![]() ![]() I do like the simplicity of Cubasis and the support staff on the forums are good. But, coming from Ableton I missed the clip building in session view. Also, the potential to preform when you have clips set up is nice. So Beatmaker 3 has itself set up for this.Ībleton Link is also a no brainer, so far as I'm concerned and Cubasis 2 does not have Ableton Link. It also means I can be spinning Electro in Traktor with Ableton Link keeping everything in time.īecause the iPad is not stable, having my Macbook running Abeton and having the iPad running BM3 means that if the iPad crashes, I can still keep something going on my Macbook. I was finding that on an iPad Mini 4 I was having to freeze tracks down to audio stems and I was only just getting started on creating a track. So I was worried that when I got something more complex going (as you do when you compose a track) the DAW would really start to get laggy. But I have just got BM3 and I don't know how well it will do as I get into things. Screen real estate is much better on BM3. Some AUv3's actually resize to full screen (I have a midi keyboard, so I don't need the on screen one taking up space). ![]() Cubasis doesn't resize AUv3's when you get rid of the onscreen keyboard. I have no interest in the IAP's in Cubasis 2. I work mainly with Audulus 3, KQDixie, Phosphor 2 and like to use soft synths to generate my drums and keys. I have a large collection of drum samples on my laptop and I will be importing those into BM3. I also like to make samples in Reaktor on my laptop and then import those. However, there are no good AUv3 samplers yet. So you are left with the on board sampler in Cubasis 2. Not a huge fan and that was the point when I decided to get BM3. I also like the simplicity of the graphics in the on board effects in BM3. " Cubasis is better for audio track sequencing (eg working with live instruments and vocals" Now lets address the first sentence again, because it is a common assumption but I think it may be false: No need for flashy faceplates that waste space and clutter up the organization of parameter settings. There is no audio quantizing in Cubasis, so no advantage there. ![]() I don't see what is better about it other than its reputation with traditional guitar type recording (being that traditional rock guys lean more towards simple amp vst's as opposed to ultra deep effects modulation programming. But the thing is, I assumed this when I bought it and I assumed, because of the hideous title - Beatmaker 3 - that Cubasis was better suited to my needs as a person who integrates real instruments into his recordings. So far though, I think that I was very wrong about this. However, I have spent a lot of time over the past few years watching tutorials and teaching myself how to use a DAW and how to mix audio, build synthesizers etc., etc. So if you don't know how all this works, I would suggest maybe going from garageband to Cubasis. You're going to get your money's worth out of it if you just commit to learning to use it, even just to master or trim a track. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |