@Dietz said:
Alex - without knowing you personally (which is a pity, actually [:)] ...), I'd say you're better off with Cubase 4. AFAIK Sequoia doesn't offer any serious scoring tools, and the implementation of virtual instruments is not as streamlined as in Steinberg's new products.
As a matter of fact, Cubase 4 is based on Nuendo 3, so most (if not all) of the goodies form my favorite DAW will be available in its former "little brother", for a fraction of the money.
Plus: Cubase / Nuendo has always been cross-platform, so you have the freedom to use the OS of your choice.
... and as far as the "technical" side of Nuendo is concerned: I think it is a good reference for the program that almost the whole (very challenging) production of the upcoming Vienna Konzerthaus Organ was done with this software.
All this is my private opinion, it does not necessarily reflect the "official" point of view of the Vienna Symphonic Library as a company.
Dietz, for what it's worth i share your view. It's a pity more of us don't meet each other. If i get to Vienna rest assured i'll drop in and say hello.
Cubase, hmm. I confess to a couple of things here. I used various incarnations of cubase over a number of years with all the baggage of frustration, lack of communication from the company and various other issues along the way. So in a way, i guess i'm a little biased against Steinberg. Having said that, my most stable setup was Cubase 3.5, and it did earn a Euro or two for me, so although i'm sceptical, i won't bite off my nose to spite my face, so to speak.
But in the research i'm doing, i've discovered some pretty sharp features and a potential for a easier workflow in other programs too. Now you will guess, because you're most certainly no fool, that i'm getting set for building a new setup, and provided the Russian Government decide they like me, and allow me to reside and work here more permanently, then i'm almost ready to push the button. So the choices are obviously important. There's quite a few here that use samplitude, sonar, etc. and not so many using logic or cubase/nuendo, at least in the modest circle of people i know. (and quite a few that used Acid too)
And it's also worth saying that i've almost given up on getting a DAW with a strong, reliable, and easy to use score component, so i've adjusted my working method to exclude this requirement from my list of needed features. And that means i write first on parchment (i know, i'm terrible old fashioned), input in midi, then bounce and work with the audio files. So a program of choice doesn't neccessarily need to have a score component at all. That leaves the rest of the package.
I'm doing more work that requires me to write to finished product, including to picture, so those components are now more important. (My regular supplier of work, a decent fellow called Kirill, was astonished i put music together in an aging laptop, with all the bouncing, etc, to deal with. He finds it amusing.)
Thanks for all your help. The information is valuable for me, and i respect your opinion, particularly in the post process, an area i'm driving myself to learn more about, in what is now a neccessary, and rather steep learning curve.
Interesting that you've enthusiastically taking the opportunity to mention your viennese organ again! [[:|]]
Regards,
Alex.
[:)]
