Do you feel that cubase lags compared to the newer DAWs?

i know this question/feel comes every year and now and then, but seems like KEY features are missing in cubendo for modern DAW. i can’t say if its Steinberg’s feature priorities,strategy,maybe less aware of users needs, or its very hard to keep cubase code development cuz its Core code is kind of old ? or any other reason !
i really see some DAW companies make BIG steps with new features and interfaces, that cubase seems straggled to keep up, and even with no paid updates they have Big bug fixes and new features added.
i know sometimes the grass is greener in netherlands :upside_down_face: but that’s how i feel, i stay in cubendo cuz i know them the best and its a good DAW and i invested in this for many years, but envy of some of the newer DAWs workflow modern and easy implemented features the big leaps in each update, and creative development.
whats your thoughts ?

3 Likes

I have a special relationship with Steinberg/Cubase : during the 7.0.x days, I was so angry about Cubase, compared to 6.5, that I made the jump and went for Reaper during few years. Actually, I lost a lot of time to make the latter working with a decent workflow.
Reaper has several things over Cubase that makes it enticing : I’ll name the hassle free update/installation process with the portable installations, the track templates, and some routing features. But overall, it’s a nightmare to set a workflow for it for a non-geek user, with its antiquated UI (no matter the theme used) and its overall complexity with constant wondering between its endless Actions list/scripts (python? LUA?)/SWS/Reapack, etc.
This to talk about one I know rather well. And from what I can see about others, none will give me the following in one package :

  • A true integration of external instruments as VSTis
  • The Retrospective record
  • The Generic remote definitions : even if buggy, I more or less found how to use them in an efficient way, including NRPN messages management (still wondering if these are actually manageable in other ‘DAWs’).
  • The ‘Enlarge selected track’ feature : seems rather futile, but it’s a true workflow enhancement one
  • The Input Transformer/Logical Editor
  • The score/List/Drum editors, especially the first one…
  • The interface : It’s debatable and I have several improvements in mind, but overall it’s a much more satisfying experience than in Reaper. Returning back to Cubase at its 10.0.x version has been a true relief…

So, I just stick with Cubase until Steinberg drops what’s remaining of the VST 2.x handling. The day they’ll do this, I’ll stop upgrading and will look for a host that keeps the VST 2.x plug-ins/VSTis usable.

It’s hard to tell since you didn’t give any examples of these missing “key features.”

With that said, one thought is that what’s “key” to you might not be “key” to another user. There are many different Cubase users. EDM, Film & Video, Composers, etc

And what are the BIG steps with new features and interfaces you see from other DAW developers?

I was switched to Cubase from Ableton in this summer. I like Cubase a lot. Especially for film scoring. Just one thing so boring for me. It’s HDPI mode in Windows. 3 years from the moment when Steinberg start to work with it. And still so many issues. And some synths looks so old and blurry… Like we are all in 2000 or maybe 2010… so in this way Ableton was do a big step. They addapted Ableton for HDPI just in one year! And you can scale the Daw as you want. And all looks super…

Thats true, i thought about it before posting and maybe i should have noted the KEY Features are kind of personal preference.
but said that, some examples,
most Daw’s have movable tracks in mixer ,multi freeze tracks, multi channel audio wrap, better easier mapping midi controller(we know steiny works on new API for midi), no audio gaps when doing lot of stuff(add/remove audio channel even empty, inserts etc…) HiDPI is still problematic etc… lot of clicks workflow, the inspector on editors and specially on project window is kind of outdated, a click bite. no basic control on track headers like vol,pan etc…
looks like they have hard time making gapless audio,HiDPI and this kind of stuff, i guess cuz its older coded program and its massive work to change.
if thinking of new Daw like Studio one, its kind looks they have manage to really have good workflow and new ideas or add ideas from other DAWs and implement them even better, and they add many requested features relatively quickly, maybe because its simpler for them to program on their newer platform !?( i don’t know really )
also just for example, look their free updates between paid version updates, they add features that sometimes looks bigger then what Steinberg’s gives for paid updates.
i just feel that Steinberg as inventor of VST,ASIO, and who were leading in their area ,now kind of lags and tries to keep up with the new ones.
of course cubase has uniqe features, like control room, PLE, exporting audio is good.but PLE for example is not for everyone, not all musicians are programmers or have that “logical” mind or the desire to mess with it .
overall its a great program we use everyday, just needs some shift to the new era with more innovative features and workflow.

3 Likes

“Do you feel that cubase lags compared to the newer DAWs?”
What? Like:
“Have you stopped beating your dog?”
https://effectiviology.com/loaded-question/

i dont have a dog !
but i have cubase to beat now and then if that’s answers your analogy :money_mouth_face:

Cubase definitely lags…visually.
The feature set of Cubase as a complete package is second to none.
I do tear my hair out at it’s demand for pixel perfect mouse clicking in order to do the thing you want it to do but also not do the things you didn’t.
Minefield.
That dongle though….it’s got to go.

Yes agreed. We all have different systems, and sonic objectives. How do you maintain a EDM user and a film composer?

Yes. My guess is that this feature will happen. Why hasn’t it happened yet? What other DAW(s) has 3 separate mix consoles that can be linked/unlinked, with 3 zones in each mix console, horizontally sized tracks, and syncs with the project page? As you probably know, the aforementioned features were added over a period of time. There is a lot behind the scenes to make it happen especially with code added over a period of time. This is my guess.

As for multi freeze tracks, multi audio warp, while I can understand others would like the time-saving features, it certainly would be of no benefit to me.

I think I prefer the gaps to the alternatives with other DAWs “gapless audio” if you mean inserting plug-ins anyway. This topic has been addressed several times about how Cubase does it as opposed to other DAWs “gapless” audio. Delay compensation. Would you like to be “tricked?”

Yes, like a new house built on a new foundation.

Yes. And Cubase is certainly not for everyone or someone who would not take advantage of…or grow into those features. I think those features stay hidden from the user who has more basic goals. It’s the developers responsibility to keep data regarding what features users use most, and this should apply to the features you listed above. But why do you feel Control Room is more important than the LE?

If I could choose between only Control Room and the Logical Editor, I would choose the Logical Editor. But that’s only because I have integrated the Key Commands, Macros, the LE and some PLE with Metagrid to provide faster more streamlined workflow. If I didn’t use Metagrid, I would choose the control room like you.

I’m not one to know what is lagging because I don’t use anything else other than PT, and that’s not my choice. But I would say that of all the issues you mentioned, the only one on my list would be movable tracks in the mixer. I use 3 LG 34-inch ultra-wide displays so HiDPI isn’t an issue. Using 3 34-inch ultra-wides allows for a very different workflow than for example, a user on a laptop. A big issue for myself is focus and navigation issues among all the different Cubase windows, and a new Key Command system where the user knows what KC applies to which window/process etc.