# Why did you leave Cubase?



## Pier

I'm considering getting into Cubase but would like to hear all the 1 star reviews from people that moved onto other DAWs. 

I'm currently using Bitwig. It's amazing in so many aspects (sound design, devices, modulators, the grid, etc) except for actually writing music.


----------



## easyrider

There will be a Myriad of factors from lots of different people….all with different opinions and reasons….

I would download the trial and try it yourself…









Try Cubase now for 60 days


Get your 60-day trial version of Cubase that will allow you to try out all of the features Cubase has to offer with no restrictions. Subscribe now!




www.steinberg.net





What people like you might hate…what people hate you might like…


----------



## Pier-V

So, I've started with FlStudio but when I was still studying music I was forced to learn Cubase. Now I'm using FlStudio again.

The reason: it's quite simple actually, most of my compositions are based on what's happening in the piano roll, and the one in Fl feels a lot smoother (but maybe I'm just accustomed to it?)
Another thing: my eyes easily get stressed out and in general Fl has a darker appearence, which is pleasing to watch.

For now that's all, if other aspects come to mind I'll list them.


----------



## dcoscina

I used it for a bit but it was buggy on my MP 3,1 and even on the 6,1. the workflow was good but I could never get into the score editor the way I can with Studio One (or even Logic, or DP). 

I still have it but seldom boot it up.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

S1 made me realise how old Cubase is - the core is very dated so even basic functions can be really ridiculously convoluted to achieve. I think a good example would be setting up hardware controllers (check out Cubase vs S1 - the difference is baffling).

When I started using Studio One maybe just over a year ago, the expression maps were very basic and probably one of the worst of any DAW. Fast forward now and they have become one of the best - if not best - and are such a breeze to set up. Cubase updates at a snails pace and when they do, because the core is so dated, it's usually just adding to the bloated-ness making things more convoluted.

I've only been using S1 for just over a year and I feel like I have a better handle on how it works more than I ever did with Cubase, and I was using Cubase from v.6 to v.10.5.

Of course there's many reasons why I love S1, but that's more about why S1 is good rather than why I dislike Cubase.

Honestly, there's a lot more to it but I am suppose to be working right now :(


----------



## Pier

easyrider said:


> I would download the trial and try it yourself…


I could, but it would be a superficial impression.

Someone that used Cubase in depth and left will have a much better perspective that I could by demoing it.



easyrider said:


> What people like you might hate…what people hate you might like…



Sure, so what? I wanna hear others' opinions.


----------



## Pier

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> S1 made me realise how old Cubase is - the core is very dated so even basic functions can be really ridiculously convoluted to achieve. I think a good example would be setting up hardware controllers (check out Cubase vs S1 - the difference is baffling).
> 
> When I started using Studio One maybe just over a year ago, the expression maps were very basic and probably one of the worst of any DAW. Fast forward now and they have become one of the best - if not best - and are such a breeze to set up. Cubase updates at a snails pace and when they do, because the core is so dated, it's usually just adding to the bloated-ness.
> 
> I've only been using S1 for just over a year and I feel like I have a better handle on how it works more than I ever did with Cubase, and I was using Cubase from v.6 to v.10.5.
> 
> Honestly, there's a lot more to it but I am suppose to be working right now :(


This is very interesting because I'm also considering Studio One.

I already have all the virtual instruments and plugins I need. I'm really looking at improving my midi and audio workflow.


----------



## easyrider

Pier said:


> I could, but it would be a superficial impression.
> 
> Someone that used Cubase in depth and left will have a much better perspective that I could by demoing it.


But people have left others DAWS for Cubase….



Pier said:


> Sure, so what? I wanna hear others' opinions.


You want negatives it’s seems ….why people have left….there are many who have moved to Cubase from other DAWS…..don’t you want their opinions too?


----------



## Pier

easyrider said:


> You want negatives it’s seems ….why people have left….there are many who have moved to Cubase from other DAWS…..don’t you want their opinions too?


That could be an interesting thread too!

But to be honest, good things won't make me regret getting into Cubase


----------



## darkogav

Try out Cubase LE Elements.. its the same thing GUI and workflow wise, just stripped down. I use it and like it, but I can see why some people have issues. It's got lots of windows that detach and lots of preferences one can tweak, which I think, some people don't bother with reading up on.



> for actually writing music



^^ I think Cubase has the best MIDI editing features.


----------



## easyrider

Pier said:


> This is very interesting because I'm also considering Studio One.
> 
> I already have all the virtual instruments and plugins I need. I'm really looking at improving my midi and audio workflow.


Studio one workflow blows chunks over Cubase…I have both…Cubase 10.5 and Studio One 5.

But I have kept my 10.5 Cubase licence just in case Fender cock S1 up….😂


----------



## easyrider

darkogav said:


> ^^ I think Cubase has the best MIDI editing features.


I agree…but some things in Cubase just wind me up….such a faff setting up.

Creating sends in S1 is just a breeze….


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

darkogav said:


> ^^ I think Cubase has the best MIDI editing features.


Mmm Ill strongly disagree.

even when we look at basic midi manipulation, S1 has so many ways to massage it with as few clicks as possible (I boofed up a key command in the vid but you get the idea)

View attachment 2021-11-09_11-10-04.mp4


----------



## dcoscina

Pier said:


> This is very interesting because I'm also considering Studio One.
> 
> I already have all the virtual instruments and plugins I need. I'm really looking at improving my midi and audio workflow.


For me, S1 is just a friendlier, more customizable version of Cubase with a much more aesthetically pleasing notation editor. I love the macros, the ability to save custom presets for each library, the crispness of navigation, the mastering suite built in.... I even scored that Stargirl thing on Studio One. Yeah, it doesn't have the video on a track like Cubase or Logic but I found I was able to match my hitpoints with no concerns... I know it's small potatoes compared to those who are scoring full features mind you...


----------



## Pier

darkogav said:


> Try out Cubase LE Elements.. its the same thing GUI and workflow wise, just stripped down.


From the comparison tables it seems Cubase LE is super limited. Only 8 VST instrument tracks, for example which is ridiculously low.

Cubase Elements has 24 VST tracks which I can live with for the time being (not writing anything serious). It doesn't even require the USB dongle... and then I could upgrade once Steinberg releases v12 with the rumored no-dongle license.


----------



## easyrider

dcoscina said:


> For me, S1 is just a friendlier, more customizable version of Cubase with a much more aesthetically pleasing notation editor. I love the macros, the ability to save custom presets for each library, the crispness of navigation, the mastering suite built in.... I even scored that Stargirl thing on Studio One. Yeah, it doesn't have the video on a track like Cubase or Logic but I found I was able to match my hitpoints with no concerns... I know it's small potatoes compared to those who are scoring full features mind you...


Dragging the VST instrument tab to the files section to create and instant preset is a game changer….saves so much time…👍

Studio One remote on a tablet is amazing for macros….Press one button….create a instrument track-insert Kontakt -open Kontakt instrument-insert console 1


----------



## StillLife

I have used Cubase since the Atari days. I never thought there was much wrong with it, and I enjoyed the yearly updates. However, its ever growing power became too intimidating for me, too Zimmerish maybe. I am just a simple singer/songwriter and I started to feel lost in the sheer possibillities Cubase offers you. Even for a long time user as I am, using the program became increasingly less intuïtive for me. One day, after some frustrating hours in Cubase, I tried out Studio One 5, and fell in love, instantly. It feels smaller than Cubase, which it probably is not (it even contains a mastering section), but you get that feeling because everything is just so easy to do: from making macro's to drag and dropping fx. Easy workflow inspires me. I became a Sphere member, bought a Faderport 8 and havent't looked at Cubase since. Cubase is brilliant in many ways, but to me, Studio One is just more brilliant. 
Oh, and let's not forget the wonderful team of Studio One tutorial makers. Greg and Joe are incredible: Happy, very focused and clear, I have learned so much from them. Real teachers. Of course, there are a lot of Cubase tutorials too, but to me they seem.scattered over Youtube, producers/musicians that use Cubase and give their personal tips and tricks, but I feel no connection, there is no Cubase team, such as there is for Studio One. Studio One is one of those Software environments that make me happy.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

View attachment 2021-11-09_11-22-40.mp4


Musicloops - save your instruments in a database with audio clip to remind you what it sounds like. Drag it in and the patch is loaded as it was saved (edits n all so you could have different versions of the same patch even FX on the channel)

Scratch Pad - save ideas that are in their own little space off of your workspace. Once I've got my sketch I move it to a scratch pad and start my final version from bar 1. So rather than tracks taking up 40 - 50 mins on the transport incl. sketches ideas etc, they are just the length of the final track. Honestly - cant go back to not having a scratch pad anymore.

Btw, scratch pad contains its own transport space so you can have different tempo or tempo changes that dont affect your main workspace


----------



## darkogav

Pier said:


> From the comparison tables it seems Cubase LE is super limited. Only 8 VST instrument tracks, for example which is ridiculously low.
> 
> Cubase Elements has 24 VST tracks which I can live with for the time being (not writing anything serious). It doesn't even require the USB dongle... and then I could upgrade once Steinberg releases v12 with the rumored no-dongle license.


Yes. I agree. It's limited and cheaper-- sometimes free. But I think it does give one a really good idea what it's like to use it. But if you decide to use it, if you are doing large projects, you will need Pro for sure. There are things in it that you can't work without IMO.


----------



## kitekrazy

I hate their licensing. I don't want to plug in some hardware just to use it on another machine. I bought it when a crossgrade offer was $170. I collect DAWs like people collect VIs. I barely touch it. That's part of the problem with too many DAWs. I prefer dance genres which favor FL and Live for me. I don't like the rounded corners in Cubase. If you are one needing a staff view once in a while you can go wrong with Cubase. Studio One has better licensing though.


----------



## easyrider

StillLife said:


> I have used Cubase since the Atari days. I never thought there was much wrong with it, and I enjoyed the yearly updates. However, its ever growing power became too intimidating for me, too Zimmerish maybe. I am just a simple singer/songwriter and I started to feel lost in the sheer possibillities Cubase offers you. Even for a long time user as I am, using the program became increasingly less intuïtive for me. One day, after some frustrating hours in Cubase, I tried out Studio One 5, and fell in love, instantly. It feels smaller than Cubase, which it probably is not (it even contains a mastering section), but you get that feeling because everything is just so easy to do: from making macro's to drag and dropping fx. Easy workflow inspires me. I became a Sphere member, bought a Faderport 8 and havent't looked at Cubase since. Cubase is brilliant in many ways, but to me, Studio One is just more brilliant.
> Oh, and let's not forget the wonderful team of Studio One tutorial makers. Greg and Joe are incredible: Happy, very focused and clear, I have learned so much from them. Real teachers. Of course, there are a lot of Cubase tutorials too, but to me they seem.scattered over Youtube, producers/musicians that use Cubase and give their personal tips and tricks, but I feel no connection, there is no Cubase team, such as there is for Studio One. Studio One is one of those Software environments that make me happy.


I have the Faderport 16 and going into midi mode and have 100mm faders for Expression and Dynamics and vibrato is just a game changer. Come out of midi mode and boom back to super tight integration with S1.


----------



## easyrider

TBH I was playing with Reaper over the weekend….No Retrospective Record…and quirks…

I can see it’s appeal though…


----------



## Alchemedia

Studio One


----------



## Pier

LOL this thread is becoming "Hi why I left Cubase for Studio One".


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

There's nothing better than trying the demos for these types of decisions. I've tried to "leave" Cubase a few times - for Logic, for Studio One - and each time, I've come back to Cubase because in the end it works (there's a reason it is so popular amongst professional media composers). For every workflow "snazziness" you can show in S1, I can tell you something that Cubase does better in exchange. Every DAW will be like that. You have to find the one that annoys you the least.


----------



## germancomponist

Maybe I am a special case?

I worked with Cubase 5 until 2019 and was very satisfied. After Windows 10 no longer supported my Firewire interface with drivers, I bought a new audio interface, a new audio PC and finally the current Cubase version. Now I've landed on Cubase 11 and I kept complaining. "Did they actually make everything worse?" After I was extremely busy with the new Cubase version, only then did it "click" for me. This Cubase 11 is awesome. It's the best Cubase I've ever had. I just had to learn it again.

BTW: Cubase 5 and Win 7 was a great, a super great team!


----------



## AcousTech

@Pier - do you have any outboard MIDI gear? That's one area that, while I like Studio One a lot, I find that Cubase still handles better. I keep waiting for Studio One to add it, but while it can be awesome as long as you are in-the-box, I, for one, haven't been satisfied with its ability to integrate external hardware. Maybe I'm missing something, as is always possible...


----------



## easyrider

AcousTech said:


> @Pier - do you have any outboard MIDI gear? That's one area that, while I like Studio One a lot, I find that Cubase still handles better. I keep waiting for Studio One to add it, but while it can be awesome as long as you are in-the-box, I, for one, haven't been satisfied with its ability to integrate external hardware. Maybe I'm missing something, as is always possible...


----------



## musicalweather

My 2 cents: I'm a long-time DP user who bought Cubase because DP didn't have any articulation management _at the time_ (It now has it). I felt like Cubase was relatively easy to jump into; it actually has some similarities to DP. However, the DP workflow is so ingrained in me that certain processes in Cubase really chafed. I still haven't quite figured out how to nudge notes a fraction of a grid value. And I really, really miss being able to highlight notes or sections of a song in the tracks window and simply use a keyboard shortcut to audition them. I miss the chunks feature of DP. Others have said they feel the Cubase GUI is too cluttered, and I agree. I don't like that most of the tabs, toolbars, etc are light text on a dark background - I find it wearing on the eyes. It seems to me Cubase is almost overstuffed with features, and I wonder if the stability problems I've had with it are due to that. 

I bought Studio One on a whim, and it does seem much easier to manage, somehow. Also, easier on the eyes.

Just yesterday I upgraded to DP 11 (articulations maps! At last!). It will continue to be my main DAW (having used it for nearly 20 years, I know it very well). Studio One would be the DAW I'd turn to after that. Then Cubase. Then Logic (blech).


----------



## Pier

ALittleNightMusic said:


> There's nothing better than trying the demos for these types of decisions. I've tried to "leave" Cubase a few times - for Logic, for Studio One - and each time, I've come back to Cubase because in the end it works (there's a reason it is so popular amongst professional media composers).



Like I wrote before, trying out DAW demos is very superficial. It's not like trying out a synth.

You might try a DAW for a couple of hours and get the impression it sucks simply because you're not using it correctly. Which means to get an informed opinion you now have to also decide whether to invest education hours to in it.

Or... ask the people who have been using long enough to know its quirks.



ALittleNightMusic said:


> You have to find the one that annoys you the least.


I've been using DAWs since the late 90s and this is absolutely true


----------



## Pier

AcousTech said:


> @Pier - do you have any outboard MIDI gear? That's one area that, while I like Studio One a lot, I find that Cubase still handles better. I keep waiting for Studio One to add it, but while it can be awesome as long as you are in-the-box, I, for one, haven't been satisfied with its ability to integrate external hardware. Maybe I'm missing something, as is always possible...


I have a couple of midi controllers but other than that... 100% in the box.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

Ill add one last thing - the actually reason I left Cubase originally was because there was an Expression Map bug in 10.5 that would make playback for expression maps buggy and unpredictable. There's a huge thread about it on the Steinberg forums with many reporting the same issue. AFAIK they never accepted that there was an issue. 

I paid for an update I couldn't use which was the last straw for me. 

Not sure if it's an issue in 11


----------



## walkaschaos

I left it after 10+ years solely because of performance reasons. I used a dedicated custom audio PC, all legal software and tweaked OS and was still dealing with tons of random crashing as of version 10 and 10.5. I had no major issues with the interface or missing functionality, my needs are not super in depth, but I do need my DAW to stay open when I'm working. I switched to Studio One on version 4 and have not looked back. It's familiar to users of Cubase but as others have said is more streamlined, and for me performed better both in terms of resource usage and stability (by FAR on the stability front). It took some time to get used to it and re-build my template but at this point I'm flying and not looking back.


----------



## Tralen

Pier said:


> LOL this thread is becoming "Hi why I left Cubase for Studio One".


Well, then I can give a different perspective, as I left (moved back) to Reaper.

I enjoy programming, running scripts, customizing to the core, etc, you know how it goes. I felt Cubase was _*really*_ restrictive in this sense. I can't recall now, but I believe it didn't even have a scripting language. I know this is a niche usecase, but it might be something you enjoy as well.


----------



## Pier

Tralen said:


> Well, then I can give a different perspective, as I left (moved back) to Reaper.
> 
> I enjoy programming, running scripts, customizing to the core, etc, you know how it goes. I felt Cubase was _*really*_ restrictive in this sense. I can't recall now, but I believe it didn't even have a scripting language. I know this is a niche usecase, but it might be something you enjoy as well.


I'm a dev!

What types of things can you accomplish via scripting on Reaper?


----------



## antames

I used Cubase back in the day but have found (you guessed it) S1 to be much better overall. It's cheaper, more intuitive, lighter, and lets you just get on with it without the fluff. I prefer S1 for writing orchestral music, and Ableton for everything else like electronic music and sound design.


----------



## Tralen

Pier said:


> I'm a dev!
> 
> What types of things can you accomplish via scripting on Reaper?


Anything, really. I used to do a lot of simple things, like custom track selections, loudness compensation, automatically adjusting settings related to live playing/recording, etc. I even made a simple (but useless) compressor.

But honestly, since Reaper got a package manager (ReaPack), I now just search for what I need. That and the main scripting extension (SWS), simply added everything I did with my own scripts. It gave Reaper that feeling we get from working with PyPI, NPM (or Hackage, in my case).

I found this website that showcases several great scripts from the community.


----------



## Pappaus

I have been a Studio One user for years. I recently cross graded to Cubase and find everything that is easy or one step in S1 is harder or two steps in Cubase. If I had been a Cubase user for years and moved over, I might be saying the same about S 1 but I doubt it. It is just easier to use. They both have their strengths. One thing for anyone choosing one over the other is deciding what your main objective is. If you are working with others, Cubase might be the way to go as it is a standard, but for ease of work and getting into the music itself, S1 is the choice for me.

ps. As an earlier poster queried about other daws users moving to Cubase, I was a satisfied S1 user but heard Cubase was better at working with film and clips. Also when I was gearing up To Cubase, S1 hand not yet put out the latest release with its better articulation handling and improved staff editing.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Pier said:


> Or... ask the people who have been using long enough to know its quirks.


One man's trash is another man's treasure 😉 Or vice versa.

You want quirks? Here are some quirks. S1 does not handle track delay + external instrument delay compensation properly. Cubase does. S1 does not allow you to set default CC lanes for tracks or have CC lane presets that can be recalled via key command. Cubase does. S1's track visibility features are somewhat half-baked (and have bugs). Cubase is great at managing large templates. S1 requires you to use a limited third-party plugin to customize track / region colors (helpful for large templates) - FYI this is the #1 feature request on their feature request forum and has been one of the top ones for years without any improvement. Cubase has a proper color wheel built in. S1 does not have independent channel panning built in (you have to insert a separate plugin for each track which then breaks any control surface capability you may want). Cubase provides you the option to switch panner modes. For CC / velocity transform, S1 requires you to first toggle on the transform tool while Cubase has transform handles by default - one less step for something I do all the time. I think S1's UI (especially for region display) is some of the ugliest I've seen (also a common complaint from users), while I think Cubase shows things pretty clearly. And for what it's worth in terms of stability (on OS X), I've filed tens of acknowledged bugs with the S1 team this year. I've filed zero with Cubase.

So, these are some quirks of why I came back to Cubase. But these are MY annoyances with S1. Not your annoyances. You can't tell if YOU will like the UI of a program without you using it. Or if YOUR workflow will be hindered or helped by the implementation choices made by each DAW without trying it out. At most in this thread, you'll get a few random complaints or praises for one DAW or another. Not sure how that will be less superficial than demoing it yourself. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Pier

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Not sure how that will be less superficial than demoing it yourself. 🤷‍♂️


Here's an example.

You mentioned "track delay + external instrument delay compensation" on S1. This is something I would have never tried when demoing S1 but could have hit down the road, when I was already invested into S1.


----------



## Pappaus

ALittleNightMusic said:


> One man's trash is another man's treasure 😉 Or vice versa.
> 
> You want quirks? Here are some quirks. S1 does not handle track delay + external instrument delay compensation properly. Cubase does. S1 does not allow you to set default CC lanes for tracks or have CC lane presets that can be recalled via key command. Cubase does. S1's track visibility features are somewhat half-baked (and have bugs). Cubase is great at managing large templates. S1 requires you to use a limited third-party plugin to customize track / region colors (helpful for large templates) - FYI this is the #1 feature request on their feature request forum and has been one of the top ones for years without any improvement. Cubase has a proper color wheel built in. S1 does not have independent channel panning built in (you have to insert a separate plugin for each track which then breaks any control surface capability you may want). Cubase provides you the option to switch panner modes. S1's auto-save takes over the screen (what a fun interruption when recording) while Cubase's happens in the background. For CC / velocity transform, S1 requires you to first toggle on the transform tool while Cubase has transform handles by default - one less step for something I do all the time. I think S1's UI (especially for region display) is some of the ugliest I've seen (also a common complaint from users), while I think Cubase shows things pretty clearly. And for what it's worth in terms of stability (on OS X), I've filed tens of acknowledged bugs with the S1 team this year. I've filed zero with Cubase.
> 
> So, these are some quirks of why I came back to Cubase. But these are MY annoyances with S1. Not your annoyances. You can't tell if YOU will like the UI of a program without you using it. Or if YOUR workflow will be hindered or helped by the implementation choices made by each DAW without trying it out. At most in this thread, you'll get a few random complaints or praises for one DAW or another. Not sure how that will be less superficial than demoing it yourself. 🤷‍♂️


Well that’s just nitpicking😎. Now I’m glad I have both.


----------



## AcousTech

easyrider said:


>



So, I do know this is slightly off-topic for the OP’s question, but I think it bears mentioning. While this video does show to get external devices connected to S1, and is a very nice capability, I think there is still something lacking. What the video does not show, and I still believe cannot be done, is allow you to save information like Bank Select, and Channel Select pairings in order to be able to easily store & recall named presets, aka Patch Names. See here:



https://support.presonus.com/hc/en-us/articles/210040493-MIDI-Bank-Program-Change-External-MIDI-Hardware-Devices-



If you have outboard gear that includes expansion cards(XV-5080 w/additional cards, etc.) then being able to easily reference those Patch Names would be very convenient. This is not at all convenient in S1. I should have been clearer in my earlier comment. Apologies for being too vague.


----------



## jneebz

Infidelity. That b!tch.


----------



## EgM

I’ve moved from Cubase to SO1 for many reasons, including:

- No volume on track list
- Subpar mixer with everything hidden by clicks in split screen mode (Sends, Inserts)
- Changing tracks with instruments window opened doesn’t follow selection
- Very bad UI

It still stands out with its midi features but not worth the hassle.


----------



## Anthony

My workflow became mostly work-arounds.


----------



## Pier

Anthony said:


> My workflow became mostly work-arounds.


So what DAW are you using now?


----------



## Olympum

I think it largely depends on what you want to do with the DAW. I started with S1 for EDM, electronica and jazz a couple of years ago, and for those styles, it is an amazing DAW. But I also started learning orchestration and since I had S1, I used it quite a bit in more classical pieces. The variants (articulations) editor is really good. However, key issues in S1 that get on the way and slowed me down made switch to Cubase. This is obviously a personal workflow decision, but I like having a large template laid out with all the instruments ready to go (I have tried presets and modular approaches, but they are not for me), and S1 really suffers with 100s of tracks: GUI slow down, moving between tracks is lagging, frequent crashes, etc. Oh, and lack of proper video support for media scoring. It's probably worth mentioning that background project saving in S1 is really nice, much better than Cubase IMHO, as it caches plugin data and only saves the VSTs that changed, making it super fast, even with large orchestral templates (although auto-save is not really "background", as a pop up interrupts the flow, but it's only for 1 sec or so).

Right now I am using Cubase + VEP, but I still plan to use S1 here and there, definitely on travels.


----------



## AMBi

Because it wasn't very cuBASED


----------



## [email protected]

I got Cubase when it was at version 5 (and still provided hard copy manuals!). I'm not a high end user and it has a lot more capacity than what I can use. However I have no plans to change to anything else, if only because I hate having to learn all that type of stuff over again. It does what I need. The only comment I have that might be relevant is that I find their manuals and documentation of limited help. I imagine they make sense to people who already understand, but when you are trying to learn something in the first place it can be a bit of a hair-tearing exercise. (Mind you, Steinberg are not on their own in that regard.)


----------



## Markrs

easyrider said:


> TBH I was playing with Reaper over the weekend….No Retrospective Record…and quirks…
> 
> I can see it’s appeal though…


I use Reaper, but the real negative is that there is less built in so you have to use action scripts others have created using the very limited GUI the scripting offers you. The benefit is basically nearly all features in others DAWs have been recreated in Action Scripts including retrospective record and articulation maps (reaticulate). I just wish more of those features were built into Reaper. 

The OTR2 version of Reaper is a good example of how far you can take it for composing.


----------



## Markrs

I have Cubase 10.5, Studio One Artist, Mixcraft Pro and Reaper. Even though at times I struggle with Reaper I have stuck with it because of the power of Action Scripts. I do plan to use both Cubase and Studio One for a couple of tracks and see how I get on, as I want to give both a run through to see what I like and dislike.


----------



## devonmyles

Two years ago, after many years of Cubase, I finally bit the bullet and left....

I joined Nuendo.👍


----------



## Crowe

I left Cubase because I needed to go to my actually paying job.

I will return later this day.


----------



## Vlzmusic

I've honestly tried new things, but the problem with leaving Cubase, you can drive it with your eyes closed (after 15 years that is). I wish they would seriously upgrade the midi capabilities, the CCs Expression stuff is there for many years untouched, and could benefit from new ideas (I dream of per note CC curves which are attached, scalable, and feel more intuitive than the current draw in expression. Overture used to have something like this). 
What did caught my attention, is how strong is Cubasis on ipad, compared to other Daws there. It brings a lot of the real Daw feel into the small format, and the projects are compatible, meaning you can sketch something, and send the whole project to your "real" Cubase with ease.


----------



## RogiervG

I know, my comment should not be here, since you asked for the opposite...

but i like cubase a lot, it just clicks with me in many ways. Maybe it's because i learned it when it was still on the atari, early nineties, with that ugly big pink/red-ish dongle back then.

I had a period where i wanted to jump ship, and try something else, see if my workflow would be boosted in productivity.. and maybe get inspired differently...


well......

Having used Logic 9 (on a hackintosh, still it was stable), Studio one (at a friends studio), Reason (why not? different approach to sound etc), Reaper and the likes.. and even mixbus (raved reviews on their HW mixer emulation)
quite a bit of money on daws (logic, reason, mixbus), for in the end not the result i hoped.
After using each a few weeks, i could not be productive nor did i gell with the layout/workflow (too much relearning things i guess). I switched back to cubase and felt comfortable again.


----------



## Nico5

Sure, you can interview ex-mates of someone you may want to marry. 

Or you could go on a few dates, and see if it brings you joy.


----------



## digitallysane

Cause I upgraded to Nuendo.
I'm a newbie in all things music, but I'm doing film so the post-production features of Nuendo are used more than its music features, for now.

Interesting thing though, if I'm only looking to do some synth exploration stuff (either VSTi or MODX) I found that I just prefer starting Loomer Architect, my greatest recent discovery.


----------



## handz

I didnt 

I have tried almost all other DAWs and hated them with passion.


----------



## cedricm

easyrider said:


> Studio one workflow blows chunks over Cubase…I have both…Cubase 10.5 and Studio One 5.
> 
> But I have kept my 10.5 Cubase licence just in case Fender cock S1 up….😂


Also, it's the only way (for me. Of course there are others such as ProTools, whose demo version does not work correctly on my 1-year old computer, or Logic since the latest release, but I don't have a Mac) to experiment with multichannel/3D audio since S1, which I love and is my main daw, still only supports mono & stereo.


----------



## cedricm

Pier said:


> From the comparison tables it seems Cubase LE is super limited. Only 8 VST instrument tracks, for example which is ridiculously low.
> 
> Cubase Elements has 24 VST tracks which I can live with for the time being (not writing anything serious). It doesn't even require the USB dongle... and then I could upgrade once Steinberg releases v12 with the rumored no-dongle license.


I'm presently experimenting with a 1 month trial of Cubase Pro. Needs an eLicenser though, which I bought from VSL, soon to transfer to iLok...


----------



## AudioLoco

....Don't try to resist it...
...you know you want it....
...just come home to Cubasssse... It won't hurt you ....we promisssssss

Sorry I know you only want to hear "Cubase deniers" but I couldn't resist....


Long time user, never thought of changing.


----------



## antic604

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> S1 made me realise how old Cubase is - the core is very dated so even basic functions can be really ridiculously convoluted to achieve. I think a good example would be setting up hardware controllers (check out Cubase vs S1 - the difference is baffling).
> 
> When I started using Studio One maybe just over a year ago, the expression maps were very basic and probably one of the worst of any DAW. Fast forward now and they have become one of the best - if not best - and are such a breeze to set up. Cubase updates at a snails pace and when they do, because the core is so dated, it's usually just adding to the bloated-ness making things more convoluted.
> 
> I've only been using S1 for just over a year and I feel like I have a better handle on how it works more than I ever did with Cubase, and I was using Cubase from v.6 to v.10.5.
> 
> Of course there's many reasons why I love S1, but that's more about why S1 is good rather than why I dislike Cubase.
> 
> Honestly, there's a lot more to it but I am suppose to be working right now :(


Pretty much this. Cubase - by comparison - feels klunky, outdated and convoluted. Sure, it's very powerful and still has many features that S1 doesn't, so the question is are those features crucial for you. If they aren't - and for me they're not - then S1 is clearly the better option.

@OP, you're a Bitwig user (my primary DAW as well), so perhaps this speaks to you - S1 is to Cubase what Bitwig is to Live. A more modern incarnation without the 2+ decades of legacy code and design decisions that were modern back then.


----------



## cedricm

ALittleNightMusic said:


> One man's trash is another man's treasure 😉 Or vice versa.
> 
> You want quirks? Here are some quirks. S1 does not handle track delay + external instrument delay compensation properly. Cubase does. S1 does not allow you to set default CC lanes for tracks or have CC lane presets that can be recalled via key command. Cubase does. S1's track visibility features are somewhat half-baked (and have bugs). Cubase is great at managing large templates. S1 requires you to use a limited third-party plugin to customize track / region colors (helpful for large templates) - FYI this is the #1 feature request on their feature request forum and has been one of the top ones for years without any improvement. Cubase has a proper color wheel built in. S1 does not have independent channel panning built in (you have to insert a separate plugin for each track which then breaks any control surface capability you may want). Cubase provides you the option to switch panner modes. For CC / velocity transform, S1 requires you to first toggle on the transform tool while Cubase has transform handles by default - one less step for something I do all the time. I think S1's UI (especially for region display) is some of the ugliest I've seen (also a common complaint from users), while I think Cubase shows things pretty clearly. And for what it's worth in terms of stability (on OS X), I've filed tens of acknowledged bugs with the S1 team this year. I've filed zero with Cubase.
> 
> So, these are some quirks of why I came back to Cubase. But these are MY annoyances with S1. Not your annoyances. You can't tell if YOU will like the UI of a program without you using it. Or if YOUR workflow will be hindered or helped by the implementation choices made by each DAW without trying it out. At most in this thread, you'll get a few random complaints or praises for one DAW or another. Not sure how that will be less superficial than demoing it yourself. 🤷‍♂️


Can you please elaborate on "S1 does not handle track delay + external instrument delay compensation properly" ?


----------



## dylanmixer

I'm leaving this post open for time travel me to come back and edit after Cubase 12 is released. That's going to decide whether I leave or not.

I'm giving them one last shot. While my workflow is almost second nature in cubase, I recognize that their development has slowed to a grinding and frustrating halt. If Cubase 12 doesn't blow my socks off I'm probably switching to S1.


----------



## d.healey

I left Cubase 5 because there was a bug with expression maps and Steinberg were of no help. I moved to Reaper. Now I use Ardour and Qtractor.


----------



## Markrs

digitallysane said:


> Loomer Architect


That is one I haven't heard of before.






Loomer | Architect - MIDI processing plug-in


Download the modular MIDI processor plug-in for Windows, macOS, and Linux. Over 200 built-in modules, step sequencers, arranger, Lua scriptable.




www.loomer.co.uk


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire

I like Cubase. It's more or less still the best DAW probably. But it crashes on me all the time and Studio One has that really awesome VSL integration that made my life a million times easier so that's what I'm using right now.

The recent versions of Cubase also started to feel a bit bloatware-y IMO. There's so much stuff in there, it's kinda overwhelming and making me nervous. I started feeling that I needed to navigate around stuff that I don't even use anyway. And maybe it contributes to the general fragile feel and instability of the software. It also kind of lead to everything looking like a bit of a clusterfuck - it's kind of inconstent the way some menus look and function, and it all just seems like a giant mix of new stuff and legacy leftovers. I think Cubase needs a massive general overhaul. More like skip Cubase 12 and make Cubase 14, where everything looks, feels and works in the same consistent way.


----------



## veranad

I left Cubase because I felt overwhelmed by its features. I am a singer songwriter, I do more composing and recording than editing and mixing.

I now use Reaper, which I find easier to use, and more easily adaptable to my workflow.

I know it is possible to customise and show/hide menus in Cubase, but I wanted to go beyond that and only see what I wanted to see. It is easy to add stuff and learn as you go in Reaper, and the tutorials found and categorised at Reaper's website are pretty good.

No regrets.


----------



## cmillar

Try the free demo of MOTU Digital Performer for sure.

I gave Cubase a good tryout (1 1/2) years, after being a DP user for 20 years.

But, I'm back in DP for many, many reasons. The latest version is fantastic.

DP has:
- 'Chunks' feature; create new sequences and alternate versions without having to reload VI's within DP (but, you could also use VEP for something similar)
- I find that DP uses far less CPU power than Cubase for the same setups
- MIDI editing in DP is as good as if not better than Cubase depending on how you work
- DP doesn't need the 'latest-greatest' Mac or PC to run. They support older versions very well.
- infinitely customizable
- Articulations maps; built-in looper; other useful stuff is all there if you want it
- export Quicktime movies in Mac with audio
- a new Ableton-like setup if needed for live shows
- amazing forum help at MOTUnation
- etc, etc. etc.

Runs on Windows as well as Mac.

Definitely worth exploring. You wonder why nobody talks about DP that much? I believe because it 'just works' and nobody has any real complaints about it!


----------



## lux

Creativity and productivity boost with Studio One.

Cubase has a pretty stable engine, I must admit. But working with loops, sample bits, mangling audio and midi cannot be compared with what SO offers out of the box.

I mean, Cubase has a cocumbersome procedure even for such a stupid task like merging two midi clips. At least that was until 9.5.

Its like they've been engineered on two different centuries.

One thing that Cubase has over Studio One is track templates. You can do something like that in So by importing song data, but the drag-n-drop option in Cubase is really handy.


----------



## easyrider

lux said:


> One thing that Cubase has over Studio One is track templates. You can do something like that in So by importing song data, but the drag-n-drop option in Cubase is really handy.









This allows you to store the instrument and FX on the track like track presets in Cubase.You can then just drag the instrument and FX into your project.


----------



## easyrider

Markrs said:


> I use Reaper, but the real negative is that there is less built in so you have to use action scripts others have created using the very limited GUI the scripting offers you. The benefit is basically nearly all features in others DAWs have been recreated in Action Scripts including retrospective record and articulation maps (reaticulate). I just wish more of those features were built into Reaper.
> 
> The OTR2 version of Reaper is a good example of how far you can take it for composing.


I just don’t have the time or the inclination to do it….I was playing with Reaper and played a groovy keyboard part….No Retrospective record built in…..I shouldn’t have to faff….

I also couldn’t work out how to record CC Dynamics data after I recorded the Midi instrument….

Sure I could add the Automation lane and move the slider backwards and forwards but it wouldn’t work with my mod wheel even though the mod wheel was moving the dynamics in Spitfire Plugin…wtf?


----------



## lux

easyrider said:


> This allows you to store the instrument and FX on the track like track presets in Cubase.You can then just drag the instrument and FX into your project.


Thanks easyrider I'm gonna try this one!


----------



## MarcusD

Thought about migrating to S1, but to be honest. Despite all the annoyances with Cubase, it can still run large projects better than Studio One (off one machine). I just cant run the same size project in Studio One as I can in Cubase. Apart from that, Studio One tends to better Cubase for most tasks that are workflow related.


----------



## easyrider

lux said:


> Thanks easyrider I'm gonna try this one!


