Logic is a much simpler program with less going on, as is studio one despite appearing to have as much, doesn’t, and is trying to do everything trying to compete with every DAW.
It’s just annoying to be frank. the conversation is annoying.. the philosophy or lack thereof of every DAW needing to do what every DAW does is annoying.
There’s more important things to spend resources on than incorporating a Clip Launcher which ironically, typically generates a type of music that AI is already duplicating better than most people can produce it.
It’s an annoying immature unprofessional low-tier-production conversation. What a silly waste of resources to try and convince Steinberg that this is needed… “We NEED A CLIP LAUNCHER, WTF!”.
Seriously? Just do some work in Bitwig, and then export to Cubase…
It’s like having a conversation with kids about how many toys they can get at the store… Pick ONE, I know you like that one and that one, but you can only have one.
Sorry, but seriously annoying incredibly petulant conversation. There’s 1000s of things Cubase could improve/build on before even thinking about a clip-launcher ffs.
Any DAW with flexible enough routing can replicate what Control Room does. And that’s most of them really. Things like cue mixes are irrelevant if you’re not doing live recording, which is most people nowadays.
REAPER does. REAPER even does things that you need plugins to do in other DAWS, like inverting the phase of sends.
The last two plugins they added:
One had complaints because it can’t be used in real-time due to added latency
One is a one trick pony effect you could already do with the stock plugins.
Spectral editing, while a nice feature, it’s not a “must have” feature otherwise you’re left in the dust.
Your loaded statement of Cubase being “unrivaled” is what you’re missing. If you think Cubase is unrivaled, that’s fine. The small sample of people requesting features Cubase doesn’t have to be implemented might not agree with your statement.
Cue mixes are not only for live recording, I’m using them for mix revision ABCD comparison, and no, they cannot replicate. Show me.
Yes REAPER is full of niche things that can become lost like a needle in a hay stack of 1000 channels. Why are you here, and not working in REAPER?
It’s a STUDIO plugin, it’s not a real-time live plugin. There are limitations to how good pitch shift can be in real-time. That’s again people complaining about something they have no professional engineering understanding of.
Even before these two, Steinberg has more, and very nice plugins.
Cubase is unrivaled. I’m the kind of dude that does not care about taking side, I’m going to use the best tool. I’ve used all the other DAWs, I’ve written 5 journals of study notes on Cubase so that I know the program inside and out and leverage every feature. PLE alone makes Cubase unrivaled. But if you want to argue with the biggest film composer of all time with one of the most complicated studios of all time - go ahead.
Spectral editing in 2025 is a must have in modern audio engineering/production/mixing. If you are not doing spectral edits, you are not doing a modern professional standard job.
I need features that help me manage my business operation…. help me manage 200+ channel projects which Cubase already does better than the other DAWs… But the easier I can fly around 200-1000 channels the better. Cubase is an operational management tool. If I feel like playing with a clip-launcher while I’m waiting for the coffee to brew before getting back to work, I can open up Bitwig.
As a big fan of Ennio, I’m pretty certain Hans Zimmer is bigger on multiple metrics, but correct me If I’m wrong. Gladiator alone probably has Ennio beat, but that’s just a guess.
There are so many scenarios of using clip launcher other than simply triggering static samples. For example clips can do what you asked for here, store and launch automation:
Even better, clips (together with Ableton racks) allow for many powerful ways of experimenting with automation in real time, contrary to static track versions.
I don’t need clip launched automation, I need to keep track of complex linear compositions and have multiple levels of undo/redo. It’s not really the same thing.
But yes, the FR I made there is enormously more important and useful for Cubase users who understand what Cubase is and does.
Of course it’s not exactly the same thing. There are multiple ways to achieve the same goal. In Ableton Live, you can store automation in clips and trigger those clips from the linear arrangement view.
I’d be all for having reproduceable/stored automation events, or just automation events sort of like an audio-part… That can still be a linear only implementation.
And yet you don’t know how to route mixer channels to replicate what Control Room does?
If you think being able to flip the polarity of a signal at send level is a niche feature, you need to interact with live mixing engineers more often.
The problem here is Cubase already has VariAudio, which does everything PitchShifter can do and more, rendering PitchShifter kinda useless, especially considering the plugin only exists in the two versions of Cubase that have VariAudio.
That goes really well with the following statement
I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty sure Hans Zimmer could care less about which kind of tool other people use to do their job. The only thing he would argue for sure is you saying he’s the biggest film composer of all time.
According to who? The biggest film composer of all time? Cause I don’t think he uses it, because it’s not really a compositional tool. That would be like telling people to use After Effects to edit video.
What you’re telling me is essentially this:
“The feature you’re requesting Steinberg to implement is not something I use in my workflow nor does it make sense for me, therefore it’s a useless feature that is a waste of time and resources being even talked about in the first place.”
1: if you’re on windows then Logic is out of the picture for starters… and
2: Eucon….. if you have a hardware mixing console like a full Avid setup then Cubase is the only windows DAW that utilises Eucon… Pro tools obviously is the number one.
I don’t see many Pro tools users asking for clip launcher.
Cubase treads a fine line between the professional mixer that would be using pro tools and the creative.
In my years as a pro 99% of mixing work was done in pro tools and the creative process was done in another DAW. Cubase sits squarely in the middle here in that it does what the creative DAW’s do and also the mixind /editing is on par with Pro tools….. the Eucon support isn’t as good but it’s usable when mixing, so I found i could do everything I needed in just one DAW….. Cubase or Nuendo……I’ve left my pro tools days behind me as i can acheive what i need to do now fully with Cubase/Nuendo.
For me as a Producer/Mixer I’ve seen lots of things added to Cubase recently that is aimed at the bedroom producer/EDM guys and for me personally this has taken resources away from fixing bugs, sorting out the audio engine so it threads better on current high core/thread CPU’s, updating the Eucon support and generally addressing performance/ stability over new functions.
I compl;etely understand why this has happened, it’s business and the amateurs/semi pro’s are a large part of the market when it comes to numbers buying Cubase…. I imagine for every professionbal here there are 10x as many amateurs/semi pro’s ….. that’s a lot of customers Steinberg have to keep happy…… hence the direction I’ve seen over the past 10 years.
I’m still getting my work done so I”m happy…. i always look back to recodings I made years ago with basic computer tech/Software and remind myself…..
VariAudio is an offline editing tool… You can’t automate it, you don’t have an a/b slot, there’s no presets, no modulator access (if you’re into that), etc, etc.
Certainly, he is too busy using Cubase and too rich to care about other peoples tools… he has mastered his instead of begging on forums for features that aren’t needed…
Well, according to someone else, he is an overrated sound designer so he probably does use spectral editing. But certainly the people doing the sound-post on his films use spectral-editors… and if he has an assistant who cleans up samples and such, probably using a spectral editor.
Yes, and then expounding a healthy dose of logic to back it up.
Nobody using Cubase professionally cares about Clip-Launcher, it’s a hobbyists want… How I know that is, any professional/touring artist who solely works with clip-launching is using Ableton/Bitwig and sending their finished projects out to someone else to be mixed/mastered probably in a different program, and b.) anyone who is professionally using Cubase is… too busy professionally using Cubase to care about a clip-launcher….
