Plugins are by design, that though, even if proprietary only. I’ll concede it’s not entirely a false equivalency - but it’s certainly different than having a core piece of software be customized so that users have completely different features.
The reason Pro-Tools has remained an industry standard, is because of every top engineer/commercial studio having Pro-Tools - Everyone in the industry has and knows the same piece of software.
It will be tough for Cubase or any DAW to crack that market hold - but I would say Cubase stands a chance more than Reaper.
Is this news to you? Why are you presenting this as if it is unknown when it has been common knowledge for decades?
Even studios that run Cubase or another DAW have Pro-Tools for transfer and require hired assistants to know Pro-Tools.
How many $250,000+ studios have you been in that aren’t running Pro-Tools as the primary DAW? It is the industry standard, there isn’t a single audio-engineering school or course that doesn’t teach it as the front and center software to learn….
Do I really need to make a list for you? Go look at Neve/SSL/API studios and see what DAW is on their screen. Go watch any video about any “celebrity” engineer, or album/in-the-studio documentary.
At that level, sometimes there are many people involved - multiple recording engineers, multiple assistants, multiple mix engineers, multiple studios, multiple collaborators - no one wants to be doing that many project DAW transfers.
I think the biggest advantage with ProTools is HDX and Native versions. HDX is running on special hardware that gives lowlatency and stability. This very costly but they have the same user interface with the native version that you can run at home. I think PARIS was similar. It does not scale and you have proper limitations. With HDX you will get errors when trying to add plugins that the system cant handle. This results in different stability that is appreciated in big studios. And I see reaper gaining a lot now and I dont know why. It has linux support but I do not think that is the reason for reaper.
I have been looking into this discussion and it‘s very interesting. I don‘t understand every detail, because I didn‘t develop software since about 25 years.
My requirements are much simpler, only a subset of the requested posibilities. I‘m using a controller with a MIDI remote script for mixing. I thought, MIDI remote would be a good way to overcome the limitations of the out dated Mackie protocol.
But in the moment there are many issues regarding that script. It was initially developed by a 3rd party developer, not the manufacturer of the device (iCON). That developer didn‘t continue the work. No improvements, no bug fixes. And limitations by the MIDI remote API of Cubase.
Now iCON took over the responsibility for the script but doesn‘t deliver improvements as well up to now.
I would prefer to continue the work on interfaces and APIs like MIDI Remote to compete ist as far as possible instead of creating new interfaces. I would like to get things improved and bug fixed that I‘m using today to save my hardware investigations.
If that would cover 80 or 90% of the needs of most producers for the daily work I would be happy. Maybe I‘m wrong but I assume the last 10% of requirements would need a lot more effort than those 90%
I may have overlooked the main goals of the OP because to me the core problem is not having a more open scripting option for Cubase and Nuendo, and for post users like me (and others) I bet there are a ton of work that could happen that has little to do with a controller per se.
To me the Avid Eucon protocol is very good and deeply integrated into Pro Tools and their s-series controllers are very good. In fact, I think the combination of Eucon, a sub-$100 tablet and one or two s1 controllers is very good value. So it makes a ton of sense to me for Steinberg to (finally) work on implementing Eucon better. But alas, here we are, waiting as usual for progress on some of the most fundamental functionality.
As a post-production engineer what I would like to see is the ability for 3rd parties to do scripting that indeed does what the OP mentions, but from a post perspective. And then on top of that I’m sure there are million post-specific things that would be incredibly useful.
I haven’t had enough coffee so I’m not entirely sure what my point is in this post or why I’m responding… I’ll stop now…
Yes, you totally missed the point. Midi remote gadgets maybe good enough for some controllers based on technology from the past. But it is not near anything that is useful for AI. Model Context Protocol - Wikipedia seems to be the winner there. I do not like AI, however it is here now and it wont go away. Adding a interface for AI to use we can keep AI out of cubase and still have a way for people to use AI with cubase. And there other benefits with a lot more advance programming interfaces. We can use and or build remote controllers that use network or usb. EUCON is a network protocol not a midi-thing but steinberg interface are limited to technology from 1984. Pretty good comparability but it also has drawbacks.
There could be a monetary benefit to keeping AI out of any specific DAW.
Certainly, there will be room in the industry for someone to make a competing AI free DAW, either way.
There is AI hesitance, but there will likely be an AI revolt.
But, perhaps not the thread for this conversation.
It is pretty annoying seeing someone make a really mediocre MIDI beat and see them type “Turn this into a traditional Italian folk dance composition”. The market is going to become saturated with fake composers stealing composition jobs for adverts, and such - jingle industry is essentially over already.
Great to see this thread.
The power of AI integration (via an API) for me wouldn’t be in the ‘fake composer’ side of things, but in enhancing functionality and workflow.
Managing projects, creating custom editing workflows, repeatability, and all the kinds of things that take quite a long time at the moment, with AI integration will be a lot easier, less onerous, and allow much more time for the enjoyable (and more profitable) task of making music that sounds great.
