Where is Cubase 12.5 or 13? [Update: It's here C13 is released!]

[Trensharo]

And there was me thinking Cubase was an incredible drum sequencer in itself, and then some.

The Drum Editor is cool, but there are dedicated vsts that offer more features (IIRC), including:
- probability
- reverse direction (and even random)
- an easier way to add rolls
- lanes with variable length

Not to mention things like Euclidean rhythm generation.

It is difficult to imagine these things are not possible in Cubase, I use Key editor in Cubase for all drums, always have done. I program drums with a sampler, Battery, MIDI or Audio. No need for drum editor or any third party sequencer.

But I am programming basic drums which is hard enough for me to get sounding exceptionally good in terms of a great groove, but I do get there.

If extra complexity is part of your workflow to get the completed albums racked and stacked then that's perfect for you. If very good sounding end results are completed, that's great

Cubase's Drum Editor is primitive, and it does not have a good step sequencer (Beat Designer), so of course your experience will be that. You can't miss anything that doesn't exist in the DAW, especially when you aren't well-versed enough in another offering that offers the improved quality of life in those areas.

If compared to something like Logic Pro or Studio One, Cubase is fairly primitive for programming drum patterns.

You can do everything those DAWs do with the extra tooling using the Piano Roll/Key Editor. They all simply write MIDI behind the scenes, so the fact that someone who lacks that tooling "does everything in the key editor" is neither remarkable nor indicative of any virtues or advantages Cubase holds in that department.

The whole point of those improvements in other DAWs is to allow you to do the same things you can do manually with far more efficiency and higher productivity. There is no way to sell Cubase's lack of a competitive feature set in those departments as a relative advantage. Sorry ;-|

[sqigls]

need a tissue?

[Famous Last Words]

Cubase's Drum Editor is primitive, and it does not have a good step sequencer (Beat Designer), so of course your experience will be that. You can't miss anything that doesn't exist in the DAW, especially when you aren't well-versed enough in another offering that offers the improved quality of life in those areas.

If compared to something like Logic Pro or Studio One, Cubase is fairly primitive for programming drum patterns.

You can do everything those DAWs do with the extra tooling using the Piano Roll/Key Editor. They all simply write MIDI behind the scenes, so the fact that someone who lacks that tooling "does everything in the key editor" is neither remarkable nor indicative of any virtues or advantages Cubase holds in that department.

The whole point of those improvements in other DAWs is to allow you to do the same things you can do manually with far more efficiency and higher productivity. There is no way to sell Cubase's lack of a competitive feature set in those departments as a relative advantage. Sorry ;-|

You are absolutely right. Cubase's Drum Editor is outdated, clunky, and horribly inefficient. I've literally never used it. But I mostly program my drum patterns by playing in the various parts manually and then using the Key Editor to tidy them up. That works well enough for me. But if I was a heavy step sequencer user, I would choose a different DAW over Cubase.

Even though I have hundreds of both completed songs and song ideas in Cubase format which would be an absolute nightmare to convert to another DAW, I am seriously considering making the switch to Studio One Pro v6.5 which I own. Studio One just gets better and better with each update while Cubase languishes. In the last few releases it seems like all we've gotten from Steinberg are useless content packs and unnecessary FX plugins. Seemingly NONE of Cubase's legacy features have been brought up to date.

When is Steinberg going to step up and do a complete rewrite of Cubase from the ground up? That seems like the only path forward.

[andypryce]

If the leaks are true, Steinberg added yet another batch of plugins to make the upgrade price justified. They just push more plugins instead of bringing the software up to new century.
Other than that the changes look like a 12.1 They just could not find a solution to the Inspector mess so they added another one as a solution

Visually it became a huge mess since SX and they are still trying to unify the GUI with every release and that is a waste of development time. Whatever they do it looks old and tiring. I believe they need new GUI designers for a total overhaul.
Look at Logic or Live new or any old version. All fonts, icons, colors unified. I wonder what happened with Cubase that there are still different fonts, same features have different icons and colors on different sections. A program like Cubase should not have these problems after 30 years.
On the other hand it is extremely stable and most efficient on my system. It has a great PDC implementation. So despite all the clunkiness I still prefer it but hope there is some new version being worked on back in the lab with a new vision.

[Famous Last Words]

Visually it became a huge mess since SX and they are still trying to unify the GUI with every release and that is a waste of development time. Whatever they do it looks old and tiring. I believe they need new GUI designers for a total overhaul.

Look at Logic or Live new or any old version. All fonts, icons, colors unified. I wonder what happened with Cubase that there are still different fonts, same features have different icons and colors on different sections. A program like Cubase should not have these problems after 30 years.
On the other hand it is extremely stable and most efficient on my system. It has a great PDC implementation. So despite all the clunkiness I still prefer it but hope there is some new version being worked on back in the lab with a new vision.

While Studio One is hardly a "beautiful" (or even attractive) DAW, at least its GUI is coherent and unified, unlike Cubase's, which as you say, is a total mess. Even in Cubase 12 Pro, I never know whether I'm about to open a 30 year old dialog window that looks like it's straight out of the Windows 95 era or something that looks incongruously like it was designed by the developers of HALion 6 or Groove Agent 5.

While Live's "flat" UI has always seemed a bit faddish to me (and which just so happens to be totally out of fashion once again,) at least it's consistent and unique. The only problem is when you open skeuomorphic 3rd-party plugins that look totally out of place against Live's 2D backdrop.

I think Logic has perhaps the most refined and elegantly understated UI of all the DAWs. But that's what I would expect from Apple. They really do know how to design pleasing interfaces.

[thebutler]

If the leaks are true, Steinberg added yet another batch of plugins to make the upgrade price justified. They just push more plugins instead of bringing the software up to new century.
Other than that the changes look like a 12.1 They just could not find a solution to the Inspector mess so they added another one as a solution

Visually it became a huge mess since SX and they are still trying to unify the GUI with every release and that is a waste of development time. Whatever they do it looks old and tiring. I believe they need new GUI designers for a total overhaul.
Look at Logic or Live new or any old version. All fonts, icons, colors unified. I wonder what happened with Cubase that there are still different fonts, same features have different icons and colors on different sections. A program like Cubase should not have these problems after 30 years.
On the other hand it is extremely stable and most efficient on my system. It has a great PDC implementation. So despite all the clunkiness I still prefer it but hope there is some new version being worked on back in the lab with a new vision.

I hear ya.!

Though one thing you mention, about the Inspector 'mess' - looks like the new 'Channel Tab' may alleviate this a little since it sits alongside the main Inspector which can then be hidden. Will have to see in practice of course, but could certainly be a cleaner UI overall, whilst keeping access to main controls (vol/pan/routing/inserts/sends etc...)

S1 has the volume/pan controls built in on the track header (very nice), which is what I thought C13 might bring this time. Instead, they built this new Channel Tab... I dunno, lets see...

[Synthman2000]

"But these pathetic, incompetent "musicians" don't even know what a good song is. So how can they aspire to create something worth listening to? That's fine if they get their jollies launching clips and twiddling knobs. But just don't pretend it's music. It's dumbed down bullshit and everyone with any integrity knows it (or at least should if they have an ounce of intelligence and/or talent)."

Do you make Jazz music ? It's just as well they don't think rock and pop is "bullsh*t" as you call it.

I don't think they call themselves musicians, those who you refer. I play some guitar but I halt at calling myself a musician, but I do compose complex pieces of let's say simple yet very well produced music that can provoke emotions. I agree using just melodic clips is not the most creative sonic path one can go on but I think those people are fairly few.

I love twiddling knobs. I do that for a living in fact. And I enjoy twiddling knobs making music cause I get fantastic sounds out of it.

