HiDPI Survey / We need your help!

Hi all,

We would like to ask you to participate in a really short survey on your display setup and screen resolution settings.


Even if you are not working with a HiDPI display yet, your feedback is highly appreciated.


Thanks for doing this. FWIW: I am beyond livid that certain plugs (Arturia I mean you) -still- aren’t HiDPI usable even after all this time.

The survey doesn’t cover my actual setup: 2 x 28" 1920 x 1080 @ 100 % scaling + 1 x 28" 3840 x 2160 @ 150 % scaling.

Had hidpi on for the 4 k display, otherwise moving plugins from 2 k to 4 k or vice versa resulted in weird rescaling of guis in Cubase 10. Things like black gui boxes or cut off guis.
Experienced some oddities recently, a few plugins like Newfangled Elevate haven’t been usable on the secondary 2 k screen (knobs & buttons didn’t move). Turned hidpi off again in C 10.5 and now all is back to normal, also the rescaling when moving plugins between displays is cured now.

Good to see something happening as I honestly cannot use Cubase. 27" 2560 X 1440 ( QHD) which is perfect set to 150%. With HiDPI Off in Cubase it is blurry and tiring on the eyes. With HiDPI On Cubase drops it back to 100% and you need a magnifying glass to read it. Up my scaling to 150% and Cubase ups it to 200% which takes most of it off screen. My only solution was to purchase another DAW. I would love to use Cubase and I would love to update to 10.5. Hope the survey helps Steinberg to sort it out.

Cubase 10 looks awful on Full HD, big blurry fonts and nothing sits right, yet on Ultra HD/4K it doesn’t scale properly at all, transport bar longer than screens, plugins either to big or small etc etc.

Compared to Studio One and other daws which looks Great on standard HD and scales superbly on 4K, how do they do this? Is there an auto detection routine that loads the correct resolution template according to the displays it’s connected to or is it just really well thought out?

I guess there are 1000’s of users out there still using Full HD displays and finding it really uncomfortable using Cubase 10 and have rolled back to 9.xx or another daw. Steinberg need to take notice rather than trying to force people into (what can be expensive) hardware upgrades they really don’t want to spend more money on. Cubase 9 looked (and still looks) great on Full HD so Cubase 10 should also.

Launching C10 as supporting Hires/4K was extremely misleading, over a year down the line it still doesn’t work on most systems generating a loss of confidence, trust and respect in steinberg.

There should be no need for this survey it should just be sorted and a free update released and not as part of a paid C10.xx update with any other fixes or additional toys or loops.

Why not purchase a larger screen instead?

The survey lacks an option to specify why you’re not using HiDPI. Hopefully when also selecting Windows and 150% the reason is obvious!

A lot of people will be using laptops and wouldn’t want to be carrying another screen around with them!

All I want for xmas is to be able to run Cubase on my 32" screen at QHD resolution with 125% scaling without plugins behaving strangely. This needs to be top priority! I’m not getting any younger and have a busy year ahead without the need for eye and neck strain :wink: I’ll happily keep giving you my money if you sort this out asap :wink:

Partly because I do not see why I should buy another Monitor just because Cubase cannot do what almost every other decent DAW can. Namely Ableton Live, Reaper 6, Bitwig, Studio One 4.6. I am buggered if I can see any justification that after over one year and despite them giving it and I quote “High Priority” the furthest Cubase/Steinberg have gotten to resolving the problem is to hold a survey. :astonished:

Also fresh in my memory is after paying over £1,000 for a Yamaha 01X they dropped driver support and turned it into a door stop. Now Yamaha owns Steinberg and do Yamaha the worlds largest instrument manufacturer really care if I or anyone else goes elsewhere? No not really.

Sorry about the rant but this really is just not good enough.

Yeesh. I kind if feel for Steinberg, actually, any development house selling a software product. I’m a former SW developer myself. What we have here is the classic 80/20 scenario (90/10 if you wish). You want to put the most amount of effort (read as: money) into meeting the major 80% of your users expectations. Rhetorically speaking - you spend your development dollars to get the most “bang for the buck”. Whether or not to intensely focus on HiDPI rescaling is a business decision which may or may not go your way. Traditionally, scaled interfaces are code intensive (read: stealing precious CPU cycles from your beloved plugins). It is only in the very near time frame that decent graphic adapters (and drivers) are available (and [this is key] affordable) to the average schmoe, whom make up the majority of just about any software product. This new generation of graphics adapters help to allieviate the problem that wasn’t economically feasible (for us schmoes). It’s also important to note that OS support for real-time scaling has to be there as well…and it hasn’t always been there.

IMHO - the timing that Steinberg is using by choosing to focus on scaleable interfaces now is about appropriate. Sorry if their decisions have you stomping off, but the real arbiter here is that 80% user base - they are the bread and butter, and they bring home the bacon.

Personally, I’m happy with a 32" QHD monitor at 100%. They’re fairly inexpensive as monitors go - and the large screen has much advantage outside of the DAW as well.


Just bring Cubasis 3 GUI engine - that solution for all problems

They should never have attempted to implement HiDPI in C10 because it wasn’t really ready for release. They misled people who based their purchase, partially or wholly, on that feature, and that’s not OK. Sure, they’re aiming to fix it in the 10.5 cycle, but that doesn’t help those who have 10.0 and will have to pay more cash for the upgrade to use it properly. It’s just wrong.

and we need your help !
cubase 10.5.5 is the worst upgrade EVER and I am with Steinberg since Cubase 4

I am one of those who upgraded yet are using 9.5, because 10 looked very, very weird to say the least, on a FHD screen. I dont have a problem adapting to certain UI changes, but your eyes should not struggle while working on a project.

Good software scales - it is that simple.

I have multiple monitors - and the good software knows when I drag from 49” @100% to my Notebook screen 15” @ 200% (4K) - WITHOUT I have to specify anything.

Perfect software have modifiers for each screen so you can ALSO select your own magnification level for each screen and remembers it - I would say that is how Cubase should be - each person has different requirement (and vision for that matter) - so it should start at the “Windows” setting for scaling - but allow for custom scaling.

Bad software on the other hand (Like Davinci Resolve) requires a program restart to figure out it has moved between scaled / non-scaled screens.

I am missing options for 32:9 and 32:10 screens in this survey. Super Ultrawide screens, also in 4k… Next buy for me will be this…

Now I don’t really understand how HiDPI works. In October I bought new laptop and Cubase 10 was blurry for the resolution I choose in Windows prefs. Then I swithc HiDPI on and was happy that everything was okay - sharp picture and also new GUIs of plugins of NI works good. Then I bought upgrade to 10.5 and HiDPI is switched off, but everything is fine. Tried to switch on, then off - nothing’s changed. Maybe there is a bug?

To clearify my post above, this resolution is missing in the survey: 5120x1440 (Super Ultrawide)…


See pictures included below.

My channel settings window will not fit on my 27 " 4k monitor. it overlaps on my 40"
I tried different scaling methods. Or it’s too small, or it overlaps.
Cubase does not detect the borders of my screen.
On the other hand, my mediabay window fits nicely on my 27".

Hope you guys will fix the scaling issue.
Hopefully vector based will be implemented.