The question is, if you could only choose one - Cubase more like Cubase (ie do better what it already does), or, Cubase more like Abelton - which would you pick.
Of coarse if Steinberg could flip a switch and have a DAW that covers everything under the sun, that would be the choice… But Steinberg doesn’t have those infinite resources.
The contention from I and other users is, put resources into what Cubase already is and does taking it further in its own direction, instead of pulling it in every direction and spreading it thin. There are so many great features in Cubase that are half baked.
I’m not talking about cubase going in another direction, I’m talking about a plugin that already exists in cubase getting an overhaul and giving people like me what we want without worrying about rewriting the base code of the program. Load up loop mash and think clip based cells instead of the mash lanes.
Imagine if each one could hold another vst synth and playback patterns of any length and at any start point. Maybe a 4x4 or 8x8 grid, could always load another instance for more. Fixed loops points you can drag around to get random loops and polyrhythms going per lane. Each lane/cell can hold midi or audio and has the editing we know and love from cubase, a browser like in Groove Agent with auto time stretching on each lane, plus ability to press a random button and take what you come up with and go loop mash like it currently is with what you made. Drap and drop bounce, resizing of gui. A man can dream, kinda got excited there, lol. Seriously though this would be dope and i’d buy it or upgrade from 9.5 straight away and put up with not being able to resize the rightclick pop up bar I’ve been using for over 20 years
With something fun and inspiring like this I’d actually use cubase on my laptop and not just in my studio, but until then it’s bitwig laptop, cubase studio.
Most people using cubase to make club music know what i’m talking about here
Not everything has to be one way of the other, there’s always a solution somewhere in the middle. Someone above mentioned a similar thing with groove agent but that would very soon turn into “we want it like maschine and we want a dedicated controller for it”
Just a version prior, you didn’t even have the automation name. The name is usually abbreviated, however if you mouse over it, you should get the full name? I agree, it’s certainly not ideal, but a definite improvement from prior versions.
Maybe. But this is one of those super fundamental elements that slows down your workflow. Cubase while being a great daw has a reputation for taking twice as many steps to do anything than other daws.
I agree its an issue that in spite of the improvement, slows down your workflow. Before it was just a number. Now the name is there, but if it’s a very long name, it’s abbreviated therefore more mouse use.
But there are literally hundreds of issues like this. Whether or not it’s “fundamental” is most likely dependent on the user. There are many different Cubase users groups, and ranking of what is most important among the groups greatly varies.
Just the other day someone pointed out the scroll problem when opening the Edit History Window with executed functions already there. This means you not only have to mouse-over, but move the scroll wheel to see the latest functions to undo.
Who is to say your issue of Automation Names is more or less important than this Edit History issue?
With that said, it’s the developers burden to rank these issues, most likely based on their own data of different types of Cubase users. Then, rank the cost of how difficult the remedy will be. Some very seemingly simple fixes, even a small GUI issue, is actually very difficult to fix, and part of this is because of code built on older code.
Why new features and new factory plugs with so much currently to address? My guess is marketing and new sales. A new Cubase version titled “We didn’t do anything but fix stuff” isn’t unfortunately going to keep Steinberg in business.
Yes you are right, cubase should not be like ableton, but it does need and add on that offers the functionality of ableton. Especially as most hardware is now produced to work flawlessly with ableton… Unlike cubsase which is a complete hit and miss chore… if i was able to build quick ideas like ableton using my “ableton optimized” hardware to control synths, plugins etc as good as ableton does, then switch back to linear for deeper production and editing it would be great and make cubase even more funtional. I font want to use ableton, but cubase has pushed me back to hardware sequencers and synths for quick inspiration and idea buidling. Cubase is great but labourious sometimes… people wanted chord structuering tools… They got it, people wanted a sampler… They got it, people wanted seamless hardware intergration… They never really got it, forcing people to created not so perfect vst panels to controll external hardware… Nice idea but mostly crap…add an ableton like add on that works with gear and ecourages quick ideas. Ohh yeh people wanted a dedicated drum machine type addon… They got it, aka groove agent. Big rant i know, but more and more people are investing in hardware again, cubase needs to keep up with the times amd make it easier for users to just plug and play.
