If Steinberg would rebuild Cubase from the ground up (which is what they SHOULD do IMHO) and make it WAY more CPU friendly (and stable) then I'd give it another go.Īs for midi, what do you actually need? For me, cut the track, edit the part, and be done with it!īack in the day, we had no choice but to punch a track and get it right. I couldn't hardly get anything done with Cubase 5 since the CPU was the main reason I switched. "My daw always wins at everything." contest mode, Reaper only ever wins that particular comparison if you cherry pick.įreal! For me it's Cubase CPU and now (from what I hear) more crashes. "Does Reaper get the job done efficiently enough for you?" If it does, who cares?įor those in the perpetual. "Is Cubase a better midi sequencer than Reaper?" It is. It may literally be the best midi sequencer on the planet. FFS, they've been at it for over 30 years. there likely is no more powerful midi sequencer than Cubase. For Christ sake, it has like 7 different midi editors. The comparisons are only valid if you omit things. Reaper - with it's exceptional scripting - can duplicate most of it, but it's a chore and the workflow is not quite the same, and with Cubase it's all built in already.Īside from that, Cubase's midi editing is (or can be) 100% virtual, you can edit anything from anywhere, without splitting, chopping, etc, etc. Comparing Reaper to Cubase for midi sequencing and editing is often a flawed discussion because most of the people making the comparison aren't really aware of everything Cubase allows.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |