The AI integration proposal is, to me, the most coherent direction for the Logical Editor’s evolution — and not just as an add-on feature, but as something that fits naturally with what the LE already is at its core.
Think about what the Logical Editor actually does: it asks the user to define a set of conditions and map them to a set of actions. That is, structurally, exactly what a prompt-based AI interaction looks like. The user describes what they want, the system translates it into logic, and the DAW executes it. The LE has always been doing this — just with a rigid, form-based interface that requires the user to already know the underlying grammar.
AI would simply make that grammar invisible. Instead of building the Boolean structure manually, the user could describe the intent in plain language — “select all MIDI parts on muted tracks that are longer than two bars and move them to a new folder” — and the AI would construct the corresponding LE preset automatically. The LE’s existing architecture would remain the execution layer; AI would just become the interface layer on top of it.
This also solves one of the LE’s longest-standing usability problems: the steep learning curve that keeps most users away from its deeper capabilities. The logic is powerful, but it is not intuitive to build from scratch. AI assistance would democratize access to that power without requiring Steinberg to redesign the underlying engine.
Beyond preset generation, AI could also learn from a user’s existing custom scripts over time, suggest optimizations or combinations, flag redundant presets, and even verify whether a script produced the intended result — closing the feedback loop that is currently entirely manual.
The Logical Editor was always ahead of its time. AI integration might finally let it reach its potential.
The implementation could be straightforward in terms of UI: a dedicated prompt input field integrated somewhere in the existing GUI — the Right Zone or the Left Zone would both be natural candidates — where the user simply types what they want Cubase to do, and the AI executes it directly. No need to open the LE window, no need to know the syntax. Just describe the intent, press enter, and let Cubase handle the rest.
3 Likes
I agree. I also think that the request to open up scripting gives users more options. In general, once we start to dig into these different functionalities in our DAW there are so many use-cases and suggestions that it becomes borderline unmanageable it seems, and by allowing AI and/or scripting by 3rd parties the design and development workload for Steinberg gets offloaded which hopefully would lead to faster development as well as more custom solutions.
I guess the short version is: rather than code solutions for a bunch of functions and use-cases it might be better to just code one broad scripting capability and “be done with it”. Steinberg can then focus on the core aspects that are still lagging like crazy.
2 Likes
@pablocervantes
Agree on all accounts, for the average person PLE is a mysterious thing just learning it at it’s core - the Boolean algebraic parenthesis beyond one level is something I still struggle with even as experienced as I am with the PLE. damn maths.
PLE seems like the perfect candidate for AI with it’s fairly constrictive principles (although still nearly infinite)… I would imagine, it should be fairly “easy” to build a learning database for given todays stage of AI.
We would still need Steinberg to (unless they start using AI for their own code development if they haven’t already) to facilitate function/feature connections to PLE - they don’t do the best job of maintaining feature additions to Cubendo being connected to PLE. TrackVersion renaming is a good example.
Please add pre/post commands to Logical Editor