Feature Request Poll July 2019 - Results

Hi all,

here are the results

Rank Request (Average points)

1 Gapless Audio Engine (7,90)
2 Move tracks within the mix console (5,66)
3 General Improvements to MIDI editor and Smart tools for MIDI editing (4,72)
4 Bezier curves in midi editor (4,59)
5 Multitrack Audio Warp (4,28)
6 Export to Video (3,73)
7 Smart Tool (3,70)
8 Inspector In Lower Zone Idea - Mockup Design (3,47)
9 Full coloured tracks in the mixconsole (3,37)
10 Audio Connections overhaul or External FX Plugin w/flexible routing (3,03)
11 Allow Free Warp On The Project Window (2,92)
12 Automation saved with TrackVersions (2,76)
13 A proper ‘Import Session Data’ feature (2,64)
14 Total integration of Dorico (2,44)
15 Tabbed GUI Windows. Namely VST/VSTi Windows (2,42)
16 Plug-in Aliases (2,39)
17 Cubase for Linux (2,33)
18 Multi quick control (2,11)
19 Horizontal mouse wheel should scroll the mix console (1,96)
20 Ripple Edit (1,92)
21 Expression maps UX improvements (1,87)
22 MIDI Editor UI ‘Tabs for Controller lanes’ (1,85)
23 Better Arpeggiators (1,84)
24 Multiple Track Freeze / Unfreeze (1,82)
25 Save Folder Track Preset, saves all contained tracks+routings (1,78)

26 Modernize remote control functions (1,76)
27 Eliminate mix console focus (1,61)
28 Improve The ‘Save As Template’ Function (1,60)
29 Songwriter Tool (1,59)
30 Synchronisation of editing cc data between multiple vsti/midi tracks (1,54)
31 Improve Hardware Remote Plugin Control in Cubase (1,53)
32 The ability to snap to triplets within audio warp (1,34)
33 Save mp3 export ID3 tag settings per project (1,27)
34 Steinberg/Cubase server for quick saving and stability (1,17)
35 Triplet/Dotted grid snap in audio editor (1,15)
36 Clarification of all the remote control features (0,96)
37 Remember the height of each tab in the lower zone (0,81)
38 Per articulation delay parameter for Expression Maps (0,80)
39 ‘Glue’ Key Command (0,78)
40 Turn off Workspace remembering zoom and track height (0,73)
41 Rack presets (0,64)
42 Audio Pool Export (0,54)
43 Transport visible at bottom of Key Editor (0,50)
44 Add option to allow multiple MCU devices to mirror controls (0,50)
45 Video Track Versions (0,36)
46 Info line transpose algo FREE (0,35)
47 Voice control of Cubase transport functions, marker / arranger navigation, looping (0,30)
48 Straight/Parabola Line Tool Key Commandfor each ‘Line Type’ (0,24)
49 ‘Show Part Borders’ available as key command (0,23)
50 External Synchronization per project not global (0,20)

We will have to refine the rules for the next iteration since a couple of people allocated all of their budget to a single feature. This lead to a high ranking for some features that were only requested by less than 5% of the total participants. Of course this list only represents a fraction of the features requests, but we can add new entries with the next iteration and step by step improve the quality of the results.

Thanks again to all that participated! I really appreciate the positive and constructive discussions. Please keep it up like this!

Wow, just goes to show that a little niggle such as the gapless audio thing actually strikes a chord with more users, so ranks top. Even though it wouldn’t be top of most people’s lists to fix/improve. I find that really interesting.

Even though what i recommended was low down (44th) i’m really happy with that list.

Was does that mean for the top 25? …They will be forwarded for review to the team? …Will we hear anything further? :slight_smile:

I feel that we have communally given birth and must now care for this child to the point of being over-obsessive parents!

Thanks for doing this Matthias!

Great job, Matthias!


I would not like to mention a well-known competitor, but they have a very good feature at the Feature request forum: you can vote for or against each FR and see the results on the main FR page.

At SB forum we can see only how “hot” topic is with no idea how many members really welcome a particular FR.

I know that this has already been said, but…


Interesting results. I’d very much like to see a more tightly curated list/survey in any next iterations but this was a great first step.

Gapless wasn’t even on my list. Went through that boondoggle with Sonar where it felt for a while every update made the audio engine “more gapless” over time because they never quite got the job completely done. I also kind of equate gapless with begging for instability. True gapless audio without instability would be nice, but it’s low priority for me personally (though it’s clear I’m in the minority).

#3 and #7 may have even bastardized votes from one another because of the overlap. I suspect if there was a single item that said “Smart Tool for Audio/Midi/Automation” and another for “MIDI PRV improvements” (not sure what those are) the Smart Tool would clearly win out.

