REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

For users of legacy Steinberg Cubase software
Sheldy13
Junior Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:20 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Sheldy13 »

I was reading this forum and the whole time I was thinking, "Why isn't he just using 64th notes?" Then I looked up some extratone videos and realized "Oh!". Cool stuff. Very cool. If the other DAWs go to 999, then Cubase should at least go 1000!
Win 7 Pro 64-bit, LGA1155 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 2600k 4.5GHz Quad 8 meg cache with HT, Mushkin - 16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 1600 1.6v 9-9-9-24, 1x500GB 16Meg Sata II Perpendicular ST3500418AS, 2x1TB (1000G) Sata II 32meg cache, TI Firewire, Focusrite Saffire Pro 40, Cubase 7 64-bit

JezCorbett
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:27 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by JezCorbett »

First of all, I'd just like to say that I am of course not against this as a feature.

However, a bit confused by people saying this is 'new'. It may have names I haven't heard before but absurdly over-sped distorted 909 kick techno has been around for over 15 years.
Work system: Nuendo 8.3.20 / 10.3 | Windows 10 | AMD 3800X | 32GB RAM
Home system: Nuendo 5.5 | Windows 10 | AMD 3900X | 32GB RAM

User avatar
NorthWood MediaWorks
Senior Member
Posts: 2339
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by NorthWood MediaWorks »

LeVzi wrote:
Conman wrote:I doubt this music will ever be popular enough that meaningful requests to facilitate features in Cubase for it especially.
However, thanks to the OP for finding me a piece of music that will offend any neighbours and is cheaper and less poisonous than revving up a motorcycle in the kitchen for three hours. :mrgreen:

Or I could stay traditional and annoy them with Witney Houston.

Three hours of either should end in either a gunfight or a court case. :lol:

Three hours! What am I thinking!?

Fan base is not huge and I'm sure Fruity Loops would be cheaper. Cubase is written for a diffeent industry.
I'm afraid that is the exact elitist attitude that is all too common in the music industry. "One style is less significant than another" Unfortunately again, your opinon, like so many others I encounter, is totally irrelavent to the request and the arguement.

Cubase is a piece of software for creating music, therefore it should cater for ALL styles of music, not just what a select few deem worthy of being produced on it. Splitter, Extratone, Speedcore are popular forms of music worldwide, maybe not to the extent of RnB or Rap etc, but there is a big following, check out masters of hardcore or hellraiser etc etc etc etc.

Again, this was a seriosu feature request that would not impede on anyone else's work, unless there was some issue with Cubase that would do so by unlocking the bpm. If that was the case, then I would appreciate Steinberg saying so, then I would accept it and use something else. But for anyone to just dismiss it as they deem this style as "Not real music" or "Sorry but you are not worthy of Cubase" then I actually pity you and your narrow minded approach to music.

Turn this into a flame war if you want, but I would rather keep this on topic, and the request still stands for the bpm to be unlocked to 999 as is the case in FL, Ableton, Logic etc etc etc. Does that mean also that those DAW's are inferior to Cubase because they go upto 999bpm and could have people creating splitter and extratone on it ? Your whole anti this style argues that point.

As for writing in16th's etc, from a notational side of things, I understand what you mean, BUT, I would ask you to provide me with an example of a 450bpm drum and percussion (Kick offbeat high hat only) that is 1 bar = 4 beats. Music notation is irrelavent, as are time signatures. With the bpm unlocked, the 4/4 signature works perfectly, only the 300bpm limit is hindering the workflow. For a start you would need to set bpm at 225bpm, then write 8 beats to 1 bar ? Why not write at 450bpm with 4 beats to a bar like the other DAW's ? Why should people be forced to learn about time signatures, quavers, semi quavers etc when its availible in others. I just feel that Cubase is lacking in this area, and would hope for official word from Steinberg to state Cubase is not capable of going over 300bpm without causing problems, which I would happily accept as the case and use something else that can. But I would prefer to stick to a DAW that I like the most out of the others.
I have to agree with the OP, good post.