I save all my instruments as like this as I always forget to out and instance of console 1 on each channel….now I don’t have to remember…just drag Zebra into the project BOOM console 1 is already embedded into the track.


----------



## Pier

antic604 said:


> Pretty much this. Cubase - by comparison - feels klunky, outdated and convoluted. Sure, it's very powerful and still has many features that S1 doesn't, so the question is are those features crucial for you. If they aren't - and for me they're not - then S1 is clearly the better option.
> 
> @OP, you're a Bitwig user (my primary DAW as well), so perhaps this speaks to you - S1 is to Cubase what Bitwig is to Live. A more modern incarnation without the 2+ decades of legacy code and design decisions that were modern back then.


What features is S1 lacking vs Cubase?


----------



## Markrs

easyrider said:


> I just don’t have the time or the inclination to do it….I was playing with Reaper and played a groovy keyboard part….No Retrospective record built in…..I shouldn’t have to faff….
> 
> I also couldn’t work out how to record CC Dynamics data after I recorded the Midi instrument….
> 
> Sure I could add the Automation lane and move the slider backwards and forwards but it wouldn’t work with my mod wheel even though the mod wheel was moving the dynamics in Spitfire Plugin…wtf?


I agree, my post was basically that, Reaper should have the type of features that you mentioned built in. 

For CC data afterwards you have to select overdub record option, then record the modwheel data in. Took a little while for me to realise that. 

If Reaper had more of the core DAW features built in but remained as customizable as it is, it would be a lot better in my view, though it would probably cost more as well.


----------



## Noeticus

I left Cubase years ago when it forced a - you must use a Windows AERO Theme on me.

I moved to Presonus Studio One, and really enjoy it!


----------



## Wedge

I started with Cakewalk Pro Audio 6, followed until Sonar x3. Went to Cubase but found the workflow didn't really mesh with me so I went to Reaper, short lived. Used Digital Performer, which I still really like. But moved to Studio One on V3 it came with some hardware I bought and the workflow just made sense, I didn't really have to learn how it works. 

But S1 does have a few flaws, it doesn't handle huge templates well, over 100 or so tracks and it starts to run poorly. And the negative track delay is buggy at higher values (so you have to compensate with a track delay instead of negative track delay,. So if you have MSS with a track delay of 440ms, you'd add the delay to the other tracks- it makes things a bit more complicated then they should be and i hope it gets fixed.)


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

I love Cubase, I've been using it since Cubase SX (also used Cakewalk/Sonar for 20+ years). I switched over to Logic Pro as my primary DAW a few years ago. Why? Logic integrates better with my Mac environment....especially my Apogee Element interface, which is integrated right into Logic. I still use Cubase for certain projects because sometimes I like to use it's MIDI editing features (which are the best IMO). My only complaint with Cubase (especially the latest versions) is that it looks so cluttery, and looks like it was designed by Fisher-Price Lol. I also don't like having to pay for updates...but that's the nature of the beast. If I were on PC, I would be 100% Cubase. And yes, I've tried most of the other DAW's out there.


----------



## Pier

Jeremy Spencer said:


> and looks like it was designed by Fisher-Price Lol


Yeah the Cubase UI is really a design Frankenstein, aesthetically speaking. All the Steinberg stuff is generally ugly and inconsistent.

Don't get me wrong, I care more about usability than aesthetics, but it helps when you're looking at a UI that doesn't look 20 years old.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Pier said:


> Yeah the Cubase UI is really a design Frankenstein, aesthetically speaking. All the Steinberg stuff is generally ugly and inconsistent.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I care more about usability than aesthetics, but it helps when you're looking at a UI that doesn't look 20 years old.


If I were a brand new user of Cubase, I would definitely be overwhelmed with the UI. But you are right, it's the usability that counts, and it is a monster. Logic is my favourite for aesthetics....it's very easy on my eyes and very minimalistic.


----------



## kitekrazy

handz said:


> I didnt
> 
> I have tried almost all other DAWs and hated them with passion.


I'm fair. I basically hate all DAWs with a passion.


----------



## ka00

My main annoyance with Cubase was the UI. Both what I find to be a dated aesthetic, and that it’s inflexible in some ways. I couldn’t resize the visibility panel (couldn’t see long track names) or columns the expression map editor (couldn’t see long articulation names), etc.

So I switched to Studio One and kept discovering all sorts of little revelations/conveniences that were very well thought out.

One big area Studio One does need to improve its ability to work with large track counts. It gets exponentially slower to work with the more tracks you have with visibility enabled at one time.


----------



## Pier

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Logic is my favourite for aesthetics....it's very easy on my eyes and very minimalistic.


With all the M1 thing going on I've actually considered getting a Mac Mini and switching back to Logic. I used Logic for years (from v7 to LPX) and left for Live back in 2011 or so.



ka00 said:


> One big area Studio One does need to improve its ability to work with large track counts. It gets exponentially slower to work with the more tracks you have with visibility enabled at one time.


Roughly at how many tracks do you start to feel the slow down?

What hardware are you using?


----------



## easyrider

Cubase GUI is like a teenagers Bedroom in the 80s who was a massive fan of Micheal Jackson 😂


----------



## Zanshin

I use both Cubase and Ableton Live but I'm mostly using Live these days. The dual view feels good for how I compose. I start out in Session mode building up the selection of instruments I'll use for the composition. I tend to do a lot of noodling and instrument tweaking before I move to Arrangement mode and start recording. The Max integration with Live is a big deal to me (I use https://www.swub.de/en/software/keyswitch-expression-map-ableton-live/ and my own custom max midi processors a ton). There's also some Elektron integrations made by users that help with integrating my Analog RYTM MK 2 etc. All the grouping, fx send stuff, how insert fx are displayed... it all feels like a flow more suited to me than Cubase.

That said I am going to try to upgrade my Cubase 10.5 to 12 in the grace period. I feel like Cubase is old faithful haha. I may try to crossgrade to Nuendo too at some point.


----------



## antic604

Pier said:


> What features is S1 lacking vs Cubase?


Someone listed them few pages back, but frankly those are really important for orchestral arrangements and/or scoring video which are of no interest to me.

On the other hand, S1 gets ahead of Cubase - for my own music & workflow - for:

handling of tracks, folders and busses - it's much cleaner and more organized (no explicit arrangement track = console channel parity)
mixing console is much more convenient, especially for laptop users with inserts & sends popping out to the side; also native devices display parameters and some visualisations so you don't have to open them
drag & drop everywhere, even where you least expect it (e.g. dagging MIDI clip into audio track or Sampler XT / Impact XT will bounce it on the fly; drag & drop audio file to MIDI track to extract pitches, etc.)
assigning automation lane to anything is a breeze, you wiggle a parameter, hit a key/icon and it's ready to be drawn in and edited
same with external controllers - wiggle parameter, wiggle knob/slider/xy pad, click a button to map
extended FX chains with Splitter (for parallel, left/right. mid/side, multiband processing stuff on a single track - like Bitwig's splitters)
scratch pads (notepads for trying out ideas without cluttering your main arrangement)
really good MIDI and audio editing - maybe not better than Cubase's but definitely faster and more intuitive, especially for quantizing and stretching audio
ability to play overlapping audio - many hate this, but I love it for spicing up drum loops, without having to layer multiple tracks
dedicated mastering and live performance pages
the GUI looks better on high-DPI scaling or when Windows isn't set to 100%
it just feels more reliable, leaner and faster - it's a new code compared to Cubase


----------



## Pier

antic604 said:


> the GUI looks better on high-DPI scaling or when Windows isn't set to 100%


This is really important for me since I use a 4K monitor on Windows.

How does Cubase handle hiDPI displays and scaling of its own UI and plugins?


----------



## antic604

Pier said:


> This is really important for me since I use a 4K monitor on Windows.
> 
> How does Cubase handle hiDPI displays and scaling of its own UI and plugins?


Plugins scaling since v11 is good, on par with Bitwig or Ableton Live (and S1, for that matter) where for DPI-unaware plugins (like most NI or Soundtoys stuff, for example) you can ask the DAW to stretch them.

However the Cubase's own GUI doesn't look great at anything else than 100% or 200% scaling, at least from my experience. Maybe 150% is OK, but at 125% - which I've tried using - it's simply blurry, there are some small graphical errors and it happens to flicker when dragging clips. It's much better than v10 and v10.5 were, but there's still way to go...


----------



## AcousTech

Pier said:


> What features is S1 lacking vs Cubase?


The one that holds me up is the one I mentioned a few pages back: no support for MIDI Patch Names for outboard gear. Sounds like that may not be an issue for you, though. However, the more you have, the more it matters.


----------



## ka00

Pier said:


> Roughly at how many tracks do you start to feel the slow down?
> 
> What hardware are you using?


Here’s are two posts where I provide more detail:

https://vi-control.net/community/th...-big-templates-bad-choice.113058/post-4927194

https://vi-control.net/community/th...-big-templates-bad-choice.113058/post-4926821


----------



## Loïc D

I stopped using Cubase when I switched to Mac because Cubase was not available anymore at the time (2013). So I switched to Logic.
I don’t think I’ll ever switch back.
Maybe to S1 if it handles more tracks & video properly.


----------



## PeterKorcek

My main annoyance has been *cluttered interface, suboptimal UI/UX and sometimes clunky controls* (at least to me). I will try to give Logic Pro a go again. Tried S1 before, but the CPU performance was horrible for more tracks - in this regard Cubase is much better and overall it is probably the best DAW, but I think I need something more streamlined


----------



## Obi-Wan Spaghetti

Markrs said:


> I use Reaper, but the real negative is that there is less built in so you have to use action scripts others have created using the very limited GUI the scripting offers you. The benefit is basically nearly all features in others DAWs have been recreated in Action Scripts including retrospective record and articulation maps (reaticulate). I just wish more of those features were built into Reaper.
> 
> The OTR2 version of Reaper is a good example of how far you can take it for composing.


Are there maps out there like Babylonwaves Art Conductor or you have to build your own? And has Reaper been stable for you?


----------



## Markrs

Obi-Wan Spaghetti said:


> Are there maps out there like Babylonwaves Art Conductor or you have to build your own? And has Reaper been stable for you?


There are some maps you can download but not that many. OTR2 with an articulation map builder, or if you want to do advanced articulation maps you can "code" them. 

This is the challenge of Reaper, there often isn't a nice simple visual way to do something, but you often can do a lot more than you can with any other DAW (reaticulate is very powerful compared to most articulation map implementations).


----------



## Obi-Wan Spaghetti

Markrs said:


> There are some maps you can download but not that many. OTR2 with an articulation map builder, or if you want to do advanced articulation maps you can "code" them.
> 
> This is the challenge of Reaper, there often isn't a nice simple visual way to do something, but you often can do a lot more than you can with any other DAW (reaticulate is very powerful compared to most articulation map implementations).


Looking into OTR right now. Thanks.


----------



## Nico5

digitallysane said:


> Interesting thing though, if I'm only looking to do some synth exploration stuff (either VSTi or MODX) I found that I just prefer starting Loomer Architect, my greatest recent discovery.


Very interesting - thanks for sharing!

If I was to consider Cubase alternatives, I would also have a really good look at Tracktion Waveform. Even the free version is a rather fully featured DAW. So a financially very low risk investigation. 

I even wonder, if Loomer Architect is built using the Tracktion Engine. I’ll have to dig into that now. 

Strategically I’m keeping an open mind towards one day possibly running Linux as my main DAW platform, and that’s where some of these younger DAWs definitely have an edge.


----------



## cmillar

Here's a nice review about DP11 that just came out:









MOTU Digital Performer 11 – The Synth and Software Review


Marty Cutler jumps up and down on DP11, the latest version of MOTU’s DAW, while making ape noises and scratching his chest to see whether it breaks. It doesn’t. In the beginning – the 1980s – MOTU Digital Performer was just “Performer.” It wasn’t until much later that it and other MIDI...




synthandsoftware.com


----------



## José Herring

I've always found Cubase to be fairly cluttered and just not fun to work with. I've endured it for 15 years and have gotten good at it but I still dread the confusion of the interface. Even customized it's too busy. 

Cbase though does have great editing features, but oddly enough midi timing in Cubase is problematic. They've sort of fixed that with the various time stamp options, ect introduced way back but it's always been a temporary hotfix that has now after 15 years become a permanent stop gap that's covering up the real problem. 

I'm testing DP11 right now and the first thing that struck me is that the midi timing is rock solid.


----------



## audio1

I left cubase in 1993.


----------



## Pier

José Herring said:


> I've always found Cubase to be fairly cluttered and just not fun to work with. I've endured it for 15 years and have gotten good at it but I still dread the confusion of the interface. Even customized it's too busy.
> 
> Cbase though does have great editing features, but oddly enough midi timing in Cubase is problematic. They've sort of fixed that with the various time stamp options, ect introduced way back but it's always been a temporary hotfix that has now after 15 years become a permanent stop gap that's covering up the real problem.
> 
> I'm testing DP11 right now and the first thing that struck me is that the midi timing is rock solid.


Are you talking about micro jitter in the timing?

How big are those issues?

How do you test midi timing?


----------



## José Herring

Pier said:


> Are you talking about micro jitter in the timing?
> 
> How big are those issues?
> 
> How do you test midi timing?


I test it by ear against the click. Not scientifically but in Cubase there is always midi timing fluxations. You'll need a fairly tightly editing snare sample or a synth with an immediate attack. It's especially notceable on cubase if you have constant 16th note playing and a moderately fast tempo. It just starts to sound "off" in places.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

José Herring said:


> I test it by ear against the click. Not scientifically but in Cubase there is always midi timing fluxations. You'll need a fairly tightly editing snare sample or a synth with an immediate attack. It's especially notceable on cubase if you have constant 16th note playing and a moderately fast tempo. It just starts to sound "off" in places.


Hmm, I've never experienced this in Cubase. Sounds more like a latency issue (interface, buffers, etc).


----------



## José Herring

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Hmm, I've never experienced this in Cubase. Sounds more like a latency issue (interface, buffers, etc).


You would think but it isn't. I'm using the same machine, interface and buffers on DP and DP sounds so much tighter. I'm about to post some audio examples.


----------



## Pier

José Herring said:


> You would think but it isn't. I'm using the same machine, interface and buffers on DP and DP sounds so much tighter. I'm about to post some audio examples.


You could play the same track twice but one with the phase inverted. If the timing is accurate you shouldn't hear anything (at least the timing between tracks).

Obviously this only applies to realtime playing. I doubt the bounced audio will have any timing issues.


----------



## David Kudell

I switched from Logic to Cubase last year, and in fact I have a thread here where I post a question when I get stumped and the nice folks here will help out. Thanks nice folks!

I will say Cubase can be a bit overwhelming at first and the interface is not the most user-friendly. However, having said that, the best thing about it is that there is almost always a way to do the thing you want, that will save you tons of time. Whether it’s automation, the logical editor, and so on. There were things in Logic you just couldn’t do, like have folders within folders for a big orchestral template.

For me, I choose having the ability to do pretty much anything I want with an uglier interface, over not being able to do stuff at all (which is a lot more frustrating).


----------



## José Herring

Pier said:


> You could play the same track twice but one with the phase inverted. If the timing is accurate you shouldn't hear anything (at least the timing between tracks).
> 
> Obviously this only applies to realtime playing. I doubt the bounced audio will have any timing issues.


I'm going to post the audio tracks. I can definitely hear the timing inconsistencies in the first bar. The Cubase version sounds like it has jitter to me. It could be audio or it could be midi. 

I'm wondering if somebody could just do an audio file comparison do some sort of more scientific analyses.


----------



## José Herring

David Kudell said:


> I switched from Logic to Cubase last year, and in fact I have a thread here where I post a question when I get stumped and the nice folks here will help out. Thanks nice folks!
> 
> I will say Cubase can be a bit overwhelming at first and the interface is not the most user-friendly. However, having said that, the best thing about it is that there is almost always a way to do the thing you want, that will save you tons of time. Whether it’s automation, the logical editor, and so on. There were things in Logic you just couldn’t do, like have folders within folders for a big orchestral template.
> 
> For me, I choose having the ability to do pretty much anything I want with an uglier interface, over not being able to do stuff at all (which is a lot more frustrating).


This it true. In auditioning DP I'm finding again little things that I've grown to rely on in Cubase that honestly I can't find how to do in DP. Workflow. Cubase actually has a great workflow and amazing amount of shortcuts. Things you don't think of but when they are gone it's rough.


----------



## Tralen

José Herring said:


> I'm going to post the audio tracks. I can definitely hear the timing inconsistencies in the first bar. The Cubase version sounds like it has jitter to me. It could be audio or it could be midi.
> 
> I'm wondering if somebody could just do an audio file comparison do some sort of more scientific analyses.


The tracks don't null at all, but, even though the transients seem to be well aligned, there is a clear syncopation in the null result. I agree there is some jitter here.


----------



## José Herring

Tralen said:


> The tracks don't null at all, but, even though the transients seem to be well aligned, there is a clear syncopation in the null result. I agree there is some jitter here.


I thought so. I've heard it for years. Could never prove it. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. 

I remember when I switched from DP to Cubase back on SX3.0 and the midi timing on that one was horrendous. I mean so bad that even 15 years latter I still bump into mentions of it online. They patched it up in 3.1 and that patch has stayed all the way up until Cbase 11 but truth is they never actually FIXED it. You can force Cbuse to follow the windows timestamp and that's it.

So when I started testing DP and was like, whoa, I was suddenly reminded of the Cubase midi timing issues.


----------



## Tralen

José Herring said:


> I thought so. I've heard it for years. Could never prove it. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.
> 
> I remember when I switched from DP to Cubase back on SX3.0 and the midi timing on that one was horrendous. I mean so bad that even 15 years latter I still bump into mentions of it online. They patched it up in 3.1 and that patch has stayed all the way up until Cbase 11 but truth is they never actually FIXED it. You can force Cbuse to follow the windows timestamp and that's it.
> 
> So when I started testing DP and was like, whoa, I was suddenly reminded of the Cubase midi timing issues.


The weird thing is that it is very inconsistent, I wouldn't expect something like this on a bounced track. Does rendering in real time has any effect on the jitter?


----------



## José Herring

Tralen said:


> The weird thing is that it is very inconsistent, I wouldn't expect something like this on a bounced track. Does rendering in real time has any effect on the jitter?


Not sure. But it has always been audible to me when I'm sequencing in Cubase using tight articulations. With samples it doesn't really matter because sample library shorts are so inconsistent anyway depending on how the sample has been recorded, performed and edited. But with a tight synth line it's just so obvious that there's jitter somewhere. I use to think it was my system but then I built a whole new system updated hardware and audio interface and it was still there. I learned to live with it and mostly forgotten about it then BAM! I sequenced a synth arp in DP and was like WTF? Sounds so tight. That's when all the horrible memories of SX3 came back to me and that's when I realized they never actually fixed it. They just put a band aid on it for 15 years now.


----------



## Tralen

José Herring said:


> They just put a band aid on it for 15 years now.


That is a line that seems to be broadly applicable to Cubase.

It is probably the major reason why people left Cubase, @Pier.


----------



## YaniDee

Every Daw has it's specific issues..You also have to take your particular computer, OS, plugins etc. into consideration. I use Cubase and FL..I l also have Bitwig, Sonar, Studio One, Protools First (mainly free or cut down versions), and frankly I don't have the time or desire to learn them all properly..what's the point? Between the two Daws I use, I can do anything I want..


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

Oh also the mastering project in S1 (which Cubase has nothing of the sort) is absolutely fantastic 

(someone might have mentioned it already)


----------



## dterry

José Herring said:


> I'm going to post the audio tracks. I can definitely hear the timing inconsistencies in the first bar. The Cubase version sounds like it has jitter to me. It could be audio or it could be midi.
> 
> I'm wondering if somebody could just do an audio file comparison do some sort of more scientific analyses.


I just compared DP11 and Cubase using a Kontakt instrument I configured just for this purpose - fixed velocity, single percussion (woodblock) triggered, with no effects and no randomization. Same midi pattern, tempo, etc in both. 

I exported two passes in DP and two in Cubase. I compared the two passes in each DAW, and they nulled with each other, so separate passes are sample accurate with one another. I then imported the DP audio bounces into Cubase, and the Cubase mixes null with the DP mixes. 

The midi timing is the same in DP and Cubase. Are you using a sound that isn't variable - no modulation, fx, velocity layers, round robin samples, and *not* a soft synth (being algorithmic, they are not reliable for this kind of testing)? Even an envelope attack can be inaccurate.


----------



## José Herring

dterry said:


> I just compared DP11 and Cubase using a Kontakt instrument I configured just for this purpose - fixed velocity, single percussion (woodblock) triggered, with no effects and no randomization. Same midi pattern, tempo, etc in both.
> 
> I exported two passes in DP and two in Cubase. I compared the two passes in each DAW, and they nulled with each other, so separate passes are sample accurate with one another. I then imported the DP audio bounces into Cubase, and the Cubase mixes null with the DP mixes.
> 
> The midi timing is the same in DP and Cubase. Are you using a sound that isn't variable - no modulation, fx, velocity layers, round robin samples, and *not* a soft synth (being algorithmic, they are not reliable for this kind of testing)? Even an envelope attack can be inaccurate.


Thanks. I'll try with a dry woodblock sample. It could be that my midi configuration in Cubase isn't what it should be. So many boxes to check that I've lost track. 

Will try again late this evening and see if I can get the files to null.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

Tralen said:


> The tracks don't null at all, but, even though the transients seem to be well aligned, there is a clear syncopation in the null result. I agree there is some jitter here.


I’m not hearing timing issues, but more like velocity or something. Or maybe it’s something to do with the quantizing? Weird.

@José Herring did you use an arpeggiator (ie: Arpache) or is it quantized?


----------



## Tralen

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I’m not hearing timing issues, but more like velocity or something. Or maybe it’s something to do with the quantizing? Weird.
> 
> @José Herring did you use an arpeggiator (ie: Arpache) or is it quantized?


Yes, I think you got it right. That would explain why I didn't find anything wrong with the transients. Some variation in velocity could cause the syncopation.


----------



## toddkreuz

I'm still using Cubase 5, still going strong. Not even the full version, just "Studio" version. Don't plan to change anything until i absolutely have no choice.


----------



## pistacchio

I’m the other way round. I started with FL Studio. It never made sense to me: the interface is cluttered, you divide your work in “clips” and you never know if a clip has four bars or the whole piece, one instrument or ten of them, you constantly have to juggle with twenty overlapping floating windows. It is a mess.

I used Ableton Live till I got seriously irritated by the development of the project. You have to wait four or five years for the next version and it typically brigs two new features and ten new weird effects to produce extreme distortions no one asked for. The big thing about Ableton Live 10, released in 2018, was Wavetable, a wavetable synthesizer only available in the "pro" version (the Suite) at a time where every "pro", average user, beginner producer and their mother have already had Serum for 10 years. The big thing about Ableton Live 11 is comping and scale highlight, two features that even the most basic DAWs have had for ages. I really don't know what they have in mind or what their business model is anymore.

I then switched to Cubase. It’s linear. Its workflow just makes sense to me. This is more or less the same with StudioOne or Logic, but Cubase has a single feature no one else has that I cannot live without.

You see, I’m a really sloppy player and I’m not very knowledgeable when it comes to music theory. I write music by drawing notes in the editor more than by playing them. I can set the scale I want to compose in and Cubase highlights / snaps / quantizes whatever I do. Does this note belongs to Eb minor? No idea, but Cubase tells me.

When I’m done laying out the harmonic layer (and Cubase has helpers even to do that since it tells me what the chord of a particular set of notes is, invert / extend the highlighted chord / show related chords / helps me compose using the circle of fifths and so on), I send the chords to the Chord Track and in the key editor I switch to “Highlight chords”.

Done. I’m on a particular bar of a particular track and I want to write an arpeggio. Honestly, how do you even remember the exact chord you played for the first time ten minutes earlier in that particular bar? I don’t, but Cubase tells me if any note belongs to the chord and the scale / to the scale but not to the chord / to the chord but not to the scale (eg: I wrote a non-diatonic chord) or neither.

Cubase has the reputation of being a “serious and professional” DAW so beginners, maybe wanting to make trap or EDM or the like, are suggested to go with FL Studio or similar. Honest to God, how they even do anything without these super noob-friendly features it’s something that boggles my mind.

The only real nuisance is the dongle. While I have an external MIDI keyboard, StreamDeck, an external 4Tb HD with samples, I want to move to a fully portable setup where I can lay on the couch and compose. I can get away without the keyboard and StreamDeck, I plan on getting a new MacBook with 4 or even 8 Tb of SSD to have all the sample libraries within the computer, but I cannot wait till Steinberg gets rid of the damn dongle. I even have to use an adapter for it since my new-ish MacBook doesn’t have USB ports. It just prevents me from sitting the computer comfortably on my lap.


What’s irritating is that they’re doing a years-long drama about a solved problem. “How do we even secure Cubase without an hardware key?!”. “Hmm, hello? Maybe like literally any other software out there - hundreds of thousands of them - but yours and a couple of others’?”
I don’t need a dongle to run, say, Ableton Live, Microsoft Excel, Adobe Photoshop. Just do what they do: ask for my email and a code you sent me via email and get along with it.


----------



## Crossroads

Am I the only one who really, really LOVES the way Cubase looks right now?

I think that interface is sexy!


----------



## José Herring

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I’m not hearing timing issues, but more like velocity or something. Or maybe it’s something to do with the quantizing? Weird.
> 
> @José Herring did you use an arpeggiator (ie: Arpache) or is it quantized?


Just quantized the midi track. I'm about to do a test with a single sample and see if I can get the same results. It could be that I have too many midi boxes checked off. System time stamp ect.


----------



## jononotbono

I’ve been thinking about getting a Cubase Tattoo. Maybe a full back piece 😂


----------



## José Herring

dterry said:


> I just compared DP11 and Cubase using a Kontakt instrument I configured just for this purpose - fixed velocity, single percussion (woodblock) triggered, with no effects and no randomization. Same midi pattern, tempo, etc in both.
> 
> I exported two passes in DP and two in Cubase. I compared the two passes in each DAW, and they nulled with each other, so separate passes are sample accurate with one another. I then imported the DP audio bounces into Cubase, and the Cubase mixes null with the DP mixes.
> 
> The midi timing is the same in DP and Cubase. Are you using a sound that isn't variable - no modulation, fx, velocity layers, round robin samples, and *not* a soft synth (being algorithmic, they are not reliable for this kind of testing)? Even an envelope attack can be inaccurate.


Nah, I couldn't get them to null. If you can then there's definitely something up. I'll full around with different settings but since it's something I've noticed for years on multiple machines, I'm not too hopeful. 

When you did your sample did you use repeated 16th notes at a moderate fast tempo? That's where it usually falls apart for me.


----------



## Yellow Studio

I haven't left Cubase! 
Been using it since 2005.
Pc, Cubase 11.0.20 works good for me!


----------



## cedricm

antic604 said:


> Someone listed them few pages back, but frankly those are really important for orchestral arrangements and/or scoring video which are of no interest to me.
> 
> On the other hand, S1 gets ahead of Cubase - for my own music & workflow - for:
> 
> handling of tracks, folders and busses - it's much cleaner and more organized (no explicit arrangement track = console channel parity)
> mixing console is much more convenient, especially for laptop users with inserts & sends popping out to the side; also native devices display parameters and some visualisations so you don't have to open them
> drag & drop everywhere, even where you least expect it (e.g. dagging MIDI clip into audio track or Sampler XT / Impact XT will bounce it on the fly; drag & drop audio file to MIDI track to extract pitches, etc.)
> assigning automation lane to anything is a breeze, you wiggle a parameter, hit a key/icon and it's ready to be drawn in and edited
> same with external controllers - wiggle parameter, wiggle knob/slider/xy pad, click a button to map
> extended FX chains with Splitter (for parallel, left/right. mid/side, multiband processing stuff on a single track - like Bitwig's splitters)
> scratch pads (notepads for trying out ideas without cluttering your main arrangement)
> really good MIDI and audio editing - maybe not better than Cubase's but definitely faster and more intuitive, especially for quantizing and stretching audio
> ability to play overlapping audio - many hate this, but I love it for spicing up drum loops, without having to layer multiple tracks
> dedicated mastering and live performance pages
> the GUI looks better on high-DPI scaling or when Windows isn't set to 100%
> it just feels more reliable, leaner and faster - it's a new code compared to Cubase


The list is largely incorrect. 
To me, the. Number 1 missing feature from Studio One is multichannel support. 
In Cubase, you can do Dolby Atmos.


----------



## José Herring

Can anyone see if they can get these files to null? I can't.






Xylo Sample for Midi timing test - Google Drive







drive.google.com


----------



## dylanmixer

Crossroads said:


> Am I the only one who really, really LOVES the way Cubase looks right now?
> 
> I think that interface is sexy!


The last time I thought Cubase looked sexy, it's because I switched from Pro Tools.


----------



## Nils Neumann

cedricm said:


> The list is largely incorrect.
> To me, the. Number 1 missing feature from Studio One is multichannel support.
> In Cubase, you can do Dolby Atmos.


Incorrect, Cubase is limited to 5.1.


----------



## cedricm

Nils Neumann said:


> Incorrect, Cubase is limited to 5.1.


My bad: it's Nuendo only.
Still you can do 5.1, 3d spatial audio and ambisonics with plugins, and most importantly for film music 4.0, which you can't do in Studio One.









Get Started with Dolby Atmos Music - Dolby Professional - Dolby Professional


Learn to produce music in Dolby Atmos and deliver immersive sound experiences. Get started with music creation 101s, mixing tutorials and comprehensive courses.




professional.dolby.com


----------



## MarcusD

jononotbono said:


> I’ve been thinking about getting a Cubase Tattoo. Maybe a full back piece 😂


Damn, if you do I’ll buy you a pack of beers and a red wheelbarrow to carry them nuts around in!


----------



## jononotbono

cedricm said:


> The list is largely incorrect.
> To me, the. Number 1 missing feature from Studio One is multichannel support.
> In Cubase, you can do Dolby Atmos.


No. Cubase 11 is 5.1 (currently)
However, Nuendo supports up to 22.2 so yes, you very much can have an Atmos setup with Nuendo using its multi panner (which is absolutely fantastic by the way). I have set up a couple of Atmos studios.


----------



## quickbrownf0x

dylanmixer said:


> I'm leaving this post open for time travel me to come back and edit after Cubase 12 is released. That's going to decide whether I leave or not.
> 
> I'm giving them one last shot. While my workflow is almost second nature in cubase, I recognize that their development has slowed to a grinding and frustrating halt. If Cubase 12 doesn't blow my socks off I'm probably switching to S1.


Traitor, I say!!


----------



## lucor

I want to leave Cubase because I despise Steinberg's business model: only one single update a year (which is of course paid), bugs are never getting fixed while useful features like local undo get removed, ...

I also hate how convoluted and complicated everything is. For example. just compare the inspectors of both Cubase and Studio One. In Studio One everything is visible at one glance, while in Cubase you have these millions of foldable submenus that you constantly have to re-open. Same thing in the mixer. Drives me nuts.

Unfortunately I can't seem to get away from it. I first tried REAPER, which I really liked, but the UI really doesn't handle bigger projects very well and becomes very slow and sluggish.
This year I worked with Studio One for a few months which I enjoyed it even more, but I faced a really severe problem where the UI will randomly shit the bed and start running at what feels like 5fps. I had a lot of back and forth with Presonus support, but they couldn't help and have now forwarded the issue to the S1 dev team.
I hope they figure out how to fix it, because then I'll be gone in an instant if Steinberg doesn't completely change their way of doing things.


----------



## Chris Richter

lucor said:


> I want to leave Cubase because I despise Steinberg's business model: only one single update a year (which is of course paid), bugs are never getting fixed while useful features like local undo get removed, ...
> 
> I also hate how convoluted and complicated everything is. For example. just compare the inspectors of both Cubase and Studio One. In Studio One everything is visible at one glance, while in Cubase you have these millions of foldable submenus that you constantly have to re-open. Same thing in the mixer. Drives me nutes.
> 
> Unfortunately I can't seem to get away from it. I first tried REAPER, which I really liked, but the UI really doesn't handle bigger projects very well and becomes very slow and sluggish.
> This year I worked with Studio One for a few months which I enjoyed it even more, but I faced a really severe problem where the UI will randomly shit the bed and start running at what feels like 5fps. I had a lot of back and forth with Presonus support, but they couldn't help and have now forwarded the issue to the S1 dev team.
> I hope they figure out how to fix it, because then I'll be gone in an instant if Steinberg doesn't completely change their way of doing things.


How up to date is that information on Reaper? Working fine here with 226 tracks (I have run way more). I remember empty tracks straining the CPU but it already feels like at least a year ago or something.
I have yet to try 1000 tracks+ though.


----------



## quickbrownf0x

Crossroads said:


> Am I the only one who really, really LOVES the way Cubase looks right now?
> 
> I think that interface is sexy!


Same here.


----------



## lucor

Chris Richter said:


> How up to date is that information on Reaper? Working fine here with 226 tracks (I have run way more). I remember empty tracks straining the CPU but it already feels like at least a year ago or something.
> I have yet to try 1000 tracks+ though.


Last time I experienced and tested it was a few months ago. I think it's mostly a problem on 4k screens, if you're running on a lower resolution it could be fine.


----------



## Chris Richter

Ah, yeah. That might explain it. No experience with 4K yet


----------



## joebaggan

I don't think you'll find a more fully featured DAW than Cubase. I've had Cubase Pro for years and still discover new things I can do it with it. Recently discovered it can do non-linear sequencing with Arranger tracks and that's my go-to workflow now. Probably not the prettiest looking or easiest DAW, but for me, the vast functionality wins over looks.


----------



## Tralen

José Herring said:


> Can anyone see if they can get these files to null? I can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xylo Sample for Midi timing test - Google Drive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


Ok, here is my attempt.

They null much better than the previous files, but the difference is still not constant. I increased the level by +60db and we can hear that the same "syncopation" is still present.

We can see the difference in the waveform of the third track, it is not constant.


----------



## dterry

José Herring said:


> Can anyone see if they can get these files to null? I can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xylo Sample for Midi timing test - Google Drive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


They null down to -66db. Your test instrument seems to have some round robin sample triggering - hence the syncopation to the null-difference playback.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpq3kDGsahbNw6PyIn7JrAeDO5QlVqGW/view?usp=sharing (Here is a link to the Kontakt 6 patch) I used that guarantees a consistent sample trigger. You may have to relink to the sample when opening, but it should work if placed under Kontakt Factory Library - Instruments - Orchestral - 5-Orchestral Percussion.

When triggered with a sequence using the same velocity, it nulls completely. I tested with 16th notes at 120 bpm and 150 bpm.


----------



## digitallysane

Crossroads said:


> Am I the only one who really, really LOVES the way Cubase looks right now?
> 
> I think that interface is sexy!


I mostly like it, visually, and the GUI is pretty effective.
But I'm coming from VFX where software looks technical and everything is very complex/complicated.
Cubase/Nuendo feel right at home among Nuke, Houdini or Unreal Engine.


----------



## Tralen

dterry said:


> They null down to -66db. Your test instrument seems to have some round robin sample triggering - hence the syncopation to the null-difference playback.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpq3kDGsahbNw6PyIn7JrAeDO5QlVqGW/view?usp=sharing (Here is a link to the Kontakt 6 patch) I used that guarantees a consistent sample trigger. You may have to relink to the sample when opening, but it should work if placed under Kontakt Factory Library - Instruments - Orchestral - 5-Orchestral Percussion.
> 
> When triggered with a sequence using the same velocity, it nulls completely. I tested with 16th notes at 120 bpm and 150 bpm.


Round robin would obviously cause the differences, but I thought @José Herring said he used a single sample.


----------



## Tralen

lucor said:


> Last time I experienced and tested it was a few months ago. I think it's mostly a problem on 4k screens, if you're running on a lower resolution it could be fine.


I have no problem running 100-150 tracks on 4k, but I never go above that by much.


----------



## Vik

Markrs said:


> There are some maps you can download but not that many.











Buy Cubase Expression Maps


Buy 9000 Professional Expression Maps for Steinberg Cubase and Nuendo - supports for all major orchestra libraries.




www.babylonwaves.com


----------



## Anthony

Pier said:


> So what DAW are you using now?


Studio One.


----------



## greggybud

Pier said:


> I'm considering getting into Cubase but would like to hear all the 1 star reviews from people that moved onto other DAWs.
> 
> I'm currently using Bitwig. It's amazing in so many aspects (sound design, devices, modulators, the grid, etc) except for actually writing music.


Just some common issues I have read in no particular order.

