It sure does…
Well put. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just get on with your work without that looming crash… Aside from Cubase I use Ableton Live. I can count on one hand the number of times that has crashed in the past year. OK, it’s nowhere near as complex, but sometimes that’s what’s called for.
Pro software should always have a focus on quality. Cubase has so many nice features, but when you touch them sligthly changes are great that you run into odd behaviour (PLE, visability filters, macro, remote editor stuff, etc.). Instead of fixing, more features (hence bugs) are added.
Sad enough it’s a soft/hardware industry standard. If I remember correctly Mackie threw a soundcard on the market without any driver stating you had to use asio4all…(?).
I’m pretty sure that (proven!) focus on quality would be much more attractive then any new feature. Specificly in the long run…
We are all stunned over here that the long standing bugs are still here with 8.5 not to mention the mixer window showstopper on multiple screens in 8.5. Even the guy who’s writing our sampler app is stunned: “It’s not rocket science, and who the hell is beta testing this thing… the end user???” It’s just sad.
Thanks, I needed a laugh…
… (just not a broken rib from doing it so hard)
Business normally works the way where you advertise certain functionality of your good or service, and then negotiate a price and sell the product. If you as a customer buy something that isn’t what it was marketed as being, either by being defective or falsely advertised, then normally you not only have the right to return the good (or service) for a refund, but people actually do this frequently.
Not only that, but when companies refuse to honor that basic legal right lawsuits happen, and companies have to pay up. This happens all the time.
Saying that it’s a business doesn’t even qualify as an argument. Did you hear Volkswagen use that defense when their product didn’t perform as advertised? No? Well then, there you go…
And by the way: This is like the millionth time this happens. It’s always the same;
- users complain about stuff that isn’t working and say they need that to be a priority
- users dream about cool new features and start “wishing-threads”
- Steinberg (or other) offer a paid upgrade with new features
4. USERS PAY FOR IT
- users notice persisting bugs as well as new ones
- Go back to step 1…
Guess which step is the one which makes it absolutely certain that there will continue to be releases with bugs in them?
Love your Avatar!
To break out of this horrible cycle I think would require a big price increase. Personally I’m willing to pay for it simply to break away from being held hostage by this prosumer market that drives all DAWs including Cubase. I’m confident there is a small market that wants core functions and workflow prioritized without the “features” prosumers and new users get excited about. Often it’s just a marketing ploy. Think about it. We have gone WAY past the evolutionary end of the basic DAW. Upgrades cost the same, but the refinements of core functions and workflow seem less and less. I am super happy this 8.5 included midi/velocity improvements. But with it came the cloud, vst transit, an upgraded VSTI, and just like Native Instruments until recently, a upgraded, but I think closed Media Bay system…unless it’s open to VST3? Does anyone know for sure?
Today it’s about selling features for the sake of features…not so much functionality or workflow.
Thank you sir.
If you mean that a much higher price would finally make consumers not pay for it which would force SB to deal with issues, then maybe yes.
It’s a bit ironic I think, because as much as PT users have complained about the incredibly messy transition from one licensing model to another there appears to be some merit to the underlying concept. With a steady revenue stream they can put out minor updates more frequently and not look that bad, as long as they every now and then inject something bigger. With SB it seems they’ve painted themselves into a corner of “stubborn” (or “greed”) where they just simply can’t even consider dealing with some bigger issues an truly making them priorities while delaying something else. It’d mess up their rigid schedule, and we can’t have that.
The one thing I’d say is that Nuendo is more expensive and the same thing happens there. In fact, it’s not without irony that this conversation is held in the Cubase section seeing that one of the broken new features of Nuendo v7 that so many looked forward to is supposedly a “priority”… after tweaking Cubase… and adding “transit” and whatever… and programming a new version of a VSTi… and so on…
“priority”. A difficult word.
I’m not 100% sure I agree 100% with the above… and that’s a mostly true statement…
+1 – The features are already great. The bugs are driving me crazy and wasting my time.
I’m really disappointed…
I used Cubase since 2000.
Maybe I should jump ship to Nuendo > it seems after all these years they first dump all this shit on us and fix it in Nuendo
There has to be a reason why Nuendo always is a few steps behind Cubase…
It would be REALLY NICE to hear from STEINBERG on this post.
You’re joking, right?
Nuendo has received exactly one maintenance update for version 7, since its release. One. How many did Cubase get? 5? Pro Tools 6 I think. And in this one update the most severe bugs, yes, plural, were NOT fixed. On top of that a representative said that it was now a priority to fix said bug, and five-six weeks later here we are with a new VSTi, and a new Cubase 8.5.
There might be fewer bugs in Nuendo, but it doesn’t receive the priority the price discrepancy implies, and it’s not without serious bugs either.
The only way any of this can be solved for either Nuendo or Cubase users is if people stop paying for updates while bugs persist. Does anyone really think that’s going to happen?
as always after the .5 release there will be an 8.0.40 or 8.0.50 release, let’s see what that means!
