I’m planning to get a Mac just to start using Logic.
Logic is tremendously stable with barely any bugs
Both can be pirated, including cubase 10.5
Yes, I was actually informed of Cubase’s partnership with Berklee a few days after I posted but forgot to come back and correct myself. Honestly, I’m glad to hear this is happening. It seems very forward thinking.
As for the boring features? I honestly cannot wait!!!
I’m exactly in the same boat and I have no sympathy for Apple (i.e. computers with soldered SSD disks and RAM).
In my opinion Steinberg has a lot of good ideas but for some reason is not able to execute them.
When Cubase doesn’t freeze or render things incorrectly (this is my last nightmare when I use abrupt tempo changes), and you figure out how to encode videos outside of it, it is a pleasure to use it.
I also recently bought a UR44C and while the concept is fantastic (embedded DSP and ipad connectivity), the drivers again don’t work well in my old PC and the sound gets distorted every 4min (unlike a 10 year old noisy card from Roland that was meant to replace). Plus the hardware integration with Cubase doesn’t show up when you open Cubase. So I will be returning it and replacing it for a less capable card.
The point here is I’d rather stay with a noisy old Roland card or a limited Logic DAW than running a clean interface that distorts the sound in an unpredictable way and powerful software that fails you when you most need it. I’m also in a music school, and I’m virtually the only one to use Cubase (Logic, Ableton and Studio One are the names that I hear). It is good that they teach Cubase in Berkeley, but I’m not really sure that many music students will make that choice unless Steinberg makes a serious effort to address its bad reputation (poor default instruments, half-baked features, bugs).
Wrong! So wrong!
This bloke is a major film composer and uses Cubase all the time.
You will find many notable films on that page which he composed for. He also does computer games.
All on Cubase. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKRvXCjOzac&list=PLH1Kp5ewZe_SWa_wguSCNKOm7uYePWEA_
Cubase certainly doesn’t seem to be holding his film career back.
Maybe he just knows what he’s doing. 
I’m pretty sure Guy Michelmore is not under 40. 
1 Like
Logic, Reaper, Studio One, and Ableton are the mainstream DAWs today.
Cubase and Sonar are slowly dying out.
I am puzzled by the premise of this thread. Like a few others here, I am a SONAR refugee. I still like SONAR’s user interface a little better, but when I rebuilt my music studio computer from the ground up this weekend, I left SONAR behind – probably for good unless I have a very pressing need to go back to an old SONAR project (very unlikely). I am finding myself rather productive with Cubase after 18 months. Lately I have been doing more with MIDI editing than I have done previously and Cubase does what I need in all cases, even if it isn’t always intuitive. I have never had any of the reliability problems I read so much about here. I don’t try to use a lot VSTs that are off the beaten path. it seems that is where most people get into trouble.
The premise of this thread is that the market success of Cubase should be equated with how many people are scoring for movies. But I thought that was where Steinberg has targeted Nuendo? THAT is the big product disconnect, IMHO. There is about a 90% function overlap between the two products, That seems like an enormous waste of energy and resources. Surely there ought to be a way for Steinberg to consolidate down to one product line.
And that scatter shot approach to a product line shows up in many ways. The recent acquisition of Spectralayers has considerable overlap with Wavelab – and Waveblab is a schizophrenic grab bag of single point tools as opposed to being a well organized mastering platform. I realize it takes time to integrate products, but I see very little desire on Steinberg’s part to actually design an integrated, very efficient and intuitive portfolio of integrated products, each having their part of the mission.
It seems to me that Steinberg lacks a leader with a vision for how products SHOULD integrate, and the authority to actually make it happen. They seem to be far more comfortable developing in isolated silos and never really polishing anything.
