EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 58, Issue 09 This issue's topics: cakewalk pro,, cubase, pro4, (10 messages) WinJammer (2 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 00:50:55 -0600 From: Mark Swann Subject: cakewalk pro,, cubase, pro4, ive heard from a few people that cakewalk pro,, which prints also,, is great,,, but,, also heard that cubase (same price, 350$) is lots better,, however cubase does not print... ,, and that cakewalk pro is really an amatuer program.. anybody out there that has seen demos? svann ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 10:02:20 -0800 From: Doug Wellington Subject: You said: >ive heard from a few people that cakewalk pro,, which prints also,, >is great,,, but,, also heard that cubase (same price, 350$) is lots >better,, however cubase does not print... ,, and that cakewalk pro >is really an amatuer program.. anybody out there that has seen >demos? svann Well, that message sounds pretty provocative to me! I have used both Cubase and Cakewalk. Cubase, while being great on other platforms, (Mac, maybe Atari?) is not very good under Windows. Expect Cubase to crash at least once per session, sometimes more. Stay away from operations that affect large areas of a score. Also, you can pay extra and get Cubase Score, which has printing capabilities. One really nice feature of Cubase is the drum editing grid. (Doesn't make up for the other problems though...) Cakewalk, on the other hand, is almost bullet-proof. I have never been able to crash it. Cakewalk also has a scripting language, CAL, that lets you do almost anything you can think of. Neither Cakewalk nor Cubase is an "amateur" program, although they can be used by amateurs. Bottom line is, like almost everything else with computers, it is a religious war between the different programs. You can get demos of both programs and judge for yourself. FTP to FTP.UWP.EDU and look in the directory /pub/music/programs. Oh yeah, Cubase only works with 386 and above... (Another reason I'm sticking to Cakewalk. It works on all of my computers.) -Doug Music Supply and Repair Service 2710 N. Paseo Tierra Verde Tucson, AZ 85749 USA (602) 760-0425 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Nov 1993 16:35:15 EST From: Bill Mclaughlin Subject: Re: cakewalk pro,, cubase, pro4, hi, i haven't seen a demo but i have cubase running on a mac -the basic version doesn't print but you can get "cubase score" for about $150 more that does have full printing capabilites. em or keyboard magazine did a review a few months ago i think, anyway they said itwasn't as good as finale but better than performer- it's more for someone into sequencing than ultra serious notation work. i personaly think cubase is the best sequencer for the mac- but what do i know ??!!- see ya ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 03:49:58 EST From: Paul Pizzi Subject: Cakewalk, Cubase etc... > i personaly think cubase is the best sequencer for the mac- > but what do i know ??!!- see ya well, that depends very much on the type of music you write. Cubase is a very good sequencer for pop music, with its drum page, easy arranging features etc. But if you're into something that's not 4/4 at a steady beat or if you need truly professional sync capabilities the only product that really delivers is M.O.T.U. Performer (or "Digital Performer", if you'd like to play with digital audio as well). I find the combination Digital Performer 1.4 + Finale 3.0.1 to be the best available for sequencing and scoring creative music or soundtracks. Don't shoot me: it's just my personal opinion and not everyone is eager to fo rk out almost $1,500 for those. =============================== S S S PAOLO PIZZI S S Time Elapsed Art Music S S Los Angeles - U.S.A. S S S S -----------------------------S S S S email: S S pizzip@aol.com S S pizzi@delphi.c om S S 72772.234@compuserve.com S S S =============================== - Patria est ubicumque est bene (Pacuvius) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 21:20:48 EST From: Bill Mclaughlin Subject: Re: Cakewalk, Cubase etc... good point(s) - especially the money, a few things cubase does well besides the drum map- first, i really like the graphical arrangement of musical parts which are very easy to cut, copy move etc, i also like the mixer - i use it not only to control each track but i also am starting to use it to control patches, etc, the other thing i like is the interactive phrase synth, which composes new music- interactively and simultaneously based on a predetermined phrase , plus new input - all modulated like on a synth - the results (with practise) can be very interesting and