exactly ,i don`t know for sure but i think the latest “full version” you can get illegally is c5 which was released in 2008 or 9,to a 20 year old that is a million years ago.
“The fallacy of manmade global warming…” Please tell me you are being facetious 
This thread seems to stray a bit . .
But I have thought about this a lot.
Question is: What IS the Future of DAWs - and, by extension, music creation in general??
For a long time now many tools (not all) for music creation have moved toward “Music Creation for Non-Musicians”.
NOW, MIND YOU . . . I did not say non-artists. And perhaps I should say Neo Musicians, or something.
Cause using this method music IS being created that people love, listen to, and buy.
But the skill set involved is not at all what it was 30 years (or less) ago.
And, by necessity, the design of the tools used will be different.
And that market is a seductive one for businesses because it’s EVERYBODY!
Joe Shmoe can come home at night and put together COOL Beats that all his friends will love.
But both markets still exist.
And no single tool can really serve both.
There’s a bunch (most) of music out there with people actually manually playing keys and guitars and horns and such. I, in fact, see grumbling on here every time SB release a new “Tool for Neo Musicians” - like LoopMash, or even the chord track stuff.
So which way should Cubase go?
Or, if SB continue with the “Traditional” recording methods (as does the “Industry Standard”), is there some evolution in the whole approach to the DAW that is needed?
Personally, I like the current approach. I can’t really see any way to improve on the basic 2 window approach (I’m talking Macro Stuff here - not the finer details of how some things work). 1 Window to Compose and structure and edit (Project), and 1 window to “Mix” the resulting Audio.
But, hey, I been around a while.
Does anyone see a majorly different approach to DAW design that should be the future?
Hugh
As to Marketing - I TOTALLY AGREE with Lukas. The stuff he mentioned from the Ableton site is great.
SB does not seem to be the sharpest knife in that department.
hugh (didn’t want to quote the whole reply): good points, my thoughts on this… i’ve noticed an implied ‘us’ vs ‘them’ (ie. the ‘kids’ who lack proper skills) kind of thread of thought here, and i think it couldn’t be further from the truth actually. the future, how i see it anyway, is integrating technology and musical skills. and this is how the most exciting music these days (for me anyway) gets created. the new heroes of soundcloud these days quite often are multiinstrumentalists who also happen to master programming macro controls in a daw at the same time. 
the bar has been raised, you need to excel at writing, playing, and engineering (and often mastering your song in the end) at the same time.
so to put it bluntly, the daw of the future is one for those who know their 9th chord inversions and ii-V-I’s, as well as how to parallel compress a kick drum, soften its transient, and create drones using granular synthesis. ;]
Gearslutz, your favourite DAW for 2014/2015. Looks like Cubase is number 1, Logic Pro X number 2.
I heard that most EDM producers use Logic because it’s cheap but the new Macs are getting a bit expensive.
Lets not forget that Cubase 7.5 won the most recent TEC Award. There are other polls and reviews on the internet
that shows Cubase on top.
As for the kids starting to produce music they have no idea what to use. They need advice, or what ever DAW the school they choose have available. You can learn Cubase at berklee. I think Cubase and Yamaha are here to stay.
Lets not forget Native Instruments, the future of sound, they have a huge influence on todays new music.
For example Massive which I want to buy but found that I already had those sounds in Cubase and other Steinberg plugins. Cubase 7.5.40 is a solid DAW. The best for my workflow. I’m a happy customer.
I’m confident that future releases will be as amazing.
i remember the Survey by steinberg about future marketing and upgrading their software… i remember especially the question about “would you prefer the software(cubase for us) to include all options available or basic software and adding/buying functions or features to tailor users needs”…(not a quote but the same meaning)
i selected all features in that survey but now maybe i would have changed my mind. if i had the chance to not include some features to reduce price, say for me not including the all new chord track idea, and have option for clip based section(ableton like)for live shows and quick “live” in the studio arranging by clips, i would prefer it…
as to Ableton, i mainly perform as a keyboard player in some bands, i hear more and more in some band and around the phrase" u need ableton on stage" but why all think the keyboardist should have that …?? i want to play the keyboards mostly !!
anyway i think that cubase needs some “add-ons” or some new clip based software that will interact with cubase to have more potential new buyers in future…
Why does the top of the line version have to be hobbled to cater for those who want less?
