A quick glance at this forum seems to suggest that we are all paying Steinberg a lot of money for the privilege of testing their software…
That would be true if every customer was using the same computer set up/sound card/memory etc.
Unfortunately no software developer could hope to test on all of the potential variations that exist out there. It would be unreasonable to expect that.
This was one of the reasons that I had my computer built by experts who are up with the latest developments. However, as soon as I started adding software I started having problems that had to be resolved. On one occasion two vst plugins that did not like to work together.
Another problem involved using Kontakt and Reactor. I had been getting clicks and pops and had just upgraded to Cubase 6. Now initially I blamed Cubase for the problem, but a little bit of research told me that both Kontakt and Reactor have a bug that mean you have to reset the latency and then reset it back to your preffered setting to get rid of the crackles. This is a known issue, but not to me until I went on the forums.
Most people forget that as musicians we are asking a computer to work a lot harder than normally might be the case. We are often working with multiple instances of widely differing software that often consume a lot of CPU. When there is a problem it can usually be a case of patient detective work to find out the source of the problem. Quite often people blame the DAW and give insufficient system information when describing the issue.
PC i7 intel 3.2 x 6
12 Gig RAM
UAD 1 x2
UAD 2 Solo x1
Komplete 8 - ReValver 3.5 - Amplitude 3 - Zebra 2 - Rapture - BFD2
Software testing is about much more than hardware certification and compatibility with 3rd part software.
It is also about basic functionality of the software. Ease of use. Speed of use. Consistently applied paradigms. Consistent interface design. Many of these have gotten worse from C5 to C6.
There are some half-baked ideas in this release in terms of functionality - problems that should have been caught at the planning and design stage but weren’t, and now we’re stuck with them. I reckon that makes us paying beta testers.
What DAW platform users are not paying betatesters?
Beta testers is a bit harsh, perhaps more like RC2 testers?
I keep telling you, but you’re also beta testing your own systems. The “beta tester” brigade very rarely give enough detail about HOW they’re using Cubase and what they expect it to do. Any company trouble shooters just don’t have enough to go on most times.
I trust the software experts will get more right about their software build than I trust any number of posters who just post vague questions will be right about their systems.
Please don’t be too upset at that. That’s what my observations tell me and where I’m coming from. It’s not personal. All posts are just like newspaper articles and if I’m interested I contribute to try to solve the Cubase problem. Not any posters’ problems.
I agree with the OP to some extent. But they didn’t force you to pay for the latest shiny new version did they?
You can always stick with what works until all the good or bad news about the shiny latest new go-faster-stripey must-have mistake fixing, retuning and time-stretching Boanerges of a program has come in from reviews and reports.
And really, who needs to fix that many recording mistakes? WAs anything that out of tune or that much off time? How many drums per stack? That many tracks of guitar? One mic for each of the orchestra? Plus overdubs?!
Beta testers? Nope.
Envelope stretchers more like.
At least there is some response every now and then … which is a turn to the better?
isn’t the same with any software?
I have been in software sales for close to 15 years, there is no perfect code. company writes it, tests it then release it. based on bugs found in the field patches and hot fixes are created.
when the need arises the add features either to stay competitive or to solve major issues a major release happens
welcome o software
Are we all paying beta testers?
Yes, yes we are
Z naturz of z beezst!
You do not have to install the latest version, I do because I’m a musician and do music programming woth cubase so if it doesn’t work no problem, But!:
If you earn money with Cubase you should be defensive regarding installing the latest update, let others do it for you and read-up the forums.
My 2 cents!
Try dual booting. One boot for the real deal that HAS TO work, and one for testing IF it works!
Yep, that would do the trick, I’ve done this testing the 64 bit version
So in that sense the answer is No, we are not all paying beta testers.
Yes, it’s a resounding “no”
(unlurk) What he said. ^^^
I personally wouldn’t even want to be involved in beta testing something if my only job was to chase bugs. When I have been involved in beta testing audio software it was pretty clear to me that the testers as a group were largely responsible for a good bit of the “fine tuning” of the overall work flow and methodology and user experience.
It’s kinda like audio mastering … sometimes if you’re too close to something (and developers often are way too close) you often can’t really view it objectively … so testers are (supposedly, best case) also there to help you to see that nice forest growing behind the trees, not just there to chase bugs down and stumble onto some coding errors for you to fix.
Assuming developers are fully open to their input in that regard and (of course) the testers are actually doing some real work with the software, not just mostly creating scenarios for testing one function or another. The only way to test that kinda thing is to use it, for real.
Honestly, some software I’ve used over the years made me wonder if the people coding it actually even use it… for real… daily… themselves… for the thing it’s designed to do. Not saying Cubase in that case, but I have felt that way a few times.
Anyway, in one case I was involved doing something like that and the devs moved a button and the testers said “Why’d you do that? I reach for that button by reflex and I’m still reaching for it in the old place.” After a chorus of “Yeah, me too’s…” they put it back. Probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but they were writing the software, not so much (only) using it.
Oh yeah it’s the same old song since a few years now guyz… our problem is that steinborg don’t respect any laws and make wro,k product MArketing…
I have buy this update because i was thunking note expression was avaible for all vst and what the hell I discover the hustle just when i install it!
that’s why i always try before buy !
C6 is the worst cpu intensive and don’t add anything to the party just when you load an empty project it already tax the cpu with a lack of experience for the coders…
We must create a non profit organisation in order to maintain our universal human rights and fighting !!!
I don’t get what i paid for (on the paper and advertising they talk about things that is not like intended …
I wait for my hackintosh and go to Logic ,
Cubase 5 was already a big error for the company and nobody have test the vst 3 hzere!!!
VST3 is dead before existing and they make the same bullshit with Note Expression and blah blah blah … but thee major tools is buggy and x64 is not working in this world as i see
So djfood, you come to the forum and in a single (necroed) post you attack Steinberg over something beyond their control, ie “CPU intensity” when it is the Operating System that must make use of a processors’ architecture not the applications that run on it.
Then you carry on about an open framework that is for 3rd party developers to take up, as if the notion of acceptance has anything to do with with developers anyway because it’s a learning curve they must master in order to program for Steinberg apps which are fully supporting of the standards they develop so if there is any “error” here it is on the part of 3rd parties for not keeping pace.
Well I find that Cubase works really well for me, always has. I do upgrade with caution, went from C4 to C6 missing C5 altogether for instance. It does everything I need and a lot more and have managed to make a lot of money from Cubase, nothing is perfect and no doubt people will always want the moon on a stick but C6 gets a great big festive thumbs up from me.
When we get the promised improvements to the mixer, which I bet doesn’t come till C7, then you’ll see a literal stampede to upgrade/update probably followed by a mass of whinging
The title of this topic should be “Are we all unpaid beta testers?”
Refinement of any product relies on customer feedback. When I complained to a baby food manufacturer that something in their product choked my baby son they sent me a huge consignment of the product and a promise to improve their filtering.
Steinberg can’t send us a huge consignment of baby food - but they sure can, and do, send us regular updates to stop us choking…well - I know what I mean.