You can do this just by running your projects at higher sample rates, no?
No. It is not the same. If you get aliasing artefacts they are send to next plugin in chain. So you also need to add a eq plugin that do the SRC-filter thing. But it also costly to run everything on a higher samplerate than you need. I only use 96 KHz nowadays as solution for the poor-daw situation. 96KHz is also the limitations for my converters.
I like to see the possibily to make feedback-loops with fx-tracks for plugins.
Also adding or removing a plugin should not interrupt the playing of music at all.
This has been solved in Reaper, for instance, flawlessly.
Wonder, why Steinberg can not do this. Itâs not rocket-science, or is it?
We are in 2025/26 already, not in 2005 anymore.
Those who donât move with the times, get swept away by the times.
This whole thread is âpromotingâ other DAWs that have features people are missing in Cubase, especially the clip launcher which S1 has. Everyone can go to internet & check the prices of discussed DAWs. S1 is just very cheap now, probably to undercut the market. And itâs a pretty awesome DAW, if you donât need / use everything Cubase offers.
If you feel threatened by mentioning other DAWs, then ignore me, but then Iâm not sure what youâre even doing in this thread⌠
Sorry if my question was triggering you in that way, that was definitely not my intent.
I just believe there is a difference in discussing features and the way you have displayed the current discounts for S1.
But Cubase includes things likeâŚControl Room. Does S1 have the same functional equivalent?
I do not understand your point. If you dont understand or need functions of Control Room, by all means, find something cheaper.
Its similar to buying a car. And you just posted the price of a Honda.
EDIT: topics similar to this sometimed get locked because of going off topic. Anyone desiring these fearures by the OP can certainly post it as a Feature Request.
And neither does Studio One. You picked a Crossgrade license, that happens to be on sale.
Oh, one more thing:
Please make all Instruments and plugins by Steinberg with a complete resizable GUI.
And another thing:
Please make all Steinberg plugins interchangable for every Steinberg application. (For example: Cubase, Wavelab, Spectral Layers,âŚ)
Amazing, that this does not seem new.
Just study Groove Agent and use that as a clip launcher. Itâs features are far more robust that whatâs available in Studio One.
I would argue that Steinberg already needs to rewrite their audio-engine. A gapless audio-engine has been a longstanding feature request for years.
https://forums.steinberg.net/t/proper-audio-engine-gapless-audio/119037/256
Matthias_Quellmann, the Senior Product Marketing Manager for Cubase at Steinberg, is asking you to tell them in a survey what each of you individually want in Cubase.
They ask among other things,
If Cubase could improve just one thing for you in the next year, what should it be?
What is one area where you would most like Cubase development to reflect user feedback more strongly?
They also have demographic questions that reveal who their users are and what kind of workflows they have, and questions regarding other aspects of the program and documentation that are hotly discussed topics.
Itâs an explicit request from them for the info people are debating here, and a way for you to make a feature request without any other user chiming in for or against.
I really donât understand why some people feel offended when Cubase is compared to other DAWs. Comparing tools doesnât mean underestimating Cubase â quite the opposite.
Personally, I believe Cubase is a great DAW, with several features that are still hard to find elsewhere. The Control Room is a perfect example: if you work with a separate control room and recording room, itâs an outstanding feature, comparable perhaps only to Pro Tools in terms of professional monitoring and cue management.
Also, Cubaseâs MIDI and composition tools are exceptional. For traditional composers, orchestral writers, or film composers, its MIDI capabilities are arguably second to none.
That said, Cubase is clearly a more traditional DAW in its overall philosophy. Steinberg is making efforts to catch up with the growing number of bedroom producers and EDM creators, but the core mindset is still rooted in classic recording and composition workflows.
In my humble opinion, if Cubase really wants to go the extra mile in that direction, it would require a shift in thinking and a redesign of certain parts of the workflow, without losing its professional strengths.
Different DAWs serve different creative approaches â acknowledging that shouldnât offend anyone.
There are probably tons of lines of code, that need to be completely rewritten.
But⌠they donât know how, because the developers are not there anymore.
This would be no surprise in the computer industryâŚ
What to do? Year, âjust use AIâ, say the marketing guys and other business men⌠and itâs all screwed up than.
Gapless audio wont be compatible with automatic delay compensation so it is not even a issue.
How do you know that they donât know? I am pretty sure they have a very solid idea about their code base. Otherwise, how would have Steinberg managed to release the latest updates including Cubase on ARM?
I agree on that one. Fact is - we donât know how complex it is and how Steinberg has set their priorities. Looking at their recent innovations and developments, I am confident that they have a solid long term strategy. Nonetheless, I hope that they will take better care of some basic chores like bug fixing, documentation, and performance issues. As asked, I will also list these requests in the survey .
Until proven otherwise, I consider this as a valid assumption, since I know some stages of software developement.
There are open problem for years/decades, now.
Those can not be sugarcoated by any fanboy.
Gapless audio is open at least since 2018 (!).
The technological dept in software grows very, very fast, if not addressed at an early stage.
â> Fix it!
so plugins arenât operating at the samplerate of the DAW?
Also, I think one has to realize Cubase needs to maintain some balance between consumer useability and professional users and more boutique features that a boutique program like Reaper tacks on.
Those who want/need oversampled plugins - can choose plugins that have it in built. But having that as a base feature, is probably just going to end up with 1000s more people complaining about performance because theyâve used oversampling without realizing what it is.
- Most professionals from pop-music to post-production have not cared about Oversampling and aliasing for most of the digital music life-time.
- Anyone who is that particular about sound, probably is working in higher-sample rates to begin with, and has nitpicked their 3rd party plugins, or uses a wrapper.
How important of a feature is this to you?
No one force you to use it, it does not cost any performance when not used.
Now you need to run your projects on higher samplerates than needed so it in
practice better performance. Why do you call Reaper boutique? It is gaining market fast.
It is a workaround for all the plugins done without engineering knowledge or pure laziness, or just some old nice ones. But the point is to save cpu power without audio degrades. If you dont care nothing is need to be changed. You also save time when you have selected a good default value for the plugins.
Most professionals use 96KHz today, and they also solves the issues during tracking. They have real guitar amps, they use analog gear. When you mix a good recording you donât have the need. It is a different workflow than a plugin-based home studio.
As DAW feature it is the thing that can make me change DAW. Audio result MUST be on par with best competitors. Itâs about trust of your gear, I need to know that I am the limitation and not my DAW.
Is this true? post-production maybe, but Iâm not sure thatâs the case for music production. Pretty certain most projects professional mix engineers and mastering engineers get in are at 48khz.
Iâm currently working on a 300 track mix, old and new plugins, 88.2khz SR, some with inbuilt OS, many without⌠no problems here. I work on things until they sound good, and when they sound good - they sound good. It doesnât matter if there is aliasing at noise-floor level or some ringing that is masked by everything else in the mix.
How often are you encountering audible aliasing issues that have rendered your project unreleasable? can you show us an example of where aliasing has caused you lost time?