Considering Transitioning from Cubase to S1

[JBTex]

I'm considering transitioning from Cubase to S1 for a cinematic/orchestral workflow. In Cubase, I have a large template with 1,200+ instrument tracks (typically disabled until I need a particular instrument), plus lots of busses for FX channels and stems.

I've experimented with bringing Cubase template tracks into S1 using DAWproject files. However, I've run into high CPU loads on an extremely fast Mac with a template I am building in S1. The same template/track count in Cubase doesn't show any of those performance issues. That's a bit puzzling and makes me hesitant to fully commit to S1.

I'm curious how other composers here deal with very large templates/track counts. The typical workflow in Cubase is to have all tracks disabled until they are needed. So, I assume the same concept is relevant in S1.

Thoughts?

 

[MisterE]

The situation you describe is a little puzzling since in the last few years Cubase has started performing a lot better on Macs than it does on Windows for persons such as yourself running huge amounts of cinematic/orchestral tracks. Its use of all CPU cores on Mac silicon is generally praised. With the usual exceptions, persons doing what you're doing generally gravitate to Cubase, not S1. There are a lot of heavy hitters on the Cubase forum. Is it possible you haven't posted the same question there? Seems like if you already know your way around Cubase, I wonder if you've exhausted all possibilities there. S1 has offered Orchestral tools and had expression maps that may have been better, but you are aware that one of Cubase 15's big new features is vastly improved expression maps? Some factor seems missing from the situation as you stated it.

 

[JBTex]

The situation you describe is a little puzzling since in the last few years Cubase has started performing a lot better on Macs than it does on Windows for persons such as yourself running huge amounts of cinematic/orchestral tracks. Its use of all CPU cores on Mac silicon is generally praised. With the usual exceptions, persons doing what you're doing generally gravitate to Cubase, not S1. There are a lot of heavy hitters on the Cubase forum. Is it possible you haven't posted the same question there? Seems like if you already know your way around Cubase, I wonder if you've exhausted all possibilities there. S1 has offered Orchestral tools and had expression maps that may have been better, but you are aware that one of Cubase 15's big new features is vastly improved expression maps? Some factor seems missing from the situation as you stated it.

I'm not saying that Cubase isn't the right tool to use for large templates, especially in film scoring. It's fabulous and what is arguably the best DAW for that purpose. The performance issues I mentioned are related to S1.

I've been watching S1 grow in features and refinements over the last few years. With the limited time I have spent with it, certain elements and ways to accomplish things flow more easily for my brain. I'm not ready to totally jump ship yet.

And yes, I've already upgraded to Cubase 15 and find the expression map enhancements fabulous. It was long overdue. Compared to how S1 handles Sound Variations, Cubase still lags behind. I use ArtConductor, and being able to import a single file into S1 and have all the articulation sets immediately available is fantastic. Still requires importing them individually into Cubase.

Anyways, appreciate the input!

 

[MisterE]

I'm not saying that Cubase isn't the right tool to use for large templates, especially in film scoring. It's fabulous and what is arguably the best DAW for that purpose. The performance issues I mentioned are related to S1.

I've been watching S1 grow in features and refinements over the last few years. With the limited time I have spent with it, certain elements and ways to accomplish things flow more easily for my brain. I'm not ready to totally jump ship yet.

And yes, I've already upgraded to Cubase 15 and find the expression map enhancements fabulous. It was long overdue. Compared to how S1 handles Sound Variations, Cubase still lags behind. I use ArtConductor, and being able to import a single file into S1 and have all the articulation sets immediately available is fantastic. Still requires importing them individually into Cubase.

Anyways, appreciate the input!

I think a lot of people are realizing they benefit from not sticking to just one DAW, myself included, which is why I'm going the other direction—about to start dabbling in Cubase. Maybe you could use S1 to score simpler scenes and Cubase for the epic battle scenes?

Also, it seems in response to people doing what you're doing, Steinberg put a big effort into making use of all the Mac cores. To the best of my knowledge, someone correct me if I'm wrong, Presonus hasn't, probably for the simple reason that if people are demanding it, they're a lot quieter about it than they are on the Cubase forum.

 

[OutrageProductions]

I have orchestration templates that have 120+ instruments, most with available articulations, so could theoretically rival your track counts (maybe not), and use key-switching or <Sound Variations>IRT.
Everything in my base template is <Disabled> except the piano until I need a particular instrument. The template file is less than 5Mb, and when loaded (everything off) is about 1Gb. I have never had everything open simultaneously, because I generally cut an instrument, edit to taste, and then 'freeze' it, removing the instrument from RAM until I need to reverse that process and re-edit. I have 128Gb on board, and have only pushed past 100Gb a couple of times.
I also have Qbase 14, and it is slightly more flexible in some ways, and a real PITA in others. I've found that I'm actually faster functioning in S1 than PT, Nuendo, or Qb now, just from rote repetition and practice, and there are only a few functions that I find slightly lacking.

 

[js1]

The way that I deal with it is to create a new empty song, then use Import Song Data to import only what I need from my template. Works well.

If you miss importing a track that you discover you need - no worries, just do another Import Song Data to get it.

 

[Davey]

I'm considering transitioning from Cubase to S1 for a cinematic/orchestral workflow. In Cubase, I have a large template with 1,200+ instrument tracks (typically disabled until I need a particular instrument), plus lots of busses for FX channels and stems.

I've experimented with bringing Cubase template tracks into S1 using DAWproject files. However, I've run into high CPU loads on an extremely fast Mac with a template I am building in S1. The same template/track count in Cubase doesn't show any of those performance issues. That's a bit puzzling and makes me hesitant to fully commit to S1.

I'm curious how other composers here deal with very large templates/track counts. The typical workflow in Cubase is to have all tracks disabled until they are needed. So, I assume the same concept is relevant in S1.

Thoughts?

I have to say that it sounds like Cubase is currently the best tool for you, but there is nothing stopping you using both that and S1 as the situation dictates. Cubase is probably more popular than S1 for "large scale" composing.

If you do proceed with S1 I'd suggest creating your templates from scratch rather than trying to use DAWproject to import them, simply because the DAWproject format is is very new and likely to have a few bugs and quirks that have not yet been ironed out. I doubt there has been very much testing with 1200 track projects!

 

[Andy_P]

I'm curious how other composers here deal with very large templates/track counts. The typical workflow in Cubase is to have all tracks disabled until they are needed. So, I assume the same concept is relevant in S1.

There are a few discussions over at vi-control.net about this.
Studio One being problematic with large track count templates (disabled included) and the general advice is to use track presets instead.
I still use Cubase for video projects and have not tried a big project in Studio One so can not vouch for it.
You can find some informative posts if you search there.

 

[John Vere]

I know a lot of people seem to have unlimited resources with their money but I don’t.
Studio one cost me $300 Can.
The version of Cubase that has the same features is around $800can.
Even Artist would cost a bit more than S1.
I just upgraded from Elements 14 to 15 for $45 Can. For me the only thing missing I actually want is the Event List? Of all the dumb features to exclude is one from the Atari version.

 

[BobF]

Have any of you tried allowing Plug-in Napping to see if it helps any?

 

[parityflux]

There is a chance that I'm not using Cubase for film scoring because everyone else is I get along so well with S1, as everything make sense to me. I love the interface and the macros.

I don't do high-track count templates anymore. It is the bussing, and having an instrument in place to "duplicate complete" that is more important. I have all of the orchestral food groups in place as well as basses, synths and cinematics/atmospheres, separated by broad folders. I have a few goto instruments in each category. E.g. in high strings, a have at least 1 short and 1 long vln I, vln II and vla. That way if I want to pull in another similar instrument I can duplicate an existing one and all the bussing, eq and fx will be correctly routed/assigned. Of course this is a non-template way of grabbing a new instrument. For the templating I'll use track presets that have been based off this original S1 song/template. This way when I pull in the track presets, all the bussing has the same names and no busses get duplicated pulling these tracks in. As you know, this is a modular template paradigm and tends to work very well in S1. If I only need a tight baroque set of strings with lots of detail, there's no reason to pull in the big fat lush sections and all their articulations -- just the baroque set. That's easy to do with pre-prepared track presets that were built in a mother template with all the desired routing.

S1 still has memory management issues. When you pull in a massive template, even if most tracks are disabled, it still wants to open them up first and it consumes a ton of memory. If you let the project simmer a bit, or just start working, the memory comes down gradually over say 20-30 minutes. This is a big reason for not wanting to pull in full templates, and it takes so much time to load even with a fast CPU and M.2 drives. Just like any other DAW for orchestral, there is always VEPro, though I personally have not put it in place yet. The modular method keeps me focused and a little more exploratory. So to answer the OP, this is how I deal with large track counts: I don't have them. Like maybe 100-130, but not 500, 1000 like some colleagues.

@BobF I always have plug-in nap enabled. Seems like the right thing to do.

 

[maarkr]

When I've had issues with many tracks, I end up mixing down group stems and bring them into a new mix so I have a smaller number of tracks to deal with. Only prob is you may need to go back to the main mix and adjust something in that stem.