We Cubase users need Ableton Session View plugin inside Cubase. Period.
Creativity First.
1 Like
The short answer is: No.
I’ve been practically begging to implement a feature that’s user friendly and doesn’t take 5x longer than it should (Studio One & Logic did this flawlessly) but nothing for years. But we got new compressors and EQs! I bet we all use stock plug-ins, right?!
The closest thing would be beat designer which got a “paint job” after a decade and nothing else. A missed opportunity for sure. Instead of dragging a sample and using a pattern mode (as you say) you need to browse through media bay (which is so dated and sluggish, it’s alarming) then open groove agent (which is unnecessarily confusing) then add a midi insert (which is only available in Artist and above) then create a drum map. Then, and only then, can you get going. Seems much easier than the Logic and Studio One implementations, for sure.
Add all of the bugs, spikes, crashes, etc. Cubase isn’t in it’s best spot.
I’ve been using it for 15+ years, and invested a lot of money into it, so I’m kind of stuck using it (for better or worse) but if I was starting today, for half the price, Studio one and Logic (which comes with free updates) would look pretty good. If beat making is your thing, FL Studio is also hard to beat.
1 Like
Not so much that old guys are against new features and work-flow options. It’s more like…every user has a different wish list!
Part of the problem is that it would seem Cubendo is trying to support at least 4 generations of tech in a single product. I can see from Version 12 to date…they are attempting to phase out older tech and replace it with newer tech, while avoiding dropping a bunch of stuff people still need and use. VST or MIDI? Instrument Track or MIDI track? MIDI CC, VST, or Note Expression? There’s a lot of things in Cubase that can be done ‘multiple ways’ now. Loads of workflow possibilities and the average Cubase user doesn’t understand ANY of them all the deeply.
I think they have a long-range plan to tie it all together with newer code. It just takes TIME. So, some of the feature ideas just have to wait until the newer engines under the hood are ready to take it all on. Currently, adding ‘one’ new thing to the ‘tracking engine’ means the feature set might need to be duplicated a dozen times over (Yay, it works for a VST lane, but what about an instrument part that needs CC data? What about a track that’s using VST Note Expression?)
We old farts have endured 40 years of seeing so much of the current feature set (not just Steinberg mind you…everything ‘software’ out there does it, including the OSes we use) still has bugs or is half baked. Great concepts, gear, and workflows (much of it quite expensive) gets abandoned before it gets a chance to mature and actually be useful.
At least half of the features people campaign for in these forums, one already has if they’ll actually read the manual for their instruments and plugins. I.E. Why pump a control in a synth with a fake LFO from the host, when the synth plugin itself has 6 built in LFOs per layer, that’d be far more efficient, at high resolution, that are not being used at all? Why is this level of sound design suddenly the host’s job anyway? Why not make that feature request with your plugin designer instead of demanding the host do the job of sound design plugins?
In most cases, you simply open the synth or effect plugin and build the LFO where it should be (and has been for decades) in the first place? (Them: “But, but, Bigwig can do it!” Me: “I have at least 14 ways to build an LFO for anything I like. Most of the plugins already have it built in, and for those that don’t…bidule is great for that. So…get Bidule, or use Bitwig.”)
Another quarter of the demands are simply better suited for a totally different host, which already exists in mature and useable states. It’s like demanding a box truck be morphed into a sports car when it doesn’t make a lick of sense. The entire factory already exists to keep on producing a great selling box truck, and many nice sports cars are already on the market. Removing the best selling box truck from the marketplace in hopes of cranking out yet another sports car? Why?
Things that would really save a lot of time in through composed workflows get abandoned and considered unimportant. People constantly ask for features that one can already get on the marketplace, either via complementary plugins or in competing products.
Meanwhile the stuff that no other products out there offer, but Cubase can ‘kind of do’ never really gets the love and attention it deserves.
Examples:
More user options in customizing/fine tuning the GUI.
Opening up a little more about how files and settings are stored, so third party developers can take a crack at enhancing or porting/manipulating these things.
Improving stuff like XML import/export.
More batch editing possibilities with the existing score editor (I.E. expanding logical editors to have access to the score editor’s notation data, and documenting what it all is/means in the list editor).
Gradually improving the expression map system. There are numerous little things people have been begging for since they day expression maps were introduced, and we haven’t seen a one get implemented.
Unlocking the drum maps after importing from something like Groove Agent. So users can go in and direct kit pieces to other plugins or ports (something we can unofficially do by hacking the drum map XML file, but why not just fix it so the hack isn’t necissary?).
Better integration with the existing suite of Steinberg hosts and products. I.E. It’d be nice if Dorico and Cubendo could at least exchange loopMIDI files (as these keep the instrument end point and insert effect chain for the track intact).
Improving the MIDI and Project Logical Editors and macro/key command building and management systems. Perhaps even making it possible to produce longer ‘scripts’ externally. Perhaps even offering an optional portal to something far more advanced, like say, LUA scripts.
Slightly More advanced ASIO backend or routing/loopback abilities for audio. (Considering things that currently require awkward virtual cable products like ASIO Link Pro or VB Banana).
Built in virtual through MIDI ports plus some safety features to warn about and catch accidental feedback situations.
More track types (I.E. A track that can toggle controls in the track inspector. A track that can trigger user macros. A track that can automate transport controls). Tracks like these combinded with the existing arranger track would be a major step closer to having your sketch pad (yet be even more powerful). Such automation tracks would make it possible to skip and jump to any marker you like as the transport trogs along. Personally, I already do this with a virtual port, a MIDI track, and some hooks in the old legacy generic remote system (while we still have it…when it finally goes away, I’ll need to figure out how to make the new remote system do this stuff).
Improving working with and editing the data on VST automation lanes (Logical editors, or scripting abilities for these would be awesome). It’s pretty sad that to batch edit a VST automation lane, it’s far more efficient to turn it to a MIDI track, edit it with the piano scroll editor and logical editors, and then convert it back into a VST lane. Why not drop in another logic editor that can do the same stuff to a VST automation lane that one can do with MIDI tracks? Why not have a ‘lane editor’ that feels and looks much like working with MIDI cc data in the key-editor?
Why not? We can all ask these questions when it comes to our personal wish lists…
2 Likes
It’s always been like this. When a competing Software (DAW) integrated a new feature or a new VST, VSTi, a new operating mode, there were always people who complained that Cubase was falling behind and why this was not yet done in Cubase.
To summarize, many users have always wanted Cubase to be at the same time, Pro Tools, Logic, Ableton Live or Bitwig, FL Studio to name just a few. Others compared the quality of the products, the equivalent of such VST is much better in this one or this one; the list of complaints is very long. I’m sure that more than half of the whiners don’t know more than half of all the features in this DAW.
I’m not against the idea of a new feature. It’s just a matter of requesting it and the tool exists in this forum for that and it’s “Feature Request”.
It will be up to Steinberg to judge the relevance and feasibility of this request in the context of the software as it is currently implemented.
Everything requires time, human and monetary resources. We will see what happens in the future.
1 Like
But we still need Ableton Session View plugin inside Cubase.
It is all part part of the creativity process and a session view is an excellent tool for it.
As Steinberg and Ableton dumped the Rewire protocol and Steinberg refusing to adopt Link protocol , so I think a new Sketch plugin for cubase is a must now.
I am just saying!
No,. YOU need the session view, not ‘we’. Ableton’s Session View is not part of my creative process, even when I use Ableton Live, and Im sure it’s not part of a lot of people’s creative processes. The handful of folks on this forum are not the majority of Steinberg users despite what you think…
1 Like
Who are “we” in this sentence? I certainly do not need a session view, but I’m mostly use Cubase to record acoustic instruments.
No, Propellerhead, creator of the Rewire protocol, discontinued it.
2 Likes
**ReWire is a software jointly developed by Propellerhead AND Steinberg.
Food for thought 
1 Like
Though not a Cubase feature, this Plugin may be interesting for those who would like a Pattern or Session View type of features within Cubase:
MuLab 9 Plugin.
I shortly bought this plugin and I am quite pleased with it.
I created another thread with some details:
1 Like
Had no idea Steinberg was a part of the development. For years it seemed like Propellerheads claimed ownership.