Why does Cubase 15 pro look like an old video game? One would think that at this point in time with high res everything Cubase would have good graphics. Cubase 12 is much better overall in the area of graphics appeal. Is the any settings that will improve the look?
5 Likes
Because your mind perceives it this way.
13 Likes
Ah, but does it sound like an old video game? 
4 Likes
There is a solution: instead of adding more âbeatsâ features, take those dev resources and make the GUI configurable with skins, etc. Doing such is not easy per se but itâs been done before. My most humble observation: s/w companies with essentially captive clients (i.e. clients that canât easily switch to another vendor) seem to miss this custom GUI opportunity. Google web apps are another exampleâŚ
3 Likes
IMO, skinning is rarely a good solution. You are pushing design decisions on to your customer base. Some apps are famous for having skinning, but itâs not the majority, and seems to appeal more to tech folks than the core audiences of these products.
But OPâs complaint is not at all specific here. Is the issue that the screen is pixelated? Color scheme looks like CGA? Sprites floating past the tracks? Running at 320x200 pixels?
It could be something with the scaling, or color scheme, etc.
Pete
Microsoft
9 Likes
Skinning is just one way to customizeâthe issue is that to many of us the GUI needs help. This afternoon I was watching the latest YT vid from Guy Michelmore who is using 15 and the flatness stuck out like a very sore thumb.
This issue is solvable. That said Iâm happy with 12 until a more compelling solution (for my uses) appears.
1 Like
Ableton is the most popular and best selling DAW, It hasnt changed its GUI in 20 years !!!
It looks like a grey spreadsheet.
The geniuses at Ableton realised, the less time you spend on fad trending GUI graphic concepts (eyes). The more time you spent programming better funtionality for music makers (ears) !!!
I like the way Cubase looks now compared to the catastrophe that was Cubase in the 2000s era.
8 Likes
Maybe theyâre using it on a composite monitor, so its doing that fuzzy âfull colorâ thing like Kingâs Quest did?? 
1 Like
The âlooksâ itself are not necessarily the problem, although it is understandably the first thing people focus on, but in the end it is very much subjective, some people seem to like it, some not.
And the graphics in Cubase are âhigh resâ, most of it is by now completely vector graphics which will adapt to your screen resolution.
The real issue is (and by now I am probably rather infamous for bringing it up again and again 
) when the UI design negatively affects the UX (the User experience and usability), either by wrong design decisions or by bad execution, and this is where Cubase imho is often lacking. This concerns areas like color contrasts, font size and legibility, optical separation of UI elements, iconography, behavioral and graphical consistency (in the application itself and over the span of time), adhering to commonly known conventions in UI/UX design and so on.
I agree that a skinning engine is not the solution, a) because it doesnât necessarily solve UX behavioral issues and b) because most skinning engine I have seen are bitmap based which imho is not the way to go in 2025 and has several drawbacks (you wouldnât be able to freely scale the channel with in the mix console anymore for example).
2 Likes
It does look dull to me.
However where is this data that suggests Ableton as the âmost popular and best selling DAW?â
Last I checked, none of the major DAW developers divulge that information.
Abletons Reddit page is 12:1 of cubase, all the young up and coming future music makers are on reddit, Ableton seems like a modern lifestyle choice for youth, Steinberg seems like it has an aging community who cling to the 1980s and 90s.
I associate Ableton with new genres like afrobeat, trap, synthwave, darkwave, kpop. Phontek, i feel like cubase is attached to genres of 40 years ago, house, boom bap rap, 90s rock.
Cubase is a better DAW, but it is not marketed better and has a weaker appeal amongst contemporary genres. Ableton is a stronger brand.
1 Like
Good grief! Where did the time go?
Perhaps we should all get on Reddit and start dissing these darn new-fangled whatsits and loops and such.
Iâll get me slippers âŚ
6 Likes
Ah yes, the âyoung and beautifulâ users of pirated Ableton who are constantly asking the same basic questions because theyâre too lazy to search themselves for the answers.
