An open plea to Steinberg

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.

The decision makers at Steinberg probably know already. If anything Yamaha is the one to direct one’s dissent to. Yamaha owns Steinberg. They probably care. Steinberg? Not so sure.

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 …

Steinberg already has a line up that is aimed at different users . Cubase Pro with full features being targeted at ‘the more serious’ or professional user. The Cubase name is famous, all professionals, students budding musicians, hobbyists have heard of it, Nuendo, well now that is a different kettle of fish and a very niche product.

The argument is not ‘what is professional’ it is ‘what is fit for puropose’. For the Creative professional The ball game has changed and there is pretty much a level playing field for the creative world, which is largley governed by your contacts, your experience, the work you produce and if you can get your work into the right hands at the right time. As a company or freelancer If your invoices/royalties/sync fees/etc, etc are paid then great.

The tools one chooses hopefully enable you to produce the ‘professional’ product you intend to sell to the public or client. If the tools are getting in the way of that (try making a piece of furniture with blades that keep breaking, power tools that keep cutting out, etc , etc) you might eventually get the job done but not nearly as effectively as if the tools had been working correctly in the first place, and with more frustration than was needed.

Cubase Pro running on and with quality hardware (and a whole host of other factors) can be used ‘in the right hands’ to make a product that subsequently generates financial gain (sometimes small, sometimes huge) but although not without some current frustrations. (as with all current audio sequencers)

just read this to look on someone else lawn:

The solution…well this is the biggie. As a company, Steinberg simply must continue to listen to and have a dialogue with it’s customers, be humble! and remember that without the customers there is no Steinberg, Not an Ivory Tower. This is true for all successful companies.
They have to generate a regular income! that goes without saying and a rather obvious point, you cannot sell new products (C8.5) with just bug fixes but eventually not fixing issues and making bad decisions will harm sales in the form of bad reputation or reviews and online comments from disgruntled and unhappy users, currently I am very frustrated with the very slow progress providing certain fixes. Having never worked for Steinberg I cannot comment on the employee satisfaction rating but if this is down as well as poor communication, possible arrogance of employees then ultimately the quality of products will suffer. I have not a clue as to how things are going there, but I can only imagine it is not a terribly happy place right now)

it’s an all time low right now for reliability

nope: we have been here before.


Clearly their beta testing system just isn’t’ cutting it at the moment for what ever reason/s… so why not enlarge the beta testing group or even… dare i say it… release public betas? :astonished: :astonished: :astonished:
QA and testing just seems to be getting worse and worse…

I hear what you saying…but all the new features is first released in Cubase and then later much later in Nuendo so it seems to me that Cubase is the testing ground for Nuendo and always was. Yes they had one maintenance update maybe because all the beta testing is done with Cubase and they only needed one.

There also seem to be much less “noise” in the Nuendo forum…

To try and spite a powerful company like Yamaha with not paying for upgrades is silly and won’t work, they are a multi billion dollar conglomerate.

I think by just bit ching here relentlessly will do it and hopefully they will release another maintenance update soon so we all can go back to make and produce music in “silence”

Personally I will see what happens in the next 6 months and If version 8 cant be as stable and reliable as 7.5 I’m jumping ship to Nuendo and take it from there.

I could be mistaken, but I think the reason Nuendo is expensive is the post production features and the expensive licenses related to those features. Remove the licenses and post production features, and you have pretty much the same as Cubase? More resources are needed for core functions, workflow, and bug fixes. IMO Pro Tools is caught in the cycle too, but still has the advantage of “industry standard.”

Not wanting more complexity.

I was thinking a new DAW built from the ground up with the objectives of working with 3rd parties for that deep integration. I’m not a programmer, but I like the words “open source” to an extent. The DAW manufacturer focuses only on it’s own core DAW functions, workflow, and few bugs. No eye candy. No competing built-in features that are usually done better by 3rd parties. The focus is on the core DAW functions and it’s ability to integrate at a deeper level with major manufacturers. I’m currently dreaming, but as the market continues to expand and grow in different segments for hobbyists vs. pro use I think there is potential.

So many assumptions, I have been around long enough to know avid has issues, and Thanks but I am aware of the product line up, my suggestion is very different and addresses purpose, could care less if the flagship is called professional that’s just semantics and not an argument, the argument. curious, tell me a time when Cubase was worse in your opinion in terms of reliability? In my case it just isn’t so.

SX3 to 4

So many assumptions,

just thinking out loud, rightly or wrongly. let’s all pull together on this.

I can’t remember if I started on SX, It was around 2003,

Agreed, we all want generally the same thing, I remember Lydiot from years ago , an old timer who has a proven voice so maybe this thread will be a wake up call.

I can’t remember if I started on SX, It was around 2003,

Agreed, we all want generally the same thing, I remember Lydiot from years ago , an old timer who has a proven voice so maybe this thread will be a wake up call.

amen to that,

2003 was SX2 I think? I started out on CubaseVST5 after using Opcode Vision prior to that, never did the Atari thing. More long term users that chime in the better.

