Cubase + Syncrosoft = Fail?

[Notuern]

Ive just heard that the Syncrosoft Dongle for Cubase actually affects the sound negatively, and that you should crack it for full potential.
If this is true.. well, then it just sucks!

I haven't heard of this before, so i want to check with our forum elite: Is this true, or false? Should Cubase users crack it for better sound!?

 

[kev]

I've never heard this, it sounds like someone has had a bloody vaginal belch to me

 

[Ermz]

I wasn't aware that the Syncrosoft protection on Cubase 4 had to date been adequately cracked.

 

[006]

Um...

I can't tell if this is serious or not...I use Cubase Studio 4 with the Synchrosoft dongle myself, I have a very hard time believing it affects the summing or anything.



~006

 

[Ermz]

From what I gather of a scene group's rant regarding the last generation, the Syncrosoft dongle may well negatively impact the performance of the software, but it's VERY doubtful that it would affect the audio fidelity whatsoever.

 

[kev]

From what I gather of a scene group's rant regarding the last generation, the Syncrosoft dongle may well negatively impact the performance of the software, but it's VERY doubtful that it would affect the audio fidelity whatsoever.

word

 

[devouredremains]

Ive just heard that the Syncrosoft Dongle for Cubase actually affects the sound negatively, and that you should crack it for full potential.
If this is true.. well, then it just sucks!

I haven't heard of this before, so i want to check with our forum elite: Is this true, or false? Should Cubase users crack it for better sound!?

Copy protection does not touch the audio and has no relation to the audio. The only communication the dongle and software have are various protection calls back and forth.

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

I once heard from a reliable source that with the dongle you can't really get that BOOM out of the b-bass drum on one of your albums, your CD, you know? BOOM! You pay big bucks and you don't even get that BOOM!

 

[Notuern]

Copy protection does not touch the audio and has no relation to the audio. The only communication the dongle and software have are various protection calls back and forth.

Yeah, thats what i thought too, but when you hear these things you get kinda thrown around and want to know whats really up.
So far it seems to be a bloody vaginal belch, i believe you guys more then this rumor.

 

[devouredremains]

Yeah, thats what i thought too, but when you hear these things you get kinda thrown around and want to know whats really up.
So far it seems to be a bloody vaginal belch, i believe you guys more then this rumor.

It seems like whoever came up with that is trying to find a way to justify using pirated software.

 

[Notuern]

Doh, i didnt pay attention to the first pages in that thread where this claims where made.
In fact, he claimed the opposite: The dongle makes the sound quality better, using a pirated version causes minimal slowdowns due to the simulation of the dongle isnt always fast enough.

 

[devouredremains]

Doh, i didnt pay attention to the first pages in that thread where this claims where made.
In fact, he claimed the opposite: The dongle makes the sound quality better, using a pirated version causes minimal slowdowns due to the simulation of the dongle isnt always fast enough.

That sounds about right.

 

[Executioner213]

Copy protection does not touch the audio and has no relation to the audio. The only communication the dongle and software have are various protection calls back and forth.

In fact, he claimed the opposite: The dongle makes the sound quality better, using a pirated version causes minimal slowdowns due to the simulation of the dongle isnt always fast enough.

That sounds about right.

Didn't this kind of contradict the other?

Even if it was a matter of there being some processing used up, is it even significant? Wouldn't there still be a similar amount of processing between a dongle and system compared to software and system? I'm sure there is technically more going on, but it can't be *that* much...

 

[devouredremains]

Didn't this kind of contradict the other?

Even if it was a matter of there being some processing used up, is it even significant? Wouldn't there still be a similar amount of processing between a dongle and system compared to software and system? I'm sure there is technically more going on, but it can't be *that* much...

Noutern stated he heard that using a legit copy of cubase negatively affected audio quality caused by the dongle. Basically a cracked version potentially sounds better.

I replied that the code on the dongle doesn't touch the audio. It receives a series of protection calls from the software while you use it and sends the responses the software requires to allow it to function. Nothing more.

Noutern then replied that he read it wrong and the author stated that using pirated copies of cubase utilizing dongle emulations are worse.

I replied that the confirmation that a dongle emulation could be slower were probably correct. I should have added that it still won't affect the audio quality. All it would do is cause added instability and the possibility of a slower graphical response providing a sub par user experience. I can tell you that there isn't any direct link to the audio and the dongle code having any relation to one another.

Why would audio software companies use a dongle that negatively affects the work they've done to provide excellent sonic quality to their users? They wouldn't. iLok and Synchrosoft do not affect audio quality.

 

[devouredremains]

An emulated dongle running on RAM is faster than a USB one, that´s for sure.

Proof please.

 

[smy1]

I bought Cubase SX3. I am running a cracked version because it is A LOT more stable. And no, I don't feel bad about running the crack.

I dont know about audio fidelity differences and I think it's BS. What counts is how often the software crashes and with SX3, the crack performs noticeably better.

 

[devouredremains]

I bought Cubase SX3. I am running a cracked version because it is A LOT more stable. And no, I don't feel bad about running the crack.

I dont know about audio fidelity differences and I think it's BS. What counts is how often the software crashes and with SX3, the crack performs noticeably better.

That surprises me on many levels...but maybe it shouldn't. I guess it could be possible that the cracking teams are better coders.

 

[devouredremains]

DRAM is much faster than Flash Memory.

That's correct. But do we know if what is on the dongle is the same code as whats in the emulator? From what I've heard the cracking team had to start from the ground up.

The efficiency of the code itself lends as much to the speed as the medium!

 

[Sloan]

I once heard from a reliable source that with the dongle you can't really get that BOOM out of the b-bass drum on one of your albums, your CD, you know? BOOM! You pay big bucks and you don't even get that BOOM!

:Spin::Spin::Spin::Spin::Spin::Spin::Spin::Spin::Spin::danceboy::danceboy::danceboy:

 

[felipe-x]

back to the title,

i actually bought a presonus audiobox today , and it came with Cubase LE4 original of course, and for some reason i get this fucking
" something is missing " in the finall part of the registration... and i cant even run cubase sx3 ( or nuendo ) after deleteng all the files of cubase le4... cause the error is still pissing me of with the registration every time i open "nuendo 3" or "cubase sx3"...

any one got any ideas to help me out?

was thinking that may be that the cracked ilock was fucked up by the original instalation... and dont know what to do... i search on google but nothing..

cheers