As far as which of the other products (Logic, Reaper, Ableton, Protools, S1) are on the ascent, I think that is a very localized thing. I don’t consider Reaper in the same weight class as Cubase. It is a great value for what it does. I don’t know anybody who us using Ableton for studio-grade mixing and mastering. Everybody I know using Ableton is doing live performance stuff with it or throwing together rather unpolished loop-based songs – same for FL Studio. And I don’t see anybody taking up Protools that was not already doing that 10 years ago. I like S1 – I think it is well thought out, but again, I don’t consider it in Cubase’s weight class. I don’t have any experience with Logic; I know it is popular.
In a different circle of musicians maybe the situation is quite different.
cubase has the most advanced midi and score editor, and control room is something no other daw has.
But, It desnt have intuitive tools for beat making, which many new “Laptop musicians” look for.
Cubase would have been the most excellent DAW if it got all the little things fixed all the way and cleaned up the GUI.
examples:
Loop mash fx: doesn’t key sync to higher notes devisions, which makes it impossible to do hihat stutters which are very common in modern rnb, hip-hop and pop music.
Grove agent se: slightly comparable to logics drummer, but not intuitive at all, very disorganized, on some presets you can use the “complexity” and “loudness” XY pad on other you can’t.
Inconsistent icons thruout: “rec” icon has completely different designs on mixer, tracks inspector and midi editor. Etc
So funny to read such comments, when people cant handle technology and stick to their old well known workflow, oh man. Sometimes people make such a long way to Cubase 
I use Abletone, FL Studio, Reason. I tried Reaper, Studio One. Always get back to Cubase like into warm pleasant bath after all of that software. Even Cubase 5 had more features than most of them nowadays.
It crashes, has a lot of bugs and delay compensation is broken.
Cubase has huge legacy, that nobody are willing to touch. We don’t know if any early developers are still in Company. That is why some thing will be there for ever.
Addressing your comments:
- loopmash - actualy you do this manually;
- Grove agent se - agree, nothing is better than Battery
- Inconsistent icons thruout: Its UI is very customizable. You can get rid of literally everything. No one offers such functionality.
Fun fact - actually you didn’t mention the most popular DAW. I wonder what’s your sources?
For example I haven’t seen most of them in this list: KVR Audio Readers' Choice Awards
The words of not a boy, but a man
I’m pretty sure Guy Michelmore is not under 40. >
Right, this is the main point. And there’s not only Guy Michelmore - there’s Hans Zimmer and many others. (I myself work full time on a couple Disney Kids Shows). And there are good reasons why. Cubase was simply THE BEST choice for film composers 5-10 years ago. I know because I cycled through Sonar, Pro Tools, DP, Cubase, Logic, then back to Cubase again.
I can only speak for Logic, since I still have to use it from time to time, but Logic has basically copied everything unique Cubase had going for it, far surpassed Cubase’s features in some areas, AND is much cheaper. It’s pretty clear why it’s winning out.
But again - Apple has the advantage of not really needing to make any money on Logic AT ALL. It’s basically Google Docs; pretty much just there to pull away Microsofts market share (but I would argue it’s far more feature-rich than Google Docs is compared to Microsoft Word).
Reaper offers much better customizing functionality. ( And Logic has perfect GUI that doesn’t need any customizing. )
Here are some examples how inconsistent Cubase’s GUI icons are:
Yes, but for me it’s more inspiring to do it in real-time,
now I use SugarBytes Artillery 2 and izotope stutter edit for such things, after realizing how useless loopsmash fx is
LOL. But he has the spirit of a 5 year old. I watch his videos to cheer up more than anything. Love him
Thanks for that reference. Here is another video I enjoyed watching. It is interesting to see how others approach things.
What are you even basing this on? Absolute nonsense. Many people I work with use Cubase - Steinberg is a thriving company evidenced by Backbone; Dorico; Cubasis development; new features within Cubase and Nuendo.