All the best to you.

No, I’m on Nuendo and I’m telling you that’s not the case. By and large you could maybe argue that Nuendo users get fewer and less severe bugs, but the problem is what happens when we get a quite severe bug, and we now have at least one. With a corporate culture such as the one they have they’re now ‘stuck’ so we who do pay a premium are stuck as well. How many months do we have to wait for our new feature that we paid specifically for will be fixed? That’s my point.

Our issues (yours and ours) are tied together. Either the culture and primary goal is to sell more first and address only a small amount of issues when time permits, or it’s being an honest manufacturer that cares about his customers and actually does mean “prioritize” when they say they’re “prioritizing” fixing severe issues. You guys are suffering bugs for exactly the same reason we’re suffering them. It’s all the same company and the same mentality.

Of course. But even once releases have been stable and bug-free for a while you’re not seeing a lot of participation in that section. There are far fewer users. And, no offense, but there are far fewer hobbyists using Nuendo, as a percentage of its user base compared to Cubase. And I think that has a huge impact.

That’s “childish”? That’s a pretty strong word. Yamaha is a billion dollar conglomerate exactly because they have long term vision and care about profits. If Steinberg isn’t making a profit then Yamaha has to question why they should own it. Why should it? If it’s a drag on its financials then there’s no reason to, that’s the way capitalism works.

I’m not saying people will boycott updates and upgrades of Cubase and Nuendo, because people never do, I’m just saying that if they did then it would matter, because if there’s something that people “get” in large corporations it’s numbers on a spreadsheet.

No way. This happens repeatedly. Release. Bugs. Complaints. People buy anyway. Complaints. Feature requests. New features. Bugs. Complaints. People buy anyway… over and over… Complaints here change nothing. That’s been my point.

The only way I seemingly got any traction and response was posting at Gearslutz in the post-production section calling Guillermo on his inaccurate statements about Nuendo. Then there were “questionable” responses. But even then we’ve seen zero results from this “priority”, except the Cubase release, which of course is the definition of not having the stated priority.

If stability is an issue for you with Cubase then I would first look into the workstation configuration as a whole, and, if that doesn’t fix it and if it is an issue that other users suffer I would recommend not upgrading until you are sure other people have reported the issue gone. By switching to Nuendo all you’re doing is waiting and spending more money. We’re consistently about 6 months behind Cubase, and our feature set includes that of Cubase anyway (plus the features you don’t need), so if you’re going to wait that long why not just wait for the latest release of a stable Cubase and save your money? It shouldn’t be unstable seeing that we’re getting the same code in Nuendo, so if Nuendo is stable so should the latest version of Cubase.

I don’t think there’s that much potential. There’s already a few apps out there that are more barebones, but people want and actually need a relatively high level of complexity. For simpler stuff people could get the cheap Harrison DAW for example.

As one persons cool feature might be added bloat to another, Im thinking a more modular approach could be the way for cubase to go in the future. If implemented correctly, a solid core system with ability to add/disable features or functions would be welcome in my view. For instance VST Transit is of no interest to me, though I see how it could be for others but personally I’d rather not have it taking up resources and add to further cluttering menus/screen space. Just an example. Similar situation with Score Editor which I don’t use much but which I know others rely on heavily.

In a way, this is already implemented with the distinction between Nuendo and various levels of Cubase but having more ability to turn off different sections of the program and its associated resources, screen space could be useful in a lot of ways, might even help tracing down bugs.

Just a thought, Stephen

Amen and +1 to the OP


I might be old but i always thought updates were supposed to fix things and be free and upgrades were to add new features. A “Point update” isn’t an upgrade (it’s an update) and should never be paid for. The extra’s should be kept for new versions. And only released after heavy Beta testing / QA. Then it’s an upgrade and you pay for it.

I think that is a great idea. Presonus does a lite-version of this with StudioOne Artist. A user can purchase the barebones starter version then add “modules” for things like MP3 export, VST/AU hosting, etc., at a reasonable cost (something like $20). That way a person can buy only what they need with an option to grow. What’s needed there is a way to reflect those purchases in the upgrade price to the pro version…the more invested the more credited when you go pro.

I’ve been a serial monogamist when it comes to DAWs over the years. I’ve probably tried them all (on the Mac side) at some point and used them for a year or two at a stretch each time. All DAWs can pretty much do 90% of whatever its competition does. Different workflows maybe, different key commands, but there is very little that’s really unique. I really like C8 and C8.5 tremendously. And as I am beginning to do this stuff professionally now, I realize that it really comes down to how well I have learned the tool.

That said, there are some shiny new objects out there (specifically StudioOne) that would be a serious alternative IF it had a video workflow worth a damn. It doesn’t and likely won’t any time soon because that isn’t what Presonus is focused on. But I’m glad to see Steiny sitting up and taking notice and trying to learn from the competition.

Don’t dare complain on gs. Lol

This update makes me upset.