Just cannot fathom the benefit of Markers compared to Cycle Markers. It seems Cycle Markers have everything Markers have and then some…
Anyone care to chime in?
I’m sure lots of users will explain the point.
The way I use markers is somewhat unique, and not what was intended by Cubase. Since Cubase gives you 9 marker tracks, I sometimes put a marker track immediately above any track that needs comments at a specific place on the arrange page. It works quite well, you just have to be brief with your notes.
3 Likes
Markers are easier to set.
1 Like
For me, the main benefit of position markers (that’s what the manual calls plain markers 
) is that I can set them using the Insert key as playback evolves. So, I might hit play for a section, and then hit Ins the moment I hear something that needs my attention.
A quick marker here and there makes navigation easier.
Now Cycle Markers, they’re great, as you say. For exporting sections, easier repeating of sections, lots of things. But for those, I need a moment to set them up during a “housekeeping break”, because the key command needs the left and right locators to be in the right place to create a cycle marker, or we can Ctrl drag on the marker track directly. But plain markers I can use while in the “creative mess” phase without breaking out of it.
2 Likes
I like this, ngl it is very much an out-of-the-box approach.
Cheers, I suspect if this is the only key difference as it’s not something I use right now, I guess I’ll stick with cycle-markers, the benefits of selecting sections with a keystroke is something I can do a hundred times a day.
I do the same. But the Marker will expand as more text is entered, so you don’t need to be all that brief.
My Templates have 3 Marker Tracks in them. One for comments, another to act as a normal Marker Track. The third is named “Marker Library” and contains a bunch of per-defined Markers. So if I need a Marker for “Verse 3” I can just drag it from the Library Track onto the regular Marker Track. Also this means that the Marker Names & IDs are consistent across Projects and can be easily mapped to Metagrid buttons. I started doing this a few years ago & highly recommend it.
I tend to not use Cycle Markers for navigation. Most of the time I only need to know where something starts but not where it ends (the key exception being for Audio Export). So for me Cycle Markers are visually more cluttered than regular ones and most of the time don’t add any value for my workflow.
7 Likes
This is gold.
Regarding cycle markers, I keep a folder track of cycle marker tracks for 1 bar through 16 bars as shown.
This is a navigation thing. Via key commands or Metagrid, I highlight whatever bar I wish and it gets cycled while I’m on a separate screen messing around in the Midi or Drum Editors.
There are KCs for next cycle previous cycle etc.
For me today this is really a secondary method because using Metagrid, I have a improved Cubase macro that achieves the same as this template of cycle markers, but depending on what I’m doing, this folder still works for me on occasion.
2 Likes
Late to the party, brought here by a suggestion.
I do understand most of the comments/ideas here, however as a novice when it comes to sequencing, I’ve always thought that markers are there for crucial starting points to play/record, while cycle markers are mostly for doing pretty much the same but when looping is involved. We don’t always loop, thus we need the markers as well. Just answering to the title 
2 Likes
Your post highlights a theme with Cubase. Sometimes a plethora of features may often overlap, etc.
Having both Markers & C/Markers in a sense adds to the feature-set, but I wonder how much in workflow improvement? Because it seems apart from a niche use case, there is so much overlap between both. Anyway, just a thought?
Thanks for the input and all the best with the rest of your Cubase journey.
Again, like several other posts here, it’s such a novel use of the software. I know little about Metagrid but started digging in a little about the info on it. Cheers.