Author Topic: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?  (Read 29421 times)

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
  • keep it simple
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2014, 09:13:08 AM »
We have a Cubase 5 VST/24 and a Cubase 5 VST/32 here. Were these released simultaneously and the 32bit floating point version was released separately? I wonder if that's the only difference between VST/24 and VST/32.

they came out together and indeed the audiofile resolution is the only difference. and the "truetape" input-plug-in for that matter.

The VST/32 includes all Cubase Score extras also.
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

Offline IIO

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4443
  • just a number
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2014, 06:06:04 PM »
right, and "reverb32". :)
insert arbitrary signature here

supernova777

  • Guest
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2014, 12:15:24 AM »
screenshot of Cubase VST 3.5 on mac os 9

Offline Irisman

  • Veteran Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • each day I am older
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #23 on: September 14, 2014, 04:13:22 AM »
The following opens and quits but no OMS MIDI support, so no midi out data for me:
- Cubase 2.5


maybe this version requires a 68k cpu?

what the hell did they do for midi without oms?
oh yes. midi manager ? for os7 ? right?


Surely you are right. Too old software for 8.6.

Offline Ariesdude7

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 2
  • new to the forums
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #24 on: September 18, 2014, 11:39:36 AM »
Hey MacTron... Is there anyway I could get that Cubasis Av from 1996? I been looking everywhere for that. [email protected]

Offline MacTron

  • Global Moderator
  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
  • keep it simple
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #25 on: September 18, 2014, 01:13:44 PM »
Hey MacTron... Is there anyway I could get that Cubasis Av from 1996? I been looking everywhere for that. [email protected]

Wow, long search...

Here you have:
https://www.adrive.com/public/yUdhPy/Cubasis%20AV.sit

Enjoy!
Please don't PM about things that are not private.

Offline Ariesdude7

  • Newcomer
  • Posts: 2
  • new to the forums
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #26 on: September 18, 2014, 04:03:27 PM »
Right on MacTron... I got a ton of old stuff I did on there... Doesn't really sound the same with the vst 2.0 version I have... Which vst version would allow me to take the drums to different tracks besides track 10 without changing anything else about the sound?

supernova777

  • Guest
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2014, 10:48:31 PM »
Right on MacTron... I got a ton of old stuff I did on there... Doesn't really sound the same with the vst 2.0 version I have... Which vst version would allow me to take the drums to different tracks besides track 10 without changing anything else about the sound?

track 10? u mean channel 10?
this was just a standard for GM.. to have drum notes + midi on channel 10
u dont have to do it this way thats just the way that the gm instruments came set up


supernova777

  • Guest
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #28 on: April 13, 2015, 05:14:07 AM »
The old versions of Cubase which I have:

Cubase 2.5 (1992)
Cubase Lite 1.0 (1993)
Cubasis 1.0 (1995)
Cubase Audio XT (1996)
Cubasis AV (1996)
Cubase Score 2.0 (1996)
Cubase Audio VST (1997)

Cubase score 2.0 is from early 1995.. around the same time as cubasis 1.0
u can see this info with the demo download i posted:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2157.0

all the other dates listed here seem to be correct;)

supernova777

  • Guest
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #29 on: April 14, 2015, 12:13:07 PM »
i found this page
http://toddp.com/classic/BasiliskII%202Gb%20Software%207.6.1/Applications/Cubase%202.5.1/
Cubase 2.5.1 for mac (Aug 1994)
im not sure if a working 2.5.1 is retrievable from this location it appears to be for os 7.6.1
the modified date of some of the files dates this program as August 1994!!!!

unfortunately some of the file sizes are specified as 0 which is not a good sign

ok now i found this!!
http://macgui.com/downloads/?file_id=19930
it appears to be a working copy.. in stuffit format
Cubase 2.5.1r3.img

perhaps someone can test this to see it works in mac os 9!
probably a good idea to search fully this download area:
http://macgui.com/downloads/?cat_id=228
« Last Edit: April 14, 2015, 12:50:57 PM by chrisNova777 »

Offline MusicWorks

  • Enthusiast Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #30 on: May 16, 2015, 07:44:39 AM »
Hey Mactron,

Could you please upload Cubase Audio XT (1996)?

Been trying to find this forever!

Thanks

- MusicWorks

supernova777

  • Guest
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2015, 05:00:16 AM »
 8)

Offline MusicWorks

  • Enthusiast Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2015, 07:41:06 PM »
Thanks!

Offline mocheez

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • new to the forums
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2016, 01:37:45 AM »
Any chance to find a working Cubase 1.0 for Mac, somewhere? I've been trying Cubase 2.5 on my Mac SE but I get "unimplemented trap" errors. I guess I need System 7, rather than 6.0.8, but being limited to 1Mb of ram, I didn't dare try…

Offline mocheez

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • new to the forums
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2016, 12:08:40 AM »
I'm finding so much, er… nothing… about Cubase 1.0 for Mac, not even a screenshot, that I'm starting to wonder if it's not vaporware.
Even these posts get no answer whatsoever http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2734.msg16698#msg16698

Offline IIO

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4443
  • just a number
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #35 on: February 29, 2016, 10:35:42 AM »
the predecesor of cubase 2.0 on the MacOS was Cubit/MROS; you could call that cubase 1 if you want.
insert arbitrary signature here

Offline mocheez

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • new to the forums
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2016, 03:44:28 PM »
I don't think "Cubit" was ever released… At least with that name ;-)
Here's what the official Steinberg website says, right after the launch of Cubase 1.0 for Atari : "1990 - Cubase becomes available for the highly popular Apple Macintosh"

https://www.steinberg.net/en/company/aboutsteinberg.html

Offline Philgood

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 411
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2016, 12:56:52 AM »
I think IIO is right. It wasn't called Cubase in the beginning. Let me see if i have he original box here...will be back with a foto hopefully
*G4 MDD 1.25GHz (Single 2003)* with 2x 80Gb harddrives, 1Gb RAM, Tascam US-428 and Edirol FA-101 USB/Firewire soundcards-*iMac G3 DV 400MHz* with installs from OS 8.6-OSX Tiger on different harddrives-*Powerbook G4 1.67Ghz* with new SSD ! Love it.

Offline mocheez

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • new to the forums
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2016, 03:12:19 AM »
Yes, he's right in a way : Cubase was first called Cubeat, then Cubit, but for some legal reasons they had to change the name and it was first released in 1989 as Cubase 1.0, for the Atari. So there's no reason that in 1990, the Mac version would be named Cubit ;-)

Offline IIO

  • Platinum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4443
  • just a number
Re: we have earlier versions of logic? why not cubase?
« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2016, 05:04:04 AM »
it is probably also debatable if MROS applications are "mac versions".

this is always a matter of perspective, just as the question of what has been "released" or not. :)
insert arbitrary signature here