Thank you, but I’m looking for a solution, not for a useless answer.
So if you know “tons” of solutions available inside Cubase meaning natively, please share it as not everyone is an expert like you here to know “tons” of solutions for this LFO purposes
Yeah i haven’t tried it yet but there doesn’t seem to be. I’m always on here bestowing the virtues of cubase but seriously this seems like a basic omission to not have lfo in a simple and intuitive way. I’ll be glad to be corrected.
The benefit of these are that rate can be controlled smoothly (unlike Steinberg’s, which switch between note durations), which is nice for adding In a natural-sounding vibrato for vocals.
I haven’t looked for LFO plug-ins that can control FCO, panning etc. these are easy enough to just drawn in.
It would be so much easier if Cubase would allow to route midi internally to Quick Controls.
By the way a free alternative for LFO Tool: Meldaproduction MCCGenerator.
Below are some of the possibilities that a little native tool from FL Studio, offers to manipulate the LFO of any knob or fader automatable and means any knob or fader that you want via MIDI editor, which means you can use it by a wished sections… Is simply great as you can really play around to make your sound design unique!
Maybe we can bump this for To-Do or wish list for Cubase? Just think in the possibilities! Also
I am surprised because this tool exist in FL Studio from his beginning, since Fruity Loops. I never seen a tool like this in any other DAW… and I believe that no DAW or plugin is able to exceeds it, its a Top feature.
Applied in any knob of your wish E.G. Cutoff, Volume, or any knob or fader for your creative idea.
Applied in panning or plugins with Left and Right.
Bring it to feature suggestions. Why not - it would be a cheap addition in terms of development effort.
In an attempt to try to answer why this is not part of most DAWs: It has to do with genre and what a DAW is perceived to be - and its evolution over time.
Cubase and many other DAWs have their roots in conventional sequencing and recording, in other words: These kinds of DAWS were orininally neither built for “sound design” nor for certain ways of composing. The spectrum of what is done with DAWs by users has spread tremendously - some still use them more or less as an in-the-box replacement for recording and mixing the “old way”, some compose, some create sounds, etc. etc.
All these are possibilities where the various products could focus on certain strengths imho. The attempt to support ever type of usage usually leads to feature creap, immature and partly imlemented features, etc. (this is not only true for Cubase).
Good product management has to take FOCUS-decisions - and create a clear spot on the market for which the product is thought to be. Defocussing (actually resulting in changing focus all the time and not getting things ready or mature) kills products.
Having said that: What you desire could be a simple addition.
Let me add some thoughts and maybe also clarify: I dont consider any request to extend the functionality of cubase as “bad” per se.
What I do see is that the question “what IS a DAW?” can be answered in very different ways these days. This changed over time and today the manufacturers of DAWs must decide where they want to “sit” in this diverse market. Some chose to try to have a “this one fits for all purposes” thing - which - looking at the software industry in general - usually led to desaster (feature creep, quality issues, finally products that did not fit for anybody).
Many of the feature requets also on the cubase forums show this diversity and how hard it can be to focus.
I am possibly an “old fart” ;o)… one of those who use “the DAW” mainly as a replacement for specialised gear, quasi a digitized version of a mixer and some external gear. I partly use it for composing as well. My son from the very beginning of his “musical carreer” was more into other genres, kind of “DJ”, “Sound design” and working with loops and modifying them. Back then he used fruity loops which I at this point in time never would have called a “DAW”. He did. Which is ok. All the products have their history and their roots in different areas. I personally love that this is the case and I wish that vendors would rather contiue to focus than trying to produce the “one tool for everybody” solution. Of course there are overlaps and they are a challenge.
We all - when disappointed about missing features or immature features - have to be aware of all this. It is about the fundamental question what “the DAW” should be and towards WHOM it is directed.
And finally: I am on this forum since the 90ies (the old forum was shut down and all the counts started from scratch). For a very long time I am requesting that MIDI signals are treated logically the same way as AUDIO signals in cubase - I mean, all the routing options and logic should be the same for whatever type of signal. This would include internal looping of midi, free routing from any midi source to any midi target.
I would even go one step further and request the same for another type of “signal”: Automation.
The potential of such an enhancement would be tremendous.
We live in a world of advanced music tech. The old days of a daw being specific to one usecase are long gone. The rise of the bedroom producer began years ago and that is now the main stream market.
yes I a agree. But the “bedroom producers” also work in different genres and have very different needs.
Further the diverse needs could be better served by open standards and interoparability of smaller software pieces.
Steinberg plays traditionally a leading role in this respect.
Yes, VST is around that.
My point is: I would prefer to see the various vendors to FOCUS on special segments of the market with their core product (because history of software industry shows that the “one product for all purposes” has always led to a decline in qualitiy). The core products can - based on open standards - then be augmented to add functionality in directions of other segments - with the advantage of choice among a variety of offerings.
To return to the original request and link my thought to it: Cubase should allow free midi routing from and to every midi source and target internally. And it should allow to control automation consistently. If this were implemented, we could choose for the “LFO"Solution” freely. The same holds true for many other requests.
Not really… a VST or plugin for this purpose, is limited in this kind of possibilities, I dare to say that this FL Studio tool, can manipulate LFO in ways that nor plugin or VST can, and if you are very peaky to manually reproduce some of the LFO forms of my images or more complex ones, it will be time consuming, as it require to much work to do it manually, in a thoroughly and surgically for the very smallest forms/ lines to drawing each of the lines, as the value, range and speed…
Exactly, actually Fruity Loops, was designed originally as a step sequencer /virtual beatbox in the beginnings, lately it was improved the software a lot, is not very conventional sequencer due to the original code of the software that make it hard to fully rewrite of the code for a more standardized software, but in every update, they implement new and great features that probably was existing from years ago in other softwares and that was requested by the users by trying another softwares or DAWs that have them, and with this, giving the same reason to this thread/ request. From my own perspective FL Studio wasn’t made for sound-design but they implemented that awesome MIDI routing LFO tool since its beginnings that no other DAW have. (probably your son can tell you).
Im completely agree… extending functionalities, can never be a bad thing, I personally find some functions in Cubase that probably I will never use, and some others I will use daily… But this make the DAW or (software) be so versatile, that every kind of user with any kind of workflow needs, can find what it needs. Extend functionalities is always opening possibilities, it’s never a limitation or a waste in my opinion.
An excellent thread…I second the idea of there being a feature request for MIDI routing etc.
As an early Cubase user, my original usage was purely scoring; I always preferred this to Finale and Cakewalk, and when Sibelius came on-line, I used that, but was always more fluent in Cubase. Jumping 10 years, I’m back to Cubase, and have been delving into sound design, recording, mastering etc. My point is, the broad features are there if you want to use them, and in my case, have made me a more varied and complete musician.
