Personally, most of the time I don’t really notice the glitches most of the time (just as I don’t notice my tinnitus most of the time, except when I think about it - dammit…), but I do agree it is a pity about the lack of response from Steinberg, similar on other high voted feature requests that have been around for years. I think a clear and open communication might help prevent a lot of frustration. Even a statement like “we acknowledge this FR, but it isn’t actually practical to implement for these reasons” would help. People can be really understanding if you explain problems openly in my experience.
1 Like
This would be really nice to have workflow wise. Also one of my top FRs!
1 Like
Hey,
Maybe I need to lower the expectations a bit for the “Vote” feature or the “feature requests” tag.
Yes, we are observing both of these and as you can see we are also answering feature requests from both lists frequently with every version. But it’s not possible to answer, comment or discuss every feature request. I have to admit that the situation with Gapless Audio is different. This has been a request for years and it’s on top of the voting list here in the forum. So I understand that some more feedback from Steinberg on this topic would be appreciated.
We are absolutely aware of the requests and our audio engine team is working towards a solution. Some of you may have noticed that there have been already minor improvements in this area with Cubase 12. If you are making the 1 on 1 test with Cubase 11 and Cubase 12, you will notice (or measure) that the audio engine gap has been decreased significantly when inserting effects or instruments. Some part of that was achieved with the removal of the eLicenser, but the team also improved the behaviour with different new methods. Basically this needs to be solved with a new routing architecture that allows the audio engine to proceed while the routing is changing. Unfortunately this is complex and needs the full focus of the team for a long period of time. Which also means that other topics like optimisation for new CPU generations on both Win and Mac or other performance optimisation topics will be prioritised lower. And that’s where we have the conflict and we need to make decisions. The last years have been very dynamic and we have prioritised other audio engine related topics higher that working on a “gapless audio engine”. But that doesn’t mean that we are not aware of the request, the use-case or the benefit for the users. Currently the audio engine team has different projects on their roadmap that are working towards improvements in this regards, but we cannot communicate any release date for a Cubase version without audio engine gaps when changing the routing.
29 Likes
Thank you for the detailed explanation Matthias!
Matthias, I don’t expect you to comment on each and every feature requests, of course. An explanation like you gave here on some long running or highly voted FR is much appreciated, though!
I also just wanted to thank you for acknowledging and giving an insight in Steinberg’s dev plans.
It means a lot for customers to know that their voices are heard and I fully concur with @fese’s sentiments a few posts up.
I truly hope that this new trend of Steinberg devs and officials directly and publicly communicating with their users is here to stay.
3 Likes
Matthias,
This makes total sense. Get the architecture right, rather than trying to hack-in gapless.
Thank you for being so proactive in this response, and thank you guys for being conscientious ethical developers!
The efforts you are making now will provide opportunities for a better product in the future.
Bravo!
Thank you so much Matthias for letting us know. This is exactly, why I was writing also in the “Thank you” thread.
Hopefully this happens more often now in the future, takes away a lot of frustration which I see here on the forum and makes us all happier.
I am looking forward to what will come!
+1000
Happy to listen something about this!!!
Thanks Mathias
So basically, in order to avoid this problem we should switch to another DAW?
2 Likes
Depends on the severity of this as a problem, really. For most it’s a mild annoyance I presume.
If it’s a real obstacle, then yes, using a different DAW is the only option in the short-term. Can’t see this being sorted out within the next few years.
yep, if its a “show stopper” for you, you should use another DAW, it takes steinberg ridiculously years to recognize this problem, and by mathias answer here it seems its not high priority at the engine taem roadmap fixes, so it will take more years and versions to be done if at all !! 
hopefully im wrong
to be fair, changing something like that might require recoding throughout the entire programs code top to bottom. I’m sure if they could flick a switch for you they would, but such a mark on the roadmap might run a strike through everything else on the road map. Just updating Expression Maps in itself is probably a ton of work, updating all MIDI area of the program, etc, etc.
For me personally, I don’t really care because it’s not a live performance software. For as much work as it might be for them, to me and a lot of other users it would be a dab of polish. Nice but not necessary. I’d rather get improved MIDI everything - MIDI inserts, multiple MIDI hardware inputs, MIDI editing/editor, Expression Maps, MIDI patching/routing/splitting/multi-channel flexibility, etc. Ton of code there, all areas of the program affect all areas of the program when it comes to something like MIDI.
We all aware of its complexity,but to be fair its requested for years,and to be fair again cubase users should enjoy gapless audio like other DAW users. Only cubendo left behind,its a shame 
1 Like
Lots of things have been requested for years, and we’ve got lots of those features. There’s at least 10 other things I would want before gapless audio. But that’s just me.
Well,this post is about gapless audio,not the other FR. And for me is one of the highest in priority
1 Like
I’m all for it… as long as it’s not the only thing in the update.
There’s just so many other FRs that would speed up my workflow way beyond a 1 second gap. I guess I’m looking at it in a very economical sort of way, as I suppose, Steinberg is as well.
It will be interesting to see if they figure out a way to resolve it, if it will be a preference but not without consequences in the sense of - will certain things we took for granted suddenly not behave how we’re accustomed to that we didn’t realize the other DAWs suffered from? That’s the big question. It’s possible all the people who voted in this thread if given the option, would end up reverting to classic cubase engine behavior - “oh crap, that’s how other DAWs do things? revert.”. If you can prove to me that’s not the case, I’d be more optimistic I suppose.
+1
Glad to see that since my original post from 2018 which was closed for unknown reasons there are many users having the same thoughts about this issue.
It is almost 2023 Steinberg, come on!
Serious question, how big is your team? From posts like these, it makes it sound like Steinberg is a tiny indie studio doing their best to balance fixes and features in their basement, not makers of a major professional DAW and a sub company of Yamaha. I’d really like to understand why development for Cubase is so mind bogglingly slow and that asking for a feature takes years to acknowledge, years to implement, and takes development away from other areas. How many people work on the Cubase team? 4?
Don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate you responding and explaining, but usually your explainations leave me more confused. Why don’t you have enough resources to get any meaningful amount of work done in any sort of reasonable time frame?
2 Likes