I mean a higher price to separate the prosumers from every-day experienced professional users. Prosumers love new features, are less experienced, and use Cubase casually. Unfortunately I think they are the huge majority therefore any DAW has to be married to them for survival. Lets say they are 90% of the DAW market.
So 10%, meaning the every day experienced and professional users, pay a much higher price. But in return the resources are spent on bug fixes, improved workflow, improved integration and support for 3rd parties, and improved technical support. This horrible and endless DAW cycle of new “features” that are eye-candy for newbies, which often bring more bugs, some of which are never fixed… is broken.
Better integration means ENCOURAGING 3rd parties to join what Steinberg has just done with their drums and loops in their media bay instead of saying “its a closed Steinberg thing.” It means the DAW maker focusing on their own core functions while allowing 3rd parties to directly integrate with the mix console. Instead of a Steinberg created mix console that exists now, why not pay an optional additional price for UAD or Waves to integrate an SSL or API console? These things can be done, but not when you keep having to seduce new users with LoopMash or a new VST.
I hope someone recognizes a small but growing demand for this.
I think you hit the point, the hobbiest is the majority user for cubase and it makes sense to give them 2nd rate SB original Vst instruments bundled with cloud and the latest trends, because this is a for profit business and I get that, however that didn’t Impact Cubase until we got to 7 in my opinion when the mixer was overhauled, changed , and since then so many bugs and issues like I have never seen in ten years of using Cubase. Exasurbated with 8, it’s an all time low right now for reliability. Just look at the threads.
There is a reason pro tools HD is the professional standard, however it’s to expensive for me to get the 24 stereo input I need, I don’t do post, I compose for indie films, and hand off stems to post house, and I like the midi functionality, and the fonts are very easy to read ( compared to digital performer ) so here I stay on 8.10 because 8.30 won’t work on my new i7 PC. I decided not to get 8.5 based on the bugs reported.
I would like to see Cubase and nuendo become one platform , call it Cubendo 10, like pro tools , first build ONE daw framework that is solid , stable, and works , and charge for add ons that people can choose how to spend their money with post production being the pro version. ( add ons could be vsts, cloud, video, add on post tools, add on composer tools ) for example. Yes I am dreaming away, dream dream dream, repeat after me …
Absolutely, fixing bugs to provide a stable, solid toolset should be Steinberg’s number one priority above all else. I could give two shits about cloud-whatever if the core program still has stability issues that haven’t been addressed.
Also, better tools for MIDI CC automation would be highly welcome. They’ve been improving it over the years, but only very slightly. It still seems rudimentary in a lot of ways.
Innovation in the tech industry is highly overrated–I know, I’m in it up to my neck. A holistic focus on dependable, solid tools that real musicians can use to get as much work done as quickly as possible with minimal frustration should be THE focus here. New features should be added only when stability can be essentially guaranteed.
I’m beginning to feel that we’ve been harping this sentiment for years on the forums, and maybe – just maybe – we have to take it higher to effect any real change. Start forming petitions and mailing letters / phone calls to the decision makers at Steinberg.
Problem with that is that we already have a more expensive version in Nuendo, and above that Pro Tools. While I think Nuendo overall is a hair better than Pro Tools, if it approaches PT in cost then it’s harder to justify. Nuendo is reasonably priced as it is, the problem is with Steinberg. Either their beta testing is just awful, and/or their internal QC, and/or their priorities. But unless they’re actually operating at a loss there’s absolutely no just reason for not providing the product they’re advertising. In fact, the argument can be made to provide it even if they suffer a loss, temporarily. In no other business do users put up with this sort of behavior to the degree that software customers do. There’s clearly a couple of body parts missing in the user base.
I think the problem with that is that there’s already a cost efficient and proven way of integrating an SSL or Neve channelstrip emulation into the mixer, and that’s using a regular VST plugin as an insert. The second you’d integrate that more deeply, say by replacing the rack processors by code from UA or SSL to model a console strip, you’ll be adding both financial and technical strain to something that can already be achieved. So first of all a deal would have to be struck between two companies, SSL and Steinbert, or three in the case of a UA Neve model (UA, Neve and SB). That deal could break, who knows. We’ve already lost some licenses because they expired. On top of that you’ll have increased complexity. Not everyone will want a Neve or SSL sound but would prefer a more neutral sound, so now there has to be an easy way to swap the emulation in the rack. Might be easy enough, but there are enough issues as it is that I personally have a hard time seeing the value in more complexity given the risks. How long have we had broken VCAs now? The faster-than-realtime analysis of loudness which I rely on used to work fine, but that got broken.
When it comes to core functions like signal flow and automation I have little trust in Steinberg’s ability to actually execute according to plan, and, actually, plan well in the first place. There’s something very “off” about recent developments in Germany. And given that I would want SB to tread very very carefully.