My christmas wish for Cubase 11: NO new features

Yes, I have the full version and is exactly the same, it is worst even because there are a lot of more kits and presets to browse and choose from. Well the full version is worthwhile anyway, has 24 bit samples and many more functions, presets, kits and possibilities, but not more clarity, at all!!! :unamused:

So you are saying that Steinbergs programmers aren’t capable enough to make old songs work in new versions if the look and workflow was changed? Boy, you sure don’t have much faith in Steinberg then.

And btw, I very much doubt that Hans Zimmer is working with Cubase 10.5 considering the fact that keyswitches aren’t even working correctly in 10.5. There is no way he would be able to score movies with that bug running rampant.

It’s not loading old songs, it’s being able to work on them in conjunction with your hardware (Hence the Hans Zimmer reference i expect?) - If they removed elements to clear the clutter then of course it would cause legacy users issues, as the tools they used would either be gone/replaced by new modules or altered which affects their workflow.

I know many people that use external scripts to automate tasks based on screen elements positions, for example. But with Cubase there’s so much that can/must be routed via MIDI CC’s, and that in itself is an issue for people wanting a more modern/cleaner core. If that’s changed, you have the legacy users who’s external MIDI gear and scripting could get screwed.

So, that’s why when they progress the DAW, they leave the existing modules in place for legacy users - And where some see this as clutter/confusion, Others embrace it from a legacy standpoint. But the salient point is that Cubase has to carry this weight whereas S1 does not.

I don’t believe for a second that features should be removed and I am fully confident that the GUI and usability can be improved and hugely transformed without losing compatibility. Just because the GUI looks different it doesn’t mean that it automatically will cause compatibility problems. Even so, if a feature would get a major remake, I am sure there would be a conversion process once you load an old song with the new version of Cubase.

That’s the way it is with Logic Pro X for instance. There is a HUGE difference in features and overall look in Logic Pro X compared to earlier versions. Nevertheless you can open old projects in LPX. However - when you save it for the first time in the new LPX format you are being told that it won’t be compatible with OLDER versions of Logic, which makes perfect sense.

I do of course understand there could be problems with scripts based on screeen position (like Keyboard Maestro that I am using myself, for instance) if the layout is changed, but frankly, that’s not really Steinbergs problem is it? Change is inevitable and there is NO way Steinberg can take every external factor in calculation whenever they do an update. If they would, there wouldn’t be any more updates. Ever.

Ok, so let’s presume Steinberg add a new level of external controller support, which will supersede the VST and Quick Track Control options. Perhaps with dedicated pageable controls and an API that allows users (or manuafcturers) to develop their own hardware control mappings that can focus on mixer or individual plugin elements. How cool would that be?

What do they do at that point with the current mapping system in place to progress the software, and still support legacy users?

By leaving the old system(s) in place it will show on the tabs on the left, if there’s any kind of mappings in there it will still have to be part of the input chain for each track ‘in addition’ to a new system, also would still have to appear in the studio setup screens as a selection. They cannot just remove that functionality.

Furthermore, I can’t see how they could merge such a dated system into a more progressive, conceptual change. In fact, if they did attempt at building such a system encompassing both old and new, it would actually restrict it’s progress.

As for LPX, i’m a long time user since version 7. And i can assure you that there’s a real mess that Apple has on it’s hands, there’s a lot of skinned plugins and bolt-ons to achieve new feature sets, but underneath it’s mainly stayed the same with emagic developed functions that todays team have very little experience on - so they leave it well alone.

You still can’t even address different incoming MIDI ports per track, so they had to add a global filter as part of the main preference to prevent drum machines/external sequences accidentally flooding into any record enabled track. ‘Auto Demix’ is still the only solution for multitrack MIDI recording, You can’t route one track to another, because, again, it’s part of the archaic makeup of the software, hence the requirement for IAC busses, The Environment still exists, and has seen no development or support for modern displays, And the delay compensation is still screwed where busses are in play.

Logic is a prime example of legacy software that has received far more bolt-ons and reskins than it should’ve. They’ll ditch it and move to garageband as the core codebase once universal apps arrive, put money on that.

It’s a great DAW and i love it, but i wouldn’t use it as an example of positive progression. Studio One is one of the few DAWs that appears to have a very clean development path so far. But this discussion is purely an explanations on why Cubase still shows remnants of it’s 30+ year legacy, because it has to.

if the layout is changed, but frankly, that’s not really Steinbergs problem is it?

Exactly - as you’ve said yourself, it’s not the fault of the developers, hence why the question “Steinbergs programmers aren’t capable enough” you asked at the other poster, really is not the point being made here. It’s acceptance of what and where Cubase is, not questioning their ability.

+1

This really shows. Like the new Live Loops, pattern editor does not match most of the rest of the program. It feels patched over and over again. I am using it because I still love it despite all the legacy stuff and quirks.
I am guessing they are prepping the brand new version V11 for the release of Big Sur and Arm Macs.

Long time backwards compatibilty is merely utopia (unfortunately) and more of an operating system issue more than a DAW-specific problem so I am actually keeping old computers around only for that and mainly: bounce everything as audio. That is the only way to ensure backwards compatibility. This, of course, doesn’t hold for complex hardware controllers and advanced scripts based on screen pixel placements - that’s destined for short lives no matter what because of updates, dropped driver support, new operating systems or a combination of both.

