Now the question is, should Steinberg focus more on the functionality of Cubase, especially fixing bugs which are carried over version to version, or carry on as usual, some new features and new plugins, most of which (plugins) I personally find no use for, how many compressors, reverbs and delays does one need!? Not forgetting the loop packs, I am sure we all find some useful, but most are fillers?
Most of us have invested in third party plugins, most of them, if not all, are superior to Steinberg’s own as they specialise in those sort of plugins!
I do like the Ultra Shaper though, that is probably the best plugin included in some years. Drum and Melodic patterns I would consider part of the core functionality, not plugins (simply because the way it’s loaded).
Sure 59 votes isn’t the most comprehensive survey, perhaps Steinberg can do a vote here and see if the results match up?
Cubase is already a very complex and feature rich DAW, I see comments regarding bugs and feature requests, yet every year, Steinberg are like “here is a new compressor, new reverb and delay” that nobody really asked for!?
Every year, it’s £89, €99 or $99, if they offered two types of updates, one for core (at a lower price of course) and one as at present to include plugins and loops, I would think vast majority of users would go for the core update!
The persistent instability in complex creative software—such as Steinberg’s Cubase or Nuendo—is rarely the result of incompetence. Rather, it stems from architectural entropy: the inevitable accumulation of complexity in software that must maintain decades of legacy compatibility while interacting with a volatile ecosystem of third-party hardware and operating systems. This mirrors a broader crisis in modern software design, where abstraction layers and rapid release cycles have outpaced the human capacity to maintain code purity.
I. The “Steinberg” Paradox: Why DAWs Are Uniquely Vulnerable
Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) represent one of the most hostile engineering environments in software development. Unlike a word processor, a DAW must operate in “hard real-time,” processing audio buffers in milliseconds while hosting code (plugins) written by hundreds of other manufacturers.
1. The Burden of Legacy Code (Technical Debt)
Steinberg’s core codebase spans decades. Maintaining a “Lifetime License” model creates an expectation that old files must open in new versions, and old workflows must remain intact.
The Issue: To support twenty years of features, the code becomes stratified. New features are often “wrapped” around old cores rather than rewriting the core, because a full rewrite would break backward compatibility.
The Consequence: “Spaghetti code” emerges where changing a UI element in the mixer might inexplicably break a MIDI function written 15 years ago. This is Regression Risk—the high probability that a “fix” creates two new bugs.
2. The Hostile Ecosystem (OS and Driver Instability)
Steinberg cannot control the environment in which its software runs.
Apple/Microsoft Updates: Operating systems frequently deprecate low-level audio/video frameworks (e.g., Apple moving from Intel to Silicon, or dropping 32-bit support). Companies like Steinberg must burn thousands of engineering hours just to return to stability after an OS update, rather than fixing existing bugs.
The “Plugin” Variable: A DAW hosts VST/AU plugins from third parties. If a single plugin has a memory leak, it crashes the entire DAW. Users often blame the host (Steinberg) for crashes caused by external code they loaded into the session.
3. Real-Time Processing vs. Modern CPUs
Modern OS design prioritizes battery life and background task efficiency (checking emails, syncing clouds). DAWs require the exact opposite: they need brutal, uninterrupted CPU dominance.
The Struggle: Steinberg must fight the OS scheduler to ensure audio processes are not “put to sleep” by the operating system’s efficiency protocols. This constant battle often manifests as “stuttering,” “dropouts,” or “audio engine failures.”
TO BE BLUNT and REALISTIC
If Steinberg made every user use a Steinberg operating system, and force every plugin manufacturer to test within cubase latest version only, and cut off its loyalty to all previous version owners, Cubase/Nuendo would run flawless !
Just Remember
At every meeting at Steinberg, the decisions being made, are considering people who have also never updated regularly and use out of date software, Steinberg is committed to these customers, unfortunately they hold progress back.
Imagine if getting to mars meant destroying the earth we launch from, is that an option ? is that correct ?
Imagine spending 12 months designing code to work in an Apple OS, and then Apple radically change there OS, you now have to spend 3 months configuring to this change within Apple, instead of refining your product.
Priorities in development
The majority of users being able to use there DAW in Operating systems to an acceptable level.
Loyalty to users of legacy software, making sure what they purchased 5 years ago, still works in todays changing OS landscape.
Offering new products to new customers willing to pay you $$$
Fixing issues from 5 years ago, that to some degree haven’t made people quit the product.
A bug is a glitch in a functioning environment, better a bug than a software that doesnt work at all.
“Cubase 16. We didn’t add anything, we just fixed a lot of stuff.”
That would excite experienced users. However it’s newer users and the general DAW market that I think make this not possible. I too wish the same as you do.
To do what? Make a hit record? Make beats? Sound design? Film score? Commercials? Or satisfy hobbyists who love the DAW, doing shoot-outs without ever thinking of music? There is nothing wrong with that right?
I think if you started out with just Cubase 15 and purposely ignored all marketing and social media, a user could do a lot more than what most think possible with just a DAW. If users truly learned the tools, and what is available with Cubase 15 including Groove Agent, Halion, and the instrument VSTs you could go very far. But why doesn’t that happen? Marketing? Established brands where some of them are worthless today other than it’s a known name and has gone through multiple owners?
Learn everything Cubase has to offer, then fill the gaps with 3rd party developers to achieve your sonic objectives. Few users really seem to do it that way. I guess it’s still the opposite. How many Cubase users even open the Console that contains the basics?
There certainly are tools that 3rd party developers excel at and are better. But it’s not like it used to be just a decade ago. Long ago…when Steinberg released Neon, and a short time later, NI released Generator>Reaktor…yeah…that’s a huge difference. And I think Neon was just there for an example.
Maybe you need to ask yourself why that happens since “nobody really” asked for it? Why would Steinberg release something that nobody really asked for?
I disagree. Historically yes, but these days not necessarily. It depends on the tool.
Steinbergs own dynamic EQ has features (multiple SC sources & multiple SC inputs) that is not available from any 3rd party VST. I don’t think there are “better” dynamic EQ VSTs with these missing features from every 3rd party out there. And how do you know that a Steinberg EQ plug-in doesn’t null with a well-known 3rd party EQ plug in? Could it be the GUI that makes the difference? Could it be the price that makes it more “valuable” to you since free ones are included in a DAW?
It really depends on the tool. And more importantly…how is this tool going to make a difference at the end of the day? The tool playing field has been relatively leveled, except there still seems to be an experience gap.
My most used EQ is the built-in Steinberg stock EQ. Why don’t I choose ProQ 4? I paid for it. I also have Massenburgs expensive MDWEQ both UAD and native. Do you think I use MDWEQ on a low pass shaker track that is barely heard but when muted it’s somehow missed in context with all other tracks? Same goes with a compressor. It’s completely dependent upon the context of your track. These boring Steinberg digital EQs, Filter, mono delay, and compressors are the ones I use most often. Feel free to slap Soothe2 on dozens of tracks and then wonder why your DAW won’t keep up. For reference I have most everything UAD, Toontrack SDX EZX, SoundToys, NI and Waves. But for me, it’s the basic general tools, many which are included that I use most.
I could download Jeremy"Jezar" Wakefileds Freeverb from 25 years ago, and use it on a guiro. Would someone think…gosh the guiro reverb sounds cheap and digital? It’s all about context.
Years ago, UAD used to stand out from the crowd, and they could sell a plug for $200. But technology has caught up, and that forced them to join the Waves $29 club and send hard sell emails every day just like most everyone else. DAWs are adding new stuff because it’s cheap and possibly even outsourced.
Several users berated it the first week of Cubase 15 release. While I like it and it’s useful, I would choose another plug as “best included in some years.” See how we are different?
I wouldn’t consider it core functionality because I never use it. I use most of Toontrack, Aly James, Kick2, Battery, etc and lots of 3rd party patterns that go far beyond what is included in any DAW. My point is…see how we are different? Cubase is used different by different user groups.
In conclusion, I agree with a lot of your points. However you need to ask yourself why things are the way they are. What is the business paradigm of Steinberg as well as the other DAWs. Who owns what? Whats the future of a younger DAW that has put Fender on it’s name now? And how is AI going to change a lot of this in a short period of time?
Years of neglecting to address well documented bugs and shortcomings inevitably lead to bad publicity and reputational damage. That doesn’t sell either.
