Making suggestions for Cubase developement?

I guess like most software developers Steinberg most likely have a posse of experts they listen to for advice. Im only a beginner on C6.5 but it sure would be a lot more user friendly if it had an undo/redo function for changes made to the mixer, Vst-i modules especially 3rd party synths and F-X pluggins these could be grouped into separate undo buffers so you could undo/redo synth patch adjustments without effecting main page editing or mixer automation or vice versa. Wouldn’t it be great if every time you opened a synth module or a channel strip or track part you could access an undo section that only addressed that particular instance module or page you are making adjustments to :wink:

Yes, it would. Halion Sonic SE already does, of course, as do certain 3rd-party plugins but it would be a boon to have it available across the board, especially on the Mixer.

It’d be a massive step forward for todays musicians if they actually learned how to use their software in detail first rather than throwing “suggestions” at the experts after using their very complex product that takes three years to master after a week or so and they find they have to do a little amount of button-pushing for a minute or so. :astonished:
I always find it very good for performance to have to play it more than once. :mrgreen:

Am I being too hard?

No, I agree. Creating extensive undo functions can hardly be called ‘development’. I rather have Steinberg use their resources for real development of the program. Undo can be a lifesaver, but also makes one lazy…

Did any of the old “classic” audio engineers have an “undo” command when they moved a fader or knob?

Yes, actually, they did.

Called memory…

But that’s not really undo - that’s inverse do :sunglasses:


And here I thought it was called trial and error…

Also think of the resources (computer wise) tied up to store the undo/redo buffers. I’d rather have them for audio, midi, and virtual instrument processing than for if I change my mind on something…

Yeah, good point too.

Hehhehe, this is really amusing…

Try take undo away from Cubase and then wait for the outrage. This is a matter of common sense, a easy fruit to pick. We are in the digital age now, not the analogue one o.o


Undo in Cubase is completely different from what the OP and I were referring to.
For something simple like a fader change, it’s as simple as remembering the notch the fader was on.
The undo command is invaluable in Cubase because you can do more than just “move a fader”.

And yet I went with a completely analogue (inputs and outputs) audio interface to avoid “digital” problems.
Audio is never going to be completely digital…

Mixer Snapshots would be good though :stuck_out_tongue:

This is not a matter of taking the perfectly useable undo away - it’s about fogging up the function with fader moves and such. Totally unnecessary and complicating.

Odd. People have been asking for mixer undo for a long time. Most of the people I’ve taught have asked for the same, and that’s probably about 250 people in the last 5 years. I can’t see the problem, if it was arranged suitably (perhaps a different list). A while back someone asked for event-based undo, rather than the current linear-based one, which was another good idea, IMO. As long as it doesn’t compromise the current system (and there’s no reason why it should if it is intelligently programmed), I think it would be a good idea. Taking the luddite approach will never work.

I can actually see this working. Going back and selecting a certain event to undo would be better than having to go back through an entire sequence just to get to that one point.
Also wouldn’t be that hard or resource intensive to implement.

I think this is extremely hard to implement intelligently, and therefor very resource intensive. Check your history list in Cubase and try to pick something 9 or 10 steps back that can be ‘undone’ without consequence for the following 9 steps. A seperate mixer undo? Is working on an insert plugin part of the mixer? In order for such things to work they have to be defined very narrowly, and thereby become less useful than having no undo.

Never thought of this.

Didn’t actually agree with that part.

I think it might be possible to develop undo until you can’t remember how to redo the undo that you didn’t do properly in the first place. :mrgreen:
I mean, if you need to undo that much you’re in some deep doodoo without the DAWs help. Hm?