Bandlab Cakewak vs Cubase

[Trensharo]

Many continued improvements on CbB. This isn't an operation that is sitting still and frankly it has to have the others just a bit concerned.
Not to diminish that many of the other DAWs are great too.

A DAW like Cubase has a whole slew of Quality of Life/Convenience features over Cakewalk, as well as support for things like MPE that are not supported in Cakewalk by BandLab. That has a huge implication on workflow and productivity.

I think that's the thing most people going in that direction are going to notice - because there is a lot there.

Things have come full circle for me. I am beginning to work with more midi tracks. Could I do it in Cakewalk? Probably but I can get Cubase for a good price which does not happen very often. Cubase is tops in midi. If I don't buy it I'll probably always wonder if I could be working more efficiently in making midi compos.

There are other DAWs competitive with Cubase. Cubase does have a great reputation in the composer and film scoring community, but a lot of that has to do with other features it has, as well as marketing (Hans Zimmer's name is always being thrown about, etc.).

Despite it's good reputation for MIDI Sequencing, Cubase is also a great DAW for Recording/Mix Engineers (as is Digital Performer). The reputation you tend to be "exposed to" is largely historical, the same way Cakewalk's prowess as a MIDI Sequencer is historical. Yes, it was amazing... in 2004. But it's [almost] 2022 now, and all of the DAWs it competed with back in the 90s and early 00s have develop feverishly in ways that Cakewalk has not. It has been, largely stagnant for the past decade - and lots of its core modules have been fairly stagnant even longer.

That's not to say it's bad. It's just a conservative, "10 years ago" approach to things. If you're the type of person who can work well within its functional compass, that is fine. However, other DAWs have developed in ways that aid in increasing productivity and creative "reach" than SONAR has over the years.

The focus with SONAR seemed to bias more and more towards Singer/Songwriter and Small Band Recording, with value being delivered increasingly via Value Adding Products like Sample/Loop Packs, Virtual Instruments and Plug-ins. Feature development wasn't as aggressive, and they weren't as aggressive in keeping what was there up to date/competitive with what competitors were churning out, either.

I won't ever stop using Cakewalk. Mainly because I know it fairly well by now. Really the only motive for me is moving from a good PR in Cakewalk to a slightly better PR roll in Cubase from everything I'm reading.

This seems like odd reasoning to me.

Cubase is in another league compared to Cakewalk when it comes to MIDI Sequencing, due to support for things like MPE, better MIDI FX, etc. It also has better third party support when it comes to things like control surfaces/MIDI Controllers and other hardware.

In addition to that, it's a better DAW for Audio than Cakewalk. It just ... does more, sometimes better... which means that you will not have to employ as many workarounds to approximate things in Cakewalk that are natively supported by Cubase.

Is it worth the extra quid even on sale? For you maybe it is. For me I'm on the fence. Until now I have had no problems with PR in Cakewalk. The main problem was the user in most cases.

Since I haven't invested in the pro version of Cubase, this is going to cost me even on sale.

If I have an idea and want to put it into a reality fast, for me there's nothing like Cakewalk. I have recorded, mixed and mastered tracks in CbB in less than half a day. Sometimes within only a few hours.

I doubt I will have this kind of success in Cubase.

None of this is something you can't do in Cubase, or Pro Tools, or Digital Performer, or Logic... or even ACID Pro... given equivalent proficiency in those DAWs.

Don't confuse being more proficient in something with it being better than - or even as good as - a competing solution. Experience always biases us, as we prefer the path of least resistance. It's why even the worst products always retain a niche user base

But I wouldn't spend money on Cubase simply because it exists and it's on sale. Only spend money when you will derive value out of it. Even if Cubase is "better," you will still lose productivity moving over to it, and you may not need the extra functionality, anyways. This can make it not worth even considering the purchase. That depends on the purpose, though.

Cakewalk is, for all practical purposes, comparable to Cubase Elements without Track Limitations. It has a few features that Cubase Elements doesn't, but the opposite is also true. I think that's about where it sits.

I would still tell anyone starting out on Windows to go with Cakewalk and use it until they feel like they must move to a more fully featured solution. Development is ticking along nicely, so it may outpace their needs and they will have saved hundreds.

But if you think you will ever need something that runs on macOS (because you're platform agnostic), I would avoid it and just go with something like Studio One or Cubase; unless you're willing to just buy Logic Pro should that ever happen (probably not a bad idea, economically).

[Trensharo]

I don´t really think that there is anything wrong with this UI, I have four major DAWs installed and each one has its strengths and weaknesses, it is all a matter of personal preferences.