User avatar
vic_france
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by vic_france »

(I just searched YouTube for "extratone", and the very first find was an apparent "15000 BPM"! (unless it was a typo.. personally, I stopped counting after 487 BPM :mrgreen: )..
Anyways.. no-one is arguing against the possibility of writing in whatever style you wish, but, never having tried to do anything even remotely approaching this myself, I can't even visualize the restraints of having to work at a slower tempo base, but using shorter note subdivisions. Do you have the possibility of posting a link to a screen capture, showing how this is done in one of the other DAWs you mention (e.g. what it looks like inside the Editor window)?

I think, from Steinberg's point of view, the main difficulty would be how this would affect all the various other areas of the program with which it is so closely integrated (notably, the Score Editor, for example), the brand-new tempo detection functions, hitpoints etc. I can't even begin to imagine how fast that would cause the Project window to scroll across the screen!
(but, seeing as you say it is possible in other DAWs, I'd really love to see an example of what it actually looks like).
Mac Pro Quad-Core (2009) 2.66 GHz | 16GB RAM | MOTU PCI-424/2408mk3|MOTU Midi Timepiece AV | Mac OS X 10.9.5 | Cubase 9.5.0| Logic Pro X 10.2.2| ProTools 11.3.1| Ableton Live 9.7.5| Reaper 562 | Studio One Pro 3.5.1

Guest

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Guest »

It would have to be a new feature, as the metronome firstly would need to be disabled.

User avatar
vic_france
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by vic_france »

Brains wrote:It would have to be a new feature, as the metronome firstly would need to be disabled.
(from the short extract I listened to on YouTube, I thought it was the metronome that was playing the lead instrument! :mrgreen: )
Mac Pro Quad-Core (2009) 2.66 GHz | 16GB RAM | MOTU PCI-424/2408mk3|MOTU Midi Timepiece AV | Mac OS X 10.9.5 | Cubase 9.5.0| Logic Pro X 10.2.2| ProTools 11.3.1| Ableton Live 9.7.5| Reaper 562 | Studio One Pro 3.5.1

Guest

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Guest »

I think that's the point (haven't listened too scared).

As far as I can visualize the request, I believe it is to replace the whole concept of an appegiator, that is the sequencer becomes the appegiation machine.

Not a bad concept really but for someone who's never looked much at the arranger but can see it's usefulness I do everything manually right down to inserting/deleting silence for 128 beats when necessary.

I take Zendas' words to be of interest (arrangement) hopefully SB will look at that feature as well among others as I've recently written about including stuff like the locators/transport that people are now picking up on.

Cheers

User avatar
vic_france
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by vic_france »

That's why I'd like to see a screen capture of this "in action". I too was thinking along the lines of a dedicated plugin for this (possibly an extension of Beat Designer, or LoopMash), but, from what the OP posted, I don't know if he'd find that any easier than the currently-proposed workarounds of working at a slower tempo.
Mac Pro Quad-Core (2009) 2.66 GHz | 16GB RAM | MOTU PCI-424/2408mk3|MOTU Midi Timepiece AV | Mac OS X 10.9.5 | Cubase 9.5.0| Logic Pro X 10.2.2| ProTools 11.3.1| Ableton Live 9.7.5| Reaper 562 | Studio One Pro 3.5.1

Guest

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Guest »

I don't think anything special would be required other than to disable the metronome (don't know about score) since the ticker is generated post ASIO so would really mess up at that tempo (already it silences about 150bpm from memory).

LeVzi
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:37 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by LeVzi »

OK here are some examples I quickly knocked up to show what I mean.

This is Ableton @ 450bpm

http://img155.imageshack.us/i/ableton450bpm.jpg/

4 beats to 1 bar @ 450bpm

This is in FL Studio

http://img853.imageshack.us/i/example1450bpm.png/

And the playlist

http://img130.imageshack.us/i/example2450bpm.jpg/

Again @ 450bpm with 4 beats to 1 bar which is how i'd say most people work in electronic music.

