What about changes in the expression map editor? There are several problems that everyone knows about.
What about changes in the expression map editor? There are several problems that everyone knows about.
I will start challenging people on their FRs soon
Maybe if we didn’t have these kind of threads (what do you want in the next version, jumbled together in big pile) but instead wrote individual threads with clear descriptions what we want ?
That’s already done
This thread isn’t about listing everyone’s personal individual feature requests… How are you supposed to have a conversation to deliberate what is a priority if that conversation is spread out across multiple individual feature request threads? That doesn’t even make sense. Helllooooo? This type of conversation requires consolidation, not dispersion.
While I agree with that in theory, in reality we have here exactly what we have all over the board: Many different priorities, sometimes for specific things that might not benefit everybody. I understand that everyone has their personal priorities, so maybe the best way to start a thread like this is to ask everyone what they feel are FRs that would benefit the most people possible. Though, I’m sure everyone has different ideas about that, as well. Don’t know what the answer is.
you guys are complaining about what you aren’t doing guys Instead of discussing the thread, discuss the ideas against each other… it’s okay we can still get along.
How many people use expression maps? Who is this used by today the most? does the average user use expression maps, or dig deep enough into them to realize any potential need for betterment?
What is it about Cubase that would prevent it from becoming the new studio standard DAW across all studio types? Would it be expression maps?
What does Studio One have that Cubase does not that would be very attractive to Cubase users? Does Studio One have better expression maps system, how does Studio One expression maps compare to Cubase’s current system?
This I like!
I use expression maps and I use the expression MIDi control all of time. Both of them badly need improvement in their implementation, workflow and features for those of us that use them. But I feel that this isn’t the reason that prevents Cubase from being the standard DAW, because there are large amounts of people who don’t use or care about expression maps.
Workflow, workflow, workflow. Speed, speed, speed.
Off the top of my head, benefitting a large majority of users I would bet:
A. Mix Controls in the Track Headers so that one doesn’t need to go to other windows, click a bunch of times, or click and hold. Why? This is a big difference between Cubase and all other DAWs, in various degrees. The speed and workflow improvement with having volume, pan, inserts, sends, and inputs and outputs directly in the track headers (completely configurable, of course, to however many of them one wants or doesn’t want) is immense. At the very least, volume and pan are standard in every other DAW for a great reason. The Inspector was a great idea a long time ago and still has its uses, but modern day workflow as seen in other DAWs make it unnecessary and a significant inhibitor for speed.
B. Gapless audio engine. Every other DAW has it, and Cubase is the only DAW that doesn’t live up to this standard.
C. Variaudio directly in the project window and, because of this, multi-track Variaudio. Standard in other DAWs for a great reason.
D. Many workflow things that are easier and more intuitive in other DAWs. Cubase is getting there, which is great, and also needs a lot more work. By workflow I mean the least amount of mouse clicks, key commands and movement as possible to get things done.
It may not have started off that way, but it looks like it’s fast becoming one.
While the intention to have a discussion about priorities is great, historically on this forum attempts to do that have always devolved into feature request food fights. That’s an observation, not a judgment. I suspect that’s because there is no mechanism to limit the discussion to priorities - especially since all of us are more than happy to push for the features we want. Compare this thread with the current Steinberg Cubase survey. It has a long list of potential new features where you can rank your top 10. That is going to generate real data on priorities.
It’s not that prioritizing is a bad thing to do. The problem is that an open ended discussion forum is not an effective tool for doing that (or at lest it hasn’t been one up to now). Kinda like trying to build a spreadsheet using Twitter.
Everyone stop posting in this thread now. It’s finished.
is this ranked in order? what is your #1 most needed that will make life easier on a day to day basis?
Yeah, that’s my order. My rationale?
Cubase Quick Controls are total garbage, and remote controlling plugins in Cubase is my biggest pet peeve BY FAR. I should be able to map any hardware MIDI controller to any and all controls on a plugin, have those settings saved, and never have to worry about mapping that plugin again. I shouldn’t be limited to 8 parameters. Or certain pieces of hardware. I want hands on control. Got spoiled by it in Studio One, and even Reaper allows for it with some setup. Cubase is so far behind there it’s painful. Literally. I don’t like being on a mouse due to bad wrists.
After that, the External FX thing is next. I have a patchbay I use regularly. I don’t set one piece of gear per output and return like Steinberg is expecting. What’s on output 3 today, could be different on the next song. I need an external FX plugin where I can easily change this like Studio One’s Pipeline.
The floating title bar on Windows is the single worst window management choice I’ve ever seen on a Windows application and absolutely needs to go.
Not being able to move channels in the console? What year is this? I think Sonar could do this from day 1. I think Cakewalk Pro Audio 9 (first DAW I used) was doing this.
Stereo effects on mono channels? This is another ridiculous Cubase-specific thing. Why, in the digital domain, is this an issue? Why does this become a challenge? Just make every mono channel mono in, stereo out and the problem goes away forever. Users rejoice…!
I feel really strongly about that order in case you can’t tell. I could go on.
Plus, I consider all these things basics. This isn’t some esoteric feature like “Stienberg Plugin Server.” These are features that should’ve long been in Cubase. We shouldn’t be talking about these. But we are. So fix it.
Of these, which would be the most important? and how/why?
If I had to choose one it would the first one, A. The reason is that it is undeniably faster for almost anyone. Why? Moving the mouse to other windows and multiple clicks to do stuff most of us do constantly (adjusting volume, pan, adjusting/moving/copying inserts, adjusting/moving/copying sends, etc.) takes up large amounts of time every single day when you add it up. When I work on Pro Tools or am with someone on Pro Tools (or Reaper or some others), the speed at which they can work in this way is significantly faster than me on Cubase…and I’m very, veryfast on Cubase (I use tons of macros and everything else, but nothing beats having direct mix console controls directly on the track headers). I’m not sure that everyone would know this unless they’ve seen it in action or have used other DAWs but it’s simply undeniably significantly faster and more intuitive and modern, and FULLY customizable if one prefers to move their mouse a lot and click more for whatever reason.
It’s been a while since I worked on other DAWs
Isn’t this the purpose of the bottom mixer?
I’ve always sort of appreciated Cubases cluster free GUI. The more you add, the smaller everything has to get. Hopefully they could figure out a way to do it better than other DAWs, maybe utilizing smart controls, mouse-over pop-ups, key modifiers, etc.
I also worry about these types of changes because it seems inevitable that other things change that you don’t want… like I’d hate for track titles to be limited in order to fit new track controls or something. I rely on long names quite often, and so for example, I would actually keep long names over speedier track controls if I had to choose (not saying there isn’t a compromise or that this would be a problem, just hypothetical). Some of the mockups I’ve seen on the forum for this idea are in fact next to the track name, which will invariably mean tracks names will be reduced, or the user will have to make the tracklist wider to accommodate.
The bottom mixer is extra navigation and clicking and finding that doesn’t need to happen and takes up time and space compared to what I’m talking about.
Check out the way Pro Tools does it. it’s clean, professional, and everything is highly visible. Some people may not like the extra space it takes up, but they need to remember that actually it takes up the same amount or even less space (depending on what you want to see/use when you configure it, and how you configure it) as the Cubase inspector currently does, so it wouldn’t actually need to make anything bigger space-wise overall. I can always clearly read what something is in Pro tools. Pro Tools shows how you can see everything super clearly, yet rarely need to leave the Project Window (no additional windows at all) to do so many things. Obviously we don’t want Cubase to look exactly like Pro Tools, but to be inspired by the way they do it is the way to success in my opinion.
I bet that once people starting using (at the very least volume and pan) in this way, there would be a lot of happiness overall. Less mouse movement and clicks to get a task done are always better than more in terms of modern and efficient design, and this is a very strong movement in the less direction.
Stability and workflow are paramount.
Ideally, Cubase should pretty much never crash or hang to the point that you have to force-quit.
We should have stable, working features like a non-broken Direct Offline Processing, Multitrack Freezing, and Group/Bus/Folder Freezing in order to save resources - because many of the best plugins are CPU hogs!
Assignable Inverse links and inverse toggles. Those would be useful for things like gain compensation within plugins like Vintage Compressor. We should be able to inverse link parameters like its ‘Input’ and ‘Output’ controls, for example. (TBH, this plugin should have rolled out with that feature from the get-go.)
Or, maybe you’d want to use it to link separate plugin’s respective on/off switches on a channel’s insert slots in order to A/B different chains on that track… Plenty of room for creativity. Yet, useful for the workflow.
We also need this to speed up our workflow:
Another timesaver for Cubase: When you import any stereo audio file, Cubase automatically scans to see whether or not it is basically a mono file. If it is really a mono file with the same exact info on the L and R channels, the user is presented with a ‘Keep or Delete’ prompt. And, of course, you can set Cubase to automatically delete the extra info on files like that (making them nono).
Give me smart tools and I’ll be happy.
1- Range tool in Key editor (Ableton)
2- Pinch Zoom for Trackpad (Almost all Daws)
3- Swipe select mute/solo on Main Page (Logic Studio one)
4 -Custom Location for User content preferences etc. (Ableton Studio One)
5 -Drag/Drop plugins from Inspector to Track header, to mixer channels of other tracks, vice versa (studio one)
6- Docked Mixer with view of Fader, Insert,Sends together (Logic Studio One)
7 - Mod key plus drag to make notes end same (Logic Studio One)
8 - Streamlined and less cluttered GUI
9 * Drag midi region to an Audio track to bounce quickly (Studio One)
10- Overlapping audio regions on same track (Studio One)
11- Project data Import option from the side browser (Logic Studio One)
12- Select Lowest/Highest Note in Piano Roll Logic
13- Selective Freeze (Protools)
etc etc lol