REQUEST - Remove 300bpm limit

Why is Cubase limited to 300bpm ??? Seems other DAW’s have no issues going beyond this point, and I cannot stand working in double time, so why does Cubase deem 300bpm to be enough ???

I want my DAW to work in the speed I want it to, not what speed it allows me to. Surely it cannot be hard to unlock upto 1000bpm like Logic and FL and Ableton.

So this could be a feature request as well.

Just outta interest, why does support take a week to answer each time ?

Place your bets that the person dealing with this support request tells me if I want to write at 340bpm, drop to 170bpm and write in double time :laughing:

Funny why Logic, Ableton, FL Studio have no 300bpm limit, they go up to 999. And yet Cubase limits at 300… I cannot understand that at all, it’s not hard to have a 999 limit surely.

Come on Steinberg, I want Cubase to do all that the others can do, not that you feel 300bpm is “enough” I don’t want to be forced over to something else now.

Because they are understaffed by design. It’s probably not cost effective to invest too many resources in support. Why do you think the forums are here??

I agree the tempo limit is a bit odd though.

Would 450BPM be enough?

Definitely no! For speedcore you need the range up to 1000 BPM. I agree with LeVzi, the 300 BPM limit is too low and I can’t see any justification for it.

Miloslav

But surely there’d not be a metronome in this case.

I’ve once heard a FruityLoops song which used 1000 bpm and the artist had to limit the song to something like 2 minutes because else there would be too many bars. That was FL3 though so it’s probably more now.
Was a good track as well, he used kickdrums on 16th notes to create a very raw synth-like sound. Not quite the usual way but I guess it’s fun to try at least.

What is the purpose of a metronome here?

None but I don’t think the OP needs one to write their music.

Right, so I don’t understand the purpose of this feature request- certainly the OP is not creating sheet music. What difference does it make to you (the OP) whether you write in 16th notes, 64th notes or 1024th notes?

All the OP is asking for is increased tempo so when they dot in notes eg 16th’s they will play back extremely fast as if by oscillation.

It’s a fair request but my thought is that a new mechanism would need to be designed instead as tempo, and by extension a reliable metronome can only go so fast.

Why can’t the metronome go upto the tempo ? Just checked that in FL Studio and Ableton, and the metronome follows the bpm. ok there is no need for a metronome once you pass a certain threshold, but it would be nice if it followed up to that threshold.

450 is viable, would defiantely be a massive improvement. But maybe 600 is better, which is double the current limit. Maybe that would be easier to implement ?

I don’t see why I should be forced to write in 16th’s or even 32nd’s purely because Cubase has a 300bpm tempo limit. Writing at 400 or 500bpm with a 4/4 structure works a lot better than trying to write using 16ths and 32nds, i’m not talking extratone here, just slower splitter/speedcore. It’s a whole music area that cubase lacks support for, and maybe now, Steiny can unlock the tempo track properly, or at least double its limit.

Every single track I write now, is at 300bpm, why ? Because I am limited to that. Why don’t I switch to Ableton ? Because I prefer cubase and the layout and it’s mixer etc, I don’t want to change. So, unlock the tempo and cubase grows into a whole new zone one that the technoheads will adore. It will put a dent in the trackers appeal, thats for sure.

I contacted support, took 5 days for initial reply, which asked for an example of my problem, which I sent on receipt of the email. Another 5 days to be told it will be sent to the relavent department lolol I can’t make sense of that.

And I still think they’ll turn around and say “Write in 16ths” lol

The tempo is limited by design, but id suggest that Cubase can go beyond that, so basically changing the 300 to 600 wouldn’t alter that much internally.

You are best to simply write about your experiences here.

There have been many requests I have made that have not even needed their own thread, nor even an “official” answer, as the general discussion and discourse has prompted those with the power into action so therefore my recommendation would be to stay positive, help others and assist people with the requests they have, since quite often you can be surprised just at what these developers are capable of.

Its just frustrating when I know that I can do it in other sequencers yet I cannot in the one I actually want to use !

And it’s made worse by the fact there is no real reason for a 300bpm limit.

There are many things in cubase that the “other” sequencers do and there are good reasons otherwise we’d only have 1 program, and the standard would shrivel on the vine over time.

Also note, we are in the C5 forum, so maybe you could make a post in the C6 forum and when by stroke of magic it is moved to the lounge you will know it has been read.

LeVzi or Brains

This is really out of curiosity, won’t help the issue, but inquiring minds want to know…

Why is the difference for the music LeVzi makes, if you work in 16ths rather than eighths?

True.

I work in 4’s mostly and 8’s when necessary, but sometimes I go down to 32’s etc. Not often 16’s but always I end up back with 4’s and 8’s with the former being some variant of 2/4 or 3/4 with 8’s normally 3/8 or 2/8 respectively.

Although I don’t have a personal need for this kind of feature I understand the requirement. It is a similar situation to the Arranger Track, something I’d not likely ever use since I copy and re-write parts again when arranging but of course if that was improved (arranger) then I’d use it in addition to the linear nature of Cubase as some kind of “super marker track” with the ultimate in locator functions but that is likely a barrow that someone else can push :mrgreen:

What are you answering?

You