1. Dongle (announced today with C12 no dongle if you don't want to use one.)
2. It's too complex/cluttered too many features get in the way.
3. Screen display issues regarding all the different display formats.
4. workflow..number of clicks to achieve an objective 

How dedicated are you to a DAW? Are you willing to learn and use the LE/PLE which enhances workflow? Will you optimize the 3 seperate mix consoles either linked or unlinked? Will you take your KC's and built macros to the next level using an outside tool such as Metagrid? How much initial learning time will you invest vs. current projects that have deadlines?

Or do you feel you are the user who wants a clickable icon for convenience to achieve what can be achieved with a LE preset assigned to a KC? 

What is the genre of your production?

There is a significant difference between a user who does the above and a user who doesn't, and most users fall somewhere in between. Keep in mind Cubase is the most feature rich DAW. Thats a curse and a blessing. And it's very old with code built upon code which is why some seemingly simple issues are not easy to fix with limited resources. Just today I read about the pinning of the inspector. That's not simple or easy as it would be if the foundation was new. 

And finally, despite what some users say, there is no master Cubase guru. Greg Ondo is exceptional, but certainly doesn't know it all. I'm amazed when he is live, all the stuff thrown at him how he can handle it. Same can be said with Martin and other users who participate. There are deeper issues/functions in the Media Bay even the coders don't seem to grasp. Fortunately most won't be noticeable or rarely used.

Like Photoshop, how much do you want to get out of Cubase?


----------



## José Herring

dterry said:


> They null down to -66db. Your test instrument seems to have some round robin sample triggering - hence the syncopation to the null-difference playback.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpq3kDGsahbNw6PyIn7JrAeDO5QlVqGW/view?usp=sharing (Here is a link to the Kontakt 6 patch) I used that guarantees a consistent sample trigger. You may have to relink to the sample when opening, but it should work if placed under Kontakt Factory Library - Instruments - Orchestral - 5-Orchestral Percussion.
> 
> When triggered with a sequence using the same velocity, it nulls completely. I tested with 16th notes at 120 bpm and 150 bpm.


I'll try it out. There is no RR in my example though. It's just a single sample.


----------



## Pier

greggybud said:


> Just some common issues I have read in no particular order.
> 
> 1. Dongle (announced today with C12 no dongle if you don't want to use one.)
> 2. It's too complex/cluttered too many features get in the way.
> 3. Screen display issues regarding all the different display formats.
> 4. workflow..number of clicks to achieve an objective
> 
> How dedicated are you to a DAW? Are you willing to learn and use the LE/PLE which enhances workflow? Will you optimize the 3 seperate mix consoles either linked or unlinked? Will you take your KC's and built macros to the next level using an outside tool such as Metagrid? How much initial learning time will you invest vs. current projects that have deadlines?
> 
> Or do you feel you are the user who wants a clickable icon for convenience to achieve what can be achieved with a LE preset assigned to a KC?
> 
> What is the genre of your production?
> 
> There is a significant difference between a user who does the above and a user who doesn't, and most users fall somewhere in between. Keep in mind Cubase is the most feature rich DAW. Thats a curse and a blessing. And it's very old with code built upon code which is why some seemingly simple issues are not easy to fix with limited resources. Just today I read about the pinning of the inspector. That's not simple or easy as it would be if the foundation was new.
> 
> And finally, despite what some users say, there is no master Cubase guru. Greg Ondo is exceptional, but certainly doesn't know it all. I'm amazed when he is live, all the stuff thrown at him how he can handle it. Same can be said with Martin and other users who participate. There are deeper issues/functions in the Media Bay even the coders don't seem to grasp. Fortunately most won't be noticeable or rarely used.
> 
> Like Photoshop, how much do you want to get out of Cubase?


I'm always willing to learn how to improve my workflow in the software I'm using.

Typically I start my process by watching a video with the introductory workflow tips. And then, once I'm using the software and familiarizing myself with the patterns, I gradually polish my workflow by finding solutions to whatever process is annoying me the most.

I rarely read manuals. Sometimes I skim them, to get a general overview, or I look up something in more detail.

In the industry we say that a good UI is like a good joke. If you have to explain it, it doesn't work. Obviously it's a bit hyperbolic, as any sufficiently complex software will require a learning curve, but there's some truth to it.


----------



## José Herring

dterry said:


> They null down to -66db. Your test instrument seems to have some round robin sample triggering - hence the syncopation to the null-difference playback.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpq3kDGsahbNw6PyIn7JrAeDO5QlVqGW/view?usp=sharing (Here is a link to the Kontakt 6 patch) I used that guarantees a consistent sample trigger. You may have to relink to the sample when opening, but it should work if placed under Kontakt Factory Library - Instruments - Orchestral - 5-Orchestral Percussion.
> 
> When triggered with a sequence using the same velocity, it nulls completely. I tested with 16th notes at 120 bpm and 150 bpm.


It nulls down to about -60 db or so then I start getting a syncopated rhythm. It's kind of cool sounding though.

Just curious are you running Cubase on a Mac or PC? Also, what do you have your midi time stamp set to in the Studio Set up "devices" menu?






Woodblock timing test - Google Drive







drive.google.com


----------



## vicontrolu

I moved away from Steinberg because of the sucky customer support - they were just not doing anything regarding my issue.

Then I discovered all of the little things I usually did were just a click away with Reaper..and it boots 10x faster..and it uses less cpu...and no dongle..and..


----------



## chocobitz825

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> View attachment 2021-11-09_11-22-40.mp4
> 
> 
> Musicloops - save your instruments in a database with audio clip to remind you what it sounds like. Drag it in and the patch is loaded as it was saved (edits n all so you could have different versions of the same patch even FX on the channel)
> 
> Scratch Pad - save ideas that are in their own little space off of your workspace. Once I've got my sketch I move it to a scratch pad and start my final version from bar 1. So rather than tracks taking up 40 - 50 mins on the transport incl. sketches ideas etc, they are just the length of the final track. Honestly - cant go back to not having a scratch pad anymore.
> 
> Btw, scratch pad contains its own transport space so you can have different tempo or tempo changes that dont affect your main workspace


I just started saving my custom sounds and patches this way. Such a great feature!


----------



## dterry

José Herring said:


> It nulls down to about -60 db or so then I start getting a syncopated rhythm. It's kind of cool sounding though.
> 
> Just curious are you running Cubase on a Mac or PC? Also, what do you have your midi time stamp set to in the Studio Set up "devices" menu?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woodblock timing test - Google Drive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drive.google.com


I see you are using just a single sample. Kontakt? If so, what version? Is there anything else in the Kontakt patch for this sample (time-stretching active, envelope, etc) that might be altering the samples? 

I ran a difference-mixdown of your two comparison files with one phase-inverted, and analyzed the resulting file: it isn't the sample starts that are the difference. It is a few milliseconds into the sample that the variation between the two mixes occurs. I also compared the very first zero-crossings of several sample-starts in your DP and Cubase bounces, and they are all sample accurate. So, it isn't midi timing that is preventing a full null, but something related to sample playback and/or exports. 

I am on PC - Win10. No midi timestamping used.


----------



## José Herring

dterry said:


> I see you are using just a single sample. Kontakt? If so, what version? Is there anything else in the Kontakt patch for this sample (time-stretching active, envelope, etc) that might be altering the samples?
> 
> I ran a difference-mixdown of your two comparison files with one phase-inverted, and analyzed the resulting file: it isn't the sample starts that are the difference. It is a few milliseconds into the sample that the variation between the two mixes occurs. I also compared the very first zero-crossings of several sample-starts in your DP and Cubase bounces, and they are all sample accurate. So, it isn't midi timing that is preventing a full null, but something related to sample playback and/or exports.
> 
> I am on PC - Win10. No midi timestamping used.


Hmmmm...that's interesting. 

Nothing special going on here. I just used your patch at full velocity and mixed down in Cubase. Exported the midi file, opened it up in DP, used the same patch and exported the mix down. Then imported both mixdowns into Cubase and phase inverted one audio file to see if they would null.

And that is really interesting indeed because in the first synth example I posted it sounded to me like sample quantization errors which would support your theory that there is something going on in my studio with quantization errors in the audio playback in Cubase that isn't happening in DP.

Now I'm on the hunt to find out what that could be.

Thanks.


----------



## José Herring

I've been trying to leave Cubase. Working with DP all morning and I'm about to give up the idea of switching DAWS. It really is a grass is greener situation. DP program is solid enough and I remember it well enough. The core basics of it hasn't changed since I was using it, but enough of it has changed that it's made it difficult to work with for me. 

I've spent countless years invested in setting up Cubase to work easily and swiftly and I'm sure I could do the same for DP. I will keep on working with DP to set up my shortcuts, ect in a way that's familiar to me but in all honesty, at 53 years old I'm gettin' too old to be considering tinkering with another DAW, but young enough to realize that I should at least know 2 DAWS in case one DAW gets bought out by a guitar company.


----------



## IFM

José Herring said:


> but young enough to realize that I should at least know 2 DAWS in case one DAW gets bought out by a guitar company.


I see what you did there...


----------



## easyrider

vicontrolu said:


> I moved away from Steinberg because of the sucky customer support - they were just not doing anything regarding my issue.
> 
> Then I discovered all of the little things I usually did were just a click away with Reaper..and it boots 10x faster..and it uses less cpu...and no dongle..and..


Reapers boot times is amazing….


----------



## scarkord

Older video, but I found this video from @Daniel James to be very helpful when I decided to move (back) to Cubase. Still use Ableton for generating ideas though...


----------



## Tren

I am looking to sell all my Steinberg software because the new Licensing system requires paid upgrades for everything to move it over. That's going to be like $350 just for a Licensing System migration.

Not worth, to me. I'd rather switch wholesale to Studio One and invest in Native Instruments for Instruments and Sample Libraries, moving forwards.

Or buy Digital Performer 11.

I've been moving around so much that I barely have been using Cubase, lately. I just had to replace my eLicenser, so I know the risk of damage, etc. from constantly moving around with that thing. They aren't exactly built for durability...

Traveling next week and I won't even bother taking it with me. I don't even have this stuff installed on my Laptop, anymore.


----------



## Anthony

If Steinberg goes through with their stated requirement to 'check-in' online either once every 30 days or once a year, I will never switch back. For me, that a fait accompli!

https://forums.steinberg.net/t/cubase-12-is-coming-in-2022/748776/29?u=basecu


----------



## Tren

Anthony said:


> If Steinberg goes through with their stated requirement to 'check-in' online either once every 30 days or once a year, I will never switch back. For me, that a fait accompli!
> 
> https://forums.steinberg.net/t/cubase-12-is-coming-in-2022/748776/29?u=basecu


Checking in isn't a problem. Paying $150 to move Cubase Over, then $99 for Absolute 5, then $$ for WaveLab Elements and $$ for whatever else you own from them...

Well, that adds up when the features really bring very little value to you. You're basically paying JUST to get emancipated from dongle slavery.

People are raving that they're finally doing something about the dongle system, but the manner in which they're accomplishing it is disgusting.


----------



## Anthony

Tren said:


> Checking in isn't a problem. Paying $150 to move Cubase Over, then $99 for Absolute 5, then $$ for WaveLab Elements and $$ for whatever else you own from them...
> 
> Well, that adds up when the features really bring very little value to you. You're basically paying JUST to get emancipated from dongle slavery.
> 
> People are raving that they're finally doing something about the dongle system, but the manner in which they're accomplishing it is disgusting.


It is disgusting!

And this new, onerous, requirement to check-in periodically is a problem if you regularly work on different systems that are not connected to the internet.


----------



## Pier

scarkord said:


> Older video, but I found this video from @Daniel James to be very helpful when I decided to move (back) to Cubase. Still use Ableton for generating ideas though...



True, but to be fair this video is from 2017. Ableton introduced multitrack midi editing in v10.

I used Live for a number of years before leaving for Bitwig about a year ago. For a number of reasons.

1) The arrangement view is just terrible. It got better in v10 though but still terrible.

2) Everything is focused on working with small midi clips with not much content going on. All the complaints Daniel has about editing velocities is spot on and still valid even today I think (I haven't used Live 11).

3) The glacial pace of development and how expensive the software really is for what you get. Live Suite is more expensive than Cubase Pro. Let that sink in for a moment. Some might argue Max for Live justifies the high price of Live, which might be true for some users, but certainly not the majority of users.

Bitwig definitely has its issues in terms of workflow, but they are releasing new features a couple of times per year, and the value you get is just amazing (for about half what Live Suite costs). Not much sample-based content, but the devices (audio fx, midi fx, instruments) are fantastic. The included synths are up there in terms of sound quality with U-He.

Bitwig is a better Ableton Live than Ableton Live itself. My worry with Bitwig is they are so focused on its devices that they are not polishing their workflow and this has been a theme for the past couple of years. Also no video support either.


----------



## Tren

Anthony said:


> It is disgusting!
> 
> And this new, onerous, requirement to check-in periodically is a problem if you regularly work on different systems that are not connected to the internet.


If MOTU has a discount on DP11 during this holiday season, I'm 100% going to buy it and just uninstall Steinberg's stuff from my studio desktop - forcing myself to do OJT with it (the best method, honestly).

At that point I won't even care about selling the dongle licenses off. I'll just put it in a shoebox along with all the other momentos at the top-back of my closet.


----------



## Anthony

Tren said:


> If MOTU has a discount on DP11 during this holiday season, I'm 100% going to buy it and just uninstall Steinberg's stuff from my studio desktop - forcing myself to do OJT with it (the best method, honestly).
> 
> At that point I won't even care about selling the dongle licenses off. I'll just put it in a shoebox along with all the other momentos at the top-back of my closet.


It's as if Steinberg's intention is to actually drive customers away.

Maybe they were bought-out by a rival and this is their (surreptitious) plan.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Tren said:


> Checking in isn't a problem. Paying $150 to move Cubase Over, then $99 for Absolute 5, then $$ for WaveLab Elements and $$ for whatever else you own from them...
> 
> Well, that adds up when the features really bring very little value to you. You're basically paying JUST to get emancipated from dongle slavery.
> 
> People are raving that they're finally doing something about the dongle system, but the manner in which they're accomplishing it is disgusting.


You do realize that they are not requiring you to upgrade and the upgrade includes more than just a new licensing mechanism, right?


----------



## Kevin Fortin

@Pier, I'm not sure it could be said I left Cubase as I have not made and rendered any tracks in years, but if I had my reasons it would be something like:

1) Not sure what the Media Bay and Control Room are all about.

2) I'd be a step ahead of Guy Michelmore.

3) Not a fan of the "portal" experience that some apps (including Studio One) have adopted. Thank you for the additional distractions of news items, tutorials, and products to buy when I really just wanted to open the damn DAW and start making something.*

*Something I appreciate about Cakewalk by Bandlab is that despite all the brands that the parent company owns, they still do not bother Cakewalk users with ads or other diversions on the startup screen. Thank you, Meng @mrkuok!


----------



## Tren

Kevin Fortin said:


> @Pier, I'm not sure it could be said I left Cubase as I have not made and rendered any tracks in years, but if I had my reasons it would be something like:
> 
> 1) Not sure what the Media Bay and Control Room are all about.
> 
> 2) I'd be a step ahead of Guy Michelmore.
> 
> 3) Not a fan of the "portal" experience that some apps (including Studio One) have adopted. Thank you for the additional distractions of news items, tutorials, and products to buy when I really just wanted to open the damn DAW and start making something.*
> 
> *Something I appreciate about Cakewalk by Bandlab is that despite all the brands that the parent company owns, they still do not bother Cakewalk users with ads or other diversions on the startup screen. Thank you, Meng @mrkuok!


SONAR had something like that, but BandLab removed it IIRC.

I have no issue with that, as that's is often where announcements show up. Without it, many people would have to check the website or Download Manager to see if any updates were issued (or deal with application notifications, which can be annoying to many).


----------



## Stevie

@Pier I was a long time Cubase user. Started with it at the age of 11 on an ATARI.
Over the years, I coded so many auxiliary scripts in AutoHotkey to improve my workflow (being frustrated that they didn’t exit natively).
But they were so error prone and unpredictable, that I gave up at some point.

After almost 30 years of using Cubase, I purchased S1 3.5 and tried to adjust my workflow to it.
But too many things in the MIDI department we’re missing back then.

A little desperate (because not many DAWs were left), I gave REAPER a try.
At first, it felt unnatural in many ways, but once I got a hang of it it all made sense.
Yes, REAPER was missing many things I was used from Cubase. But in the meantime, I pretty much
coded these things myself (mostly item and MIDI editing stuff) or they are available on ReaPack.

if you are a coder, then you will love REAPER. It features Lua (EEL an Python also possible) as a scripting language and goes really really deep. Additionally, you can also code C extensions, if you got the chops to do that (I don’t haha).
Here’s an overview of the API functions: https://www.extremraym.com/cloud/reascript-doc/


----------



## LinusW

I didn't really leave Cubase, I still update it and then I regret it. Because the update prices are enormous, and the updates don't really give me what I need. I rarely have to contact support, but when I do they are answering after two weeks and the answer is bollocks.


----------



## José Herring

LinusW said:


> I didn't really leave Cubase, I still update it and then I regret it. Because the update prices are enormous, and the updates don't really give me what I need. I rarely have to contact support, but when I do they are answering after two weeks and the answer is bollocks.


What did you end up switching to?


----------



## LinusW

José Herring said:


> What did you end up switching to?


Well, twenty years ago it was a combo of Reason and Cubase. Now it's mainly Logic and Reason, so I guess Logic is the answer to the question. But I keep Ableton Live Suite, Cubase Pro and more DAWs on the side still.


----------



## digitallysane

Their new licensing system in which they want to check on you monthly or you won't be able to use your software might very well make me abandon Nuendo.


----------



## stigc56

I think it's hard to leave Cubase right now with the announcement of Cubase 12 in the start of 2022. I think Studio One is a really nice DAW, but I miss some of the fancy stuff from Cubase Midi Editor. If Studio One really catch up, and Cubase disappoint with version 12, I will give it a try again.


LinusW said:


> I didn't really leave Cubase, I still update it and then I regret it. Because the update prices are enormous, and the updates don't really give me what I need. I rarely have to contact support, but when I do they are answering after two weeks and the answer is bollocks.


I don't think the update fee is unreasonable. I acknowledge that it can be a different situation if you don't make a living using Cubase, but if you do I think the update on 99€ is okay.


----------



## Robert Kooijman

stigc56 said:


> I think Studio One is a really nice DAW, but I miss some of the fancy stuff from Cubase Midi Editor.


Long time Cubase user here, there's very little I miss in Studio One Midi these days. Almost everyday I discover new features and tricks that make Cubase look old in comparison


----------



## AndyP

I have been using Cubase for well over a decade and have become "used" to it.
I couldn't get used to Logic and tried S1 and Reaper at one point, but stuck with Cubase.

I mean, I come from the first Steinberg sequencers that still ran on C64 and Ataris. Then at some point ProTools and other DAWs, but they were spartan compared to today and very expensive with the hardware needed (Nubus audio cards, Macs in general, etc.).

The farmer eats what he knows. I continue to eat Cubase (even if it annoys me from time to time).


----------



## Harry

Pier said:


> Bitwig ... no video support either.


You can't work with video in Bitwig, huh?! I didn't know that. Just assumed all DAWs could add a video track.


----------



## AudioLoco

digitallysane said:


> Their new licensing system in which they want to check on you monthly or you won't be able to use your software might very well make me abandon Nuendo.


Where did you read that?
They are moving to iLok from what I now.
One registration and you are done, iLok doesn't requier constant online presence.


----------



## digitallysane

AudioLoco said:


> Where did you read that?











Steinberg Licensing: A New and Exciting Era Begins


The transition to Steinberg Licensing begins. Our products will use this new system when introducing new versions of our creative tools and instruments.




www.steinberg.net


----------



## AudioLoco

digitallysane said:


> Steinberg Licensing: A New and Exciting Era Begins
> 
> 
> The transition to Steinberg Licensing begins. Our products will use this new system when introducing new versions of our creative tools and instruments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.steinberg.net


Shoot. That's new. Don't like dis sheet... Privacy invasion.
I keep the computer offline most of the time and I'm happy about that.

but: also... A generated check out license is an OK compromise....

"Offline activation (coming soon)​We know that in some special circumstances, you might not be able to connect the computer on which you run your Steinberg software to the internet, and very soon we will provide the ability to check out a license for a period of one year. You will be able to do this either by temporarily connecting your computer to the Internet, checking out the license, and then disconnecting again, or if you prefer, you will be able to use the Internet connection on another computer to generate a check out license that you can install on the offline machine."


----------



## AudioLoco

Also, what happens if I'm on an important project. I just need to create the final stems or something on my 29th day (night more likely), then my internet, for whatever reason (storm, hackers, server problems, anything) dies and my Cubase refuses to work for couple of days?

Or I travel to the mountains where internet connection is poor to work on an album for inspiration?
This checking thing is not cool also from a privacy point of view. I just don't like the concept.

They should give an iLok option. What is wrong with iLok??? (or leave the current system for who wants to still use it)
If you ever had to install a system from scratch on a new computer you know it takes 2 seconds to install the iLok protected software and half an hour for each other type of authorization/registration protected software . (which multiplicated X times the number of plugins one usually has, makes days of boring work)


----------



## digitallysane

There are a lot of practical problems, but even as a matter of principle, having my "perpetual" licensed software dependent on a monthly check is not acceptable.
There are lots of good things in their proposed new system, but they solve a problem and introduce some others (seems to be their way of doing business).


----------



## AudioLoco

From their FAQ (FAQ them)

"If, on the other hand, you cannot connect your computer to the internet at any time, you will be able to use Steinberg Activation Manager to generate a license request that you can save to a removable storage device (like a USB drive) and take to a computer that is connected to the internet. Using Steinberg Activation Manager on the online computer, you can exchange the license request for a offline-activated license. You then save the license file back to the removable storage device, and return to the offline computer, where you use Steinberg Activation Manager to install the license file.

In both cases, the software will then run for a period of 365 days without requiring an internet connection at any time."


----------



## antic604

cedricm said:


> The list is largely incorrect.
> To me, the. Number 1 missing feature from Studio One is multichannel support.
> In Cubase, you can do Dolby Atmos.


No, the list is subjective. Everyone has different workflow and needs.


----------



## darkogav

digitallysane said:


> There are a lot of practical problems, but even as a matter of principle, having my "perpetual" licensed software dependent on a monthly check is not acceptable.
> There are lots of good things in their proposed new system, but they solve a problem and introduce some others (seems to be their way of doing business).


A lot, if not most, of the top VI software vendors do that these days. Same with larger corps like Microsoft e.t.c that sell other applications. They all check home for license validity.


----------



## LinusW

stigc56 said:


> I don't think the update fee is unreasonable. I acknowledge that it can be a different situation if you don't make a living using Cubase, but if you do I think the update on 99€ is okay.


If you upgrade EVERYTIME, never skip a single update whether you see any advantages or not. Meanwhile other DAWs won't bother if you had a two or three generations older version.


----------



## kitekrazy

darkogav said:


> A lot, if not most, of the top VI software vendors do that these days. Same with larger corps like Microsoft e.t.c that sell other applications. They all check home for license validity.


You have to login once in a while to use the free Bandlab and also FL Studio.


----------



## Trensharo

LinusW said:


> If you upgrade EVERYTIME, never skip a single update whether you see any advantages or not. Meanwhile other DAWs won't bother if you had a two or three generations older version.


Most DAW vendors have fairly clockwork promotional periods where you can get the upgrades for a deep discount, anyways. I don't think the upgrade costs are a huge issue, personally, if you're willing to wait.

I do think some of the older DAWs have added so much over the years that there is often not much - if any - value in an upgrade, though. Some people will upgrade at the lower price to avoid having to pay a higher price later on.

However, I think it's cheaper to sit on Cubase for 3-4 years than upgrade yearly. That's very viable, too, since a lot of what they added mirrors third party plug-ins that most people who have been using the DAW for a couple of years will already own, if they need that stuff.


----------



## Trensharo

kitekrazy said:


> You have to login once in a while to use the free Bandlab and also FL Studio.


Cakewalk has offline authentication, so you can generate the authorization file on an internet connected device other than the machine running the DAW.


----------



## Trensharo

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> I just moved from Reaper to Cubase 11.
> 
> Cubase is much more user-friendly and thus easy to use.
> 
> I like it a lot so far.
> 
> Just a hobbyist though, so I don’t spend X hours a day in the program, in which case I might have another opinion of it maybe, who knows 🙂


REAPER CAN get there, sort of. You just have to do all of the work for the developers.

Having access to Windows PCs, I could never do that. I'd just use Cakewalk instead, if I couldn't afford Cubase.

I remember when I used to love tinkering with stuff like that, though. 20 years ago, I would have been all over it.


----------



## easyrider

Trensharo said:


> REAPER CAN get there, sort of. You just have to do all of the work for the developers.
> 
> Having access to Windows PCs, I could never do that. I'd just use Cakewalk instead, if I couldn't afford Cubase.
> 
> I remember when I used to love tinkering with stuff like that, though. 20 years ago, I would have been all over it.


I’m in that mindset now….I just want stuff to work….I CBA adding scripts etc..it takes me out of the creative process…


----------



## Trensharo

easyrider said:


> I’m in that mindset now….I just want stuff to work….I CBA adding scripts etc..it takes me out of the creative process…


I'd take a minimally configurable, attractive, consistent, and well laid-out UI over something that looks like it was designed using the MOTIF library for a 1985 UNIX workstation running CDE.

When I was in the military, I had to manage HP-UX servers and workstations that ran CDE. REAPER reminds me of that :-(


----------



## Chris Richter

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> I just moved from Reaper to Cubase 11.
> 
> Cubase is much more user-friendly and thus easy to use.
> 
> I like it a lot so far.
> 
> Just a hobbyist though, so I don’t spend X hours a day in the program, in which case I might have another opinion of it maybe, who knows 🙂


Why do you think Cubase is more intuitive?

I feel differently. 
For example I find Reapers one track to rule them all approach perfectly user-friendly. Just throw at it what you want. You could even have Midi and Audio files in the same track. 5.1 and Mono. Reaper doesn’t care.
Compare that to how-many-different-tracks-does-Cubase-have?

At the same time I can relate. I also had my difficulties when I moved from Cubase to Reaper but in retrospective I would count that towards my familiarity with how Cubase handles stuff.


----------



## digitallysane

Chris Richter said:


> Just throw at it what you want. You could even have Midi and Audio files in the same track. 5.1 and Mono. Reaper doesn’t care


Which is one of my main dislikes of Reaper.


----------



## Trensharo

Having distinct tracks perform different functions is intuitive to a lot of people because it's compartmentalizes functionality. People tend to like when functionality is grouped, vs. everything and the kitchen sink being thrown into one functional object.

More people will prefer having a distinct MIDI, Audio and Tempo Tracks than having one track that is a MIDI + Audio + Tempo Track combined, for example.

Having more tracks is largely non-factor, since many DAWs have a way to filter tracks easily, anyways (or can pin global utility tracks e.g. Chord/Tempo/Signature to a specific area of the screen).

Remember when Word Processors that has an Editing Toolbar, a Tables Toolbar, a Data Toolbar, a Macro Toolbar, a Reference Toolbar, a Graphics Toolbar, etc.? This is the reason. The Microsoft Ribbon is designed the way it is deliberately.

Human beings prefer organization, and people generally dislike when software overloads one thing (like a track) with too much functionality. They also dislike when one dialog exposes too many settings or information, etc. They dislike menus that are too large - most would prefer more, specific top-level menus to fewer that are huge and potentially deeply nested.

If you overload a track, then this has implications in other areas of the UX, for example like the size and complexity of the context menus for that item, setup dialogs for that item, and other exposed elements of the UI that the user has to interact with.

This actually decreases intuitiveness, and increases learning curve as it creates more informational reference points that the user has to memorize to be able to recall information (and paths to information) efficiently.

People that worked in software development and have done user studies (I have) have seen this in action.

While experienced users may be able to get on with this due to transferrable knowledge brought over from a competing product, it is exacerbated with "true newbies" and can lose many of them. Even on this forum, many people with tons of experience with DAWs reject REAPER due to the user experience - before they can even explore its functionality or have a clue how much work they'd need to put into "customizing it" to make it suitable for themselves.


----------



## estevancarlos

Pier said:


> I'm considering getting into Cubase but would like to hear all the 1 star reviews from people that moved onto other DAWs.
> 
> I'm currently using Bitwig. It's amazing in so many aspects (sound design, devices, modulators, the grid, etc) except for actually writing music.


My entrance to Studio One, several months ago, felt like walking into a slightly disorganized workspace filled with really nimble, diligent, workers.

My experience of Cubase has felt like walking face first into some dusty, creaky, machine surrounded by people near retirement. It's an impressive machine though.


----------



## dave.irrlicht

Because I moved to Nuendo- An increasing amount of jobs are requiring more immersive sound/solutions, and for me this ticks all the boxes: it's stable, a good price and seems do everything I need it to.


----------



## Pier

estevancarlos said:


> My entrance to Studio One, several months ago, felt like walking into a slightly disorganized workspace filled with really nimble, diligent, workers.
> 
> My experience of Cubase has felt like walking face first into some dusty, creaky, machine surrounded by people near retirement. It's an impressive machine though.


Great metaphors 

When I use Bitwig I feel like I'm in a relaxed creative studio full of hipsters in Berlin full of modular synths around. LOL that's probably how their actual offices are.


----------



## digitallysane

Pier said:


> relaxed creative studio full of hipsters in Berlin full of modular synths around


----------



## estevancarlos

dave.irrlicht said:


> Because I moved to Nuendo- An increasing amount of jobs are requiring more immersive sound/solutions, and for me this ticks all the boxes: it's stable, a good price and seems do everything I need it to.


What kind of immersive sound gigs are you coming across?


----------



## Tralen

easyrider said:


> I’m in that mindset now….I just want stuff to work….I CBA adding scripts etc..it takes me out of the creative process…


It is important to factor the passage of time with this process. I've been customizing and carrying my Reaper configuration for 10 years now. If I was forced to start everything again right now, I don't know if I would have the spirit.


----------



## Obi-Wan Spaghetti

Why can't they offer a couple of installers for different kind of users? Kind of like thems but with add-ons for specific usage. They could make one for composers that use a lot sample libraries with an articulation management tools(like rearticulate or ORT) pre-installed. With special toolbars for that and midi editing tailored for power users. They could have an other one for mixers with re-eq, a saturation plugin pre-installed with parameters showing in the mixer kind of like Cubase and others. That might make Reaper less intimidating for newcomers. They could make others for baetmakers if that's possible and videos what ever. The point is Reaper doesn't have to be a DAW for nerds. I say that affectionately. I just don't have the heart to get in there and do it myself.


----------



## estevancarlos

Obi-Wan Spaghetti said:


> Why can't they offer a couple of installers for different kind of users? Kind of like thems but with add-ons for specific usage. They could make one for composers that use a lot sample libraries with an articulation management tools(like rearticulate or ORT) pre-installed. With special toolbars for that and midi editing tailored for power users. They could have an other one for mixers with re-eq, a saturation plugin pre-installed with parameters showing in the mixer kind of like Cubase and others. That might make Reaper less intimidating for newcomers. They could make others for baetmakers if that's possible and videos what ever. The point is Reaper doesn't have to be a DAW for nerds. I say that affectionately. I just don't have the heart to get in there and do it myself.


On that software philosophy, companies like Adobe seem to be exploring that approach.

Their legacy software such as Photoshop grew into a massive application with possibly a weird overabundance of features. It's a photo editor but did you know you could do simple 3D rendering? Why? You can also do animation. What?

With that in mind Adobe has developed new, beta, software that focuses on these individual workflows and creative needs. There's new software for simple 3D rendering, animation, etc. In a sense they've parsed it out into smaller, simpler tools that can work together (you can drag and drop files into one another).

It relates to what you're discussing. The reason we don't see that in music software is because... they don't have the money? Another reason may be that users don't yet know how this approach may improve workflow.


----------



## digitallysane

estevancarlos said:


> The reason we don't see that in music software is because...


There are cases as in this field as well.
I mentioned Loomer Architect earlier. If you only want to do a composition with virtual instruments and sequencers without the need of a behemoth app that also does mixing, mastering, audio recording, notation etc, that one is perfect (and it does stuff with MIDI and sequencing that nothing else can touch).
If you want the exact opposite: just record and mix some audio without being bothered by MIDI toolsets or virtual instrument features, Adobe Audition or Resolve do just that.


----------



## Pier

digitallysane said:


> There are cases as in this field as well.
> I mentioned Loomer Architect earlier. If you only want to do a composition with virtual instruments and sequencers without the need of a behemoth app that also does mixing, mastering, audio recording, notation etc, that one is perfect (and it does stuff with MIDI and sequencing that nothing else can touch).
> If you want the exact opposite: just record and mix some audio without being bothered by MIDI toolsets or virtual instrument features, Adobe Audition or Resolve do just that.


Are there any videos showing how Loomer Architect works?

This seems very interesting but I can't find anything other than a few screenshots on Loomer's website.


----------



## digitallysane

Pier said:


> Are there any videos showing how Loomer Architect works?
> 
> This seems very interesting but I can't find anything other than a few screenshots on Loomer's website.


Don't think so, but there's a quite active forum with examples and people showing off projects. The dev is there and replies fast:








KVR Forum: Loomer Forum


KVR Audio Forum - Loomer Forum




www.kvraudio.com





Browsing this particular thread can be quite informative: https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=517777

Also, there's a Quick Start PDF on their site, good info there as well: https://www.loomer.co.uk/downloads/architect-quick-start.pdf


----------



## Nico5

@digitallysane 

Just curious - have you ever messed around with Plogue's Bidule and if yes, how do you think Loomer Architect compares to it?


----------



## digitallysane

Nico5 said:


> @digitallysane
> 
> Just curious - have you ever messed around with Plogue's Bidule and if yes, how do you think Loomer Architect compares to it?


I didn't so I can't compare.

I spent (little) time browsing their site and reading a bit about it (exactly to be able to decide which one I should spend time on between those two).

My feeling (again, uninformed by hands on experience) is that Architect is way above for MIDI. The MIDI features of Bidule (https://www.plogue.com/bidule/help/ch04s04.html#d0e1359) seem good, but the sequencers in Architect are from another planet (and that's just the sequencers). You can modulate _everything_.
Add to that the option of a conventional interface module for patterns (linear timeline) _and _one for clips triggering / arrangement, plus a mixer /tracks system for controlling your virtual instruments.

I also, personally, love that Architect is so specialized. A super powerful MIDI framework with which you can control your virtual or hardware instruments.

And the dev is super responsive (which is true about the Plogue guys as well).

For me it was easy, as I'm not interested rt now to learn a deep modular synth environment like Bidule, but I do want a nice MIDI environment that is also a MIDI toolkit and can integrate elegantly some soft synths and hardware.


----------



## estevancarlos

digitallysane said:


> Don't think so, but there's a quite active forum with examples and people showing off projects. The dev is there and replies fast:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KVR Forum: Loomer Forum
> 
> 
> KVR Audio Forum - Loomer Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kvraudio.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Browsing this particular thread can be quite informative: https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=141&t=517777
> 
> Also, there's a Quick Start PDF on their site, good info there as well: https://www.loomer.co.uk/downloads/architect-quick-start.pdf


Loomer appears to be influenced by MaxMSP. Not gonna lie. I wish MaxMSP still allowed for the ability to export VSTs. It was shocking with Ableton bought them and discontinued that feature. MaxMSP would be filling this void right now.


----------



## digitallysane

estevancarlos said:


> Loomer appears to be influenced by MaxMSP. Not gonna lie. I wish MaxMSP still allowed for the ability to export VSTs. It was shocking with Ableton bought them and discontinued that feature. MaxMSP would be filling this void right now.


It does look like other node based software out there, but I'm not sure it aims for the same niche (I'm aware of MaxMSP but never used it).


----------



## estevancarlos

digitallysane said:


> It does look like other node based software out there, but I'm not sure it aims for the same niche (I'm aware of MaxMSP but never used it).


Well, Max is a beast when processing MIDI. Back in the day you were able to develop VSTs so you could just develop MIDI effects as VSTs. Max's niche is now just limited to Ableton users but that's a limitation sort of forced upon them.


----------



## Nico5

digitallysane said:


> I didn't so I can't compare.
> 
> I spent (little) time browsing their site and reading a bit about it (exactly to be able to decide which one I should spend time on between those two).
> 
> My feeling (again, uninformed by hands on experience) is that Architect is way above for MIDI. The MIDI features of Bidule (https://www.plogue.com/bidule/help/ch04s04.html#d0e1359) seem good, but the sequencers in Architect are from another planet (and that's just the sequencers). You can modulate _everything_.
> Add to that the option of a conventional interface module for patterns (linear timeline) _and _one for clips triggering / arrangement, plus a mixer /tracks system for controlling your virtual instruments.
> 
> I also, personally, love that Architect is so specialized. A super powerful MIDI framework with which you can control your virtual or hardware instruments.
> 
> And the dev is super responsive (which is true about the Plogue guys as well).
> 
> For me it was easy, as I'm not interested rt now to learn a deep modular synth environment like Bidule, but I do want a nice MIDI environment that is also a MIDI toolkit and can integrate elegantly some soft synths and hardware.


Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. Even your high level impression gives me a much better idea than I had before. Thanks again!


----------



## Trensharo

Obi-Wan Spaghetti said:


> Why can't they offer a couple of installers for different kind of users? Kind of like thems but with add-ons for specific usage. They could make one for composers that use a lot sample libraries with an articulation management tools(like rearticulate or ORT) pre-installed. With special toolbars for that and midi editing tailored for power users. They could have an other one for mixers with re-eq, a saturation plugin pre-installed with parameters showing in the mixer kind of like Cubase and others. That might make Reaper less intimidating for newcomers. They could make others for baetmakers if that's possible and videos what ever. The point is Reaper doesn't have to be a DAW for nerds. I say that affectionately. I just don't have the heart to get in there and do it myself.


Because that's really messy, and it's a support nightmare. But it sort of highlights the issue with the DAW and how it is perceived by users. It's sort of a Linux of DAWs. You're basically asking to fragment it the same way Linux distros fragmented in the late 90s, which basically made it an unsupportable mess in the consumer market.

How is anyone going to create any content for REAPER if it's an absolute crapshoot what someone has on their system after running a 1st party installer? The choices will be too numerous to make a determination, and it's not good for tutorial or reference material to mandate what a user installs on their machine. It's up to the developer to provide a decent out of the box experience for that specific ecoystem niche to target..

If you include Rearticulate in the base REAPER install, then where do you think new users will go when there is a bug in Rearticulate, and can we blame them? Anything in-the-box generally is supported by the company whose product installs it.

A lot of the issues with REAPER's UX has nothing to do with what is packaged with it OOTB, and more to do with the UI/UX Design of the software.

Samplitude Pro X has all the plug-ins, virtual instruments, etc. that anyone needs to get started, but it suffers from some of the same issues as REAPER. It's game over for 75% of people when they simply lay eyes on the software - nothing more is necessary.

Shipping almost nothing in-the-box is a great way for a small development team to decrease support encumbrances. Since most people are bolting on so much functionality from 3rd parties, any issues with that functionality (which may be stock functionality in other products) are offloaded to the third party that developed them.

If I were developing a DAW with 1-3 developers, I may be persuaded to go the REAPER route, as this makes sense economically, especially when the majority of your users are only paying $0-60.

For commercial usage, at the price asked, I think the UX is insulting.


----------



## Chris Richter

I agree that it’s not the prettiest to look at. It’s even worse as there is no „smooth scrolling“. Which helps with efficiency of the software but it still is not the prettiest to look at. 
However, for now functionality beats these drawbacks for me. 

While I would love to try Logic because of its esthetics I can’t really prioritize esthetics. 
For me time is a very precious thing, in life in general and with approaching deadlines even more. In that setting I think I would chose saving time and stability over esthetics any day of the week.

Reaper offers great stem exporting features, subprojects are great for film scoring. Every plug-in has a dry/wet control for easy parallel processing, there also is a fiction that lets you listen to just the affected signal. Exporting to a specific loudness target while limiting the signal during export to not get a clipped file… That’s stuff I find neat. 

I did some customization to the theme I used and now I don’t hate it. It’s fine for now. 

I would want to invite anybody to set visuals aside and give the functionality a good look. Reaper offers great value for specialized workflows. At the end of the day it’s a tool that fixes your set of problems and challenges or it doesn’t. 

PS: If somebody wants to talk me into Logic: feel free to do so 🤣


----------



## easyrider

Chris Richter said:


> I agree that it’s not the prettiest to look at. It’s even worse as there is no „smooth scrolling“. Which helps with efficiency of the software but it still is not the prettiest to look at.
> However, for now functionality beats these drawbacks for me.
> 
> While I would love to try Logic because of its esthetics I can’t really prioritize esthetics.
> For me time is a very precious thing, in life in general and with approaching deadlines even more. In that setting I think I would chose saving time and stability over esthetics any day of the week.
> 
> Reaper offers great stem exporting features, subprojects are great for film scoring. Every plug-in has a dry/wet control for easy parallel processing, there also is a fiction that lets you listen to just the affected signal. Exporting to a specific loudness target while limiting the signal during export to not get a clipped file… That’s stuff I find neat.
> 
> I did some customization to the theme I used and now I don’t hate it. It’s fine for now.
> 
> I would want to invite anybody to set visuals aside and give the functionality a good look. Reaper offers great value for specialized workflows. At the end of the day it’s a tool that fixes your set of problems and challenges or it doesn’t.
> 
> PS: If somebody wants to talk me into Logic: feel free to do so 🤣


Adding scripts and messing for stuff like retrospective record put me off….I just want a DAW to work…


----------



## manw

Every once in a while i end up hating Cubase and looking over the fence for an alternative DAW; usually, after a month or so of trying to make due with anything else i end up back in Steinberg's yard, like a dog with the tail between his legs.

The reason i hate it this month ? I realized there's no consolidated way to back up all user settings, key commands / macros, track presets (including custom expression maps), etc; even more, they don't keep the relevant stuff in easy to access or logical folders - some of it is in Documents, some of it is in Program Data (roaming and/or local folders), some of it is in the main app folder. So after having to reinstall my OS (Thank you Microsoft for the forced Windows 11 upgrade!), i ended up having to redo all the things from scratch.

And now the problem that keeps me from switching to anything else (although i have licences for : DP, S1, Reaper, and an ongoing subscription to Avid since i have clients that bring me work in these formats) is lack of time - i never seem to have more than 2-3 weeks to experiment and learn a new tool and when a new deadline is around the corner, i find myself turning to the one tool that doesn't require time to learn, since i already know it (having used it for more than 25 years) - Cubase.


----------



## Trensharo

Chris Richter said:


> I would want to invite anybody to set visuals aside and give the functionality a good look.


Why should anyone do that? Other DAWs do largely the same stuff without the need for them to nerf their preferences at comparable, or even cheaper, prices?

You won't use Logic due to preference yet you invite others to throw theirs out the window for REAPER?


----------



## IFM

manw said:


> I realized there's no consolidated way to back up all user settings, key commands / macros, track presets (including custom expression maps), etc; even more, they don't keep the relevant stuff in easy to access or logical folders - some of it is in Documents, some of it is in Program Data (roaming and/or local folders), some of it is in the main app folder. So after having to reinstall my OS (Thank you Microsoft for the forced Windows 11 upgrade!), i ended up having to redo all the things from scratch.


I fee your pain. Cubase has terrible file origination whether it’s a project or expression map. I needs an overhaul in that department.


----------



## b_elliott

dcoscina said:


> For me, S1 is just a friendlier, more customizable version of Cubase ---


Glad you said that as I wondered a few times if I should give Cubase a trial.

I'm mainly a Reaper user but do have S1 vers 4.6.

When I tried S1 for a period it simply just did not click with my needs (I tried); so, I went back to using Reaper as I know its quirks to get my stuff done quicker, no fussing around = the bottom line for us all. 

Just my 2 cents Pier.


----------



## Trensharo

S1 is definitely not "more customizable" than Cubase...


----------



## Chris Richter

Trensharo said:


> Why should anyone do that? Other DAWs do largely the same stuff without the need for them to nerf their preferences at comparable, or even cheaper, prices?
> 
> You won't use Logic due to preference yet you invite others to throw theirs out the window for REAPER?


There is a DAW out there that is cheaper than 60$? Which one is it?

I don’t use Logic because it doesn’t fit my needs. Not because of preference. I need my DAW to do certain tasks efficiently. If it can’t do that, I won’t use it. Because of a) I value time and b) the client values time. Deadlines don’t care for colors. 

It’s like saying I am preferring a screwdriver over a Hammer for screwing. Which makes no sense. It’s not about what I like but what does the job best. 

Apart from that I wasn’t aware that one could take offense by my post. That wasn’t my intention and I am sorry. 

My intent was to praise the functionality of Reaper. Which is there even if the visuals can’t match that. As soon as I work with Reaper the visuals take a backseat as I focus on the work at hand. 

I actually think Reaper is a great tool and I don’t come from a place of superiority telling people what they should and shouldn’t do. I have no right to do that and I won’t. If one ranks visuals over functionality that is totally fine.

I want to share my excitement for Reaper because it helped me in a way that no other DAW has. And if I had dismissed it because of its appearance I would have missed that opportunity.

If you are happy with the software you use - great. I won’t tell you to leave it. If you are not - then my post is made for you.


----------



## digitallysane

Chris Richter said:


> There is a DAW out there that is cheaper than 60$? Which one is


It's not 60 for pro usage.
The price of Reaper comes up often.
While I think Reaper is good software, I also think the price is right, considering what it comes packaged with, which mostly nothing.
Compare that with Cubase (and others) which comes with tons of libs, sounds, effects and synths.
You can get Cubase (even Elements) and start doing stuff right away, without needing to buy anything else. This doesn't seem true for Reaper, to me.


----------



## Chris Richter

Well, it’s deemed professional if you make more than 20k per year. If you don’t, you’re fine with the discounted license at 60$. So I wouldn’t fully throw that argument out of the window. 

I can see that Cubase Elements comes with more „content“ but functionality wise it’s pretty limited, isn’t it?

But I agree that is always a question of what I need. Logic has tremendous value for the money. 
It’s always a question of context I guess.


----------



## digitallysane

Chris Richter said:


> I can see that Cubase Elements comes with more „content“ but functionality wise it’s pretty limited, isn’t it?


The core app is of course not as fully featured, but it can be argued that for a number of people the functionality of a Cubase Elements package is much more useful than the dry Reaper offering.

But my point above was also about pricing: by the time you bring Reaper to the functionality of a Cubase Pro package, you've most likely spent more.


----------



## Chris Richter

Sure, if I‘d want to specifically copy Cubase content I should go with Cubase.

Also if you start with nothing I guess that might be a great start. At that point and time you most probably won’t need the very specific solutions Reaper can bring to the table.

On the other hand: 60$ for someone starting out + a small version of Komplete and you are good to go, aren’t you?
I think Logic would be more attractive if you strictly talking price for a new user. If one has MacOS of course.

But all of that aside I completely agree that every use case has to be evaluated and Reaper for sure isn’t always the best answer. I for sure had a hard time when I switched from Cubase to Reaper. But I am glad that the rough start or esthetics didn’t keep me away from it.


----------



## Harry

Pier said:


> True, but to be fair this video is from 2017. Ableton introduced multitrack midi editing in v10.
> 
> I used Live for a number of years before leaving for Bitwig about a year ago. For a number of reasons.
> 
> 1) The arrangement view is just terrible. It got better in v10 though but still terrible.
> 
> 2) Everything is focused on working with small midi clips with not much content going on. All the complaints Daniel has about editing velocities is spot on and still valid even today I think (I haven't used Live 11).
> 
> 3) The glacial pace of development and how expensive the software really is for what you get. Live Suite is more expensive than Cubase Pro. Let that sink in for a moment. Some might argue Max for Live justifies the high price of Live, which might be true for some users, but certainly not the majority of users.
> 
> Bitwig definitely has its issues in terms of workflow, but they are releasing new features a couple of times per year, and the value you get is just amazing (for about half what Live Suite costs). Not much sample-based content, but the devices (audio fx, midi fx, instruments) are fantastic. The included synths are up there in terms of sound quality with U-He.
> 
> Bitwig is a better Ableton Live than Ableton Live itself. My worry with Bitwig is they are so focused on its devices that they are not polishing their workflow and this has been a theme for the past couple of years. Also no video support either.


Can you clarify what the workflow issues are in Bitwig? I'm thinking of going the other way Cubase to Bitwig.


----------



## Pier

Harry said:


> Can you clarify what the workflow issues are in Bitwig? I'm thinking of going the other way Cubase to Bitwig.


For example, Bitwig doesn't have a way to configure the piano roll view. If you're not ok with the defaults, you have to change them *every single time* you open a piano roll for a new instrument track.

- Velocities are hidden by default
- MIDI note audio previews are enabled by default
- Midi CCs are hidden by default
- Etc

There is a new community forum for Bitwig feature requests so you can see what users are complaining about:









Bitwish


Community wishlist for Bitwig Studio




bitwish.top


----------



## Trensharo

Chris Richter said:


> There is a DAW out there that is cheaper than 60$? Which one is it?


Cakewalk by BandLab?

For Professional use, REAPER costs $225. The $60 license are for people making a poverty wage with the software. If you're a hobbyists, then that's probably fine. Professional users doing this for a living are paying the $225.

Half the internet is still convinced that REAPER is free, so I'm not sure the price matters to the general public /shrugs/


Chris Richter said:


> I don’t use Logic because it doesn’t fit my needs. Not because of preference. I need my DAW to do certain tasks efficiently. If it can’t do that, I won’t use it. Because of a) I value time and b) the client values time. Deadlines don’t care for colors.


I do not think a semantic game on whether you think something is efficient enough and whether or not a tool can actually fit your needs (not the same things) is not worth exploring.

Unless you don't mind being more specific? Even then, some Logic user will show up to tell you how to do it in Logic, and we'll be back to square one. Not sure that's even worth it.

Which DAW's workflow better suits you is personal preference. People use all DAWs, and most will defend their choice in a way not dissimilar to what you're proposing here.


Chris Richter said:


> It’s like saying I am preferring a screwdriver over a Hammer for screwing. Which makes no sense. It’s not about what I like but what does the job best.


Except REAPER is not a screwdriver while Logic is a hammer. Both are screwdrivers.


Chris Richter said:


> Apart from that I wasn’t aware that one could take offense by my post. That wasn’t my intention and I am sorry.


I didn't take offense to anything. No need to apologize.


Chris Richter said:


> My intent was to praise the functionality of Reaper. Which is there even if the visuals can’t match that. As soon as I work with Reaper the visuals take a backseat as I focus on the work at hand.


One could also praise the user experience of Logic, even if some functionalities may not work _identically _to something like REAPER or Pro Tools. It's pretty much a preference thing [sic.]


----------



## Trensharo

Chris Richter said:


> Sure, if I‘d want to specifically copy Cubase content I should go with Cubase.
> 
> Also if you start with nothing I guess that might be a great start. At that point and time you most probably won’t need the very specific solutions Reaper can bring to the table.
> 
> On the other hand: 60$ for someone starting out + a small version of Komplete and you are good to go, aren’t you?
> I think Logic would be more attractive if you strictly talking price for a new user. If one has MacOS of course.
> 
> But all of that aside I completely agree that every use case has to be evaluated and Reaper for sure isn’t always the best answer. I for sure had a hard time when I switched from Cubase to Reaper. But I am glad that the rough start or esthetics didn’t keep me away from it.


Komplete Start barely gives you much to start out with.

Komplete Select is not going to give you much, either. Basically, you have to get in at Komplete 13, otherwise you're probably better off with the Stock stuff that ships with many DAWs (Cubase, Ableton, etc.).

That, or you go for cheaper alternatives like IKM (during sales, etc.) and kill most birds with one stone there.

Logic will give you everything you need very little markup. You can save $60 outright, if you're on Windows, by using a full DAW that costs nothing, even, and you'll still get more in the box than REAPER offers.

The price of entry for someone who is "just starting out" is $0. They don't really need Logic to start. They can start with GB on macOS. They don't need to pay anything for a DAW on Windows.

And they shouldn't. Not until they've gained enough experience to gauge their own requirements (not someone else's, handed to them as a recommendation) and can better/more efficiently figure out how to spend their money.


----------



## Chris Richter

Trensharo said:


> Cakewalk by BandLab?


Touché


----------



## Nico5

Chris Richter said:


> There is a DAW out there that is cheaper than 60$? Which one is it?



Tracktion Waveform Free?


----------



## youngpokie

I am reading through this thread, it's pretty amazing but really long - so I apologize in advance if this question was asked and answered. I hope the OP won't mind.

Those who have left Cubase, how does your new DAW score on these features:

- Note Expression (linking CC curves to notes themselves instead of CC lanes)
- Ability to name/rename CC controllers
- Track Versions
- Better Score Editor than Cubase

I'm a bit shocked with the new Steinberg licensing plan, so no harm in understanding my options. Many thanks!


----------



## KEM

Leave Cubase?! Sacrilege

I could never leave Cubase


----------



## dzilizzi

I use Cubase and really dislike it. If you are coming from another DAW, it is annoying. There are things it does amazingly well, but it is never simple. And trying to find things in the manual is like reading Chinese instructions translated to English. The words they use don't quite make sense when coming from another DAW. I find it frustrating. And no matter what I do, it never seems to work the way it is supposed to. 

I do believe it is because they had their own nomenclature and for those who have been using it for years, it makes sense. But coming from ProTools, Studio One, Cakewalk/Sonar, Reason, and Ableton, it is different. Lots of hidden menus inside of menus that affect behavior. The toolbar is almost unreadable. I'm sure there are other things. It is not a simple DAW. 

What keeps me trying: The Chord Track. I love it. Some of the midi tools are really useful. Did I mention the Chord Track? And some day I am hoping to figure it out. I have a template set up with VE Pro, which I had working until I had to unplug the computer to fix some things. There are a lot of good things it does. And, overall, it is cheaper than ProTools, if you upgrade properly.


----------



## Trensharo

dzilizzi said:


> I do believe it is because they had their own nomenclature and for those who have been using it for years, it makes sense.


That's mostly an issue for people coming TO Cubase, not those who picked up Cubase as their first DAW (or first serious DAW).

Lots of creative software use different nomenclature for things.

It is something that Professional Software Packages have been doing since the 80s. In some cases, it serves as a form of lock-in.

If you go across most DAWs you're going to run into tons of issues where things are called something that is different from another DAW.

Programming IDEs and Editors were also renown for this, and you see this with Graphics Design and Video Production software.

Hell, it probably affects OSes and operating environments, as well...

This increases the learning curve when you are trying to switch from one solution to another. Making it take more effort to switch was a way of developers increasing user retention.


----------



## KEM

@Pier in case you need an incentive to join the Cubase gang, well, I use Cubase…


----------



## Pier

KEM said:


> @Pier in case you need an incentive to join the Cubase gang, well, I use Cubase…


I'm torn between Studio One and Cubase.

I'll let destiny decide and get the first one that goes on sale! 😂


----------



## Trensharo

Well, I can sell you a copy of Studio One Pro for half price, but you may want to let the thoughts simmer for a while... Never great to make a rush decision based solely on price, unless you are under some serious economic pressures.


----------



## KEM

Pier said:


> I'm torn between Studio One and Cubase.
> 
> I'll let destiny decide and get the first one that goes on sale! 😂



Well, I use Cubase, and so does Hans, Junkie, Lorne, and our lord and savior Ludwig

Nobody uses Studio One, at least nobody I care about lol


----------



## Trensharo

KEM said:


> Well, I use Cubase, and so does Hans, Junkie, Lorne, and our lord and savior Ludwig
> 
> Nobody uses Studio One, at least nobody I care about lol


If you score to picture, then Cubase all the way. It really depends on what you are doing with the DAW. For producing EDM and stuff like that, I would take Studio One over Cubase any day, personally.

Also, Studio One has added a lot of features in the past couple of versions that composer would have passed it up over. Things are different today.


----------



## Pier

Trensharo said:


> Well, I can sell you a copy of Studio One Pro for half price, but you may want to let the thoughts simmer for a while... Never great to make a rush decision based solely on price, unless you are under some serious economic pressures.


Yeah I know I'm just messing around 

I could get S1 at Knobcloud right now for half the price.


----------



## KEM

Trensharo said:


> If you score to picture, then Cubase all the way. It really depends on what you are doing with the DAW. For producing EDM and stuff like that, I would take Studio One over Cubase any day, personally.
> 
> Also, Studio One has added a lot of features in the past couple of versions that composer would have passed it up over. Things are different today.



S1 certainly is a good DAW, but the greatest composers on the planet right now are all using Cubase so that says a lot!! If Ludwig uses it then you already know it’s good (he also uses Ableton)


----------



## Chris Richter

John Powell uses Logic and I _think _Danny Elfman is on Digital Performer. But don't quote me on that. Point is that those guys aren't slouches either (hilarious understatement). Every DAW can be used to get to the finish line. The question is what works for you?


----------



## Pier

KEM said:


> S1 certainly is a good DAW, but the greatest composers on the planet right now are all using Cubase so that says a lot!! If Ludwig uses it then you already know it’s good (he also uses Ableton)


I saw a video with Ludwig composing Black Panther on Ableton Live. I don't know if he also used Cubase though.


----------



## Zedcars

KEM said:


> Well, I use Cubase, and so does Hans, Junkie, Lorne, and our lord and savior Ludwig
> 
> Nobody uses Studio One, at least nobody I care about lol






Alan Silvestri also uses Cubase (and Dorico).


----------



## KEM

Pier said:


> I saw a video with Ludwig composing Black Panther on Ableton Live. I don't know if he also used Cubase though.



That’s an older video before he updated his setup, you can see Cubase in this video as well as his more recent Instagram posts


----------



## KEM

Zedcars said:


> Alan Silvestri also uses Cubase (and Dorico).




Exactly!!


----------



## dzilizzi

Trensharo said:


> That's mostly an issue for people coming TO Cubase, not those who picked up Cubase as their first DAW (or first serious DAW).
> 
> Lots of creative software use different nomenclature for things.
> 
> It is something that Professional Software Packages have been doing since the 80s. In some cases, it serves as a form of lock-in.
> 
> If you go across most DAWs you're going to run into tons of issues where things are called something that is different from another DAW.
> 
> Programming IDEs and Editors were also renown for this, and you see this with Graphics Design and Video Production software.
> 
> Hell, it probably affects OSes and operating environments, as well...
> 
> This increases the learning curve when you are trying to switch from one solution to another. Making it take more effort to switch was a way of developers increasing user retention.


That is what I said. I have not had an issue coming from ProTools to everything other than Cubase.


----------



## Trensharo

KEM said:


> S1 certainly is a good DAW, but the greatest composers on the planet right now are all using Cubase so that says a lot!! If Ludwig uses it then you already know it’s good (he also uses Ableton)


They started on Cubase before S1 existed in many cases... that isn't saying much...


----------



## brenneisen

Trensharo said:


> They started on Cubase before S1 existed


Not Silvestri! Not Ludwig!

Cubase is the best daw, shush!

(Logic is great but I'm poor)


----------



## easyrider

Pier said:


> I'm torn between Studio One and Cubase.
> 
> I'll let destiny decide and get the first one that goes on sale! 😂


If you buy Cubase now you will get a free upgrade to Cubase 12

Having said that S1 smokes it….😂


----------



## Pier

easyrider said:


> If you buy Cubase now you will get a free upgrade to Cubase 12


That's a good point.

Other than the no dongle licensing, what other major features are expected to land in v12?


----------



## easyrider

Pier said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> Other than the no dongle licensing, what other major features are expected to land in v12?


No one knows….


----------



## KEM

Pier said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> Other than the no dongle licensing, what other major features are expected to land in v12?



You get the feature of saying you use the same DAW as me, what more could you ask for?!


----------



## Paul Grymaud

WHAT? Who said I stopped working on CUBASE? Never in a million years! Even better: after 10 years with CUBASE 6.5 I upgraded to CUBASE 10 a few months ago. I love it !
Sorry, I don't sell it


----------



## EgM

Pier said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> Other than the no dongle licensing, what other major features are expected to land in v12?


Most likely v8-v9 bug fixes  (Sorry, couldn't resist)


----------



## Trensharo

brenneisen said:


> Not Silvestri! Not Ludwig!
> 
> Cubase is the best daw, shush!
> 
> (Logic is great but I'm poor)





Trensharo said:


> They started on Cubase before S1 existed *in many cases*...


I see what you did there!


----------



## dzilizzi

EgM said:


> Most likely v8-v9 bug fixes  (Sorry, couldn't resist)


You wish!


----------



## Manfred

I have loved Cubase since 5. Never needed or tried any other. I’m staying!


----------



## paaltio

I got tired of Steinberg not listening.

Just as an example, I reported a bug on the forums where MusicXML export was broken for double dotted notes, around 10 years ago. I kept repeating that report for every Cubase release after that. It caused me countless lost takes in recording sessions in the meantime, because it would export to Sibelius correctly as long as the music in that bar was not edited, but after a slight edit you would lose the extra dot and the measure would be incorrect, which I would usually miss while in a hurry to finish the parts.

It finally got fixed a few years back. I assume because of a report from someone who they do care about.

I've been eyeing REAPER on the side for the past ten years and I wanted to finally give it a serious go this summer. Started building the necessary scripts for a subproject-based film scoring workflow (automatically sync picture/sound/markers and timecode into subprojects, automatically create new subproject versions into takes, stuff like that). Went through ReaPack and the forums, put in all the stuff I miss from Cubase, and wrote myself what I couldn't find (Global copy/paste between sessions was a big one -- I did one that matches tracks by GUID like Cubase so track order doesn't matter).

Working on a film now and I have to say I'm surprised at how well this is going. Reaticulate is amazing as are many of the other community scripts on ReaPack. It feels amazing being a master of my own destiny, because when I think of a feature (multitrack CC11/CC1 crescendo/diminuendo within time selection? done!), I just make a note of it and write the script on a coffee break.

Granted I have a programming background, so of course this won't be the experience for everyone. But even without your own scripts ReaPack is an amazing resource (I hope to contribute some of my scripts there at some point). I think it has substantially transformed what REAPER is, because it really feels more like a platform than a set-in-stone product at this point. If you've got a great idea, someone on the ReaScript forum might even write the script you're thinking of.

To top all that, the developers Justin and John (schwa) are completely awesome, easily my favorite DAW developers on the planet, constantly engaging with the community and responsive to bug reports. It literally took three days for this bug to get fixed in a released dev build (stable builds always follow at most a few weeks after), and that's counting the weekend I reported the bug on.

I have two Nuendo licenses and one Cubase license here, and I don't think any of them are getting upgraded anymore. But I need to get that REAPER commercial license now...


----------



## Harry

Pier said:


> For example, Bitwig doesn't have a way to configure the piano roll view. If you're not ok with the defaults, you have to change them *every single time* you open a piano roll for a new instrument track.
> 
> - Velocities are hidden by default
> - MIDI note audio previews are enabled by default
> - Midi CCs are hidden by default
> - Etc
> 
> There is a new community forum for Bitwig feature requests so you can see what users are complaining about:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitwish
> 
> 
> Community wishlist for Bitwig Studio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bitwish.top


I suppose all DAWs have this kind of thing. There just is no perfect DAW.


----------



## Pier

Harry said:


> I suppose all DAWs have this kind of thing. There just is no perfect DAW.


Honestly, I'm hopeful Bitwig will address these usability issues in the next major version. The community has been making a lot of noise about this.

I will probably wait a year or so before deciding to embark on a new DAW. I'm currently much more focused on doing synth presets than actually writing music. I'm not really in a hurry.

Cubase 12 will probably be a significant upgrade so I can wait to see where Steinberg is heading. Also, I'll be able to judge the impact of Fender on Studio One.


----------



## dzilizzi

paaltio said:


> I got tired of Steinberg not listening.
> 
> Just as an example, I reported a bug on the forums where MusicXML export was broken for double dotted notes, around 10 years ago. I kept repeating that report for every Cubase release after that. It caused me countless lost takes in recording sessions in the meantime, because it would export to Sibelius correctly as long as the music in that bar was not edited, but after a slight edit you would lose the extra dot and the measure would be incorrect, which I would usually miss while in a hurry to finish the parts.
> 
> It finally got fixed a few years back. I assume because of a report from someone who they do care about.
> 
> I've been eyeing REAPER on the side for the past ten years and I wanted to finally give it a serious go this summer. Started building the necessary scripts for a subproject-based film scoring workflow (automatically sync picture/sound/markers and timecode into subprojects, automatically create new subproject versions into takes, stuff like that). Went through ReaPack and the forums, put in all the stuff I miss from Cubase, and wrote myself what I couldn't find (Global copy/paste between sessions was a big one -- I did one that matches tracks by GUID like Cubase so track order doesn't matter).
> 
> Working on a film now and I have to say I'm surprised at how well this is going. Reaticulate is amazing as are many of the other community scripts on ReaPack. It feels amazing being a master of my own destiny, because when I think of a feature (multitrack CC11/CC1 crescendo/diminuendo within time selection? done!), I just make a note of it and write the script on a coffee break.
> 
> Granted I have a programming background, so of course this won't be the experience for everyone. But even without your own scripts ReaPack is an amazing resource (I hope to contribute some of my scripts there at some point). I think it has substantially transformed what REAPER is, because it really feels more like a platform than a set-in-stone product at this point. If you've got a great idea, someone on the ReaScript forum might even write the script you're thinking of.
> 
> To top all that, the developers Justin and John (schwa) are completely awesome, easily my favorite DAW developers on the planet, constantly engaging with the community and responsive to bug reports. It literally took three days for this bug to get fixed in a released dev build (stable builds always follow at most a few weeks after), and that's counting the weekend I reported the bug on.
> 
> I have two Nuendo licenses and one Cubase license here, and I don't think any of them are getting upgraded anymore. But I need to get that REAPER commercial license now...


I haven't tried Reaper yet. Can you do chord track with it?


----------



## Trensharo

paaltio said:


> Just as an example, I reported a bug on the forums where MusicXML export was broken for double dotted notes, around 10 years ago.


MusicXML is a complete crapshoot. You never really get a clean export out of any DAW - and I've tried several. It's basically a situation where you have to use the least worst option, if that is a priority (among the DAWs that allow you to export MusicXML), and then do what editing you need to clean it up in the notation software - which is faster than redoing everything from scratch there.

Importing MusicXML is the same situation. Exporting from different Notation Packages will result in different oddities when you import it into the DAW. Again, I've tried several (MuseScore, Notion, Dorico, Sibelius).

I think it would be worth it to check and see what revision of MusicXML Cubase is on, and what revision the software you're importing the file into supports. MusicXML is sort of fragmented, at the moment.

That's why some people want a direct integration between Cubase and Dorico (similar to Studio One and Notion, where you don't deal with these issues as the notes are fairly guaranteed to port over cleanly).

REAPER does have a surprisingly decent score editor. You just have to set up everything yourself.


----------



## paaltio

dzilizzi said:


> I haven't tried Reaper yet. Can you do chord track with it?


I did my own using music21 on Python. There are some other scripts that do a chord track, but I didn't really like them and wanted something that suits my orchestral composition style more. So this is probably one of those areas where I should eventually release scripts unless someone does a better one... But I first need to give these a good test myself and see what I need to change.


----------



## paaltio

Trensharo said:


> MusicXML is a complete crapshoot. You never really get a clean export out of any DAW - and I've tried several. It's basically a situation where you have to use the least worst option, if that is a priority (among the DAWs that allow you to export MusicXML), and then do what editing you need to clean it up in the notation software - which is faster than redoing everything from scratch there.
> 
> Importing MusicXML is the same situation. Exporting from different Notation Packages will result in different oddities when you import it into the DAW. Again, I've tried several (MuseScore, Notion, Dorico, Sibelius).
> 
> I think it would be worth it to check and see what revision of MusicXML Cubase is on, and what revision the software you're importing the file into supports. MusicXML is sort of fragmented, at the moment.
> 
> That's why some people want a direct integration between Cubase and Dorico (similar to Studio One and Notion, where you don't deal with these issues as the notes are fairly guaranteed to port over cleanly).
> 
> REAPER does have a surprisingly decent score editor. You just have to set up everything yourself.


The problem I mentioned was very specific and I detailed it to Steinberg back then. MusicXML reports the length of the note in two ways, and while the visual layer was correct, leading Sibelius to initially render it correctly, the length metadata was a single dotted note, which lead to the length changing when you edit it.

So this was 100% a Steinberg error (albeit with an unfortunate Sibelius interaction where the error is not initially visible), but they just didn't care enough to fix it. I eventually just had a command line tool made to fix the XML manually during transfer.

Anyway, this is just a single example. Like I don't think I've in my 15 years of using Cubase had a single feature request get through. I think I can finally take a hint!


----------



## paaltio

Small teaser of the chord functionality... it's a bit rough like most of my scripts right now (so unfortunately not release-ready), but I like the functionality already.

Can also detect chords from the MIDI of course (or type chord symbols, but I can never seem to remember the music21 chord notation when you get into diminished, major 7th and other stuff that has weird ASCII equivalents in some contexts), but what I most use a chord track for is just having a reference for where I am in the music, so being able to quickly enter chords and quantize notes to them or the scale is pretty nice.

I would like the scale functionality to understand musical context better, not sure quite how to do that yet. Plenty of coffee breaks worth of stuff to do on this one...


----------



## Trensharo

DP11 Competitive crossgrade on sale for $195 Tax-Free, so I got it.

I can only run it on my laptop since I'm on Thanksgiving vacation, but if it's good enough Cubase Pro 11 is will be up for sale when I get home.

My brother wants to do some work while I'm here, so that'll be good OJT for it. I'll also do some scoring sketches to see how it functions there.

*EDIT*: Ehhhh... The learning curve is real with this one.


----------



## trevormf

Pier said:


> I'm considering getting into Cubase but would like to hear all the 1 star reviews from people that moved onto other DAWs.
> 
> I'm currently using Bitwig. It's amazing in so many aspects (sound design, devices, modulators, the grid, etc) except for actually writing music.


After 30 years, since the Atari days I have loved Cubase andhave always used it on a PC since it became available for Windows. It's been an extension of my brain, I work automatically with it.
I switched to Reaper last month and it's been easy and liberating.
I had gotten used to Steinberg's dreadful support and their almost contemptuous attitude to users, I have always known that because I chose Cubase I was on my own and made peace with it.
However the purchase of a Mac M1 mini changed everything.
I was a Mac hater before so spare me any of that.
It's a genuine revolution, for the first time ever the Mac fanboy line about macs being better for music is true. It wasn't true ever before, it is now and we have to get over it.
Steinberg are one of the most successful music software companies out there and yet 4 other DAWs got their Silicone shit together before them. (OK Logic doesn't count) But a few others have.
Steinberg instead it seems have focused on reinventing how anti piracy measures work to get rid of the dongle. All they needed to do was look at how other companies are doing this, find out which ones customers prefer and implement one of those, leaving their devs free to sort out Silicone. But as usual Steinberg obsess over security.
This compelled me to look elsewhere, I am not alone. I hated every other DAW I tried until I put a Cubase type theme over Reaper. I was using it as well as I use Cubase by the end of the day.
On the second day I modded the theme to have features I wished Cubase had and on the third day I turned an old iPad mini into several customised remote controls that runs on the wifi network using an internal web type URL, I didn't need to buy an app, I didn't need to code anything (although I can).
It runs native on the M1, almost all my plugins do or will within the next few months and until then they run via a bridging software.
Will I go back to Cubase when they eventually run native on silicone? Well their coy statement said '2022' that could be January, could also be next November, however I already know we're parting ways.
Sorry Stenberg, it's you not me.


----------



## Trensharo

trevormf said:


> After 30 years, since the Atari days I have loved Cubase andhave always used it on a PC since it became available for Windows. It's been an extension of my brain, I work automatically with it.
> I switched to Reaper last month and it's been easy and liberating.
> I had gotten used to Steinberg's dreadful support and their almost contemptuous attitude to users, I have always known that because I chose Cubase I was on my own and made peace with it.
> However the purchase of a Mac M1 mini changed everything.
> I was a Mac hater before so spare me any of that.
> It's a genuine revolution, for the first time ever the Mac fanboy line about macs being better for music is true. It wasn't true ever before, it is now and we have to get over it.
> Steinberg are one of the most successful music software companies out there and yet 4 other DAWs got their Silicone shit together before them. (OK Logic doesn't count) But a few others have.
> Steinberg instead it seems have focused on reinventing how anti piracy measures work to get rid of the dongle. All they needed to do was look at how other companies are doing this, find out which ones customers prefer and implement one of those, leaving their devs free to sort out Silicone. But as usual Steinberg obsess over security.
> This compelled me to look elsewhere, I am not alone. I hated every other DAW I tried until I put a Cubase type theme over Reaper. I was using it as well as I use Cubase by the end of the day.
> On the second day I modded the theme to have features I wished Cubase had and on the third day I turned an old iPad mini into several customised remote controls that runs on the wifi network using an internal web type URL, I didn't need to buy an app, I didn't need to code anything (although I can).
> It runs native on the M1, almost all my plugins do or will within the next few months and until then they run via a bridging software.
> Will I go back to Cubase when they eventually run native on silicone? Well their coy statement said '2022' that could be January, could also be next November, however I already know we're parting ways.
> Sorry Stenberg, it's you not me.


