Genuine question - what is driving the latest changes?

Cubase
#1

Steinberg - please read with an open mind.

Steinberg’s analysts really do need to come and watch some of us old hands (I’ve been with Steinberg software since Pro-16) working with Cubase. At the moment it seems as if changes are being made without reference to the user base, and that is not good software development. If anyone was to watch me trying to find the 2 invisible pixels that control left/right scrolling in the editor windows it would be changed in pretty short order. These are the kind of problems I’m facing every day - I’ve not been thinking ‘there are too many options in this right-click menu’.

Most of the latest updates seem to be about fixing ‘problems’ that none of us had, and that is not good software design. I worked in this world for 25 years, so I have a pretty good idea of what I’m talking about.

I’m not trying to bash here, but just trying to reach out, hear your reasoning, and understand what is happening. When a ‘dyed in the wool’ Cubase user like myself begins to feel frustrated with the changes you’re making, whether rightly or wrongly, I would suggest that something is genuinely going awry and you guys DO need to listen. After that it’s up to you. You don’t have to agree, but please just listen - and please ACKNOWLEDGE.

#2

Difficult to keep a company going when its not a rental model and the technology is very mature compared to when it started?
Then change is the only reason to pay to update yet changes become mostly superficial compared to years ago when each release was a real step forward.

Hippo

#3

I began with Vst 5.1 and have updated since. Havent been pleased with the changes of the interface since version 8 More and more complex. More and more dull since 8.

By 9 i was thinking of buying one of the cheaper versions but didnt because i imagined it would be as cluttered as the expensive version just ledd performant.
Now at 10 i find myself installing everything from C 4 and up and landed on working either in C 4.5 (64bit version) or 7.5 and i left 10 in hope that it will get used to it but i doubt it. Not sure i want to update next time unless there is a major change of the clarity of the interface. I´d rather wait and take the cost later if there is a change.

#4

Same here, however I’ve come to the conclusion that some of the changes in Cubase 10 do not follow any logic whatsoever, and are more likely the result of programming convenience than UI design. It seems to me that for example, the C9 floating Transport Panel was causing some headaches during a code re-write and the conclusion of the developer was that it was a minor cosmetic issue an thus re-implemented it in its current horrendous incarnation, with no regard for the consequences on workflow.

Perhaps they did a quick search on the forum, found little mention of it in the past few years and concluded that nobody was using it (and yes, there are new users who are not aware of F2!). Well, maybe the reason it doesn’t get many mentions is because it works (sorry: worked) so well!

a ‘died in the wool’ Cubase user

I hope what you actually meant was ‘dyed-in-the-wool’ and that you will be with us for at least the next 25 years :slight_smile:

#5

I’ve been on Cubase since the original V1 midi only Mac version.
I was initially disappointed when SX took over from VST5.1 as there were a lot of features that hadn’t (and still haven’t!) been ported over, but by SX3 it was working pretty well.

As Bluelight says above though, since V7 / V8 I feel it’s started to feel like it’s not only lost its direction, but that there’s a distinct lack of oversight and attention to detail. No one at Steinberg seems to care anymore about half finished, half baked implementations.

The original code base for SX is nearly 20 years old, so I was really hoping that V10 would see the release of a new version written from the ground up to see us through the next decade and beyond. I could then have accepted that there had been a period of ‘band-aiding’ to the old app while the new was being developed.

Sadly what we got was more barely attached bloat - half attempts at new features and GUI ideas held together with sticky tape and string. Theres been no attempt whatsoever to try and unify and tie up any of the loose ends that have crept in over the last few years. I’m left thinking that there’s maybe no new version in the works and this I’m afraid is it.

Most of us pay out far more for plugin’s than we do for Cubase! I’m not adverse to paying more for a tool I use all day if it would result in some marked improvements. I’d love to see the whole Nuendo / Cubase versioning debacle dropped and a new more forward thinking approach adopted.

#6

I think there are many different forces. Steinberg is a large company, owned by a huge company (yamaha). Most of software industry do a “backlog” with things to go into next version. There are many departments adding items to the backlist. Many of this items is not even direct cubase function. It can be marketing that need a channel like the HUB. Or anti piracy that need changes to the dongle. And thinks needed to be done for adopting to changes in technology, like HiDPI. Soon midi 2.0. At the same time they must not cannibalism other products. It would not be good if pro’s stopped using Nuendo in favour of cubase. Same for wavelab, dorico etc. Add to that a lot of engineers that have ideas and probably want to rewrite everything all the time and managers that do not want to take any risks. Of corce there are sales people promising things that can not be done, old bugs, new bugs. Im also convinced that yamaha has veto for this backlog. Cubase is a bastard, little bit of everything, so the updates will also little bit of everything. But it would have been good to have vision on what steinberg/yamaha want it to be. What’s the CORE function?

