![]() ![]() I’d say most of their audience has never touched a traditional mixer, so it makes no sense to stick to that model.įor me, Ableton beats Cubase for a few specific things: This means they don’t need to follow the traditional models, they make great use of a “software first” mentality. Composing & tracking in Live are really lacking in comparison. So they recreated the analog recording models in software ie mixers with inserts and sends etc as well as building flexible MIDI tools, score editor etc.Ībleton has always been focused on electronic music. Part of the reason Cubase doesn’t have something like that is partly history, partly audience IMO.Ĭubase is used by film composers & recording artists (i.e with mics and instruments and all) and excels in those areas. Not that you can’t do most of it in Cubase, but some things are a lot simpler in Ableton.Ĭubase is my main DAW, but I use Ableton too for sound design and live stuff.Ĭubase doesn’t have anything quite like Ableton’s Racks. ![]() Ableton is better for the various modern electronic genres.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |