Which DAW Has The Most Uncluttered Interface ?

[THE INTRANCER]

One big advantage for Cubase over S1 (GUI related) is the contrast of the selecting track, channel in the mixer, or any selection really. It is very obvious to the eyes what you highlighted. S1 is horrible when you add colours to the tracks and mixer like THE INTRANCER example above!

Sorry don't see anything of significance in this respect, the shading is slightly lighter than other channels whilst selected but not very in the way Cubase is blindingly white which is more of an eye strain. If that's not clear enough, you have red and blue buttons to indicate the selected channels in Studio One.

If you don't like the whole channel strip to be coloured, you can limit this to a slim line.
Personally I prefer the complete channel strip to be highlighted in colour as it makes arranging and grouping things easier.

When the channel strips are in narrow view, (another way to increase white GUI space) you can expand them to indicate the channels selected. I don't remember seeing a narrow channel strip view in Cubase.

[EnGee]

What is the blindingly white in Cubase? By default it's dark. Personally, I just grayed the piano roll little bit resembling the old Cubase piano roll, other than that everything is at default.

S1 is useless other than the darkest hour theme! But, I'm not a fanatic to any DAW really, so there are some points (still talking only about GUI) that are better in S1 like overall design and inspector.

[THE INTRANCER]

What is the blindingly white in Cubase? By default it's dark. Personally, I just grayed the piano roll little bit resembling the old Cubase piano roll, other than that everything is at default.

S1 is useless other than the darkest hour theme! But, I'm not a fanatic to any DAW really, so there are some points (still talking only about GUI) that are better in S1 like overall design and inspector.

Selecting a track / channel is white when selected. Buttons are white as shown here... in this image. I don't recall there being options to change these things to anything else.

[EnGee]

Why change them? They are nice It helps identifying and the fonts are clear! I don't know! I have never seen a complaint about it

[Sindikhate]

Why change them? They are nice It helps identifying and the fonts are clear! I don't know! I have never seen a complaint about it

Me neither. And compared to the boxiness of studio one and so much text stuck so close together the Cubase GUI is miles better in the eye.

[SJ_Digriz]

Why change them? They are nice It helps identifying and the fonts are clear! I don't know! I have never seen a complaint about it

Color prefs are really tangential to the topic "clutter". Although crappy highlighting can lead to difficulty finding things which may make things seem cluttered I guess. Anyhow, I guess my point of showing the minimalistic Cubase window was missed. It's up to you to decide the clutter. Cubase has a zillion ways to reload screen sets, views, track lists etc.. So it is super simple to have screen sets that serve singular purposes. I have sets for Recording, Editing, Composing, Orchestration, Comping, Voice Over, Mixing, Mastering, Video and etc. I load them with CTRL-Fx keys. I only see the tools and windows I need based on the work at hand. Then I use agents to restrict even that set of info. For example, I have a set of config filters where I just see all of my string tracks, another for brass, another for woodwinds and so on. Then hotkeys for things like "only show tracks with data" where now if I have a 200 track project, I can just hotkey to see and work on the 2 or 3 tracks that are making noise in a given section. When you use the setup for the tool bars and each track type in conjunction with these sets and filters Cubase is anything but cluttered.
Digital Performer has some nifty things that would be awesome to add. Reaper Actions are close but no cigar, although there are quite a few actions that would be nice. The docked plugin bar associated to the selected tracks in Live, Bitwig and Reaper would be a nice add to declutter a bit. But from an end to end control perspective Cubase is by far the easiest to manage complex tasks.

[EnGee]

I said previously about the clutter, so I won't repeat myself except that I don't feel such "clutter" in Cubase or precisely, I don't mind the little clutter there, because I use shortcuts to hide/show what I want. If there are no shortcuts or if I don't know them, I just click with my mouse. That's it!

[SJ_Digriz]

I said previously about the clutter, so I won't repeat myself except that I don't feel such "clutter" in Cubase or precisely, I don't mind the little clutter there, because I use shortcuts to hide/show what I want. If there are no shortcuts or if I don't know them, I just click with my mouse. That's it!

By the way, I agree with your post. I was more extending on it, not disagreeing.

[EnGee]

Yes I know Cheers.

Cubase is a great DAW. I've sold it before not because of its clutter or colours. It was because of the cpu spikes. It seems ok now after several updates.

I'm selling my other DAWs, just keeping Cubase and Bitwig. Those are my favourites, both in GUI and functionality

[BONES]

Easy to press F3 and bring it up for people who work in one screen.

I assume it would be equally easy to have the Mixer there all the time and only call up the arrangement window when you need it. So why choose to hide the Mixer and not the other one?

I prefer how cubase 9 looked. I totally dislike a flat gui, which is also a reason I dislike studio one.

Does Cubase 10 look different to 9? I hadn't noticed. You know, I could list a thousand things I do and do not like about Studio One or Cubase and the flatness of the GUI wouldn't come up, beyond the fact that a flat GUI tends to look less cluttered than one with bevels, gradients and shadows all over it. It can work with a simple interface, like a single plugin, but with something as necessarily complex as a DAW, it needs to be as straightforward as possible, simply to maintain usability.

One big advantage for Cubase over S1 (GUI related) is the contrast of the selecting track, channel in the mixer, or any selection really. It is very obvious to the eyes what you highlighted. S1 is horrible when you add colours to the tracks and mixer like THE INTRANCER example above!

I've read this before but I don't have even the slightest bit of trouble seeing what's selected and what's not. I think it must be the environment you are working in or your screen or something because it's completely obvious on my computer. You get a colour change plus a bright outline to highlight what's selected and it works equally well, regardless of the colour of the track.

They are nice It helps identifying and the fonts are clear!

No more or less so than Studio One. In fact, that aspect of the GUIs are almost identical in each.

Me neither. And compared to the boxiness of studio one and so much text stuck so close together the Cubase GUI is miles better in the eye.

Don't be ridiculous, they look 99% the same, FFS. It's only in the details that you can tell one from the other most of the time. But you could absolutely overlay one on the other and most of the "boxes" would line up perfectly.

The only reason I bothered to try out S1 was because it is so similar to Cubase. A few of the features interested me but I wouldn't have made the effort if it hadn't seemed so immediately familiar and if I hadn't been able to leverage my Cubase knowledge to use it. The fact that it only took me about 3 months to get beyond where I was at with Cubase after almost two years proved it was the right move.

[ozinga]

One big advantage for Cubase over S1 (GUI related) is the contrast of the selecting track, channel in the mixer, or any selection really. It is very obvious to the eyes what you highlighted. S1 is horrible when you add colours to the tracks and mixer like THE INTRANCER example above!

Cubase is blindingly white which is more of an eye strain.

When the channel strips are in narrow view, (another way to increase white GUI space) you can expand them to indicate the channels selected. I don't remember seeing a narrow channel strip view in Cubase.

You can change the brightness of selected track in Cubase.

Screen Shot 2021-09-02 at 08.48.58.png

Cubase mixer channels can be really wide or narrow by adjusting gradually the dedicated buttons on Mixer page.

Screen Shot 2021-09-02 at 08.48.58.png

[Ploki]

I assume it would be equally easy to have the Mixer there all the time and only call up the arrangement window when you need it. So why choose to hide the Mixer and not the other one?

I spend 10 times longer mixing a song than I do getting the arrangement down. If I was going to do without a window, it would be the arrangement.

Some people do more arranging and less mixing tho.
ikr, mind blowing that people's workflows, nature of their work and preferences differ and are subject to personal preferences.

if i make an analogy:
you're asking someone why don't they keep a philips screw head bit in their drill and just use torx when they need it - but 90% of their screws are torx.


i do agree with other notions from that comment re: cubase being a series of kludges and Studio One looking better.
coming from Logic, if i were to go windows route, Studio One is the only sensible choice

[BONES]

Some people do more arranging and less mixing tho.

Are you sure? You see, I don't know and that seems a very unlikely explanation to me, which is why I asked the question. And that's all it was - a f**king question, FFS! Who knows, maybe there is some really good reason people do it that way that I don't know about? Of course, no-one is going to answer the f**king question because it has become clear to me that they really don't think about the things they do. Yet I continue to live in hope that one day I might actually learn something here, so I keep asking questions.

you're asking someone why don't they keep a philips screw head bit in their drill and just use torx when they need it - but 90% of their screws are torx.

That's not a question I'd ask because it makes perfect sense that you have your most used bit ready to go (although I always put all my bits away so I don't lose any of 'em). But I'd absolutely ask if someone did it the other way around because it wouldn't make sense to me.

[Ploki]

Yet I continue to live in hope that one day I might actually learn something here, so I keep asking questions.

lol

anyway, when i'm making a song, i don't need a mixer at all.

when i'm mixing it, i have the mixer open about half off the time when i'm finishing it. when i'm working on separate elements i have the arrange first because:
- i can see the channel strip and all its destinations in the inspector
- i find it easier to navigate through the song to check what i just did on more spots where the element in question is located.
- i find it easier to see and edit automation.

when i'm going through the mix as a whole i have the mixer open.

i'd have mixer on my secondary monitor when mixing 100% of the time but am currently working with a single monitor.

[Serhii Kot]

I have a good method to understand good UI. Just write some tracks on a 13" display, you will clearly see what daw is more pleasant to look at.

For me (all fullscreen):
1. Logic Pro
2. Ableton Live
3. Studio One
4. Bitwig

Cubase has one big downside, no fullscreen on mac. Wich makes it the least useful option for small screens.