My christmas wish for Cubase 11: NO new features

Yep, I am using that one all the time, I love the functionality but I’d love it even more if the “multiple node”-move was possible - hence the request for an upgrade/improvement. Sometimes it just feels like Steinberg implements great ideas but then they’re like:

(with german accent) - “Ok! Now we’ve done dat! Let’z never check in again to zee if it needz improvement, nein!?”

That would actually explain a lot! :mrgreen:

Haha, yes I feel your pain. I’ve been there on numerous occasions myself.
It’s a real bummer and high on the list of “things that make you go, hmmmm!” :thinking:

Steinberg pioneered midi back in the 80’s so wouldn’t it be awesome if they could follow suite in 2020? :slight_smile:
I guess updating the midi standard will in turn force them to rethink the whole devices part of Cubase since it is somewhat archaic.
If it’s realised in Cubase 11 or 11.5 is however another question since this will most likely be a pretty big operation.

I would gladly pay them today if I knew this was the focus of the upcoming version.

  • Steinberg take my money! :nerd_face:

Yes S1 Clip gain envelope features are great. Hope to see it also improved in Cubase.

When I say no new features I of course don’t mean that nothing should be added but rather that Steinberg expands, streamlines and refines the existing ones to make Cubase stronger, better and faster. I am not against new features per se but at this moment in time looking at competing DAWs it becomes obvious that Cubase needs an overhaul first and foremost.

For instance, with MIDI 2.0 coming up I would expect MPE, MIDI Devices and overall MIDI functionality be improved and refined. External FX also needs to be reworked for ease and flexibility. Using control surfaces with Cubase could also be simplified and modernized.
The list goes on.

And please - fix pesky bugs like the expression map bug that ruins so much for so many. It makes Cubase seem amateurish and drags the whole experience down.

I don’t personally see these as “new” features but rather improving on the existing.

A big yes. I don’t need new features as much as improving the ones that they are already there. The only feature I wish is FLOWS, like in Dorico (Chunks in Digital Performer).

But yes, they should work on making Cubase 11 stable and perfect, and more appealing. Working with the MEDIA BAY (and the POOL) should be faster (as the Browser in Studio One), the many bugs of 10.5 should be fixed (like the expression maps one), freeze track needs a hugh improvement (in Studio One is much better, just copy how it works there), markers and time signature should appear in key editors (you may hide them if you wish as an option), and a lot of things. I don’t need new plugins, as the ones included in Cubase 10.5 are actually very good.

A better Window management system would be also great. Like when you have an instrument opened and you click in a different track with a different one, this one opens instead the one you had opened. And, if you want, you can “pin” one window.

Also, edit multiple parts in the key editor should be faster and easier, like it is in Reaper or Studio One. You just need a list beside the key editor (a list you can hide anytime). And key editor should not close if you delete a midi event!!

So yes, I wish they focus on improving the things they already have rather than the addition of new features. Because Cubase already has more features than any DAW (probably).

…Cubase 11 is weeks away…

Should change the title to Cubase 14 :smiley:

+1 for:

  1. Refresh and redesign of the user interface
  2. Simplification and modernization of existing features
  3. Cohesiveness in menus
  4. Reliability and speed
  5. Priority on squashing bugs before new features

and gain stage automation
and #6 sort out Sample Editor tempo grid display.
and the D3D10Warp.dll freeze bug being fixed.
Great features but it is code built on code built on code…
Needs a good tidy up.

Too late for 11, but let’s hope 11.5 sorts it out.

With the current release cycles, Cubase 14 will be along in 6yrs time. Imagine where Studio One will be at that time. If the GUI and usability in Cubase isn’t worked out way before then I doubt there will even be a Cubase 14. :thinking:

I believe Studio One’s strength is that it is still relatively new. There’s still basic functions being added to it in the latest version, such as MIDI Poly Pressure/Aftertouch, clip envelopes etc.

Once Studio One matures and has to carry more legacy functions along with it (As Cubase, Logic etc. have to), that’s where more bugs can inhabit, more UI differences occur (Staff/framework changes), and of course more limiting factors in regards to being able to easily progress the software. There comes a point where you lose control and resort to ‘bolting on’ features to keep up with user demands.

In contrast to Steinberg i’d say that PreSonus have a much cleaner codebase to maintain right now, the real test is how well they can manage the project moving forwards. Particularly in regards to where a function has been superseded but they still need to support legacy users projects. If they can avoid that awful habit of resorting to bolting on, or reskinning to appease it’s users demands then they’re on a winner. However, they’re yet to hit that crossroad yet, perhaps MIDI 2.0 may be the first hurdle they face whereby a technology change is the leader.

