I learned that the hard way. Buy a bunch of stuff and manage your stuff instead of use a little bit of stuff. 
Simplicity is key they say, and that necessity is the mother of innovation.
But I still have a soft spot for cool gear like that.
@asunder hehe totally love gear too but over the years, as DW saysâŠthe best DAW is the DAW you know bestâŠand same for gear
There is so much great gear and as @H20nly metioned, the panorama would be a piece of gear I think is a good all rounder and if I hadnt invested in custom coding all this, I would have simply got that. I did try the earlier panorama unit but it was half baked.
There are questions to ask about any gear likeâŠhow often do I use more than 1 faderâŠonly at mix when group automating. most of the other time, I dont even reach for a fader as holding a qualfier on the tartarus turns the scroll wheel into the selected track fader etcâŠ
Yeah I had really large monitors, try curved ones but couldnt handle the boundary reflections when monitoring. so I thats the main reason why they are set like that and the side are only observation monitor eg meters and stuff that is on hardware anyway.
Thats greatâŠhence what I was saying about early mix setup. Im doing the same with -18rms at unityâŠso there is no need to go near faders until thats all set and is one thing I think Cubase does really well with meter bridge (flicked to input)âŠvery fast to set up. During that Im mostly just using 1 of 2 pllugs (suppression of prob reso) or mostly just Tonelux tilt. Very gentle spectral balance and its all just creative after that.
Im interested to know what context you use jog/shuttle? Im done with major editsâŠClients either track here and get it right in tracking or if it needs that much editing, i just turn the job away; dont mind a pitch correct on distractive notes etc but performances need to at least be okâŠso yeahâŠinterested
Yeah thats a nice touchâŠI just find it tiring to reach over to hardware and I guess the tray (just thinking to myself) with the gear then makes you reach over to the KB etc. Im going to record myself during an intense session etc to see where Im up to with the seconds of time taken in between.
I rarely plug up plugins anymoreâŠI think it gets to the point that the template develops and These live in the list for drag and drop for media bayâŠwhich is a valid use of the mouse. I never used it as it was too complicatedâŠbut took some time and it is a real gem
I really cant rave about Avid control enoughâŠI was totally unaware of how good it isâŠbut any of this needs time to drill in.
Yeah just doing the right thing would be niceâŠits not asking for something freeâŠits an obligation.
AnywayâŠtime for workâŠ!
Cool.
But Iâve found the one Iâve been looking for. The Drop
Video review
The other gear is good, but this is the catâs ass.
This is whatâs up!
Gonna start saving up, maybe Iâll afford one when Iâm a senior citizen.
@ASUNDER Um this is a performance device not mix? The faders are simple non recallable etc? I guess it would help to know what you are really wanting to do?
The pano only has the recent model C12 and the old one (I tried out a while back) P1
See the vid.
But @asunder it doesnt have motorized faders?
Nor are they long throw for good automationâŠits amazing live player but its a long way short for pro mixing
âPick Upâ mode deals with the issue of motorized faders.
Well if you are happy with thatâŠbut its a long way short. Youll have to find out for yourselfâŠlike I did hehe back in 2000 ended up with a bcf2000 which was really good and only got rid of it a while agoâŠthe Avid artist mix is amazing for the money and plenty on the second hand market in good condition for less thant 250
Scaling and pickup is pretty standard for most control surfacesâŠits part of remote midi script for cubase etcâŠits probably ok for mucking around. While Im def not for spending senselessly, the panorama is a long way ahead for Cubase but dont know the price diff.
This is all OT reallyâŠshould be on another thread
At the very least, thanks for not saying âus.â You see, for myself, VCA automation in Cubase is not very important. But I completely understand that it is important for others, and based on how many years have elapsed, I get it.
Defend? Speaking for myself, I just use what works best for me. However I may call out an uninformed user who proclaims an error with Cubase when itâs actually user error or an issue on their own system.
If Steinberg could charge 3k for Cubase with $300 annual upgrades, I think more emphasis would be placed on issues such as VCA automation, tracks being added to every configuration on multiple mix consoles, and dozens of other issues that are often mentioned and have high feature requests. But the fact is, every DAW developer needs to make money. I think prosumers are in the drivers seat, and they want to be wowed plus⊠make it cheaper. What are the biggest features appealing to prosumers? I donât think itâs VCA that doesnât work like PT? Local Undo that vanished years ago? 
These are not the wow features that attract new users.
There are many that actually have been fixed, not to mention the long requested group folders. But of course others have not been fixed. Resources are limited. Ready to buy the $3,000 professional Cubase with $300 annual updates?
I disagree. I want Steinberg to use most of their resources on the 2 most latest versions instead of going back years with backwards compatibility. Basically, you pay to play, but only if you want the latest.
I agree. There will always be bugs. There will always be stuff that âdoesnât get fixed.â Cubase has many different user groups. The only suggestion I can offer is do the best with what you got. Create work-arounds. Use 3rd party tools that enhance your DAW. That has always been how professionals work. 40 years ago professionals took all sorts of samplers and drum machines with huge limitations not to mention tape, and created an era of music where today software emulates those characteristics. All they were trying to do is make the best of what they had. There were no forums, but there were plenty of bars to rant, vent and complain.
When doing the best becomes unbearable, then vote with your wallet and find what works better.
The music/project Iâm working on is all original material and thatâs put me in the recording engineer and arrangement seats. So, before I can even begin to mix, I have to navigate the project in Cubase from record arm to duplicate and so on. The jog wheel on the UC1 is something to behold. It worked great in Ableton Live when we started sets there and delivers in both applications. I can fine tune, to the beat level and, since we use (homemade) samples and FX, it helps immensely. We place ad-libs on the syllable or note and need to hear and re-hear where we are in real time. Backing up and moving forward helps in a major way
Thanks for the reply
I stopped using jog shuttle in about 2005 but I used in for soundtrack work. Stuff changes a lotâŠI like capturing small bands these days and getting the âin the space with the musiciansâ kind of feel which isnt really that popular in terms of eg large studios slowly dying but there is such a magic that I had to follow it.
So how do you move about audibly to address anything from beats to breathes to plucks, and so on? Even mouse clicking on the timeline is a form of low level scrub. Mine is a well crafted and weighted wheel on the UF1, if not the transport controls on it Whatâs your method ?
I dontâŠ(use j+s anymore)âŠif its something obvious, I hear it and if needed, just drill in visually but that is rare these days.
I dont scrub audioâŠand I never solo (I use the listen mode with the rest turned down 6db). Listen is so good. If Im troubleshooting in an editorâŠyes but any mixâŠno. The speakers tell the story anyway
I value movement and variation around the beat. Ive been a percussionist for a long time and micro timing is humanity. If you listen to eg Djembe Fola, analyse and have a look at their incredible micro controlâŠthat is the groove. For super tight stuffâŠI still slave it to a single groove I identify up front. I just capture a section, turn it into hitpoints/groove, copy it to the target, bit of a tweak for position, which auto snaps to transients anyway, then soft quantise eg 20% at a time, playing a loop of it in context until it feels right. Its pretty fast so it keeps things moving. Even with pitchâŠI only fix distractionsâŠotherwise you lose so much humanityâŠmight sound slick but it just doesnt last and the brain can tell.
Most of the time Im on cans during tracking and if the musos/singers arent that good Ill just get them to jamb loops per section and do a quick comp but it really depends on genre/talent.
EDIT:
Have some tracks due to mix in a couple of weeksâŠlove to hear your stuff!
Hello, regarding your points,
First, it doesnât matter if something is working for you or me, thatâs beside the point. If a feature (VCAâs as an example) is announced and then thereâs widely reported bug that doesnât get addressed for years, then Iâm sorry, I just canât understand someone trying to justify the situation. I might have purchased the software based on proper functioning of that feature alone and it has to be made to work.
The other point, if itâs user error, itâs user error, thatâs not a bug, so thereâs nothing to fix. Even then, if a user error keeps popping up time and again for the exact same situation, then, even if itâs not a bug, it might open the discussion about the design being bad. And bad design, for me, as an ex-developer can almost be considered a bug.
You also mention group folders as buses, great I was very happy that Steinberg gave us this, itâs a great feature. I also appreciate that some versions back dragging of channels in the mixer was finally implemented (I just donât get why it wasnât there from the start, but anyway, itâs there now and I appreciate it).
The pricing for the software is okay, I have a much harder time understanding the price of some plugins. And no, Iâm not ready to pay 3000$ for any software, thank you very much. If they did this, people would vote with their wallet and they would close shop in a few years. Thatâs the market working in a capitalist society - I donât like it but thatâs the way things are.
I do understand when you say that resources are limited, I do get that. But as someone said in this thread, I would happily pay for a solid bug fix only release where they would address all or most of the older, well documented issues, instead of piling up new features. Maybe this is not feasible for Steinberg, I can accept that, but I would hope for a better balance between new features and bug fixes.
Once again, in my experience all companies are the same, this is not a Steinberg-only situation. Iâve been reporting out-of-sync track playback in Studio One when using sidechained plugins for years (a pretty serious error if ask me because itâs not workflow related, it actually messes up the audio). Me and other users have sent them sessions with clearly reproducible demonstrations of the issue and they just donât address it. Itâs mindboggling to me.
But in the end, thatâs not my problem, itâs the responsibility of any software company to address this things, thatâs the nature of their product.
From my end, as a paying customer, I just have to keep putting pressure so that we all get what we paid for.
Yes, I agree with you. My reply was to address the OP where he said this:
The OP does not represent myself regardless if I agree or not. For me it sounds more like an arrogant argument assuming he âknows whatâs bestâ written in a forum representing a very small fraction of total Cubase users. But later on, he said itâs just a rantâŠand I understand. I did the same for many years.
Iâm assuming the VCA issue you refer to is because it doesnât work like it works in PT? I do want to clarify the VCA issue because there have been more than one of them.
Justify the situation: I do consider the age of a DAW. For example Cubase compared to Studio One or Bitwig. I think starting out relatively newer is easier than dealing with very old code. The bottom line, is some seemingly easy issues take a lot of resources. Another aspect is short and long term future development. Unless your Steinberg management, no one knows the roadmap nor the available resources. Also there are issues that are delayed for years because it involves a future feature or behavior change.
I would never do that when evaluating any DAW. Use a trial version and when you discover the featured show-stopper, donât buy it, or accept it being handicapped.
I agree.
Yes, I mentioned Group Folders and you mentioned channel re-order in the mix console. Both I think were often mentioned over the years in this forum, and finally addressed. My guess as to why group folders and re-order mix console channels âwasnât there from the startâ has to do with foundational code. In the 90s, at least for myself, there were higher priorities.
Well, that IMO is the issue. If enough users did pay $3000 I think we would have a âbetterâ DAW that is focused on core DAW functions and workflow. However in this market, itâs a fantasy.
Very true. Work with what you got until something works better. With DAWs I think you will always be along for a never-ending prosumer ride.
âCubase 16. We didnât do anything but fix bugs.â What do you think? Would it sell to the newbies and casual users? I think bug-fixing to that extent, would require a much higher budget. Remember layers of code.
Where is your bug fix list? Are you confident your list appeals to the numerous user groups such as EDM, Sound Design, Film composers with thousands of tracks & VE Pro, Beat Makers, Studio Trackers, and of course never forget Hans Zimmer. Cubase has a very wide user group.
My guess is, like any DAW, new features sell Cubase. Until a few years ago I always ranted stop doing stuff that 3rd parties do better. But today, with the newer stock plugs, I donât easily hear that division as in the past. IMO itâs an outdated assumption. Take each tool and evaluate it on itâs own merits. And some, such as Frequency 2, achieve what no other dynamic EQ can achieve.
I have thought the very same since 1997. I doubt management sits around in the board room smoking Cubans and sipping dirty martinis thinking-- âlets just p**s them off again.â Iâm guessing itâs more like take the research, spend wisely, maximize profits, and keep Yamaha close, but not too close.
I canât believe that the scroll issue in Cubase Mac version has been there since Cubase 10, and Steinberg still didnât fix it.
Hello,
I think weâre mostly in agreement. I do get what you say about the codebase in Cubase being much older than more recent DAWâs. I worked in the banking sector as a developer so I know how companies (especially banks) are very wary about messing with old code.
Still, as we discussed, itâs a question of balance. In a DAW, I donât think itâs acceptable that a saved session opens up in a different state in certain situations if youâre using VCAâs. This is one of the VCA related bugs in Cubase and itâs something that I fell just must be fixed. The same as the example I gave you about Studio One out of sync tracks when using sidechained plugins in certain situations (perfectly and easily reproducible, by the way). This type of stuff, I think, should be addressed as soon as itâs detected because it messes with the end result of a DAW - mixed sound files.
I do get what you say, of course, about Cubase 16 - no new features, just bug fixes wouldnât be an easy sell marketing wise, although I would pay for it, or Studio one 9 if these serious bugs were really addressed. I remember 20-something years ago, Bill Gates sent a company wide memo (Trustworthy Computing Memo) stopping all Windows development for a few weeks (or monthsâŠ) in order to promote a full code review of the Windows codebase looking for security related issues (memory leaks, buffer overflows, etc) because of a series of viruses that crippled Windows systems worldwide. I realize that Steinberg is nowhere near Microsoft in terms of capabilities, but maybe, once again, a better balance could be sought.
Than just dont.
Who cares?