Well, exactly why I raised this, maybe Steinberg will do their own poll here and get a much bigger and focused user feedback if they truly care!
You can’t please everyone (all the times), that’s a given, no point trying, but as it stands, Cubase already includes loads of quality plugins, so they could work on feature functions only (including bug fixes) for one year.
No doubt AI is coming to Cubase too, one way or another, and the pressure to make each release exciting is always there, but if most of the Cubase users want issues resolved instead of being carried to the next version, this will push people away!
Example of bugs/issues from v12, no idea how many have been fixed, that list has not been updated, as it was updated by Louis_R, but you get the idea.
Steinberg has done many polls here as well as many other sources for the entire time under Yamaha. I’m very confident they understand and know their different user groups. And many of these groups desire core function focus, workflow, and especially bug fixes to be priority.
Keep in mind forum participation is just a small fraction of all users.
But you didn’t tell me why that does not happen.
My conclusion is money and sustainability. It’s a business. These developers would love to focus more on core functions and issues. However some of the issues that appear a simple fix are not simple and require a lot of resources. Then you look at the competition, and how you fit in. I think innovation and technology has become cheapened. New “features” sometimes are cheap to integrate relative to fixing old issues.
Anyone can be a Cubase armchair quarterback, on a forum. But Steinberg is a private company and only they really know their business.
Honestly, you are not asking for anything new. I have been saying the same thing ever since Cubase SX when they lost Wavelab integration. Steinberg is a business. Unfortunately, no business has released a $3,000 DAW that contains fewer bugs.
I think it’s a tradeoff, and they walk a fine line. Poll after poll I always prioritize addressing bugs . More importantly, why do you think additional priority is not given to core functions, and bugs?
Maybe a better question is instead of being owned by Yamaha, who would you prefer as an owner? Fender? Avid? LANDR? InMusic? Francisco Partners? Elon Musk?
Cubase Pro 15 introduced just two new plugins: UltraShaper, of which you said it is great, and PitchShifter, of which some others have said it is great.
Sorry, but I cannot take sentences like yours seriously.
I don’t know the reason, just like you, I can also speculate but there is no point in wasting time doing that!
What I do not need to speculate on is that from the poll, the results are there to see, indicating that most are updating due to the core functionality instead of new plugins and loops!
So how many years do they have to stop releasing plugins before you stop asking them to release plugins?
Come on, your survey was already not great to start with. Your reasoning doesn’t improve that impression. Appparently you have an opinion and what to give it some emphasis. Fair, but your delivery doesn’t swing me over.
In the 90s it was tempting for me. I don’t see much SAW incentive for me today. Of course that’s subjective. But that shows everyone’s workflow and objectives are different.
Sure, it’s all a guess unless you are employed by Steinberg. So what is your speculation? I gave my speculation and it’s about a 35-year old business. Is your speculation different?
IMO a lot. Who owns the competition is very important. But it’s your choice to not answer. Looking at current ownership, I’m pretty grateful Steinberg is under Yamaha considering recent Fender and LANDR moves.
I gave my reason, or as corrected by @mlib speculation, and I think it’s clearly explained in my prior reply.
Do you have a different speculation? You did say “if they truly care” implying Steinberg doesn’t care? That to me is very strange for a business that does extensive marketing research let alone polls right here which you apparently have missed. I don’t even know if Steinberg ends up in the black at the end of each year. But I’m sure Yamaha does know. And Yamaha is a publicly traded company.
They have done numerous polls here. And they have done lots of marketing research far beyond forums.. They are a successful business in a very competitive environment.
When I see a problem, I think of the causes or reasons (speculation) then a solution.
A poll at FB plus a post here, and the assumption that polls have not happened here regularly indicates that you do have interest, but haven’t seen or participated in the polls in this forum. So again, I ask for your reason that more focus is not on core functions and bugs?
Your FB poll IMO is a no-brainer. Bug fixes, or as you wrote, core functionality features, no matter the DAW, is always going to be a priority.
Me neither. I worked in SAW for a brief period in the late 90s. It was a fine piece of software.
I like to bring it up every once in a while as a reminder that bug free software is achievable.
I think the answer has multiple facets and is not a simple one. I suppose in essence, current Steinberg management and myself differ slightly on how to best manage resources when it comes to the best interest of their flagship product.
