New 8 Channel, motorized controller dedicated for Cubase/Nuendo. High quality and rack mounted!

What do you all think about Steinberg making a real business controller dedicated just for Cubase/Nuendo?
Better than UF8 or Console 1/Fader but not as feature-rich, big and costly as Nuage! I’m talking about 8 Channels of faders, Full Transport control, Macro Keys, rack-mounted and really high quality for advanced users.
Better and bigger than CC121.

What do you think? Is there anybody from Steinberg that can share some info about plans on doing Cubase/Nuendo Controller like that? For me, it would be an instant buy!

1 Like

I’d probably buy it if it were 10 faders, and smaller form factor like the Console 1 Fader! The larger form factors aren’t great for those of us who are primarily composers but also need to do a lot of mixing. And 8 faders always seems like too few.

I personally don’t care about transport control nor would I want it to be rack mounted (though detachable mounting is fine)

Generally speaking though the problem with these requests in threads is that everyone wants everything for less, and despite wanting everything all users want something different. So there’s no consensus. And then when you take into account everything that’s out there it’s hard to see how a new controller fits in financially.

If you’re interested, I pooled together all the opinions about controllers in a couple of threads on just to prove the point that it must be extremely difficult for businesses to get an idea of what users want by reading what users say they want. There’s first an older collection of opinions from a thread that I think got closed, and then a newer thread:

I’d love to see a great Steinberg / Yamaha controller for a price much lower than Nuage, and with a much smaller footprint, but realistically I don’t think that’ll happen soon. Just consider the price of the Avid s1 and Dock + tablet(s) and you’ll see how hard it would be to compete with that.

Everybody wants something different, so the market for any one device isn’t that big.
And when a market is small, the significant cost to develop, debug, and market the product, overwhelm the cost of having some subcontractor in China put the components into a chassis.
This is why there’s such a steep cost curve as soon as you step off the “standard consumer goods” level – “pro” anything has a much smaller market, so the R&D costs must be amortized across many fewer items sold, so the margins over cost of material must be sky high, or the producer will go out of business.

So, the “high cost” of the Nuage is like that for that reason – the standard, simple, compromise solutions that serve most users well enough, get enough volume to have a lower price point. The fancier, more specialized products, don’t.

A product that then focused on only Cubase/Nuendo would be made for an even smaller market.

1 Like

the cmc series where good

I have the cc1212, still a very nice controller for most work i do.
I would be very happy with more channel strip controls saturation, transient, compressor, maximizer.
Hopefully steinberg will bring back a refurbished cc121 :smiley:


How many faders do users want?..

1 Like

n ∈ ℕ

1 Like

Joking aside.

I was thinking the other day: Why don’t companies pursue a modular approach to controllers? Design a fader strip, one encoder at the very top, a little screen, three buttons, a motorized fader, another button at the very bottom. Give it a catchy name, like mMFUn-1f-1E-4B-mLCD. Something like that. Ask Ibanez, they sure know their model names. Allow these to lock and connect with each other. (Kind like how Boss AB-2 switch pedals can mate)

Sell these separately. Then the user can hook them up to their DAW and… oh darn, how is Mackie Control going to work with just two faders? Five faders? Eleven faders? Eighteen faders? Pfffft.

On the other hand, if every DAW could talk any MIDI message (kind of how we already can in Cubase 12 with the MIDI Remote and the API), this would be a good idea, as the user could make a script that works perfectly with any number of modules.

Regarding costs, I’m sure it would be far more expensive than the current trend of fixed 8 channel fader units.

(Right now I’m using a completely humble Behringer X-Touch Compact, with a custom script. I can’t say this hardware limits me, not even close. What limits me is my capacity to incorporate the myriad possibilities that MIDI Remote allows into my workflow.)

1 Like

Yeah, but they didn’t really make them for very long. Right now I’m looking at an AI with some failing buttons, and a QC which I seem to only use for EQ and will miss a lot when it goes.

Back when Greg used to travel city to city for Club Cubase, he held one in San Francisco a few days before the CMCs were released and we all got a sneak preview - which was fun.

Something like this?

1 Like

Yes, but a bit more traditional.

i have 9 (cmc series) of them it is the most 1 to 1 controller system for cubase all the others you need to remember
what does what and in the end you are also using the good old mouse .

so few knobs , and again you have to remember what each knobs does so counterproductive

Yes, @Gregio , it is the remembering of the assignments, no matter what the controller, that makes these things challenging to me.

All the generic controllers have this having to remember problem except the Steinberg CMC models
what they say is what they do.

1 Like

That’s why I love them still…sad how they got treated.
#sipcmc :cry:

Steinberg Control Surface?
pssst, They’re called Yamaha.
They Literally bought the company … :laughing:

ftr, I didn’t say I disagree… :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

When Yamaha bought Steinberg i celebrated it.

1 Like