We all - when disappointed about missing features or immature features - have to be aware of all this.

Of course there are overlaps and they are a challenge. I personally love that this is the case and I wish that vendors would rather contiue to focus than trying to produce the “one tool for everybody” solution. All the products have their history and their roots in different areas. Back then he used fruity loops which I at this point in time never would have called a “DAW”. My son from the very beginning of his “musical carreer” was more into other genres, kind of “DJ”, “Sound design” and working with loops and modifying them. I am possibly an “old fart” o)… one of those who use “the DAW” mainly as a replacement for specialised gear, quasi a digitized version of a mixer and some external gear. Many of the feature requets also on the cubase forums show this diversity and how hard it can be to focus. Some chose to try to have a “this one fits for all purposes” thing - which - looking at the software industry in general - usually led to desaster (feature creep, quality issues, finally products that did not fit for anybody). This changed over time and today the manufacturers of DAWs must decide where they want to “sit” in this diverse market. What I do see is that the question “what IS a DAW?” can be answered in very different ways these days. Let me add some thoughts and maybe also clarify: I dont consider any request to extend the functionality of cubase as “bad” per se.

Having said that: What you desire could be a simple addition. Defocussing (actually resulting in changing focus all the time and not getting things ready or mature) kills products. Good product management has to take FOCUS-decisions - and create a clear spot on the market for which the product is thought to be. The attempt to support ever type of usage usually leads to feature creap, immature and partly imlemented features, etc. etc.Īll these are possibilities where the various products could focus on certain strengths imho. The spectrum of what is done with DAWs by users has spread tremendously - some still use them more or less as an in-the-box replacement for recording and mixing the “old way”, some compose, some create sounds, etc. In an attempt to try to answer why this is not part of most DAWs: It has to do with genre and what a DAW is perceived to be - and its evolution over time.Ĭubase and many other DAWs have their roots in conventional sequencing and recording, in other words: These kinds of DAWS were orininally neither built for “sound design” nor for certain ways of composing.

Why not - it would be a cheap addition in terms of development effort.

Lfo tool fl studio