#13, #25 and #28 are variations on the same theme with a lot of overlap. The basic problem users are trying to solve is: I want to be able to load some previously created track/instrument templates for quick recall. Maybe a future iteration of the survey could find a good way to combine those by focusing on the problem versus proposing different solutions.

#18, #26, #31 and #36 again all have to do with the same basic premise: users want more/modern remote control options. Again, the next iteration of the survey would benefit from an option that consolidates these into a single item (e.g. “Modernize Remote Control Functions”).

From my perspective, there were things on that list that weren’t entirely clear to me. A description of the problem and proposed solution right within the survey would really go a long way towards improving the response rates. Same for the idea of having some kind of minimum/maximum to prevent people from stacking a single FR as well as preventing duplicate votes.

Thanks for the hard work Matthias.

How many answered the poll?

I found the result surprisingly even below the top. Interesting that just 3 average points were enough to reach top 10, and just two requests reached 5 avg points. Seems to me the community has spread their votes quite broad.

Do you have a rank of “request response rates” (or what to call it), i.e. how many percentage of the voters that had a request on his/her voting list at all (regardless of how many points given, they found it useful enough to vote for it)? Would be interesting to see that as well.

Small features often gets lower points, but can still be useful for many people (even if not getting the top points), and can often be implemented with a short amount of time. There are some requests that shouldn’t be ignored even if they are on the lower half of the list. If doing a rank as above, they may show up in the upper half (= useful for many).

Thanks for doing this. :exclamation:

My own answers in the survey are very much in agreement with the items listed and their priority. Looking forward to future versions.

I’d like to suggest a feature for the next poll: option for up to 4x upsampling on render. Have an option where Cubase will internally resample any audio and run at a higher sample rate during the render process for reduced aliasing, then resample back down to the original sample rate.


Gapless Audio Engine - can someone explain what is it ?

No glitch, cut out of audio when; moving or selecting tracks, inserting or removing plugins, opening plugin GUI etc.

Which features got 100 points, thus being ranked to high?

I think an idea might be to have everyone have to select, say for example five different option out of the list (non-priority), then just add up the selections and you should get a better and fairer result.

Personally, I couldn’t find five options that I felt were important enough for me to vote for (personal opinion). But, I think if I was forced to make more choices then it would make me think a bit deeper about other options that might be a good idea even if it’s not a priority for me.

Im happy with the results

I really like this approach because it forces us focus in on the features that would make the most impact in our particular workflow. Adding a +1 in a thread doesn’t really help Steinberg see what are true priorities are in the same way that a poll like this does. Even though some of the features I voted for didn’t rank as high as I thought they might, I think the list has some great features on it that I hope make their way into Cubase.

I would be interested to see a percentage of how often each feature was ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th by users based on the number of points that they allocated to it. I wonder how much that would affect the overall rankings.

Hopefully Steinberg will continue to do these types of polls and maybe a straight 1-5 or 1-10 ranking would be more fair that the 100 point system. In the 1-10 example, our #1 priority would get 10 points, #2 would get 9 points and so on. This would ensure that a few users could not push a feature to the top of the list by throwing all of their points on that specific request.

Oh well that went as expected, needed features like ripple edit get place 20.
And a feel-good features like gapless audio, gets place 1.
How about using the Hub in Cubase for future poll’s ?
That would at least reach a bigger audience.

Gapless audio is a big concern for anyone using external gear that’s synchronised to Cubase so don’t dismiss it only as a ‘feel good’ feature. This poll has done ‘a’ job of surveying the community objectively, let’s not beat on it as it’s a progressive step forward.

Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, if we get behind these methods as a community, rather than judge them selfishly, then we will all achieve greater steps forward.

Hear! Hear!

Based on the amount of responses to posts about it, I would disagree and say that it’s a major complaint for many users and is on the top of many people’s lists.

Gapless audio is not at all merely a feel-good feature for many users, including myself. Though I wish ripple edit were super high up, as well – it’s such a major speed improvement. There are many workflow issues (including gapless audio and ripple edit) that are so important, though every user has different needs of course. My top one of more mix controls (as options) in the track headers (volume, pan, etc.) isn’t even on the list, which is a head-scratcher for me because of the significant improvement in workflow and speed it would offer.

One thing is that many users might not realize the benefits they would get from the some of the features, especially those who are beginners or don’t do a lot of advanced work. I’m not insulting them at all – there are all kinds of users, but features such as ripple edit might be lost on a good amount of people who might not understand how significant a feature it is in complicated and larger sessions. Luckily there are plenty of other great ones in high places in the poll.