A Strategic Call for Reinvention: Cubase & Nuendo Must Evolve Together

Cubase
1

As a long-time professional user of both Cubase and Nuendo, I believe the time has come to merge these two platforms into a unified, powerful solution. The recent updates, while appreciated, lack the innovation and impact we expect from Steinberg.

:cross_mark: Key Concerns:

  • Cue-Mix limitations: Why are musicians restricted to just 4 headphone mixes? This should be limitless.

  • Outdated menus and Pool design: These legacy interfaces remain untouched, and warning messages still feel archaic.

  • Flat 2D UI redesign: The new look doesn’t match the visual sophistication of competing platforms.

  • Missing Undo History: A critical feature for professionals, far more valuable than niche additions focused solely on electronic music.

  • Removal of useful legacy features: Some tools that served us well have been eliminated without proper replacements.

:counterclockwise_arrows_button: Strategic Recommendation:

  • Merge Cubase and Nuendo into a single flagship product that caters to all creators—from music producers to post-production engineers.

  • Balanced updates: Every release should include features that benefit a wide range of users, not just a narrow segment.

  • Competitive analysis: Conduct a serious study of rival platforms and deliver enhancements that truly surpass expectations.

:folded_hands: A Message of Respect:

This is not criticism for the sake of complaint. It’s a sincere appeal from loyal users who want to see Steinberg thrive. We want to feel respected, heard, and inspired—not just obligated to upgrade out of habit.

There are features users have been requesting for years. Others were once helpful and have been removed. We ask you to revisit your roadmap with fresh eyes and bold ambition.

2

To be honest, I don’t see how your key concerns would be solved at all by merging Cubase and Nuendo into one product. They are imho valid concerns, but they can be solved with two programs being sold seperately.

The code base for both programs is most likely pretty much the same anyway, just with added features in Nuendo. And frankly, as a Cubase user, I don’t want to pay for postpro features that I don’t use.

Nuendo targets a different market segment than Cubase. I guess when Steinberg introduced Nuendo, they deliberately chose another Name to differentiate it from Cubase, which back then was probably more seen as “that MIDI sequencer” and not something that commanded respect in the postpro market.

Maybe nowadays they’d made a different decision and Nuendo would be “Cubase Ultimate” :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: , but as of today, the brands are established, it wouldn’t make much sense from a marketing standpoint to rename one or the other.

4 Likes
3

I’m not rigid in my views, but I do believe it’s worth acknowledging that competitors like Pro Tools and Studio One have already adopted several features found in Nuendo—and they’re fundamentally similar to Cubase in many ways. Even Steinberg itself offers attractive upgrade paths from Cubase to Nuendo, which highlights the overlap.

That said, merging the two platforms isn’t my main concern. What truly matters to me is that recent releases have overlooked essential features, focusing instead on selective additions that don’t necessarily enhance the core user experience.

:hammer_and_wrench: What I’m Really Asking For:

  • A return to feature-rich updates that remove limitations and empower users.

  • Prioritizing workflow enhancements over niche plugin additions.

  • Respecting long-standing user requests that have been ignored for years.

These are just ideas—whether you agree with them or not, I share them with an open mind and appreciation for the dialogue. Thank you again for your thoughtful response.

4

Please edit all the “we” words to “I’.

You’re certainly entitled to opinions and feature requests, but there isn’t anything in your original post that necessarilly speaks from the collective “we”.

5 Likes
5

A lot of what you’re saying is very high-level. corporate mission-statement language. I understand how you feel, but it’s hard to understand what practical improvements you’re actually asking for.

Is that a rhetorical question? If you’re wanting a technical change, you should explain the requirements. “Limitless” is not realistic.

The “feel” of warning messages isn’t something that affects productivity in a DAW. What specific innovative improvements are you suggesting here? And how would they impact your ability to record, mix, or produce music?

That doesn’t bother me. “Visual sophistication” is subjective, and it doesn’t improve the DAW’s functionality, stability, or workflow.

I agree. A complete undo history would be a meaningful improvement.

