Why no improvements to Expression Maps since 2009? Steinberg please answer

Also let us select articulation in the Inspector!

2 Likes

The hardware also needs to support bi-directional communication(MIDI 2.0), otherwise there´s no point. I don´t know many devices that supports MIDI 2.0

1 Like

@Jari_Junttila
That is true in some respects, tho hardware is starting to move in that direction with some extended features making headway, allowing expressive gestures vis…Linn, Roli, Osmose, Haken, et al.
I would love to see advancements to Vst’s.
Profiles for Vst’s instruments should be able to expose things like keyswitches and Macro controls so that when instantiated into a daw they automatically configure.

What’s not to like if it allows folk to express their musical idea’s and talents.
Regards

I think it is not quite clear to many how MIDI in Cubase works and what MIDI 2.0 means for their ochestral library plugins.

So lets start with a graphic:

None of your VST3 plugins receive any form of MIDI whatsoever. Cubase as the host handles all MIDI data and transforms it into, let’s call it VST data.
Since the introduction of VST3, the communication between VST3 plugins and the host Cubase has been bi-directional.
The profile exchange? Already doing that for more than 10 years. The ability to send modulation data to individual notes (rather than a channel)? Already doing that for more than 10 years. Automatic setup? Already done for 10 years.
In fact all this is done so seamless that people don’t even realize that anymore.
I heard that there is even support for communicating articulations from the plugin to the host, so that you don’t have to set up things manually. If that is true, it seems that the plugin vendor just dont support this feature.

A full support of MIDI 2.0 can bring you the following advantages:

  • better integration between your MIDI hardware and Cubase (no, not plugins because MIDI never reaches the plugins, see above graphic)
  • finer resolutions for Modwheel, Pedal, etc. (both time and value)

That’s it.
Basically aynthing else exciting about MIDI 2.0 has been available to you, the Cubase and VST3 users, for more than 10 years already in form of VST3.

Q: So what about VST2?
A: It supports MIDI 1.0 and there are no plans to have it support MIDI 2.0.

1 Like

MIDI is an acronym that stands for Musical Instrument Digital Interface.
What more needs to be said, perhaps the idea that VST might be outdated?
Or that a plugin cannot be intelligent inside it’s host?.
IMHO, I just want stuff to work for me, not me work for it, spending hours setting up controls and key switches .
Isn’t that what we all would like.

I have a controller with a stock script and it’s still unusable with the remote script due to parameter jumps with pots and faders that don’t happen in Studio One, Logic, Ableton, Reason or Samplitude Pro X. All of those DAWs Takeover. Cubase doesn’t.

No point in using them for Quick Controls when parameters jump everytime you have to switch tracks or devices adjust a parameter.

I’d rather just use a Keystation and save on space.

VST3 already supports many MIDI 2.0 enhancements.

@David_W
Yes I agree.
I am not saying it doesn’t, but is it the be all and end all of what is possible for easy access to music creation.

I absolut agree with that. But Steinberg does nothing. They give us for example another PT Eq Simulation that nobody needs. It is maybe time to change the DAW.

Can people please stop assuming that nobody needs a plugin just because they don’t need that plugin?
This is such a weird behaviour…