I really don’t like Ableton. It came in with my Focusrite interface and I uninstalled it just after an hour of playing with it.
I hope Steinberg won’t do something stupid and go the “Abletone way”. I like Cubase the way it is.
Same here. In the end a timeline arranger is still the best way to come to results. Clips can be fun, but more than you wish you end up with a bunch of loops staying there forever… Most AB Live producers also use the arranger view from the beginning. Live is definitely a great DAW (racks!), but I like the Cubase Arrangement more because i.m.o. groups, folders, different track types, audio and midi parts, automation lanes, plugins are presented and accessible in a better and more useful way. The available tools and functions are elaborate. And you can get really efficient in workflow when knowing all the available possibilies, countless features, key shortcuts and customization options.
Cubase is an extremely feature-rich DAW and I use many of the high quality stock plugins a lot, which also reduces dependencies from 3rd party VSTs when opening a project many years later and having not freezed. Also most of the presets are named in a useful way.
Also I really like Cubase UI wise since v. 10… some thoughts regarding UI (of course clearly subjectiv opinion) : Unfortunately the trend to make flat UIs still seems unbroken. Many newer 3rd party plugins look boring and uninspiring just because its trendy and easier to produce and to scale in size. Also Apples Logic wich is a very beautiful DAW goes more and more flat-look “Abletonish”, even with their new ugly flat track icons . One may say “I don’t care how a DAW looks, if it does what I need.” Flat is not always bad, it can look slick and modern when done right like it is done in many parts of Cubase. But with flat-design everything looks the same and I’d say it is like with clothes or a car. You don’t want to just use it, there should be an easthetic touch when looking at these things, same with a DAW. Also it can often help with usability. It is not a bad thing when VSTs UI visualize original hardware or have a great futuristic design instead of just drawing a flat box with flat knobs and sliders. Here Cubase 11 with its crisp high-res, modern and still in parts 3d or skeumorphic design wins for me.
I think Cubase can take a little inspiration from Live and it will be cool.
Even tough Cubase is awesome and its eccurate for my workflow, the option to go for a trip its fun.
An accecible Sequencer (not as a MIDI insert like the beat desinger) can be cool.
Clips can be cool either.
One cool thing about the clips in Live is that when recording in a loop, altough the loop is over the recording will be in one lane, in Cubase it will add lane for any time the loop has ended.
Ableton is great. Clips are great. Cubase is great. I’ve used both Ableton and Cubase for over 20 years. I think the arrangement track in Cubase is pretty bad. This is where something like clips really shines. It would also be great to have a play engine that can continue to play as edits are made like in Ableton. There are always things to learn from ones competitors.
I remember watching Guy Michelmore’s videos and always thinking it looked a bit ugly.
But after using it and changing that default color it’s much more pleasing to the eyes.
I still think the mixer could use a visual update
But at the end of the day, it’s just visuals
Still think it matters a bit, since it’s always nice to work in a DAW you think looks good, but features more important.
More visual options is always good though.
Wouldn’t mind being able to customize the look even more.
Thanks for mentioning this as I have just made a friend ( Jay from born to produce ) who advised me to come here to find other Cubase users who might want to stay with what they know ( or don’t ) … I feel like new kid with Cubase , and don’t want to lose the little I do know by trying to move to another daw … thanks again and will post a more difficult question after this first reply , Marcus’s
One workaround to deal with Cubase’s lack of drum rack is to use one MIDI track to trigger all your drums, then set up the drum map (assigned to that track) so that each key sends out to a different VST instrument.
So for example, you could have C3 sending to Kick 2, D3 sending to Serum, E3 sending to Halion etc.
Obviously this doesn’t give you all the crazy FX routing possibilities available within Ableton, but at least it gives you the feel on your drum pads or keyboard.
I think if Cubase doesn’t want to go the way of the dinosaurs, it needs to offer something similar to the racks in Ableton & Bitwig, because it’s starting to feel extremely antiquated in comparison.
The new envelope editor in the sampler looks very promising, they also need to implement that system for track automation. In fact i can’t imagine they won’t, because the contrast between the two is now very glaring!