You've collapsed everything and decrease the track size to hide the additional stuff there.

People call the UI cluttered because ... it kind of is cluttered. They keep adding features and just adding another tab in the inspector.

Most of those control bar modules are there because it looks impressive in screenshots to feature hoarders. Many are redundant and do nothing but clutter up the UI. Plus, they're at the top of the screen and often inefficient to use due to their location and reliance on mouse usage. Yes, you can turn them off - but their existence has had ramifications on design decisions elsewhere in the application.

Personally, I think the Skylight update over modularized the UI a bit too much. The top-level menus are too sparse, and because every module has its own menu system, feature discoverability is adversely affected. Unless you have a specific module open, it's hard to know if a feature you need even exists in the application. This sounds logical, but in practice it is not great - especially for new users who do not have a lot of experience with these types of applications.

Despite these colorful screenshots looking cute to many, many new users - "true newbs," not people on Pro Tools 8 looking for a cheap upgrade - I recommend Cakewalk to describe it as hard to learn/use... and I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with it.

Many people equate a lack of discoverability and over modularization with difficulty. They do not want to spend too much time looking for things. I think Skylight is a fail in that aspect.

However, it is a monumental upgrade over Sonar 8.x, aesthetically speaking.

But I would personally rather use Samplitude Pro X's massive nested menu system than the "open every window to check the different menus" approach that Cakewalk uses - especially since Samplitude actually has a Feature/Function Search implemented in the application (which is something every developer of deeply featured software should do - and is basically a system-level feature on macOS).

[stacev]

There are good points about Cakewalks GUI problems. I use Reaper and recently I tried Cakewalk as secondary daw, to use when I get tired from Reaper's clutter and busy interface. But after some use I find Cakewalk as much cluttered as Reaper. But at least Reaper offers much more functionality.

In Cakewalk there are menus in every sub-window, what gets the same impression of too many menus like in Reaper.
Some UI elements/windows have modern look, some are just ok and some are very outdated like from 90s. Everything messed up and feels like elements were thrown into interface just to impress users. One example: unclickable ProChannel label in mixer and tiny triangle button next to it to open that hyped feature. What is the purpose of such design? Plugins in prochannel have inconsistent looks, like some random VSTs dropped into folder, workflow in ProChannel is the same (if not worse) like messing with plugins directly in inserts. And such strange design choices are all over the program.

[Saffran]

I feel for you guys.
I have a nice christmas holiday.

[Trensharo]

There are good points about Cakewalks GUI problems. I use Reaper and recently I tried Cakewalk as secondary daw, to use when I get tired from Reaper's clutter and busy interface. But after some use I find Cakewalk as much cluttered as Reaper. But at least Reaper offers much more functionality.

In Cakewalk there are menus in every sub-window, what gets the same impression of too many menus like in Reaper.
Some UI elements/windows have modern look, some are just ok and some are very outdated like from 90s. Everything messed up and feels like elements were thrown into interface just to impress users. One example: unclickable ProChannel label in mixer and tiny triangle button next to it to open that hyped feature. What is the purpose of such design? Plugins in prochannel have inconsistent looks, like some random VSTs dropped into folder, workflow in ProChannel is the same (if not worse) like messing with plugins directly in inserts. And such strange design choices are all over the program.

ProChannel modules are not designed to have a consistent look and feel. They model analog hardware - they have skeuomorphic UIs. That is by design. Lol.

ProChannel is the Cakewalk competitor to the Channel Strip in Cubase or Fat Channel XT in Studio One, etc. That design choice is intentional.

I don't really have an issue with the UI, there, but when you have them open the Console can become quite a feast for one's eyes. A bit... too much

I generally don't have an issue with the dialogs in Cakewalk, as they are generally well-designed with good use of space. They aren't packing in a whole page of text in the way some of REAPER's dialogs are. Additionally, they've been going back and redesigning them as they go along, so it's an active work in progress - at the very least.

I really despise the REAPER plug-in chooser. I can't believe it has remained that way for so long.

I do think Cakewalk has some convenience features that are nice. Others just need to be updated and brought up to par with the competition. MIDI FX, Drum Maps (probably the worst implementation of this feature that I've used, personally), Score Editor, etc. The Step Sequencer could be better. Matrix view could be better. Loop Construction View needs to be developed into a more robust Sample Editor (a major weakness of Cakewalk).

It's hard to know what direction they're going with this DAW. The features they've added have dabbled in so many niches. They don't really seem to have a "direction" at this point, though that may be the intent... to not really have a direction, and just do what they want when they can get it done.

They finally added nested folders, which was something I really wanted and needed for organizational reasons when I used it.

[lotus2035]

Cakewak

[stacev]

ProChannel is the Cakewalk competitor to the Channel Strip in Cubase or Fat Channel XT in Studio One, etc. That design choice is intentional.

Then this is done much better in Studio One Cubase is also good enough.

It's hard to know what direction they're going with this DAW. The features they've added have dabbled in so many niches. They don't really seem to have a "direction" at this point, though that may be the intent... to not really have a direction, and just do what they want when they can get it done.

It looks initially they focused on bug fixing and that is very good. Cakewalk really improved in this regard over last few years. Before there were no much sense to discuss about GUI.

[Trensharo]

Whether you prefer it in Studio One is a completely different matter.

Also, and I haven't really checked to see if this is the case, but do the ProChannel Modules and the Fat Channel inserts even model the same hardware modules? Because if they don't, they're definitely not going to look the same.

The GUI for how this is handled isn't even the same in both DAWs, anyways. In Cakewalk, these are hosted in the Inspector and Console, in Studio One, they're hosted in a dedicated plug-in. Fat Channel is more like the Channel Strip in Cubase Pro.

The issue with ProChannel is not how they look, it's how cluttered the mixer can be when they're used and shown there.

As far as direction. I'm aware that the focus has been on bug fixing, but they've also added many features. That's what I was referring to. The features that have been added are appreciable, but rather scattershot in terms of what the focus is being placed on.

It's not like Studio One, where the 5.0 upgrade was aimed predominantly at composition; or Cubase Pro 11, which seemed to add features targeting producers.

[digitalboytn]

Cakewalk would benefit from resizable panels in the mixer window and getting rid of the synth rack and allowing any track to be either MIDI or Audio a la Reaper...

That makes setting up the workspace so much quicker and efficient...

[zzz00m]

Cakewalk would benefit from resizable panels in the mixer window and getting rid of the synth rack and allowing any track to be either MIDI or Audio a la Reaper...

That makes setting up the workspace so much quicker and efficient...

Reaper appears to be an exception in that regard. And it was coded from scratch to be that way. Not a bad idea, but most other DAWs would need to be re-coded from scratch to be like Reaper... not likely to happen...

Track properties are a key object that a DAW program is built upon.

[DeBro]

Personally, I do not mix in the console view (mixer window) in Cakewalk. I have a single 27'' wide panel monitor. If I had a second monitor, maybe console view would be placed there just for show. Someday I'll add control surfaces to my set up to move real track faders. The synth rack is an essential part of the track view which can be hidden and be recalled with just a click on an arrow. I do not use all the features in Cakewalk, but the features I do use make me realize that it's a great DAW for composing with midi, recording audio, mixing, and mastering. So, long live Cakewalk By BandLab.

[Danilo Villanova]

One of my next projects will be done in Cakewalk just to see how it compares to S1 in a full production.

[digitalboytn]

I mix in the mix window because that's what it's there for

[JoseC.]

I don´t really think that there is anything wrong with this UI, I have four major DAWs installed and each one has its strengths and weaknesses, it is all a matter of personal preferences.

You've collapsed everything and decrease the track size to hide the additional stuff there.

People call the UI cluttered because ... it kind of is cluttered. They keep adding features and just adding another tab in the inspector.

Most of those control bar modules are there because it looks impressive in screenshots to feature hoarders. Many are redundant and do nothing but clutter up the UI. Plus, they're at the top of the screen and often inefficient to use due to their location and reliance on mouse usage. Yes, you can turn them off - but their existence has had ramifications on design decisions elsewhere in the application.

I haven´t "collapsed" anything. I open and close panels as I need them. After all, they are just a keypress away, "I" for the inspector, "B" for the browser, "D" for the Docker, or "C" for the control bar. And I press "F" to Fit all tracks in view. No need to use three fingered shortcuts like in other DAWs. And speaking of the Control Bar, you can dock it at the bottom, too.

What I like most about CbB UI is precisely that you can navigate it extensively with keyboard shortcuts. I hate having to use the mouse too much. I have Live, Bitwig and Reaper and I do not see how CbB´s UI is any worse than any of those. All of them need to be learned, and all of them have their WTF quirks. The problem I see with most criticism about it is that some people seem to expect every program to work the same and get frustrated when they try a new DAW and find that some things do need to be learned.

[Danilo Villanova]

Yeah, Cakewalk has the best keyboard shortcuts for hiding/showing elements in the UI. You can also hide the Control Panel modules you don’t need and only show the ones you’ll use. At this point I think automation is its weakest point.