Playing 3-4 chords well, like a professional musician is not necessarily easy I agree however much consumed music is based on that. Dumbed down is arguable... is playing 3-4 chords in time without error dumb ?... many great guitarists would be lost looking at a DAW. So is one more dumb than the other ?

Musicians can play music on an instrument live in front of you from start to finish that's my definition. Everyone is making music at the level they can and want or have time for. I don't think we should take a dump on that, it is just seems rather bitter.

There is music that is complex, technical, theoretical that many won't listen too simply because the emotional connection is not there. It still gets made and I imagine the people who do that are happy for the few listens they get for what they want to make.

Let people enjoy what they want. How long something takes, how skillfull it was to make, how simple how complex does not have a direct correlation between enjoyment experienced by listener.

I love Jazz and it blows my mind when I hear it but it is far from all I listen to. I would agree that there are highly skilled musicians where you think that must have taken 1,000's of hours to learn, that is impressive, it is not in doubt that is highly skillful.

If you are going to compare a loop producer to a musician, we can compare a 3-4 chord player to someone who can write a 6 minute classical guitar piece as well, even musicians have varying skill levels. Is that not how we learn ? Is learning to become better BS as well ?

I think this comes down to an attitude of the person making the music and the listener. I get the impression musicians with strong theory often make music for other musicians to be impressed with or muso's, which is fine and inevitably skilled. The very vast majority of music listeners are listening for a great voice and a great song. Being a good musician and writing great songs are also not necessarily going hand in hand.

I think you need a deeper think through what you are suggesting and I don't think loop producers are calling themselves musicians either.

Music like life itself is a rich tapestry.

In saying this a loop launcher is not something I need, I care about stability more than any features.

[dellboy]

The new "clip launcher" view in Logic is such a sad, totally unnecessary embarrassment.

You do understand that the "clip launcher" is also a "clip recorder", and can be quite useful for a recording sketch tool for "real musicians"? No need to use any 3rd party clips.

In Cubase you might play a bass part that repeats identically for eight bars. You have the choice of playing all eight bars in live,or playing just one bar and dragging it out. So you stop Cubase and drag out. Easy, not a problem. But there is an even easier work flow. With a "clip recorder", you just play one bar and let it loop. That's it. You can have as many bars,or few as you want. No dragging or pasting and copying necessary. Great for building quick sketches and jamming along to.

[chk071]

I find it funny that people tend to Frankenstein their DAW which has a completely different approach, so that it does everything DAW XY does while reatining what it did in the first place as well. I wonder if people realize how that would end, if the developers really did this. Imagine you have all of Ableton's functionality in Cubase on top of what it already does. Nuts.

Every software has to specialize in some way, or you'll end up with some do-it-all, but really do nothing behemoth of a software which no one could really handle and operate (and, it's also very unrealistic that a DAW really gets that amount of features). I already get sick when I see the meters long menus in Reaper. Come on.

[andypryce]

While Live's "flat" UI has always seemed a bit faddish to me (and which just so happens to be totally out of fashion once again,) at least it's consistent and unique.

Yeah that is the issue. Nice or not, all those DAWs have consistency in every part of the program which makes it easy when you work for hours. Somehow Cubase can not accomplish this. Different type of menu windows, different color and fonts for Solo, Write buttons etc, non expanding windows causing cut up names all make it tiresome.

[dellboy]

I find it funny that people tend to Frankenstein their DAW which has a completely different approach, so that it does everything DAW XY does while reatining what it did in the first place as well. I wonder if people realize how that would end, if the developers really did this. Imagine you have all of Ableton's functionality in Cubase on top of what it already does. Nuts.

Every software has to specialize in some way, or you'll end up with some do-it-all, but really do nothing behemoth of a software which no one could really handle and operate (and, it's also very unrealistic that a DAW really gets that amount of features). I already get sick when I see the meters long menus in Reaper. Come on.

You already have it with Bitwig. All it has to do is add on all the functionality of Studio One and you have a new age complete DAW. Nothing "Frankenstein " about it. Will they add on all the stuff that's missing? I somehow doubt it.

[kritikon]

I don't even get why Cubase should have to look like other DAWs. I just went over to look at S1 and...it's nothing amazing. Pure subjectivity. S1 had some sort of inspector thing that looks as cluttered as Cubase to me. I find the whole inspector idea redundant anyway - I don't use it much, probably others do and don't. It's not essential, but great if that's what you like. The whole GUI is OK but again, purely subjective. It didn't look any more "unified" to me than Cubase. Nor do any other DAWs, they just have a different style. I actually like the Cubase GUI, I definitely don't want some stupid cartoonish flat one. I absolutely hate those. We don't all want all DAWs to be the same or look the same. Step editor? Never used one in my life. Clip launcher - don't give a fk, won't use it even if they add it.

I do agree with the idea that some of Cubase's upgrades are pretty minimal, but then all DAWs are guilty of that. Personally, I think upgrading to every new version is a waste of money whichever DAW you abuse, but hey, it's your money.

[dellboy]

I don't even get why Cubase should have to look like other DAWs. I just went over to look at S1 and...it's nothing amazing. Pure subjectivity. S1 had some sort of inspector thing that looks as cluttered as Cubase to me. I find the whole inspector idea redundant anyway - I don't use it much, probably others do and don't. It's not essential, but great if that's what you like. The whole GUI is OK but again, purely subjective. It didn't look any more "unified" to me than Cubase. Nor do any other DAWs, they just have a different style. I actually like the Cubase GUI, I definitely don't want some stupid cartoonish flat one. I absolutely hate those. We don't all want all DAWs to be the same or look the same. Step editor? Never used one in my life. Clip launcher - don't give a fk, won't use it even if they add it.

I do agree with the idea that some of Cubase's upgrades are pretty minimal, but then all DAWs are guilty of that. Personally, I think upgrading to every new version is a waste of money whichever DAW you abuse, but hey, it's your money.

I have licences for Cubase Pro 12 and Studio One Pro 6.5 and of late seem to spend all my time in Studio One. I am not sure how people work without the inspector open? Do you have the mixer open instead?

[chk071]

I find it funny that people tend to Frankenstein their DAW which has a completely different approach, so that it does everything DAW XY does while reatining what it did in the first place as well. I wonder if people realize how that would end, if the developers really did this. Imagine you have all of Ableton's functionality in Cubase on top of what it already does. Nuts.

Every software has to specialize in some way, or you'll end up with some do-it-all, but really do nothing behemoth of a software which no one could really handle and operate (and, it's also very unrealistic that a DAW really gets that amount of features). I already get sick when I see the meters long menus in Reaper. Come on.

You already have it with Bitwig. All it has to do is add on all the functionality of Studio One and you have a new age complete DAW. Nothing "Frankenstein " about it. Will they add on all the stuff that's missing? I somehow doubt it.

No, surely not. And for good reasons, as I have stated.

"You already have it with Bitwig". Yeah. So, use Bitwig for what it does, and use Studio One for what it does. There's absolutely zero point in making a specialized piece of software a non specialized piece of software.

[dellboy]

No, surely not. And for good reasons, as I have stated.

"You already have it with Bitwig". Yeah. So, use Bitwig for what it does, and use Studio One for what it does. There's absolutely zero point in making a specialized piece of software a non specialized piece of software.

Nothing "specialised" about looping, it has been used extensively by pro studios since the 1950s in the form of tape looping. You do it all the time in your DAW when you drag and copy-n-paste. Ed Sheeran quite likes it. So called "clip recording/launching" is just a more convenient form of achieving the same thing. Of course, its of little to no use to anyone who works with a computer mouse and a step sequencer. It really only comes into its own when live recording and performing.