Cubase used to be industry leading DAW in the days of cubase SX and prior.
But now other DAWs like studio one, logic, reaper etc have functions and stability that cubase lacks, and cost much less.
even thou cubase has some unique features, but it’s still behind others especially with no ARA2 support, not as intuitive as other DAWs, very laggy preset manager, etc.
Maybe because Steinberg think they’re still the leaders ? They’re not anymore , they contributed alot to the DAW industry with VST, VST3, ASIO etc. But after the part of the Steinberg team left Steinberg and went to AIR / Avid, Presonus etc, everyone left at steinberg don’t really know what they’re doing anymore
Disagree. Cubase still continues to win awards and gets great reviews.
I love using cubase and producers and composers who I work with love using cubase.
ARA2 is one feature you’re drawing a conclusion from.
I’m curious, do you buy your DAW because its “industry standard?” And who or what determines industry standard? PT is known for that, but do a quick search as to why it was/ is.
I drive a Porsche because it fits my needs and objectives and I’m comfortable with it.
Cubase has more features than PT, Logic, or Studio 1. Whether or not that’s important is another topic.
I don’t use ARA2. That’s not to say it’s not important for others, but for me, it’s not. I choose what fits for me, not a list of things I’ll probably never use.
I’ll agree it’s not as intuitive as it should and media bay presets is laggy for myself. IMO workflow issues are even more important than ARA2.
Bottom line just use what works best for you. DAW collectors belong in Gearslutz where you can proclaim each DAW sound different. Going on a Porsche users forum, and proclaiming that all the good guys left, and Porsche needs new features that Ford added last year, probably wont get you far.
Just use what works for you.
“part of the Steinberg team left Steinberg and went to AIR / Avid, Presonus etc”
Where can I read about such information? I’ve been using Cubase since the 90’s so I would be very interested in knowing more!
The cost… Well they all pretty much cost the same. All Daws are kind of in the same ball park and they all have tiers from home users up to professionals.
As far as features, they all pretty much do the same thing. It is about the workflow and what you prefer/ are used to. I have used cubase for a very long time. I also tried ableton, but I much prefer the workflow of cubase. I wish cubase would adopt some ideas from Ableton as I think it is a unique program. I also wish Cubase would fix minor issues. The only thing that bothers me about Steinberg is that they have not addressed the smaller issues that are annoying to most users. Such as that horrible to idead to add the loop function into the main page. I really wish Steinberg would allow us to turn more features on and off. I would eliminate the POS looper. I can think of about 10 things that would make Cubase better for me. And I am sure if I switched and went to other DAWS I would think of 10 things that bother me. Point is, all DAWS are essentially the same thing.
Pah, what a rediculous view upon this industry.
The matter is far more complex than single features.
What does the OP intend to achieve? Shouldn’t he focus on what he needs instead of uttering an unqualified general statement.
Or is he just a troll?
Just my 2 cents.
HTH, Ernst
I agree with that sentiment. In my view posts that are not factual, like the OP in this topic, are strictly trolling, as opposed to an actual complaint about something in specific.
not trolling. just alittle upset with cubase especially having invested lots of money into cubase.
and dont want to switch to another DAW like Reaper, Logic or StudioOne becuase of re-learning of workflow.
I don’t think Cubase lags behind as a broad statement – it’s still a leader in more than a few significant ways. Yes, it needs improvement like any DAW does, specifically in the area of workflow/less mousing and clicking about – in this way it indeed does need to catch up in certain ways. But I can’t get behind the generalized statement that it lags behind other DAWs.
I can relate to the frustration with certain aspects of Cubase. But I can’t applaud the way this was written and the assumptions it makes.
This is the very definition of trolling- making untrue statements and insulting actual human beings.
Look at the names in the About dialog of various versions of Cubase over the years, are the same names there, year after year? Yes.
And frankly speaking, if you don’t know the workflow of other DAWs how would you be able to estimate their utility?
Sorry for the harshness, but the Internet Negative Bias Distortion Factor means that complaints are more prevalent than positive comments throughout the Internet. This then feeds more complaints, which energizes the cycle producing more complaining, which in turn feeds more complaints etc., etc.,
Cubase still is the most advanced allround DAW I know, by far!
I have checked some of the alternatives casually, but for my purposes the result simply was, that as main tool I couldn’t care less about them.
This does of course not imply that Cubase doesn’t have issues, or shouldn’t be improved - it has issues and should be improved, just like each and evey of the alternatives mentioned. So yes, all in all the OP looks a bit like a load of halfbaked hearsay nonsense to me. I wouldn’t call it trolling, it just looks a bit clueless.
As an owner and user of Cubase, LogicProX, StudioOnePro and Reaper here, I think this claim is pretty baseless. I do agree on the intuitiveness part but check out Reaper if you want to do some diving. The clickfest in Cubase could be improved.
I like each one of these BTW for diff reasons and uses. Pick your tool and rock on
Recently I´ve studied a manual for Studio One 4 and watched a few vids and I must say that if I should choose a DAW to work on SO4 would be probably the choice. It looks really great, amazing GUI… But I also must admit that there seem to be a lot of things in SO which are almost identical to some features in Cubase, as if literally copied (no idea who from whom 
) However, there are still fantastic features very specific for Cubase (especially inspector-integrated EQ, Channel Setting window showing frequencies etc.) which will probably keep me using Cubase also in the future, though imho it is not best choice if you do mainly electronic music. I used to use ProTools (extremely HW demanding) in the past, Ableton a bit (not impressed), but Cubase came out as the most reasonable choice. I just hope that the guys fom Steinberg will fix the well-known and longterm bugs / add wish-list features so that we can keep appreciating it also in the future.
Cubase is the best of the best, It has some weak spots to be improved, but are you perfect?! )))
Can’t re-order VST racks
Don’t fix massive multi-channel VST instrument bugs
Instrument tracks don’t seem to compete (I’ve never a large DAW other than Cubase for a long time now)
I have only a few concerns with Cubase and for the large part am using it constantly (9.5). The amount of feature requests they have added in the last 4-5 years alone has been pretty insane…
Cubase is a mature DAW. It may not have a particular feature but it does have all the ones I am looking for in a DAW. There are many things to like in Cubase. There is also always room for improvement. Right now I am very happy with Cubase Pro 10. I have Studio One v4, Cakewalk, Samplitude Pro X4 and FL Studio 20. The two DAWs I use the most are Cubase and Cakewalk.
On rare occasions a feature in a DAW that is already well respected comes along and is reason to acquire it. That does not mean never using the one one is use to and has done well in fulfilling it’s purpose for so many years. The grass can often look greener when in fact its just that its spring.
Although there are a few essential features I would like to see from other DAWS in Cubase I wouldn’t agree Cubase is lagging behind. Cubase has great depth in certain features.
Hi All
I think the OP is being a banana. IMHO all the top DAW’s are pretty damn good (especially if you ever had to work with tape machines). I ended up on Cubase because Logic stopped Windows support when it was bought by Apple back in the day. Logic was great and I got VERY frustrated with Cubase at first, but once I got my head round the slightly different way of working, all was well. These day I find Cubase very solid and pro,and with waaaaay more features than I need or use, it has its faults, but I know if you go on the other Forums they’re moaning that their DAW doesn’t do a certain thing like Cubase does. Horses and courses. Rant over.
Best Regards, Dave
I would say the opposite is true: Many other DAW’s lag behind Cubase.
For instance Cubase’s immense arsenal of MIDI editing functionality, Chord Pads and a pretty neat Chord Track.
Furthermore: Logical Editor, Macro’s.
These are to my humble opinion all very important features not at all available in many DAW’s.
Take for example Ableton Live.
It’s arsenal of midi editing functionality in Clip Editor and arrangement editing functionality is utterly small.
Studio One is doing a good job but still lacks many stuff from Cubase (quite logical, it’s a relatively “new” DAW in progress).
Reaper is doing a pretty decent job but alot of it’s arsenal of (midi/audio) functionality is not natively implemented and is only available by using
Scripts made by Reaper users and these Scripts can be buggy or you just don’t know how to use them cause all so complicated, not transparant/user-unfriendly.
DAW’s like Bitwig and Mulab are really not build for producing (for example) popsongs where alot of audio tracking/recording of real instruments is needed ; they are more aimed to the electronic music producer.
Cubase is build to do both.
Just my 0.02 ofcourse.
Ahhh the perennial debate. It is a different era from the one where Cubase was one of the few comprehensive DAWs around. For a start there is probably a larger number of people creating music in non standard studios than there has ever been, producing possibly a wider diversity of music than ever before. Music production is probably more diverse than it has ever been, with many more technical innovations and plugin developments than I can personally keep up with.
Does this mean that music is better, productions are better and the scene is more creative? Probably not. Let’s face it technology is only as good as the person who wields it. A guitar is a guitar. The person who plays it determines it’s value musically. I for one would not like to use the abortion that is Pro Tools, but I have to concede that there has been a lot of fine music created with that platform. I have hated using Logic, but have a friend who loves it. Another friend swears by Digital Performer.
Me! I have used Cubase since the days of the Atari and still love using it despite the occasional issues. I know my way around it and it does not get in the way of my alleged creativity and that is all I can ask of any software that I use.