Yes, Guy Michelmore, Hans Zimmer, JunkieXL and many more use Cubase.
that doesnt mean they are all happy with the bugs, glitches and other issues of cubase.
one of them can even be a user on this forum posting for certain bug to be fixed or certain feature to be improved…
also, Famous Composers who use Logic:
Klaus Badelt
Christophe Beck
Bill Brown
Sean Callery
Charlie Clouser
Ramin Djawadi
David Hirschfelder
Henry Jackman
James S. Levine
Clint Mansell
David Newman
Daniel Pemberton
John Powell
AR Rahman
Jeff Rona
Alan Silvestri
Alex Wurman
I find these types of discussions to be immaterial, though I understand where they might come from. I know composers who use Cubase and I know composers who use Logic, Reaper, Studio One and Pro Tools.
In the end, If you feel Cubase is hurting your creation of music then you can easily use another DAW, simple as that. That said, yes: There are without a doubt things that need improvement and fixing, as is the same with any DAW (other composers I know complain about issues with their DAWs, too, from Logic to Reaper to Studio One to Pro Tools). Everyone wants different things feature-wise, but to me the most important things for Cubase to continue focusing on at this time are workflow and speed. Stability-wise Cubase has been mostly supreme for me since day one when I was very young on SX, on both Windows machines and Macs. Feature-wise it’s at the top of the list for me overall, and it’s always improving.
Famous or not – that’s totally irrelevant. Anyone who’s talented can make a potentially world-famous score or song on any DAW, it just depends on the feature set you prefer and how the DAW works for you personally.
Based on your comments in another thread, I get the impression you are looking for a more all-inclusive self-mastering and simplified environment? While you can spend time to learn and self-master using Wavelab, IMO, self-mastering is not what Wavelab is really about. There are lots of Wavelab users who don’t even use a DAW, and never “produce.” Some in spite of “different circle of musicians” aren’t even what I would consider musicians. Their objective is not self-mastering their own projects. Their goal is satisfying clients who seek independent ears…ie objective 3rd party listening in a sonically engineered room, addressing issues, providing cohesiveness, etc. While it’s a very small scope of what some ME’s do, would anyone ever consider an audio forensics analysis using Studio One or even Cubase?
Could Cubase use certain general tools, or particular functions from Wavelab? Absolutely.
Spectral editing is a very small fraction of what is included in Wavelab. The over-lap is minimal based on what I have read about Spectralayers. I don’t know the price paid, but it could make perfect sense for Yamaha to purchase Spectral Layers. Do you know the inside business and marketing goals of Yamaha Steinberg? I don’t, but I get a feeling it’s a lot better than prior Pinnacle ownership.
Wavelab is not a schizophrenic grab bag of single point tools, and I believe in the other thread you even indicated you have not actually used it? I pointed out the revived Cubase feature “Edit in Wavelab” which integrates Cubase & Wavelab but apparently that isn’t what you are looking for. Iirc, you want something more cheap, more integrated, and watered down or “simpler” which is fine and satisfies some users. But Wavelab isn’t that application. Wavelab is a professional mastering environment specifically designed for mastering. Cubase is a professional music creation environment used by many more users than Wavelab. Most professional ME’s have no need for a music creation environment.
Because its a much newer DAW, Studio One has attempted to combine the two, and perhaps satisfy home-mastering or finalizing users, however when addressing mastering functions as I listed in the other thread, and even with the included Izotope functions, S1 is a far cry from what is achievable in Wavelab.
If by “self-mastering” you mean an automated thing where you push a magic button and get instant mastering, no, that’s not my expectation, although work by Izotope and others in that area is certainly welcome as a time-saver.
If by “self-mastering” you meal the creator of the work is the same “self” who performs the mastering, yes, indeed, that is the real world for > 95% of projects done on a DAW today. SO it pays to have a very integrated, streamlined, and intuitive work flow. If the Wavelab grab bag appeals to professional mastering engineers, you will get no objection from me. I just say it doesn’t apply to most DAW users and most DAW projects.
Something that supports a productive and efficient workflow for those who do projects where they take the artwork from conception, composition, tracking, mixing, mastering, and even marketing. Cubase just doesn’t do that inherently as part of its design. S1 does. You can certainly manipulate Cubase to accomplish basic mastering, but it looks like a big deficiency to me for users who need to take projects from start to finish.