REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

I have started a thread in the C5 forum regarding this

But I am asking this here, as maybe it would get acknowledged in a future C6 update.

The tempo track is so far limited to 300bpm, where as most if not all of the other sequencers have a bpm limit of 999. I therefore request the bpm limit of 300 be removed and allow it to goto 999 to be inline with other sequencers.

Working in 16ths is not a viable option as having 8 beats to a bar or indeed 16 etc makes track creation extremely difficult.

Therefore could Steinberg please acknowledge this can be altered, and if so when, but if it can not be changed, id appreciate that reponse as well. (This has been brought up via support as well)


You do not have to have 4 quarter notes per measure. If you change the time signature to 4/8 you get 4 beats per measure @ 600bpm, and 4/16 gives you 4 beats per measure at 1200bpm.

My intention is not to disrespect your request, but if the issue is as you state, this is a solution.

Anyway, good luck.


It doesnt really make any difference tbh, You still are limited to 300bpm, and dropping to 200 to write in 4/8 to goto 400bpm still makes it in half times.

Steinberg just need to remove the 300bpm limit, people with less experience in time signatures won’t want to even think about this tbh. Even though I am experienced in that area, I still don’t want to entertain it for composing.

It is the solution to the midi yes, I grant you, and thank you for your help, but it doesnt solve this issue. 300bpm quite simply is not enough, and Cubase is the only DAW with a 300bpm limit. It’s time they removed the limit and allowed it to 999 like the others.

Makes sense.

I’m really curious as to what kind of music you want to be over 300 BPM that ISN’T half time???

It may be an artificial limit.

Brains, can you answer the questions asked, or are you specializing in non-sequiteurs these days?

I too would like to know what style of music this is about! :nerd:


Its hardcore techno or speedcore, terror, doom, it goes by all kinds of names, to me it’s just music.

It goes from anything from 200bpm all the way up to 600bpm + which is known as extratone. There is a huge fan base out there, and everyone seems to use FL or a tracker. I want to use Cubase, but I don’t want to be limited to 300bpm. I understand that writing in 1/8ths 1/16ths etc is viable, but not really.

Even at those speeds there is a 4/4 structure to it, and most people are experienced in writing in a 4/4 manner. In DAW’s such as FL or Ableton, you can write in the 4/4 way and have the tempo at whatever you want, I cannot for the life of me understand why Cubase limits this to 300bpm only.

To have the timeline suddenly mean 1 bar = 2 bars just makes for a strangled and messy and tbh pointless workflow when other options are availible ie Ableton. I am not trying to compare Ableton to Cubase, I know which one I prefer, but I think maybe the 300bpm limit should be removed, as it is 2011 and there are plenty of ppl wanting speeds of over 300bpm. Please cater to them Steinberg.

It is proving frustrating, as I opened a support ticket over this, spoke to someone twice, even sending in examples of what I mean, and then they tell me they’ll pass it to the right department… That was 3 weeks ago. If Cubase 6 had no 300bpm limit, id get on it in a flash. If C5 had the 300bpm limit removed in 5.5.3 then id stick with that unless 6 got the same thing. Either way, surely it’s not hard to implement this, just means telling Cbase its 999 not 300… It all still works the same.

Music just doesn’t go at 600bpm, that is why there are semiquavers (1/16), demi-semi qavers (1/32) and hemi-demi-semi quavers (1/64). To go faster you don’t just speed up the tempo, you use smaller note values. At say 240bpm (in 4/4) 1/64 notes will give you 64 notes in a bar that lasts 1 second , so that’s about 15mS duration per note - and that’'s not fast enough !?

Perhaps a quick read up on some musical theory on note values would help you to understand why asking for 600bpm is totally unnecessary.

But if you set the time signature to 1/4 and enter notes as 1/16 value, then it will look like what you had entering 1/4 notes at 4/4, except it will run four times faster, and you will still have 4 notes to a bar.

The only reason I could see this being annoying and wanting to go up past 300 bpm is if you use loops in Kontakt or another player and can’t tempo sync above 300. Is that the case?

perish the thought :laughing:

The problem could be the metronome, in that providing a reliable mechanism would be difficult.

Many times there are problems even making the metronome work at low tempos, as time signature changes can put it off and it becomes irregular.

What I think you are asking for is higher tempos without the metronome being available.

Basically for me I always need the metronome and write using multiple time signatures, but I fully understand why you want this so don’t be perturbed by musical purists.

Search ‘extracore’ on youtube, Don’t even listen, just read a bunch of the comments. Hysterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrical.

Why argue against a feature request?

Once upon a time there was not even an arranger page, so for all intents and purposes this is a valid request.

As is with most feature requests, which I will admit that I am guilty of doing in the past. Everyone wants to have the option for everything, so why not leave the option to go above 300bpm?

I think it’s the mentality that is at issue, that being if one thing is implemented a fear is other things may be missed out.

It’s ridiculous because cash cow Yami will always come to the table if it means more boxes can be sold and this feature arguably would, therefore more money in the kitty equates to further development not limited to the original scope or element.

Marketing 101


I did a bit of research in my memory and on youtube, and I concur with the OP, that we’re needing much higher BPMs than we did even only 20 years ago. I have heard, for example, speed metal which does contain a logical bar’sworth, though it may flash by like an express train with John Travolta and Nicholas Cage arguing about something.

HOWEVER, I judge my concurrence to be irrelevant. If an option can be added, and is wanted, let it be added. Because it wanted, and it is possible.

Also, let it be done in such a way that it does no limit or remove an existing choice.


[Mini rant … let’s call it a whinge]For example, I CAN work with xxx.cpr format, but I massively prefer the old xxx.all which could contain a number of yyy.arr files and windows. Content in arr files could be ‘grouped’. Groups could be arranged and organized on a separate group page. There could be many group pages. Very different ‘final’ visions of the same content could be flourishing within the same Project file. Alternatively, one song per arrange page/group select each song/ open a group page and paste each ‘song=group’. More choice. AS WELL AS what we’ve got now, which is to do one thing on the project window. [/Mini rant … let’s call it a whinge]

Hey aevans, I wanted a laugh so searched extracore on youtube, didn’t get much except this

Can you post a link to some extracore with comments? this one above is hilarious ad is a good argument to bring in the need to have a licence to operate sequencer software!

Are you attempting to rail against the OP?