Again, you don’t understand the issue. I’m talking about recording and mixing large orchestral scoring sessions, with real musicians, on a proper scoring stage, not just working with orchestral sample libraries. What you showed in your examples is basic editing, nothing that actually relates to the topic.
1 Like
Yes I said everything, including recording/editing/mixing large orchestral sessions on a stage. But let’s be honest, no one is going to stop using Pro-Tools for these jobs if you are one of very few in the world who are doing them.
I had made some posts about refining the users suggestion to be more clear, and even how to realistically incorporate the feature request into Cubases current paradigm, including a mockup graphic - but they were only interested in metaphors, so I removed my posts and have since decided to share my opinion that there are more important feature requests and that Cubase editing suffices…….. That’s just my opinion.
But perhaps if the user revised their OP to be more clear and concise instead of being a vague abstract complaint…. there would be more of a chance.
And fails to do so because it lacks things like group editing.
Why don’t you tell Steinberg to focus on its strengths and stop wishing it was Live or Bitwig as it keeps implementing features from these two DAWs instead?
I’m just enjoying the fact that the more this guy posts, the more it bumps this thread and pushes it into prominence.
1 Like
It has group editing
I have
It’s not the bumping that matters, it’s the content… I already tried once helping you get your FR realized by development… but you can’t seem to help yourself…. You’re too focused on the wrong things.
How is it abstract? I outlined the specific problem in explicit detail, and your (now deleted) response was:
“Interesting perspective, I’m all for workflow improvements.”
…before arguing against the very workflow improvements that multiple people here have signalled a clear need for.
For clarity:
Cubase should implement a true, timeline-based group editing system – like Pro Tools – that operates independently of folders and track hierarchy, allowing reliable multitrack edits regardless of differing event structures and supporting multiple, overlapping edit groups with flexible track assignments that can be toggled instantly.
Clear enough, I think.
2 Likes
Did I argue against it, or did I provide some solutions that can be used today while you wait 1+ years to see if Steinberg implements your FR?
What does that mean? What is true and what isn’t? One could argue/a dev could say that Cubase does have “true” group editing system.
What?
I’ve had a lot of features added into Cubase, probably features you and tens of thousands of others use, revised parts of the program I nearly designed… I know what communication works and gets through to development and what doesn’t.
Overly long abstract complaints don’t. “I want Cubase to work more like ____DAW” doesn’t. Conflicting terminology doesn’t..
All of this is a big ‘huh?’… Cubase Group Edit works on the timeline/cursor level to? I think you’ve not chosen the right terminology or definitions here.
I gave you the golden ticket to getting your feature requests properly identified and more likely absorbed by development, but you decided to focus on metaphors, my PLE knowledge, and my “inability” to grasp things despite taking time out of my day to design you a graphic mockup of one element of what you are asking for and where/how it could be incorporated into Cubase.
Would you like me to undelete/repost my posts?
“Golden ticket” 
Do you actually hear yourself?
Cubase should implement a true, timeline-based group editing system – like Pro Tools – that operates independently of folders and track hierarchy, allowing reliable multitrack edits regardless of differing event structures and supporting multiple, overlapping edit groups with flexible track assignments that can be toggled instantly.
Clear enough, I think.
is there a facepalm emoji?
close enough
I gave you a golden ticket to get your FR implemented,
and then I gave you a golden ticket to get those posts back,
and now I’ll give you a golden ticket as to why your OP is not good giving you the insight into how to restructure it:
First off, if you’re not getting your idea across concisely in layman terms within a single starting paragraph, you’ve already lost.
Again, what is true and what isn’t. A dev can say they added this with folder group editing many versions ago in order to give people their Pro-Tools type editing. And they can see you as someone who just needs to learn how to use Cubase better.
This isn’t true, there are many ways to do event editing across all tracks without requiring identical structure. I showed a few of many more ways how.
This also isn’t true. tracks don’t need to be in a folder to be group-edited.
huh?
so no, your entire OP either isn’t clear, or isn’t true, or consists of misdirecting terminology.
focuses on the fact I said ‘golden ticket’ three times, instead of what matters
Yawn.
Exactly, what a dev will do when they see your OP and the rest of this thread.
There’s something wrong with you.
Because you’ve filled it with utter bullshit.
1.) That’s the truest thing you’ve said yet in this thread.
2.) You might also be projecting.
I think I’ve proven my point and you’re struggling with that, so I’ll now be the king that has mercy on you instead of beheading with my sword…
undeleted posts:
Well if you stop thinking about excessive over the top metaphors, you’ll see that I’ve helped you refine what it is ‘exactly’ you are asking for and how to ask for it more concisely… Because your OP is quite long yet sort of vague, and when you ask for something like ‘Group Editing’, the devs might just say, “well we have lots of methods of group editing”.
What you are looking for is
1.) Track Selection “group” saving with a list - the ability to save track selections to a list making their re-selection much faster.
2.) Track Selection Based Editing Mode - range selection, split-tool, etc automatically applies to all track-selected events
No folders needed, no folder group editing needed.
*edit*
I made an FR for current functions to get you. maybe halfway there at least when it comes to range selection editing. For split editing, you’d have to use my other methods which is just a few key commands:
Preference FR: 'Auto Update Range Selection for Already Selected Tracks’
Here,
I even did a mockup of where the Quick Track Selection List could be (expandable in the Project Visibility Track List)Collapsed
Expanded
There could be a key command to prompt a search window similar Track Search window, that is for searching Quick Selection Groups, so all you have to do is type “DrmToms” and it selects DrmToms… ie ‘ctrl+alt+f’ + ‘DrmTom’ + ‘enter’ and those tracks are selected.
This way the visibility window and expanded list doesn’t need to be opened in order to do quick selections.
And or, there could be key commands 1-9 for up to 9 selection lists that would initially be auto-id 1-9 as the user creates them, but could be manually changed so specific instruments are bound to hotkeys they have memorized.
This is one of the things you want right? The second being the track-selection based editing.
What you should be focusing on - is further refining my refinements… not that I referred to myself as a king, which I intentionally put in the post to see if you would focus on it or not (because, i am, a king)
The king of bullshit. 
Bombs can indeed be made out of it with which many wars can, and have just been won.
Man arguing about software on a Cubase forum thinks he’s fighting a war.
Yeah totally, I’m super super serious on that. You better take me literally, OR ELSE!
Anyways, you’re welcome for getting your FR implemented if it ever does.
Time for a walk, fresh air… Perhaps you should take one yourself……..
Farewell, and good luck!