The young amazing producers who are making amazing music from loops and midi packs. Indeed, this is the future, this is what everyone should aspire for 
Not to mention how many of those are the legit users, not the sailors of the oceans ans seas 
Do you even read those Reddit groups? Iâve been of forums/chats/socials for electronic music producers since over 20 years. I know very well what kind of people with what kind of questions are on certain forums/socials. Those places are not good even for newbies. Itâs just one huge bin and waste of time, even for newbies. I donât know if huge numbers are impressive to you but for me, the quality is more important than quantity.
Plenty of new music genres are just made from Splice loops, midi chord packs and presets. If laziness is the future, then sorry not sorry but I prefer to use techniques of the past: where people really cared to make good music, not just another clone of a current Beatport Top 10.
Thereâs already Live, FL and some others that are the first choice for certain people. It doesnât mean that now every single DAW should be exactly the same like those. Cubase still needs to improve tons of details and bugs in features it is great already at: from scoring for films to sound design for games and to record and produce ANY kind of music.
5 Likes
Im just saying i would prefer if Cubase/Nuendo kept the current GUI design, get everything (old styled panels) revamped to the new spec, and then leave it alone for 20+ years and focus on functionality over look, instead of going with so called Graphic design trends (next year it could be big bubbly fonts , bevelled panels and fluorescent colors !!!)
Imagine spending 30% of your development time, in focus groups deciding which shape boxes to have, instead of fixing 20 bugs that make users want to leave the brand.
I can literally see it now, Heinrich and Schmidt arguing endlessly about 35 degree or 45 degree angled boxes for the 1st few months, while Ableton have 10 programmers coding the next midi tool revolution.
Heinrich - âIt should be 35 degrees to emphasize the calming influence of audio on the tiny mindâ
Schmidt - ânein, it should be 45, to showcase Germanys car production value in the past quarterâ
That I support, and have often criticized myself. Since C7, there have been constant changes with different designs, often resulting in a complete mess. Since C13, they at least seem to have committed to a general direction, like it or not. And still in C15 there are lamentably still UI elements from SX left form 25 years ago.
I donât even think they use focus groups, but I wouldnât even dismiss it. Good UX design needs diligent testing with real users and takes a lot of time and effort. And this is done by a UI/UX team, not the coders, that will be not much different at Ableton.
Stereotyping? Not classy. Just a reminder, Cubase is developed and designed by an international team.
2 Likes
Music has the power to reach and inspire everybody (possibly except deaf people). How music does this is entirely up to each person. I donât think there is such a concept as âgood musicâ, there is only music that an individual person likes or not.
1 Like
Tounge in cheek humour, dont be as serious as a pro-tools user
1 Like
Sure. Myself, I donât like Cubase GUI since 13 when they introduced that flat design âbecauseâ. I expected C15 to bring back visual hierarchy at least but they decided to make it even more flat (but now sat least it looks âbetterâ than C14.
Ableton Live is made with flat design in mind from the beginning. The entire philosophy of Live is made around that interface. Itâs a huge and major difference between Live and other programs like Cubase. Cubase has over 30 years of baggage of a totally different type if the interface. I donât understand why they decided to do such drastic change besides trying to please Ableton Live crowd which⌠will continue to use Live anyway.
This is the problem: users of other DAWs, often people who are just curious about Cubase and/or are using every single DAW for fun, are coming here and are telling Steinberg âCubase should look like Live/FL/StudioOneâ. Most of those people will not jump to Cubase anyway or if they do, they will sell it 2nd hand after a few months anyway.
Why Steinberg decided to do what that crowd wants, instead of keeping what long term users are accustomed to, is beyond my logical thinking. People who want Live, will use Live. Not another DAW that is trying to look like Live but quickly, after a few minutes of use, everybody can see that itâs just a mask under which, thereâs completely different DAW with completely different philosophy. What happens next? Knobcloud: sell.
I guess itâs a quick buck for Steinberg, but it will not work long-term in their favour.
Cubase lacks visual identity and without a good visual visionary guru, it will continue to wear different masks hoping that one of them will finally work.
IMO, trying to copy look of another DAW is the wrong way.