S3: Cuebase vs ProTools options
 

Hi All,

I'm another one considering purchasing a S3, but with some unique considerations. I have read this forum, and now seem more optimistic once I got past March posts. Would appreciate any advice as I proceed.

Background: Although my pro audio experience was in the 1970 to 1990's, I now consider myself as an enthusiast. About 7 years ago, I discovered video production, and currently run Avid media Composer 8.3 with the Artist Mix and Transport.

It occurred to me that it would be nice to have 16 faders while working with audio inside media composer (I record multi track audio for music event video) ... so I considered the S3. But, I would also like to replace my old Mackie control boards supporting Cuebase 6.

It is clear I will upgrade Cuebase or switch to ProTools, but here is where I could use some sage advice.

Cuebase is attractive because it works with my digital I/O (win 7 PC with RME cards attached to Apogee D/A and A/D). Plus my legacy projects are in Cuebase format.

Also, posts by J-S-Q encourage me that Cuebase is not out of the question, even with the windows XML still unreleased.

ProTools is certainly an option assuming I can confirm that I can get my old RME based I/O to work with it.

Assuming the S3 operation is more optimized for ProTools than Cuebase, should ProTools be an overwhelming choice, or does the S3/ EuCon support Cuebase basic operation without endless frustration?

Also wondering if someone can confirm the S3 is currently stable with Media Composer 8.3.

Anyway, thanks to all who posted to this forum. It is a valuable track record of the S3 development and opportunities.

Re: S3: Cuebase vs ProTools options
 

I'm a bit busy right now but I'll try and make a more detailed reply some time soon.

A couple of quick things I can say about Cubase and the S3 (I don't use Pro Tools so I can't tell you about that)...

1. I used to own Mackie Control Pro's and the S3 is FAR better with Cubase.

2. The lack of XML files is really a non-issue. As far as I understand it, these files just give you a pre-programmed set of soft keys. This is something you can do yourself anyway in an hour or two (and it's highly likely you will want to change the particular functions Avid choose to assign to the various soft keys anyway).

3. Generally integration with Cubase is excellent. I could be wrong but as I understand it, Eucon originally worked with Cubase before it worked with Pro Tools. In some respects it's actually better than Pro Tools. For example, you can make custom parameter maps for your plugins so you decide what order the parameters are shown. e.g. you can have all your compressor plugins display Ratio on knob 1, threshold on knob 2, gain on knob 3 etc.

The only significant drawbacks of the S3 and Cubase are that:
A) when you bank channels on the S3, the Cubase mixer page does not scroll automatically (but it does scroll if you then touch a channel on the S3). This feature recently came to Pro Tools and HOPEFULLY it will come to Cubase at some stage but who knows.

B) If you hide channels on the Cubase mixer, they still show up on the S3.

There are some partial workarounds for these issues using a feature called 'layouts' but's a little bit kong winded. If they fixed these two issues, then it would go from an excellent controller to a super awesome controller!

Re: S3: Cuebase vs ProTools options
 

J-S-Q,

Thanks so much for the info. I feel much more comfortable going ahead with the S3, and I'll go for a Cuebase upgrade.

At my level, I don't expect perfection at this stage, but "excellent" compared to Mackie sounds great to me.

Since I do video, and will need to learn the S3 and re-learn Cuebase, it may come to pass that I'll produce some S3/ Cuebase training video.

Thanks again, J-S-Q, you have been a real help to me.