musical. -one last thing is the score display and edit- that was the main reason i picked cubase over vision- my second choice - and very popular in studios here in the nyc area- some perspective: before cubase i used a brother hard disk recorder -aarrggghhh! the lonesome id ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 00:20:53 -0600 From: Mark Swann Subject: master trax pro vs. cubase would anyone like to try to convince me which sequencer is better? cubase or mastertrax? Ive heard cubase is more 'intuitive' and master trax is moreof a polished workhorse type,,, Ive read thbrochures,, cant tell a lot of difference except the phrase synthesizer on cubase looks interesting,, Im not including the fact that mastertrax does not print in the comparison at this point. oh well, its back to the phone calling the software companies! sometimes I wish i was not such a meticulous buyer. svan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 22:41:30 PST From: James Hedberg Subject: Re: master trax pro vs. cubase I've been using Pro5 for a few months & can answer some of the basics, but it would be helpful to know what exactly your expectations are (ie. what are you trying to do!?!). -Jim > > would anyone like to try to convince me which sequencer is better? > cubase or mastertrax? Ive heard cubase is more 'intuitive' and master > trax is moreof a polished workhorse type,,, Ive read thbrochures,, > cant tell a lot of difference except the phrase synthesizer on cubase > looks interesting,, Im not including the fact that mastertrax does > not print in the comparison at this point. > oh well, its back to the phone calling the software companies! > sometimes I wish i was not such a meticulous buyer. svan > -- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 00:53:05 -0600 From: Mark Swann Subject: Re: master trax pro vs. cubase jim,, pro5? I guess that is the new one,, the brochure i have is mastertrak pro4.. windows.... what Im wondering is,, do all the 'word processor' type manipulation abilities in pro4 ,,,, also show up in cubase? that is,,, being able to change tempo every measure,, ccutting out musical phrases for saving,, or creating other songs,, what i need from a sequencer is total tempo flexibility,,, for rather experiemental audio work (cant think of a category) i realize this is a tough question unless a person has used both programs,, and,, even the salespeople Ive talked to, that specialize in midi,, havent used both of them,, still looking tho.. on master trax,, can you see the actual musical staff? the brochure does not show sucha screen, only piano roll, etc,, thx,, svann. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 23:03:22 PST From: James Hedberg Subject: Re: master trax pro vs. cubase svann, > pro5? I guess that is the new one yup! > pro4.. windows.... I'm running on a MAC (PowerBook). what Im wondering is,, do all the 'word processor' > type manipulation abilities in pro4 ,,,, also show up in cubase? I don't know. :( > what i need from a sequencer is total tempo flexibility,,, Yes, MT Pro5 is very _tempo_ flexible. > on master trax,, can you see the actual musical staff? No, there's no musical staff. I thought that might be a drawback at first, but I don't miss it at all now that I'm used to the program. I am not interested in printing charts or lead sheets tho, so if you are - beware. -Jim Note: Just a general comment - I like Pro5, but I haven't had much experience with other stuff, so I don't have anything to compare to. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 02:05:48 -0600 From: Mark Swann Subject: Re: master trax pro vs. cubase ok jim, thx for the info,,, svann, I dont think i could do it without a staff,, prob spring for cubase ,, off to the store! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1993 23:08:36 +22305606 From: brickman jonathan Subject: WinJammer Hello all. I would greatly appreciate it if any users of WinJammer would be so kind as to write me. I have some questions about functionality. Or, of course, if public discussion is desired, that'd be welcome too... ||Jonathan E. Brickman brickman@acc.wuacc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 00:48:31 CST From: FA19000 Subject: Re: WinJammer > Hello all. I would greatly appreciate it if any users of WinJammer > would be so kind as to write me. I have some questions about > functionality. Or, of course, if public discussion is desired, > that'd be welcome too... > ||Jonathan E. Brickman > brickman@acc.wuacc.edu I'm interested in knowing how WinJammer compares to commercial programs such as MasterTracks Pro. Janice Saffir ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************