Hi
Into music production 1 and half year
Know bitwig, ableton an fl
Using bitwig almost a year already and it was by far most stable and flexible daw i used.
Recently it lags for some reason and im looking into cubase (also some little but annoying features in bitwig that devs dont fix)
Anyone who used both and can tell how its performance and features in compression to bitwig?
Mainly for psytrance
Performance is awesome in Cubase due to something called Asio Guard. It’s really clever, it’s basically a buffer that looks ahead and preprocesses stuff. So your CPU load goes down - a lot.
What had my com at 65-75% CPU in FL Studio barely registers a blip of CPU in Cubase 13 - it’s a huge difference. It’s really stable for me, haven’t had any issues at all. Super smooth and stable.
Bitwig is totally aimed at electronic music, while Cubase is a kind of all in one and often used in recording. I don’t make Psytrance, I used to produce old school boombap hiphop but I’m also a funk/metal guitarist recording for my band.
You can only try it and see if you gel with it. Someone can tell you it’s awesome, but you just might not gel with it - just download a trial of Cubase 13 and test it out. All that said - Cubase is an excellent piece of software. It’s not an industry leader for nothing. No software is perfect, they all have some strengths and weaknesses, so you’ll just have to test it and see if it gels with you - but there’s no question it’s very, very good.
Thanks
I did download the trial just dont like the interface and thought to see if it worth the time to learn from perspective of someone who switching from bitwig purely for performance reasons
Maybe ill do a small project to compare the both
That’s definitely an exaggeration, and absolutely not my experience and I’ve been using Cubase (and other DAWs) for years. The difference is not big, and Cubase is not the only DAW that has look-ahead or PreGen (Digital Performer PreGen, Samplitude Pro X’s Hybrid Engine, etc.).
Also, I think CPU use has a lot more to do with the Plug-ins, Samplers, Virtual Instruments, etc. you are using in your session than what DAW you are using.
If you have a session full of Ozone and RX, then your CPU usage and latency are going to be sky high and switching to Cubase or DP or Samplitude Pro X or a whatever DAW will not alleviate that issue.
There is no universe where 65-75% CPU use in FL Studio becomes “barely a blip” simply by recreating the same project with the same MIDI, Samples, and plug-in/virtual instrument/sampler instances in Cubase.
This is simply not a thing. It’s not true. I can barely even call this an exaggeration. It’s literal pipe dream. A fantasy.
No, it’s not. I don’t know about other daws - but I literally did the same mix with the same plugins when I tried out cubase, and it all went to the buffer and barely touched the CPU while FL was floating around 65-75% - NOT an exaggeration at all. I can only compare what I know. FL def does not have that tech, and it’s def no way near as efficient.
Yes. It’s an exaggeration. This does not happen. I won’t say anything beyond that, as arguing about this is a waste of time.
You act as if I don’t have multiple DAWs installed on my computer and cannot simply … check it myself.
FL Studio does not have 60% less CPU usage running the same plug-ins with the same virtual instruments, audio tracks, etc. as Cubase.
To even pretend to believe that is serious next-level gaslighting hilarity.