Quite. It’s just that if you don’t know what you’re doing you seem to need new things instead of properly training to do the job correctly.
There comes a point of feature overload where professionals don’t need half the “features” because they can do the job in a an hour rather than spend a week looking for the right “feature” or a month asking if the company can spend another fifty grand developing it for them because they haven’t got time to use the time-saving tools they spent so much money on. 
Multi-mic-d guitar amp is the biggest nightmare of all when trying to edit using slip and x-fade… Only if we could warp them all the same… Save so much time.
As far as anyone else who doesn’t understand how useful this feature would be; then you probably aren’t doing the type of work that some of us are… Professional style engineering from start to finish. The automatic drum quantizing feature is decent and fast if there are standard 4/4 grooves with minimal fills and no ride or closed hi-hat used. Other than that… It’s faster to slip-edit a whole song…and faster yet would be just to warp hits and snap to the grid how it does in the single event mode.
Seems like cubase is the wrong software for your needs then.
Hippo
I’ve been getting by just fine with it for almost a decade and the new additions are amazing. I’m not complaining about anything nor have I in the past. I was just asking if it were possible or any plans in the works for adding elastic to a group feature and had no idea so many people would be offended and snobby about this topic… All in all, Cubase is one hell of a remarkable program and I can do just fine with as it is. I just don’t understand everyone feels the urge to “troll” or “flame” or respond with inflammatory comments on this form… I know it’s the internet and everyone is an over-opinionated brat but come on; clearly I’m not complaining like the thousands of other people on this forum. Just simply asking opinions and seeing if anyone else would find it useful.
We’re not offended. Just don’t see the point. Things can be done anyway by people who have been doing more than “getting by” with Cubase for over ten years or so. We’re just telling you how it is. And new features need thinking thru as it would likely create more problems than it solves, as Hippo pointed out.
A better thread title would be “Is there any point in…” That way you get a discussion going in which more is said than " + 1" or bump in which case you’d maybe get down to contributions from more professionals who would offer suggestions as to how it may be useful or not or if it is worth doing.
With the present title most look at it and go “Same ole, same ole.” another “improvement” suggestion with not much thought behind it other than “this would help me” rather than “this would benefit many” or “could this also get in the way?”
I think you’re offended because we pointed out work practises that maybe need using more. Forward planning is a lot more useful to an engineering product.
I don’t think you understand the point of this post then. I was asking and hoping maybe someone who works for Steinberg would chime in and comment on it. I do the your point as far as thread title though, which next time I’ll be more careful on what I title it as. Maybe other people are right…I might be using the wrong software. Pro Tools 9 would probably be more suited for my needs of detail work and whatnot. Or I could use them in conjunction with each other. Either way you cut it though, Cubase has the coding for elastique’ and I’m sure plenty of people would find it incredibly useful in the project window with group editing engaged.
…that’s what I did. I bought Pro Tools 9. Cubase is still my main DAW. I just use Pro Tools for those little features like Elastic Audio. If Cubase would include a multi-track Elastique in a future update, then I can see myself just using Cubase for all my needs 
I would do yourself a favor and do the same. The multi-track elastic audio is AWSOME! My tracks have never sounded so tight before!
nexis
Yip I second that…still I would love to have this in cubase…I’d trade loopmash for it anyday 
here’s a post I made a while ago comparing some of the features in cubase to protools. More of a wish list really.
Edit…just finished a session in my studio now 2am. We were laying a horn section on rythm tracks recorded last week. One of the hottest drummers in SA sessioned on it. Nothing wrong with his playing at all, but after the horns were in we decided to rearrange the bridge. A great fill needed to be slighty changed in feel in order to work with the new arrangement. Instead of having to rerecord the drums for a couple of bars only, we just take the files over to multitrack warp a swing feel in and wala perfect result. Only time wasted, transferring files back and forth. Why not just work in protools…simple, I love Cubase.
multi-track elastique gets my vote…in fact i’d pay double the upgrade price!
I’d be particulary keen for multitrack warp for this reason alone. My playing is never perfect and it’s very handy to be able tweak with a quick warp adjustment where necessary - BUT with a two-mic setup - well this usually becomes impractical. If this feature could be added to track edit groups that would be rather cool 
Hey sherz, if you’re just using 2 mics you can get it done in Cubase. Record the 2 mics as a stereo wave. Cubase supports warping on a stereo wave. For mixing send the channels out to 2 mono groups with the sends panned hard left and right.
Remember to activate pre fade send, then turn down the fader on your stereo guitar track, so the groups now act as 2 mono tracks, one for each mic.
Like I said earlier in the thread you can do up to 6 mics using 5.1 surround waves. Convoluted method but works. It would be so simple to just place tracks in a folder with group editing enabled and warp one knowing the rest will follow.
The uses of this feature are endless to me, string sections, horn sections, choirs, drums, percussion, guitars, etc, etc. Basically anytime you’ve captured a sound source on many mics and want to treat them as one.
For those who don’t see the point of this feature I would ask why have free warp in Cubase at all then?
Whats the difference between wanting to free warp a stereo file (which seems fine with everyone) and wanting to free warp multitracks (which some think is unneccessary)?
Gosh… I never thought of that! Simple enough too.
Thanks for the tip!
Thank you guys so much for chiming in on this!!! Lets make a little more noise about this potential feature that is already pretty much in the software. It can be used for vocals, drums, guitar, synths… ANYTHING with multi mics. Just being able to warp an audio file or groups of them in the project window would be a dream come true!
Add that I just ordered pro tools for the multitrack elastic… I record technical metal bands most of the time… auto editing doesn’t work on that… it’s too complicated. I need access to all the stretching and warping I can get my hands on.
But…but…are you sure you don’t want to go back to tape like real professionals are doing? Or-learn to play better or have your recorded players play better?? Or do more planning ahead??? like REAL professionals? I mean, you don’t want another FEATURE do you, Oliver Twist?? 
(btw, I’d also find this feature helpful-ignore the naysayers.Cheers)
HAHAHA! I forgot to add the fact that people don’t pay 5% of what they used to for the same if not better quality than 10 or 15 years ago… So screw it… Why do we need more tools to aid the process right?
I’ll chime in for multi-track timestretch beyond the workarounds
It is needed, regardless of what any of the doubters say. The current quantise panel method and/or cut and slip can do a lot but as pointed out, producing the current crop of extreme metal to the required level with real drummers in Cubase is a PITA… well producing any extreme metal is a PITA but thats not the point 
(or should that be challenging)
And just to have that facility in the armoury of editing would make me and a lot of others very happy.
I was mildly deflated when I realised that C6 didn’t include this feature.
Remember, a lot of modern music production is defined by the technology!
Back to tape is ok for some, but at the end of the day, most of it will get stuck onto protools anyway.
it seems inevitable, the road to the future, we’ve heard a lot of reasons for it, and maybe that’s just the tip of the isberg yada yada yada … even if I don’t need it TODAY. Maybe next week? Or next year?
so
+1
+1