What is so difficult about cubase?

Cubase
21

OK Name me one.

And, as Audiocave mentions, more users of certain styles are using other DAWs. That’s the way to get the job done other than adopting an “I want one program to do at all for me.” approach.
An artist doesn’t let the brush stand in his way.

Anyone who doesn’t take me seriously is not ignorant. :mrgreen:
I didn’t say anyone is ignorant.
And if you’re really formula one then you’ll know how to get the job done despite Cubase because every tool (and car) in the world has it’s shortcomings.
Actually I wasn’t thinking formula one as normal drivers are much better as they don’t all drive the same way around one track and rather a lot of top class formula one drivers manage to kill themselves.
Most cars will do 120mph but the tyres don’t last very long.
Same with DAWs. Most users with myriad problems are just trying to use too much of everything.

22
  • the mixer
  • grouping functions
  • window management/docking
    …
23

These discussions almost always go a little bit towards the road to Disneyland. :nerd:

Let’s all agree on one thing. You can get the job done in any professionl DAW, that’s pretty much universally true. If you only had Garageband or Sequel, you could still make a good album. When people ask for enhancements they aren’t suggesting that they actually can’t use the product, they’re only kinda saying…

“If I can think more abut the music, and less about the software used to make the music, that will be (99% of the time) good for the music and good for me.”

Every tiny “usability” enhancement does that, lets you focus more on the music, keeps the software more out of your way, let’s the creative side of the brain work more and the technical side less. After a few years of tiny and seemingly insignificant usability updates, suddenly the software is much easier to use. But those things require thought and discussion to identify them and improve them.

If I was a major software developer I’d ask users the same question every year or so… “Name the top 5 things that annoy you about this software.” … and I’d put the collective top 2 or 3 things up near the top of the list for change. Most annoyances are things that take your attention away from the creative process aren’t they?

I think Steiny lost the plot on that a little somewhere in the big feature rush, but are looking to get back on it. Sometimes if you’re too close to a thing it’s hard to really see it, forest for the trees and all that.

24

Check post above. :laughing: And the one above that one. :laughing: And my previous topic. And while you’re at it, feel free to do a search for “feature request” on the entire forum.
That enough for you? :wink:

And, as Audiocave mentions, more users of certain styles are using other DAWs. That’s the way to get the job done other than adopting an “I want one program to do at all for me.” approach.
An artist doesn’t let the brush stand in his way.

Again, you’re assuming that anyone who requests a change/update does so because of his lack of understanding of the program, or the inability to use it to it’s full potential, which is just plain wrong. I know exactly what I’m doing, as do many other users here, and I do it well. But I also know how it could be done better/faster. Hence why I ask for updates.
What exactly is unclear here?

Anyone who doesn’t take me seriously is not ignorant. > :mrgreen: >
I didn’t say anyone is ignorant.

See above.

And if you’re really formula one then you’ll know how to get the job done despite Cubase because every tool (and car) in the world has it’s shortcomings.
Actually I wasn’t thinking formula one as normal drivers are much better as they don’t all drive the same way around one track and rather a lot of top class formula one drivers manage to kill themselves.
Most cars will do 120mph but the tyres don’t last very long.
Same with DAWs. Most users with myriad problems are just trying to use too much of everything.

I’m sorry but this analogy has become just embarrassingly bad and I want no more part in it :laughing:

25
  • Flexible routing (like in Pro Tools and Nuendo).
  • VCA Groups (Like in Pro Tools).
  • Drag and Drop ANYTHING back and forth from Media Bay (like in SONAR).
  • Nuendo’s Automation Features.
  • ARA Integration (like in Studio One 2).
  • Enable listening to Overlaps as an Option (like in SONAR).
  • More Export Options, such as Include/exclude Sends, Audio FX, Instrument Tracks, MIDI Tracks, Soloed Tracks, Muted Tracks, etc (like in SONAR).
  • Per Track Ripple Editing (like in Reaper).
  • Parameter Modulation (like in Reaper).
  • In-Place Bouncing (like in SONAR).
  • Multiple Freezing and Bouncing of Tracks.
  • Import Session Data (like in Pro Tools). “But Cubase can do this” …NO, check out how Pro Tools does this if you need to see how it’s done the right way.
  • Clip Package (like in Nuendo).
  • Improvements to the Logical Editor, the Step Sequencer, built-in EQ and other Cubase components/plugins.

And the list goes on. As you can see, Conman, there’s a LOT to be done in Cubase. Unfortunately, you wouldn’t know this if all you’ve ever used is Cubase. That’s the problem with people like you. You don’t understand topics like this one (or ones about feature requests) because you lack understanding of other software’s features and/or your own software’s advanced features. There’s always at least one like you in every forum I’ve been in, without exception. Always on defense, yet not realizing that asking for new/improved features is actually a good thing. It will only make Cubase better. You CAN choose to use or not use any feature set included in Cubase, you know that right? And if it’s something that you don’t need, then STHU and let others that will use such feature discuss it. After all, it doesn’t affect you!

26

A couple of the people behind Studio1 came from Steinberg so obviously they already understood the importance of it. Excellent perception. Brilliant, keep at it, PreSonus!

I have to say for so many b****ing people in this thread, or actually rather so many hooraying other hosts and vendors, why not switch? I mean, really, if they are so much better at it or providing better/more frequent updates, why stick it out with a lame old Steinberg product like Cubase from the 80’s that never get or is always late with the updates, and always have bugs. Holy balls, you can easily switch to another application like Reaper, Studio1, etc., you name it. All it takes is immediate action. Why remain bitter, disappointed and frustrated? Why spend time in this forum, when you could be mowing that green grass on the other side…

Oh that’s right, this was always the difference between Steinberg and most vendors. The fact that Steinberg has the balls to go against half of the development community with a good invention (VST3), says it all. Many don’t even support VST3. Why? Well, some argue that it could have been added to VST2.4 (but it wasn’t). Some that it could have been an community open source standard (but it wasn’t). I say, it could have been YOUR MAMA! :wink: Some of them have openly said that they are not going to implement VST3. There you have your responsive updates, your world class hosts.

Surely there must be a good reasons for not switching?

There, something to make the good times roll. :laughing:

27

Hmmm… We are all talking about Steiny and Cubase, aren’t we ?

So, to get an idea, I think it’s worth taking a little time to look at the ‘About Cubase’ window in it. There are no less than 65 names listed for the 6.5.1 version. Seeing this, the first question that comes to mind is : even if we see here and there the same names in different departments, how to they manage the coordination of the work of all these ? I guess that the direction is a collegial one, but I’m not sure. And who makes the final decision about what to implement or prioritize ? Product marketing or product planning ?

These questions quickly arise as the development crew gets more members. I’ve been in 3 different software companies (at a low level, I admit, it was just database applications and this, more than 20 years ago) : even with a 6-7 developers crew, the coordination of the work for each of us was an unbelievable mess and this, in each of the companies I’ve been in.

This, with two other problems : first, the more the host gets features the more the code maintenance is difficult. I suspect that, talking about Reaper, it is one of the reasons why the updates are taking more and more time to be released, presently. And, beside this, developing new exclusive features such as variaudio or VST 3.5 and notes expression is much more complicated than developing basic hosts ones.

Another point, I think, is the list of Steiny products : year after year it is getting longer, probably for strategical reasons, mainly, to be able to offer products in every aspects of music production (hosts, VSTis, FX plug-ins, audio interfaces and so on…). Fine, but this takes a lot of resources. I would personaly prefer to see Steiny concentrate on their historical ones (Cubase, Nuendo and Halion, to name them), but I’m not in the Steiny direction crew…

Just my two cents.

28

You’re the kind of guy who says Cubase is perfect and needs no improvements, so I guess you don’t need Cubase 7 right ? And when SB releases Cubase 7 you will happily use the new features, some of them asked by other Cubase users.

