The Cubase graphic complaints make no sense, are peopling using 720 monitors or something?
Cubase is a good balance of utility and modern. Not too flat, not too embossed.
This is a serious piece of professional software, meant for handling huge complex projects, compositions, post-production, etc which are being worked on by extremely well studied 10,000+ hour engineers and producers working 14 hour + days.
The focus can’t just be user first response to “style”, this is completely immature UI/UX approach for today when designing software for professionals - it has to be user psychology and physiology over the period of a 14+ work hour day. UI/UX professionals have a completely different objective today now that we’ve moved past the allure of computer graphic improvements… tiled software backgrounds of Windows 98’ and high-res desktop icons and embossed software controls of Windows XP……. We’re past that now. UI/UX, It’s about user psychology and physiology.
I think it’s the people who are complaining who are actually stuck in the past, whereas Cubase has finally left the past and finally updated all parts of the program to be modern.
That’s not to say there couldn’t be some very exact particular improvements
Don’t confuse graphics with user experience. Cubase 13+ is objectively worse even if the “coat of paint” might look more consistent.
What has been lost is “at a glance” functionality, information hierarchy etc etc. This has been discussed ad-infinitum. As with audio, if everything is loud then nothing is loud. The Cubase interface now likes to hide information in plain sight and in practice, it’s not as efficient for getting the job done.
There are too many to list and it’s been hashed and re-hashed on other topics. Overall with v13+ everything starts to look the same and blend together since the information hierarchy is lacking. You have to switch brain modes to “read” and interpret what the interface is trying to tell you instead of it being more instinctual with the information you need readily “visible”.
Some examples below:
Generally when looking at a track we want the track name to catch the attention as that’s often what you’re looking for in large sessions. One of these you can identify the track name easily and it has visual priority over the other elements.
In the mixer you’re likely more interested in what the section contains, not the section name so in v12 your insert name is the part that stands out. With v13+ the section name takes visual priority (same white color, larger font than your insert):
I could agree with you but then we’d both be wrong Again, it’s not about the looks but the usability.. If it works for you though, great. It doesn’t work for myself, anyone in my team, or other engineers/producers I know. I’m not sure where you’re getting your statistics either as there was a pretty big outcry over the UX issues when this change occurred.
Interestingly I fed both images into ChatGPT and asked in the context of a DAW with multiple tracks, and taking UX and information hierarchy into account, which was better?
The first image has a better information hierarchybecause it preserves the track name as the primary anchor when multiple tracks are stacked.
The second image may be “cleaner” as a single isolated component, but in the real-world context (dozens of tracks in a DAW), it destroys hierarchy by making everything equally loud.
I see image 2, the older version is using 2 shaded buttons that use about 4 colors, and the newer version, efficiently reduces this, to utilise 2 radio-buttons that use 1 color.
This is efficient regarding graphic card utilisation.
My take on it is, do I need 2 buttons, that change color and need shading ?
No, a 1 color radio-button emphasising which is selected and which is not, is adequate.
If that works for you, again, great. When you are working on a large monitor that information is in your peripheral vision and you can easily ascertain which output is active without having to move your eyes, break your focus etc.
If you think 2 radio buttons is a better representation and more efficient in terms of “graphic card utilization” I’m not sure what to say. I think we’re done here.
All changes in style are useless if they exclude a portion of your paying customers that can’t use the software properly because the lack of contrast makes it hard to see for people with visual impairments. And that seems to be the primary complaint people have with Cubase so far. New versions come out and the text becomes smaller and closer in color to the background, buttons are changed to duller colors close to the ones around them…Eventually a person with color blindness will not be able to use the software because all the colors look the same for them while the people that have other eye issues that make them have issues reading text will start reporting their copy of Cubase has no text because it will be indistinguishable from the background for them.
And if you think complaining about this issue is a bunch of balls, I’ll remind you you’re not gonna remain young and with perfect eyesight forever.
Hopefully the easier to look at updated UI will help my vision last longer.
So I have to agree with @7am3s_UK
The bottom image is better in all 3.
I’d recommended playing with your monitor brightness/contrast settings if you need things to pop more.
The text thing has been an issue with almost all software companies keeping up with resolution changes across a variety of screen sizes on the market… ie 4k on a small laptop is different than 4k on a 34” unlike back in the day when everything was 1080 and everyone had nearly the same screen sizes.
Thanks for the suggestion but considering everyone in the team has calibrated monitors and none of us are fans of the direction the UX has gone in I don’t think that’s the issue. For what it’s worth there are no issues with “pop” or information hierarchy in the other DAWs we regularly have to use.
In the above examples, I don’t really see how the difference would affect visually impaired and if were the case, boosting the contrast/brightness on your screen would probably make the difference.
What are the differences that have affected visually impaired people other than text size, which again, a visually impaired user could accommodate themselves with any number of ways - choosing a different screen with a lower resolution, using Windows accessibility features/resolution/zoom adjustments, etc, etc.
There are several forum threads where people have discussed this at length since version 13.
Once again, you’re pulling a “you’re holding it wrong.” Plus, they can’t do what you’re telling them to do beccause Steinberg has removed the features that allowed them to do so in current versions of Cubase.
If people are not happy with how Cubase is heading UI wise, they’re not gonna adapt to how Steinberg wants to push their UI in detriment of every other piece of software that either works for them or can be adapted to work for them. They’re just gonna use something else.
And on top of all that, Steinberg as a German company should comply with the European Accessibility Act which has been in effect since June or maybe they want to wait for it to become legislation to effectivelly force them to make their software accessibility friendly?
You’re welcome.
If I want to hear an opinion that might or might not be correct I can also ask the milk man.
It’s not about whether I like ChatGPT. I don’t like how people use it here on the forum.
Ironically, you’re the one who “asked the milkman” to begin with. I just asked ChatGPT the exact same thing, with the exact same images, and it said: Contrast and grouping, not control count.
In the second header, the important elements (track name and a small cluster of controls) are on a lighter, more neutral background, with the waveform icon isolated in its own darker strip. That immediately directs the eye to the name and the active buttons and treats the icon as secondary. State salience.
Because the default/background controls in the second header are less “bleached,” it’s easier to see the difference between “this track is just there” and “this button is actively doing something.” In the first header, everything shares a similar mid-gray visual weight, so nothing looks “at rest”; it all competes.
So MY ChatGPT is right, and YOUR ChatGPT is wrong. See his point? Introducing ChatGPT into forum discussions provides absolutely ZERO value whatsoever. I’m leaving mine so that when some other person asks, and ChatGPT reads both messages to give them their custom, meaningless answer, it will be cancelled out.
Your opinion is far more valuable on its own that trying to back it up with worthless generative text.
Again, it’s not about the looks but the usability.. If it works for you though, great. It doesn’t work for myself, anyone in my team, or other engineers/producers I know. I’m not sure where you’re getting your statistics either as there was a pretty big outcry over the UX issues when this change occurred.