I would love to see some Wavelab/Dorico integration. My workflow involves the two of them frequently. Case in point:
I’d love to be able to do this without having to leave Dorico, or however you’d do it within an integrated Qt Wavelab/Dorico environment. It’d speed things up, I assume.
I do a bit of video stuff with Adobe products, and I do like the integration they built between their apps, I think they call it “dynamic linking.” Basically if you’re in Adobe Premiere, you can select-lasso multiple clips and then right-click to send over to After Effects. It then treats it like a new asset (like a nested clip if you will), where any changes you make on the other side will reflect within the other software. I haven’t had any use-case to sync them for real-time playback, but the updates between software will refresh when you switch between apps nearly instanenously.
Obviously these are different types of software, but I think a methodology like that could be cool: where perhaps Dorico flows and Cubase sequences could somehow dynamically connect. I’m not quite sure how this would work, though, since you can have multiple flows in a Dorico project, and only one sequence in a Cubase project.
Maybe when you’re in Cubase and you select a few midi regions, you could have the option to right-click “send to Dorico” where it would automatically create a new flow based on this selection. There would need to be some level of synchronicity for tempo/timecode which I’m sure is a tall order. But this would be cool to be able to do more finessed notation work, and then when you return to Cubase, that notation is automatically reflected on the timeline. And then if you make changes to the piano roll inside Cubase, when you return to Dorico, those changes reflect too.
To me this kind of dynamic connection between programs would make more sense than trying to make each app out-perform the other so to speak. Leave them in their current lanes to continue to do what they do best.
All that said, could Cubase’s native score editor be much better and behave more like Dorico? Yes, absolutely. Score editing inside Cubase is pretty clunky.
Could Dorico’s DAW/Play tab be much better and perform more like Cubase? Yeah, totally. A few things drive me nuts such as drawing automation and not being able to operate the transport while opening plugin windows.
Just my two cents. I’m sure any such things would be a giant undertaking for developers.
Following this line of thinking, why does Dorico have to integrate with Cubase specifically and not ProTools? Just because they’re from the same company?
I have no desire to work in Cubase at all, and ProTools is hands down the best DAW for music and music film production, you can’t escape it.
I have difficulty in understanding why some folks refuse to acknowledge Dorico is a notation software, focused on notation primarily despite having DAW-like capabilities. Vice-versa regarding Cubase and ProTools. There are far more important features to add and bugs to fix than this idea of integration long term, even if the team already acknowledged it. It doesn’t matter if it’s possible or not, but rather if it makes sense, is worth the effort, has a plan for the future. That is up to them.
The majority of the Dorico development team previously worked on Sibelius, and were fired en masse by Avid. The chances of a Dorico<>ProTools collaboration are pretty slim, I’d think.
That seems quite a solid reason, from a business standpoint.
I have no special interest in using Cubase, either. I’m pretty comfortable with Reaper, and it’s a DAW quasi-mandatory in some environments and workflows (game development, in my case), but I’d purchase Cubase right away if I could edit MIDI (I mean, notes) in Dorico or in a Dorico plugin, because I understand notation, not piano rolls.
I still would like to have a Dorico - Reaper integration, or the integration be DAW agnostic, but I cannot blame Steinberg for not going that route, if that’s in their best interest.
Don’t forget, I think there are a lot of Dorico users, like myself, that never use Cubase or any DAW. So if the big thing with D6 is Cubase integration, I couldn’t care less and there is no reason to update.
Cubase is a hugely popular DAW with a massively larger number of users than Dorico, many of them who would love to work in notation rather than piano rolls ( Cubase Score Editor is old and decrepit). And Steinberg found itself in the enviable position of owning both Dorico and Cubase, and yet Dorico has gone 7 years now without any progress towards integration. It’s a mind boggling waste of market/competitive advantage by Steinberg. And here we are, 5 versions into Dorico, wow.
In the meantime, development continues… there could be enhancements from
the team being worked on now, added inside Dorico itself, which might offset some of the time needed/spent composing in the DAW first…
For example, improved raw MIDI editing/handling, or bringing the concept of Track Versions in somehow, proper audio track support (maybe two minimum.!) with looping capability; more that others (and the team.!) will think of no doubt…
But I’m not naive - we all know its about priorities and opportunity. There’s a lot of other high demands/requests to consider; despite the survey results that Daniel mentioned elsewhere.!
Well, Dorico exists at all because Steinberg employed the team. This was very well publicized at the time and to my knowledge Steinberg never indicated that Dorico as a program would be so completely incompatible with the rest of Steinberg portfolio that everything DAW related would have to be manually stitched together to some basic level - forever.
Second, it might not be unreasonable to believe that Cubase users have been financing Dorico’s development for several years - well before version 1 came out, and likely to version 3, when more engravers appear to have switched over - simply by virtue of being the biggest product in Steinberg’s portfolio. I have no clue which is the larger segment of Dorico’s user base now but considering the recent survey it is reasonable to think that a significant number of Cubase users bought into Dorico (and diligently upgraded for several years) because of the implied interoperability.
And finally - if there is indeed a WaveLab/SpectraLayers level of interoperability provided via a Dorico plugin, doesn’t this benefit the engraving community as well? I don’t know if Steinberg is tracking the cross-grading for revenue attribution purposes internally, but I would think an influx of users (from Logic, Reaper, ProTools, Studio One and their notation companions) could have direct impact on the amount of engraving functionality the team can tackle in a single cycle.
I think you have it exactly backwards: the request is to stop wasting time on recreating the bare minimum of countless DAW-like features, over and over! Instead, build full interoperability so that the DAW tasks can be handled by the DAW and you can focus on engraving. And everyone can stop this endless fighting and live happily ever after.
So you made unwarranted assumptions about Dorico’s Development goals or pace, and now you’re miffed? We all have features we’d like to see, but most prefer patience rather than trying to lay a guilt trip on Steinberg or the Dorico Development team. By all means ask for a feature you want, but don’t blame Steinberg if your request doesn’t immediately go to the front of the queue.
If this is meant for me - then no, I was responding to the person who said he wouldn’t upgrade if the interoperability was the “big thing” in D6 (and the people who liked that post), and not laying any guilt trip on the team. Please do not talk to me about patience - it’s been 7 years now and I’ve been with Dorico since 3.5 and upgrading every single time without ever threating to skip an upgrade. I have said earlier upthread that I will continue to do so even if interoperability doesn’t come soon. Finally, I didn’t make unwarranted assumptions about goals or its timing - interoperability has been repeatedly promised, including in this very thread.
I think there is a pretty compelling business case for interoperability and, in particular, its depth that might have positive impact on almost every user segment. If you do not agree, make your own case.
But do not shut me up.
Not being rude.
But why can every other DAW company with the same 24hours, arguably smaller dev teams & a 10 year late start still innovate at light speed in comparison.
That being said. If the company’s goal is to keep the old guard happy and stay light on the innovation then your nailing it.
But if there is any desire to tap into a younger market that day by day is further away from even knowing what the word cubase means…let alone nuendo or dorico then the game needs to step up majorly.
That being said I’m not going anywhere anytime soon. I really want to see Steiberg be what it has the potential to be.
But it seems like yall just can’t stop getting in your own way.
I hope I eat these words soon…
It’'s not an apples vs apples comparison. You’re comparing companies that have a much newer codebase to companies with a much older one. To my understanding, a lot of the code in Cubase is quite old and is more difficult to work with as a result.
StudioOne and Notion are both written with a much more modern framework and codebase.
Dorico on the other hand has a very modern codebase and created using a modern framework.
You can see the impact of having an old framework and codebase in the case of the development of Finale, which seems to move at a snail’s pace.
Modernization of an old codebase is not always an easy task, and risks creating new major instabilities and bugs that take a while to sort out.
Precisely. Work with your newer codebase ie nuendo and turn that into cubase pro. Drop the old code as the transition takes place as has. been suggested multiple times on the forum. It’s not lost on me the limitations, but seeing the knowledge they have they could have started with a new build the same time S1 did and be much further ahead than S1 could even dream.
To be fair @Ontrei I do believe the Dorico team are giving more than 100% based just on the integrity of the software. And think they ARE doing more than any software I’ve come across or might for that matter. I think the small issue lies with Cubase being an old software model (or whatever the term is) and they really are doing the best they can in that matter. And being reassured that this feature is still in progress, gives the users that are calling for this integration, reassurance that it’s still possible.
And Bush said they’d never invade Iraq lol. Words are nothing until action is seen. But I think the devs do a great job. I just think at a pivotal time in the growth of DAW’s they took the wrong fork in the rd and now it’s biting them. It could have gone either way. But it went the other way. So now S1 and Bitwig and primed for a takeover. It’ll be interesting to watch
Sadly yes and with Cubase now changing the entire visual design that gave it it’s edge over other DAWs and the huge amount of bugs, it seems that we might be seeing that sooner than we think… I honestly think Dorico is what’s holding Steinberg together now…
@Ontrei @NicolasJC Have you guys pursued any DAW market share analysis, or have you seen one? Or are your statements based on sentiments from your personal network bubbles?
Cubase and Nuendo are released from a common codebase since version 10.
I mean we are all limited by our networks but the circles I know are studio 301 (oldest in the southern hemisphere , largest), universal and Sony aus. As well as 50 other less major ones. I also know some of abbey rd in the uk. And the people they train they teach. 1. Pro tools, 2 ableton, 3 logic. But for most producers under 30 cubase would rarely get a mention. Ableton is what’s pushed. But those are the networks I know. Possibly an anomaly. But personally I’d put money on it.
Just look at the content on YouTube. I generally surmise how market shares are based of the amount of creators and ableton and fl are destroying it. Although fl is like a ps5 to me…I love it. But just when I need a cubreak lol