Access Virus & Virus TI community since 2002 Virus TI Infekted

Go Back   The Unofficial Access Virus & Virus TI Forum - since 2002 > General discussion > General discussion about music production

General discussion about music production Discussion concerning music production, composing, studio work, sequencing, software, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 23.07.2004, 09:33 AM
picato picato is offline
Almost Amateur
Almost Amateur
 
Join Date: 30.12.2003
Location: Sweden, Stockholm/Malm?
Posts: 111
Default Does Cubase SX require more computer power than VST 32?

I'm currently running cubase vst 32 under windows 98 which works pretty well. Now I've got the chance to buy some second hand software, including windows xp and cubase SX.
Does anyone have a cue about how much more computer this combination will require? Is there a big difference? Both windows xp and cubase sx seemes to have an better architecture and use computer power more effective though. But yes they are more advanced and bigger programs...

(I've tried the steinberg forum but can't find anything about this topic)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23.07.2004, 11:51 AM
jasedee's Avatar
jasedee jasedee is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 11.12.2003
Location: Northern Beaches - Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,755
Default

Minimum requirements: PC

*Pentium III 500 MHz, 256 MB RAM
*Windows 2000, Windows XP
*USB Port required
*Supports ASIO 2 spec for high end multi channel audio cards
*Supports Windows MME Spec for standard sound cards

The rule of thumb is this: The faster your computer the more simultaneous tracks you can run, and the more plug-ins you can use. The more RAM you have, the better aswell.

SX is a BIG improvement over VST32.......you will love it.

Cheers,

Jason
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23.07.2004, 12:17 PM
picato picato is offline
Almost Amateur
Almost Amateur
 
Join Date: 30.12.2003
Location: Sweden, Stockholm/Malm?
Posts: 111
Default

Thanks. But I already knew that. Maybe I'll have to specify my question a bit...

Will I be able to run as many audiotracks and inserteffects under xp and cubase sx on the same computer? Or will the programs stell a lot of extra computer power, more than win 98 and cubase vst?
I wont upgrade if I'm only able to use for example half as many tracks and effects due to hardware limitations.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 24.07.2004, 07:25 AM
jasedee's Avatar
jasedee jasedee is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 11.12.2003
Location: Northern Beaches - Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,755
Default

Well....Im guessing that the answer is yes, XP and SX combined will probably use up more resources than Win98/VST32..... But I have heard that XP is a far more stable environment than 98, and as I said before, SX is just awesome. If you lose some track count/plug-ins.....it is a small compromise. You will be working far more efficiently and effectively. SX has alot more to offer. And, if you stick to ONLY running audio related software and data (ie NOT internet/word processing/movie making etc..) then you will have a capable system.

Im not much of a pro computer guy, but I think I am correct in my assumptions.....Have fun!

Jase
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 24.07.2004, 10:22 AM
picato picato is offline
Almost Amateur
Almost Amateur
 
Join Date: 30.12.2003
Location: Sweden, Stockholm/Malm?
Posts: 111
Default

Thanks again! I'm currently trying out xp and sx and so far I it works very well! There dont seemes to be a problem yet with how many tracks i can use, neither any greater problems with plugins either.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 28.07.2004, 11:13 AM
Smag Smag is offline
Pro
Pro
 
Join Date: 09.01.2003
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 450
Default

Cubase SX should work at the same level as VST on your PC. They both essentially perform the same operations in terms of recording and playback of the tracks.

SX has a much better user interface, appearance and features and this will just mean that you will require more storage space on your PC for SX than VST.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 28.07.2004, 02:45 PM
picato picato is offline
Almost Amateur
Almost Amateur
 
Join Date: 30.12.2003
Location: Sweden, Stockholm/Malm?
Posts: 111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smag
Cubase SX should work at the same level as VST on your PC. They both essentially perform the same operations in terms of recording and playback of the tracks.
Interesting faq... Sx takes a lot more time to load though, I've just tried. But it don't seemes to require much more capacity of the processor and RAM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 28.07.2004, 04:14 PM
Drammy's Avatar
Drammy Drammy is offline
Forum Saviour
Aged Veteran
 
Join Date: 08.04.2003
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 892
Default

SX1 takes a lot longer to load as it runs checks on every plug-in to test latency allowing it to compensate for the plugins latency. This is the cause of the delay.

On SX2 however, the first time a plug is added to the system it runs this test and then stores the results and only retests when a new plug is added to the system. This results in a much faster load time for SX2.

On my system with about 60 plug-ins (all legit!) SX2 loads in about 6 or 7 seconds!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 29.07.2004, 12:51 PM
picato picato is offline
Almost Amateur
Almost Amateur
 
Join Date: 30.12.2003
Location: Sweden, Stockholm/Malm?
Posts: 111
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martynreid
On my system with about 60 plug-ins (all legit!) SX2 loads in about 6 or 7 seconds!
That sounds amazing! I must ask, what computer do you use? I'm expecting a Pentium 4 2,5 Ghz with 756 MB RAM to arrive next week. Hope that will do... My currently load time is about 40 seconds
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 29.07.2004, 12:58 PM
jasedee's Avatar
jasedee jasedee is offline
This forum member lives here
This forum member lives here
 
Join Date: 11.12.2003
Location: Northern Beaches - Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,755
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by picato
I'm expecting a Pentium 4 2,5 Ghz with 756 MB RAM to arrive next week. Hope that will do... My currently load time is about 40 seconds
I would highly recommend upgrading your RAM from 756 to minimum 1.5-2.0 GHZ......And also run two hard drives.....one for your OS and apps, and the other for your audio.

The amount of RAM you have will have a big impact on the speed that calculations are made.

Cheers,

Jase
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need specs for new computer Old Vantaa Man Studio equipment 3 18.05.2007 02:19 PM
What computer system do you use... theMusicMan General discussion about music 9 02.05.2007 04:02 PM
Yay, got a new computer..! 3o3 Off topic 1 20.08.2006 06:44 PM
Can i use 2 TI`s on one computer ? Multimode27 General discussion about Access Virus 13 05.12.2005 07:49 AM
I got my new computer today 3o3 Studio equipment 50 20.12.2004 03:43 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Skin Designed by: Talk vBulletin
Copyright ©2002-2022, Infekted.org