Color entire channel/track in mixer. Please.

Can we please have the option to color entire channel strip in the mixer???

We implemented this in the Edit window… and the sky did not fall. Cubase did not lose its signature look. It is a feature now used by many. And i personally love it with my 900 track composers template…. until I get to the Mix window!

Why can’t we do this in the Mix window???

The same ability (and option) to use it with variable translucence and brightness. Wonderful organizational feature.


And why not? :wink:


Yes. I would probably make use of this feature! :wink:


Not sure, but I think this is another one of those ‘we don’t want to look too much like the competition’ deals. The current deal is so hard to read and so inconsistent that’s my only explanation.

Gonna bump this thread with an example.
Would be nice to be able to color code the console as if right now labels are too small and often end up being hidden behind the transort panel.
Or at least o have an option to display labels above the faders.

Labels above the faders is pretty cool! First I didn’t notice a difference from usual, by just looking at the image, but then it hit me…
This is usually a good sign!



Man what an obvious move to put coloured labels above the faders, so obvious it never occurred to me. :smiley:

It really makes a difference vs Steinberg’s default. I love the coloured mixer in Pro Tools but our overlords in Hamburg will never allow it.

Headache :mrgreen: or CuTools :laughing: ?


Option = Yes

Forced = NO

+1 for both, as options. I really like the labels above the faders. The coloring the channels would also be nice as long as there is a level to adjust the amount of color.

It makes sense. It’s easier and would look better than the icons. I abandoned those.

I posted this way back in the C7 days. I’d still like to see this implemented.
Click Me

[EDITED by moderator: if you don’t like a feature request it’s fine, please treat others like you would like to be treated: healthy arguments are absolutely welcomed, but your comment was not constructive neither nice]

I think no one needs this in pro studios and the rest of your FR is just more confusing, which gives even more bugs.
So don´t like.
There are more important features still missing in Cubase.
My opinion.

sorry, don´t think so. See Logic or PT e.g.

Yeah I’m totally agree, nobody needs this in PRO studious and I think that Cubase is overloaded with features already and we don’t need any more. SB has to fix some bugs here and there and just stop. You know, I’d rather said we don’t need Cubase in general because we can have Logic or PT e.g.

Maybe that’s because there’s no floating transport panel in them which can obstruct labels or faders or other elements.

Wow. Some stubborn users on this board.

Look at just about every recent Cubase user videos posted on youtube. Id estimate 95% of them are using color options in their Edit windows. Time to bring the same OPTION to the mix window.

“I think no one needs this in pro studios…” lol

You may think that, but you are dead wrong.

Let me say that I’m all for making mixer elements in a modern DAW GUI easier to locate, because first and foremost, it’s not a hardware situation constrained by the limitations of the manufacturing process.

If you had a physical mixing board in front of you, it’s quite easy to locate the controls you need to get at quickly. It’s all there, right in front of you, within easy reach.

Not so in a DAW where functions like Sends, EQs, Dynamics, Track assignments…etc. eventually become so populated within limited screen space that the DAW designer has no choice but to tab, folderize, scrollbar or contextually menu-ize functionality to keep the GUI manageable and controllable.

Suggesting that I look at ProTools or Logic as an example of how a DAW’s GUI should be laid out, I’m compelled to point out that these layouts are also based on a hardware paradigm created long before DAWs. Nothing wrong with that except for the differences in the presentation placed before you.

Because it’s software, something can be done to shift the paradigm to fit and work efficiently within the constraints of the medium….to present the ability to see as much information necessary within the confines of those restraints….as the user see fit. That’s what customization preferences are all about. It’s software.

The OP of this thread made the premise that it’s tough to tell what track is what in the mixer view and suggested that an easier way to quickly identify track “classes” would be to permit the user to color tint individual mixer strips.

On the face of it, as an identification utility, it’s not the worst idea in the world. On a aesthetical level, it could be argued that it would make the mixer look like a clown car…particularly for those who prefer a more conservative and traditional hardware-based look. I couldn’t care less, because by design, I could use the function or not.

My suggestion (prompted by another user who posted a pic of something I proposed a couple of years ago) is to use an already established Steinberg GUI modification method (i.e.: rearranging the Menubar, Inspector, Tracklist tools…etc) to provide a mechanism that would shift some of the channel strip’s elements up or down. Nothing earthshaking. It doesn’t seem unreasonable as an organizational methodology for presenting mixer information in a manner that makes sense to some users dealing with a densely packed visual environment.

Centralizing the track Naming area closer to the middle of the screen simply makes it easier to scan across the mixer and identify what the name of the track is in a sea of vertical strips. And again, by design (a preset preference), it can be used or not. It’s not going to break anything you already have. And it’s certainly not a programming issue that’s going to introduce a ton of bugs. They already know how to program this mechanism.

If you want to criticize the idea, then present a reasonable argument. Don’t simply point to the competition and say: look….they don’t do it either. Steinberg and its competition are presently following a constrained layout paradigm based historically on hardware….something a software layout, with it’s own significant constraints, doesn’t necessarily need to adhere to these days.