Why don’t those who don’t want so much just use one of the cut down versions?
Yes it’s easy to disregard stuff that comes with your DAW, I read an article on granular synthesis and though I’d like to have a go at that - I did loads of research as to what software I should buy until I realised PADSHOP (which I don’t think I had ever used) is a granular synth - £10 later to get the Pro option (so I can drop in my own samples) and WOW! What a synth! - best fun I’ve had in ages with my clothes on. I completely overlooked it because it came free.
I do have Massive and IMHO it’s just another synth!
if cubase was offered full version without chord track i would buy it… (its only me )
for my studio usage the cut down versions are not enough, but i could easelly passed the chord track thing,im sure for many others its ecxiting and needed feature though.
now days Daws offer so much, i do need the best cubase possible, but if i had the option to buy and add elements/functions i really need i would go for it… its maybe even better for developing cubase,so developer themes focus on those elements of user needs separately.
SB could make Cubase more modular, but have an attractive price for the complete set that makes it the Pro version.
Making things modular can provide a beneficial decoupling for development, but the basic product architecture needs to be such that that can be feasibly done.
While the current product can be offered in graded versions, the architecture may not be such that it can really be fully modularised.
Perhaps the rework development would be such that its costs would require adding so much to price of the upper versions that it would be counter-productive.
Many things we don’t know.
However, when we were looking for a DAW, we really didn’t know what facilities we would need down the track, and having a lot of module choices would not have helped, as we would have had to do the research on ALL of them, without any real understanding upon which to make sane judgements.
We went for Cubase as it was the most full-featured DAW available then, as it is now, just so we knew that it would pretty well would handle whatever direction we went in, as no other DAW was likely to do that soon. We didn’t want to have to change DAWs to get additional functionality down the track, as there is too much of a learning curve with them.
Digital Music Doctor is no longer around, but on their DAW shootout ratings, Cubase was rated the most complete for the last few years in a row, while FL was the best value for money, even though it had substantial functional holes in its capabilities.
The OP seems to be pushing for Cubase to cater more for what they think is a popular market.
However, there is a large market space, and a product doesn’t have to be the most popular to be viable and make money for its maker.
There are many ways that DAWs can be implemented, and no way that one product can cater for the workflow preferences of all possible users, so it seems a futile exercise to attempt to do so. A product needs to work for particular groups of users well, and leave other makers to cater for other users.
Viva la difference!
Why do people want make everything into a clone of something else? We don’t have to be Borged!
yes.it is .it is dying if the company perspective doesn’t change,waste time and money on some old shell things
yeah, this is a thing i hear too.
a friend of mine on a major label says he feels peer pressured by other writers in ldn / LA to use ableton (as opposed to logic) because they seem to get stuff done faster (not actually pressured by someone, but internally). whether there’s an objective upper hand of one daw compared to another is another topic, with this observation i’ve just tried to point out the tendencies and trends in the community, and how i said cubase may seem to be disappearing from the discourse.
(this reminds me of ‘PT’ used to being synonymous with the word ‘daw’ for a lot of people some years ago.)
nb: again, this is nothing but personal observation, so please share your experiences that may be different.
I felt compelled to reply to this topic. I think DAW’s by nature are very very very large and complex programs, they need to support a very wide array of things because digital music creation and audio work can go SO many different ways. For feature support, Cubase really started to get there in 6/7.
However, there are really inexcusable things about Cubase that I just don’t understand. For the last three versions Cubase has turned a blind eye to Macbook Pro users for something as simple as retina resolution support. Cubases own knowledge base has said “we currently do not support these higher resolutions, but will in future versions.” Well two or three releases have come and gone and the topic has never been revisited, and it’s something that reappears in the forums every week or two.
It’s things like this that are a big deal to me, because from your macbook user in a coffee shop to your home user in a low-rent apartment to a full on studio, or even a community college that has an audio engineering program, this DAW needs to be accessible and readily useable on all of them.
Don’t get me started on the dongle thing, I’m all for copyright protection but something about dongles are archaic and seemingly resultant of paranoia. I got into writing music because of piracy, and once I was able and ready to purchase my own copy of a DAW, I went for Cubase because of the wonderful student discount I was eligible for. But I would never be here if I wasn’t able to try something out first when I was a broke and lost teenager.
It would seem that Steinberg support is really hush about quirky problems like the resolution thing I listed above, I’ve tweeted them a few times and have been conveniently ignored, and it really sucks because I think the Cubase app for using iPads as control surfaces is awesome! Why not make the rest of the apple suite a very supported product? Similarly to how video editing software Adobe Premiere Pro is a more and more preferred alternative to Apples native Final Cut Pro X.
I want to see Cubase do well because it means more support, faster bug fixes, growth and a continued exciting experience for me as a musician. Right now it seems like the developer staff is down to one or two people, and that worries me. I truly don’t know how many people write the Cubase software, but sometimes I get the notion that it’s a lot smaller of an operation in the Steinberg offices then one would hope… and that worries me. I love Cubase, I want to see more forward movement. It was offered at my local community college and I found it very easy to pick up on, but it’s not something I ever even thought about before taking the class. You only hear about Logic, FLStudio, Ableton, and the ever so difficult Pro Tools on forums. That’s where most people go. Steinberg is very quiet in their marketing efforts and their overall presence on the web. I know a lot of effort goes around to striking deals with schools to utilize cubase in their curriculums, but I think Cubase has everything anyone would need to get their hobby kicked off, just need to get a few marketing heads together to really sell the thing.
Cubase is dying, Nuendo is dying, really? If they are, then it is the longest, slowest, most upwardly mobile death in the history of DAW platforms. And as for the question as to how many individuals are involved currently in its development, simply check out the credits in the help menu under ABOUT CUBASE. Here’s a prediction, it’s here to stay. I’ve been using it since VST, and it has grown better and better with every iteration, despite predictions of its imminent demise. Same goes for Nuendo. Sure, there have been glitches along the way, but it is far and away the best bang per dollar spent for people not afraid to read a manual and put in the time and effort to set up and tweak their systems accordingly. It reminds me of an old wrist watch commercial for Timex, “It takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’.”
Just my opinion, mind you, but it has already stood the test of time, and that is undeniable.
good to hear!
i think the nuendo people have come up with some really interesting features lately, probably in the effort to increase their share in the post world. can’t wait to see the new nuendo presented.
revisiting this thread with the refreshed context of cubase 8.5 now being around, i contemplated if i’d revisit some of my observations in here.
i’m afraid everything pretty much holds true-- from my personal (if biased) point of view at least.
Well , i dont think so , Cubase is here to stay , but they do need a serious rethink on the steep , steep learning curve ,n simplify it , drastically , specially on the routing options , examples Busses etc , made so easy in the earlier versions of Reason , with a tab giving a back side analogue mixer view with cables dangling n so easy to route , i was sure blown when i seen the ease of use on FL studious , i always regarded as a toy , not any more , add more to it , FL studious , sure has a far superior audio processing engine algorithm ?? may be ,that processes audio , like in Milli seconds …with excellent sound quality , using only the stalk on board sound chip , without any sound card , even on a laptop, i found that strange n fascinating … and finally my opinion , i really found the earlier , during Cubase SX 3 times , the 3 rd party plug in are great , even listening to them now, the 64 bit plugins some how dont exactly live up to that , there must be some thing there ??? any ones in sites and comments on this appreciated … ws
FYI, Cubase sales are increasing, not decreasing.