Cubase still lacks true Group Edit – folder group editing is not a substitute

Cubase
1

Cubase still does not have true timeline-based Group Edit comparable to Pro Tools (or Reaper), and Folder Track Group Editing is not an adequate replacement.

Folder Group Editing has two fundamental limitations that make it unreliable for professional multitrack editing:

  1. Structural dependency
    Group edits only apply if events across all tracks are already structurally identical.
    If one track has an extra split, different event length, punch, or comp variation, group behaviour silently fails.

    This is not how real-world multitrack material behaves, especially with drums, live recordings, dialogue, or orchestral sessions.

  2. Spatial coupling to track layout
    Tracks must be physically co-located inside a folder to be group-edited.
    This forces users to rearrange track order and compromises logical track hierarchy.

    Edit grouping should be an abstract relationship, not dependent on track position or folder membership.

By contrast, Pro Tools-style Group Edit operates at the timeline/cursor level, not the event level:

  • Tracks do not need identical event structure

  • Edits are applied based on selection and cursor position

  • Track layout and folder structure remain intact

  • Grouping can be toggled on/off instantly

This abstraction simply does not exist in Cubase.

The result in Cubase is a brittle system that:

  • Requires excessive pre-conditioning of events

  • Actively discourages confident multitrack editing

  • Makes it easy to introduce phase and alignment errors without noticing

I am not asking for another plugin, vocal chain, AI assistant, or cosmetic workflow feature.

I am asking for a core editing abstraction that has existed in other professional DAWs for decades.

Until Cubase implements a true, timeline-based Group Edit system that is independent of folders and track order, I will stop purchasing upgrades. New plugins do not compensate for missing editing fundamentals.

This is not a niche request. It is table-stakes functionality for professional multitrack work.

3 Likes
2

Interesting perspective, I’m all for workflow improvements.

It would be fantastic in order to sell your ideas, if you made a comparison video between Cubase and Pro-Tools in which you use the same material of which is better suited to be edited in Pro-Tools.

Or at least link to a Pro-Tools tutorial video showing these features in a use-case example.

2 Likes
3

Couldn’t agree more. And groups in PT can be freely defined, with the same tracks belonging to different groups, and activated on the fly.

4

Plenty of Pro Tools Edit Group videos on YouTube, showing the far superior and more flexible track group functionality. No arsing around moving tracks in and out of folders:

5

Vote up this topic to get more eyeballs on it.

6

You can program this with PLE I’m pretty sure, at least close, and then assign a key command/macro.

It would require track selection to work:

if you are wanting to do split editing, you create a macro utilizing ‘Select Events Under Cursor’+’Split (cursor)’. In this example I’m not using a macro, I’m just using a modifier to move the playback cursor to my mouse click, key command to select events under curso, and then key command split (alt-x)

Another way, if wanting to use the split tool, is select all on tracks (a).

I know you don’t want folders, but say if you just had one level of folders for each instrument types, example “Drums”, then you can do total-instrument editing on the folder track, and then track-based selection editing

There’s various other ways to accomplish what you want such as locking the tracks/folders you don’t want editing done to and then using timeline/full track selection and or global editing modifiers/features.

I suggest looking into Selection Editing vs Global Editing which the latter uses the playback locators unless using dedicated global commands. There are some “hidden” mechanics here you have to grasp, such as Selection vs Global share many keycommands of which become active for Global when there is no selection - so you’re going to want to add Shift-A/Select None to your keycommand vocab.

There is a selection preference called ‘Auto Select Events Under Cursor’ which is sometimes useful to have turned on and when combined with some of these methods with specific track selection.

Take time to study all the selection key commands and how they work, and all the edit commands.. and how they work based on a.) what tool is selected b.) if they are track selected dependent c.) if they are shared with global/locators and or if they are locator based

You’re going to want to understand here which affects both Visible and Non-Visible tracks, or only visible tracks. Global affects everything whether visible or not, unless locked.

Use a journal, write down what you find/test… Between all the commands, selection functions, macros and PLE….There is a lot Cubendo can do that isn’t found on the surface… Pretty much where there is a will, there is a way… That’s why I like this program.

edit

One catch is, some of this wouldn’t work well for individual Lane editing, across multiple tracks… depending on the type of editing you are doing and how you do your editing and if you use lanes. But you can use the feature, “Create Versions from lanes”

1 Like
7

That would then be a basic editing feature that requires a paid upgrade to some users since the PLE is a Pro-only feature. It’s some form of workaround, but not really an ideal solution.

8

This is a mind-numbingly convoluted workaround for a feature that should be elegantly integrated into the GUI.

I’m busy. I haven’t got time to “learn hidden mechanics”. If a piece of software requires that I have to spend days on end chasing imperfect solutions, that’s just evidence of poor design.

1 Like
10

That workflow might not be convoluted to you, but it is for quite a number of people because selecting a bunch of things and have them be edited at the same time shouldn’t require logic programming using a feature you may not even have to work, especially when it’s just a normal editing feature on competing products.

That would be like saying that starting a car using an external crank is not convoluted for you and people who expect automatic ignition should learn how to use a car instead.

12

You don’t need an ignition key because if you learn the choke, the timing, and the external crank technique, you can start the car just fine!

Workarounds don’t replace an integrated feature; they just explain how existing users have adapted to its absence.

15

The metaphor is necessary due to your inability to grasp the point. Your workaround doesn’t compensate for the absence of a well integrated group editing system. Pro Tools has one. Cubase doesn’t.

17

Another problem with Cubase group editing is that it doesn’t warn you when an action causes the folder tracks to be no longer in sync.

1 Like
18

:joy:

Okay :+1:

19

Agreed.

Flexible group editing should not entail all edits to be perfectly aligned. It has serious implications for phase coherence.

20

This feature request isn’t needed imo, all editing possibilities are already provided by Cubase when combining keycommands, macros, PLE and selection functions as I pointed out above.

I can pretty much edit in Cubase exactly as I do in protools

I think there are other more important matters and features.

1 Like
21

Nice one man. Off you go then.

22

What he proposes doesn’t even come close to proper group editing. I don’t think he’s ever seen a large orchestral session being edited on PT.

23

I know. He’s not engaging with the actual problem; he’s flexing his deep-dive knowledge of Cubase’s quirks as a way to establish superiority and shut down the conversation. It’s boring and patronising: “If you really knew the software like I do, you’d see there’s no problem.” It dismisses the core issue - that a fundamental editing tool shouldn’t require arcane workarounds or paid features to approximate what competitors have had elegantly for years.

24

Cubase is a program that caters to large orchestral everything.

Learn what the program has to offer instead of wishing it was a different program.

My editing and project organization is faster in Cubase than any program, including Pro-Tools. If I can do it, so can you, but you can’t be lazy on your key commands and understanding of how to use the software.

25

Mate, can you give it a rest? It’s a simple feature request. There are many features that have been implemented in Cubase over the years that I think are pointless, but I haven’t actively campaigned against them in favour of a convoluted workaround, on the understanding that it’s almost certainly helpful to someone, somewhere.

In any case, what you’re suggesting does not offer a flexible way of instantiating different edit groups with flexible track assignments in a way that integrates neatly with work flow, so you’re not even having the same conversation.

Everyone is however mightily impressed with your deep knowledge of PLE and macros, so well done to you for that, but in the interest of continuing this conversation with people who understand the need, your time is best spent elsewhere.

Thanks. :+1: