Here we are in 2023, and still no action from Steinberg on this issue. The routing setup and configuration section is awful. It gets even worse if you are switching sample rates between projects with complex routing, as your I/O configuration can change (64 I/O down to 32 for example at 48 → 96k). Or if using different interfaces (studio vs mobile, etc.) You should be able to drag and drop the order of buses, external effects etc., and you should be able to save and recall various routing configurations for external effects. This is bad Steinberg. Please get it done! This should be a top priority after so many years.
4 Likes
Agreed! This is insane!
4 Likes
Why is this STILL not being resolved in Nuendo 13? I am tired of ‘great new’ features while basic workflow issues remain unresolved with Steinberg completely deaf to user requests.
1 Like
We need to be able to re-order the connections, group them, multi-delete, hide some, multi-rename, etc etc.
The window should be re-designed.
It’s an afternoon’s work for a clever developer.
When dealing with a session with large i/o, the current workflow becomes extremely annoying.
And why on earth can’t you save one preset for all connections?
2 Likes
+1
MADI setup here, mixing in ATMOS with quite a few outboard devices. This is a necessary improvement to keep things well organized and predictable. Especially since connections can change depending on project, sample rate and moving between different studio environments.
+1
I signed in just to put my plus one here as well. This is insane that you cannot make logical management / organizational changes to something as simple as the Audio IO list.
Although based on the fact that this is still an outstanding problem from 2018, it won’t do any good to add my voice to the issue.
There really are only 3 possibilities
1: No one from Cubase actually reads the feedback from its users, in which case we are wasting our time.
2: No one at Cubase is actually capable of making a simple code change to improve the order of the IO, in which case Cubase is so far behind the other DAW developers, it deserves its loss current in market share.
3: No one from Cubase actually cares what its users want or need in a modern DAW.
Honestly after 6 years, you should be embarrassed. As mentioned before by someone else, this isn’t difficult code to re-order a list of audio devices. I’ve moved between multiple DAWs since building my studio , and the most ridiculous things still exist in Cubase, things that other platforms have figured out ages ago. You really should be embarrassed by the level of coding for something so basic and the disregard for something that users have been asking for since 2018.
I just build the busses in the order I want them and save the preset. Works great for me, but everyone’s different.
1 Like
There is a fourth possibility : they read the feedback, are capable of making the changes and do care, BUT they do not have that many developers and are busy with fixing the bunch of issues and implementing the bunch of requests.
Obviously this does not excuse not creating a fix for 6yo issues.
But I have faith in Steinberg.
I do know a friend in Steinberg UK, I might ask him to see if he can bump up the issue that annoys me the most, which is the zoom behaviour, as I posted here, feel free to read and comment to help us get this one sorted out too :
Antoine-B, I suppose you are right about lack of resources - but that is on them as well. I feel they are resting on their past and have given up on innovation. Hell, it feels like they barely care about even keeping up. It took until version 14 to be able to reorder channels in the mixer (then they brag about it when they finally implemented it)
- Basic functionality is not a perk Cubase… Its required.
I hear your issue with zoom behavior and stand behind you on that one my friend. I’m happy to shout out the need to fix that next to you. I’ve hit it often too.
I switched to Studio One for several years and major scoring projects precisely because of these issues. I decided to come back and see if I could use 14 in my studio to see if the “new improvements” resolved the legacy of problems. Studio One has its issues - specifically its ability to handle the large numbers of instruments needed for orchestral scoring. Loading and unloading was a disaster.
But what S1 does get right is modern routing needs and capabilities, AUX inputs, a UI that pushes the boundaries in the best way possible, insane flexibility, clean ATMOS integration, and customization with a modern approach to music making.
Cubase needs to catch up in all those areas. I came back because CB14 still gets latency, large instrument handling, huge project ability, and cpu/memory performance right. But its not enough if the software is so painful to use, its not worth it.
Same here. Once they’re done and saved I just forget about them until the next version of Cubase / Nuendo comes along.
However, I do agree that the format of the connections management process is pretty clunky and long overdue for a makeover.
This helps a little for many, but doesn’t help anyone who has a large number of I/O in their setup - so anyone who uses a mixing console and outboard…
My buss list goes way off the bottom of my 4k monitor so I’m constantly scrolling. Which means that sticking the groups at the bottom of that list makes me angry every single day 
That would be us, and yes, scrolling to the bottom to find groups can be a little trying.
I’m sure that would get tedious. I’m only using 2xApollo x8s and a Quad, but also with virtual interfaces for testing multiple sets of monitor configurations and patch-bay configs, so it got up there, but nothing like what I’m sure you’re dealing with. But that’s why I use presets to effectively group my workflow and couple that with templates.
I looked through the .db’s, xml files, and other configs and couldn’t find any way to automate or code up a better solution, so my guess is there’s more to it than “a simple few lines of code,” but I don’t know.
But that’s also what I meant for “everyone’s different” 
P.S. - so curiously, what would be your preferred solution? You’d still have 128 busses, but you’d have them named and sorted? Or would you want filter capabilities too? I’ll never need that many busses, but I’m always interested to hear how others use nomenclature in combination with features to manage workflow.
I’m not worried about the busses to be honest. They are what they are. What @vinylizor was referring to is the channel pull-down menu in the track inspector. Groups and FX always end up at the bottom of what could be a very long list.
I’d like to see the pull down list change to two or maybe three columns. Column 1 is busses, column 2 is groups, column 3 is FX, or something like that.
In fact, when you click on the channel pull-down, there’s no need for list to stay within the inspector boundary at all. It could spread across the whole screen, for example, making selections somewhat less onerous.
1 Like
For starters they need additional sub menus for channel width. I only work in stereo and it’s already a mess having mono and stereo busses all over the place. I can’t imagine what it’s like for Nuendo users working in multi-channel formats…
Some basic intelligence would help as well - don’t offer up all the mono busses when creating a stereo track for example.
I have opinions about this, but in regard to integrating with large-format consoles, I’m almost completely ignorant other than minimal exposure at Berklee. I was going to ask more about your process out of curiosity, but I don’t want to waste your time or muddle the thread. Just saying that because I didn’t want to be rude and not reply at all
Its good (or bad) to see others are struggle with the same issues I have. It’s also nice to see a healthy discussion on a thread that’s been ignored by Cubase for 6 years.
Going back to my first possibility:
1: No one from Cubase actually reads the feedback from its users, in which case we are wasting our time.
Is there a way to actually have Cubase pay attention / read these threads. Or is the forum something they avoid at all costs so as to not have to see issues they don’t intend to deal with anyway?
I’ve already done the feedback survey of course, but I didn’t know if there was anyway to increase the visibility of issues that affect real studios using or moving to Cubase. It seems that every time a new version comes out, everyone is scratching their heads on why Cubase focused on the irrelevant things they did, and ignored the fixes most needed by professional / production users.
I’m sure my voice is small, especially after only having come back to Cubase after years of using other DAWs because of my frustration in trying to use this platform. However, I’ve constantly been watching and evaluating the platform, looking for when to try again. I continued to work on multiple tools on too many projects and had to balance what works from each tool to get a complete pipeline. Unfortunately, it does seem that when we use the same platform for too many years (including me), we just give up and tell others, “Well that’s just how it is… it’s always been broken, stop complaining and get used to it…”
No one should just have to get used to it. I’d like push for effective and innovative studios tools and force Cubase to see what works in other DAWs and ask them to improve.
+1000 here! Reorder of IOs should be a no brainer.
wtf why isn’t this just being fixed?