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

[EnGee]

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?

In Cubase and S1 (also Logic and Reaper), yes! I actually used to open the two (inspector and mixer). I tend to close the inspector if I don't use it, but I have plenty of space for the arrangements, so I don't care if the inspector is open or not!

In Bitwig, however, I use mostly the device and midi editor mainly, but I keep switching to mixer view when I'm done editing. I think the mixer view under the arrangement is an essential part of my workflow. Reaper doesn't have inspector, so mixer view is a must.

[chk071]

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.

So use a DAW specialized in live performances for that.

[dellboy]

So use a DAW specialized in live performances for that.

Agreed, for live performing, a DAW like Live is the way to go.

[concealed identity]

S1 had some sort of inspector thing that looks as cluttered as Cubase to me.

Yeah it's kind of funny, the Cubase and S1 Inspectors are both really convenient in different ways and really cluttered in different ways, at least for me. There's definitely a better option than either of them provides, using the best ideas from both.

My understanding is that the Inspector is essentially just supposed to be a shortcut to all of the most important features, so it's weird when something there takes so many extra steps. So I can understand why the Cubase channel strip panel in the Inspector doesn't have a spot to edit the parameters, if they thought it takes up too much room. But it also doesn't have any way to access the full channel strip so you can edit those parameters - you have to push the Channel Settings button, which is in a different panel. Just a lot of kinda weird stuff like that in both DAWs, but who knows, maybe my brain just works kinda differently than others'.

[kritikon]

It seems to be a compromise of what's visible and what are the main parameters people use. All DAWs have to decide what to cram in and what to put on different screens. I remember using the free Cakewalk thing for about a year before I got back into it properly and bought Cubase again. It had pretty well everything available in one screen, I could open up channel strips, diddle about with sends & inserts, channel settings etc. Man, it was a total fkn mess though. It was easy to get totally lost and end up taking way more time and frustration than actually having separate pages for it.

Not everybody uses everything and likely only actually use a fraction of features. E.g. for me the quick controls are a complete waste of space. So pleased when I figured out how to get rid of them. Never once used them (tell a lie, I did once use them and quickly decided never again). The audio parts in Cubase baffle me and frustrate me. I always fit to part whenever I record audio, so that I can chop, rearrange, stretch, shorten etc. Which the original audio part seems not to be able to do, despite having a cutting tool. It's probably doable but to my way of working it just makes no sense. So many things useless to me, but take up screen real estate. Likely some spend all their time in the inspector but it's really unimportant for me.

All I know is I don't want Cubase to become like Cakewalk, trying to show everything to everyone and basically ruin it. TBH there's already too much crammed in on the Cubase main screen IMO, with not enough "get rid of it" buttons.

[thebutler]

The audio parts in Cubase baffle me and frustrate me. I always fit to part whenever I record audio, so that I can chop, rearrange, stretch, shorten etc. Which the original audio part seems not to be able to do, despite having a cutting tool.

Not sure I'm following.. 'Parts' vs 'Events' maybe.? These are separate and behave slightly differently. I agree though these can be confusing/frustrating and the manual is not that helpful here either.!

FWIW, I never use Parts ('containers' for handling a group of audio Events as one) and am always working on the (audio) Events themselves. Happy days.

TBH there's already too much crammed in on the Cubase main screen IMO, with not enough "get rid of it" buttons.

There are a few already of course; but what else was it you want out of your way..?

[Moving in Stereo]

"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.

Hello all. I just came from the Steinberg Cubase (English) forum. I think there is a years long thread about why Cubase can't be more like Live or Bitwig Studio. I really don't get it. Those are both great DAWs for their intended audience. Why keep moaning and groaning rather than just picking up a copy of one of these DAWs?

What's the expression? "Jack of all trades, master of none"? That seems to be what some Cubase users want. But don't they already have that sans Live's Session View and Bitwig-style modulators?

[elxsound]

"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.

Hello all. I just came from the Steinberg Cubase (English) forum. I think there is a years long thread about why Cubase can't be more like Live or Bitwig Studio. I really don't get it. Those are both great DAWs for their intended audience. Why keep moaning and groaning rather than just picking up a copy of one of these DAWs?

What's the expression? "Jack of all trades, master of none"? That seems to be what some Cubase users want. But don't they already have that sans Live's Session View and Bitwig-style modulators?

I don't think it's possible to not see requests for DAW "x" to be more like DAW "y"

I couldn't agree more that it's better just to work in those environments. Bitwig and Live do what they do well.

The new BW/S1 platform export/exchange is a great feature and I see that as an acknowledgment that both companies want to focus on what they do best.

Either way, requests aside... I strongly doubt the majority of users want to see those changes. Forum users, social media posters, or even email writers are likely not the majority of any of their users.

I bought Cubase to be my mixing environment. I've been slacking on getting it set up for that, but it's still on my list (unless Luna becomes available to use without a hardware purchase). I can mix in Live, but I do like not being tempted to keep working on things in Live.

[cptgone]

The new "clip launcher" view in Logic is such a sad, totally unnecessary embarrassment. I realize Apple was feeling the heat from Ableton and Bitwig because we now live in a world where it's perfectly acceptable to be a totally incompetent musician and still call yourself a "songwriter."

Pattern based composition is not just for step sequencing and sample loops.
It's another paradigm, with [dis]advantages of its own.
You can use clips like a traditional musician, playing a MIDI keyboard or any other instrument.
Like loopers can be used by "competent musicians".

Art defies rules (yes, there are guidelines - but there's always another way).
- in its methods
- in the end product (people get set in their views as they get older, and achieve competence playing a given instrument in a given style. They tend to lose open-mindedness in the process. E.g. the "" song: most children will simply enjoy it. Cause it works. Even if it doesn't meet preconceived ideas of what music should be, or how hard it should be to make)

Elitism doesn't seem to make you happy.

[cptgone]

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.

So use a DAW specialized in live performances for that.

The pattern based paradigm is useful for composition as well (even for "anyone who works with a computer mouse and a step sequencer").
- It allows to compose in a more playful manner, staying in the flow
- It allows to compose in an interactive manner, e.g. using clip sequence randomization
- it allows for a more efficient workflow (as others stated in this thread)

I agree that a vst platform for live use makes sense.
But that's not a fully fledged DAW.

I don't think Steinberg wants Cubase to be a specialized "music creation and production system".

[dionenoid]

It seems to be a compromise of what's visible and what are the main parameters people use. All DAWs have to decide what to cram in and what to put on different screens. I remember using the free Cakewalk thing for about a year before I got back into it properly and bought Cubase again. It had pretty well everything available in one screen, I could open up channel strips, diddle about with sends & inserts, channel settings etc. Man, it was a total fkn mess though. It was easy to get totally lost and end up taking way more time and frustration than actually having separate pages for it.

Not everybody uses everything and likely only actually use a fraction of features. E.g. for me the quick controls are a complete waste of space. So pleased when I figured out how to get rid of them. Never once used them (tell a lie, I did once use them and quickly decided never again). The audio parts in Cubase baffle me and frustrate me. I always fit to part whenever I record audio, so that I can chop, rearrange, stretch, shorten etc. Which the original audio part seems not to be able to do, despite having a cutting tool. It's probably doable but to my way of working it just makes no sense. So many things useless to me, but take up screen real estate. Likely some spend all their time in the inspector but it's really unimportant for me.

All I know is I don't want Cubase to become like Cakewalk, trying to show everything to everyone and basically ruin it. TBH there's already too much crammed in on the Cubase main screen IMO, with not enough "get rid of it" buttons.

You can pretty much hide/show everything in Cubase. And it's really easy to do so, just right-click in any area, or use the show/hide logos in each component. So what exactly is the problem ?

I don't understand your bit about audio parts/events either. Are you sure that you are using the correct grid/quantize settings ? Because that could interfere with cutting/chopping etc.

And well, i do spend a lot of time in the inspector. And i really like Quick controls, i use them all the time.

[chk071]

And well, i do spend a lot of time in the inspector. And i really like Quick controls, i use them all the time.

Call me stupid, but, I never really understood quick controls. Is it just to have 8 "macro" controls, with the most important parameters mapped for each track?

I simply don't understand why Cubase has 3 or 4 ways of mapping controls. It has track quick controls, it has VST quick controls, it has MIDI Remote, it has the Generic Remote Editor... I'd be good with one way to control VST(i)s.

[skijumptoes]

I simply don't understand why Cubase has 3 or 4 ways of mapping controls. It has track quick controls, it has VST quick controls, it has MIDI Remote, it has the Generic Remote Editor... I'd be good with one way to control VST(i)s.

The advantage with the VST Track controls is that they span across multiple plugins and the instrument for that track. And can also be viewed within the channel strip in mixer view which allows you to make parameter changes to plugins across multiple tracks - this is really handy if you're using third party compressors/eqs and want inline track controls.

So I can appreciate why that's still there, but other than that, you're right it's a real cluster as you now also have Focused Quick Controls which is the third method that's part of the new MIDI Remote.

At some point they need to go 'all in' on the new MIDI Remote and get rid of the old stuff, but I doubt they ever will due to the legacy users and money invested in hardware setups, scripts and mappings that rely on those older mechanics.

[concealed identity]

And well, i do spend a lot of time in the inspector. And i really like Quick controls, i use them all the time.

Call me stupid, but, I never really understood quick controls. Is it just to have 8 "macro" controls, with the most important parameters mapped for each track?

I simply don't understand why Cubase has 3 or 4 ways of mapping controls. It has track quick controls, it has VST quick controls, it has MIDI Remote, it has the Generic Remote Editor... I'd be good with one way to control VST(i)s.

As someone that was around when they introduced Quick Controls, I can maybe shed some light.

At first, the only way was through the Generic Remote Editor, or through MIDI CC. Having to go through multiple menus in order to assign a parameter was a HUGE pain. So Quick Controls were introduced as an imperfect solution to speed this up; now you just select the parameter from a menu on the track. This sped things up immensely for those of us who hop around a lot between tracks and just want to make recordings quickly and move on.

MIDI Remote was introduced over a decade later as a much more efficient and useful replacement for the MIDI Remote Editor. The latter is left in for compatibility reasons, but going to it now gives you a big message telling you not to use it if you haven't already.

As someone mentioned above, they will likely streamline MIDI Remote in future versions to essentially replace Track Controls. But as it is now, Track Controls is still a whole lot faster if I want to quickly record a filter sweep and move on; MIDI Remote requires me to go through too many menus. As far as I can tell, you're not really meant to change MIDI Remote controls on the fly, but that's what Quick Controls are meant to do.

Even with just these two, I agree it's a confusing system. If you want to use Quick Controls with a mapped MIDI controller, you need to switch to a blank "page" in MIDI Remote first. Meanwhile, in Studio One, you just wiggle the thing you want to change, click a button and wiggle the MIDI controller knob, and you're done. It's weird that MIDI Remote Editor still requires you to go through a bunch of menus to do that.

[noiseboyuk]

If you want to use Quick Controls with a mapped MIDI controller, you need to switch to a blank "page" in MIDI Remote first.

Whereas with EuCon there's a whole mode ready to go with Quick Controls, and it is indeed quick to map anything to a fader, including midi CCs. This is the reason I went to Cubase in the first place, actually - no other DAW has this EuCon functionality, including Avid's own Pro Tools, and it's fantastic.