A fine example is how Cubase started life with MIDI CC being at the core of much of it’s track control (Because it existed in a pre-plugin era). Studio One being much newer, is able to run with plugin/automation at it’s core control. That’s two fundamentally different bases that the DAWs are built from.

On the plus this means that Cubase is very proficient in older MIDI concepts (SysEx, External hardware patches etc.), for Studio One it hasn’t got to carry that weight (yet!). Of course, the downside is that if you want to auto modulate a parameter in Cubase you need to load up old-school MIDI inserts, assign a specific MIDI CC message in the plugin to control, and send it down the effects chain.

I really don’t know how they bring 30 years of development up to date without completely dismantling and alienating long-term users. So the UI, and it’s clunky usability is the trade-off for that situation. I’d hate to be managing/overseeing the development as a whole, it must feel like a ball and chain around their ankle everytime a good idea is discussed.

This is such a great response, and so true. I’ve heard many complain that Cubase doesn’t feel modern enough and wish for a complete redesign. Imagine telling Hans Zimmer that he can’t open up old projects anymore because some of the legacy features are no longer supported. Imagine how much effort it probably takes to allow all of that to continue working while simultaneously adding and fixing other things. I’d imagine that Studio One’s future will only get more and more problematic, as such as Cubase’s.

I think that one of the most important things Cubase team has to do is fix bugs. They don’t do that a lot. The last update was 6 months ago and based on how Cubase 10.5 works, they should’ve released a few more fixing little things, like the expression maps issues. They are afraid to .1 updates.

They could also try to make the start up and the closing more efficient (In large and long opened projects, Cubase crashes like a 70% of the cases -in my computer- and, in any case, it takes a lot to close). They could add a meter that shows you the percentage of “closeness” or something similar.

I also think that the menus are not as clever as they may be. You need to click too much to do simple things. For instance, the media bay. It shares the same space as the control room, the vsts and the output meter. Why?

The same happens with inspector and track list.

On the other hand, in the lower zone, each CC is in a separate space so if you have 2 or 3, you can’t see the notes anymore… not clever. Besides, it’s hard to choose what CCs you want to see or not.

Studio One does these things much better, even having less powerful MIDI tools. But they work better with what they have.

Of course, I prefer Cubase, but I don’t see they fix their problems or improve the things they have already developed (Media Bay, Presets, Expression Maps, Lower Zone, etc.).

Freezing is also much better in Studio One, as it freezes each midi event separately and you can see the waveform. Then, you have the option to move it around to sync it better with other tracks and, if you want to change anything, you can un-freeze the track and the sync changes you’ve done are still there. This is something Cubase could do.

I’d settle for a prettier Score layout. The current one is just UUUUGHHH!

The lack of a simple an coherent menu system and clear functions is reflected also in other Steinberg products
Groove Agent is one of the most striking one.
After hours and hours of use, I am still not able to understand the mess is there…kits, presets, acoustic presets, midi presets, samples, beat agent, acoustic agents…pads that you can move, but only to a certain extent…the acoustic ones can not be copied.
If you try to load a midi preset in the midi player is almost impossible to locate one of the kit presets…or maybe the kits midi presets are not there?
You can load the kit, in 2 different places…or the multi program or a preset… :open_mouth:
in the icons of the added libraries…let’s say Nashville library, is not indicated clearly what is, if has an acoustic or midi instrument,or not …just the image and the name
to browse the library of groove agent is like to enter into a labyrinth, same thing for the media bay of Cubase
what about instead using little squares, circles and so on…to use a couple of letters to identify the different kinds of files, let’s say trp for track preset… mds for midi sample acs for acoustic samples…stp strip preset…those little graphic signs circles, squares, empty or full… are so small and look all the same!!!
by the way I am an happy Cubase and Groove Agent user :wink: …but please simplify a little and add coherence
definitely the media bay is one of the worst things

+1000

If Steinberg to do one thing only it is to simplify things

Is that the full Groove Agent you refer to @worshiptuned? I presumed SE was like that because it’s a stripped down version, but expected the full software to make more sense! :slight_smile:

Yes, I have the full version and is exactly the same, it is worst even because there are a lot of more kits and presets to browse and choose from. Well the full version is worthwhile anyway, has 24 bit samples and many more functions, presets, kits and possibilities, but not more clarity, at all!!! :unamused:

So you are saying that Steinbergs programmers aren’t capable enough to make old songs work in new versions if the look and workflow was changed? Boy, you sure don’t have much faith in Steinberg then.