Sorry they are just links, I couldnt get the forum to print the pics up... Couldnt find image size or something.
AMD FX 8350 4Ghz , 16Gb DDR3 RAM, 1x1TB SSD, 1x1TB HDD 1x500gb HDD. Sapphire RX 560 4Gb Graphics, Audient ID 14 USB Interface, Alesis Q49 Keyboard. Cubase 10 Pro

Guest

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Guest »

Yes but what about the "workaround" you are using in Cubase?

Conman
Senior Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:31 am

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Conman »

Levzi, I'm not flaming YOU. Kapiche?

Just pointing out, with a little light hearted banter about the MUSIC and not YOU, the reason why Steinberg won't move on a feature if three people are going to use it. Hardcore music players have used Cubase for years with no difficulty.
This is all to prevalent an attitude that people who write in for a feature request take the attitude that anyone who answers with the less than full enthusiasm for their hobby-horse is somehow being terriby offensive. I'm not, just pointing out the real world.
I have to be non-offensive again by pointing out, as others have done earlier in the thread, that an understanding of how music, notation and Cubase's utilisation of it does leave options for using it in (at present) unplayable fast music.

The 300bpm limit is for the clarity of the SCORE option not for the recording section as well as the limits for human playability. One can play as fast as you want. The metronome will not slow you down. In fact if I'm playing at my limits I find it helpful to have a half time metronome rather than it sounding like a radio tuning in.
This is why metronomes all over the world and not just in Cubase usually only go to 280.
There comes a point where it becomes too fast to be meaningful. Of course, if you tell me it's machine music then machines don't need metronomes. They have their own built in.
And if you are superhuman then you need a more superhuman product than the present batch of DAWs to do the job you seem to want.
And, to your next question: "Why should my imagination / ambition be limited?" Well it just should be. OK? :mrgreen:
Lighten up. And google Jo Jo Mayer.
Last edited by Conman on Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Asus P6T deluxe; Core i7 920 2.67gHz; 12gig ram; Win7 Pro SP1; Roland Octa-Capture usb inteface; Cubase 6; and no 3rd party additions couple of hard drives PSU 750watt; NVidia GE Force 9600.
"An entrepreneur accepts that the world is the way that it is and goes about changing it rather than waiting for someone to make it easy for them."

-steve-
External Moderator
Posts: 9670
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by -steve- »

LeVzi wrote: [...]Why not write at 450bpm with 4 beats to a bar like the other DAW's ? Why should people be forced to learn about time signatures, quavers, semi quavers etc when its availible in others. I just feel that Cubase is lacking in this area, and would hope for official word from Steinberg to state Cubase is not capable of going over 300bpm without causing problems, which I would happily accept as the case and use something else that can. But I would prefer to stick to a DAW that I like the most out of the others.
Myself, I am indifferent to whether Steinberg changes the upper metronome limit, it would neither help nor hinder me, so I hope it is clear I am not against this feature request, and I agree that a software developer should be indifferent to what style of music is made with their product.

What I tried to point out before is that Cubase already provides this ability, without learning anything, if you set the time sig to 4/8. (4 beats to the bar, with the a beat = 8th note) instead of 4/4 (4 beats to the bar, beat = a 1/4). Yes, you are working in 8ths, but it's 4 beats to the bar, and looks that way in the edit and project window.

If you set the beat to the 16th note (4/16 time sig) you have a maximum BPM of 1200.

