theres really no particular reason as to why im using cubase, Its just a DAW that i know my way around and is quite easy to operate (in my opinion).

Yeah, but what I mean is that even if you find Cubase to have been easy for you so far, it might not be the best tool for the job. Manually plotting arpeggio chords in a piano roll has its ups and downs, I guess, but there are some things you might want to do where for example a tracker effect column is a lot quicker than an automation curve. Particularly when working with exact timing, ornaments, vibrato and glissando (something you'll find in a lot of chip music) I've found trackers to be superior to Fruityloops (which I would otherwise use. Version 3, to be fair ), while it's much easier for me to get a good overview and write harmonies and counterpoint in piano rolls.

So yes, it all depends on what you do. Cubase could be the best tool for what you want to achieve, especially since you already know how to use it, but on the other hand, judging from your questions, learning some other tool like Renoise, Milkytracker or schism tracker might be worth the initial effort. There are also some trackers oriented around specific pieces of hardware like Famitracker for NES, but personally I think Milkytracker is a perfect way to learn the ropes.

I think you'll jump through all kinds of hoops like this if you want to make somewhat authentic sounding chipmusic with Cubase, but if you really feel like it, keep at it! A good idea is to at least download a tracker and some music to look at to learn some of the techniques you'll probably want to mimic.

At 150 BPM, assuming a ~60 Hz NTSC tick rate, an arpeggio note would typically be 1/96 (which is also true for 50 Hz PAL at 125 BPM), and for 150 BPM PAL, the note would be 1/80. I think that the length of the arpeggio notes are the least of your concerns though. With Cubase you have the power to pick any rate that sounds good.

theres really no particular reason as to why im using cubase, Its just a DAW that i know my way around and is quite easy to operate (in my opinion).

At 150 BPM, assuming a ~60 Hz NTSC tick rate, an arpeggio note would typically be 1/96 (which is also true for 50 Hz PAL at 125 BPM), and for 150 BPM PAL, the note would be 1/80. I think that the length of the arpeggio notes are the least of your concerns though. With Cubase you have the power to pick any rate that sounds good.

It's an octave unison, the bass note is pretty soft though. Use thin pulses. The note is E, not C.

Alternatively, if you have any kind of sampler VST you could just use that wave file and set it to loop, I found that it loops pretty much seamlessly.

Yeah mybad about the note, i was considering on using a sampler vst.

Alternatively, if you have any kind of sampler VST you could just use that wave file and set it to loop, I found that it loops pretty much seamlessly.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out what type of wave it is, and what effects it has. I have achieved similar results using a bitcrushed sawtooth wave but i cant seem to get the combination right.

Any suggestions?

I didn't know there are 120 seconds every minute!

Let's do some math.
120 BPM is conveniently 1 beat per second.
1 beat = 1/4th, so a 1/128th is (1 beat)/32 = 1/32 seconds @ 120 BPM = 0.03125 s or 31.25 ms.
1/32 seconds also corresponds to one cycle of a waveform at 32 Hz, or only a few cycles at slightly higher bass frequencies. This makes fast arpeggios sound a bit ugly/unclear for bass notes. Each note is played for such a short number of cycles that the brain can't figure out which note is being played.

I didn't know there are 120 seconds every minute!

Also, im  at 150bpm not 120bpm, so that might make a difference

Let's do some math.
120 BPM is conveniently 1 beat per second.
1 beat = 1/4th, so a 1/128th is (1 beat)/32 = 1/32 seconds @ 120 BPM = 0.03125 s or 31.25 ms.
1/32 seconds also corresponds to one cycle of a waveform at 32 Hz, or only a few cycles at slightly higher bass frequencies. This makes fast arpeggios sound a bit ugly/unclear for bass notes. Each note is played for such a short number of cycles that the brain can't figure out which note is being played.

32hz is one cycle at almost unhearable bass frequencies (C1).  Also frequencies raise according to pitch at a logarithmic rate (I haven't bothered to study the formula, but anecdotal frequency knowledge I have is close enough for rock and roll).   So anyways, you can fit 32hz into a treble clef instrument ten, twenty times.  For example, a C6, which is HIGH note (still one octave left on the piano) is 1046.50hz.  So you still get ~33 cycles of each note occuring in that octave range.   

So what I'm saying is, in the proper octave range, you can totally have recognizable notes at 128th notes at 120bpm