Dear Steinberg Team,
I am a dedicated Cubase user based in South Korea, where Cubase has long been the most popular and trusted DAW among creators. It is incredibly helpful to my creative work, and I am writing to you today with a sincere vision: to see Cubase secure its position as the undisputed global leader.
As someone who relies heavily on Cubase, I fully appreciate the monumental effort required to maintain such sophisticated software. However, I feel it is important to share a candid perspective from the Korean user community: Many dedicated users here are currently underwhelmed by recent updates. There is a growing sentiment that the improvements have felt somewhat superficial rather than addressing the core needs of power users.
To remain an unstoppable force, Cubase needs to evolve in a way that feels “solid and profound.” I would like to humbly request that future updates focus on two critical directions:
First, the realization of a truly seamless, “all-in-one” workflow. Cubase should be a complete ecosystem where every stage of production—from the first note to the final master—is so perfectly integrated that it eliminates any need for external tools.
Second, a commitment to deep, substantial technical evolution. We seek a fundamental modernization of the MIDI and production architecture that ensures unparalleled stability and professional-grade precision. Furthermore, when integrating successful features inspired by other DAWs, we ask that you do so with a commitment to excellence—don’t just match the competition, surpass them. If modern technologies or industry-leading workflows are to be adopted, they must be implemented thoroughly and polished to a professional standard, rather than being added as mere surface-level additions.
I have full confidence in your team’s ability to innovate and push the boundaries of what a DAW can achieve. I want to see Cubase not just maintain its status, but evolve into the ultimate global standard that users can truly be inspired by. Thank you for your tireless hard work and dedication.
Best regards,
Please bear with me if there are any grammatical errors, as I used a translator because my English isn’t very strong.
Since I’m not good at English, I just put what I wanted to say into a translator. I’m not a spokesperson, but I wrote this because I really resonated with how people in Korea perceive Cubase.
With all due respect, vague requests to be innovative and committed aren’t very useful. I’m sure everyone at Steinberg does that every day. More useful would be specific suggestions for how Cubase could improve integration of the stages of production for your particular workflow.
It’s hard to believe that, in a nation of 50 million people, every Cubase user has the same workflow, or even the same idea of what they are producing with a DAW, so you’ll have to be more specific about what you want Steinberg to do.
I’m sure that Steinberg/Yamaha’s management is competent enough to recognize the general requirements of a product like Cubase and to implement measures that will make fulfilling them as far as possible. But with a user base of around one million worldwide, it will hardly be possible to fulfill every request, especially since some of them are diametrically opposed. So what to do? Answer: Listen to active and potential users and collect, analyze, and evaluate their requirements. The resulting priority list might look something like this:
Faster, more responsive GUI: Reducing lag, especially with large projects and complex routing.
Lower CPU overhead & better multicore support: More efficient engine for modern processors.
Improved stability & fewer bugs: This is always a primary request after any major release.
Modernized, scalable, and customizable UI: While improved, many users want more flexibility akin to DAWs like Reaper or Bitwig.
Clip-based/Non-linear Editing: A workflow similar to Ableton Live’s Session View or Logic’s Live Loops for sketching and arranging.
Advanced Tempo Detection & Mapping: Better tools for automatically analyzing and conforming audio to project tempo.
MPE (MIDI Polyphonic Expression) Enhancements: Deeper integration and more native tools for MPE controllers.
ARA2 (Audio Random Access) Expansion: Fuller support for plug-ins like Melodyne beyond the current implementation.
Native Silent Install/Update: A highly requested feature for studio administrators.
More high-quality native instruments and effects to compete with Logic’s “out-of-the-box” value.
Overhaul of older, legacy plug-ins (e.g. some included VST instruments like Padshop or Retrologue), especially in terms of user-friendly design.
Improved download/activation/librarian system (e.g. one unified application for managing all Steinberg products).
Will Steinberg be able to meet all requirements in the next version? Almost certainly not, but that’s normal for any complex software. Software development is about prioritization, resources, and time. Many requests may conflict with technical debt or the existing core architecture.
I’m not quite sure sometimes, but I hope for Cubase’s users and manufacturers as well, Steinberg is actively listening and has a competitive roadmap. The more they improve their product, the more they strengthen Cubase’s position as a stable, powerful, and professional DAW, the more everyone involved benefits, both us and them.
Yes, and that’s a good approach if the feedback is evaluated and incorporated into product development. However, the questions tend to be rather general.
Another, “deeper” level involves the little things that repeatedly frustrate many users: annoying minor bugs, cumbersome workflows, inconsistencies in the graphic design etc., which sometimes persist from version to version .
I often feel that these issues aren’t given enough attention, even though to me they are more important in everyday use than the presence of a great new feature, instrument, or effect.
I think that this is some very respectful and honest feedback, and a genuinly positive “vision” as to where Cubase shall continue growing. Nothing wrong about that!
That being said, it would be very helpful, if you could be a little more specific, especially when comparing features of other DAWs that you feel should nor only be reached but even surpassed by Cubase.
Personally, my biggest “wish” for Cubase would be further improvement and optimization of load balancing across multicore and multithread CPUs. As an old Cakewalk Sonar user I was lucky to have Sonar developers (I think specifically Ron Kuper) being among the industry’s first to implement multicore support into Sonar - and that was like 2 decades ago.
.