#7

As a media composer producing a large variety of styles for publishers - the changes for me since C8 have been fantastic.

I love the sample track - the upgrades to halion / groove agent.

The upgrades to the marker tracks were amazing for a project I just did for loopmasters - every new sampled instrument could have it’s own marker track and every loop its own marker with the ability to export between markers meant I could export huge chunks of the library in one pass. This plus the upgrades to the export window, and the automatic naming - including marker track info! Wow!

Bezier curve automation is incredible.

To me Cubase has never been more exciting.

#8

greed, like everywhere else these days.

#9

:unamused: You can’t look at a company like it’s some sort of entity. It’s made of the employees that work there - that all contribute to it’s direction and work towards making their software better. All the employees aren’t greedy people trying to enact some sort of scam on you.

#10

Well… I honestly dont think that the verdict is fair . There are a lot of improvements and new features in every version ever since. The same holds true for Cubase 10. So there is an eye of Steinberg / Yamaha onto the market imho.
I think one of the key problems/challenges for Steinberg is what to focus on. Cubase is a tool that can be used in so many ways - from sound design to componsing to conventional production - and the spectrum of user-types is tremendous - having different needs. The same holds true for the level of experience (and thus also the level of unwillingness to adapt to changes of course). Steinberg hopes to fullfil the needs of all these user-types, which is hard to accomplish. Looking at it THIS way shows that they are finally doing a pretty good job.
To me the bigger question is why they change things that really, really worked. Often in the closer past this have been User-Interface changes - and I think the big challenge of screen resolutions and DPIs and therefore size of items is still a huge problem in the software industry. Many designs are built for “noses close to the screen” (minature-ui-elements…) which is not the way everybody needs them to be.

Back to my original statement: I am on cubase since mid 90ies if I remember correctly. It is increadible what we have in hands now.

#11

…and that is my point. You seem to be asking the same question.

#12

I much prefer the right click menus now - it makes so much more sense to have a contextual right click menu than have everything in there.

With regards to the scrolling in editor windows. Use the various zoom options to navigate. F and G to zoom in and out, select where you want to go on the timeline once you’re zoomed out… then zoom in - use N and B to jump to the next event.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgYNP7N7c0c

#13

It seems to me like Steinberg is balancing the addition of new features with a more modern workflow. I’m relatively new to Cubase (was using Studio One and Sonar primarily beforehand) and for the most part, think 10 was a nice update over 9.5. There’s still a lot about Cubase’s workflow I’d change, but anything to remove clicks and do things faster, I’m all for.

As a newer user, I try to understand the complaints, but from the little I’ve seen, Cubase appears headed in the right direction. Example: the new Add Track options. I can just hit the + icon in the arranger and hit the enter key, and get a new track created. In 9.5, that process required more clicks. Dragging and dropping effects and instruments has been another huge boon to my workflow. I want to see more workflow improvements like these.

If you’ve been using the same DAW for 20 years, yeah, I can understand how change might be disruptive, but I’d ask a few questions first. What are you trying to do? Is there a different or new, maybe faster, way to do what you’re trying to do? If not, then post about it. Be specific. “I’m trying to do X, because of Y situation, and I used to just click Z to make that happen, but now the process is 1, 2, 3. This is demonstrably worse workflow.”

I might even argue Steinberg hasn’t gone far enough lately. For instance, with version 10, I changed all my keyboard shortcuts to match the left to right Tool order in the Arrange view. The current shortcuts make no sense visually, but the tool order in version 10 does finally make sense. I couldn’t figure out why tools were ordered the way they were in 9.5 - it certainly wasn’t based on the frequency of use. I personally think Steinberg should just suck it up and change the default keyboard shortcuts for tool selection to match the UI order. Will that be considered fixing something that ain’t broke by some? Yeah, I imagine that’ll cause some angry forum posts. But it would be an improvement (makes visual sense, makes it easier for new users), and older users could either 1) go back to their old keybindings, or 2) learn the new ones.

Probably an unpopular viewpoint around here.

#14

Good points but I think a lot of it is user dependent and how we work. Personally, I find Cubase pro 10 a huge improvement in my workflow due to a couple of changes. When working with instrument tracks which I do a lot, I can now get to the audio portions of those tracks much easier and faster than before. IMO this is a big leap forward as I hated the way I had to do this before.

I think as time goes on, they’ll catch up to all of us. I started with Cubase Le 1 then got pro 6 and have been waiting years for some of the things I now have.

#15

I’ve been use Cubase since the Atari days also. However, the new changes do not affect my workflow. I use a mouse wheel to scroll (I honestly thought everyone did!) and I have key commands for pretty much everything I use, so the right-click menu has never been an issue. I would. however, welcome back the toolbox over 2 rows instead of one!

I agree, there has been little innovation in recent years and some changes are purely cosmetic.