And btw, I very much doubt that Hans Zimmer is working with Cubase 10.5 considering the fact that keyswitches aren’t even working correctly in 10.5. There is no way he would be able to score movies with that bug running rampant.

It’s not loading old songs, it’s being able to work on them in conjunction with your hardware (Hence the Hans Zimmer reference i expect?) - If they removed elements to clear the clutter then of course it would cause legacy users issues, as the tools they used would either be gone/replaced by new modules or altered which affects their workflow.

I know many people that use external scripts to automate tasks based on screen elements positions, for example. But with Cubase there’s so much that can/must be routed via MIDI CC’s, and that in itself is an issue for people wanting a more modern/cleaner core. If that’s changed, you have the legacy users who’s external MIDI gear and scripting could get screwed.

So, that’s why when they progress the DAW, they leave the existing modules in place for legacy users - And where some see this as clutter/confusion, Others embrace it from a legacy standpoint. But the salient point is that Cubase has to carry this weight whereas S1 does not.

I don’t believe for a second that features should be removed and I am fully confident that the GUI and usability can be improved and hugely transformed without losing compatibility. Just because the GUI looks different it doesn’t mean that it automatically will cause compatibility problems. Even so, if a feature would get a major remake, I am sure there would be a conversion process once you load an old song with the new version of Cubase.

That’s the way it is with Logic Pro X for instance. There is a HUGE difference in features and overall look in Logic Pro X compared to earlier versions. Nevertheless you can open old projects in LPX. However - when you save it for the first time in the new LPX format you are being told that it won’t be compatible with OLDER versions of Logic, which makes perfect sense.

I do of course understand there could be problems with scripts based on screeen position (like Keyboard Maestro that I am using myself, for instance) if the layout is changed, but frankly, that’s not really Steinbergs problem is it? Change is inevitable and there is NO way Steinberg can take every external factor in calculation whenever they do an update. If they would, there wouldn’t be any more updates. Ever.

Ok, so let’s presume Steinberg add a new level of external controller support, which will supersede the VST and Quick Track Control options. Perhaps with dedicated pageable controls and an API that allows users (or manuafcturers) to develop their own hardware control mappings that can focus on mixer or individual plugin elements. How cool would that be?

What do they do at that point with the current mapping system in place to progress the software, and still support legacy users?

By leaving the old system(s) in place it will show on the tabs on the left, if there’s any kind of mappings in there it will still have to be part of the input chain for each track ‘in addition’ to a new system, also would still have to appear in the studio setup screens as a selection. They cannot just remove that functionality.

Furthermore, I can’t see how they could merge such a dated system into a more progressive, conceptual change. In fact, if they did attempt at building such a system encompassing both old and new, it would actually restrict it’s progress.

As for LPX, i’m a long time user since version 7. And i can assure you that there’s a real mess that Apple has on it’s hands, there’s a lot of skinned plugins and bolt-ons to achieve new feature sets, but underneath it’s mainly stayed the same with emagic developed functions that todays team have very little experience on - so they leave it well alone.

You still can’t even address different incoming MIDI ports per track, so they had to add a global filter as part of the main preference to prevent drum machines/external sequences accidentally flooding into any record enabled track. ‘Auto Demix’ is still the only solution for multitrack MIDI recording, You can’t route one track to another, because, again, it’s part of the archaic makeup of the software, hence the requirement for IAC busses, The Environment still exists, and has seen no development or support for modern displays, And the delay compensation is still screwed where busses are in play.

Logic is a prime example of legacy software that has received far more bolt-ons and reskins than it should’ve. They’ll ditch it and move to garageband as the core codebase once universal apps arrive, put money on that.

It’s a great DAW and i love it, but i wouldn’t use it as an example of positive progression. Studio One is one of the few DAWs that appears to have a very clean development path so far. But this discussion is purely an explanations on why Cubase still shows remnants of it’s 30+ year legacy, because it has to.

if the layout is changed, but frankly, that’s not really Steinbergs problem is it?

Exactly - as you’ve said yourself, it’s not the fault of the developers, hence why the question “Steinbergs programmers aren’t capable enough” you asked at the other poster, really is not the point being made here. It’s acceptance of what and where Cubase is, not questioning their ability.