Oh, I understand the point of these comments. I just think they have more to do with ‘the Internet forum greenhouse effect’ than the actual user experience, about which, bizarrely, you claim absolute authority.
Excellent, characterstudios. I agree with that and thanks for the clarification. I do point out that I am not an expert in this field but I have done some searching on the matter, having considerable experience of how and what to look for, and found no similar points on this. If you know of any relevant links for me to look at then please point me to them. My point though is that, being pretty expert themselves, Steinberg have opted apparently, for an off standard implementation. These posts appear to be presuming an ignorance on their part that they cannot be aware of. As it is pointed out here in such alarming terms then they surely would react quickly in the manner of any other manufacturer and recall the product. I would have expected a post from moderators acknowledging the fact by now promising more investigation. They are usually very good when any problems require urgent attention.
That it is beginning to alarm some users then more clarification is needed than “it’s a train wreck…” especially as the “train” is still running smoothly by all (well most) accounts.
It WAS within the scope of both the topic and the sub-forum but it has seemingly developed into a serious issue as it is described as a “train wreck”. I don’t think one would describe something trivial as a train wreck so therefore I recommend posting it in the Issues forum. I wouldn’t say it’s a hijack of the original post but it has, by it’s description, developed into something that, apparently, needs serious attention on it’s own merits despite the general “pains” of Cubase referred to by the OP.
So far I can see no repercussions of the implementation of the new menu bar immediately but that’s not to say there aren’t, or won’t be any.
Not sure about the “bizarre absolute authority” part. But I have developed both desktop and web software for the better part of 10 years (most recently for a company with revenues of $6 billion per year and a customer base of over 800,000 users). So I do know a thing or two about software develement and user experience in particular. And judging from your dumbass comments (which are of course ironically infused with sarcasm and condescension,) I certainly know more than you do about the subject.
an interesting point you’re making. at the same time, i am sensing a rather strong antagonistic sentiment towards macs the past half year or so, with professionals dissatisfied with the recent hardware (and sw) developments (arguments being ‘thrashcan’ mac not a great fit for pro work, and alleged dumbing down of some software). at least in my surroundings i have seen some people switch to a pc for work (while keeping macbooks for ‘fun’).
Very well stated. I would just add that there was no good reason to implement a combined menu bar/title bar (and so there is not really a cost/benefit analysis at work here as far as I can tell). There are standard window management approaches that would have just as easily addressed the limitations of the older MDI implementation.
At least there is some justification for using hover controls in the MixConsole, one of the other usability issues about which Cubase users legitimately complain. While I too hate having to hover over controls for them to appear on screen, you can at least make an argument that the hover controls increase the amount of space for longer insert names and reduce screen clutter (by not having the same controls repeated across the MixConsole interface). This would be fine if people hardly ever changed inserts or needed to bypass them. But this is clearly not the case and so having to constantly hover over inserts to access their often-used controls is a pain. Again, if Steinberg’s Product Managers knew what they were doing, they wouldn’t have made this decision.
Just look at Studio One to see how it’s possible to include insert controls without sacrificing too much screen real estate or cluttering up the interface. Presonus include a small drop down arrow for managing the assigned insert and a “power” button to bypass the insert, controls that are both useful and subdued.
I think you have the market cornered on condescension, actually.
I agree there’s a lot of hyperbole going on, but that’s the internet, they key is to read through the hyperbole and understand why it’s used (hint: because the user has a problem).
I’m not UI designer, but through my job have been involved with them a lot, and I must admit that I hold the greatest respect for those that really know their stuff… there are so many things that people that don’t design UIs never think about, that are taken for granted. I also have experience with implementing large-scale software changes in an enterprise environment, software that is critical for tens of thousands of people to do their job serving hundreds of thousands of customers every day - you better get it right early (and even there we make a hash of it regularly… but that’s a different story), so I’ve seen the impact of one or two extra clicks on productivity with my own eyes, and what that means for dollars (the cost in dollars is comparable to the cost in creativity when transposing that to the Cubase stuff we’re talking about).
Anyway, without being a specialist on the topic myself, I’ll do a try to show where I think the new menu-bar conflicts with Windows UI design guidelines. I had to dig into the documentation myself (that I did read years ago), but that was easy enough…
Start by downloading the 2010 UX guide directly from Microsoft, it’s only 46 MB 
Also download Win 95 the guide I linked to in my previous post.
Starting on page 481 of the 2010 guide:
Window Frames
Most programs should use standard window frames. Immersive applications can have a full screen mode that hides the window frame. Consider using glass strategically for a simpler, lighter, more cohesive look.
The new menu bar system does neither option, it’s not full screen immersive (there’s a menu bar), and even though I can detach the windows from it, and present them separately in standard window frames, that menu bar remains there…
Then page 473 of the 2010 guide:
A top-level window has no owner window and is displayed on the taskbar. Examples: application windows.
In Windows Vista® and later, dialog boxes without owner windows and property sheets are also considered top-level.
An owned window has an owner window and isn’t displayed on the taskbar. Examples: modal dialog boxes, modeless dialog boxes.
So, the mixer and the arrange window are both displayed on the taskbar now, that’s good. But what about that menu-bar window though, I mean there’s always a menu bar, and there’s a grey background… is it its own top-level window? If it is, then it should be displayed in the taskbar separately… but it isn’t. But it’s not an owned window either, there’s no other window owning it. Confusing to say the least, and not very compliant.
From the Windows 95 guide (pages are a bit messed up in that, you’ll have to find the text yourself):
Primary Window Components
A typical primary window consists of a frame (or border) which defines its extent, and a title bar which identifies what is being viewed in the window. If the viewable content of the window exceeds the current size of the window, scroll bars are used. The window can also include other components like menu bars, toolbars, and status bars.
Title Bars
At the top edge of the window, inside its border, is the title bar (also referred to as the caption or caption bar), which extends across the width of the window. The title bar identifies what the window is viewing. It also serves as a control point for moving the window and an access point for commands that apply to the window and its associated view. For example, clicking on the title bar with mouse button 2 displays the pop-up menu for the window.
OK, that’s the Win95 guidelines, but even today that can be seen as a foundation for latter (/present) versions of Windows. Anyway, it’s very clear in those notes that a typical primary window consists of a frame (or border) which defines its extent, and a title bar which identifies what is being viewed in the window
It’s pretty clear that the new menu bar isn’t identifying what’s being viewed in the window…?
The text also states that the window can also include other components like menu bars, which reads to me that a menu bar is not a title bar. Combined with the fact that a window must have a title bar… it seems to me that the new menu-bar in C8 is basically just a menu bar in the spot where the title-bar should be.
The text on title bars also states that It also serves as a control point for moving the window, and with the new menu bar system that’s not possible anymore either, I basically can’t move the “menu-bar-window” at all.
I’m sure that’s just a few points that back up why this menu bar is such a strange approach and in conflict with available guidelines. I’m also sure that there’s real UI/UX designers out there that know about this in much more detail, and would probably say that I’ve approached this explanation completely wrong
In any case, I hope this goes some way in clarifying the points made.
Regards,
characterstudios
Having read this comment I went over to watch a few videos if Studio One. I was rather underwhelmed by the GUI. I seem to remember that Studio One got a lot of brickbats on launch for all manner of bugs and problems with operation. I believe version 2 has sorted a lot of the issues. However it still looks rather dull. I did however note that many of the developers were ex Steinberg designers.
Oh and by the way it is “development”. Sorry, I would not normally correct spelling, but you did seem to get a bit pompous and I am a teacher.
To be honest I rather like Cubase 8. The arguments about the way windows are used and the tool bar go over my head, as I am a musician. To be honest at the moment all I want is for the click to be fixed.
I found lukasbrooklyn’s points very interesting, but find it difficult to square the number of users complaining about many aspects of running 8 on a Mac.
I am , however, finding the debate illuminating - I think.
I am never condescending to people who are thoughtful and curious. Only to a-hole blowhards who should know better.