I am definitely not showcasing Logic as a beacon of excellence. I dropped Logic years ago because of several factors, automation being extremly unprecise, unreliable mixdown behaviour and so on. Saying that I opened a project in Logic from 2010 on my Mac running Mojave and the only problem that arose (this time) was that there was no support for 32-bit plugins anymore, which Cubase has dropped as well. I solved it with 32 Lives wrapping the 32-bit plugins with a 64-bit wrapper.

Tedious as it may be, I would rather developers refreshed the code continuously, but be very open about what they are doing and why and also try to make every transition as smooth as possible. Otherwise the code will slowly and surely be a chaotic, buggy mess.

Regarding my reply about the confidence of Steinberg, again, I read the quote “can’t open up old projects anymore because some old legacy features no longer are supported” which I saw as resistance against Steinberg updating old code because i would break compatibility. I don’t believe they will break compatibility with old features INTERNALLY in Cubase, but if you are referring to factors outside of Cubase. Sure it might. Legacy features are, well, exactly that, legacy features and if you don’t want to break backwards compatibility with external hardware and/or software, I think the only way is to stay on an old version of Cubase. There will inevitibly be change and I do believe Steinberg has to do what they need to do to progress and keep their own code alive and kicking and running smoothly. They can only ensure support of their own code and plugins but beyond that they really don’t have any responsibility.

I am not saying it’s ideal, trust me, I have had my fair share of problems over the years with this.

Do I wish there was a better ecosystem around Steinberg? Hell yeah!
Steinberg would take a serious step up just by adding a free download forum or most preferably a hub that downloads straight into Cubase just like Presonus with Studio One where you could share and download keyswitch-maps, drum maps, hardware control maps, VST instrument setups and so on, or even providing it themselves. There, already they would get a feel good buzz with more satisfied customers, less problems for people when premises change and loads of good will.

I would also like to see third party hardware makers be more on their toes, making better drivers and provide better support so you can use them for a long time but I guess that is a pipe dream. Market economy rarely takes things like that into account. Sadly, it’s cheaper to make a product, leave it behind and move on.

Very much +1 to all of this. I would gladly pay for an update like that. NO more new plugins please, we all have enough of those…
Problem is that presumably most users don’t think like that and only want to pay for new features. UI updates and such are kind of expected from developers to be done without payment, regardless of how much work it is and how beneficial it will be. It’s hard to market as a new paid-for release.

Unfortunately that seems to be the common view.

However, when I ask around among my collegues, songwriters, producers and musicians - all of them agree with me. They would all rather have a stable, easy to use and bug free daw than more features and would gladly pay for that.

Few of them have actually chosen Cubase as their DAW of choice even though most of them agree that Cubase has an amazing feature set. Why? Because they find Cubase ugly, cluttered and inconsistent. I can’t really disagree with them. When I left my old DAW a couple of years ago I at first thought Cubase looked terrible but I managed to see beyond that because of the benefits. Steinberg has refurbished the GUI somewhat since then. If they could finish that transformation and make it more consistent and intuitive I am pretty sure people could be persuaded over from other DAWs but that would require a thorough refresh.

Also HighDPI scaling controllable by the user. That’d be neat.

I switched to Studio One months ago and only occasionally come back to Cubase to open some old projects.
For me it’s easy with C11, if the Inspector design remains as it is I won’t upgrade and will finally let Cubase drop for good. That’s my personal deal-breaker.
After using modern software, coming back to Cubase feels like having a clunky piece of hardware stuck inside my computer.
Again, I’m just a hobbyist. Your mileage may vary.

Curious - what in particular is it that irks you so…?

I use the Inspector constantly in other DAWs, and even video NLEs, and understand it as a space to get an overall view of your track, at a glance (that’s the keyword here), for a quick tweak here and there, or just for information.
Cubase tries to have half of the program’s functionality crammed in there, hidden in a nest of elusive menus, especially painful on soft synth tracks, with the MIDI and Audio menus stepping into each other (my perception) and rendering the whole thing useless. What’s the point in having to click on Inserts or Sends or whatnot if I can just press F3 and see everything laid out clearly on the console? The point is NOT having to go to the console and having everything there in view, in your main working area.
I personally find it a design monstrosity, which pretty much encapsulates the design philosophy of the whole program.

Yes, i definitely agree with this. It doesn’t cause me any immediate problem personally as i have the mixer view on my second monitor, but a concise view mode on the left would do wonders for people generally, let alone those on single screen or laptops.

They could add a new tab at the top (Where Inspector, Visibility show) for a new view that contains Fader, Pan, Inserts and Sends - in a fixed in place view, no matter what track type (i.e. Audio Inserts stay in position whether they’re instrument or audio tracks). In fact, just go with the single mixer view like Logic would see a big improvement for useability.

The items within the inspector seem modular anyway, so you’d imagine it would be quite a simple change to make.

+1
Fader moving all the time up, down, visible, not visible. Same for inserts and sends. Why would I want to see 10s of empty send and insert slots on a very valuable space that could be used better to show more useful information at a glance like in Studio One or Logic.