Cubase has always been better on Wondows, IMO. Steinberg is like Adobe. Logic and DP were always going to get there first as those DAWs bias heavily (or completely) to macOS. I didn’t expect Bitwig and Stufio One to be as fast. Are Reaper and FL native, yet? 

Steinberg moves like a risk-averse enterprise software developer. Cubase is not the solution if you want nimble development and swift support for new tech that Steinberg themselves didn’t introduce. 

i didn’t find M1 to be a revolution but YMMV on that, naturally.


----------



## GeoMax

Since I decided to move away from VEP and multiple server machines. I decided I would like to rethink my whole workflow approach, including DAW. 

In my effort to make a simple project template that can easily run on one machine, I asked myself what it was I really wanted. It really boiled down to two main workflow things.

First, I want a method where I can quickly load an instrument preset that is ready to go, without spending all my time fiddling around. I dont need all the instruments waiting in the wings, I just need them setup and ready to go when my ears call for them.

Secondly, I wanted the easiest method for editing audio tracks...vocals, guitars

My DAW preferences boiled down to S1 and Nuendo\Cubase. 

I feel like S1 has a simpler approach to instrument presets. Disabled tracks works in Nuendo, but I need to have them in the template already. Nuendo track presets are too cumbersome to me. Track import is an option, but far more clunky that drag and drop of S1. 

There are some features of Nuendo that I really dont like to give up. In particular, having 4 different mixer view options. Since I bought a couple Stream Deck units, I think i can recreate the mixer views concept in S1.

So, my reasons for looking elsewhere from Nuendo is really more about evolving workflow and a fresh interface. I feel like S1 will be easier to get my creative ideas into audio tracks. I can always export into another solution for mixing. Maybe I will still mix in Nuendo. TBD.

I really hope Fender buying S1 doesnt blow up the product development team. If it does, well then I will re-plan again at that time.


----------



## SyMTiK

I started on Logic, switched to PC and Cubase 8.5, switched back to Logic in college since I had to get a Macbook for school and a lot of my classmates were also on Logic (made collaboration easier) and am now switching back to PC/Cubase again. I like Logic, but ultimately prefer Cubase, probably because I learned its workflow best and am used to its MIDI editor. I love its interface, it is by far my favorite color scheme for any DAW available, makes it easy to get lost working in it for hours and hours. Studio One looks like a great option nowadays, if I didn't already have a Cubase license and get a good upgrade deal to the latest version during Black Friday I would probably consider giving Studio One a go. 

There are definitely some things in Cubase that frustrate me, mainly their support and license management. Accidentally broke my dongle a while back, and getting a replacement dongle and license was an annoying ordeal. Also hate that I already have an Ilok, and it needs its own unique licenser, which just takes up more wasted usb space. Luckily they are finally retiring the usb licenser, but doesn't change the fact I have now spent 60 dollars on 2 stupid usb sticks hahaha


----------



## Trensharo

Yea, I broke an eLicenser about a month back. Totally, empathize with that.

I plug my dongles into my monitor, though, for the same reason. I was literally out of USB pots on my desktop, except the top USB ports which I can't permanently populate because sometimes I have to transfer things between external drives and such.

I have 3 4 SSDs in that system to avoid having to depend on external drives for things like holding my libraries and such. Plus, I've had issues with heavily used external drives disconnecting under sustained load.

I will say that Steinberg support has been good, thus far.

eLicenser will be here for a while if you use anything beyond Cubase and Dorico. They're saying it can take up to 2 years to move everything off of it (HALion, WaveLab, etc.). Many people put all of their Steinberg software on their eLicenser.

I think that is actually a good idea. I lost a soft eLicenser to the Windows 11 upgrade. If I had any licenses on that, I'd have had to do the whole recovery thing to generate new activation codes and such.


----------



## Troels Folmann

I don’t think it really matters anymore - and if anybody wants to compare look how many hits are made in Logic and Ableton. All the DAWs are amazing at this point and it really just comes down to the persons ability to utilize their tools.

I personally choose DAWs on which looks best to my eye, since I have to stare at it for hours a day. But that’s just my preference. All of them are great.


----------



## eNGee

I can't leave! It is like "Hotel California" for me!


----------



## quickbrownf0x

I just survived a 4-week long Cubase meltdown of epic proportions, with some help of my friends here, where at the end I wanted to burn the whole thing to the ground. I'm talking Les Grossman styled-scorched earth.

But then once I got my precious touchscreen working with my fancy (P)LE presets and macros, loaded up my ridiculously large template and heard my CS-80 Bladerunner patch soar again in 5.1 without a hitch, smooth as butter.... instantly forgot all about the fact that I've lost half of my fur in just a few weeks.


----------



## jononotbono

paaltio said:


> Small teaser of the chord functionality... it's a bit rough like most of my scripts right now (so unfortunately not release-ready), but I like the functionality already.
> 
> Can also detect chords from the MIDI of course (or type chord symbols, but I can never seem to remember the music21 chord notation when you get into diminished, major 7th and other stuff that has weird ASCII equivalents in some contexts), but what I most use a chord track for is just having a reference for where I am in the music, so being able to quickly enter chords and quantize notes to them or the scale is pretty nice.
> 
> I would like the scale functionality to understand musical context better, not sure quite how to do that yet. Plenty of coffee breaks worth of stuff to do on this one...


Reaper scares me. I just don't think I can use it for anything more than sample editing. The endless possibilities with customization would be the death of me. 😂


----------



## IFM

IDK I've always kept both but after years on Logic, I decided to do a lot of writing on Cubase and fell it love with it...till I realized that because of the lack of VST2 support coming up for C12 that a lot of old projects just won't load anymore and many plugins will stop working because developers aren't updating. I'm nearly ready to move back to Logic if it weren't for the horrid lag in the GUI and it causing crashes with Eucon (ya there are a few other things too). 

What I'll probably end up having to do is force myself to disable VST2 plugins now and make sure I only use them in VEP till they are updated.


----------



## EgM

IFM said:


> IDK I've always kept both but after years on Logic, I decided to do a lot of writing on Cubase and fell it love with it...till I realized that because of the lack of VST2 support coming up for C12 that a lot of old projects just won't load anymore and many plugins will stop working because developers aren't updating. I'm nearly ready to move back to Logic if it weren't for the horrid lag in the GUI and it causing crashes with Eucon (ya there are a few other things too).
> 
> What I'll probably end up having to do is force myself to disable VST2 plugins now and make sure I only use them in VEP till they are updated.


Developers can create aliases for VST2 so I wouldn’t worry about projects not loading if you do have the VST3 version available


----------



## Nico5

IFM said:


> IDK I've always kept both but after years on Logic, I decided to do a lot of writing on Cubase and fell it love with it...till I realized that because of the lack of VST2 support coming up for C12 that a lot of old projects just won't load anymore and many plugins will stop working because developers aren't updating. I'm nearly ready to move back to Logic if it weren't for the horrid lag in the GUI and it causing crashes with Eucon (ya there are a few other things too).
> 
> What I'll probably end up having to do is force myself to disable VST2 plugins now and make sure I only use them in VEP till they are updated.


Color me confused: Will moving back to Logic make your VST2 plugins work again?


----------



## IFM

Nico5 said:


> Color me confused: Will moving back to Logic make your VST2 plugins work again?


It means AU which I won’t have to worry about.


----------



## jonathanwright

IFM said:


> IDK I've always kept both but after years on Logic, I decided to do a lot of writing on Cubase and fell it love with it...till I realized that because of the lack of VST2 support coming up for C12 that a lot of old projects just won't load anymore and many plugins will stop working because developers aren't updating. I'm nearly ready to move back to Logic if it weren't for the horrid lag in the GUI and it causing crashes with Eucon (ya there are a few other things too).
> 
> What I'll probably end up having to do is force myself to disable VST2 plugins now and make sure I only use them in VEP till they are updated.


Apparently Cubase 12 will still support VST2 as long as it's in Rosseta mode. Not ideal if you want to use everything native, but at least things will still work until VST3 versions are released.


----------



## IFM

jonathanwright said:


> Apparently Cubase 12 will still support VST2 as long as it's in Rosseta mode. Not ideal if you want to use everything native, but at least things will still work until VST3 versions are released.


I just saw that reply from Steinberg. Luckily a majority of my older projects are in LP but anything I’ve written in the last 10 months might have some issues when I recall them.


----------



## Nico5

IFM said:


> It means AU which I won’t have to worry about.


so do you think, most or many of the developers of those plugins will make their AU versions M1 native, but won't migrate to M1 native VST3 ?


----------



## IFM

Nico5 said:


> so do you think, most or many of the developers of those plugins will make their AU versions M1 native, but won't migrate to M1 native VST3 ?


I get what you are saying, but it may be easier for them to migrate and AU to an AU for Apple Silicon


----------



## Ozinga

Nico5 said:


> so do you think, most or many of the developers of those plugins will make their AU versions M1 native, but won't migrate to M1 native VST3 ?


Logic uses an internal bridge, so you can still use Rosetta only AU plugins in Logic native M1 mode.


----------



## Nico5

Ozinga said:


> Logic uses an internal bridge, so you can still use Rosetta only AU plugins in Logic native M1 mode.


and according to the earlier post in this thread by @jonathanwright you'll be able to do the same thing with VST2 plugins in Cubase 12 via Rosetta, so I'm still not following the big benefit of leaving behind one's much loved DAW?


----------



## Cideboy

For nuendo


----------



## Cideboy

Pier said:


> I'm considering getting into Cubase but would like to hear all the 1 star reviews from people that moved onto other DAWs.
> 
> I'm currently using Bitwig. It's amazing in so many aspects (sound design, devices, modulators, the grid, etc) except for actually writing music.


Haha yea - same with ableton for me too. I use it for live work and sound design and edm. For any real midi work, Cubase or Nuendo for me. The latter for sound design and post


----------



## Ozinga

Nico5 said:


> and according to the earlier post in this thread by @jonathanwright you'll be able to do the same thing with VST2 plugins in Cubase 12 via Rosetta, so I'm still not following the big benefit of leaving behind one's much loved DAW?


I agree, I wouldn't change it either but the difference is you also need to run Cubase always in Rosetta mode too. That means native AS plugins will also be running in Rosetta mode. Unless of course Cubase have its own bridge like Bitwig. 
That is the difference.. When Logic is in Native AS mode it can host AS native and Rosetta plugins together.


----------



## IFM

Some other things that I'm surprised aren't in Cubase that are frustrating me (I have these in LP), is selecting all notes by same articulation. and holding Shift-OPT and dragging the ends of notes makes them all the same length. I know Cubase has the "fixed lengths" option at least but I can't find a solution for the former.


----------



## Ozinga

IFM said:


> and holding Shift-OPT and dragging the ends of notes makes them all the same length. I know Cubase has the "fixed lengths" option at least but I can't find a solution for the former.


+1
One of things I miss a lot from Logic


----------



## Per Boysen

I started with Steinberg Pro 24 back in the Atari days but switched to Logic 2.0 when "moving into hard drive recording" because I had watched C-Lab aided electronic dance music remixers working on my tracks and their MIDI timing was so much better in C-Lab (that soon was to become "Emagic") compared to Cubase Atari. I picked up Bitwig at its release and used it in parallel with Logic and Live for a couple of years. At Logic X the lack of native expression maps got me too frustrated, so I bought Cubase to get into expression maps. Later I worked for one year in Reaper, but then went back to Cubase as my main tool. Still today the expression maps are one of the features I like the most with Cubase. That, and the Quick Controls (assigned to hardware knobs). But I'm finding the interface slow and irritating, so I'm now in the process of seriously setting up Bitwig as my main DAW. For a long time, I have had an Ableton Push and this grid is way faster for me to tweak things than Cubase's Quick Controls, and with Bitwig the Push support is instant. Bitwig misses out on expression maps though, but setting them up in Cubase and keeping them updated for two computers steals a lot of time that could have been put into composing (and it's just as quick to make a new multi for Kontakt and address different instruments by MIDI channel. That way your sound design work may follow you into other DAWs). I'm also currently avoiding using my Vienna server setup and going more for continuously bouncing to audio, both in Cubase and Bitwig. A "fast and light-weight" workflow I'm testing out.


----------



## eNGee

Per Boysen said:


> But I'm finding the interface slow and irritating, so I'm now in the process of seriously setting up Bitwig as my main DAW. For a long time, I have had an Ableton Push and this grid is way faster for me to tweak things than Cubase's Quick Controls, and with Bitwig the Push support is instant. Bitwig misses out on expression maps though, but setting them up in Cubase and keeping them updated for two computers steals a lot of time that could have been put into composing (and it's just as quick to make a new multi for Kontakt and address different instruments by MIDI channel. That way your sound design work may follow you into other DAWs). I'm also currently avoiding using my Vienna server setup and going more for continuously bouncing to audio, both in Cubase and Bitwig. A "fast and light-weight" workflow I'm testing out.


I'm recently using Ableton Live for the same reasons. I find writing my ideas faster in Live and the hardware integration (also midi learn ..etc) is better. In the end it is faster in Live to write my initial ideas.

I'm still missing the midi review in the browser which is useful for drums patterns, but I might start writing/playing my drums tracks or just using a drums plugin like Addictive Drums when I need realistic patterns and sounds.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I can leave Cubase, so I will keep it just in case as I know it better than Live.


----------



## R. Naroth

A bit late to this thread.. I bought Cubase a few months ago and started using it just recently. It is really deep and I'm still getting used to the new keyboard shortcuts. Logic Pro X was good but its upgrades are often tied to the OS upgrade which I dread doing.. 

Planning to stick to Cubase from now on.. I love the MIDI capabilities.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I didn't leave Cubase, but at one point way back in the day I was functional on all the DAWs except it - for one reason only: it didn't support my Pro Tools TDM system. 

Steinberg was ahead of everyone when it came to native audio. They were also ahead of the computers that were available in those days.

Things have changed a little.


----------



## NYC Composer

I’ve been on Cubase since 1997, but frankly, I’d like Vision back.


----------



## IFM

As an amendment to any comments I have made earlier, Cubase still is absolutely performing the best on my system (MP6,1 12 core). I've abandoned any thoughts of returning full time to LP and for the time being I'm just going to use VEP to host AU versions of VI's that are still stuck on VST2.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Every time another DAW releases an update, I try it for a bit and then it quickly becomes apparent that despite some nice things (though often gimmicks with limited use), they have a lot of catching up to do with Cubase. Cubase is such a powerhouse - not always the slickest or most well thought-out, but it does what you need. Can’t wait to see what they bring with version 12 in the next few weeks.


----------



## tremor206

moved to Bitwig late last year. as an electronic producer who works a lot on my own sound design, its native modulation system, ability to add any FX into multiband FX wrappers, the reaktor style grid environment, clip launcher, note repeats & other note FX, multi use macro controls, audio rate modulation between any source & target, more intuitive grouping, hybrid tracks that support both MIDI & audio, its perfect VST hosting solution all make for a much more stable & intuitive experience than I ever had with Cubase.

I cant see myself ever using Cubase again, aside from any ARA2 specific tasks & maybe for final mixdowns (as its mixer snapshots are invaluable in that regard)

Def wont be updating beyond 11 pro until they enter the 21st century & begin competing with the likes of bitwig or ableton for electronic / sound design workflows. Seems the biggest selling features of v12 are going to be a new dongle free licensing system & apple M1 support. As a PC user who never had any issue with the dongle, its going to take a lot more than that from Steinberg to coax me back in. Doesnt help they never disclose any info on upcoming features. I just got sick of waiting a year to be let down on feature requests over & over for years. Time to vote with my wallet & move on!


----------



## jononotbono

IFM said:


> Some other things that I'm surprised aren't in Cubase that are frustrating me (I have these in LP), is selecting all notes by same articulation. and holding Shift-OPT and dragging the ends of notes makes them all the same length. I know Cubase has the "fixed lengths" option at least but I can't find a solution for the former.


I wish I knew Logic better but to do what you want in Cubase (at least, how I know to do what you are talking about) is by using the Logical editor and creating buttons that will change all notes in an event or all selected notes in an event to a desired length (1/1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc). I've also made them for triplet lengths. And then I also made them to only change lengths of notes in locator/cycle range which can be handy when working on songs and rigid sections of music whereby you don't want any other notes affected especially if you are working on looped stuff.

In this screen shot, the top row are triplet buttons and the bottom row are non triplets. On the right side there is a Red switch. It's currently set to "All/Select" which means that any of the Green or Blue buttons will either change all notes in an event to whatever you press or if you manually lasso and select some notes, the buttons will only change those selected. The next Red switch option changes all the Blue and Green buttons to only change the note lengths with Cycle/Locator range.






Not sure if this is what you're after and I'm definitely interested in checking out Logic and seeing what you have described but here's how to make a Logical Editor command to change all/selected to a 16th. Change Parameter 1 to suit for all other quantize settings...


----------



## Ivan M.

Strange they call it "logical" editor. "Logical" is an adjective, implying that the editor itself is somehow logical, that it's well designed, has good UX.
Rather, it should be called Logic Editor, because you edit the logic that's being applied to midi.


----------



## waveheavy

I'm actually considering buying Cubase. I have Pro Tools 11 (native), Digital Performer 9, and Studio One 4. And I admit Studio One is the easiest of all. But...

Studio One -- lacks video support; still needs work on their graphic interface which is still kind of cheap looking (I like Logic's and Cubase's wave view better). But I love its workability and access, and the new notation score feature (hope they keep improving it).

Pro Tools -- my main beef is how it limits the number of tracks. Native is just not good if you want to compose for orchestra with a large template. Some say the MIDI editor isn't good enough, but I disagree. It's very easy to use. (But Logic's CC editor within their MIDI editor I like a lot.) If you want more tracks in Pro Tools, you have to invest in their hardware version. If you do a lot of live recording, that's not a bad idea. But if you mostly do V.I., it's a waste. Setting up the I/O in Pro Tools is a pain at first, then easy once you learn it, so that's not good enough reason to hate Pro Tools.

Digital Performer -- I have the Windows version. BAD IDEA. Works fine on a Mac, but not Windows because it has way too many bugs. It's a fine platform for film composing, but not so much for live recording. I couldn't even record my guitar into it using my UA interface. Their support just ignored me about it. 

So... I'm thinking of going to Cubase. If I had a Mac, I'd be happiest with Logic Pro.


----------



## estolad

waveheavy said:


> Studio One -- lacks video support; still needs work on their graphic interface which is still kind of cheap looking (I like Logic's and Cubase's wave view better). But I love its workability and access, and the new notation score feature (hope they keep improving it).


Probably not as good as native video support and I haven't had the time to test it, but have you tried: https://vidplayvst.com/index.htm?


----------



## IFM

jononotbono said:


> Not sure if this is what you're after and I'm definitely interested in checking out Logic and seeing what you have described but here's how to make a Logical Editor command to change all/selected to a 16th. Change Parameter 1 to suit for all other quantize settings...


That's pretty cool and I had settled on just using a command to set length to snap grid but this looks even better. 
The slightly easier part of LP is first selection all on the same articulation, then doing the drag to make them all the same length. I don't think there is a shortcut to simply make them all the same length as in Cubase. 

My only real concern still for the future is the seeming reluctance of developers to move to VST3. Steinberg has said C12 won't be hybrid so if you run it in Rosetta, then you can load the older VST2 plugins. VEP is a workaround, but it doesn't play nicey-nicey with ASIO Guard set on high. 

3rd is merely personal...the fonts and graphics are hard to see unless you use a low resolution.


----------



## jononotbono

IFM said:


> The slightly easier part of LP is first selection all on the same articulation, then doing the drag to make them all the same length.


That sounds like a wonderful feature. I am not aware of it in Cubase. Something totally different but with a similar workflow is cutting up audio and midi events. You can cut one slice and then use a modifier and it will cut even slices through the whole audio/midi event so its making me wonder why this select and drag all notes to same length isn't a feature. Seems so silly not to have that. And yeah, definitely easier than setting up a note length panel like I have. Although, its like anything. When you create a workflow and use what you have, you don't really think about other ways of working etc.

I think the VST3 thing will be just like when everything moved from 32bit to 64bit. Sure, I had a few things in 32bit but I either used a bridge or just said goodbye to certain things. I'm not bothered by that stuff. Music tech moves at such a great pace there's always alternatives and all the big guns out there will catch up as its in their interest to anyway. We'll revisit this post in 3 years when I'm bitching that my favourite stuff isn't working anymore 😂


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi

KEM said:


> S1 certainly is a good DAW, but the greatest composers on the planet right now are all using Cubase so that says a lot!! If Ludwig uses it then you already know it’s good (he also uses Ableton)


That says a lot about inertia. 😌


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi

Pier said:


> I'm torn between Studio One and Cubase.
> 
> I'll let destiny decide and get the first one that goes on sale! 😂


Studio One 6 vs. Cubase 12 is definitely the main battle of the year.


----------



## Nico5

Faruh Al-Baghdadi said:


> That says a lot about inertia. 😌


Does Studio One do surround sound 5.1 yet?


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi

Nico5 said:


> Does Studio One do surround sound 5.1 yet?


They suppose to add it in version 6.
If you're referring to it as to a reason why they use Cubase, I would add that multichannel audio is not the reason those composers use Cubase. Besides, usually they worked with upmixing of stereo mixes into surround in PT. It's not like they used to work on surround from the ground up. And at this level composers also rarely mix their own music. So, in most cases stereo is still the main format. 

For the majority of producers/composers multichannel systems are still an unnecessary feature. 

Anyway, I was talking about using someone's authority as an argument for choosing work environment. I'm mist cases those "old guys from A+ places" use certain tools due to inertia - gear they bought for a DAW(often it's one of the main reasons peope stick to PT these days), habits, file system etc. So, if someone is not that deep into the industry, exploring things on your own would be a wiser move. 

By the way, some of current composers that work with A+ budgets can produce the entire cur in Ableton or Bitwig. Both don't even have mono channels, not to mention multichannel routing. They do it freely because they know that someone else is going to mix it afterwards.


----------



## Nico5

Faruh Al-Baghdadi said:


> is not the reason those composers use Cubase


You seem to know a lot about about why a lot of composers do what they do and how exactly they work. 

I don't have such insider knowledge, so I can't argue one way or another.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi

Nico5 said:


> You seem to know a lot about about why a lot of composers do what they do and how exactly they work.
> 
> I don't have such insider knowledge, so I can't argue one way or another.


You can read gearslutz and look up interviews of those composers, mixing engineers and so on. It's not like I'm taking it from the sky 🌝

Gearslutz used to be a great place for such occasions. Lots of those who worked with sounds for different movies and games shared their experience in general and/or in regard of particular project.


----------



## easyrider

Video Track and surround sound support is needed for S1 if it is to compete.


----------



## samphony

easyrider said:


> Video Track and surround sound support is needed for S1 if it is to compete.


And many other things sometimes small things. Or you adjust your workflow a bit and be happy with what’s already there. 

Studio One still has no proper smpte interpretation like events have no time code stamps, hooking it up to Pro Tools doesn’t work properly etc.


----------



## musicmakerbird

easyrider said:


> Video Track and surround sound support is needed for S1 if it is to compete.


Depends on it it's something to bring revenue or should that money be put more toward podcasting/music production.


----------



## GeoMax

One thing that has annoyed me with Cubase/Nuendo, for however many versions it has been this way now, is the stupid app bar at the top. It seems like it doesnt conform to normal windowing modes and therefore you can't snap it to 1/2 the screen. 

I am not a developer, so I don't see why it was coded that way. Maybe someone else can explain the reasoning to that design decision?

Then again, Studio One you can snap the main window, but if you disconnect the mixer, you cant snap that.


----------



## TintoL

GeoMax said:


> One thing that has annoyed me with Cubase/Nuendo, for however many versions it has been this way now, is the stupid app bar at the top. It seems like it doesnt conform to normal windowing modes and therefore you can't snap it to 1/2 the screen.


I just want to second this. that bar is so astronomically stupid.

plus, the monitor can not go to sleep. studio one UI and UX is just cleaner.


----------



## estevancarlos

KEM said:


> Well, I use Cubase, and so does Hans, Junkie, Lorne, and our lord and savior Ludwig
> 
> Nobody uses Studio One, at least nobody I care about lol


It's probably too late but Studio One 6 is a fantastic DAW and excels in some ways when compared to Cubase and I can describe how.

- Studio One is an offshoot of Cubase. Former Steinberg engineers started the software.
- As a result they were able to reinvent some ideas in S1 (Studio One).
- Studio One is built on a more modern codebase which provides more modern user experience features not available in Cubase

Studio One is designed to copy Cubase. This is intentional. Why does this matter? Let's reflect on Apple. During the 1990s Microsoft and Apple copied each other frequently. Even though Microsoft did innovate with some ideas (and steal), Apple eventually developed an experience/design focused approach. In other words, they created a better experience even if their technical features were not new.

Microsoft would release interesting but flawed technical features. Apple would improve upon this with something easier to use a few years later.

Cubase has some of the messiest user experience you can imagine. Even though it doesn't matte, I do teach user experience. Studio One make a meaningful attempt to copy the same features but improve upon them through sensible means.

Studio One currently lacks many features compared to Cubase. But it's a better experience. I don't see Studio One lagging behind much in the next 5 years.

Example
Compare how Cubase handles "Expression Maps" compared to how Studio One handles their "Sound variations". S1's mapping features includes more automation. It's also easier to read: https://s1manual.presonus.com/Content/Editing_Topics/Sound_Variations.htm

Cubase: Expression Map


Studio One: Sound Variations


----------



## estevancarlos

Here's a reason to leave Cubase. Some of the worse UI/UX I've seen in years. This sort of problem is literally all over the software. A partially cut off scroll bar within a narrow region where there isn't enough room to view the text. In other words, they never designed this feature to compensate for word lengths to be more than 12 characters


----------



## Pier

estevancarlos said:


> Cubase has some of the messiest user experience you can imagine.


It could be improved a lot but it's certainly not the messiest. Clearly you've never used Reaper 

Studio One has many areas that could be improved. The main reason I ended up going for Cubase instead of Studio One is that it doesn't allow to resize the GUI. If that isn't terrible usability I don't know what is.


----------



## method1

My main gripe is really with Steinberg occasionally arbitrarily changing the way longstanding features have worked, like the recent logical editor overhaul which broke my years of work on custom macros, or when they removed the ability to audition audio files in the file dialog. 

Other than that I've tried to switch DAWs several times but keep coming back to Cubase, still the best workflow for me.


----------



## estevancarlos

Pier said:


> It could be improved a lot but it's certainly not the messiest. Clearly you've never used Reaper
> 
> Studio One has many areas that could be improved. The main reason I ended up going for Cubase instead of Studio One is that it doesn't allow to resize the GUI. If that isn't terrible usability I don't know what is.


I could list 1k more additional problems in Cubase. Right now, unfortunately, I use Nuendo due to OS+DAW limitations. Not a lot of DAWs that provide timecode features on Windows.


----------



## estevancarlos

method1 said:


> My main gripe is really with Steinberg occasionally arbitrarily changing the way longstanding features have worked, like the recent logical editor overhaul which broke my years of work on custom macros, or when they removed the ability to audition audio files in the file dialog.
> 
> Other than that I've tried to switch DAWs several times but keep coming back to Cubase, still the best workflow for me.


Which version changed the logical editor?


----------



## method1

estevancarlos said:


> Which version changed the logical editor?


12


----------



## estevancarlos

method1 said:


> 12


I'm new to Nuendo. Just started with v11 and didn't use the logical editor much. That's a big thing to do. I'm actually surprised because I didn't see any marketing about their logical editor changes. Did you? It's tough with companies do this. In a way it's necessary, eventually, but it's hard to do it in one full thrust. For example, some modern companies gradually adjust features over months and years so that users can slowly acclimate. Adobe gets to explore this within their software as a service model. I think Cubase/Nuendo needs to do the same.


----------



## method1

estevancarlos said:


> I'm new to Nuendo. Just started with v11 and didn't use the logical editor much. That's a big thing to do. I'm actually surprised because I didn't see any marketing about their logical editor changes. Did you? It's tough with companies do this. In a way it's necessary, eventually, but it's hard to do it in one full thrust. For example, some modern companies gradually adjust features over months and years so that users can slowly acclimate. Adobe gets to explore this within their software as a service model. I think Cubase/Nuendo needs to do the same.


Yes, they did mention it in the marketing for 12, I'm all for innovation, but the implementation hasn't been very good, nor backward compatible with certain macro types, will take some time to work out the kinks.


----------



## StillLife

I was with Cubase since the Atari days up unto 10.5, and it is a great daw. I never considered switching to one of the other giants (although many told me that if I was really serious about this hobby of mine I should swithch to Logic, or ProTools, or Ableton...). Then, in 2017, I got into Maschine, which I loved for its immediacy. Still, I kept on using Cubase for linear recording. I did became a bit intimmidated by it and during the first lockdown I decided to try out Studio One, as I had the time and had read many rave reviews about it. It was love at first sight. It felt immediate, and therefore, inspiring. I liked how it looked, I liked Sphere, I liked the focused tutorials by Gregor, I liked how it handled folder tracks, tracks & channels, I liked the very good dedicated control surfaces, I liked the speed at which I could work at it. So, that is why I left Cubase (I still have my licence, though), because another DAW came along that fitted me as a musician like a glove. Still thankfull for Steinberg, for making al those previous years of music writing and recording possible, and fun.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

After testing out S1v6, I ended up back in Cubase. While v6 has some improvements and nice functionality, still missing a lot and has some extremely frustrating implementation for common editing workflows for me.


----------



## UDun

I left Cubase for Studio One because i cannot stand anymore expression maps that have never evolved and are absolutely a pain in the... Tired of paying for useless upgrades bringing more new bugs than fixes.


----------



## estevancarlos

ALittleNightMusic said:


> After testing out S1v6, I ended up back in Cubase. While v6 has some improvements and nice functionality, still missing a lot and has some extremely frustrating implementation for common editing workflows for me.


What an example of one of these common editing workflows?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

UDun said:


> I left Cubase for Studio One because i cannot stand anymore expression maps that have never evolved and are absolutely a pain in the... Tired of paying for useless upgrades bringing more new bugs than fixes.


Expression maps only need to be set up once. Then you don’t deal with them. Check out https://nils-lischka.com/xpressmapp for a quick way to make maps. I use it for all my maps.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

estevancarlos said:


> What an example of one of these common editing workflows?


I listed a bunch here https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i-was-wrong-about-studio-one.130944/#post-5198677


----------



## tressie5

When I have time later, I'll conduct a little experiment. 

Part of the reason I gravitated towards Cubase is because, graphically, it actually resembled a real recording studio. I also believed that the cool graphics exacted a heavy price on the CPU, resulting in occasional freezes and crashes. 

My Ryzen 5 laptop is okay with Cubase now, until I start messing around with Pigments. It's the only synth that forces me to ctrl-alt-del for Mr. Task Manager to bail me out.

Thus, I'll d/l Reaper, wrap it in a Cubase skin, and take Pigments through its paces. If it also freezes Reaper, then I'll know my laptop is the culprit and not Cubase.


----------



## b_elliott

I heard glowing reports of Cubase v7 (2012), so I tried the unspeakable -- download a cracked version == two failed attempts; 
so, that is why I left Cubase and have never looked back! 

Note: I have paid for PTools 12, S1 v4.6 and my beloved workhorse Reaper.


----------



## UDun

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Expression maps only need to be set up once. Then you don’t deal with them. Check out https://nils-lischka.com/xpressmapp for a quick way to make maps. I use it for all my maps.



True, this is useful. I setup around 100 maps with more than hundreds of articulations in some cases. But there is a fundamental limitation in the way maps can be built in Cubase with 4 groups/levels max. This does not work well with VSL Synchron Player which can have up to 8 levels in terms of articulations for some libraries. A real pain and many workarounds needed. No customisation in Studio One, it works immediately and is a lot more user friendly.


----------



## samphony

ALittleNightMusic said:


> After testing out S1v6, I ended up back in Cubase. While v6 has some improvements and nice functionality, still missing a lot and has some extremely frustrating implementation for common editing workflows for me.


 Could you elaborate on that? Maybd in another thread or here?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

samphony said:


> Could you elaborate on that? Maybd in another thread or here?


See my link above.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

UDun said:


> True, this is useful. I setup around 100 maps with more than hundreds of articulations in some cases. But there is a fundamental limitation in the way maps can be built in Cubase with 4 groups/levels max. This does not work well with VSL Synchron Player which can have up to 8 levels in terms of articulations for some libraries. A real pain and many workarounds needed. No customisation in Studio One, it works immediately and is a lot more user friendly.


No denying that the Sound Variations implementation is better - as it should be since it is relatively new. Here’s hoping Steinberg has some improvements coming soon.


----------



## musicmakerbird

Whoever uses Studio One and Cubase. Are you more confident with Steinberg/Yamaha or Fender/Presonus?


----------



## Pier

So I started this thread and ended up getting into Cubase anyway 😂

I've been using v12 for a couple of months and so far it's been a mixed bag.

I really like the piano roll and the arrangement view. It generally works as I expect these things to work, unlike in other DAWs. This is really where I spend most of my time in a DAW so I give a lot of weight to this. I've left previous DAWs like Live and Bitwig because they were lacking in this area.

Performance has been great. I mixed a project with over 100 audio tracks and everything was smooth. I do have a decent CPU (Ryzen 3700X) but far from the ultimate performance. I will say Cubase is super slow to open and close though.

The included content is generally mediocre (plugins, instruments, samples, etc). I don't care much because I mostly use third party stuff but it's amazing most of the content seems from 10-15 years ago. It feels as if most of the stuff in Cubase Pro is really there just to inflate the price. In comparison, the content in Logic is just so much better.

Cubase also has been quite buggy. I've had more crashes in a couple of months than I've had in any other DAW in years. At first I thought it was because of the 12.0 version but we're at 12.0.40 now and they keep happening. You'd think Steinberg being the creator of VST would be the best VST host but apparently not.

The mixer is really old school. It's amazing in 2022 we have to go through tedious hoops to do parallel processing which are trivial in Live, Bitwig, and Studio One.

And yeah as mentioned before there are many areas where the UX could be vastly improved.

All in all it feels like Cubase is becoming a dinosaur and Steinberg doesn't have the resources to bring it up to 2022. At some point Studio One will probably catch up (track count, video, Atmos, etc) and it will probably be game over. And I imagine lots of people are switching to Logic since the performance on M1/M2 is probably really good.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

musicmakerbird said:


> Whoever uses Studio One and Cubase. Are you more confident with Steinberg/Yamaha or Fender/Presonus?


Steinberg. I'll tell you why - they have a massive user base, made up of some very demanding professionals. They cannot drop the ball. Their feet are held to the fire - and they are getting feedback from those types of users for those types of scenarios. Dorico is starting to find itself in a similar state. In many ways, they are entrenched in the same way Avid is (who's death has been predicted for almost 2 decades now and yet still seems to be the tool of choice for the same professional scenarios it always was). There's no "plan b" for Steinberg, while for Fender, their overwhelming majority of the business is selling guitars and will continue to be that.


----------



## Woodie1972

@


Pier said:


> So I started this thread and ended up getting into Cubase anyway 😂
> 
> I've been using v12 for a couple of months and so far it's been a mixed bag.
> 
> I really like the piano roll and the arrangement view. It generally works as I expect these things to work, unlike in other DAWs. This is really where I spend most of my time in a DAW so I give a lot of weight to this. I've left previous DAWs like Live and Bitwig because they were lacking in this area.
> 
> Performance has been great. I mixed a project with over 100 audio tracks and everything was smooth. I do have a decent CPU (Ryzen 3700X) but far from the ultimate performance. I will say Cubase is super slow to open and close though.
> 
> The included content is generally mediocre (plugins, instruments, samples, etc). I don't care much because I mostly use third party stuff but it's amazing most of the content seems from 10-15 years ago. It feels as if most of the stuff in Cubase Pro is really there just to inflate the price. In comparison, the content in Logic is just so much better.
> 
> Cubase also has been quite buggy. I've had more crashes in a couple of months than I've had in any other DAW in years. At first I thought it was because of the 12.0 version but we're at 12.0.40 now and they keep happening. You'd think Steinberg being the creator of VST would be the best VST host but apparently not.
> 
> The mixer is really old school. It's amazing in 2022 we have to go through tedious hoops to do parallel processing which are trivial in Live, Bitwig, and Studio One.
> 
> And yeah as mentioned before there are many areas where the UX could be vastly improved.
> 
> All in all it feels like Cubase is becoming a dinosaur and Steinberg doesn't have the resources to bring it up to 2022. At some point Studio One will probably catch up (track count, video, Atmos, etc) and it will probably be game over. And I imagine lots of people are switching to Logic since the performance on M1/M2 is probably really good.



Not sure what you mean to say with this reply: Cubase is indeed becoming the dinosaur like you write, but Dorico is one of the leading notation software nowadays. And with the upcoming update it will become even more a great mix of DAW and notation.