Such as? You’re making a very general claim. What specific tools or functions were removed without replacements? And how did you overcome the loss?

That would hurt the user-experience. Music production and post-production are completely different worlds with different workflows and different expectations. Those are separate products for a reason.

Generally speaking, they already do. If there’s a new feature I don’t need–I don’t use it. What are you using Cubase for? What’s missing?

I just want the software to be functional, stable, high-performance, and predictable. If I wanted the look and feel of some “rival” platform–I’d just switch over to it. I guess there are reasons you’re using Cubase instead of something else. What are they?

You’re speaking for yourself–not everyone. It’s not a subscription service, and you aren’t obligated to upgrade. If you do upgrade, it’s because there were features or improvements you personally though were worth paying for.

Yeah, there’s always room for improvement–but a lot of what you’re saying comes across like corporate mission-statement language. I understand how you feel, but it’s hard to understand what practical, concrete improvements you’re actually asking for.

3 Likes
6

If it doesn’t represent you, does that mean I’m talking about you? I’m talking about myself and people like me, not you. If you don’t like it or don’t see it as necessary, that doesn’t mean you should talk about everyone else based on your personal opinion.

7

Thank you for your reply. I’m not here to detail the features, as I’ve written about them extensively before and seen many user posts and numerous votes. I was hoping to see some of them, as I’m tired of repeating the same features without seeing any of them after multiple updates. That’s why I’m speaking generally.

8

Cubase and Nuendo have been evolving together for decades. Nuendo has all the features of Cubase, plus other features specific to certain fields.

I would let Yamaha/Steinberg work on the corporate strategy.

3 Likes
9

That’s probably because it was written by some GenAI, at least it looks like it was.

1 Like
10

Of course it is. IMHO, sends, insert slots and direct routing destinations should be dynamically created and not restricted by an arbitrary number. Just like audio and MIDI tracks are today.

11

It’s a Sales & Marketing term–not an engineering term. An “arbitrary number” like that is often linked to system performance.

13

I’m having trouble understanding your argument. We can create an unlimited number of VST instruments but sends and inserts are limited because of system performance considerations? Besides, there are DAWs that do not pose such restrictions.

14

You could at least use your own words instead of copying text generated by ChatGPT. If you can’t even put efforts to write your own ‘demands’, why Steinberg should listen to you?

5 Likes
15

+1 for Cue-Mix limitations and Missing Undo History

16

My Cubase has even two undo histories. I wonder why some people here seem to have none. :thinking:

1 Like
17

It’s not Steinberg’s job to care about a user’s supposed system performance issues by limiting the amount of physical inputs, channels, sends, etc. We’re not in 1995 anymore. Even computers made 10 years ago can handle hundreds of audio tracks and inputs without breaking a sweat. And if you want to use either software in a large scale live context, you’ll easily use 256 channels or even more depending on complexity, number of microphones, etc. And if you’re bringing your system to your knees, you either need to change your workflow to deal with that limitation or upgrade to a better system.

And the irony of that is the first people to suffer with those limitations are composers and sound designers, which seem to represent a significant amount of the Cubase/Nuendo user base.

18

missing from where? What are you referring to?

19

Hello. As far as I am aware, this already exists. It’s called “Nuendo.” Though you’ve already qualified your post as being "without details,” do you mind expounding on exactly what you mean by “merging” the two? Version-by-version, Nuendo has all of the features Cubase does, with additional features and functions of its own; it is a superset of all Cubase functionality. Can you elaborate on what features Cubase has that Nuendo doesn’t?

If you just mean to say “SB should only sell Nuendo,” wouldn’t it be easier for you (or the group you represent) to simply “buy Nuendo” and not burden yourselves with the delta of feature-sets?

5 Likes
20

Nuendo has had full Undo History (including Undo Branches) for years. Forget the marketing jargon, practically, Cubase is a subset of Nuendo, and Nuendo the full-featured product.

21

And this goes along with the list of features that have no reason to be restricted to a specific software version. I could be wrong, but I don’t think even the most fervorous Steinberg evangelist would agree that feature is not something people doing music production actually use.