Respectfully, you are conflating the visual design of Studio One with its functionality. While visual design is to some degree a matter of taste (although Cubase’s heavy gradients and nearly inscrutable icons are widely considered passé,) functionality is more cut and dry. And Studio One is clearly superior to Cubase in how it (Studio One) manages windows, inserts, etc.
I wouldn’t think that Steinberg did not do a cost-benefit analyis, or even that the designers are clueless.
What probably happened was a greater focus on internal cost vs. customer cost during the analysis. That’s often the pattern that leads to decisions that are looked upon as ‘strange’ by specialists. Combined with some group-think on the benefits during the design-process, and there you have a menu-bar instead of the title-bar doing a completely new (windows) windowing paradigm
I can imagine that there is a focus to increase commonality between MAC & PC versions, and that the new menu-bar helps with that. Increased commonality means less cost to Yamaha, it’s that simple. And from the benefit perspective, a few extra pixels of vertical screen real-estate can be pretty big too, look at Google Chrome (although there’s still a title-bar there, and windows are still managed in a much more logical fashion). So at that point, a decision to move ahead with the change might seem completely fine to Steinberg, and more importantly, fully assessed for all important factors.
Hence I don’t think this is about being clueless or lack of skills. It might have to do with internal benefits being to be found of greater importance than the benefit of the customer. And please don’t read that as hyperbole, it’s what the corporate system tends to shine at today, and from my perspective Steinberg have been pretty good in that regard. This menu bar is an annoyance, and eventually the muscle memory will fix it - even though that will still involve some minor brain-capacity, and things do add up in that space. But it’s nowhere near the level of something like the Final Cut-Pro disaster!
Regards,
characterstudios
I include “corporate cost savings” in the “no good reason” category. 
Seriously though, companies either place an emphasis on user experience or they don’t. Those that don’t will find themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage in this era of well-designed consumer software and hardware products. The switching costs are not high enough for people to stay with a product whose usability is poor, certainly not for DAWs. That’s something Steinberg should consider when the corporate bean counters try to hijack the product roadmap.
No doubt you are right about the way Studio One manages windows. However I do prefer to work with something I like to look at. Yes, I am a shallow ex art teacher. However, there are so many things that I have got used to with Cubase that despite a few annoyances with each major update, I would find it exceptionally difficult to move on to something else, as there are so many features that I rely upon. Actually, I can’t remember a major release that has not created a storm of protest. Although I have to say your complaint is different. I would certainly be interested in a response from Steinberg.
I have not seen any comments about people considering the design of Cubase icons passé. Inscrutable? I’m afraid that I spend far to much time making music to worry myself with such things. Heavy gradients? Well let’s hope it is not all downhill from here?
You “prefer to work with something you like to look at” (as a “shallow ex art teacher”) but then make a veiled, patronizing statement to the effect that you are above such silly concerns when someone makes a passing comment about the dated, overly-stylized, iOS5-looking visual design of Cubase. Huh?
Thank you for that characterstudios. I appreciate that.
Actually I think you are being over-sensitive. A few humorous remarks do not constitute a personal attack - I assumed they were self-deprecatory. I have taken your complaint about the mistreatment of the GUI seriously. I even mentioned that a response from Steinberg would be welcome. I explained clearly why I would stick with with Cubase. It seems that your greater knowledge of GUI design - and I have no reason to disbelieve you - means that it can appear that you are looking down from a lofty height. You know it has never even crossed my mind that the GUI design was passé.
As I see no development of the “train crash” GUI issue to a more relevant part of the forum then I must regard it as harmless and not that urgent a problem. The sky hasn’t fallen on our heads yet.
Yes this is very painful and far from “professional” Hope they update these soons. Even little update to fix that plugin thing would be very welcome to my workflow. Stuff like this is expected though from a first release
Lot of plugins dont really work because of this , they have their dropdown menus under the plugin and man i dont want to go on. I need to get stuff done
I agree. I am disappointed. I use Windows. It was a better UI under Cubase 7.5. I didn’t see anyone complaining about that UI. I wish they never changed it. Now will they admit their mistake and go back? Please!
+1 defo