----------



## Pier

ALittleNightMusic said:


> In many ways, they are entrenched in the same way Avid is (who's death has been predicted for almost 2 decades now and yet still seems to be the tool of choice for the same professional scenarios it always was).


It's true ProTools is still an industry standard in some use cases like mixing and post for tv/film.

But I don't feel it's as popular as it was back at its peak about 15-20 years ago. Most people I see using PT these days are mostly the same people that used it back then, or people using rooms that were built back then around a PT HD system. Although I will admit this is just my anecdotal perspective.


----------



## Pier

Woodie1972 said:


> Not sure what you mean to say with this reply: Cubase is indeed becoming the dinosaur like you write, but Dorico is one of the leading notation software nowadays. And with the upcoming update it will become even more a great mix of DAW and notation.


Maybe but I doubt Dorico is going to sustain a company like Steinberg.

I could be wrong but my impression is people working in a notation software vs a DAW is really a minority, even only considering the media composer crowd.


----------



## estolad

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Steinberg. I'll tell you why - they have a massive user base, made up of some very demanding professionals. They cannot drop the ball. Their feet are held to the fire - and they are getting feedback from those types of users for those types of scenarios. Dorico is starting to find itself in a similar state. In many ways, they are entrenched in the same way Avid is (who's death has been predicted for almost 2 decades now and yet still seems to be the tool of choice for the same professional scenarios it always was). There's no "plan b" for Steinberg, while for Fender, their overwhelming majority of the business is selling guitars and will continue to be that.


You should really compare Steinberg to Presonus and Fender to Yamaha, not Steinberg to Fender. 

I would say Steinberg's main focus is probably on their software and Presonus' probably on their hardware. But I don't have the numbers to back that up. Also I believe the software team at Presonus is quite independent. It doesn't matter if both are profitable (are they?)


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Pier said:


> It's true ProTools is still an industry standard in some use cases like mixing and post for tv/film.
> 
> But I don't feel it's as popular as it was back at its peak about 15-20 years ago. Most people I see using PT these days are mostly the same people that used it back then, or people using rooms that were built back then around a PT HD system. Although I will admit this is just my anecdotal perspective.


Well there’s a lot more DAWs today than 20 years ago so I’m sure that’s partly it. But if you go into any studio worth its salt in LA, post room, even many composer setups (not necessarily for the composing part) - they’re all running Pro Tools.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

estolad said:


> You should really compare Steinberg to Presonus and Fender to Yamaha, not Steinberg to Fender.
> 
> I would say Steinberg's main focus is probably on their software and Presonus' probably on their hardware. But I don't have the numbers to back that up. Also I believe the software team at Presonus is quite independent. It doesn't matter if both are profitable (are they?)


Good point. I don’t know the numbers either but I wonder if Steinberg is a bigger company (by revenue) than Presonus. And which is more profitable (if either).


----------



## Russell Anderson

"There are two kinds of software in this world: the kind people complain about, and the kind that doesn't exist."

That quote has kept me pretty sane recently.


----------



## Sombreuil

Pier said:


> The included content is generally mediocre (plugins, instruments, samples, etc). I don't care much because I mostly use third party stuff but it's amazing most of the content seems from 10-15 years ago. It feels as if most of the stuff in Cubase Pro is really there just to inflate the price. In comparison, the content in Logic is just so much better.


Is it? I've always read that stock instruments/plug-ins in Cubase were among the best ones.
Apart from Logic, which DAW has better stock plug-ins, Live I'd imagine?

In comparison, Studio One doesn't even have a proper looper 😥.


----------



## BHF

Pier said:


> So I started this thread and ended up getting into Cubase anyway 😂
> 
> I've been using v12 for a couple of months and so far it's been a mixed bag.
> 
> I really like the piano roll and the arrangement view. It generally works as I expect these things to work, unlike in other DAWs. This is really where I spend most of my time in a DAW so I give a lot of weight to this. I've left previous DAWs like Live and Bitwig because they were lacking in this area.
> 
> Performance has been great. I mixed a project with over 100 audio tracks and everything was smooth. I do have a decent CPU (Ryzen 3700X) but far from the ultimate performance. I will say Cubase is super slow to open and close though.
> 
> The included content is generally mediocre (plugins, instruments, samples, etc). I don't care much because I mostly use third party stuff but it's amazing most of the content seems from 10-15 years ago. It feels as if most of the stuff in Cubase Pro is really there just to inflate the price. In comparison, the content in Logic is just so much better.
> 
> Cubase also has been quite buggy. I've had more crashes in a couple of months than I've had in any other DAW in years. At first I thought it was because of the 12.0 version but we're at 12.0.40 now and they keep happening. You'd think Steinberg being the creator of VST would be the best VST host but apparently not.
> 
> The mixer is really old school. It's amazing in 2022 we have to go through tedious hoops to do parallel processing which are trivial in Live, Bitwig, and Studio One.
> 
> And yeah as mentioned before there are many areas where the UX could be vastly improved.
> 
> All in all it feels like Cubase is becoming a dinosaur and Steinberg doesn't have the resources to bring it up to 2022. At some point Studio One will probably catch up (track count, video, Atmos, etc) and it will probably be game over. And I imagine lots of people are switching to Logic since the performance on M1/M2 is probably really good.


Since I bought an M1 mac I switched to logic, I’ll probably ending up selling my cubase licence


----------



## Emanuel Fróes

There is always some reason in Logic.


----------



## Pier

Sombreuil said:


> Is it? I've always read that stock instruments/plug-ins in Cubase were among the best ones.
> Apart from Logic, which DAW has better stock plug-ins, Live I'd imagine?
> 
> In comparison, Studio One doesn't even have a proper looper 😥.



I mostly use third party stuff so I don't care much, but yeah I wouldn't get Cubase for the devices and content.

I don't know much about Studio One since I only used the demo briefly, but Logic, Live, and Bitwig do have great plugins.

It's been a while since I've used Bitwig's synths, but when I used them I thought they were on par with U-He sonicwise. If Bitwig released something like a Bitwig Rack that could opened in any DAW it could be a huge hit. _Deeze Germans knoh theirr DSP!_

Live also has great plugins. The included synths have filters by Cytomic which are some of the best in the industry. They also have lots of stuff for the EDM producer loops, drumkits, etc.

Logic has tons of great stuff too. Just Alchemy is a fantastic synth but you get A LOT and Apple continues improving the devices.


----------



## MartinH.

Pier said:


> So I started this thread and ended up getting into Cubase anyway



Knowing what you know now, do you wish you hadn't made that switch (and investment)?


----------



## Pier

MartinH. said:


> Knowing what you know now, do you wish you hadn't made that switch (and investment)?


I don't regret what I paid for it, which was fairly cheap with the crossgrade thing.

No DAW is perfect, you have to pick your poison.


----------



## gyprock

Disabled track file sizes Cubase vs Studio One:

I've purchased two different templates that are are large with one articulation per track. The Cubase one is for Symphobia 1+2. The Studio One is for The Orchestra. Both have many tracks and are Kontakt based. Both appear to be similar in number of tracks and routing. In fact, I think the Studio One template has the larger track count.

The disabled track file sizes are as follows:
Cubase 773 MB
Studio One 6.6 MB

Why would there be such a large discrepancy?


----------



## greggybud

Pier said:


> The included content is generally mediocre (plugins, instruments, samples, etc). I don't care much because I mostly use third party stuff but it's amazing most of the content seems from 10-15 years ago. It feels as if most of the stuff in Cubase Pro is really there just to inflate the price. In comparison, the content in Logic is just so much better.


That's interesting. I would encourage you to compare Frequency with Waves F6 or other popular dynamic EQs. What's missing? I find the sound on par with any others I have tried.

Have you spent much time with Reverence or Revelation? I don't care much for IR's in general because I feel UAD 224/480L EMT140, Captial, Ocean Way and the Lexicon PCM Bundle just make it easier to work into a track. But I'm confident if I spent additional time, I could get Revelation or Reverence to work quite well. Of course it's always dependent on the source track.

I agree the VST Instruments are generally mediocre. But I find them good for general purpose/bread n butter type work. I hope you weren't expecting Zebra!

I find the main Cubase compressor sounds very clean and works very well. How much one desires that as opposed to UAD hardware emulations is anyone's guess.

The blue/gray GUI of so many are gradually being refreshed. I wish they had never set that overall color as a standard, but that's water under the bridge now.

Like you, I use mostly 3rd party everything. However for me, this is mostly based on the fact that I have been using Cubase since the late 90s. The first VST's 20 years ago like Neon etc were certainly nothing like NI's Reaktor. Waves was king 25 years ago with EQ, Compression, Reverb and limiting. But stock plugs in Cubase have vastly improved in recent years, and Cubase ones get updated. 

For anyone new today, I always strongly suggest really learning what you have with any DAW before venturing out to 3rd party.

The sad thing maybe is that starting with C7, and the processors in the Mix Console Strip, were impressive...but not many users used them still opting for 3rd party because naturally...3rd party at that time was better....maybe. Even including the strip in the Channel Editor, I don't think use of those has increased much these days.


----------



## husker

When Sonar went TU, I looked at both S1 and Cubase,. I chose Cubase as the clear winner based on what I do. Midi, with strong integration of hardware. At the time, Studio 1 pretended that hardware didn't exist, heck, they still don't support patch scripts or instrument definitions.


----------



## Pier

greggybud said:


> That's interesting. I would encourage you to compare Frequency with Waves F6 or other popular dynamic EQs. What's missing? I find the sound on par with any others I have tried.


I actually do like Frequency. The dynamic features and multiple sidechain inputs/groups are great.



greggybud said:


> Have you spent much time with Reverence or Revelation?


A bit yes. Nowhere near as good as what comes in Logic for example.



greggybud said:


> I agree the VST Instruments are generally mediocre. But I find them good for general purpose/bread n butter type work. I hope you weren't expecting Zebra!


Maybe expecting Zebra would be a stretch but yes I would expect Cubase to provide much better instruments for the price 

Bitwig comes with synths which are fantastic, specially paired with the DAW modulators and the included devices. Logic comes with Alchemy which is quite the synth too.


----------



## Russell Anderson

Pier said:


> Maybe expecting Zebra would be a stretch but yes I would expect Cubase to provide much better instruments for the price


I really like padshop! It's not a _synth, _but it's great for sound design nonetheless. This might be an exception that supports the statement, though!

I'm curious about how that stock multiband transient shaper works, whether it's as good as something like LHI ST4B or Punctuate or that oeksound one.


----------



## Pier

Russell Anderson said:


> I really like padshop! It's not a _synth, _but it's great for sound design nonetheless. This might be an exception that supports the statement, though!


Padshop is not bad but the UI is ridiculously small on a 4K monitor even in hiDPI mode.

Here it is compared to Zebra.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Ian Kirkpatrick is a big user of Padshop. It’s all over his productions. That is to say, it very much is a capable, top flight synth (just like Alchemy in Logic) in the right hands, like any tool.


----------



## Russell Anderson

Pier said:


> Padshop is not bad but the UI is ridiculously small on a 4K monitor


Definitely, it's one of the reasons I made sure my monitor was large, no joke. Fortunately for Steinberg, VST3 makes developing resizing features easier than ever.


----------



## IFM

Pier said:


> Padshop is not bad but the UI is ridiculously small on a 4K monitor even in hiDPI mode.


I've got a 32" 4K on my Mac setup and the only decent way to run Cubase is scaled to 1440. Otherwise unless you are extremely close to the monitor, Cubase's UI is just far too small.


----------



## AudioLoco

Cubase was never famous for its provided effects and instruments.
I think that has been a strategic commercial mistake on their part for like ...forever. They probably lost a few new users as other DAWs were offering more on that front.
A couple of hits (at least!) were made with Apple Loops and people are happy enough using content provided with other DAWs.
I always thought Steinberg should have teamed up with a good plugin company and provide some more enticing content on that side. (to attract new users, more experienced users have anyhow ammassed a significant amount of plugins over the years)

I'm guessing 3rd party is the way to go (for most processors) anyhow for 95% of pro users.

Reverence, Padshop, Quadrafuzz, the ancient and simple Datube, Gate and Chopper still get fired up sometimes here. But those aren't exactly desert island type plugins.


----------



## Per Boysen

I have quit Cubase many times and come back just as many times  The first time I started with Steinberg Pro-24 in the eighties, running on an Atari computer sending out MIDI to stacks of Akai samplers and analog synths. It was terrible when you had to lay down all tracks to analog tape to mix the music because the Steinberg Time Lock device lost the SMPTE sync so often. Now enter the hard disc recording option and the competitor Emagic had a better sequencer, C-Lab. I switched to that after having visited many studios run by dance music producers and I heard with my own ears how much better the musical timing was in C-Lab (Creator/Notator) compared to Cubase. There were no solutions for a Windows-based system so you had to use a Mac with Digigdesign hardware in order to work with digital hard drive recording. Then Apple bought C-lab and changed the name of the sequencer to Logic. I kept using Logic between version 2.02 and 10 but the lacking expression maps support forced me to use Cubase and it surprised me that the user interface still was pretty much the same as back in the Atari days (80s). Today I kind of enjoy that old-fashioned UI, like visiting a dear old museum  . It still works, and when keeping a VEP server with a virtual symph orch on the side the old MIDI implementation of Cubase's makes sense to me. But I enjoy Bitwig a lot too now and I keep VEP front-end templates for both Bitwig and Cubase. However, Bitwig is not as useful with VEP and DivisiMate as Cubase, so that's my main reason to pick Cubase first when starting a new project today.


----------



## styphonthal

I started with Cubase 5, changed over to reaper, but ended up changing back to Cubase. I have so many distractions in life, going back and forth trying different DAW then retrying them again when new versions come out just eat away at time I do not have. 

I cannot get myself to try Studio One, as I have had horrible experience with presonus support with their hardware devices. I would describe their HW support as "Not my problem, buy a new one!!"


----------



## Pier

IFM said:


> I've got a 32" 4K on my Mac setup and the only decent way to run Cubase is scaled to 1440. Otherwise unless you are extremely close to the monitor, Cubase's UI is just far too small.


Don't you get additional scaling options on macOS?

On Windows you can increase or decrease the GUI scaling based on the OS setting:


----------



## greggybud

Pier said:


> I actually do like Frequency. The dynamic features and multiple sidechain inputs/groups are great.
> 
> 
> A bit yes. Nowhere near as good as what comes in Logic for example.
> 
> 
> Maybe expecting Zebra would be a stretch but yes I would expect Cubase to provide much better instruments for the price
> 
> Bitwig comes with synths which are fantastic, specially paired with the DAW modulators and the included devices. Logic comes with Alchemy which is quite the synth too.


In general, I still think most users feel 3rd party is always better than the stock DAW plugs, and these days I don't think it's necessarily true. Naturally, it's going to depend on the specific tool, but there is so much emphasis placed on 3rd party due to the old DAW paradigm where they just tossed in some cheap usualy outsourced plugs for eye-color and newbies.

That's interesting about IR's in Cubase. I have never used Logic. I fell in love with IR's and SIR when it was released. However over maybe 5 years I knew something was not right for my objectives. My SIR divorce started when purchasing the Lexicon PCM Bundle. They just seemed to fit in the tracks better. Maybe it's my imagination. Since then it's been mostly UAD reverbs that work for me. Is there any way you can describe what is not right or missing with Cubase IRs as opposed to Logic? These are after all...just IRs. I don't even use the Cubase IR's much.

About Zebra or any other stock instrument plugs, to be blunt, from the beginning I have always felt a DAW should just maintain average instrument plugs for eye-candy and newbies. Then, spend more resources on core functions of the DAW including unfinished features, bugs, and improved workflow. I assume most of these instruments are outsourced, and maybe the cost is marginal compared to a greater focus on core DAW functions, but I can't help feeling too much money is spent on stock plugs, while dozens of nerdy functions...and maybe more costly than I think, such as the loss of Local Undo hasn't returned. Did you know there is no "enter" key command in Cubase?


----------



## Pier

greggybud said:


> Is there any way you can describe what is not right or missing with Cubase IRs as opposed to Logic?


Logic does provide a number of reverbs and in general I prefer them over what Cubase provides. But I will admit I haven't used neither extensively. When trying the Cubase reverbs they never felt right. I had to spend a lot of time working on it to get a result I tolerated more than liked.

Maybe in some cases it mostly comes down to the provided IRs as you say but those IRs are part of the content.



greggybud said:


> About Zebra or any other stock instrument plugs, to be blunt, from the beginning I have always felt a DAW should just maintain average instrument plugs for eye-candy and newbies. Then, spend more resources on core functions of the DAW including unfinished features, bugs, and improved workflow.


Personally I would be happy if Steinberg didn't provide any content at all and they just focused all their resources on making a better DAW. At a reduced price of course 

In the case of Live and Ableton, these are more sound design environments than a traditional DAW so it makes sense they provide building blocks.


----------



## MartinH.

gyprock said:


> I've purchased two different templates that are are large with one articulation per track. The Cubase one is for Symphobia 1+2. The Studio One is for The Orchestra. Both have many tracks and are Kontakt based. Both appear to be similar in number of tracks and routing. In fact, I think the Studio One template has the larger track count.
> 
> The disabled track file sizes are as follows:
> Cubase 773 MB
> Studio One 6.6 MB
> 
> Why would there be such a large discrepancy?



I believe this has mostly to do with Symphobia. The new version is a very komplex Kontakt instrument that takes up a lot of space for each instance in Reaper project files too. Therefore I don't think it's very well suited for the 1-track-per-articulation workflow. I talked to Project Sam support about this and they offered to give me access to the old version to install in parallel to the new one. I might take them up on that offer, but I wanted to give the keyswitch based workflow a fair shot first and haven't gotten around to that yet. Their support really is fantastic and it's amazing that they still update their libraries today (and for free!). This is a company that really cares and is worth supporting imho.


----------



## estevancarlos

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Expression maps only need to be set up once. Then you don’t deal with them. Check out https://nils-lischka.com/xpressmapp for a quick way to make maps. I use it for all my maps.


A person could set it up once in Studio One, which provides a better experience. I'm not sure I understand your argument. Sure. Once.


----------



## estevancarlos

Pier said:


> It could be improved a lot but it's certainly not the messiest. Clearly you've never used Reaper
> 
> Studio One has many areas that could be improved. The main reason I ended up going for Cubase instead of Studio One is that it doesn't allow to resize the GUI. If that isn't terrible usability I don't know what is.


Reaper is weird because their software philosophy doesn't actually seem to include any UI/UX concerns. Almost none. I say this because they effectively ask the user to create their own UI and/or define the UX as well. I consider that different from Cubase for that reason. It's not great. Reaper makes little to no investment but Cubase would be better IF they allowed professional UI/UX designers to fix it. There are SO many things I wish I could fix in Cubase but the software doesn't allow for that.

In other words, if Steinberg did the same as Reaper and just allowed users to redefine the UI/UX we may be in a better situation. It would be a great way for UI/UX people to provide top notch design and experience.


----------



## estevancarlos

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I listed a bunch here https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i-was-wrong-about-studio-one.130944/#post-5198677


Good analysis.


----------



## dylanmixer

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I listed a bunch here https://vi-control.net/community/threads/i-was-wrong-about-studio-one.130944/#post-5198677


And it's funny, because since I made that thread, I've run back to Cubase again. There are just small irritations with Studio One that makes it feel like a play toy in comparison. Trust me, it does a LOT better. But it isn't quite there yet, and I felt I wasn't able to work as smoothly as in Cubase. I came very very close this time, though. Perhaps in two more update cycles.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette

I left Cubase and moved to Nuendo.
Happy Steinberg user for 30 years...


----------



## estevancarlos

dylanmixer said:


> And it's funny, because since I made that thread, I've run back to Cubase again. There are just small irritations with Studio One that makes it feel like a play toy in comparison. Trust me, it does a LOT better. But it isn't quite there yet, and I felt I wasn't able to work as smoothly as in Cubase. I came very very close this time, though. Perhaps in two more update cycles.


S1 isn't there yet. I think it could be "there" 5 years which will be a great thing for everyone. Cubase needs major UX improvements needs and the competition.


----------



## gyprock

MartinH. said:


> I believe this has mostly to do with Symphobia. The new version is a very komplex Kontakt instrument that takes up a lot of space for each instance in Reaper project files too. Therefore I don't think it's very well suited for the 1-track-per-articulation workflow. I talked to Project Sam support about this and they offered to give me access to the old version to install in parallel to the new one. I might take them up on that offer, but I wanted to give the keyswitch based workflow a fair shot first and haven't gotten around to that yet. Their support really is fantastic and it's amazing that they still update their libraries today (and for free!). This is a company that really cares and is worth supporting imho.


I started to create a Symphobia template in Studio One 6. So far I have 20 Kontakt tracks with sound variations so each track is essentially the Symphobia default fully loaded. My disabled track size so far is 52.9MB which is still small. Studio One must not save any Kontakt related data like Cubase or Reaper. The load time is quicker than Cubase as well. When I have time I'll create the same template in Cubase, Studio One and Logic to compare file sizes, RAM use and load times.


----------



## greggybud

Pier said:


> Personally I would be happy if Steinberg didn't provide any content at all and they just focused all their resources on making a better DAW. At a reduced price of course


That would be utopia!

Of course it will never happen.


----------



## Favedave

Pier said:


> Don't you get additional scaling options on macOS?
> 
> On Windows you can increase or decrease the GUI scaling based on the OS setting:


No -- that's a Windows thing.


----------



## Pier

I have to say I'm becoming disappointed with Cubase.

I switched when 12 was released.

The most annoying thing is I'm getting hard crashes. It's not a daily occurrence but it does happen once or twice every week. This kind of behavior was normal for me 15-20 years ago but honestly I expected a mature product like Cubase to be more stable.

It has crashed more times in the last 6 months than Live or Bitwig in the last decade and I'm not even pushing it. Heck, I don't think I've seen any other software in recent years crash as often as Cubase.

Is this normal behavior or just because Steinberg are still polishing v12?

Of course I'm sending error logs every time I get a crash but we're at 12.0.52 and it doesn't seem like it's getting better.


----------



## 3DC

Pier said:


> I have to say I'm becoming disappointed with Cubase.
> 
> Is this normal behavior or just because Steinberg are still polishing v12?
> 
> Of course I'm sending error logs every time I get a crash but we're at 12.0.52 and it doesn't seem like it's getting better.


It depends what plugins you are using. I have everything on VST3 and have no problems even with large projects. Then again I don't have many 3rd party plugins but even those are known to be rock solid in production pipeline. 

Also check Cubase optimization settings before you give up.


----------



## Pier

3DC said:


> It depends what plugins you are using. I have everything on VST3 and have no problems even with large projects. Then again I don't have many 3rd party plugins but even those are known to be rock solid in production pipeline.
> 
> Also check Cubase optimization settings before you give up.


I only use VST 3 as well.

The errors seem to happen when using virtual instruments like Zebra or even Groove Agent.

I have ASIO Guard enabled. Not sure if that's the default or I enabled it myself.

What other optimizations settings should I check?


----------



## José Herring

Pier said:


> I have to say I'm becoming disappointed with Cubase.
> 
> I switched when 12 was released.
> 
> The most annoying thing is I'm getting hard crashes. It's not a daily occurrence but it does happen once or twice every week. This kind of behavior was normal for me 15-20 years ago but honestly I expected a mature product like Cubase to be more stable.
> 
> It has crashed more times in the last 6 months than Live or Bitwig in the last decade and I'm not even pushing it. Heck, I don't think I've seen any other software crash as often as Cubase.
> 
> Is this normal behavior or just because Steinberg are still polishing v12?
> 
> Of course I'm sending error logs every time I get a crash but we're at 12.0.52 and it doesn't seem like it's getting better.


That's interesting because Cubase for me never crashes once it is up. But, you do have to spend some time setting up your PC. My guess would be that there's a problematic plugin that's causing some problems. Cubase tends to be finicky with certain plugins. 12.0.52 also got rid of the stupid hanging when closing problem. Also, Cubase is really weird about audio from other applications running at the same time. The most stable Cubase I ever had was when I used my main computer for nothing but audio production. No internet, ect...Things running in the background like virus protection really mess with the stability of Cubase. But running without internet, these days are almost impossible to do.

But, I will say that Cubase is way more complicated and has way more production features than Live or Bitwig so there's that. I barely used Live but from my experience Live and Studio One just feel a lot more snappy and less sluggish than Cubase. 

My only complaint is that Cubase is bloated, old code, but it has features that I can't find in any other DAWS. Just the workflow I can get in Cubase usually sends me running back to Cubase when I try other DAWS. 

I consider Cubase like Digital Performer. Made for media composers and unless you're doing media composing I wouldn't use Cubase or DP. For straight up music production these days I'd probably use Studio One. All the scoring features and workflow of Cubase and DP kind of get in the way when I'm doing just library tracks, not that it can't do library tracks, but it would just be simpler to use another DAW that had less features, if that makes sense.


----------



## Chris_B

I too am having Cubase 12.0.50 crash sometimes when I try to launch UIs for 2 different libs in Kontakt 7 when I click a track's "Edit instrument" icon. I always have Smart:Limit and Seventh Heaven Std loaded and never have crashes when I launch their UIs. Also never had crashes when launching Spitfire's own UIs. My defense against these crashes is to Save often.


----------



## Pier

José Herring said:


> That's interesting because Cubase for me never crashes once it is up. But, you do have to spend some time setting up your PC. My guess would be that there's a problematic plugin that's causing some problems. Cubase tends to be finicky with certain plugins. 12.0.52 also got rid of the stupid hanging when closing problem. Also, Cubase is really weird about audio from other applications running at the same time. The most stable Cubase I ever had was when I used my main computer for nothing but audio production. No internet, ect...Things running in the background like virus protection really mess with the stability of Cubase. But running without internet, these days are almost impossible to do.
> 
> But, I will say that Cubase is way more complicated and has way more production features than Live or Bitwig so there's that. I barely used Live but from my experience Live and Studio One just feel a lot more snappy and less sluggish than Cubase.
> 
> My only complaint is that Cubase is bloated, old code, but it has features that I can't find in any other DAWS. Just the workflow I can get in Cubase usually sends me running back to Cubase when I try other DAWS.
> 
> I consider Cubase like Digital Performer. Made for media composers and unless you're doing media composing I wouldn't use Cubase or DP. For straight up music production these days I'd probably use Studio One. All the scoring features and workflow of Cubase and DP kind of get in the way when I'm doing just library tracks, not that it can't do library tracks, but it would just be simpler to use another DAW that had less features, if that makes sense.


Thanks José.

I regularly use Cubase and Chrome at the same time. When doing sound design I test my sounds over reference material from Spotify or Youtube to see how they blend in a real mix. Maybe it's really a Motu driver issue.

I have projects with a single track with Zebra that have crashed while manipulating Zebra. I've seen the same problem when using Groove Agent though. I really don't think it's a Zebra issue but who knows.


----------



## 3DC

Pier said:


> I only use VST 3 as well.
> 
> The errors seem to happen when using virtual instruments like Zebra or even Groove Agent.
> 
> I have ASIO Guard enabled. Not sure if that's the default or I enabled it myself.
> 
> What other optimizations settings should I check?


There are several options you can check and adjust accordingly. From ASIO guard level, multi processing, audio priority, processing precision,... all the way to disk preload and memory allocation. For example, if your ASIO driver buffer size is very low and you are throwing 10 instances of Zebra or anything process demanding then of course it will crash and its not Cubase fault. 

I would suggest you take time to learn what options you have to fine tune Cubase based on your system resources.


----------



## Zanshin

I've found Ableton to be way more stable. Cubase has been pretty good for me lately, but I try to be aggressive in culling my VST directories.


----------



## Pier

3DC said:


> if your ASIO driver buffer size is very low and you are throwing 10 instances of Zebra or anything process demanding then of course it will crash and its not Cubase fault


I'm not even close to pushing my system but that would totally be Cubase's fault.

Crackles and glitches when the CPU cannot process the current audio buffer in time, yeah totally, but crashing because of that? That's really not how a DAW should behave at all.


----------



## 3DC

Pier said:


> I'm not even close to pushing my system but that would totally be Cubase's fault.
> 
> Crackles and glitches when the CPU cannot process the current audio buffer in time, yeah totally, but crashing because of that? That's really not how a DAW should behave at all.


Honestly Zebra and Groove Agent ( mini HALion 6 ) are very, very demanding on processing so if your system is not finetuned it will crash.

I am not suggesting you are doing this but there are people with overclocked systems adjusted for high performance GPU gaming complaining why their DAW crashes. 

Ableton Live and FL Studio are more forgiving from my experience but problematic with large projects. Cubase needs proper tweaking, up to date drivers and OS if you want to run smoothly. Again go trough Cubase system options I mentioned before and you will see the difference yourself.

What OS you are using? Is it updated? RAM? Do you have updated Audio Interface drivers? Performance or Gaming setup?


----------



## José Herring

Pier said:


> Thanks José.
> 
> I regularly use Cubase and Chrome at the same time. When doing sound design I test my sounds over reference material from Spotify or Youtube to see how they blend in a real mix. Maybe it's really a Motu driver issue.
> 
> I have projects with a single track with Zebra that have crashed while manipulating Zebra. I've seen the same problem when using Groove Agent though. I really don't think it's a Zebra issue but who knows.


It's a combo issue. I've had crashes with Zebra and Cubase as well. Not for sometime now. Probably like a year but when I first got Zebra it was crash city. So much so that I didn't use Zebra for a year.

Groove agent has never crashed. Steinberg's own stuff has forever been rock solid. 

Like I said, Cubase is really weird about having other audio especially internet audio. If you also have your default audio on from your mobo, Cubase hates that too. All problems I've ever had with Cubase as to do with competing audio drivers or a poorly setup system

Also, Asio Guard is weird. I have it on the lowest settings or in the past I just turned it off. Also, make sure that the "release diver when application in Background" is unchecked. 

Then go through all the steps of opitmizing your OS.









20 ways to optimize your Windows 10 PC for music production


Windows 10 has revolutionized the music-making process on the PC. Here's how to avoid the frozen screen of death and carry on making beats!




bandzoogle.com


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Cubase 12 has never crashed on me. Intel Mac here.


----------



## Sombreuil

José Herring said:


> 20 ways to optimize your Windows 10 PC for music production
> 
> 
> Windows 10 has revolutionized the music-making process on the PC. Here's how to avoid the frozen screen of death and carry on making beats!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bandzoogle.com


According to a Microsoft engineer, most of the points tackled in these guides are myths, or at least not true anymore. Even worse, it could be counterproductive.








Unofficial Windows 10 Audio Workstation build and tweak guide - Part 1


Part 1 of 3. Tweaks and optimizations for getting the most out of your Windows 10 workstation, when using with a DAW.




devblogs.microsoft.com


----------



## José Herring

Sombreuil said:


> According to a Microsoft engineer, most of the points tackled in these guides are myths, or at least not true anymore. Even worse, it could be counterproductive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unofficial Windows 10 Audio Workstation build and tweak guide - Part 1
> 
> 
> Part 1 of 3. Tweaks and optimizations for getting the most out of your Windows 10 workstation, when using with a DAW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> devblogs.microsoft.com


Worked for me. I sure Microsoft wants everybody to believe Windows is perfect for audio but as with everything you have to do what makes sense. Rather than turn off the firewalls for example I just add exceptions to programs like Cubase and VEPro.


----------



## Sombreuil

José Herring said:


> Worked for me. I sure Microsoft wants everybody to believe Windows is perfect for audio


Well, even though there are some points that could be suspicious (especially the part about the Microsoft Store), I'd recommend reading the whole thing. What he has to say is very interesting and it gives you a better understanding about how Windows actually works.

The background apps thing is a good example.


----------



## José Herring

Sombreuil said:


> Well, even though there are some points that could be suspicious (especially the part about the Microsoft Store), I'd recommend reading the whole thing. What he has to say is very interesting and it gives you a better understanding about how Windows actually works.
> 
> The background apps thing is a good example.


Agreed


----------



## joebaggan

Latest Cubase 12 has been solid for me on M2 Macbook Pro. No crashes. 

Though did experience crashes with Cubase 11.


----------



## EgM

Sombreuil said:


> Well, even though there are some points that could be suspicious (especially the part about the Microsoft Store), I'd recommend reading the whole thing. What he has to say is very interesting and it gives you a better understanding about how Windows actually works.
> 
> The background apps thing is a good example.


2. Adjust your processor scheduling to Background Services​This was always wrong, even in the Windows XP days, I don't know who came up with that. Audio drivers aren't even services and they require direct processing


----------



## Favedave

After using *Logic* for many years, I had a few weeks to try other DAWs. I have more than a dozen songs ready to go into production, so it's the perfect time to see if I can improve my workflow. I write songs, bring in outside vocalists, arrange and tweak, then export the audio files to do a final mix in Luna. I'm on an iMac Pro (Monterey) with 64 gigs of RAM and SSDs for everything. UAD Apollo interface, over 150 UAD plugins plus a hundred more third party. And many many VST instruments, including some CPU hogs like u-he and Cherry Audio (GX-80!). Oddly enough, Kontakt 7 behaves itself and hardly uses any CPU. Anyway, that's my setup and workflow so you can see if my perspective is useful to you. After several weeks of REALLY trying many, here is my conclusion:

1. *Logic 10.7.5.* Too many bugs and mystery crashes. I'll go months with no problems, then it'll wig out for a few days. All software has issues, all computers have issues, so I do not expect perfection. It has been ok for years, but I think I can do better. *Even a minor workflow improvement adds up when you're using something 8-12 hours a day. *One continuing annoyance is being forced to upgrade the OS to get some recent Logic updates -- I prefer making my own choice. That is reflected in the fact that you cannot move channels around in the mixer in Logic. A small matter, but it could REALLY improve workflow.

*2. Reaper. * It's like a baby robot. It has tremendous potential but knows nothing and makes you program it from scratch. When it took me almost an hour just to get the GUI to look decent, I knew I was in trouble. *It's more for people who think like programmers than musicians*. It's simply not a very artistic tool. (It can do everything, but not in a way conducive to artists.) The fact that you can macro and keystroke pretty much anything is truly amazing, but frankly, I want the software company to do the programming, not me.

3. *Cubase 12 Pro*. I spent a LOT of time with this. As others have pointed out, it's just... old. It feels like an Atari program ported over, which oddly enough, it is! You cannot resize many of the windows and the UI is very dated. Cubase is very bloated. I made a list of things I commonly do in my workflow, and realized it took on average *TWICE AS MANY STEPS* to do something in Cubase than in Logic or Studio One. Yikes! Their company philosophy is not very user friendly in that their priority is not about making the workflow faster or smoother. Instead they bloat. For example, in the last update, they bragged about adding MORE COMMANDS to move your cursor around and select things. So, *the opposite of streamlining*. This says a lot about their programming priorities.

A company only has so many programmers and days of programming a year, and how they use those is a major decision. After doing a jillion google searches on various issues I faced, I found that longtime Cubase users have been requesting basic fixes and specific streamlining improvements *FOR DECADES!* Since they're still waiting for most of those, this is very revealing about where Cubase is going in the future. Streamlining and improving the workflow has simply not been a priority for them, as evidenced by decades of user feedback. Of course the program is usable and functional, and I made a few songs with it. But I always felt as though Cubase was a reluctant partner at best. I don't expect magic from software, but I do expect it to feel a *little* fun to use. Making good music is hard work especially since I do not use store bought loops or the Cut N Paste style of producing. So I'd like a bit more assistance from my software instead of impediments.

I had a few "Wow, I can do this cool thing!" moments. But I had far more "Seriously? This is how they decided to implement this?!?" and "Why the hell can't I do this?!?" moments.

In the end, *Cubase makes my work more like work*.

4. *Studio One, version 6*. I've been using this intensively for a week now, and it's become the clear favorite. It took a bit to get used to the drag n drop thing, but now that I've used it, it makes me wonder why every program doesn't do this. Very convenient and intuitive, and a time saver. There are a bunch of small interface features that all add up to a smooth and snappy workflow. For the most part, things behave as you expect them to, and you don't have to jump through hoops to get what you want. (I'm talking to you, Cubase.)

Perhaps the journey was made easier by the most excellent tutorials I've ever seen. They have a ton of content by Joe Gilder and another guy named Gregor that are simply the best. You can find a short video on how to do something specific without going through an hourlong bloated video (Cubase). They are well-written, easily understood, and instantly up your game. I had to laugh when they showed how easy things were, compared to a Cubase video: "In Cubase, this is easy -- just hold down the command and option key, then open the xyz menu to get to this, then go to... blah blah." Sheesh. In S1, it's "Click on this and select that function." Like I said, half the steps. (Logic was also faster than Cubase.)

My timing was good, too, because version 6 brought some workflow improvements.

