Session View or Clip Launcher in Cubase like Bitwig/Ableton

Cubase
113

It’s definitely a feature I’d love to see.
I really loved the flow of inspiration when I was using Bitwig Studio to write some music. I used clips (session) view as my “sketchbook” - a place to improvise and freely create some ideas. Of course then I was moving good ideas to the arranger view.

That’s something I missing in Cubase and sometimes I’m thinking about a hybrid workflow of making a track skeleton in Bitwig Studio using its Clip launcher and super powerful LFO/modulation stuff and transferring stems to Cubase and use its advanced mixing capabilities and great MIDI and audio editing features to continue and finish the work.

But of course in our time where we get used to DaVinci Resolve’s workflow for video post production where we have most steps of the entire pipeline covered in one single application conveniently separated into steps as pages, integrating the pipeline is a good move forward.

Of course while keeping all the amazing stuff and workflow that we already have in Cubase.

P.S. I didn’t even mention that recording the initial arrangement out of live session performance from the start gives good feeling of entire track in time. You’re actually performing and at the same time listening to performance that is giving you a good feeling of vibe of an arrangement which is not always can be achieved by dragging and dropping type of workflow.

1 Like
114

Resolve is a bad example, as the performance of anything that isn’t the color page is throttled down by the an engine that is tuned for finishing.

Massive GPU Processing and VRAM Requirements, pathetic OpenFX performance unless the developer has meticulously designed the plug-in for Resolve, etc.

I would also mention that despite all the FUD about Premiere Pro’s stability issues, Resolve has consistently been one of the buggiest pieces of software in that market segment. v14 Fairlight was almost unusable while v15 still had lots of bugs, and the Fusion Page has only become nominally usable - though the performance is still terrible compared to Fusion stand-alone. Lots of people still use it only for Color, and the joke even on the Resolve forums was to “Never touch your audio in Resolve,” due to how buggy Fairlight-in-Resolve was.

I own/use Resolve Studio since v14.

If I were using Bitwig or Ableton for Production (or even something like Maschine 2 or an MPC), I would not buy Cubase for Audio Editing and Mixing. I would buy Pro Tools, as the standard SKU works fine for this at a comparable price to Cubase Pro. I think Ableton and Bitwig are good enough with MIDI from the perspective of producing modern genres of music. That is not a reason to go with Cubase over Pro Tools.

Pro Tools’ audio engine is as close to perfect as exists on the planet. There is no reason to pick Cubase over Pro Tools for Audio Editing and Mixing. Just putting a fade at the end of an Audio Clip will render perfectly in Pro Tools, while Cubase and Logic (for example) will have anomalies. Stuff like this matter, when you’re editing audio, crossfading clips, etc. Cubase and Logic [incorrectly] add tails to the audio that Pro Tools [correctly] does not.

There is a reason why Pro Tools still dominates the Audio and Post Production markets. Objectively, it’s a superior solution.

Cubase is a General Purpose DAW with a [fairly heavy] bias to composition. I’d pick Cubase if I wanted to do everything in one DAW. It’s comparable to something like Logic or Digital Performer, and this is why those DAWs have added Clip-based workflows - so that their users don’t have to consider juggling DAWs to produce one project (though I’d still Mix in Pro Tools if I were using Logic, for the reasons given above). Also, it’s a competitive advantage against DAWs like Cubase.

115

I gave Pro Tools a try but every time something went wrong. And every time I felt like I’m playing with something from early 80s. Especially under Windows OS.
When I first updated my old Cubase LE version that came with my old audio interface (or maybe with field recorder) it was like a portion of fresh air after that cumbersome applications. Just fell in love.

It’s totally subjective but right after reading your post I decided to look what’s new on Avid’s side of the field and even browsing their website resulted in mild headache.

I appreciate that huge attribution to the world of all kinds of digital production that Avid made. But perhaps it’s just not for me at least at this time. The one thing I sometimes use is Avid DNxHD codec for intermediate/proxy material (in fact I was using on Linux and Windows with Lightworks and DaVinci Resolve before switching to Mac).

I’m not a pro, I don’t even dream to be an audio professional or sound engineer - like the whole life it’s just my hobby. So I’m not really disappointed that Cubase fades out or in incorrectly something there. I never noticed that.

1 Like
116

what anomalies are you talking about when fading/crossfade ? ,in what way mixing in protools is better ,sound wise?
can you prove those statements somehow ?

