I would hazard a guess that a lot of clients would be as familiar with the various DAWs in popular use as are we.
Yes, yes it is. When clients first witness this, their first thought is often “Is there something wrong with your computer?”
I love Cubase, but the lack of a gapless audio engine is consistently embarrassing in a professional setting.
Additionally, I know several people who would switch to Cubase in a heartbeat if gapless audio was implemented. They simply can’t deal with the gaps after using other DAWs where this isn’t an issue.
1 Like
Being someone has been working with all types of clients with Cubase for 15 years or so, can’t really say I ever recall anyone asking me if something is wrong with my computer, or saying anything… Because usually, when creating tracks/adding plugins - you’re not doing it when intending to give the client a playback listen, you’re doing it when you’re in the middle of mixing or doing production, in which case, you’re usually stopping playback all the time anyways.
3 Likes
Same here. Decades of working with innumerable clientele in any number of settings and never once has it ever been discussed or even brought up.
If the “requirement” for gapless audio is to “not feel embarrassed” when someone presumes the client (who doesn’t have the faintest idea in the first place) may wonder something, then it seems like the simplest solution is to just say “Oh, that’s perfectly normal. Watch…” and be done with it.
I’m happy to hear your experience with clients has been different than mine. Most clients I work with have been around other DAWs that don’t have this problem at one point or another, so that may play a part in the experience I’ve had.
But the embarrassment is only one aspect to me. The more important aspect is that it’s simply annoying to work with. As stated previously: a total flow-state ruiner.
Then just tell them that it’s because Cubase syncs PDC during playback and other DAWs don’t (as far as I know…) It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Cubase is a very sync-focused program (PDC, Automation, internal MIDI, External MIDI Timecode, External FX, etc)
And perhaps, if you are getting lots of clients for which this is a production workflow problem for them - ie, they write/produce in Ableton/Bitwig, then you should probably learn the software your clients use, and then Edit/Mix in Cubase.
But the reality is, as far as I know (i don’t continuously research this) is other DAWs only PDC/Latency sync on playback start - not during. Cubase does things differently in which it always does PDC/Latency sync…. and some of us prefer this….
I much prefer having a 1-second interruption, than to have one track out of sync with the rest which would require me to stop playback and start playback again anyways to have an accurate analysis of it… Having one track out of sync is going to mislead your perception of its timing/sound in relation to all the other tracks… ie, if you shift a track by 15ms, it’s frequency-time domain has shifted thus changing various psychoacoustic phenomena (such as masking) in relation to other tracks…
Now, when someone is on acid, live jamming loops in Ableton and everything is “hitting the red”…. 15ms of transient displacement because they haven’t hit stop and play again to reset sync…that’s probably not going to matter to them in that moment…
I really don’t think the people asking for this feature really actually understand what they are asking for…. or perhaps, these other DAWs have found a new of doing PDC… because previously, either the tracks that have new latency added would have to go out of sync during playback, or everything would have to sound time-glitch.
The only other way, would be for users to be able to add an additional sync buffer up to a certain amount to account for any plugin latency they might add during playback.
edit
It does seem like Bitwig has better sync than Ableton
Bitwig vs Ableton - Automation & Plugin Delay Compensation
3 Likes
No, they just don’t care. They just want Cubase to be Ableton Live and they want it now! 
2 Likes
Pretty cool that you can see their first thoughts. Which software you using for that?
A client like that is also silently thinking there’s really something wrong about that choice of shirt you’re wearing.
It’s implied that the thought is shared with me at some point in the session—I assumed you could put it together yourself, but I guess I was wrong. 
There’s no shame in being a little slow I suppose. I still accept you.
So you’ve had multiple instances, where different clients are so concerned with audio gaps, that some number of minutes or hours later - they bring up their concern with you?
Either you’re slow in thinking that we’re going to take your creative fictional writing as non-fiction when it’s obvious to us you’re making something up in order to try and sell a feature to development - or - you’re not doing enough in your sessions to impress your clients and thus they are left with nothing to think about other than audio gaps in playback… Or, you don’t even have clients and that’s part of your fiction as well.
Think what you will, but this really has been my experience. Believe it or don’t. It really doesn’t matter to me.
Yeah, it’s not really believable at all if I’m going to be honest..
Maybe believable if you are trying to do Ableton Live style production in Cubase with clients that require it - in which case - that’s your fault for using the wrong software for that type of client/project.
Don’t bring a Lamborghini to a landscaping gig to transport stone, and then ask Lamborghini to change the Aventador to be able to haul 500lb of stone. There is a bigger market for trucks that can transport stone, than there is of selling high-end supercars… But that’s just not what Lamborghini does.
1 Like
Fun fact: Lamborghini began life manufacturing tractors.
3 Likes
I was going to say Bugatti initially, eitherway, still not the best thing to transport 500lb of stone.
It is true that most clients I work with have a background in Ableton or FL Studio (and occasionally Pro Tools/Logic).
I understand it’s your intention to get an emotional reaction out of me. Frankly, I find it amusing. 
Wasn’t disagreeing with you. Too many people want Cubase to be the same as Ableton/Bitwig/Studio1/Reaper/Luna/Digital Performer/and the rest.
Cubase does Cubase, and that’s why I use it.
Not really, I just find some peoples stories on this forum a bit peculiar but perhaps that’s because they’re doing a poor job of explaining their use case.
Wouldn’t you rather just use a tool with your clients in which the entire foundation of that tool is based around clip launching and gapless audio instead of it being haphazardly implemented into a program that isn’t?
What are we going to change in Cubase? Both those programs have Cliplauncher integrated into their Mixers… Is Steinberg going to have to change MixConsole? To which variable does Steinberg have to create this in order for it to be acceptably competitive to Ableton/Bitwig? key commands, UI, mixer?
If Steinberg made it so the new Pattern Editor could record audio clips and drop loops into, would that suffice?
I STILL want a Countach so bad hah..
1 Like
Gapless.
Launching Clps
Splice integration
A pony. (that goes back years to when Track Pictures & Images were introduced.)
(add yours here)
I don’t want any new features. I want the developers to focus on their existing features, (Cubase is one…if not the most feature-rich DAWs available.) improve existing features and workflow, and make everything more solid.
Reality is, what I want will never happen due to the prosumer competitive environment. People complained about paying too much money and not enough new features in C15. At the same time, I complain about not addressing verified bugs…some of them go back years.
Then it seems to me things get more specific based on user workflow. How many Cubase users take advantage of 4 mix consoles? Every time I add a Group Track in Mix Console 1, it gets added in Mix Console 2,3, and 4. ( I use groups in different consoles) Then I have to go back to those 3 mix consoles and hide the group track. That’s just one example of asking for improved workflow.
However it seems most users don’t care about such a trivial thing, and want stuff they always see in other DAWs.
5 Likes
yes please