[CB-1313] MIDI in Cubasis?


Recent Cubasis user here, but DAW user since Atari days.

So, when using MIDI tracks in Cubasis, recieved midi is not re-transmitted on the channel that’s defined as the tracks MIDI output channel. Rather what’s received seems simply to be echoed (only if MIDI thru is turned on).

This is contrary to how DAW’s generally and historically work and will lead to some nasty workflows, that involve constantly changing the transmit channel of my midi controller.

Usually DAW’s re-transmit MIDI data, using the the channel set as the output channel for the track. If you do want to re-transmit the incoming MIDI data, without remapping the channel(s), you can simply choose “ALL” as your tracks output channel.

So what am I missing?

Hardware: iPad Air 2, Steinberg UR44, Yamahe S90es Multimbral Keyboard.

This is going from bad to worse.

IAA instrument tracks always echo in-coming midi on channel 1, regardless of send channel and midi thru state… Things played via the virtual keyboard, is always played on channel 1… If you set output target and channel, it will play to that… and channel 1.

I wanted to try this with Audiobus, but Cubasis almost consistently crashed when launched from Audiobus (even after iPad re-boot), so I gave up.

Playing back MIDI on an IAA track, also always plays on channel one + additionally any channel that you specify as output in the midi routing. Not useful for multitimbral IAA instruments. As a workaround, you can put your midi on a non-IAA midi track, that you route to the synth that’s hooked up to the IAA track. However, you now have no way of freezing or recording this stuff that I could find.

Also on freezing, you have to know (by magic) that freezing only works properly with a buffer-size of 256, as there is not warning when you freeze a track with a different buffer size setting. Only the timing of your results will be off.

I’ve read that some of these things work like they do “By Design”, but I can’t help feeling that whomever designed/implemented them is either out of their depth or are not given the time & resources they need to make each feature.

I purchased Cubasis and enthusiastically read the documentation front to back before getting started. Once I did get started however, Cubasis seemed to blow up in my face, every step I took. I’m sorry to be so negative, I really wanted to fall in love with Cubasis. Though I knew that the feature set was limited, the virtual instruments, mixer and effects mostly on the cheap side, I purchased it because I believed Steinbergs pedigree would shine through in the foundation of the package.

At this point Cubasis is really overprised for what it is feature wise (compare it to Cubase Elements that’s only 2x the price) and is obviously not ready for the road, even a few years after release. I’m not sure what Stenbergs plan is with Cubasis, but you get the feeling that it’s either:

A. We are just dipping our toes in IOS, to make sure we gain some knowledge and have a leg up if IOS takes off as a music platform. All the while, we are letting the consumers pay for the party. This would obviously not be cool.

B. Give users early access, while we spend the next 3-4 years getting the application to an acceptable state. This would be ok, but then I think you need to state that clearly and adopt a much more open door development approach + give a clear roadmap and let users know what and when they can expect for their money.

For now, this will be my first attempt at an app refund ever. I hope you will soon turn the boat around and I’ll be the first to jump back on.

Moving forward, I’d like to encourage you to focus on fixing the foundation and not on new features or IAP.


Hi Nenox,

Cubasis has been specially designed for iOS with a clear focus on quick and easy operation.
If you’ve expected to find a carbon copy of Cubase we’re sorry having to tell you that this is not the intention of this app.

Cubasis has seen a lot of free updates (new features, improvements, bug fixes) since its introduction end of 2012 and we plan to expand its capabilities on a regular basis.

The MIDI topic quoted in your message will be evaluated by the team.
The IAA track freeze issue has been mentioned and commented in the forum already and is a bug.

We’re very pleased if you accompany us on our way with Cubasis.
If you instead decide for a refund, please get back to Apple about the topic.


Please provide me with the crash report via PM, if possible.


Hi Lars and many thanks for your reply.

“Cubasis has been specially designed for iOS with a clear focus on quick and easy operation.
If you’ve expected to find a carbon copy of Cubase we’re sorry having to tell you that this is not the intention of this app.”

I do not at all expect a carbon copy of Cubase, in fact in order to confirm my memories of how MIDI routing works, I opened the Cubasis AI that came with my UR44 and I was more than a little confused (I think it’s been more than 10 years since I last operated Cubase/Nuendo) :slight_smile:

So keeping it simple is a good thing! But when I look at the way MIDI routing works right now, it’s does not seem more simple. It’s just seems less good/unfinished, something I’m not OK with in a DAW from Steinberg, that’s been out for several years.

I do think it should work like users coming desktop based DAW’s would expect (because it works). seems you could simply use the right default settings that would give the same default behavior as now. This way novice users would not have to worry about these settings, any more than they do now, while more experienced DAW users or people leveling up would avoid confusion and frustration.

The behavior of most iPad instruments always reacting to midi from an external controller midi via. core midi and most of them being pretty inflexibility in regards to midi settings, makes proper midi routing in Cubasis even more important.



Thanks for providing the crash report so quickly!
The report will be checked by our engineers.


NP. I bring my iPad everywhere, it’s surely a disease ! :slight_smile:

Hi Nenox,

The topic has been discussed with the team and we evaluate the possibilities for a re-work in a future update to be released this year.


Hi Lars,

Thanks for the heads up. Fingers crossed :slight_smile: