Why are the docs so sparse? (how to midi regions editing)

Why are the docs so sparse? It isn’t really useful and I find myself more and more relying on this forum to get basic information such as:

  • how do I drag a midi clip over another so it deletes that midi clip? i.e. I do NOT want them to combine, that is ass backwards

  • how to shorten or lengthen midi regions

Delete Overlaps :

Resizing Events :

Hey Louis thanks for that, terrible spot for that in the docs for both of those imo… should be in the MIDI section or a reference to it from that section. Would never have found that even with a million googles. They should also use standard language, this is a REGION not an “event” whatever tf that is…

Also it doesn’t do that for me, stock install has the reverse functionality for overlaps i.e. it does not delete overlaps. Where is the permanent setting for this? Is there one?

The name of functions isn’t really arguable, it’s like going from Windows to Mac, you have the same features but they are all named differently and are located in different places.

The permanent setting for Delete Overlap is the one that I shared in my post above. Indeed it is disabled by default.

1 Like

Look how well that turned out, a great example of how not following standards or conventions ruins everyones day.

Ah ok I can see that now, it should be enabled by default. I don’t know why DAW manufacturers think their shiny feature should override basic usage conventions, it does nothing for usability and it isn’t so cool that is sets them apart. It just creates a barrier and dumb posts like this one.

Anyway thanks again!

These are general editing actions. There’s no need to list them twice for both audio and MIDI, because it’s the same for both.

Logic is the only major DAW that refers to MIDI parts/clips as “MIDI regions”.

Cubase offers multiple ways to handle overlapping MIDI parts. There are many situations where automatically deleting overlaps is counterproductive and unnecessary. You can delete them manually by clicking the down arrow that appears in the middle when highlighting a MIDI Part with overlaps. This offers a lot more control over what gets deleted.

The way your previous DAW worked isn’t necessarily the only right way to do things. Still, if that’s how you want to work, the preference is there.

Yes I didn’t say list them twice, I said referencing them would be helpful when digging through the manual. It would make it feel much less disjointed. All that is needed is "for editing Midi see “editing” → “Midi” etc… plenty of manuals do this and the world doesn’t explode.

Naahhhhh… all major DAWs call their audio or midi clips “regions” including Ableton and Pro Tools…

The way all DAWs handle this action is just a convention and they all do the exact same thing. Literally every DAW except Cubase. My point is that from a UX pov whether one way or another is correct is irrelevant… a convention is useful for a reason and there is no reason why this couldn’t be on by default and expand on a convention to set Cubase apart from other DAWs in terms of feature sets. It’s just bad UX design plain and simple.

For such a large company that has been doing this for so many years, I am beyond disappointed. This is not the only issue I’ve had and before you ask the only reason I’m using Cubase is for the drum editor, hopefully Avid builds one similar in the future.

Anyway thanks again man really appreciate your help!

You could also argue that since Cubase in its various iterations is older than most other DAWs, maybe it is them that don’t adhere to the conventions? :wink:
Cubase’s terminology has been like that for many years, and you just don’t change that because some DAW that came after it uses other words, because you would alienate all long-term users. That is actually good UX behaviour and nothing to be disappointed about imho.

“some DAW” haha that’s incredible…

Alienating users is a good point tbh, but cost-benefit would determine that adjusting to conventions is a long-term net gain. Alienating new users is not a sound strategy. Also, who is Steingerb alienating with an update of such innocuous language that could have a huge positive impact with very little negative downside?

It’s like the Imperial system vs metric… Imperial was around for a lot longer, the U.S. still use Imperial and the confusion between the systems caused NASA to lose a space probe. Now, we could blame JPL for not calculating in the old system (they did the calculations so technically yes it’s their fault), or we could blame Lockheed Martin for not updating their technology to be in step with the times. NASA also use metric so I think it’s clear where the fault lies.

Reminds of a small conversation I had with a music journalist. He criticised Cubase not following Windows’ standard scheme for modifier keys, ie. Cubase uses Alt to copy, Windows uses Ctrl. (The talk was in a time when Cubase did not have custom key commands.) I mentioned to him that Cubase existed before Windows so it was actually Microsoft not following Steinberg’s scheme.

This having said: It would drive me bonkers if Steinberg started to call parts regions. I’d rather see @creativenorthmedia leave the Cubase space, if I had to decide between those two options. No offence.

strictly speaking not true :slight_smile:

HAHA straight to out-grouping, nice work… ultimately those are the only two options right? It must never change and if you don’t like it then leave. Classic.

I’m only here until Avid develop a drum editor which, since the time I bought Cubase a month ago Avid have already accepted and are accelerating a feature request. Won’t get that with Steingerb clearly… can’t even get their support line to internally escalate a late delivery on usb elicenser, just a rebuff to the checks notes external vendor that takes care of online sales?

If it drives you bonkers to adopt easier language, that is very telling of the typical Cubase user tbh, what a wild thing to think is immutable.

Let me put it this way, I’ve used every DAW available and in most cases (apart from Ardour which is equally as terrible) I have approached usage much the same way and find that they all behave in a similar fashion when it comes to editing and (I cannot stress this enough) GOOGLING the answers to my questions. In all cases I find the info and I’m directed to the correct version of the docs. Steenjeep don’t even have markings for doc versioning and the first google hit is version 9, I even raised this with someone and had to point out the solution. Great work!

All this to say its extremely obvious that these problems and more are systemic to Cubase and the product development of Steinjerp as a whole. Stuck in the 90s.

but no-one wants to hear that… or improve…

Ironic you say that about Microsoft because I would say that Steinberg are the Microsoft of the audio industry: clunky, out of touch, and hard to get support. Oh and a really dumb usb dongle that literally no-one else adopted ever and they still haven’t made the change to iLok in step with literally everyone else. Is e-licenser better? Nope. Can I use it with other vendors like for plugins? Nope. Is it flimsy and plastic? Yep.

It’s just typical German institutional and bureaucratic thinking all the way down.

You joined the forum 6 days ago and you’ve obviously become very expert in Steinberg, Cubase and it’s users in that time :slight_smile:

It doesn’t take that long to identify issues and raise them but I love how you think it does… some of us are just a little more involved…

This just keeps getting better who else wants a turn?

I love how I’ve complained about some very minor and sane issues that I’ve heard many people raise when talking about using Cubase, and made some salient points, but the users must protec

1 Like

yes, your posts in this thread shows that.

sorry - I didn’t realise that this was YOUR forum - and that when you post silly nonsense then no one is allowed to reply.

1 Like

Correct, but the “modifier+mouse copy” existed in Cubase before it existed in Windows. I shall use my wording more carefully in the future.

1 Like

.Imagine someone registered new to say the Protools forum and kept on ranting about how stupid Protools was because of some minor issues, I guess many of the long term forum users won’t be happy either…
Same as no one will like that new employee in the company who immediately keeps telling everyone that they’ve doing it all wrong… it’s a matter of style and basic human decency.
With that, I’m out…

“silly nonsense” - any critique or comment is silly unless Dr. Strangelove (clearly a boomer) approves… gee I really like this forum so far… some great contributors

sorry :slight_smile: - was being pedantic - and I actually had to double check

lol people do and we discuss the problem and find a solution, then its implemented… I can also raise a support ticket with Avid directly…

Why are you all so precious about this? Surely you know these problems exist right? I can’t be the only person to have gotten on here in the 30 something years of Steamjeep and made these comments.