An open plea to Steinberg

I have been told Digital Performer is most “close” but also Studio One has a fresher foundation and it’s definitely “up and coming.” I think you will find advantages and disadvantages with those plus I know for a fact, missing features. There are also some nice features in those but missing in Cubase. With that said, I still think Cubase is the most “feature rich” DAW. Therefore it depends on your workflow and goals of a DAW. What do you really need in a DAW?

Keep in mind what seems like a simple feature request or simple bug fix might in reality be extremely difficult and costly. Unfortunately, bug-fixing and workflow improvements don’t necessarily attract new users.

For myself at some point I just have to say this is just a tool and I’m going to make the best of it that I can. My goal is completed tracks with deadlines. Is your goal the same? My issues are often better workflow and unfinished features/bugs and continual work-arounds. Reading forums, but limiting my time on them, I find users whos goal is not the same as mine. For some I think it is simply a hobby or just experimenting and pushing the limits of the DAW. The result might be some finished tracks, but that is secondary to the “pure enjoyment” of exploring the DAW. You find this in every area of audio. Users who have to meet an objective vs. users who are hobbyists. An example would be spending days or weeks comparing a emulation VSTI to the real synthesizer. Another example is esoteric comparisons of high end converters where IMO it often comes down to which “flavor” and nothing is really “best” and rarely conducted objectively blind in controlled audio environments. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with this, but it is different than the user who just wants to use the tool to meet an objective. Most users fall somewhere in the middle.

So what are your goals? How much time do you want to spend to really learn a new DAW? I will guarantee you there are bugs in every DAW with unhappy users. Assuming Cubase is the most feature-rich DAW is it not acceptable to assume it might be the one plagued with the most bugs? That is no license for Steinberg to ignore the most common verified bugs, but I think they also have to make a profit for Yamaha with each new release. Personally I’m thankful they haven’t dreamed up LoopMash3. :laughing: Follow the money. The money is controlled by prosumers, not every-day users or pros with deadlines. This is why I think so many bugs go ignored.

Keep perspective that forums may not represent the overall status of any DAW. I’m here to learn. Many have questions that can be easily answered and then never participate again. The majority of DAW users I think never participate.

Does mix history interest you? I find it amusing to see now that we got mix undo…many are begging for the mix undo to be stored with the project. Or better yet, keep the last 20 changes but somehow delete the prior change. More feature requests and complaining right?

The same goes for sampler tracks. We got it, but it’s not nearly good enough, and now look at all the potential sampler improvements. Steinberg just opened more cans of worms.

Meanwhile some very basic core DAW function bugs and concepts go unfixed…year in and year out.

So does mix history or sampler tracks seduce you? If not…stay on 8.5, or look to the other side where the grass looks greener.

Thanks for your extensive reply and information. Been using Cubase a lot for professional video music scoring, FX and comment editing in the past. These days more as tool for songwriting etc. BTW a can of worms is necessary at times, but only for fishing really. F

Agree. I have reported two issues with RME gear and the actually fixed the bugs AND let me know they fixed them. Stellar support. The cost a lot, but that is why I stayed with RME.

Yep !!! Such a pitty.

Time perhaps for a thread revival, even though this thread has (absurdly) been moved to The Lounge.

On the face of it, Steinberg have indeed listened to us. 9.5 in particular was all about smaller improvements and workflow boosts. However, they’ve missed a critical part of the picture - bug fixes and performance improvements. I’m near-clinicaly-depressed about the current state of Cubase. Many of us have our issues, the problems and niggles that stop us from really moving forward with Cubase. For me, the really big ones are to do with Track Archives and Multitimbral Disabled Tracks (in this logged issues thread here - . Cubase has all the tools I need to have a slick, effective modular-template based approach, but its so woefully buggy (and has been for years) that it’s like pulling teeth.

After a few terrible years, Avid have really started to up their game in Pro Tools. Their implementation of Track Presets leaves Cubase for dust, and promises a revolution in how you can worth with that DAW. If they really focus on midi (as they’ve hinted) then it might finally be time to wave goodbye to Cubase. But I so long for Steinberg to really grab the bull by the horns and focus on support, bugs and performance.

It’s interesting to look through this old thread though to see how many people who said they would leave Cubase have updated anyway, and are still using Cubase. Well, this forum is on the Internet.


Well, it’s very hard to switch away from your main DAW after you’ve invested your whole career working on it and you know it inside and out. I think we just like to threaten leaving so that Steinberg will take some of our concerns or ideas seriously sometimes, when it feels like we are not being taken seriously.

I’ve stuck on 9.0 - simply no point in my updating til the bugs that are crippling me are addressed.

Perhaps more depressing was that this wasn’t a difficult decision to make, I wasn’t even remotely tempted to update to 9.5. It was just a wave of apathy on my part.

I think what’s important here is to know where any potential issues will appear and create a workflow that avoids them.

I read the thread referenced and understand there are some long-term issues regarding “Track Archives and Multitimbral Disabled Tracks (in this logged issues thread here.” Knowing this, what should an advanced or advancing user do to avoid having problems? In other words, if the bridge is washed out down one road, is there another road? I’m not sure I fully understand what the problem is.

In the old days of magnetic tape there were all kinds of problems and huge barriers to entry in terms of cost. Far, far fewer people had access to the kinds of tools and capabilities so many now have in Cubase and the other DAWS.

If a long-standing issue is unresolved, that’s a drag, requests for improvements are fine. But, in the mean time, what are we going to do? Stop making all the great sounds we’re able to make with Cubase?

Well put.

For me, its simply to stop upgrading as there seems to be very little point. Cubase works, kind of, yet upgrading won’t improve that situation. So it’s a case of lots of compromises, bodges and patching things up on the fly. It’s therefore not a case of flouncing off but inevitably as other DAWs improve, I might well be tempted (especially from Pro Tools as its a DAW I already know).

The issues in that linked thread are so severe that it curtails how I can move forward with Cubase. I’ve started another thread to improve Track Presets, as that might be an alternative option to the buggy Track Archives and Multitimbral disabled tracks. Currently the functionality is so poor its not a contender, but if they were significantly enhanced (and reliable) I’d throw my eggs in that basket.

I’ll look up your thread on Track Presets.

Is there no way to work so as to avoid whatever problems you’re having? Given how much the program does, isn’t there another workflow pattern you can establish so you don’t hit these problems? I’m not suggesting there is but wondering if there is?

Anyway, I understand that uncovering an issue in the process of work is upsetting. You think something is working and should work, but it does not. I’m just glad these kinds of problems don’t require bringing in a different tape recorder or finding time in some other location and praying the equipment there is adequate. Good luck with your projects.


Cheers Stephen - I’ll take a look at the 9.5 track handling to make sure I’ve missed nothing, but I’m 99.9% sure that Track Presets haven’t added routing info, sends, auxes etc, which is the meat of it.

The only other solution is to sort of go back in time, and keep gargantuan templates with everything loaded and ready to go. Having lived through this and got ever-more grumpy at the unwieldy beasts, I’m very reluctant to go back. As it stands, I have a few different templates all based on the same core modular framework, and in each case I’ve fixed all the bugs as far as I can so starting off at least I’m fine (and its a delight to have such light templates). It’s when it comes to adding parts that things can get sticky, but there’s usually a fudge through somehow.

You might have an alternative to gargantuan templates. It’s not as convenient but have you tried File>export>selected tracks? Then File>import>track archive? It’s not as convenient because you are not loading inserts into an existing selected track but instead opening a new track with inserts, send and corresponding FX track.

IIRC this will/should save the inserts with sends, routings, group, and fx tracks. Please let me know if it does not with a repro. It seems there were saving issues depending on the type of track, audio or instrument, but it’s been a while.

Track presets…only good for inserts on the selected track.

Track Archives are one of the two very things causing problems. When you re-load the archive, often the routings drop off or are scrambled. It has all the right features (except it doesn’t save folder tracks, track heights and can’t be inserted at a specific position), but it’s just buggy. Also, the results are variable - often it will work ok first time but then get increasingly erratic.

I think I have been very lucky! Thanks for pointing this out. Now I want to test again in a newer version.

It goes to show for myself that I have never used Track Archives enough or put much faith in Track Presets, Import/Export track archive, or Save/Load selected which I don’t think has ever worked with Track Instruments. Also I believe Save/Load selected requires selecting the exact number of tracks that was saved in order for the user to Load Selected tracks? Regardless, these features are what I would consider things that make Cubase “pro” as they have the potential to streamline workflow.

With 3 similar features, it becomes a bit blurred as to when to use which feature, since only track presets works correctly 100% of the time…assuming the intent was only inserts in a single track and not multiple tracks, groups, sends etc.

Tested again. I tried 4 times but couldn’t get things to screw up other than track colors heights, etc. I used 3rd party and factory tools. But there are a lot of assumptions and way too many variables to consider.

  1. How I initially create the audio, track instrument, group, and efx tracks.
  2. linked vs. unlinked mix consoles.
    3 All 4 tests, I closed Cubase, then opened it vs. a project with existing tracks and using import>track archive.
  3. relatively simple test vs. big project with dozens of sends, routings, etc

In the attachments, the only difference is the track colors.

Could anyone create a repro or is the bug always intermittent?
cubase track kexport import test 2.jpg
cubase track export import test 3.jpg

I’ve noticed some of this:

Routing gets “lost” – A is track routed to a group in the original, but when the Archive is imported the routing is lost or mis-routed. I’ve seen this and similar issues mentioned in other posts. I’m tempted to try to reproduce some of these issues and post a step-by-step analysis. This is a complex issue to describe and I’m not sure I’m the best one to attempt it. Others here are far more expert users.

I’ve found that Cubase will get the MIDI data right, but, generally speaking, lots of the more complex routing and even Patch Selection is not retained in Archives (as I wish it were). Import Track from Project seems to work a bit better.

Now, what about “Library.” I’ve not worked with that, but does that, perhaps do some of this better? The OM makes it sound like it’s more for re-using clips in projects, like tags for ads and so on, bumpers, but I wonder if its worth a look?

Not sure if this helps, but In 9.5 the multi-timbral instruments now have, I believe, actual tracks in the Project and in the Mixer for activated Audio Outputs and those tracks can now be moved around like normal tracks. In my version, 9.0.4, for such instruments those “tracks” appear only in the Mixer and can not be re-positioned. This is one reason I will update to 9.5 in the near future. (I use the MIDI tracks for creating and recording MIDI parts, but prefer to mix on audio outputs. I mostly use Instrument Track because it consolidates MIDI and Audio into a neat package).

I’ll post if I find anything potentially helpful with this.

Good testing. Nice project colors, btw.

I think the reality here is that we can expect to have to rebuild things. I’m wondering if Notepad data is imported? If it is, we’d at least have a place to keep some session/track information so that when an archive is imported, those re-build notes – patch names, effects used, routing notes, whatever – would help restore the full sound. A workaround.