Why doesn’t Cubase have part automation, like this feature in Logic:
Try enabling the option “Automation follows event”. Maybe that already is what you need.
That works, sure, but some things still confuse me here:
- Why do we have MIDI CC automation on both part and track levels, while parameter auotmation is only available at the track level?
- Why on earth does automation curve drawing work so differently in the track lanes and in the key editor?
- Well, now that most things are done “in the box” with VST, it seems reduntant, but it’s two different things. CCs are just that, CCs. It would depend on the receiving device to interpret the controller, but at least for some of them there is an agreement on their use. Modulation on CC1 for example, or Volume for CC7. Foot control on CC4, breath on CC2, etc etc… For me, this has the advantage of being a message belonging to - and explaining - the music. Sort of music instructions. Instead of piano, forte etc, we have velocity. For continuous change, swells or diminuendos of sustained sound, maybe modulation is used? Breath Control? It depends on the receiving device how - if at all - the message will be interpreted.
But, with VSTinstruments, and parameters, we don’t put instructions in the music. We just put the events there, pitch, duration, velocity, and we can tweak the parameters of the plug-in, that clearly show us what they control in their GUI.
So, if you want to write a piano piece, it might be a good idea to write the sustain pedal (CC 64) as a CC, because then you can send it to a physical, digital piano, and it will play alright. Or you can quickly throw it around on different tracks loaded with piano vsts, and it would play alright straight away. Of course you could automate the plug-in parameter “Sustain Pedal”, and carry that around as automation on the track level, but CCs are already contained in the part.
- I guess it’s because CC curves are fairly recent. But remember, most ordinary CCs are 128 values by definition. So a curve, no matter how intricate, will eventually quantize (or round up/down) to those 128 values. There’s no 61.897 velocity is what I’m trying to say even if the curve passes exactly there. It would become 62.
1 Like
On a MIDI Part level we only have MIDI CC, on the track level we only have VST automation.
Steinberg keeps those seperate things because the nature of them is different. Like you I hope in the future Steinberg will find a way to have a common user interface for both event types.
There are CCs also on the track level together with the options how they interact with the CCs from MIDI parts (Average, Replace, Modulation…).
This is about to change with MIDI 2.0. Actually, they claim that the foundation is already in Cubase 13, but I don’t think we can have high resolution MIDI CC curves yet?
With support for high resolution velocity, CC, aftertouch, pitch bend, and poly pressure data, Cubase 13 is ready for the widespread adoption of MIDI 2.0.
1 Like
As soon as you create that track automation the MIDI CCs are turned into VST automation. To you it might still look like MIDI CC but internally in Cubase it is not.
Could you please explain that more?
In short? Oh boy… how to?
A MIDI CC event (MIDI 1.0) has a value resolution of 7 bit, a VST event is stored as a 32 bit float as far as I know.
MIDI events have a rather coarse timing resolution compared to VST events, who are sample accurate.
As soon as you use the function to transfer the MIDI events onto the track they are transformed into VST events. Cubase can only host VST events on its automation lanes. And with automation lanes I mean the lanes in the project view that are tied to a track. Events on these lanes have a time resolution that is defined by the project sample rate and are stored as 32bit float numbers.
The lanes, that you can see in the Key Editor, cannot host VST events, only MIDI events. They have the MIDI time resolution and are stored as one or several bytes.
2 Likes
It’s been a while though. I hope when it comes it’s as innovative and groundbreaking as the first one!
1 Like
Thanks for the explanation. I understand it technically, but what’s the point (use case) of “automation CCs” then?
I assume it is to get the advantages of VST automation over MIDI automation.
Except from the ones described by @ggmanestraki earlier, we have to use CCs when dealing with hardware synths.
1 Like
I’ve just checked and I am able to send CCs to a Korg synth in both ways.
Sorry, not sure I understand what you mean by “both ways”. You mean embedded CCs in a part and CC automation from the “outside”? Sure, you can do this. A difference is that it is a bit clearer when reviewing the CCs in their lanes, than entering the midi editor. Another difference, is that we can actually create automation lanes for CCs when exchanging hardware synths at the same track. One synth may respond to say CC47 for a filter, while the other one to CC48. We can then mute an automation which corresponds to a specific synth and have the automation for the other, instead of entering in the midi part and editing ccs all the time. This is pretty common when dealing with deciding on the proper sound and its details. But of course, we can always have duplicated tracks, even track versions, it’s up to us to organize our workflow 
Anyway, my reply was based on what is the use case of CCs when we have the VST automation.
1 Like
After trying to learn about MIDI CC lanes and track automation from the manual, this forum and by experimenting with it, I can only conclude that automation is Cubase is a hot mess. Broken in so many ways. It is ultra difficult to understand and apparently very buggy. How is this even possible in the DAW massively used for orchestral composition and scoring?
Two of your links are actually the same topic: When using ramps in the Key Editor it destroys the sound. Ramps are nice for editing but, yes, they can destroy the sound so much that I personally don’t touch them with a barge pole.
Why does Steinberg keep them broken? One of the great mysteries of the universe. But use “steps” instead and your sound is going to be fine.
1 Like
I am a Logic Pro user relatively new to the Steinberg universe. I arrived here through Dorico and used this recent mega sale to purchase Cubase and Absolute Collection.
So I have a question - do they actually fix anything in Cubase? Almost everything I try turns out to be half-baked or half-broken for many years. Why are then professionals still using it and continue tolerating all the major bugs? This is a genuine question. I would like to continue using Cubase, especially when they finally integrate it with Dorico.
Many brave men and women before you have asked themselves those very same questions. Trying to get an answer from Steinberg on such matters will only result in crickets.
Some people get fed up with the lack of bug fixes and jump ship, others tough it out and find workarounds.
1 Like