You can find videos listing the benefits of S1, I suggest you check them out and download a trial copy. I find it far superior to Cubase. I like to work with fewer annoyances than Cubase provides


----------



## Favedave

My more biting review of Cubase:


*This is why Cubase does not have a larger user base among professionals.*


I’m very very experienced with DAWs. No DAW is perfect. DAW preference is subjective. I’ve been using Cubase for a week now to see if it’s better for me than Logic or Reaper.

Here is an example of why Cubase is not used by more people, and likely never will be. Their design philosophy is apparently to make simple tasks as difficult as possible. I write songs. Occasionally instrumentals. I use a keyboard and a ton of VST instruments and need to manipulate MIDI like mad. I am an actual musician — I do not use loops and am not of the “I can cut and paste so now I’m a producer” school. I need a DAW that makes arranging and producing these songs as easy as possible and doesn’t slow me down. That clearly ain’t Cubase. Apparently “cubase” is an ancient German word meaning “impediment.”

Yes, I know a new program takes getting used to. But after a week, it’s become an abusive relationship. Here’s the latest example of why the cubase design philosophy is antithetical to a creative and productive workflow.

Markers. I’d like to have markers showing where my intro, verse, and chorus are. It’s super helpful for the workflow.


Make marker track.
Click on Add Position Marker at the Intro.
It names it “1.” Uh, not being a robot (alas) I’d like to name it “Intro.” Nope. Can’t do it! A nicer DAW would ask you to name it as you create it, thereby speeding up workflow.
I look it up in a yt video because the manual is a cruel joke played on cubase users by the prison guards who run the company.
If I click on the E in the inspector, a Markers window pops up. Gee, it would be nice if I could’ve just double clicked on the marker track, but no.
I cannot name the marker here, but I can make a description. Great. It’s Intro now.
The Inspector window will not let me see the marker number and description at the same time… Annoying!
OK, I’ll just make the Inspector window wider. Hmmm…. it doesn’t move.
Bypassing the cruel manual again, I do a search and find out that it is impossible to resize the inspector windows. I also note that users have been requesting this ability FOR DECADES. (I guess Cubase are passionate about staying true to their Atari roots and have never seen a modern program. Really? A non-resizable window in 2022 almost 2023? How embarrassing for them!)
I find I can drag the Description column in the inspector to the left so that I can see it, but now everything else is hidden. Oh well.
I make another marker. I see that all the markers in the main window show their names. Yay! But… they also show their numbers. This is what a reasonable person would call “clutter.”
I realize that the SIZE of the little marker boxes in the timeline is fixed. In other words, the markers do not extend to the next marker. One more annoyance.
I abandon using markers — too clumsy and they look inelegant, (Yes, that matters when you’re staring at a screen 12 hours a day.) And I really want them to extend over the entire section they denote.
Arrangement! That’s the ticket! Oh, it’s called a chain. Yet more proof that no one in a position of power at Cubase has ever been a musician… chains? Not exactly an artistic term. More BDSM, which fits with the prison guard lifestyle. “Hey Ravel, I really love the chain you made of Bolero!” Their entire vocabulary is weird: groups instead of busses, “remove” something rather than “delete,” “Listen” instead of “monitor,” “Monitored” when they really mean “record enabled,” etc. I realize it’s a German company, but come on — hire a native English speaker to make the translations! And use musical and recording terms instead of programmer terms. This is indicative of their priorities — they do not care enough about musicians to make the effort. For decades.
I make the track. Since this is Cubase, I have to use a clumsy key key combo to make a pencil drag for some measures. (If Cubase liked humans, they would eliminate this key combo and let you just drag.) OK, I dragged over my intro.
I want to name this Intro. I click on the box…click the inspector… no luck. You have to click on the box and then mouse as far aways as possible from where you are to a Naming area. Again, kind programmers would let you double click and name it.
I name them all.
I find I have to drag the arrange thingies around in the inspector to get them in the right order. Yet one more thing in the way of creativity.
I click on the timeline to play later in my song. Ha! What a fool I was — dreaming it would play from there. Nope! Turns out the arrange track is now the boss and plays from the first arrange marker. I have to click on the TINY TINY little button on the arrange track to tell it to not do that. (Tiny tiny buttons are a tradition at Cubase, where all employees are issued a 13” monitor for all their computers so they can run at a 640X480 resolution so they can see all the tiny tiny buttons and fonts in Cubase. And yes, Cubase users have been requesting larger fonts FOR DECADES. I bet this request makes the prison guards/programmers at Cubase laugh. A lot.)
Now I have an Arrange track to illustrate where all the section of my song are. Holy crapadoodle, that is one ugly looking track. And Cubase decided that all these track names should be on a gray box that makes most of them illegible. Thereby invalidating the use of this track completely. *sigh*
It’s clear there is no way to get a nice horizontal legend telling me where my intro, verses, and choruses are in Cubase. Nothing worth looking at anyway.
Is this a Windows thing? Have Windows users been so abused over the years that they are simply thrilled to get a program that doesn’t crash and have never dared dream of an elegant and human-oriented workflow? Yeah, I’ve used Windows. I built a dozen PCs from scratch… for gaming, not work. But if I’m ever using Excel or Word on a Windows machine, it looks fine and is completely useable. So Windows being the ugly stepchild is no excuse!
All the Cubase design flaws come from the top. It’s their corporate philosophy. Has to be. If the brass cared about music and musicians, they’d make the effort to make Cubase more usable. Say what you will about Apple programs and OSes, no one ever looks at them and says “that’s ugly and inelegant.” And certainly not “steep learning curve.” There’s a reason your five-year-old can use an iPad.


It’s such a shame that Cubase has some cool things like resizing channels and moving mix channels wherever you want, but cannot do simply necessary tasks that make the lives of songwriter/producers easier. So far, almost everything I try to do in Cubase takes much longer than in other DAWs, and not because I’m not used to it. It literally requires more key pressing and/or mousing around. The only advantage over Logic besides channel arranging is that it’s faster and easier to make changes in MIDI. The Logic dialogue box for that sux badly, and Cubase is definitely easier and faster with that. (I dunno how that snuck in!)


I’ve had far too few “Oh wow, I can do this cool thing?!” moments, and far too many “WTF were the programmers thinking!” moments. If this program came on the market today, it would die a horrible death. All the reviews I read said “It has a steep learning curve.” They all used that phrase! This was their kind way of saying “The manual is the worst possible manual it could be,” and “There is a lot of unnecessary keystroking and mousing around that must be learned to get anything done and also the font and selection boxes are too damned small.”


I hope you found this amusing. I’m certainly not out to change minds (and Cubase, Inc. will never change), but being a screenwriter in my other life, I had to share these impressions. It’s how I justify spending a week on Cubase 

Anyone wanna buy a Cubase Pro 12 license?


----------



## joebaggan

What can Studio One do that Cubase can't do, functionality wise? As far as usability/speed, I prefer using custom created key commands, macros, and StreamDeck for just about anything, so I can do multiple actions with 1 key command in Cubase. That way, I don't waste time doing a lot of clicking around. I think doing a lot of mouse clicking in a DAW is a productivity killer. And do people realize you can create your own key commands for everything? You don't need to use the defaults Cubase has out of the box. You can also customize/simplify the UI by removing a lot of things like toolbars/buttons that add clutter. 

So, aside from prettier screens and less mouse clicking, what substantive functionality does Studio One provide that Cubase doesn't?


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Favedave said:


> Anyone wanna buy a Cubase Pro 4 license?


Are you really comparing Cubase Pro 4 to the latest version of Studio One?



Favedave said:


> *This is why Cubase does not have a larger user base among professionals.*


Uh, what?


----------



## Favedave

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Are you really comparing Cubase Pro 4 to the latest version of Studio One?
> 
> 
> Uh, what?


Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. It's Cubase 12. I changed it!


----------



## EgM

joebaggan said:


> So, aside from prettier screens and less mouse clicking, what substantive functionality does Studio One provide that Cubase doesn't?


Just a very fast workflow, lots of drag and drop.

Essentially, less clicking, less windows opened: For instance, changing tracks makes the vsti window change to the active track.


----------



## Favedave

Favedave said:


> *This is why Cubase does not have a larger user base among professionals.*


"Uh, what?"
I didn't say they had NO user base, but compared to Logic, it's smaller. I do not know anyone who uses Cubase Day to day. They all use Logic or PT (if they do a lot of live tracking with bands or post production). While my impression is hardly scientific, it's telling. Like how most professionals use Macs, not PCs. I have never been in a recording studio or post facility that had a Windows PC. The simple reason is stability. All those tours with massive AV displays and track playback -- all Macs. No one wants to use a windows PC that decides it's going to download a Windows patch in the middle of a concert! Or some intern decides to play a game on it that downloads a virus.

I'm also a screenwriter by trade, and of the hundreds of writers I know, only one has Windows.
I'm talking strictly about professionals, people who pay their mortgage with their computer and need the workflow to get it done and deliver to the bosses. If someone is doing it for love only (the original definition of "amateur" is "one who loves"), then they've got a lot more leeway and can afford the slowdown. I'm pointing out all this because I think a lot of Cubase users are Windows users.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

EgM said:


> Just a very fast workflow, lots of drag and drop.
> 
> Essentially, less clicking, less windows opened: For instance, changing tracks makes the vsti window change to the active track.


Or a lot MORE clicking because they haven't implemented decent workflow for many elements still (like controller lanes as an example).


----------



## Favedave

joebaggan said:


> What can Studio One do that Cubase can't do, functionality wise? As far as usability/speed, I prefer using custom created key commands, macros, and StreamDeck for just about anything, so I can do multiple actions with 1 key command in Cubase. That way, I don't waste time doing a lot of clicking around. I think doing a lot of mouse clicking in a DAW is a productivity killer. And do people realize you can create your own key commands for everything? You don't need to use the defaults Cubase has out of the box. You can also customize/simplify the UI by removing a lot of things like toolbars/buttons that add clutter.
> 
> So, aside from prettier screens and less mouse clicking, what substantive functionality does Studio One provide that Cubase doesn't?


That's a very pertinent question. But I'd like to point out that "a prettier screen" is actually quite important to me! If I'm staring at it 8-12 hours a day, it matters!

Oh, and Studio One has macros. You can program any number of functions/keystrokes to happen with one shortcut key. Or you can even make that a menu bar button you can click instead -- but that doesn't seem like your workflow.

I'm new to it, but I've made a macro to install a plugin on a channel and automatically lower the gain by 12db. It's for some VST instruments that are always too loud.

The key commands and macros are completely customizable. You can overwrite the defaults, make new ones where none existed, etc. So, yes, indeed, you can "can do multiple actions with 1 key command" as you state. You can have one key load up a whole bunch of plugins that are already set to your favorite presets.

That plus all the other benefits.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Favedave said:


> I do not know anyone who uses Cubase Day to day.


Cubase is one of the top two or top most used DAWs by composers (aka what this forum is generally geared towards). Granted, if you make the same claim on KvR or Gearspace, you might find that your unscientific findings would be corroborated.


----------



## gsilbers

Favedave said:


> 3. *Cubase 12 Pro*. I spent a LOT of time with this. As others have pointed out, it's just... old. It feels like an Atari program ported over, which oddly enough, it is! You cannot resize many of the windows and the UI is very dated. Cubase is very bloated. I made a list of things I commonly do in my workflow, and realized it took on average *TWICE AS MANY STEPS* to do something in Cubase than in Logic or Studio One. Yikes! Their company philosophy is not very user friendly in that their priority is not about making the workflow faster or smoother. Instead they bloat. For example, in the last update, they bragged about adding MORE COMMANDS to move your cursor around and select things. So, *the opposite of streamlining*. This says a lot about their programming priorities.



Glad someone else noticed. This is exactly the reason i stayed with logic. Theres so many options in cubase, and so many pop up windows, menus and sub menus with macros and keycomands that for me its too many. ITs like 6 ways to summon a plugin window. Seems cool at first but for every single thing starts to become combersome. But i would recommend for newbies starting out.


----------



## Wunderhorn

joebaggan said:


> So, aside from prettier screens and less mouse clicking, what substantive functionality does Studio One provide that Cubase doesn't?


Sound Variations.
Expression Maps in Cubase are no less than a developers insult towards users. It is the biggest reason why I moved most production away to Studio One.


----------



## IFM

joebaggan said:


> Latest Cubase 12 has been solid for me on M2 Macbook Pro. No crashes.
> 
> Though did experience crashes with Cubase 11.


I’ve not had any crashes in some time with Cubase. Max Studio here. LP has actually been the slightly buggier one lately.


----------



## Obi-Wan Spaghetti

Is there a cubase equivalent to S1 Studio One Remote app for ipad/android?


----------



## Pier

Favedave said:


> I didn't say they had NO user base, but compared to Logic, it's smaller. I do not know anyone who uses Cubase Day to day. They all use Logic or PT (if they do a lot of live tracking with bands or post production). While my impression is hardly scientific, it's telling. Like how most professionals use Macs, not PCs. I have never been in a recording studio or post facility that had a Windows PC.


That's completely anecdotal.

Tons of pros use Windows and Cubase.


----------



## Pier

Favedave said:


> Markers. I’d like to have markers showing where my intro, verse, and chorus are. It’s super helpful for the workflow.


Yes, the markers workflow in Cubase is bad, and there are many other parts that need a lot of improvement. But, realistically, how much time do you spend actually working with markers? Maybe at the most 0.1% of the time invested in a project?

I spend probably 80% of my time in the piano roll and the arrangement Window and Cubase is pretty good here.

It's really a matter of deciding your priorities and picking your poison because unfortunately no DAW is perfect.


----------



## bcslaam

Wunderhorn said:


> Sound Variations.
> Expression Maps in Cubase are no less than a developers insult towards users. It is the biggest reason why I moved most production away to Studio One.


This I can agree with. I moved from Reaper to Nuendo largely due to expression maps and was shocked that the inventor of them has left it in such disarray.

I also agree that there is someone at the top of Steinberg that is really holding it back. Someone who doesn't believe its users knows whats best for them. Or doesnt see the picture that listening, fixing bugs and following through on features (at a higher rate of updates) like expression maps, markers, midi port bugs, track archiving and preset management and export functionality will actually make them more money in the long run. Besides…what! have the Romans ever done for us!

Seriously tho, I still have hope this guy or guys will leave soon and that Steinberg changes. Maybe even adopt CLAP in the realisation that holding the whole industry to ransom with VST3 is greedy. VST3 was neccessary because no one else had a good solution. But now its time to pass the batton to open source.

For now I'll stick with Nuendo.


----------



## dgburns

Favedave said:


> I’m very very experienced with DAWs.….. I’ve been using Cubase for a week now to see if it’s better for me than Logic or Reaper.


The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.

Now, I don’t want to pick a fight or anything, but it sounds like you are new to Cubase. It also does not appear to be an accurate statement to say you are very experienced with ‘DAWS’, without specifying which ones you are actually familiar with, especially if Cubase is not one of them. 
I mention this because your observances using Cubase for a week appears to be just that, someone who does not know the program, yet alleges the app does not work well or is poorly designed. Many experienced Cubase users would likely disagree, but they won’t likely respond - possibly because this kind of thing has been flogged to death around here, or these users may simply be too busy actually writing music in Cubase !!

The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.

Now with that off my chest, I am a Logic user - since about 1998. I actually started off on Cubase on Atari, so I go way back with that one too. Actually, now that I reflect back, I also used to use Performer ( pre digital performer ) and Studio Vision too. Obviously, I use Protools, and have since the very first versions. I drifted away from Cubase in the early 2000’s, but a few years back tried to see if it would be a better fit. 

It was not, but not for a lack of trying. 

There are many things that on paper seemed alluring. In practice, I’m just too far down the LPX road, but atleast I admit this to myself. Logic is not better, and might be inferior in some ways, but it’s what I use, warts and all. And I can get shit done fast. Muscle memory fast.

The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.

Logic has all kinds of ‘illogical’ idiosyncrasies in it’s design and implementation. Don’t get me started on them, I’ll get all wound up about it. I guess in the end it’s really down to how well you know the app, because all the current daws tend to have the same capability - more or less. And if one daw has a must have feature you can’t live without, you learn to live with the idiosyncratic architectures you don’t care for in exchange. Someone, somewhere else might just think that the feature you happen to hate is one they can’t live without.

The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.


----------



## dgburns

@Favedave before I forget, long before markers were a feature, we used to use empty sequences as markers on a midi track. You can colour them, name them any way you want, and use them for navigating and playback.
You can do this currently in Cubase, or any other daw for that matter.

Also, if memory serves, you can make cycle markers in Cubase, so you can in fact have Logic styled markers in Cubase. Cubase also allows for multiple marker tracks, while Logic only allows for one, and while Cubase allows for markers to extend lines down the arrange page, Logic does not.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

joebaggan said:


> What can Studio One do that Cubase can't do, functionality wise? As far as usability/speed, I prefer using custom created key commands, macros, and StreamDeck for just about anything, so I can do multiple actions with 1 key command in Cubase. That way, I don't waste time doing a lot of clicking around. I think doing a lot of mouse clicking in a DAW is a productivity killer. And do people realize you can create your own key commands for everything? You don't need to use the defaults Cubase has out of the box. You can also customize/simplify the UI by removing a lot of things like toolbars/buttons that add clutter.
> 
> So, aside from prettier screens and less mouse clicking, what substantive functionality does Studio One provide that Cubase doesn't?


Scratch pads. Game changer as mentioned in an older post of mine. Never again will I be using a DAW without them.


----------



## tressie5

Cubase 12 can be an exercise in frustration because it's so deep. There are a few areas where it's not intuitive. 

By default, you have 16 colours to choose from for your tracks. If you need more colours, there's no convenient button by or near the colour palette tab to expand your amount. You have to go to the Project tab, scroll down near the bottom, select the section that brings up the colours dialog box, and make changes there.

In order to be able to drag audio files from the file browser in the Media panel, you'd first have to populate your wave files in the Media Bay. It took me a while to figure out how to do that because there's no simple convenient import wave files button in the Media Bay or file browser. You have to go to your wave folder in the Media Bay, right click on it, and scan it to populate your file folder. Oy!

Still, these inconveniences are minor compared to what the DAW offers and it's why I've stuck with it for 25 years or so.


----------



## 3DC

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> Scratch pads. Game changer as mentioned in an older post of mine. Never again will I be using a DAW without them.


How is Scratch pad different from Arranger Track in Cubase?


----------



## JTB

I like Studio One and Presonus because they keep Steinberg (the developers of my preferred DAW) on their toes.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

3DC said:


> How is Scratch pad different from Arranger Track in Cubase?


in every way? They're not really comparable.


----------



## 3DC

SimonCharlesHanna said:


> in every way?


No seriously. I am looking YT video from PreSonus guys but so far I don't see anything major that Cubase Arranger Track can't do. Am I missing something?


----------



## Sombreuil

3DC said:


> How is Scratch pad different from Arranger Track in Cubase?


You don't need to create a track with the Scratch Pad, it's a feature that you can active/deactivate on the fly.


----------



## 3DC

Sombreuil said:


> You don't need to create a track with the Scratch Pad, it's a feature that you can active/deactivate on the fly.


Cool and very fast. Can you make different versions like in Arranger Track?


----------



## Crowe

Does anyone know when VST2 will be completely phased out of Cubase? I use the Windows version. I need to know if 13 will be my last Cubase version of whether I should get 12 before the update happens. Although I'm sure 12.5 will happen first.


----------



## Sombreuil

3DC said:


> Cool and very fast. Can you make different versions like in Arranger Track?


If you mean having several Scratch Pad instances, yes you can. My Studio One is in French, so I can't really demonstrate it since you wouldn't understand what it says (I guess), but there is a drop down menu that lets you create as many Scratch Pad instances as you want.


----------



## 3DC

Crowe said:


> Does anyone know when VST2 will be completely phased out of Cubase?


Theoretically 24 moths from January 2022 but few VST2 plugins that I have already don't work anymore. 
Also 0.5 versions are out as far as I know. Could be wrong.


----------



## SimonCharlesHanna

3DC said:


> No seriously. I am looking YT video from PreSonus guys but so far I don't see anything major that Cubase Arranger Track can't do. Am I missing something?


So scratch pad is a transport independent of your main window and you can have as many as you want. So you can store ideas, arrangements bits and pieces at different tempo, metre etc and store them in a scratch pad. This leaves your main transport area free for nothing but the final track. You can easily drag to and from the scratch pads.

Before this, my cubase sessions would be 50 minutes long with ideas all over the place. Now I can store them away and have the main transport only the length of the final track.

(edit: sorry I keep saying transport window but I cant think what the name of main window is called in Daw(s))


----------



## Andy_P

Steinberg insists on not implementing easy improvements like,

Remove all Recent files
Trackpad Pinch Zoom Support
Messy Project Folder
Dual tool is stricted to range tool only which works reverse of every other DAW
No Mono/Stereo Switch on tracks
No movement of channels in the mixer.
Messy Inspector etc.


Cubase has the feeling of made for established composers that have set up PLE macros, use metagrid or similar have at least two monitors etc. It has gazillion features which, if you are used to makes it hard to switch to another DAW but feels too old and over complicated for today's needs, both visual and workflow. GUI screams attention on every part all the time which becomes tiring.

Wish they would stop pumping feature updates every year and focus a few years on modernizing the program and improving the already established features like expression maps, streamlined inspector etc


----------



## EgM

ALittleNightMusic said:


> Or a lot MORE clicking because they haven't implemented decent workflow for many elements still (like controller lanes as an example).


I agree that this needs some fixing but it's hardly a problem for me personally since I always record my parts with midi keyboard so the controller lanes are always created when I'm editing.


----------



## Anders Bru

My biggest annoyance with Cubase is that I can't save different track types together as a track preset. I should be able to highlight any number of tracks, be it instrument tracks, audio tracks, group tracks etc., and hit "save". Very often I make a folder with some instruments, and maybe a parallell chain in an FX track going, and I want to save that as one complete package, but no can do.


----------



## IFM

Part 1:
I know of some pretty heavy hitters that use Cubase, and I include Anne-Kathrin Dern in that list, so to say more professionals do not use it is a bit ill-considered. Steinberg likes to highlight some of them on their Cubase page. Apple should consider doing that on Logic's page.

But I have noticed that there are a lot more known artists that use Logic as do known composers. That's not to say there aren't plenty doing so writing for film and TV, but whenever you go looking, you find lists of pop artists or producers.

So it seems, from the surface, that plenty of pros use both.

Part 2:
Once you get used to a DAW, you become fast and comfortable with it. Then if you stick with it for a year or two, then go back to your previous DAW, it will seem as cumbersome as when you started till it all comes back to you. As mentioned before, the DAW you know.

That being said, after a year and a half of writing in Cubase more than LP I got fast with it, but daily I ask myself why when so many of the complaints I have are not a problem in LP?

In LP:
Articulations don't reset every time I stop
Logic's version of Retrospect record doesn't care how long the not is held and will remember it
Articulations are much nicer
File management is "logical" (Cubase is a nightmare)
I can use a key combo with note dragging to set all notes to the same length or make the ends snap to cursor
I can run all my plugins both Native and Rosetta in one project

The few things I like in Cubase are mainly in the Midi editing window where I can do compression or ramps more easily, and universal screen sets.

EDIT: Some others are Cubase can remember Expression Maps with instrument presets and LP cannot. Editing multiple MIDI parts together in Cubase is much easier...so essentially the reason I'm still chugging along is where I spend a lot of time...Midi editing and Cubase just has some things I prefer from a workflow standpoint.


----------



## ZenBYD

at this point I can't really think of things that I want to do that cubase can't. the variaudio is still the one to beat in terms of workflow for me... even the melodyne integration in S1 isn't as... integrated...

it is a complicated program for sure. all steinberg stuff is... I have cubase, logic and pro tools... I've tried S1 but it didn't do anything radically better or different enough for it to stick around. if they double down on the notion integration it might become more interesting. it's a solid program no doubt, just didn't do anything that would cause me to move away from cubase, pro tools and logic!

actually really been impressed with tools lately. after years of stagnant development... wasted money on PCI cards... its coming back to life quite nicely. my 2c.


----------



## Per Boysen

Well, I have not left Cubase yet but I currently do more in Bitwig and for a month I was using Studio One only. Cubase works best for me when wanting to use DivisiMate and I find the Transformer ultimately useful. But I didn't like when an upgrade wiped out my user-custom external controller surface script for my Arturial 88 mkII. A reason I got into Cubase, from previously doing everything in Logic, was its expression maps. But that was back when Logic didn't have that. I just found out how to set up expression maps in Bitwig this morning so I think I won't be using Cubase much unless I will have to for some specific production.


----------



## Ozinga

IFM said:


> I can use a key combo with note dragging to set all notes to the same length or make the ends snap to cursor


After years frustration, someone pointed out the way to do it. 
I do not know how long was it there and why it does not have a default modifier. If I understand your need of course.

Go to Preferences/Editing/Tool Modifiers/Size Objects/All Events Same Value. Choose a modifier key.
I use Shift key to have it same with Logic.

Another way,
Pıano Roll Editor/ Info Line
After selecting the notes, adjust the End Note entry by mouse while holding Command(Mac)


----------



## inthevoid

Skipped from Logic to Cubase and recently to Reaper. Cubase is great and I’ll still be using it for orchestration work, but I wish they’d focus on refining and bug fixing the features they have and expanding upon them rather than adding loads of new stuff. The final nail in the coffin for me is retrospective record being a complete lottery as to whether it worked in the right place or not. And the inability to edit several tracks’ CC lanes at the same time without using lots of PLE macros etc.


----------



## stigc56

I think a really important issue anyone - who want's to test different DAWs - has to consider, is to weight usability/importance of tools and workflows. 
Some years back Logic had a really annoying bug, that meant that the piano roll almost never, showed the position right! This was really annoying if you, like me, use the midi editor all the time! I bought Cubase to find that the MIDI editor facilities was far more developed. At that time Cubase was the only DAW, that had a workflow for articulations, so the switch was quite straight forward, but the fact that Cubase and Macs sometimes was an odd couple.
My point is, that you might get irritated about a missing feature/workflow or a really cumbersome implementation, but you always have to consider, how much time you spend on them!
To me it's a BIG disappointment that Steinberg still havn't improved on the VST expression map system, wauw the time I have spend on that!!!!!


----------



## dzilizzi

Favedave said:


> My more biting review of Cubase:
> 
> 
> *This is why Cubase does not have a larger user base among professionals.*
> 
> 
> I’m very very experienced with DAWs. No DAW is perfect. DAW preference is subjective. I’ve been using Cubase for a week now to see if it’s better for me than Logic or Reaper.
> 
> Here is an example of why Cubase is not used by more people, and likely never will be. Their design philosophy is apparently to make simple tasks as difficult as possible. I write songs. Occasionally instrumentals. I use a keyboard and a ton of VST instruments and need to manipulate MIDI like mad. I am an actual musician — I do not use loops and am not of the “I can cut and paste so now I’m a producer” school. I need a DAW that makes arranging and producing these songs as easy as possible and doesn’t slow me down. That clearly ain’t Cubase. Apparently “cubase” is an ancient German word meaning “impediment.”
> 
> Yes, I know a new program takes getting used to. But after a week, it’s become an abusive relationship. Here’s the latest example of why the cubase design philosophy is antithetical to a creative and productive workflow.
> 
> Markers. I’d like to have markers showing where my intro, verse, and chorus are. It’s super helpful for the workflow.
> 
> 
> Make marker track.
> Click on Add Position Marker at the Intro.
> It names it “1.” Uh, not being a robot (alas) I’d like to name it “Intro.” Nope. Can’t do it! A nicer DAW would ask you to name it as you create it, thereby speeding up workflow.
> I look it up in a yt video because the manual is a cruel joke played on cubase users by the prison guards who run the company.
> If I click on the E in the inspector, a Markers window pops up. Gee, it would be nice if I could’ve just double clicked on the marker track, but no.
> I cannot name the marker here, but I can make a description. Great. It’s Intro now.
> The Inspector window will not let me see the marker number and description at the same time… Annoying!
> OK, I’ll just make the Inspector window wider. Hmmm…. it doesn’t move.
> Bypassing the cruel manual again, I do a search and find out that it is impossible to resize the inspector windows. I also note that users have been requesting this ability FOR DECADES. (I guess Cubase are passionate about staying true to their Atari roots and have never seen a modern program. Really? A non-resizable window in 2022 almost 2023? How embarrassing for them!)
> I find I can drag the Description column in the inspector to the left so that I can see it, but now everything else is hidden. Oh well.
> I make another marker. I see that all the markers in the main window show their names. Yay! But… they also show their numbers. This is what a reasonable person would call “clutter.”
> I realize that the SIZE of the little marker boxes in the timeline is fixed. In other words, the markers do not extend to the next marker. One more annoyance.
> I abandon using markers — too clumsy and they look inelegant, (Yes, that matters when you’re staring at a screen 12 hours a day.) And I really want them to extend over the entire section they denote.
> Arrangement! That’s the ticket! Oh, it’s called a chain. Yet more proof that no one in a position of power at Cubase has ever been a musician… chains? Not exactly an artistic term. More BDSM, which fits with the prison guard lifestyle. “Hey Ravel, I really love the chain you made of Bolero!” Their entire vocabulary is weird: groups instead of busses, “remove” something rather than “delete,” “Listen” instead of “monitor,” “Monitored” when they really mean “record enabled,” etc. I realize it’s a German company, but come on — hire a native English speaker to make the translations! And use musical and recording terms instead of programmer terms. This is indicative of their priorities — they do not care enough about musicians to make the effort. For decades.
> I make the track. Since this is Cubase, I have to use a clumsy key key combo to make a pencil drag for some measures. (If Cubase liked humans, they would eliminate this key combo and let you just drag.) OK, I dragged over my intro.
> I want to name this Intro. I click on the box…click the inspector… no luck. You have to click on the box and then mouse as far aways as possible from where you are to a Naming area. Again, kind programmers would let you double click and name it.
> I name them all.
> I find I have to drag the arrange thingies around in the inspector to get them in the right order. Yet one more thing in the way of creativity.
> I click on the timeline to play later in my song. Ha! What a fool I was — dreaming it would play from there. Nope! Turns out the arrange track is now the boss and plays from the first arrange marker. I have to click on the TINY TINY little button on the arrange track to tell it to not do that. (Tiny tiny buttons are a tradition at Cubase, where all employees are issued a 13” monitor for all their computers so they can run at a 640X480 resolution so they can see all the tiny tiny buttons and fonts in Cubase. And yes, Cubase users have been requesting larger fonts FOR DECADES. I bet this request makes the prison guards/programmers at Cubase laugh. A lot.)
> Now I have an Arrange track to illustrate where all the section of my song are. Holy crapadoodle, that is one ugly looking track. And Cubase decided that all these track names should be on a gray box that makes most of them illegible. Thereby invalidating the use of this track completely. *sigh*
> It’s clear there is no way to get a nice horizontal legend telling me where my intro, verses, and choruses are in Cubase. Nothing worth looking at anyway.
> Is this a Windows thing? Have Windows users been so abused over the years that they are simply thrilled to get a program that doesn’t crash and have never dared dream of an elegant and human-oriented workflow? Yeah, I’ve used Windows. I built a dozen PCs from scratch… for gaming, not work. But if I’m ever using Excel or Word on a Windows machine, it looks fine and is completely useable. So Windows being the ugly stepchild is no excuse!
> All the Cubase design flaws come from the top. It’s their corporate philosophy. Has to be. If the brass cared about music and musicians, they’d make the effort to make Cubase more usable. Say what you will about Apple programs and OSes, no one ever looks at them and says “that’s ugly and inelegant.” And certainly not “steep learning curve.” There’s a reason your five-year-old can use an iPad.
> 
> 
> It’s such a shame that Cubase has some cool things like resizing channels and moving mix channels wherever you want, but cannot do simply necessary tasks that make the lives of songwriter/producers easier. So far, almost everything I try to do in Cubase takes much longer than in other DAWs, and not because I’m not used to it. It literally requires more key pressing and/or mousing around. The only advantage over Logic besides channel arranging is that it’s faster and easier to make changes in MIDI. The Logic dialogue box for that sux badly, and Cubase is definitely easier and faster with that. (I dunno how that snuck in!)
> 
> 
> I’ve had far too few “Oh wow, I can do this cool thing?!” moments, and far too many “WTF were the programmers thinking!” moments. If this program came on the market today, it would die a horrible death. All the reviews I read said “It has a steep learning curve.” They all used that phrase! This was their kind way of saying “The manual is the worst possible manual it could be,” and “There is a lot of unnecessary keystroking and mousing around that must be learned to get anything done and also the font and selection boxes are too damned small.”
> 
> 
> I hope you found this amusing. I’m certainly not out to change minds (and Cubase, Inc. will never change), but being a screenwriter in my other life, I had to share these impressions. It’s how I justify spending a week on Cubase
> 
> Anyone wanna buy a Cubase Pro 12 license?


I came from ProTools. I have yet to finish a piece in Cubase for many of these same reasons. I want to like it. I keep trying. I always end up back in ProTools. I'm glad to know it is not just me because the manual is like trying to read in another language.


----------



## José Herring

Favedave said:


> My more biting review of Cubase:
> 
> 
> *This is why Cubase does not have a larger user base among professionals.*
> 
> 
> I’m very very experienced with DAWs. No DAW is perfect. DAW preference is subjective. I’ve been using Cubase for a week now to see if it’s better for me than Logic or Reaper.
> 
> Here is an example of why Cubase is not used by more people, and likely never will be. Their design philosophy is apparently to make simple tasks as difficult as possible. I write songs. Occasionally instrumentals. I use a keyboard and a ton of VST instruments and need to manipulate MIDI like mad. I am an actual musician — I do not use loops and am not of the “I can cut and paste so now I’m a producer” school. I need a DAW that makes arranging and producing these songs as easy as possible and doesn’t slow me down. That clearly ain’t Cubase. Apparently “cubase” is an ancient German word meaning “impediment.”
> 
> Yes, I know a new program takes getting used to. But after a week, it’s become an abusive relationship. Here’s the latest example of why the cubase design philosophy is antithetical to a creative and productive workflow.
> 
> Markers. I’d like to have markers showing where my intro, verse, and chorus are. It’s super helpful for the workflow.
> 
> 
> Make marker track.
> Click on Add Position Marker at the Intro.
> It names it “1.” Uh, not being a robot (alas) I’d like to name it “Intro.” Nope. Can’t do it! A nicer DAW would ask you to name it as you create it, thereby speeding up workflow.
> I look it up in a yt video because the manual is a cruel joke played on cubase users by the prison guards who run the company.
> If I click on the E in the inspector, a Markers window pops up. Gee, it would be nice if I could’ve just double clicked on the marker track, but no.
> I cannot name the marker here, but I can make a description. Great. It’s Intro now.
> The Inspector window will not let me see the marker number and description at the same time… Annoying!
> OK, I’ll just make the Inspector window wider. Hmmm…. it doesn’t move.
> Bypassing the cruel manual again, I do a search and find out that it is impossible to resize the inspector windows. I also note that users have been requesting this ability FOR DECADES. (I guess Cubase are passionate about staying true to their Atari roots and have never seen a modern program. Really? A non-resizable window in 2022 almost 2023? How embarrassing for them!)
> I find I can drag the Description column in the inspector to the left so that I can see it, but now everything else is hidden. Oh well.
> I make another marker. I see that all the markers in the main window show their names. Yay! But… they also show their numbers. This is what a reasonable person would call “clutter.”
> I realize that the SIZE of the little marker boxes in the timeline is fixed. In other words, the markers do not extend to the next marker. One more annoyance.
> I abandon using markers — too clumsy and they look inelegant, (Yes, that matters when you’re staring at a screen 12 hours a day.) And I really want them to extend over the entire section they denote.
> Arrangement! That’s the ticket! Oh, it’s called a chain. Yet more proof that no one in a position of power at Cubase has ever been a musician… chains? Not exactly an artistic term. More BDSM, which fits with the prison guard lifestyle. “Hey Ravel, I really love the chain you made of Bolero!” Their entire vocabulary is weird: groups instead of busses, “remove” something rather than “delete,” “Listen” instead of “monitor,” “Monitored” when they really mean “record enabled,” etc. I realize it’s a German company, but come on — hire a native English speaker to make the translations! And use musical and recording terms instead of programmer terms. This is indicative of their priorities — they do not care enough about musicians to make the effort. For decades.
> I make the track. Since this is Cubase, I have to use a clumsy key key combo to make a pencil drag for some measures. (If Cubase liked humans, they would eliminate this key combo and let you just drag.) OK, I dragged over my intro.
> I want to name this Intro. I click on the box…click the inspector… no luck. You have to click on the box and then mouse as far aways as possible from where you are to a Naming area. Again, kind programmers would let you double click and name it.
> I name them all.
> I find I have to drag the arrange thingies around in the inspector to get them in the right order. Yet one more thing in the way of creativity.
> I click on the timeline to play later in my song. Ha! What a fool I was — dreaming it would play from there. Nope! Turns out the arrange track is now the boss and plays from the first arrange marker. I have to click on the TINY TINY little button on the arrange track to tell it to not do that. (Tiny tiny buttons are a tradition at Cubase, where all employees are issued a 13” monitor for all their computers so they can run at a 640X480 resolution so they can see all the tiny tiny buttons and fonts in Cubase. And yes, Cubase users have been requesting larger fonts FOR DECADES. I bet this request makes the prison guards/programmers at Cubase laugh. A lot.)
> Now I have an Arrange track to illustrate where all the section of my song are. Holy crapadoodle, that is one ugly looking track. And Cubase decided that all these track names should be on a gray box that makes most of them illegible. Thereby invalidating the use of this track completely. *sigh*
> It’s clear there is no way to get a nice horizontal legend telling me where my intro, verses, and choruses are in Cubase. Nothing worth looking at anyway.
> Is this a Windows thing? Have Windows users been so abused over the years that they are simply thrilled to get a program that doesn’t crash and have never dared dream of an elegant and human-oriented workflow? Yeah, I’ve used Windows. I built a dozen PCs from scratch… for gaming, not work. But if I’m ever using Excel or Word on a Windows machine, it looks fine and is completely useable. So Windows being the ugly stepchild is no excuse!
> All the Cubase design flaws come from the top. It’s their corporate philosophy. Has to be. If the brass cared about music and musicians, they’d make the effort to make Cubase more usable. Say what you will about Apple programs and OSes, no one ever looks at them and says “that’s ugly and inelegant.” And certainly not “steep learning curve.” There’s a reason your five-year-old can use an iPad.
> 
> 
> It’s such a shame that Cubase has some cool things like resizing channels and moving mix channels wherever you want, but cannot do simply necessary tasks that make the lives of songwriter/producers easier. So far, almost everything I try to do in Cubase takes much longer than in other DAWs, and not because I’m not used to it. It literally requires more key pressing and/or mousing around. The only advantage over Logic besides channel arranging is that it’s faster and easier to make changes in MIDI. The Logic dialogue box for that sux badly, and Cubase is definitely easier and faster with that. (I dunno how that snuck in!)
> 
> 
> I’ve had far too few “Oh wow, I can do this cool thing?!” moments, and far too many “WTF were the programmers thinking!” moments. If this program came on the market today, it would die a horrible death. All the reviews I read said “It has a steep learning curve.” They all used that phrase! This was their kind way of saying “The manual is the worst possible manual it could be,” and “There is a lot of unnecessary keystroking and mousing around that must be learned to get anything done and also the font and selection boxes are too damned small.”
> 
> 
> I hope you found this amusing. I’m certainly not out to change minds (and Cubase, Inc. will never change), but being a screenwriter in my other life, I had to share these impressions. It’s how I justify spending a week on Cubase
> 
> Anyone wanna buy a Cubase Pro 12 license?


