I read someone saying that there is no such thing as unlimited tracks in the mixer and that all DAWs have limits imposed by the OS if not by the DAW, how true is this? Cubase really has unlimited mixer tracks? or is there a limit after a certain amount, say… after 1000? Can someone who is certain tell me?
I think what “unlimited” means in reality depends very much on your computer, especially whether it has enough memory.
I am of course not certain how Steinberg implement the tracks, but if you can definitely program it as such that it is theoretically unlimited (e.g. with a linked list). As far as something can be unlimited in a system with finite resources
An OS can impose restrictions on the applications running, but specifically restricting track count in DAWs? No, that doesn’t sound logical. You will run out of hardware resources before you run out of tracks in Cubase.
There are some limits in Cubase on certain types of tracks such as VCA, Group and I/O channels but Audio, Instrument and MIDI tracks should be unlimited in the Pro version.
For anyone interested, this page show track limitations etc. for all the versions of Cubase 12.
Let’s put it this way, if we had a super powerful computer, with unlimited resources like a company server, would the DAW also be unlimited in terms of its channels in the mixer, that is, we could have 2000,000 channels or 2000,000,000? My question is because it starts to make sense to me that maybe a DAW does indeed have certain limitations in a code that also has its limitations, maybe it has so many mixer channels that it is impossible to reach them, it could be 5000 (maybe more) that are sold as “unlimited”, but this question is what I would like to know, although thinking about it, I doubt that someone from Steinberg can clarify this, because surely it is a secret that they want to keep.
I fail to see how 20000000 channels are relevant in reality? (Apart from that there are no “infinite resources”…)
But you can try it yourself. Create an empty project and start adding audio or midi tracks. On my computer 4000 audio tracks resulted in ~7GB of memory usage for Cubase, with 16GB in my system I probably could at least double that, but I got bored…
I fail to follow your logic. This is not how modern computing works. Yes, there will be limitations, but those would be hardware imposed and since the OS is responsible for distributing resources, I can see it imposing certain limitations on applications that runs under it in order to prevent these resources from running out.
What for? What is the practical application if such information existed?
How about this, I challenge you to find the upper limit of number of audio tracks in Cubase.
Now you just sound like a conspiracy theorist.
They are not, I’m just curious to understand the limitations or not of a DAW…
What nonsense, did you even take the time to read the title of my post, or did you just come to respond in a “challenging” way to call me a “conspiracy theorist” as you feel attacked by my opinion?, are you serious?
I simply shared my opinion, just as you share yours without having the certainty, since I doubt you know how Cubase code or any DAW code products are built, and for your information who said that there is no such thing as infinite channels in the mixer of a DAW, has been a developer of another well-known DAW… so probably your arguments and ideas are totally errant.
however such statement from a developer of another well-known DAW, made me ask about it here! not that it’s so relevant…
Do you understand the ** C U R I O S I T Y** word in my title?
There are two questions here. Does the code impose any constaints on the number of channels? Do resource limitations impose any constraints on the number of channels?
I expect the answer to the first question is no, at least explicitly. There might be limitations due to the size constraints of variables, but they are going to be enormous unless there are design flaws.
I don’t know what the answer to the second question is, but it could be yes.
Try creating a million channels and see what happens.
That was quite the emotional response and I apologize if I offended you in any way.
The “conspiracy theory” part was directed to your comment that you believe Steinberg has secret limitations in their product that they’re lying about.
And no, I don’t feel attacked by your opinion (or hypothesis), I feel you are misinformed.
Can’t you tell us a bit more about this person you refer to and what exactly made them say what you claim? Is there an article you can share?
Click on the image and see the PS statement;
Unfortunately I do not have the privileges to read that forum so I’m constricted to the one post in the screenshot.
If I were you, I would ask in that thread what those imposed OS limits would be and why they are in place.
I haven’t seen any information yet that says limitations on track count in Cubase is based on something other than available hardware resources. Have you?
That’s the only thing you would find relevant about this topic in that thread if you could read it… everything else is focused on the user opinions about the expected update
Well, topic is closed, so no way to do more questions… and I doubt very much that I would have received an answer.
Neither… I was just a bit curious about the screenshot thing… and I am still curious.
FL studio seems to have a very different architecture than Cubase. There are no “mixer tracks” in Cubase. There are just tracks - audio, midi, instruments, group and so on. And they are not pre allocated as in FL, easy to verify, as I already did: add more tracks and the memory usage of Cubase increases.
And, as I already wrote, there is of course no “unlimited” in a system with limited resources, so yes, it might be seen as a bit of a marketing speak, but in the end it simply means that there is no artificial (like e.g. with Cubase Elements) or technical limit (like the FL with its statically allocated mixer tracks) on the number of tracks you can have. Which other DAWs like Studio One or Reaper also don’t have. And which is entirely possible, as there are data structures in computing where the only hard limit is the virtual address space, which in a 64bit system is 2 to the power of 64 bytes, but of course you run into the limits of physical memory first.
So the statement in your screenshot is absolutely correct, there are no unlimited tracks in reality, but the limits aren’t necessarily imposed by the DAW.