Your thoughts LeVzi?
independent manufacturer rep (not a Steinberg employee)
[safe mode] [cubase manual] [score editor manual]

User avatar
vic_france
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by vic_france »

Thanks for posting the links :)
But now I'm even more confused as to why the following is no good for you..
Key_Editor.jpg
(77.95 KiB) Not downloaded yet
The tempo in Cubase would be 112.5 BPM (i.e.1 beat in cubase = 1 bar at 450 BPM)
Last edited by vic_france on Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mac Pro Quad-Core (2009) 2.66 GHz | 16GB RAM | MOTU PCI-424/2408mk3|MOTU Midi Timepiece AV | Mac OS X 10.9.5 | Cubase 9.5.0| Logic Pro X 10.2.2| ProTools 11.3.1| Ableton Live 9.7.5| Reaper 562 | Studio One Pro 3.5.1

Conman
Senior Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:31 am

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Conman »

SteveInChicago wrote:
LeVzi wrote: [...]Why not write at 450bpm with 4 beats to a bar like the other DAW's ? Why should people be forced to learn about time signatures, quavers, semi quavers etc when its availible in others. I just feel that Cubase is lacking in this area, and would hope for official word from Steinberg to state Cubase is not capable of going over 300bpm without causing problems, which I would happily accept as the case and use something else that can. But I would prefer to stick to a DAW that I like the most out of the others.
Myself, I am indifferent to whether Steinberg changes the upper metronome limit, it would neither help nor hinder me, so I hope it is clear I am not against this feature request, and I agree that a software developer should be indifferent to what style of music is made with their product.

What I tried to point out before is that Cubase already provides this ability, without learning anything, if you set the time sig to 4/8. (4 beats to the bar, with the a beat = 8th note) instead of 4/4 (4 beats to the bar, beat = a 1/4). Yes, you are working in 8ths, but it's 4 beats to the bar, and looks that way in the edit and project window.

If you set the beat to the 16th note (4/16 time sig) you have a maximum BPM of 1200.

Your thoughts LeVzi?

Exactly. And if anyone looks up WFD or Worlds Fastest Drummer one will see that that is the average contestants fastest BPM. A metronome that speed would just sound like a press roll on claves.
You might keep up with the bar accents. But if you did that you could just slow down the metronome right?
Asus P6T deluxe; Core i7 920 2.67gHz; 12gig ram; Win7 Pro SP1; Roland Octa-Capture usb inteface; Cubase 6; and no 3rd party additions couple of hard drives PSU 750watt; NVidia GE Force 9600.
"An entrepreneur accepts that the world is the way that it is and goes about changing it rather than waiting for someone to make it easy for them."

Loop Breaker
Senior Member
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:52 am
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Loop Breaker »

I don't read all posts but:

+1 for setting the tempo limit higher.

I´m currently working on a .cpr where i reach the tempo limit. It has usually 146BPM but sometimes the tempo line increase to 300bpm as an Effekt (i`d like to "pitch up" more but it isn't possible / so i have it to do in the mixdown file)...

EDIT: If you use a Ramp in the Tempo track and want to get over 300 bpm its possible but not very nice... (but thats not realy important)
Last edited by Loop Breaker on Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

-steve-
External Moderator
Posts: 9670
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by -steve- »

Vic, stop reading my mind. You are in a later time zone so you get everything done first. It's not fair! :(

Here's my bpm contribution.
Attachments
Screen shot 2011-03-07 at 11.03.19 AM.png
(116.69 KiB) Not downloaded yet
independent manufacturer rep (not a Steinberg employee)
[safe mode] [cubase manual] [score editor manual]

Conman
Senior Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:31 am

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Conman »

And I just spotted:
Why should people be forced to learn about time signatures, quavers, semi quavers etc when its availible in others
Nobody forces anybody but if you want to be an artist there's more chance of artistic fulfilment by learning the rules of that art at least in passing. The most musically illiterate of my musician friends at least know what a chord is and how important tempo is to the finished article. They know enough rules so they can bend them.
That aside the world of music is built on rules and some poor teachers forced all of us sad unfortunates to read and write or we'd be communicating here by drawing pictures. How cool is that?

Do what I do. Know so much that you can bend all the rules. :mrgreen: It's much easier than everyone bending around me.
Asus P6T deluxe; Core i7 920 2.67gHz; 12gig ram; Win7 Pro SP1; Roland Octa-Capture usb inteface; Cubase 6; and no 3rd party additions couple of hard drives PSU 750watt; NVidia GE Force 9600.
"An entrepreneur accepts that the world is the way that it is and goes about changing it rather than waiting for someone to make it easy for them."