I think it’s important to see AI as not solely a way of subverting current systems and catering to the lowest common denominator, but a way of assisting composers and producers who have built up a significant body of experience and high-levels of skill.
As a basic example, I used Anthropics Claude to analyse Cubase project files in order to generate a spreadsheet showing all the plug-ins that had been used (and the basic signal routing) for any given project. This is really helpful when you’re looking at returning to old projects without having to boot Cubase itself, and wait for all the missing plug-in messages. It also provides some insights into the most used plug-ins across multiple projects. Once I finesse this further, I will share in the forum.
I’d love to be able to chat to/query a Cubase agent to find out what reverb is used on a particular track or tracks, or the specific bus configuration I employed on some drums, or even to understand my vocal editing and levelling workflow so that it can be employed again automatically. Ideas off the top of my head….
Are you talking to me? I don’t think I disagree with what you said and don’t think it contradicts what I was saying.
I doubt it. If we worried about “purity” of some sort then we wouldn’t be quantizing to the grid or tune vocals, and if we’re worried about job losses then that train left the station already.
I agree. Except if there’s a legal way to use AI generated music without copyright issues (i.e. the “generator machine” does not claim ownership of any composition and there is no obstacle to using it in advertising) then ad agencies will simply bypass “us” completely and just tell the machine what to do. No different than generating images.
Like I said elsewhere, some of us started warning about this years ago and people just said “ok boomer, you said the same thing about ‘the synthesizer’ back in the day” on the one hand, and on the other hand there was and still is the group of people that already built their profitable businesses and think they are safe or already made their investments for retirement and are safe (plus all the hobbyists that aren’t losing income to begin with).
It’s a sad state of affairs.
But anyway, scripting should be opened up in Cubendo.
Well that’s the thing, I’m not even sure that there is a benefit to any DAW incorporating AI.
Are people going to buy a $500-$800 DAW for AI when there will be AI tools for much less?
Or do we focus on DAWs in a way that accelerate original/creative musicians/composers who create in ways that AI does not - so that ad agencies, film-makers, etc are attracted to working with them.
The fault with AI is that it mostly depends on/focuses on ‘what already is’, not creating ‘what isn’t’ .
If we focus on AI Tools that enable the latter, I’m all for it, but I’m not sure we need Cubase to add ‘what already is’, because Cubase will have already been bypassed as a need at this point.
In response to the original point raised in this thread, I’d like to share my perspective…
Essentially, most DAW manufacturers need to come together and agree on a standard that provides the necessary requirements for AI developers to work with. Furthermore, real-time integration into every relevant DAW must be possible.
The small DAW manufacturer “Bitwig” had already started something in this direction, a format called “DAWproject”, but the current scope is still limited. GitHub - bitwig/dawproject: Open exchange format for DAWs · GitHub
Steinberg obviously thought this was okay and already has an interface for it. Perhaps more will be developed on this basis, but as I said - the developers from the various manufacturers would have to come together and exchange ideas. However, I could imagine that the managers of the DAW manufacturers would view exactly that as too much of a risk. DAW manufacturers today also rely on maintaining a competitive edge over their rivals, and secrecy is a prerequisite for that.
As a Steinberg customer, I want Steinberg to make good money so that this money can be used to fund further updates. I’m not necessarily interested in Steinberg giving third parties every opportunity to further develop their products, so to speak, and thereby potentially losing some sources of revenue. Ergo: If Steinberg makes its products more open, this should only happen if it increases Steinberg’s own revenue.
I fully agree @Glorious, and I would also love to see his AI mixing assistant working in Reaper, it would be awesome if you could make a video showcasing it.
Unfortunately the conversation has already derailed, and a lot of people have made arguments against it, without actually understanding what this is about.
Opening up API integration does not mean AI is forced into Cubase. You would still have to download the AI app and set up the integration to allow it to communicate with Cubase. AI won’t be shoved down your throat, you won’t see it at all, unless your going out of your way to install it and set it up. More API access would just give those who want to incorporate AI into their workflow, the options to set it up, so there will be zero “monetary benefit” for keeping the API locked down.
While there are fake composers who upload fully AI generated songs, I think there are also use-cases for genuine composers to use AI. Take for example the stem cover feature of Suno Studio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYiUPPOWLWg&t=48s. I think this kind of AI will be interesting to a lot of composers. It’s still the composer creating the music, but the AI, takes away the tedious process of programming sample libraries.
Right now it’s inside a primitive browser DAW, but sooner or later this will be available in those DAWs, that have an API that allows an AI app to analyze an audio clip on an existing track and paste a new audio file on a new track.
And I think this type of AI will have massive appeal, and if steinberg doesn’t figure out a way to allow this type of AI to exist inside of their ecosystem, when other DAWs embrace it, cubase will be left behind in an extremely competitive market.
And if you think Steinberg can develop all useful AI features that could meaningfully assist composers by themselves, without opening up to third party, then you’re completely delusional.