moosers
Note : 10 sur 10
Publié le 01/02/10 à 04:00
(contenu en anglais)
(contenu en anglais)
I used Steinberg Cubase SX 3 for a brief while before I switched systems and changed over to Pro Tools a number of years ago. I ran SX 2.0 for the most part, but also ran this version for a little while. This version is now pretty outdated, but it does still float around there. I didn't have any issues as far as installation goes, as it was a pretty simple process overall, however, after using it for a little while I did have some performance issues which I will speak more about in the next section. As far as the interface of Cubase SX 3 goes, it is definitely better than its predecessor in 2.0. It is easy to use and offers up a lot more features as well. The manual for SX 3 is pretty complete, but I didn't need to consult it too often since it is a pretty easy piece of software to use.
SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE
When I ran Steinberg Cubase SX 3, I ran it on a Hewlett Packard Pavilion dv8000 lap top. The computer had a 3.0 GHz single core processor and 2 GB of RAM. I was also running SX 2.0 on the same system before I upgraded up. However, I found that 3.0 wasn't as friendly in terms of performance as 2.0 was for whatever reason, which is part of the reason that I switched over to a Mac and now run Pro Tools. Every so often I would get some error messages and the whole session would crash, which is definitely not something that I was interested. I was able to recover the session afterward without a problem. While it didn't happen often, it was often enough where it became annoying. However, as far as the performance of the software in terms of speed, I was able to run the software just fine with a good amount of tracks and plug-ins...
OVERALL OPINION
While Steinberg Cubase SX 3 is definitely a powerful piece of software, if you're interested in a sequencer of this type, I'd recommend looking into the newer versions of Cubase. Although I haven't used the new ones as extensively, they have a better interface and offer up more plug-ins and better performance. Having said this, SX 3 is a fine piece of software on its own that will get the job done for the most part. If you're looking for your first piece of recording software and are on a tight budget, but like the Cubase family, it might be worth it to get this version and save a bit of money if you don't necessarily need all of the new features that come with Cubase 4 and 5.
SUITABILITY/PERFORMANCE
When I ran Steinberg Cubase SX 3, I ran it on a Hewlett Packard Pavilion dv8000 lap top. The computer had a 3.0 GHz single core processor and 2 GB of RAM. I was also running SX 2.0 on the same system before I upgraded up. However, I found that 3.0 wasn't as friendly in terms of performance as 2.0 was for whatever reason, which is part of the reason that I switched over to a Mac and now run Pro Tools. Every so often I would get some error messages and the whole session would crash, which is definitely not something that I was interested. I was able to recover the session afterward without a problem. While it didn't happen often, it was often enough where it became annoying. However, as far as the performance of the software in terms of speed, I was able to run the software just fine with a good amount of tracks and plug-ins...
OVERALL OPINION
While Steinberg Cubase SX 3 is definitely a powerful piece of software, if you're interested in a sequencer of this type, I'd recommend looking into the newer versions of Cubase. Although I haven't used the new ones as extensively, they have a better interface and offer up more plug-ins and better performance. Having said this, SX 3 is a fine piece of software on its own that will get the job done for the most part. If you're looking for your first piece of recording software and are on a tight budget, but like the Cubase family, it might be worth it to get this version and save a bit of money if you don't necessarily need all of the new features that come with Cubase 4 and 5.