3 Likes
117

Not sure why you are on a Cubase forum unless it’s just to troll. I totally disagree with your comments trashing everything but pro tools

1 Like
118

Yes, we need to see/hear some actual evidence to backup the claims from @Trensharo . Screengrabs, audio files before/after rendering from both Cubase and ProTools, machine specs, exact recipe to reproduce, etc, etc… (curious, since I don’t have access to PT myself).

Maybe its completely right and there is something to address/look into here…

Or maybe, its all just a load of fake news.

1 Like
119

Please ladies and gents, let’s not let this thread go off the rails again.

Some people prefer x daw over another but it all sounds the same to the end listener at the end of the day. I tried Pro Tools back in the mids 2000s and just didn’t get on with it, the midi was lacking back then but otherwise a great option for audio work. For every daw that someone say has glitches there’s someone making hits with that same daw, so lets just move on and focus on session view in cubase

@Trensharo does Pro Tools cut the audio when you add or move plugins around the mixer?
This is a real issue for a session view type workflow in Cubase :frowning_face:

Also has anyone on the planet actually found a way to sync Bitwig to Cubase?

120

Yeah this is how I use bitwig when on my laptop. Many a whole track has come out of two vertical strips of clips with minimal processing before fleshing an arrangement out in the linear mode or bouncing stems to cubase.
Exactly what I’d love to have in cubase.
No retrospective rec in bitwig, no arranger track and lots of other great features cubase has are missing. If cubase just had this one extra session view/clip launcher feature it would make a HUGE difference to overall creativity in the daw.

Do you mix in bitwig or bounce stems over to cubase too?
It’s at this point I get frustrated with bitwig, when it comes to editing audio and flying around the daw mixing. Cubase is the opposite at the creative stage where bitwig has the most advantages.

1 Like
121

I wouldn’t produce EDM in Pro Tools. I’d mix in Pro Tools. I’ve honestly never really tested that. It’s just not something I’m prone to doing when I’m using that DAW. Usually I’m bringing in Stems to mix.

Oh, Look. Another “Why are you here™” kiddie.

It’s pretty well-known that the audio engine in Pro Tools is Elite.

Lost of artists who use Cubase, DP, Logic, etc. for composition mix in Pro Tools. This includes some of the biggest names that Steinberg uses to market Cubase, in fact.

For Stereo work, you don’t need anything beyond the Standard Pro Tools SKU.

And you can test what I wrote up thread by simply rendering audio in Cubase and then checking it against audio out of Pro Tools, Logic, Studio One, Samplitude Pro X, or any other DAW. You will see which DAWs render what you expect to be rendered, and which do not.

It literally takes less time to check than waiting for me to respond, and is so easy that you really should just go and check it yourself. What you see is going to be a lot less up for debate than “what I show you” :wink:

You’re already convinced I paid almost $600 for a DAW and then several subsequent upgrades just to join the forums and “champion” Pro Tools. Nothing I say is bound to change your mind. You put that up on notice when you decided to straw man.

Again, this is a trivial thing to check. I expect people on a forum for a DAW would have just gone and checked it themselves. 75+% of us own more than one DAW, and probably half of us own a Pro Tools license.

If you don’t want to test yourself, a good start is Admiral Bumblebee’s DAW v. DAW series. He does touch up on some of this, if my memory is not failing me.

122

So all our mixes in Cubase are no good because of this problem? Or any other DAW except pro tools?

Did you read what this thread was about? It was a feature request in Cubase kiddie

123

@Trensharo
@mkok

Come on chaps, he prefers to mix in Pro Tools, you prefer to mix in cubase, please let’s just leave it there, to each their own :raised_hands:
The thread is about clip launching/session view feature being implemented into cubase.
Pro tools vs Cubase audio engine quality debates, please post on an appropriate thread.

Respectfully, we’ve already had this thread locked about 3 times already :dizzy_face:

1 Like
124

personally clip launcher style workflow is not something that i think im gonna use, but who knows, maybe its gonna open a door to inspiration and new “thinking” and genre and styles of music .or maybe even enhance workflow in some areas in my way of working.
maybe cubase also be used more for live situations, especially now with no dongle.
anyway if steinberg manage to make cubase “gapless” problem just because of this its already worth for me (but they need already make gapless audio anyway ! )

125

I think you need to read the comment I replied to, to infuse to context into your analysis…

And no, it’s not just Pro Tools. Digital Performer renders these things properly, as well, but DP is not an optimal solution for Windows users. It’s very glitchy, there. If you’re on Mac, then it’s a great option!

Lastly…

Citation Needed. X is Better than Y != Y is “No Good.”

More accuracy, less spin and projection. Please.

If it’s good enough for you, then it’s good enough for you. It’s certainly cheaper to just do it all in one program; and, one could argue a better workflow, as well!

But let’s take a sports analogy to get where I’m coming from… You might be a fast sprinter. You might run the 100m dash in 10sec flat. But the people who are winning the Olympics are those who reached for that extra 5%. Getting your output as good as possible means reaching for that extra 5%.

Sometimes, that involves dancing with the devil. This may mean mixing in Pro Tools despite preferring Cubase. Or grading in Resolve despite preferring Media Composer. Or doing graphics design in Photoshop despite preferring Affinity Photo. Or using Microsoft Excel despite preferring Quattro Pro.

It’s okay not to care about it, but not caring doesn’t whisk something out of existence.

Yes, it seems a lot more popular with electronic and experimental styles of music, where people like to try out different combinations of things when producing, etc. A lot of Cubase’s users are not that (a lot are, but the forum is dominated by those in more “traditional” genres - for lack of a better term).

Some of us would like it to appeal more to that crowd, because more customers means more revenue, which means more cash for R&D that will benefit everyone. Cubase is almost never recommended on forums catering to those music styles. It would be nice if that changed (or, at least, there was a shift in attitude towards it in those market segments).

126

i remember few years ago on steinbergs site ,a survey about new model of selling, the idea was to build elements, or part of programs for cubase that can be purchased separately and added to cubase, back then i voted “NO” to this option, but maybe its a good idea.
say if they come up with session view/clip launcher module that user can buy, install it and it integrates to cubase natively as part of the program, so other users that not need this big workflow addition wont have it

2 Likes
127

Yeah, that could work…

As long as its like any other VSTi purchase and not some tool that so deeply plumbs itself into the DAW’s functionality, its difficult (for the program) to live without… I’m sure they’ll want to avoid another kind of Nuendo/NEK and Cubase Music/Compostion Tools spin off scenario we had a few years back…

Having said that, I can still literally hear the internet, screaming and stamping its feet already:- “Look everyone.! Look what money-grabbing, evil Steinberg are doing now - making us pay for stuff in Cubase others include for free.!” and “That’s it; that’s the last straw,.! I’m out of here for good - I knew this company was bad, but I’m not getting treated like this for a penny longer…” etc, etc…

1 Like
128

Just no, that add on NEK and such was such a PITA .

1 Like
129

yeah i can understand that everyone wants the all package , and the nuendo NEK expansion was very odd, nuendo was priced lot more than cubase back then even without the NEK, which was “Basic” stuff for computer music production .
anyway, i see lots love and hate the idea off session view for cubase, so it could have been as an option. but i also see the issues mentioned here that will coming from this kind of move.
but see what comes with cubase 12. i dont think session view will be there, although in one of the older surreys they had that option ,or i read it somewhere ,it was mentioned in an interview of one of steinbergs headquarters if im not mistaking

130

Session View ist great but it also is not perfect. It would be ok if it comes to Cubase, because it could add some more creative playground and opens possiblities for live performances. It can be inspiring to play freely with combinations. This is even more fun with a dedicated hardware device like push that has been exactly developed for this purpose… also not just drag and drop but live recording your session in the arranger and then tweaking it can be very inspiring.

However, very often, even in Ableton, producers directly begin in the arrangement view. Unless you play live or you are Paul Kalkbrenner where many of his tracks are very loop based and made for live performance, you quickly add up a bunch of clips but then you need automation, modulation, transitions, overlapping vocals, variation, surprises, breaks,… Sure it can be done in session view. You can make more and more variation clips and add all kinds of automation.
But I experienced often that I need a timeline overview of all automation lanes, note information, variation in one overview. In session view you can only view one lane at once for instance. So you have to give your clips meaningfull names. Also vocals and other audio that spreads over clips are difficult. Maschine software here maybe has a better solution with their pattern and clip distinction.

131

Bitwig lets you edit audio and add automation on a clip by clip basis, you can also use the push 1 or 2 with it. Just a shame it can’t sync to another daw like cubase :frowning_face:

1 Like
132

Help me understand your point. Are you saying that the guy who DJ’d my sister’s wedding is most likely a “producer” and that’s who Steinberg should start catering to in its flagship compositional program?

Or are you talking about the select group of “star” DJ’s who typically employ ghost writers to compose their music (because they can’t do it themselves)? If so, shouldn’t Steinberg consult these trained musicians to determine what new features they would find beneficial in Cubase (and not the DJ’s who are just front men and women for the DJ touring business)?