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

[Sahul]

Not if you do offline processing. File has to be stereo to apply stereo fx.. at least last time I tried it.

Indeed, you are absolutely right. I didn't think of that particular use.

[dionenoid]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Wow. That'll be a huge step forward.

[Freaqpeak]

Seems like a quite small update.

Small? Rather sounds like a lot more than any other DAW has in its paid upgrade...

Compared to other previous Cubase updates I think its weak. More like a .5 update.

New Vocoder, 2 new EQs, new Channel tab, new Vocal Chain plugin, new compressor, new design for the MIDI plugins, MIDI 2.0 support... sounds like loads of stuff to me, when I compare that with Studio One or Reaper paid updates.

Cubase always has been the fastest evolving DAW. And the one which always had the most legacy features.

Yea, maybe I was a bit drastic. I also missed support for MIDI 2.0. Will be useful in the future for sure. Would be nice if they added 3rd party MIDI plugins support as they used to back in the day though.

Adding standard VST plugins isn't evolving to me though...there are free and/or better alternatives. To me it seems like waste of dev time to focus on things like "vocoders" when it does not add anything new to the table at all.
I should not judge before demoing it though...

[Freaqpeak]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Wow. That'll be a huge step forward.

Actually yea, that is great news.

[chk071]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Does that mean that it's finally possible to record a VST instruments output?

[LarsErik]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Does that mean that it's finally possible to record a VST instruments output?

At least in Cubase 12 Pro you can route audio via a group channel and back into an audio track to record VST plug-ins "live". But this sure sounds like it's going to be more/better/faster way to do so.

[simmo75]

I wish Cubendo could be slaved via midi clock.

[Trensharo]

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)."

Speak for yourself, and be equally disingenuous

Clips are nothing more than a brainstorming tool. All they do, basically, is make Coping and Pasting easier. That's basically how many people use it. Instead of moving clips into and out of a loop point, they just select which ones they want to play. In many cases, the music contained in the clips are actually original music written by the musician using them.

All the clips do is allow them to better utilize their ideas to come up with better compositions. This is why people like this functionality. It allows them to get more work done quicker.

So, instead of having 8 bars of written-and-crossed out music, as seen in some Antonio Vivaldi manuscripts (sic.), they simply switch which clips they're using until they decide to commit to any specific choice. There is nothing wrong, bad or [musically] intellectually dishonest about clips.

In fact, the only intellectually dishonest aspect of this dialog comes from the people who seem to have some sort of vindictive issue with those who do and would like to use this functionality. We are now at the point where strawman is the norm and the only way to debate your point is to hurl an unending list of insults at those who disagree with you? What world am I living in? Am I even living, right now?

There is no universe where only one or a few types of art are legitimate. That's not what art is about. Get off of that high horse, and build some "integrity" - a hilariously ironic term to use, considering your entire post points to a lack of it.

[Trensharo]

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.

It would be fine, as long as they didn't try to warp the Cubase MixConsole into the Ableton Session View Mixer, etc. which would be significantly disruptive to people's workflows.

Cubase already has much of what Ableton does, so making it "more like" Ableton would involve... adding a Clip Launcher (like Logic Pro or Digital Performer) and introducing some better (and perhaps more) warp algorithms along with some optimizations for Live Performance usage scenarios. Maybe allowing the stock plug-ins to dock in the the lower zone with "small UIs" for them.

If anything, DAWs like Ableton are trying to move more towards where Cubase (and Logic, Digital Performer, Studio One, etc.) is - to become more generalist.

Cubase already has the kitchen sink in there.

The issue is less "does it make sense to add this functionality" - all of it can be justified.

The issue is more "at what point does the software become so huge and encompassing that the development team simply cannot maintain it to the level needed to satisfy most of the user base." And by user base, I mean the people using it - not the people on forums who pretend that they would use it "if it was more like X/Y/Z."

Features are good, but there are opportunity costs to adding more features into the software. It also increases maintenance burdens (and possible maintenance complexity, depending on how the software is engineered). Every time you add one extra feature, there is one extra feature that someone is complaining wasn't addressed in an update/upgrade, etc. Every time you remove some legacy feature, you have some Windows XP/7 user complaining that they still depend on something like 32-bit or VST2 plug-ins, etc.

There is no way to satisfy everyone, but everyone on these forums seems to pretend that they can all just add in their own personal wants and pretend that the developers can or should be able to address all of them with little to no actual impact on the quality or servicing of the software product...

Either the upgrade "doesn't add enough," or the update "doesn't have anything you care about," on and on and on.

Most users are completely incapable of understanding that developers are looking at a much bigger picture than ... "just them." I don't think that will change - any time soon.

[dionenoid]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Does that mean that it's finally possible to record a VST instruments output?

That's already possible, by using Real-Time export. Has been available for ages. It's how we always recorded live tweaks and glitches ; Export in Real-time while leaving the plugin gui open.

This makes it easier tho, so you don't have to keep asking for it

[jancivil]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Does that mean that it's finally possible to record a VST instrumentsoutput?

At least in Cubase 12 Pro you can route audio via a group channel and back into an audio track to record VST plug-ins "live". But this sure sounds like it's going to be more/better/faster way to do so.

This thru-the-group bus routing method goes back {“to record a VST instruments output” possible } to SX1 iirc.
seems tremendously out-of-date… but finally the straightforward procedure.

I had to do it yesterday to capture what the thing was doing as it did every playback but that no render was even close to getting.

[chk071]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Does that mean that it's finally possible to record a VST instrumentsoutput?

At least in Cubase 12 Pro you can route audio via a group channel and back into an audio track to record VST plug-ins "live". But this sure sounds like it's going to be more/better/faster way to do so.

This thru-the-group bus routing method goes back {“to record a VST instruments output” possible } to SX1 iirc.
seems tremendously out-of-date… but finally the straightforward procedure.

I had to do it yesterday to capture what the thing was doing as it did every playback but that no render was even close to getting.

It's the most basic easy peasy thing in other DAWs. But, nice that Cubase finally gets it.

[enroe]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Does that mean that it's finally possible to record a VST instruments output?

This is possible since Cubase SX1 - in 2002. But all DAWs - even in the 1990ties
could do this.

[chk071]

ROUTING - You can now set instrument tracks/racks/sampler return channels as inputs for audio tracks, as well as FX and group channels.

Does that mean that it's finally possible to record a VST instruments output?

This is possible since Cubase SX1 - in 2002.

Tell me. How do you do it?

And, ESPECIALLY, tell me how you do it in Cubase Artist and Elements.

[Minkiechu]

I wonder if they will ever give us light mode.