Cubase has the same Undo History as Nuendo. Nuendo has additional capabilities when it comes to automation and it has EDL support.
Just want to chime in:
- Very flat 2D design is user experience problem.
- For better and for worse, many of us are psychogically influenced by the aesthetics of a product EVEN at the expense of usability. So we should be careful when demanding something more aesthetically appealing.
Example:
Apple pushed their silly glass UI. People sort of liked it and then realized it provides no useful usability improvements.
Summary:
- 2D flat design is a problem
- We should be cautious to arbitrarily ask for pretty updates.
1 Like
2D flat design can work assuming the person in charge of the UI doesnât have the wrong notion that User Interfaces are just a beauty tack on top of functionality/code.
I use Nuendo and I agree that it has great, competative features that others would probably enjoy. It also has extreme niche features that others wouldnât want to spend their money on.
An example of both:
- Nuendoâs Randomizer plugin may as well be in Cubase
- Nuendoâs ADR features are likely not at the top of the list of the average Cubase user
So I suspect Steinberg feels compelled to make them separate products because they donât think the same customerbase would pay for the same features. I donât see the typical Cubase user purchasing an upgrade that advertised new ADR updates.
However, I do agree that Nuendo is a great product that could be attractive to more people.
Liquid glass is polarizing, thatâs true. But it does provide useful usability improvements. Itâs a way to delineate functionally distinct areas of the screen without relying on coordinated background colors and borders. It can be especially effective at drawing focus to the operative controls when there are layered elements in the UI.
1 Like
But that is an undo history that is specific to âautomation passesâ, not a âgeneralâ list of actions. If âpassesâ is a Nuendo-only feature then it makes no sense for Cubase to have that specific set of branches.
Therefore, you should be requesting âpassesâ if you need them, otherwise you should have all the undo you need.
Yes and no. Itâs hard to argue that the advanced undo history is somehow a postproduction feature. The reason for not including it in Cubase is to make people buy the full product, which in this case is Nuendo.
Entirely 2D flat design poses usabiltiy problems. It can work if the problems are not too complex. This is based on some years of study at this point.
Really? 2D design has been prominent in UIâs, and works well, for some time now. Poorly designed UIâs come in both 2D and 3D, but a blanket dismissal of 2D design seems a little excessive.
1 Like
Thatâs great. Iâve havent come across the scenarios youâre referring to but Iâll keep trying to observe those examples.
No, this is the general undo window in Nuendo. If you look closely at the screenshot, the list doesnât even include any automation events.
Yes. Or more specifically, pure/entirely 2D flat design.
1 Like
Another example would be Expression Maps. They only exist in Pro/Nuendo. They have been introduced in 2009 and are yet to be present in any other version. Compare that with DAWProject import/export, which is a feature only useful once if youâre migrating (and assuming the DAW youâre coming from even supports it to begin with) or need constant interchange between different DAWS (which can be done in a multitude of ways that donât involve a standardized file format). That was introduced in Cubase 14 Artist/Pro and every single version of Cubase 15 has that feature.
Thatâs an interesting read, but a) That is referring to web pages, not a highly interactive app like Cubase. b) Itâs a rather idiosyncratic opinion c) As I understand the conclusion, the author has quibbles about the details, but favors 2D design over 3D. I suppose any idea can be taken to excess, so the authorâs advice about moderation when implementing a 2D UI seems commendable.
(disclaimer, teaching UI design is my day job)
There are more modern articles.
- Material 3 Expressive: Building on the failures of flat design | by Benjamin C.J. W | Nov, 2025 | UX Collective
- https://uxshift.com/blog/flat-design-best-practices/
The same applies to any screen interface. The key concept is something known as an âaffordanceâ. When communicating in a UI you want to create opportunities for the user to intuit and guess. So we have to use visual hieararchy and other means to communicate HOW to use a screen based interface.
Pure 2D flat design becomes a problem often due to one reasonâŚ
No shadows.
Shadows, of some kind, communicate depth which is one of the import 2D form visual concepts you want to use when communicating priority/visual hierarchy. Etc.
1 Like
I see what youâre saying now.
What you should request then is âBranchesâ rather than âUndo Historyâ. Your âundo historyâ is fine, whatâs missing are the branches. Correct?
I agree that one should be open to using whatever visual cues are helpful. But thatâs different than the blanket dismissal of 2D I read in your earlier message. My apologies if I misinterpreted that.
I may be VERY biased 
, but look at Omnisphere 3 as a good example of the benefits of 2D. The move towards 2D away from 3D gives it a sharper look, discarding superfluous greebles in favor of functional cleanliness.
When I ever I say 2D flat design is a problem, I referring to the idea of âexclusivelyâ flat design. It leads to unnecessary problems.
Hereâs how Googleâs design system addresses it. Their design system is mostly flat but uses some shadow depth to express priority. When I look at Cubase/Nuendo, I seem many scenarios in which they should not rely on flatness to communicate.:
2 Likes
I have no idea what this thread is for, and I can guarantee that no value will derive from it, so it should probably live in the Lounge.
4 Likes