Almost everything you mentioned in here either you found the hardest way to do it or is just not true. I'm not even sure where to even begin to straight you out on this. I try in a bit to take up a few of the things but for a program as complex as Cubase, I'd spend maybe a little more than a week on it before you pass ultimate judgement.


----------



## Sombreuil

I am not sure that what follows is of great interest, but here is what someone who's only been using Studio One thinks about Cubase.

For the context, I built my new PC last month and before doing so, I thought it could be a great opportunity to try different DAWs, not in order to move away from Studio One, but for curiosity's sake. I've used FL Studio about 15 years ago, couldn't stand it, then used Studio One and I've been only using this DAW for the past 10-12 years, so my knowledge of other software in the audio field is quite limited.

The only thing I knew about Cubase before trying it is that the team behind Studio One used to work for Steinberg, so both software are known to be quite similar (more than I thought actually).
The installation part was a nightmare, I had to install 2 or 3 different things and reboot my PC, just for a demo. Even my main Studio One install didn't take that long and didn't require a PC reboot.

Anyway, first impression was that it looks pretty neat, at least the main arrangement window, which always felt a bit more easy on the eye than Studio One's, at least to me. It's austere, for sure, but easier to work with I felt like.

Also, even though I already knew that Studio One's shortcuts came from Cubase for the most part, I didn't expect Cubase to feel so intuitive as a S1 user. Every key I pressed on my keyboard did exactly what I was expecting it to do, which is always nice. I don't know if the software has shortcut presets, but I didn't feel the need to look into it.
I've always heard that Cubase "felt older" than Studio One, and when using the software, I didn't feel that way, sure some buttons look like you're using Windows 98, but I couldn't care less about that. That being said, when I opened up the settings, it felt really bad and there were way too many things to look at. There are too many sections and it felt overwhelming.

I had to watch a tutorial in order to setup my audio interface because I couldn't find the option by myself. I might be dumb, but it was a bit frustrating. I was surprised that the options menu didn't share the same GUI/colours with the main window, nothing too annoying per se, but definitely weird as a S1 user.

All in all I can now see why many people say that Studio One feels more modern, but once you're used to a software I don't think it matters that much. I also agree that overall I needed to do one or two more clicks to achieve the same thing, but hey, two more clicks has never kill anyone as far as I know.


----------



## José Herring

Favedave said:


> Make marker track.
> Click on Add Position Marker at the Intro.
> It names it “1.” Uh, not being a robot (alas) I’d like to name it “Intro.” Nope. Can’t do it! A nicer DAW would ask you to name it as you create it, thereby speeding up workflow.


The description is the name of the marker track. The number is the marker ID. Just semantics.


Favedave said:


> I look it up in a yt video because the manual is a cruel joke played on cubase users by the prison guards who run the company.


Manual is really as good as any other.


Favedave said:


> If I click on the E in the inspector, a Markers window pops up. Gee, it would be nice if I could’ve just double clicked on the marker track, but no.


Cubase is built around macros which are faster once you memorize them. Cntr+M will give you this. That's just normal computer and is the basic on all computers since forever. Can't blame Cubase for not understanding how computers work. But you can reassign those macros to anything you want. It's up to you. You can even just make it "m".


Favedave said:


> I cannot name the marker here, but I can make a description. Great. It’s Intro now.


Again just semantics. Description=name.


Favedave said:


> The Inspector window will not let me see the marker number and description at the same time… Annoying!


Outright false statement. Yes it will. (edit: No it won't. You get another point. I just realized I'm so use to not looking at the inspector and looking just above it.)


Favedave said:


> OK, I’ll just make the Inspector window wider. Hmmm…. it doesn’t move.


Okay. Just look above it. You'll get the information you need.


Favedave said:


> Bypassing the cruel manual again, I do a search and find out that it is impossible to resize the inspector windows. I also note that users have been requesting this ability FOR DECADES. (I guess Cubase are passionate about staying true to their Atari roots and have never seen a modern program. Really? A non-resizable window in 2022 almost 2023? How embarrassing for them!)


I'll give you that one.


Favedave said:


> I find I can drag the Description column in the inspector to the left so that I can see it, but now everything else is hidden. Oh well.


Again, just look above the inspector.


Favedave said:


> I make another marker. I see that all the markers in the main window show their names. Yay! But… they also show their numbers. This is what a reasonable person would call “clutter.”


For film scoring number markers are essential. No problem with that. You can even reorder the markers of hits change or a scene changes.


Favedave said:


> I realize that the SIZE of the little marker boxes in the timeline is fixed. In other words, the markers do not extend to the next marker. One more annoyance.


You can add cycle markers.


Favedave said:


> I abandon using markers — too clumsy and they look inelegant, (Yes, that matters when you’re staring at a screen 12 hours a day.) And I really want them to extend over the entire section they denote.


A false statement made from lack of knowledge.


Favedave said:


> Arrangement! That’s the ticket! Oh, it’s called a chain. Yet more proof that no one in a position of power at Cubase has ever been a musician… chains? Not exactly an artistic term.


it's called Arranger Chain but if you don't like the name it's understandable.


Favedave said:


> More BDSM, which fits with the prison guard lifestyle. “Hey Ravel, I really love the chain you made of Bolero!” Their entire vocabulary is weird: groups instead of busses, “remove” something rather than “delete,” “Listen” instead of “monitor,” “Monitored” when they really mean “record enabled,” etc. I realize it’s a German company, but come on — hire a native English speaker to make the translations! And use musical and recording terms instead of programmer terms. This is indicative of their priorities — they do not care enough about musicians to make the effort. For decades.


Pure silliness. What does it matter.


Favedave said:


> I make the track. Since this is Cubase, I have to use a clumsy key key combo to make a pencil drag for some measures. (If Cubase liked humans, they would eliminate this key combo and let you just drag.) OK, I dragged over my intro.


Purely not true. It's just click and drag. You select the pencil tool by pressing "8" or you can just click on it from your tool pallet. Sounds like you just don't have it set up so you can see your tool pallet and don't know the short cuts. Again, can't blame Cubase for lack of knowledge.


Favedave said:


> I want to name this Intro. I click on the box…click the inspector… no luck. You have to click on the box and then mouse as far aways as possible from where you are to a Naming area. Again, kind programmers would let you double click and name it





Favedave said:


> I name them all.
> I find I have to drag the arrange thingies around in the inspector to get them in the right order. Yet one more thing in the way of creativity.


Yeah not fully worked out. These kinds of arrangment things where far better in Digital Performer even back in 1997. It was even better in Studio Vision. But the program really wasn't built around song writing more scoring to picture. You can also drag them in the main window. Again click and drag.


Favedave said:


> I click on the timeline to play later in my song. Ha! What a fool I was — dreaming it would play from there. Nope! Turns out the arrange track is now the boss and plays from the first arrange marker. I have to click on the TINY TINY little button on the arrange track to tell it to not do that. (Tiny tiny buttons are a tradition at Cubase, where all employees are issued a 13” monitor for all their computers so they can run at a 640X480 resolution so they can see all the tiny tiny buttons and fonts in Cubase. And yes, Cubase users have been requesting larger fonts FOR DECADES. I bet this request makes the prison guards/programmers at Cubase laugh. A lot.)


KEY COMMANDS!!!! Everything in Cubase is automatable.


Favedave said:


> Now I have an Arrange track to illustrate where all the section of my song are. Holy crapadoodle, that is one ugly looking track. And Cubase decided that all these track names should be on a gray box that makes most of them illegible. Thereby invalidating the use of this track completely. *sigh*


Not true.






Favedave said:


> It’s clear there is no way to get a nice horizontal legend telling me where my intro, verses, and choruses are in Cubase. Nothing worth looking at anyway.


Here's where you can use markers and arrangement in tandem.


Favedave said:


> Is this a Windows thing? Have Windows users been so abused over the years that they are simply thrilled to get a program that doesn’t crash and have never dared dream of an elegant and human-oriented workflow? Yeah, I’ve used Windows. I built a dozen PCs from scratch… for gaming, not work. But if I’m ever using Excel or Word on a Windows machine, it looks fine and is completely useable. So Windows being the ugly stepchild is no excuse!


Stupid comment. You're either very old and still think that somehow "Mac is better" in spite of major major composers using it, or you're too young to know better.


Favedave said:


> All the Cubase design flaws come from the top. It’s their corporate philosophy. Has to be. If the brass cared about music and musicians, they’d make the effort to make Cubase more usable. Say what you will about Apple programs and OSes, no one ever looks at them and says “that’s ugly and inelegant.” And certainly not “steep learning curve.” There’s a reason your five-year-old can use an iPad.


No more or less design flaws than any other program. As a matter of fact for scoring to film I'd only use Cubase, DP or Logic. For song writting I'd use Studio One or Live.
I could go on but Cubase is a Deep Deep program. It may have its annoying things but honestly before you go spoutin' off, try learning it first.

DP is probably the most musician friendly of the DAWS. I miss using it.


----------



## Crossroads

Favedave said:


> My more biting review of Cubase:
> 
> 
> *This is why Cubase does not have a larger user base among professionals.*
> 
> 
> I’m very very experienced with DAWs. No DAW is perfect. DAW preference is subjective. I’ve been using Cubase for a week now to see if it’s better for me than Logic or Reaper.
> 
> Here is an example of why Cubase is not used by more people, and likely never will be. Their design philosophy is apparently to make simple tasks as difficult as possible. I write songs. Occasionally instrumentals. I use a keyboard and a ton of VST instruments and need to manipulate MIDI like mad. I am an actual musician — I do not use loops and am not of the “I can cut and paste so now I’m a producer” school. I need a DAW that makes arranging and producing these songs as easy as possible and doesn’t slow me down. That clearly ain’t Cubase. Apparently “cubase” is an ancient German word meaning “impediment.”
> 
> Yes, I know a new program takes getting used to. But after a week, it’s become an abusive relationship. Here’s the latest example of why the cubase design philosophy is antithetical to a creative and productive workflow.
> 
> Markers. I’d like to have markers showing where my intro, verse, and chorus are. It’s super helpful for the workflow.
> 
> 
> Make marker track.
> Click on Add Position Marker at the Intro.
> It names it “1.” Uh, not being a robot (alas) I’d like to name it “Intro.” Nope. Can’t do it! A nicer DAW would ask you to name it as you create it, thereby speeding up workflow.
> I look it up in a yt video because the manual is a cruel joke played on cubase users by the prison guards who run the company.
> If I click on the E in the inspector, a Markers window pops up. Gee, it would be nice if I could’ve just double clicked on the marker track, but no.
> I cannot name the marker here, but I can make a description. Great. It’s Intro now.
> The Inspector window will not let me see the marker number and description at the same time… Annoying!
> OK, I’ll just make the Inspector window wider. Hmmm…. it doesn’t move.
> Bypassing the cruel manual again, I do a search and find out that it is impossible to resize the inspector windows. I also note that users have been requesting this ability FOR DECADES. (I guess Cubase are passionate about staying true to their Atari roots and have never seen a modern program. Really? A non-resizable window in 2022 almost 2023? How embarrassing for them!)
> I find I can drag the Description column in the inspector to the left so that I can see it, but now everything else is hidden. Oh well.
> I make another marker. I see that all the markers in the main window show their names. Yay! But… they also show their numbers. This is what a reasonable person would call “clutter.”
> I realize that the SIZE of the little marker boxes in the timeline is fixed. In other words, the markers do not extend to the next marker. One more annoyance.
> I abandon using markers — too clumsy and they look inelegant, (Yes, that matters when you’re staring at a screen 12 hours a day.) And I really want them to extend over the entire section they denote.
> Arrangement! That’s the ticket! Oh, it’s called a chain. Yet more proof that no one in a position of power at Cubase has ever been a musician… chains? Not exactly an artistic term. More BDSM, which fits with the prison guard lifestyle. “Hey Ravel, I really love the chain you made of Bolero!” Their entire vocabulary is weird: groups instead of busses, “remove” something rather than “delete,” “Listen” instead of “monitor,” “Monitored” when they really mean “record enabled,” etc. I realize it’s a German company, but come on — hire a native English speaker to make the translations! And use musical and recording terms instead of programmer terms. This is indicative of their priorities — they do not care enough about musicians to make the effort. For decades.
> I make the track. Since this is Cubase, I have to use a clumsy key key combo to make a pencil drag for some measures. (If Cubase liked humans, they would eliminate this key combo and let you just drag.) OK, I dragged over my intro.
> I want to name this Intro. I click on the box…click the inspector… no luck. You have to click on the box and then mouse as far aways as possible from where you are to a Naming area. Again, kind programmers would let you double click and name it.
> I name them all.
> I find I have to drag the arrange thingies around in the inspector to get them in the right order. Yet one more thing in the way of creativity.
> I click on the timeline to play later in my song. Ha! What a fool I was — dreaming it would play from there. Nope! Turns out the arrange track is now the boss and plays from the first arrange marker. I have to click on the TINY TINY little button on the arrange track to tell it to not do that. (Tiny tiny buttons are a tradition at Cubase, where all employees are issued a 13” monitor for all their computers so they can run at a 640X480 resolution so they can see all the tiny tiny buttons and fonts in Cubase. And yes, Cubase users have been requesting larger fonts FOR DECADES. I bet this request makes the prison guards/programmers at Cubase laugh. A lot.)
> Now I have an Arrange track to illustrate where all the section of my song are. Holy crapadoodle, that is one ugly looking track. And Cubase decided that all these track names should be on a gray box that makes most of them illegible. Thereby invalidating the use of this track completely. *sigh*
> It’s clear there is no way to get a nice horizontal legend telling me where my intro, verses, and choruses are in Cubase. Nothing worth looking at anyway.
> Is this a Windows thing? Have Windows users been so abused over the years that they are simply thrilled to get a program that doesn’t crash and have never dared dream of an elegant and human-oriented workflow? Yeah, I’ve used Windows. I built a dozen PCs from scratch… for gaming, not work. But if I’m ever using Excel or Word on a Windows machine, it looks fine and is completely useable. So Windows being the ugly stepchild is no excuse!
> All the Cubase design flaws come from the top. It’s their corporate philosophy. Has to be. If the brass cared about music and musicians, they’d make the effort to make Cubase more usable. Say what you will about Apple programs and OSes, no one ever looks at them and says “that’s ugly and inelegant.” And certainly not “steep learning curve.” There’s a reason your five-year-old can use an iPad.
> 
> 
> It’s such a shame that Cubase has some cool things like resizing channels and moving mix channels wherever you want, but cannot do simply necessary tasks that make the lives of songwriter/producers easier. So far, almost everything I try to do in Cubase takes much longer than in other DAWs, and not because I’m not used to it. It literally requires more key pressing and/or mousing around. The only advantage over Logic besides channel arranging is that it’s faster and easier to make changes in MIDI. The Logic dialogue box for that sux badly, and Cubase is definitely easier and faster with that. (I dunno how that snuck in!)
> 
> 
> I’ve had far too few “Oh wow, I can do this cool thing?!” moments, and far too many “WTF were the programmers thinking!” moments. If this program came on the market today, it would die a horrible death. All the reviews I read said “It has a steep learning curve.” They all used that phrase! This was their kind way of saying “The manual is the worst possible manual it could be,” and “There is a lot of unnecessary keystroking and mousing around that must be learned to get anything done and also the font and selection boxes are too damned small.”
> 
> 
> I hope you found this amusing. I’m certainly not out to change minds (and Cubase, Inc. will never change), but being a screenwriter in my other life, I had to share these impressions. It’s how I justify spending a week on Cubase
> 
> Anyone wanna buy a Cubase Pro 12 license?


This is a bad troll post. Shame on you.


----------



## Ozinga

Favedave said:


> I make another marker. I see that all the markers in the main window show their names. Yay! But… they also show their numbers. This is what a reasonable person would call “clutter.”


For what its worth, Marker Settings Window has an option to hide the IDs (numbers)


----------



## Luzebel

Crossroads said:


> This is a bad troll post. Shame on you.


Right? Cubase is one of the most widely used DAWs among professionnals. I stopped reading from that point.


----------



## musicmakerbird

Questions for everyone. Do you see Cubase 12 being coded from the ground up? Also, how much say to do you think Yamaha has in Cubase development?


----------



## dterry

musicmakerbird said:


> Questions for everyone. Do you see Cubase 12 being coded from the ground up? Also, how much say to do you think Yamaha has in Cubase development?


No. Just additions to the existing codebase, in my opinion (20 years with Cubase/Nuendo, though seeing less use now). I don't remember the last time a major section was rewritten, that we users would have been aware of at least - maybe Cubase 8. 

Yamaha's input seems minimal on specifics, but I wouldn't doubt they at least set some revenue goals and drive marketing of Cubase in combination with other Yamaha products.


----------



## Favedave

Pier said:


> That's completely anecdotal.
> 
> Tons of pros use Windows and Cubase.


Uh, what is the problem with anecdotal? This is my business. I work with others, I go to post facilities, I make movies, I write music. This is what I have seen over 20 years in my world: zero Windows machines. On the forums, etc., it seems only amateurs use Windows because *they don't need the better stability because they don't have the network/studio breathing down their necks!!*
This is fact in my world. No matter how much you disparage it, that's the way it is.

If suddenly a different OS was more stable and looked as good as Macs, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. I'm not a fanboi, I'm a professional. (Big deal! But that's my sad fate.)


----------



## Favedave

Pier said:


> Yes, the markers workflow in Cubase is bad, and there are many other parts that need a lot of improvement. But, realistically, how much time do you spend actually working with markers? Maybe at the most 0.1% of the time invested in a project?
> 
> I spend probably 80% of my time in the piano roll and the arrangement Window and Cubase is pretty good here.
> 
> It's really a matter of deciding your priorities and picking your poison because unfortunately no DAW is perfect.


Gee, for someone who puts down others for using anecdotal evidence, you sure use it a lot! I use markers a lot because I write mostly songs. I also use the arranger feature for clarity of the song structure.
I'm sold on S1. It has a smoother workflow than Logic and uses half the number steps that the bloated Cubase does to get something done. Also, Cubase is uuuugggggllly! Why won't they let Atari 90s interfaces die?


----------



## Favedave

dgburns said:


> The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.
> 
> Now, I don’t want to pick a fight or anything, but it sounds like you are new to Cubase. It also does not appear to be an accurate statement to say you are very experienced with ‘DAWS’, without specifying which ones you are actually familiar with, especially if Cubase is not one of them.
> I mention this because your observances using Cubase for a week appears to be just that, someone who does not know the program, yet alleges the app does not work well or is poorly designed. Many experienced Cubase users would likely disagree, but they won’t likely respond - possibly because this kind of thing has been flogged to death around here, or these users may simply be too busy actually writing music in Cubase !!
> 
> The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.
> 
> Now with that off my chest, I am a Logic user - since about 1998. I actually started off on Cubase on Atari, so I go way back with that one too. Actually, now that I reflect back, I also used to use Performer ( pre digital performer ) and Studio Vision too. Obviously, I use Protools, and have since the very first versions. I drifted away from Cubase in the early 2000’s, but a few years back tried to see if it would be a better fit.
> 
> It was not, but not for a lack of trying.
> 
> There are many things that on paper seemed alluring. In practice, I’m just too far down the LPX road, but atleast I admit this to myself. Logic is not better, and might be inferior in some ways, but it’s what I use, warts and all. And I can get shit done fast. Muscle memory fast.
> 
> The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.
> 
> Logic has all kinds of ‘illogical’ idiosyncrasies in it’s design and implementation. Don’t get me started on them, I’ll get all wound up about it. I guess in the end it’s really down to how well you know the app, because all the current daws tend to have the same capability - more or less. And if one daw has a must have feature you can’t live without, you learn to live with the idiosyncratic architectures you don’t care for in exchange. Someone, somewhere else might just think that the feature you happen to hate is one they can’t live without.
> 
> The Daw you know vs the Daw you don’t.


Funny, I used the exact same DAWs you have! And as for using Cubase a week -- I've been using it intensively, 8-12 hours a day. And other DAWs for decades. I stand by my well-informed opinion that it is bloated Atari '90s software that makes work feel like work, not like a joy.

I've seen things in Cubase that are terrible and when I do a search, I find that users have been complaining about these things FOR DECADES! That is plenty of evidence how little regard they have for users.
If Cubase were released today as brand new software, it would die a horrible death in the marketplace. It seems most Cubase users are using it out of entropy  

Studio One is the most well-designed DAW out there, period, for a songwriter like me. (No loops, no cut n paste, actual songwriting.)


----------



## Sombreuil

Favedave said:


> Uh, what is the problem with anecdotal? This is my business. I work with others, I go to post facilities, I make movies, I write music. This is what I have seen over 20 years in my world: zero Windows machines.


Japanese composers in the video game industry all use Cubase + Windows.
I don't like Apple, never used their products, not even once, but what was true 10 years ago isn't anymore. Windows can be as stable as Mac now. What made Mac "more stable" was the fact that Apple's architecture is much less open than Windows'. You can achieve the same thing with Windows, but you need to work a bit more, that, it remains true.


----------



## José Herring

Favedave said:


> Uh, what is the problem with anecdotal? This is my business. I work with others, I go to post facilities, I make movies, I write music. This is what I have seen over 20 years in my world: zero Windows machines. On the forums, etc., it seems only amateurs use Windows because *they don't need the better stability because they don't have the network/studio breathing down their necks!!*
> This is fact in my world. No matter how much you disparage it, that's the way it is.
> 
> If suddenly a different OS was more stable and looked as good as Macs, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. I'm not a fanboi, I'm a professional. (Big deal! But that's my sad fate.)


Again making statements that are just not true. Almost everybody I know uses both Mac and PC at all levels of the industry. Many composers that are top notch are on windows machines exclusively. 

Rather than come on here making pretty ill-informed statements, lets hear some tracks then maybe your opinion might have some merit.


----------



## ALittleNightMusic

Favedave said:


> Uh, what is the problem with anecdotal? This is my business. I work with others, I go to post facilities, I make movies, I write music. This is what I have seen over 20 years in my world: zero Windows machines. On the forums, etc., it seems only amateurs use Windows because *they don't need the better stability because they don't have the network/studio breathing down their necks!!*
> This is fact in my world. No matter how much you disparage it, that's the way it is.
> 
> If suddenly a different OS was more stable and looked as good as Macs, I'd jump ship in a heartbeat. I'm not a fanboi, I'm a professional. (Big deal! But that's my sad fate.)


I think you have a very narrow view of what professionals use if these are the types of claims you are making. As just one example, Junkie XL and Hans Zimmer both run Cubase on Windows machines. Are they amateurs? Do they not need stability given they are working on $100 million films? I guarantee you they need it much more than you.

You say you're a songwriter and producer? Well Ian Kirkpatrick uses Cubase and he's one of the most successful and busy songwriters currently. You know the DAW that nobody of any notable success or credentials uses (as far as I can tell - otherwise it would be marketed all over)? Studio One. Maybe you can be the first with your "actual songwriting" though.


----------



## Sombreuil

ALittleNightMusic said:


> You know the DAW that nobody of any notable success or credentials uses (as far as I can tell - otherwise it would be marketed all over)? Studio One.


Presonus have a video on their Youtube channel in which the composer Yuki Hayashi explains why he's using Studio One. I won't link it because what he says makes no sense, but at least there is one.
I know that your goal was not to discredit Studio One, but I see more and more Japanese composers/producers/you name it using it.


----------



## The Gost

I didn't know that Hans Zimmer and others were non-professionals and amateurs that's the news of the year I'm very excited !


----------



## Favedave

I think you Windows fanbois forgot the title of this whole thread: "WHY DID YOU LEAVE CUBASE?" I gave a buncha great reasons!


----------



## syrinx

I had to learn Cubase in school when I was 16. At uni we had to learn DP, and it was tough but I ended up liking it. I use Logic when teaching since the university is using that. I have tried Reaper and liked it, although it had a steep learning curve coming from Cubase/Logic at least.

In the end, I have always come back to Cubase. It's the first DAW I used and for better or worse, Cubase's way of doing things is how I expect/want a DAW to work. I feel it's a bit clunky sometimes and I know I'll never really learn it properly - I know I could just sit down and learn all the arcane features, but I get by with the "basics". In any case, I keep circling back to Cubase. It's like a curse.  

I would recommend testing all DAWs and go for the one that feels most intuitive to you. 

FWIW, I have been intrigued by S1 and will download a demo now (the VSL integration looks promising). I expect to be back in Cubase shortly though...


----------



## dgburns

Favedave said:


> I think you Windows fanbois forgot the title of this whole thread: "WHY DID YOU LEAVE CUBASE?" I gave a buncha great reasons!


I guess people who are ‘Songwriterriter’ must have great reasons for leaving Cubase. I was never one of those.

K, I’m officially done with this thread. Your fantastical glorious 14 posts have left me in rapturous wonderment.

Over and out.


----------



## diswest

dgburns said:


> I guess people who are ‘Songwriterriter’ must have great reasons for leaving Cubase. I was never one of those.
> 
> K, I’m officially done with this thread. Your fantastical glorious 14 posts have left me in rapturous wonderment.
> 
> Over and out.


That's either troll or fool, don't mind.

Back to topic.
I plunged into abyss of the new MIDI Remote feature, and while it's potentially very powerful thing, it's half-baked and I'm afraid Steinberg may drop Generic Remote entirely before MIDI Remote gets mature enough to provide the same possibilities.
It would be quite destructive for many of us who use Metagrid or other mapped controllers.


----------



## José Herring

Favedave said:


> I think you Windows fanbois forgot the title of this whole thread: "WHY DID YOU LEAVE CUBASE?" I gave a buncha great reasons!


By this if you mean false and erroneous and ill-informed reasons. Yes you did exceedingly well.


----------



## dylanmixer

@Favedave It's not that you're offtopic. It's just that everything you say is so cringey and wrong.


----------



## José Herring

dylanmixer said:


> @Favedave It's not that you're offtopic. It's just that everything you say is so cringey and wrong.


So harsh. I prefer to think of him as "factually challenged".


----------



## IFM

Honestly, apart from some file management and the real need for them to update the Expression Maps It can do everything the others can, and so far with the project I am working on with a singer in Canada, the Logic version crashed a few times (I blame Opus AU), but the same project replicated in Cubase has been rock solid and thanks to whoever suggested DDMF as now I'm able to run Rosetta AU's in Cubase with no noticeable issues. Mainly using ENGINE for that.


----------



## Gingerbread

Good lord, some folks seem to attach their self-identity to a DAW. Apparently DAWs ought to run for president, given the fervent partisanship.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re all the same. This is fights over window dressing.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer

José Herring said:


> Rather than come on here making pretty ill-informed statements, lets hear some tracks then maybe your opinion might have some merit.


Yep, my thoughts exactly. Hopefully @Favedave will show us is several decades-worth of high end credentials. I'm starting to think he's a distant cousin of @staypuft


----------



## A.Dern

Not me casually passing time on VI-Control, stumbling upon this thread and now staring at my amateurish Windows PCs. 👀 👉👈


----------



## TWY

I'm in an abusive relationship with Cubase.

It won't let me leave.....


----------



## easyrider

You’ll get lots of different answers as the best DAW Will always be the one the end user uses…

And oddly people will defend their choice like it’s some kind of religion…

Just try them all and pick one that suits your workflow…

I’ve got Cubase 12, Studio One , Reaper and Pro Tools

As I record a lot of Live instruments and work with Audio I’m using Pro Tools extensively now. Audio Editing in PT is still one of its strengths imo.

Plus it was not cost prohibitive as I got an EDU perpetual from JRR shop for cheaper than every other DAW and my update plan I can get for £72 for the year , £6 per month. If I choose to continue updating or if not still be able to use it. 

Blue Cat Audio patchwork means I can still use my favourite VSTs like variety of sound etc and I’m very happy with it.


----------



## greggybud

diswest said:


> I plunged into abyss of the new MIDI Remote feature, and while it's potentially very powerful thing, it's half-baked and I'm afraid Steinberg may drop Generic Remote entirely before MIDI Remote gets mature enough to provide the same possibilities.
> It would be quite destructive for many of us who use Metagrid or other mapped controllers.


Wow, some really crazy stuff in this thread. 

The MIDI remote was introduced with C12. It's in its infancy now but will not stagnate, and over time grow. Maybe Steinberg should have held it back for another 2 years? I'm glad they released it when they did.

Last I asked, Metagrids Przemek is working with it. Really, there is too much at stake for Steinberg to drop the generic remotes until these issues are resolved. 

I'm confident VST2 won't be history until major developers such as UAD have implemented VST3. Again, there is too much at stake for both Steinberg and UA. Also, similar to jBridge years ago, there could be VST2 to VST3 bridges if there is genuinely enough demand. I doubt J will do it however.

Cubase no longer does a .5 release.

Sorry, I never left Cubase. Use what works for you...and Just Do It!


----------



## Pier

greggybud said:


> I'm confident VST2 won't be history until major developers such as UAD have implemented VST3.


Isn't VST2 already dead on Cubase for macOS?


----------



## diswest

greggybud said:


> Wow, some really crazy stuff in this thread.
> 
> The MIDI remote was introduced with C12. It's in its infancy now but will not stagnate, and over time grow. Maybe Steinberg should have held it back for another 2 years? I'm glad they released it when they did.
> 
> Last I asked, Metagrids Przemek is working with it. Really, there is too much at stake for Steinberg to drop the generic remotes until these issues are resolved.
> 
> I'm confident VST2 won't be history until major developers such as UAD have implemented VST3. Again, there is too much at stake for both Steinberg and UA. Also, similar to jBridge years ago, there could be VST2 to VST3 bridges if there is genuinely enough demand. I doubt J will do it however.
> 
> Cubase no longer does a .5 release.
> 
> Sorry, I never left Cubase. Use what works for you...and Just Do It!


I didn't say they should have hold release.
I said at the moment Remote Control is far behind of capabilities which Generic Remote offers.

Remote API is much more useful than Generic Remote. I love this feature. With some advanced scripting I got much more from my controller than before. But it's very limited for now. My concern is about so early deprecation of Generic Remote. If they discontinue it the next year or two, even Metagrid will not be able to fix that as Remote API just doesn't provide these capabilities.

And it will be destructive for users' workflows.
It is my concerns, it is not a advice to leave cubase. Nobody forces you to leave cubase if you happy with that, but different uses have different needs and sometimes Steinberg breaks some useful features.
I will still continue to use cubase as I have for the last decade, but I'll not be happy if they break my workflow.


----------



## easyrider

Pier said:


> Isn't VST2 already dead on Cubase for macOS?


VST 2 plug-ins will only run in Cubase 12 in Rosetta 2 mode on Apple silicon Mac computers. Cubase 12 will not support VST 2 when running natively on Apple silicon Macs.


----------



## Markus Kohlprath

A.Dern said:


> Not me casually passing time on VI-Control, stumbling upon this thread and now staring at my amateurish Windows PCs. 👀 👉👈


Don't worry. If I recall it correctly there are other amateurs that use Windows as well like a guy (how was his name?) Hans Zimmer or Tom Holkenborg or Thomas Bergersen. But maybe they turned into real Mac using professionals in the meantime.


----------



## Emmanuel Rousseau

I'm so confused. What if you're on PC but using Spitfire Chamber Strings Professional ?


----------



## easyrider

Emmanuel Rousseau said:


> I'm so confused. What if you're on PC but using Spitfire Chamber Strings Professional ?


You can’t it’s clearly stated in the site 

Chamber strings professional is Mac only

Pro tools is for Mac only 

Tools is for windows


----------



## greggybud

diswest said:


> I will still continue to use cubase as I have for the last decade, but I'll not be happy if they break my workflow.


Regarding Metagrid, I'm confident Steinberg won't touch the Generic Remotes until something else is in place. Think about it. There are a lot of Metagrid-Cubase users and growing daily. The things you can do with Metagrid when combining macros, PLEs and LEs not to mention large track functions is remarkable. 

It's the same with UA. Steinberg isn't going to dump VST2 and cut off all UA-Cubase users just for VST3.


----------



## diswest

greggybud said:


> Regarding Metagrid, I'm confident Steinberg won't touch the Generic Remotes until something else is in place. Think about it. There are a lot of Metagrid-Cubase users and growing daily. The things you can do with Metagrid when combining macros, PLEs and LEs not to mention large track functions is remarkable.
> 
> It's the same with UA. Steinberg isn't going to dump VST2 and cut off all UA-Cubase users just for VST3.


From business perspective metagrid is a thirdparty tool which not affects the most of the audience. I assume there are less than one percent of the whole Cubase audience who use metagrid. 
It doesn't make metagrid less important for users who use it but it makes compatibility less significant for business.

Steinberg is not really fast-paced or customer friendly company, to be honest.
Don't get me wrong. I love their products. Cubase is my favorite daw for years, I've got Wavelab. I find enough reasons to buy every update as they do really useful things. But there are a lot of ignored things requested for years by a lot of users. For example, improvements in expression maps.

In case of metagrid the most risk for me is not completely broken metagrid, this will not happen, but missing of some specific feature I like a lot no matter what feature it could be. It will affect too few people too care about, however for these people it would be a disaster.
For example, I used to keep my channel strip plugins on a specific inserts slot, so I setup metagrid to open a plugin in this slot by pressing a button. Recently I bought a physical controller and mapped it with Remote control. It's not possible to call a specific insert slot of the selected track using Remote Control for now.

Actually, VST2 is already not working on macos in the native mode. Users have to chose between vst2 or significant performance drop in case of rosetta.

Anyway, I just expressed my concerns. You disagree, that's fine, I don't have any intentions to argue with you. We will see it in the couple of years. I definitely will be happy if I'm wrong and transition will be smooth.


----------



## IFM

Pier said:


> Isn't VST2 already dead on Cubase for macOS?


Correct and it will be completely gone from the PC side eventually, but even on Mac I have ways of using the AU versions via the DDMF plug-in so I’m able to run C12 natively and run my non native or non vst3 plugins quite well.


----------

