I agree with this post 100%. I guess I am naïve to think a paid upgrade should be an improvement.
1 Like
Ok, I wrote “highly inappropriate”, you wrote “highly inappropriate”. I wrote “highly inappropriate” because the definition of the term gaslighting does not match what happened here. Not because I felt offended by Trensharo.
What exactly do you feel was inappropriate?
What do you mean “used”? Your license allows you to use C13. You don’t like the C14 editor - fine. Criticize it, fine, I am with you on this one. Make some input exactly which features you are missing - fine, I celebrate you.
But asking for a discount because the new version does not meet your expectations? No, sorry, you lost me on that one.
You started this topic so well… and then you decided you need some discount, even though nothing was taken away from you. You did not even have the courtesy to suggest that, you demanded it. Very impolite, I’d say.
Since I do not want to derail this topic any further than I might already have, please PM me if you wish to continue this conversation.
Enough said…I guess I will just have to wait for updates that fix some of issues. I’m not paying $500 for Dorico.
2 Likes
That term is totally appropriate given your response to the other user.
You straw manned him and then told him to look in the mirror.
This is the part of your post I was referring to, and I stand by my characterization of it.
I basically just told him it was his fault and he was the problem… just with more words using the tact of faux indirectness.
There is no escallation. You didn’t do it to me, I’m just telling you that there are reasons why someone would have purchased and not known some of these things. Again, Steinberg does not have Trail versions available for weeks, sometimes a month or more, after the release of their software.
Most of us are upgrading blind when we do so.
Although, to be fair, not sure how much attention was being paid but on this occasion C14 did have a Trial version ready and released on launch day of the main program…
There was also a lot of promo/marketing material written and published alongside the new product (release notes, ‘What’s New’ website breakouts, blog posts, video reviews/roundups of new features, etc…) explaining all about the new version. In particular, to have alerted even casual users of the Score Editor that BIG changes were made in this area. There was now a brand new Score Editor included, built from the ground up and based on the Dorico notation engine.
Alarm bells should have been sounding off like crazy.
SB clearly stated that despite all the work thus far, they knew there was more to do and improvements/‘missing’ features were coming (in free maintenance updates). For experienced users, the advice was that projects started off in earlier editions, should be strongly considered for finishing up there, for now… i.e. the new Score Editor may take some time to be of full/practical use for them.
Well, again I can only suggest on this occasion you shouldn’t have been… I mean, they can only do so much to ‘lead a horse to water’, as the saying goes… The info was out there; a demo was available.
I’m not speaking of myself specifically. I was asking questions on release date, as my post history can attest to. Once I found out what the situation was, I uninstall it and went back to Cubase 13, where I have been since then - barely ever opining on the situation (or even coming to the forums) since then.
The information was just ambiguous in many areas.
I read the patch notes and needed clarification when I realized what I understood from reading them was not the reality of what was actually being delivered in the application.
Others had the same question, after purchasing the software.
These threads exist on the forum 
1 Like
Hi @Anderoid, we continue to improve the Score Editor in upcoming patch releases for Cubase 14, and we are also considering our roadmap for the longer term, taking user feedback into account.
The next immediate patch release and the one following will address some of your requirements.
Our overall design goal was, and remains, to enable a far greater number of users to create good looking scores very quickly. Please continue to try the new Score Editor with the updates, and let us know what else is missing for you specifically (we have seen you earlier requests of course).
2 Likes
Thank you Stefan,
I am very exited to see what will be implemented! I really love where you’re going with it. With a few tweaks and with more control over some of the features I think it could be a great addition to C14.
Just to quickly respond to this - it seems you are achieving that goal with the new editor, so bravo on that.
That said, many heavy users of the score editor are likely advanced composers working on high-budget film or game projects. Prioritizing “good-looking” scores is interesting because, in a DAW, aesthetics aren’t my main concern—I rely on Dorico/Sibelius (often via orchestrators) for that.
When using a DAW’s score editor to generate parts, my priorities are:
- Flexibility and speed for constantly changing music
- Accuracy (good looking scores are not necessarily accurate)
- Aesthetics
Right now, accuracy often conflicts with the new design’s emphasis on aesthetics. For professional presentation, I use Dorico. For speed, accuracy, and flexibility, I rely on the in-DAW editor.
I realize this is a hard balancing act because, as one of those heavy users working on high budget projects, I am probably in .1% of users. Still, I appreciate you continuing to being open to my feedback.
3 Likes
Hi, Thanks for that @Reco29 , is the implication that C13 Pro Score Editor is more powerful than the one in C14 Pro?
I’m following this but only somewhat peripherally - but I thought C14 Pro’s Score Editor update was the cat’s pajamas?
Hi Alexis,
yes, the old Score Editor in C13 is indeed more powerful than the newly released Score Editor in C14 for the time being. Give it some time and this will surely change. What we see is the very first version in C14 based on a completely different architecture based on Dorico. And I am sure that the highly motivated Dorico team is on it and will improve the Score Editor in no time. Just be patient 
1 Like
I agree with this. I don’t use the score editor to prepare parts for live players. I own Dorico and can send it over to Dorico for polish (or to an orchestrator like you said). My primary use case for the score editor is an alternative view to the key editor, so I can see vertical harmony more quickly what all my parts are doing. I use it all the time to work out voice leading of individual tracks, in ways I can’t really see what’s going on in key editor especially zoomed out. I’d love for the Cubase devs to refine the experience of using the score editor for composition, orchestration, and editing (with less priority on aesthetics). As a Dorico user as well I can say right now (since I know the new editor was largely adopted from Dorico) that a lot of the selection, movement, and editing tools which make Dorico so fast at composition are completely lacking in Cubase – and for me that relates to your first priority, flexibility and speed for changing music.
1 Like
This has generally been my stance, as well. I own Dorico Pro for this reason.
The ability to export Dorico Projects is really nice, but I don’t really start things in Cubase to bring them into Dorico later. I don’t even think I’ve ever exported a MusicXML from Cubase.
It’s usually the other way around, and the MusicXML Import function enabled that.
The fact that so few DAWs implement this function (Cubase, Logic, REAPER… struggling to think of any others) was a primary reason why I chose to use Cubase as a production platform.
1 Like
Totally. For me especially when I’m doing larger ensemble pieces with all kinds of counterpoint and voice leading, I prefer starting the bulk of it in Dorico. I’m currently scoring a short film doing exactly this, where I use Dorico + NotePerformer to simply sketch out all my parts in full, lay the groundwork of my musical structure and harmonies. Then I use MusicXML to bring into Cubase, connect that midi to nice sample libraries, and go to town with mix finesse and automation. However, invariably later I’ll need to do some quick tweaks to the voice leading of a few parts. Once I’m already in Cubase and deep into mix finesse, it makes absolutely no sense to roundtrip back over to Dorico and then back again just for that. Cubase’s score editor does ok in a pinch for moving a few notes but if I have a whole bunch of parts to tweak, its weaknesses for composition become clear very quickly.
1 Like
Does anyone know if it’s possible to save score presets in Cubase 14?
That would be other than making a template. I would like to be able to change score presets within an existing project.
BTW, the latest updates in score editor are much improved. I still would love to see more control over chord symbols.
Thx
1 Like
Hi everyone, I often write notes for bass guitar that have “ghost notes” in them. I usually mark them with crosses (as in drums). But this is in Cubase 12 ( you click on the note and a menu appears where you can assign any note designation). Is it possible in Cubase 14? Thank you in advance for the answer.
Hi, several issues and suggestions here, some already reported but I don’t know if they where considered
-
Link lyrics to midi notes so when copy/paste midi notes the lyrics are also copied
-
allow to move lyrics vertically. For the moment when there are 2 voices with different lyrics in a duo the lyrics are mixed up :
-
Issue with space between words, for no reason some words are sometimes mixed-up
-
Issue with “lyrics from clipboard” function: now when doing so the lyrics are randomly placed, it would be good if they where assigned to notes and not to random spaces (what’s the point of placing a word in the space between 2 notes? )
-
Issue : dotted 4th appears as dotted 4th linked to an 8th in 6/8 bars, even if the size is correct in midi.
-
Issue with double flat or x, for some reason the score editor struggle with enharmonic equivalence. Eg C in C major appears as bbD sometimes
-
Allow “hide rest” function to avoid this
Link lyrics to midi notes so when copy/paste midi notes the lyrics are also copied
There isn’t currently a way of linking lyrics to notes, as there are separate events and there is a many-to-many mapping between lyrics and notes.
allow to move lyrics vertically. For the moment when there are 2 voices with different lyrics in a duo the lyrics are mixed up :
In this case I would suggest setting the lyrics in the second voice to Verse 2 so they appear in the line below
Issue with space between words, for no reason some words are sometimes mixed-up
Can you attach a sample of the project? I could imagine this happening if you had a fixed number of bars in the system, but I wouldn’t expect it to happen normally
Lyrics from clipboard
It should assign to the position of notes. Do you have a project that reproduces the problem?
dotted 4th
I’ve logged this. The reason is that the logic to clean up the ends of notes isn’t taking compound time signatures into account.
double flats
This is something that should be improved in the next update
Hide rests
I’ll log as a Feature Request
Thanks for your answers
This is unfortunate as it really changes the nature of Cubase. Cubase is great for composing, quick sketching, etc, so it needs flexibility. The process of composing/arranging implies having to do a lot of copy/paste/moving notes. It’s impossible for me to work fluently now.
I have Dorico pro for engraving and pimp scores, I thinks it’s a good thing that the 2 software keep their different purposes. For me loosing the feature of linked lyrics to midi is a serious step back but I guess I’ll have no other choice that switching back to C13 hoping a solution might be found in the meantime.
Also why not letting the option to keep the old score editor in C14 ?
it works fine, thanks !
No it happens with automatic number of bar/system
I’ll dm a project, thanks
Thanks !