So what are you saying ? we can’t ask any new features ?

As for switching DAWS, I already own and use Protools, and I also used in the past Ableton Live and Logic. These programs do have some flaws too, but they also have some great features/core functions.

I don’t see the problem in asking improvements, you’ll benefit from them too. And if you’re happy with Cubase 6, please don’t upgrade to Cubase 7.

29

Other programs suffer from other leaks.
Cubase has a lot to offer. The question is if
you’re able to work with it or if you stop
yourself with complaining about that this and that
isn’t possible like in this and that piece of other software.
Plus a lot of those features are possible, some users just don’t ever
rtfm and claim that something isn’t possible that already is. Which
shall not mean that Cubase has 'em all. We all know it’s an arms race.
Sooner or later every DAW will get all the innovative features that came up
with others.

But can you finish your work with Cubase and get the result that you wanted
to achieve? Yes, you can.

Those DAW-jumpers are people who steady complain about missing features in any DAW
and then switch it. This is not an option for me. Yeah, I used Cubase most of the time in
my life because I get my results as I want them. I do not give a damn if some other software
gives me one or two freaking options more to get my stuff done as it’s already done with the
possibilities I have. So screw that awful topic here.

30

I don’t see the relevance of my character in this? (As for what I said, you could’ve read in my post.)

Of course I will buy Cubase 7. I’ve used Cubase since it was Pro 12 on the Atari ST in the mid-80’s, and I will likely continue with Steinberg. As for perfection, nothing ever is, and improvements are always possible (check out that thing called evolution). I love new features and improvements.

My commenting was rather on the critic regarding Steinberg development characteristics.

31

So very true cubic13.

It is an inevitable consequence for pretty much all companies as they and their product line grow.

This is why project discipline is so important for these companies in order to survive. I would guess that many companies developing software eventually anticipates or even plan for a sale (of the company) because trying to compete with established/larger companies is very hard.

I’ve been a software systems engineer for a while (some 25 years) and I think that just the change in development tools alone have influenced the software market a lot. It’s much easier to develop a system nowadays, than it was when I first began. Back then it was assembler and straight compilers, from raw source. There are so many awesome tools now, that basically keep the teams on track (automatically, I mean) with syntax, naming conventions, optimized and clearer source code, runtime logic checks, library organization, componentization, parallel processing, etc. These things help to keep the projects cleaner and more organized than in the past. Ironically, it also makes it easier for inexperienced groups to develop systems, that so often do not survive the winds of change or simply cannot scale.

32

About the tools used, I remember Turbo Pascal and a book that I bought to make indexed files with it for database usage : good ol’times… :wink: .

At the same level, I would really like to know how many thousands lines of code a project such as Cubase takes. As it is written in C++, I guess that they have developed their own libraries to quicken the development pace, but still… Strangely, C++ seems to still be the choice for developing hosts, no matter what new tools are appearing. Is it because it offers the best compromise between low level hardware control and high level GUI and features implementation ? Don’t know, and I am wondering if there could be a project such as Cubase written under Delphi or Lazarus… Think I’m going clearly OT, here… :slight_smile:

So, let’s stay on topic. If Cubase updates release pace seems slow, I think that the main reason for this is the sophisticated level that Cubase has reached since all these years, with the consequences regarding maintenance and coordination to keep the whole project under control. I don’t blame Steiny for the slow releases pace (I’m curious about what C7 will bring, but not more than that, as, at least for me, C6 more or less allows me to do what I want) but rather for some of the choices already made (yes, these are my obsessions : windows and VST2 presets managements, questionable UI changes since 5.1…).

33

Keep it real! I spent yesterday working productively in Cubase, despite the lack of all these “essential” features.

34

:unamused:



35

We all have our feature requests…
This is making a problem out of other problems.
This thread makes absolutely no sense.
It’s just for people who want to argue.
Not a bit constructive.

36

Absolutely (on topic) and agreed on the pace.

They’ll get there, with some extra features, I have no doubt. :slight_smile: