MTS v cubase

Discuss working with MultitrackStudio.
Post Reply
axman
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:04 pm
Location: Colorado

MTS v cubase

Post by axman » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:58 am

With just a bit of experimenting tonight, and after using cubase LE for a week, I notice immediately that MTS has a simplicity about it making it more conducive to screen sessions. In comparison, cubase has so many windows to open up, and after 4 tracks with effects, monitors, and transport panel, on a laptop screen, it can become unruly.

In terms of sound quality, MTS sounds equal on Audio Tracks. I'm really not into midi anymore....I tried it once....but there is something about having to have a keyboard to produce the sound.

Saz
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:44 am
Location: WV, USA

Post by Saz » Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:42 am

With just a bit of experimenting tonight, and after using cubase LE for a week, I notice immediately that MTS has a simplicity about it making it more conducive to screen sessions. In comparison, cubase has so many windows to open up, and after 4 tracks with effects, monitors, and transport panel, on a laptop screen, it can become unruly.
I tried a bunch of demos before settling on MTS - some seemed like trying to learn the MS Office suite. MTS is intuitive for anyone familiar with a tape recorder and a mixer - I suggested it to an "Industry" Producer - who has a mega-buck hardware studio, but was not able to get the hang of recording software and he recorded his first tracks 15 minutes after he installed MTS. MTS lets us concentrate on the music and not the software.
In terms of sound quality, MTS sounds equal on Audio Tracks. I'm really not into midi anymore....I tried it once....but there is something about having to have a keyboard to produce the sound.
I really don't use midi that much - I like MTS for the excellent audio quality and features, but it is nice to be able to use a midi keyboard to trigger about any sound you can imagine. And there are tons of good free sound samples on the net.

axman
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 10:04 pm
Location: Colorado

Post by axman » Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:34 pm

Years ago I used a Yamaha 4-track tape recorder (the very same one used by the Beattles to record the Abbey-roads album in the 60s)....
Later I had a Tascam. Both were purchased in Pawn shops, when you could find deals. These days, pawn shops have wised up, started selling their stuff on ebay in the backroom, etc...and there are no deals in my opinion, plus you are taking a chance on someone needing drug money and pawning something that has electrical glitches it the equip (my opinion).
having said that, I was recently down in South Miami in a pawn shop (which has appropriately changed it's name to the XYZ Musicians supply center, a disconcerting marketing tool ) and looking at the prices on mechanical multi-track mixers and recorders....
incredible are the prices for these units.....when in essence, they really don't offer more to gain over say software like MTS, an updated computer and an interface.

Do others agree/disagree? Is there really anything to gain by buying an expensive mixer/recording unit over what we can accomplish with the compter and software? inquiring minds want to know.

Saz
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:44 am
Location: WV, USA

Post by Saz » Fri Sep 17, 2004 4:09 pm

axman wrote: Is there really anything to gain by buying an expensive mixer/recording unit over what we can accomplish with the compter and software? inquiring minds want to know.
"Purists" will point out the warmth of analog sound and having grown up with it, I'll agree it does have charm. Having the incredible ease of recording, editing and mixing capabilities of digital sound though, far outweighs the charm - at least for me. Plus our ears are very adaptive - we can get used to a sound as being "normal" in short order and I'd guess that 95% of the listening public can't tell the difference between analog and digital. I'm spoiled and "ain't going back". :)

Tunemaker
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada
Contact:

Post by Tunemaker » Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:26 am

Before I settled on MTS I also tried many different demos and in my view MTS is by far the most freindiest to use and the most stable. Some of the demos seemed to crash the computer just by looking around and checking out the different functions, I would hate to try actually make music with a program that crashes more often than working. How productive would that be?

I just wish this technology was available in my band days.

axomat
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: kent uk
Contact:

Post by axomat » Mon Oct 04, 2004 9:22 pm

It is interesting reading about how others have found MTS to be as good as I have always thought it was but until now didnt realise you were out there.

So the question is why is MTS not a more widely recognised product? There are a number of sites that compare editors without MTS even getting a mention. If I were Mr Bremmers I would be pretty unhappy about this!

So I suggest that we all post as much as we can in places where we can influence people to take MTS seriously.

Tunemaker
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: Vancouver Island BC Canada
Contact:

Post by Tunemaker » Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:55 am

So the question is why is MTS not a more widely recognised product? There are a number of sites that compare editors without MTS even getting a mention. If I were Mr Bremmers I would be pretty unhappy about this!
This is what I've been thinking !!
I admit, I have not used any other Sequencers other than MTS other than Demos or Trial Versions but in that time it was clear to me which software gave the most bang for the buck, was the easiest to use, and by far appeared to be the most stable.

Saz
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:44 am
Location: WV, USA

Post by Saz » Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:21 am

axomat wrote:It is interesting reading about how others have found MTS to be as good as I have always thought it was but until now didnt realise you were out there.

So the question is why is MTS not a more widely recognised product? There are a number of sites that compare editors without MTS even getting a mention. If I were Mr Bremmers I would be pretty unhappy about this!

So I suggest that we all post as much as we can in places where we can influence people to take MTS seriously.
Being initially released in late 2001 - MTS is a relative newcomer in PC recording software. At that time the "biggies" had been well established.

MTS is getting more recognition everday and folks who are familiar with the "biggies" are impressed with it.

Yeah - don't be shy about telling others about MTS - let them decide. I've had folks thank me for that.

Kudos to Mr. Bremmers for continuing to develop and improve MTS!

Post Reply