the above comment about the way Studio One can go between audio and MIDI: that's certainly powerful. I however don't need it because of VEPro: I never have to freeze, no matter how large the project. Without VEPro, this would probably be a different story.

The big thing for me is how Cubase stays snappy under very heavy load; no other DAW does this (not even Reaper). It is specialized in that. Studio One isn't. Don't go over 300 tracks. Thank me later.

Click to expand...

/endthread

This is really what it comes down to. I am a heavy Cubase user, but there are plenty of things to bother me about it. So anytime an update for Studio One rolls around, I run the trial to see if I'm missing out on anything. It's pretty, it's clean, and it DOES have some innovations over Cubase. But it does not have the depth. Yet. With Cubase, I can be pretty certain that when it comes to MIDI, there's nothing I can't do. And every update they have at LEAST one feature that reminds everybody why they're the OG. This time for me it was the multi-part key editing. Last time it was the MIDI Remote. While Studio One is spending resources catching up, and doing a great job I must say, Cubase is living in the year 3,000. The GUI though... maybe 2007.

Just to clarify: I have used various software extensively. I know by heart and head Cubase, Nuendo, Digital Performer, Studio One, Reaper, Reason, Ableton and Bitwig Studio (yeah I had lots of GAS and too much time once).

I started on Reason. I still have a soft spot for it even though I can never use it for what I do now. It got me into music, and for that I am eternally grateful to Propellerheads/Reason Studios.

Ableton and Bitwig were never serious contenders. I was just curious. Needless to say I liked neither, but that's me and my needs rather than that those programs are bad in any way.

Digital Performer sucks on Windows. Period. Buggy piece of crap. Apparently on Mac it's wonderful. I believe that. On Windows, stay away as far as possible.

But to get back to the point:

It took me some time to find MY workflow. Which after extensively trying every way of working, I found to be everything inside VEPro. It's not about efficiency, by the way. Systematical working allows me to be less distracted and be more to the point in my creativity. I love building systems as well. Something with ADHD (diagnosed for real, by the way).

I thought as someone with ADHD that I would be all over the whole spontaneous in the moment freedom of working thing. Turns out I need rules and guidelines. Systems. Otherwise, a lot happens but not much productive. It's ironic but it's real. I don't like systems in a philosophical way but I need them.

The only DAW I ever see myself moving towards is Reaper. But that one first needs to get a lot of user scripts as native before I do (Reaticulate/Julian Sader's Multiscript among others). That or Studio One. Maybe one day. But not yet.

It is difficult because I love what Studio One does and how it impacts the DAW world. They have such brilliant ideas (DAWProject, ARA, going from MIDI to audio and back, built in macro-knobs, multi-instruments, the splitter, macro toolbars, FX that turn offline when not used even without VST3). Lots of brilliant stuff.

Plus, it is such a breath of fresh air. Cubase and Nuendo have so much clutter! It is getting better, but by around version 8 it wasn't pretty!

However, there are core things Cubase/Nuendo still do better. Stability at high load is crucial. All the ways to filter/edit MIDI. That ungodly good Mediabay. It's mixer (especially since 13) is too good. That channel strip and the way it works is such a workflow boon! Four mixing consoles (if you work with multi-level bussing, from 1) instrument returns to 2) group busses to 3) FX returns to 4) stems you will understand why this is a thing). Integration with Halion, Groove Agent Spectralayers, Sampler Track and now Wavelab. A whole ecosystem that runs like a dream!

One more thing to consider: Steinberg's ecosystem is wonderful, but seriously expensive. It is deep, and thus requires serious studying time. Studio One's ecosystem is cheaper, but also really good value! It's subscription price even is really serious value!

Also, I said don't go over 300 tracks. 400/500 should be fine too. Just don't go near 1000+. Yet. I hope Presonus gets this fixed, as well as OS level gui handling (Cubase's secret to snappiness) and background saving. And I hope they fix that goddamn low latency monitoring, because I have said a thousand times, it is broken!

Presonus have gold on their hands. A real competition to Cubase. I hope they take that seriously the coming years. They might just overtake it if they keep pushing in the right direction.

However, OP, what matters is what you need. Complex software comes with, well, complexity. Cubase is technical. Are you technically minded? Maybe yes, maybe no. Find out what works. Demo them, and be honest with your own needs before you spend 500+ euros on something that doesn't work for you. Important is that you observe yourself without judgement. Half of Hollywood might work a certain way, but if you get there differently, so be it. Use that.

Creativity is hard work, but should also be fun! If you find you don't have fun, seriously look at why. Does the program help you, or does it impair you? Is it a matter of learning it better, becoming more fluent, or do you really not like it? Important distinction right there!

r-sd said:

Hello,

I plan this week end to intensively evaluate the two and make my choice. Any suggestion of things to try, from strong adopters or any of the two, is super welcome. Here is a few things I m thinking about writting this

- Ease between navigating from main view to midi view. Multi midi view when editing.
- Midi articulation management, midi quick things with edits, CC lanes, transposing, etc....

-Exploring a lot the browser to the right in S1 and in particular the preset management system. Hoping to see an equivalent in cubase.

Thank you !

Click to expand...

Like others mentioned don’t get carried away with superficial things.

What is your goal? Are you approaching each tool with fresh eyes and unbiased?

I would suggest try writing in one and then repeat writing in the other. Only by focusing on your goal which shouldn’t be learning a daw rather than accomplishing your creative work in the most entertaining but also resonating and challenging way only then you’ll succeed going beyond the honeymoon phase. #maytheforce…

dylanmixer said:

With Cubase, I can be pretty certain that when it comes to MIDI, there's nothing I can't do.

Click to expand...

Yes. Every time I stray away I come back and it feels so much easier. But I also have a touch screen set up with Cubase to make it really quick to navigate.

dylanmixer said:

The GUI though... maybe 2007.

Click to expand...

Lol also yes. But after using it for a bit...I actually like its old utilitarian look. Used to use Logic as main DAW for ~10 years and now its almost...too nice looking after becoming used to Cubase lol.

But overall Cubase is just really flexible in terms of MIDI editing, visibility configurations, etc. and yes it is also very snappy when working with many tracks as others have stated. A pleasure to use in my case.

Really interesting things, thx again everyone. Quickly mentioning here because I see it, but the .musicloop thing in S1 ??? Saving a little file in your "library" that contains the track, the instrument, and the pre-auditioning... I mean, wow. Among all the things that have been mentioned here, the ability to have browse your instruments library content fast and efficiently is very important for me.
I can definitely see my self in S1 building this up. I have to stress test this this week end

Roses and Cubase are Red
Violets and Studio One are Blue
The only DAW with a sound is Mixbus,
even if it's based on Ardour

Let the above sink and you'll find a final answer.

If articulation switching is important to you you'll find out soon that Expression Maps in Cubase suck ass so hard it's painful. In S1 however it works fast and sleek in comparison. I t was one of the main reasons why for most things I switched to S1 and I feel good about it.

Honnestly, Based on the 5 Days I juste spent exploring S1, I dont think I m going to go ahead and even try Cubase in depth. S1 is checking just too many boxes for me. I cannot believe how fast I got it under control. I have composed a little piece with so much ease over the week end and monday.
The things that are maybe little, but makes it the one to go to for me as of now

- The tracks views, and especially the track heights management, such a breeze to bring it to super micro in a millisecond. The whole drag everything everytwhere philosphy is just too good.
- The musicloop presets. Now that I know about it, I cant imagine working any other way than saving any instrument preset I tweak into these types, with the audio playback when browsing for presets. This is too good.
- The track types feels better to me, more connected to audio realm. Aux, FX, Buss. The routing feels intuitive too me.
- The GUI is pretty.
- This is the right amount of tools out of the box, and the right amount of what macros can do. And I love how these are sperated. You can live outside of macro, and macro buttons brings them into you editor, IF you wanna see them and play with them
- The project system with recall to the .song from the mastering page works very well, I want to try to adopt this.

I'm a Studio One user, but I always tell people to just try the demos and force yourself to use it for a week. You'll definitely know which one you prefer afterwards.

the scratch pad is something ill never consider living without, also.

SimonCharlesHanna said:

the scratch pad is something ill never consider living without, also.

Click to expand...

The scratch pad is the one thing about S1 that I do dearly miss.

Just to clarify, I have only used Cubase.

I guess the OP does not value the Control Room much? Choice really comes down to your objectives not only for today, but how or even if you evolve into other features in the future.

sweeperxx said:

Midi to audio track transform is probably my favorite feature of studio one. And it's definitely more perfect than the freeze track feature. You can easily do all kinds of editing with audio transform, and when necessary, you can return it back to its original state with midi transform. I don't understand why they haven't brought this feature, which allows you to work with such performance, to Cubase yet. Freeze track feature is history now!

Click to expand...

I realize the following isn't nearly as slick or feature-rich as S1 transform by your description.

The following could be streamlined slightly with a Import Track Preset however I think this gets overlooked in C13 for recording sound out of a midi instrument direct to audio, or even play those midi parts through a VSTI and record in audio..or even do both at the same time...

What I'm really trying to say is that contrary to what everyone said 25 years ago...you don't necessarily need to "play midi and record it the traditional way."

skip to 7:52

Thanks Chris. It saves me writing a lot of steps!

Again, not the same as S1, but IMO this method appears to be a bit overlooked in Cubase.

For me, freeze was great 15 years ago, but today I never use the function because of advanced technology, my genre which is hardly ever over 200 tracks, and a never-ending little voice that suggests I should be a bit more committal just like in the old fashioned days.

As to why it's not a current feature, my guess is money, the usefulness of freeze feature among the very different user groups of Cubase, and the existing Cubase environment which is much older than S1.

Out of curiosity, how many users here use freeze in any project and if so, how many instances?

Steinberg does listen. Often, it depends upon their own research as well as short and long term road maps and how and when something fits in. I think a good example could be...Expression Maps improvement.