User avatar
vic_france
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3330
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by vic_france »

SteveInChicago wrote:You are in a later time zone so you get everything done first. It's not fair! :(
I'm still trying to fathom out why that doesn't work for me as regards the Dow Jones :P.

However, I'd also like to know what method LeVzi uses for note entry (I was able to do that very quickly, still in 4/4, using Step Entry, with quantize at 32nds).
Mac Pro Quad-Core (2009) 2.66 GHz | 16GB RAM | MOTU PCI-424/2408mk3|MOTU Midi Timepiece AV | Mac OS X 10.9.5 | Cubase 9.5.0| Logic Pro X 10.2.2| ProTools 11.3.1| Ableton Live 9.7.5| Reaper 562 | Studio One Pro 3.5.1

LeVzi
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:37 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by LeVzi »

SteveInChicago wrote:
LeVzi wrote: [...]Why not write at 450bpm with 4 beats to a bar like the other DAW's ? Why should people be forced to learn about time signatures, quavers, semi quavers etc when its availible in others. I just feel that Cubase is lacking in this area, and would hope for official word from Steinberg to state Cubase is not capable of going over 300bpm without causing problems, which I would happily accept as the case and use something else that can. But I would prefer to stick to a DAW that I like the most out of the others.
Myself, I am indifferent to whether Steinberg changes the upper metronome limit, it would neither help nor hinder me, so I hope it is clear I am not against this feature request, and I agree that a software developer should be indifferent to what style of music is made with their product.

What I tried to point out before is that Cubase already provides this ability, without learning anything, if you set the time sig to 4/8. (4 beats to the bar, with the a beat = 8th note) instead of 4/4 (4 beats to the bar, beat = a 1/4). Yes, you are working in 8ths, but it's 4 beats to the bar, and looks that way in the edit and project window.

If you set the beat to the 16th note (4/16 time sig) you have a maximum BPM of 1200.

Your thoughts LeVzi?
I must have messed this up before, as this does work as a workaround. It keeps the midi entry to 4 beats to 1 bar. But you are working at half bpm's , so 450 actually is 225, and signature must be 4/8. This is totally viable, and tbh I thank you for this, as it works for me, BUT again, the outsider looking in is going to see this as his/her only option, and unless you understand it, you'd sooner be using something else that can push bpm limits beyond 300.

I think conman mentioned before I want to do something that other daw's cannot, but this is part of the point I am making, they CAN do it, it's only cubase that cannot. As I showed in the screenshots, bpm is not limited at all in the other DAW's it goes where it likes up to 999 the point (apparantly) when all sound becomes one tone. Now, ok, I have a workaround, but I would still like to see Steinberg either state they cannot shift the limit on the bpm due to errors that would occur with other areas, or that they can and will. I am actually really releived that I don't have to use one of the others, as I am so used to Cubase now, even doing those examples felt wierd. (Ive only owned Ableton 3 weeks, I am totally cluess with most of it)

But I am truely grateful for the workaround, at least it has sunk into my brain how it works. I must have really messed that up before. With that said though, for other people who maybe have never even heard of a time signature, who just want to lay down beats like most others do, in the easiest, simplest method availible, with no 300bpm limit, I still would like to see the 300bpm limit scrapped, and 999 be the new limit.

On the same note, i'd also like to hear the official word if it can be done in the 1st place or not, it would bring Cubase into line with the others with a 999 limit, and you would get people looking into Cbase for use in these areas, and buying it too, as it really has so much to offer the speedcore creator.

http://soundcloud.com/levzi/levzi-what-sun

This was meant to be 316 bpm ;)
AMD FX 8350 4Ghz , 16Gb DDR3 RAM, 1x1TB SSD, 1x1TB HDD 1x500gb HDD. Sapphire RX 560 4Gb Graphics, Audient ID 14 USB Interface, Alesis Q49 Keyboard. Cubase 10 Pro

-steve-
External Moderator
Posts: 9670
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by -steve- »

LeVzi wrote:[...] this does work as a workaround. It keeps the midi entry to 4 beats to 1 bar. But you are working at half bpm's , so 450 actually is 225, and signature must be 4/8. This is totally viable, and tbh I thank you for this, as it works for me, BUT again, the outsider looking in is going to see this as his/her only option, and unless you understand it, you'd sooner be using something else that can push bpm limits beyond 300.
That's awesome, I'm glad you got your head around it, and granted, it is a workaround. One of the things Cubase excels at is having the ability to workaround anything.
LeVzi wrote: for other people who maybe have never even heard of a time signature, who just want to lay down beats like most others do, in the easiest, simplest method availible, with no 300bpm limit, I still would like to see the 300bpm limit scrapped, and 999 be the new limit.
I ask you though, isn't learning itself a winning proposition?
independent manufacturer rep (not a Steinberg employee)
[safe mode] [cubase manual] [score editor manual]

-steve-
External Moderator
Posts: 9670
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by -steve- »

vic_france wrote:
SteveInChicago wrote:You are in a later time zone so you get everything done first. It's not fair! :(
I'm still trying to fathom out why that doesn't work for me as regards the Dow Jones :P.
Must be a bug in Cubase. I'm sure there's a workaround! :lol:
independent manufacturer rep (not a Steinberg employee)
[safe mode] [cubase manual] [score editor manual]

Conman
Senior Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:31 am

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by Conman »

Levzi wrote:I think conman mentioned before I want to do something that other daw's cannot, but this is part of the point I am making, they CAN do it, it's only cubase that cannot. As I showed in the screenshots, bpm is not limited at all in the other DAW's it goes where it likes up to 999 the point (apparantly) when all sound becomes one tone.
You can do it in any DAW. The fact is that you mentioned that it can be done in other DAWs. Whether that makes it viable or not is moot. Also who needs a metronome clanging away at the point where all sound becomes one tone? Maybe something with the lifetime of a mayfly? :lol:
Actually if you slow down your (OK our) music by about x1000 it pretty much sounds like that anyway.
Saw waves, square and sine waves.
So, for those who have slowed down the music, why not have the metronome go down to one beat per hour? :mrgreen: Now that'd be a real man's timekeeping.
Asus P6T deluxe; Core i7 920 2.67gHz; 12gig ram; Win7 Pro SP1; Roland Octa-Capture usb inteface; Cubase 6; and no 3rd party additions couple of hard drives PSU 750watt; NVidia GE Force 9600.
"An entrepreneur accepts that the world is the way that it is and goes about changing it rather than waiting for someone to make it easy for them."

-steve-
External Moderator
Posts: 9670
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by -steve- »

It's cool, wild. Emotional.
independent manufacturer rep (not a Steinberg employee)
[safe mode] [cubase manual] [score editor manual]

LeVzi
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:37 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUEST - Removal of 300bpm limit.

Post by LeVzi »

Its a relief to know I have this workaround, gives me the freedom again to carry on, and actually opens up a new zone to my work. Hopefully other things will work in sync with this , although I should imagine when something "Syncs" to tempo it locks at the 200bpm not 400bpm as required.

I still request the 300bpm limit be removed, or at least the statement be made that it cannot be removed. Even with this workaround, I still feel to be on par with the other DAW's Cubase should have the limit removed. It still would be easier to just have the option open to stay as default with a 999 bpm limit.

I look forward to hearing one way or the other.
AMD FX 8350 4Ghz , 16Gb DDR3 RAM, 1x1TB SSD, 1x1TB HDD 1x500gb HDD. Sapphire RX 560 4Gb Graphics, Audient ID 14 USB Interface, Alesis Q49 Keyboard. Cubase 10 Pro

Post Reply

Return to “Older Cubase versions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests