Speaking of daw complaints….what’s this I hear that Pro Tools can’t bounce stems without using a stripped-down 3rd party program….a program that is itself crippled unless you pay for a full version.
What’s that all about?
Shouldn’t Pro Tools ….by now….be as good as all the other daws? 
Asking about new features does not mean that we underestimate Cubase in any way. Forums like these exist mainly to discuss issues, ideas, and areas for improvement. Cubase has made significant progress over the last few years and has added many great features, but at some point it also needs to expand into areas that may not have been part of the original vision years ago.
Features like Clip Launcher feel like a natural next step. Without moving in this direction, Cubase risks gradually losing users to other DAWs that already offer such functionality. It’s far from ideal to spend valuable time learning a completely new DAW simply because your current one chooses not to implement a feature that has become standard across most competing platforms.
Well, your first mistake is thinking the handful of users that frequent this forum are even remotely indicative of the broader user base of Cubase. You’re seeing a tiny fractional base of users that feel compelled for whatever reason to make themselves heard on the internet day in, day out. I’d take a guess that 95% of the user base is just fine with Cubase the way it is, and are busy working instead of wasting time on the internet. That other 5% are split between the folks that like to hang out and help out here, and the rest who just complain.
And them there’s those who do both, like me 
Of course you can “bounce stems” in Pro Tools, depending on what the words “bounce” and “stems” mean to you. The 3rd party program actually tells us something very interesting about PT and Cubendo;
In Cubendo we have the Project Logical Editor and we have the Export Audio Mixdown dialog box, both with different functionality. For a very long time PT had some big limitations compared to Cubendo, including no faster-than-realtime export, no user definable key commands, and no PLE. However, not only did they make exports arguably at least as comprehensive and add key command flexibility, they also opened up scripting to 3rd parties. This has been a massive boost to PT. Think about it in terms of being able to combine PLE and Export Audio Mixdown functionality and then bind new “scripts” to key commands or soft keys within the DAW, all possible for us to program or buy from 3rd party developers.
In other words, if you have your own naming convention and/or templates you can create scripts that do all the batch exports etc. for you, at the press of a key. Every time. Just watch videos of what it does.
Now, we’re not that far behind, but we are behind as far as I can see. For example, since I do post production I deliver what goes to some specific networks pretty regularly. As long as my final output buses are labeled consistently I can use a simple PLE that selects all relevant buses for stem outputs for a specific network, and with export audio mixdown set to follow selection I’m now ready to export. But of course I then have to open that window, select the relevant range(s) as well as other settings, so there is still work to do. I have combined multiple actions in Avid’s Eucontrol to make some tasks even more “automated”.
Since PT opened up scripting it seems to me that it has become clearly more flexible.
Even if Steinberg adds clip lauching, I´m pretty sure next complaiment will be how it´s implemented. MPC added it, but not everyone is happy with how it´s made..
I like the idea of having clips, but then again how do you make it fluent to use without breaking current workflow
Cubase is a Digital Audio Workstation. It’s supposed to be used in a studio.
“Live” playback features like a clip-launcher are non-essential extras–not industry standards for recording, mixing, producing, or mastering music.
What’s missing from Studio One and the other “major DAWS” that’s keeping you from using one of them for you modern workflow?
Guys, I genuinely don’t understand why some users get offended or feel the need to “shield” Steinberg over things I’ve said with the best intentions. I’ve been a hardcore Steinberg user since the very first editions. I use Cubase daily to compose my own music, record, mix, and teach others. Quite honestly, I wouldn’t be where I am today without it—and I know the platform quite well.
That said, I strongly believe that, like everything in life, progress is essential. Cubase needs to take the next step forward; otherwise, it risks falling behind. It’s really that simple, folks.
No one here is “offended”, we simply don’t blindly accept your claims that your feature requests are “industry standard” or “no longer nice-to-have” or “becoming impossible to ignore”. For probably a lot of Cubase users, this is simply not true, because people have different workflows and requirements, and other people would prefer if Steinberg focused their efforts on entirely different areas. It is all very subjective.
If you had phrased your post a little differently, less “because I say to it is true”, it would probably received a lot less backlash. It’s more about how you said it than what you said.
Friend, I never said “because I said so”, nor did I imply that my opinion should be accepted by everyone.
What I shared is based on feedback I personally receive from students and musicians who ask specifically for live-oriented DAW capabilities. Some of them eventually explore other DAWs because Cubase currently doesn’t focus on that workflow. That’s not a criticism — it’s simply an observation.
Everyone is free to prefer the tools that suit their own needs and workflow. Cubase excels at many things, and for some users that is more than enough. For others, different features matter more.
To me it is a natural step forward.
Each to his/her own I guess.
By characterizing detractors to your argument as “shielding Steinberg,” you did exactly that.
However, beyond that, not every audio task is a task for Cubase, is a task for Ableton Live, is a task for Reaper, is a task for Wavelab, thus all of those applications are in constant rotation for me, and I am ok with that. You can look across multiple creative applications, them and their competitors all have their own workflow and focus that defines who they are, and they stick to that.
Cubase doesn’t need to be everything to everyone, and I can say that while also respecting what Bitwig is to those that use it, what FLS is to those that use it. When it comes to what is expected of a modern audio workstation, it has nothing to do with how much feature creep they can cram into it, like someone mentioned, it’s about workflow and stability.
Finally, the grass is not greener over in Presonus-land, a non-insignificant portion of the Studio One userbase wishes Presonus had spent their development time on rounding out and expanding on the feature set it already has. Even audio production publications think Studio One has begun to lose its focus with the addition of Launcher, and its a surprise to no one. Some products are defined by what their developers have the courage to say no to.
But Cubase is not a live playing/looping tool. How hard it is to understand this?
Are you even aware that simply adding Clip Launcher will not automatically change Cubase into a live tool? Are you aware that for this to happened, Steinberg needs to rewrite completely their audio engine? They would also need to sacrifice one of the best, if not the best, latency compensation system in the DAW world, to accommodate that? Like in a case of Ableton Live where the latency compensation was horrible until Live 12 where they finally begin to work on it? I have a hybrid setup that you mentioned before and working with external synths in Live can be real PITA, this is why I’m using Cubase for that.
If you believe that just by adding Clip launcher, Cubase suddenly become a live tool then you’re horribly mistaken. For that to happened, Steinberg would need to put A LOT of resources. Resources that a lot of other “professional studio producers” would prefer to be spend on bugs, issues and optimization, which are much more important for a professional work than the new features that you already have available in other DAWs like Ableton Live, which are already awesome for what you want to use them for.
Sometimes it’s better to use the right tool for the job instead of trying to change another tool to what it is not.
If they will add it and it will not work the way you want, please don’t complain and just use Live - something what every professional do when they want the Clip Launcher.
I guess we would all like Cubase to evolve more in the direction we want, what could be more normal ?
What does mean “Industry Standard” ? Is there only one ? Everybody is right…
The only thing I would like to see the most is Stability improvement. Updates that does not ruin your work. That would be fantastic
Well, when you make specious attributions to “industry standards,” that is a literal statement that it “should be accepted by everyone.” Maybe just share your thoughts on the subject, and not try to frame the ideas as “standards” and “modern workflow” requirements - I think that would have gone over much better.
That said, and just to be blunt, SB has no business attempting to release clip launcher capabilities. Cubendo will never be able equal the feature-sets provided by Live in that regard. Yes, I shouldn’t say “never,” but really. What they need to do is just provide support for Ableton Link. If you are in the position of providing technical guidance for students and other musicians as to clip-launcher/live DAW features, then just send them to Ableton. We I don’t need yet another poorly implemented and limited set of features published in the name of “competitive requirements” from SB. It’s taken 2 full versions (that we’ve had to pay for, mind you) just to get some patten event tracks with melodic capabilities. And honestly, while “cool,” it’s not that great. MediaBay is so poorly implemented as to make it nearly unusable for me, even with SB’s own libraries. If they released a MediaBay Pro that did half of what Bitwig’s Browser did and only a fifth as well, I’d buy it.
My ask is for SB to stop with the “yearly version updates with just enough poorly implemented and undocumented new features to justify calling it a ‘new version’” and to just stop with all the silliness and fix the current issues. I just purchased Bitwig Studio not because SB didn’t have media browsing, modulators, and pattern editors, but because they just don’t do it right. Sorry if that’s harsh, but piecemeal feature-creep introduced under the auspices of “new version features” just doesn’t work anymore. They can’t even provide details for what’s in a hotfix, much less actually document how the new features work. Dom acting like he’s doing magic tricks in a video is not documentation. We don’t even know how licensing and updates work “officially.” We don’t even know IF “grace periods” will continue, and if so, under what circumstances. I mean, there’s not even documentation on how product updates work - it’s all tribal knowledge supported by the Medicine Men inside the forum.
Let’s just keep our fingers crossed that someone will see that it’s not lack of future features that is losing them business, but rather, the lack of properly supporting, documenting, improving, and fixing bugs in existing features that is creating frustration. For me, anyway.
Mate, I don’t know how many hours are you working on a daily basis with cubase. I work on cubase 60-70 hours per week for at least 20 years now, so don’t ask me “if I’m aware”. I am aware that other (even younger) DAWS added these features even though they did not start with those initially. Yes they may need to re-write the code in certain areas to be able to accommodate certain features, very useable features, at least for some of us. I said my opinion, you have your own, it is fine.
Of all the other features in DAWs we could use, I don’t really feel this is either of them.
I think a VST/i clip launcher would be the best approach.
I do agree with every single point of @Flaming_War_Pig’s statement above Cubase VS Other Daws, missing features - #34 by Thor.HOG.
Cubase and Nuendo are incredible DAWs with amazing feature sets. They have vastly improved over the past decades and that’s a job well done!!
Nonetheless, there are some major issues which need to be adressed. It’s quite challenging to find the right path to manouver through these difficult times - Cubendo’s highly diverse spectrum of users doesn’t make this task easier. However, proper documentation, complete release notes, bug fixes of existing features, and reliability of newly implemented features are aspects that should come first.
Communication in general is one of Steinberg’s major weak spots. As brilliant as the products themselves are - intuitive handling is not one of their fortes. Add sparse documentation and hardly any tutorials (which deserve to be called tutorials) to the mix and you’ve got a problem. Same applies for the forum. There are issues that can only be answered by Steinberg and we hardly get any answers. It can be done differently as the Dorico team has shown. Lately, there have been a couple of contributions which were welcomed accordingly. We need more of that spirit!
You got students. And your feedback is a personal observation right?
Steinberg is a business. They got thousands of customers. They do research that goes far beyond any classroom of students. Personally, I would never want a DAW developed or maintained based on a classroom of students. I want a DAW maintained by deeply experienced users utilizing core DAW functions, Macros, PLE’s LE’s Workspaces, and improved workflow.
Who really knows their customers? You or Steinberg?
With that said, do you honestly think your missing features hasn’t been considered with them? Steinberg isn’t blind to their competition. They know what it takes to stay competitive. And they definitely know their different user groups.
Growing since the 90’s while some other DAW developers have failed, lead me to believe Steinberg research has paid off. Customers range from famous users to professionals to newbie kids who lose interest in music production within a week.
My 2 cents: If they didn’t have to compete, Steinberg wouldn’t focus so much on new features, but instead focus on streamlined functionality, verified bugs, and making what exists better. However that’s not reality in a business world. New sales is very important when encompassing the big picture of competing DAWs. And your two “missing features” apparently isn’t in in Steinbergs road map…for a reason.
This time, it appears you have refrained from using “us” as you see from this microscopic sample of users, that your perception of “us” isn’t the users you expected. And, as said by someone else, you should know that this forum represents a very small representation of all Cubase users.
Absolutely. However it’s not always following our personal perceptions of what you think the next step is…like those immediately in your classroom environment.
Yeah, thinking back to my AE school days…
1.) There were a lot of students using Ableton and FL Studio.
2.) Out of two classes of 30 students each… Maybe 2 or 3 of us went on to actually becoming professional engineer/producers.
This topic is overhelmed with the conservative fanboys. )