ps a leader would have said, “Tell me more, explain”
Why would I say tell me more? Dude, your tone is so curt and aggressive. You would pick your own brain fart (apologies) over my whole list combined? Wow, really? Not just my list, it’s really 100s or 1000s of other users who have requested these things on this forum and elsewhere. The list is basically a curated feature requests. You must think you’re the most important person and Cubase user in the universe. Like I said, and the only appropriate response to your comment was “Good luck!”
Also, your “analysis” is based on a couple parameters you’ve decided yourself, as god, and are not even rigorous, and you’re not really thinking of all scenarios. Anyway. Good luck, I’m done with your trolling.
Remote control setup update. It is probably the worst in market
Is it? I love you.
You’d say ‘tell me more’ because it could potentially benefit you and if you find things out that benefit you, you reduce your chances of failure or stress.
And yes, I would do that, I love farting. It’s because these lists hardly ever have any logical direction or assessment contained within and they never work to address actually severe problems in the topology of the program however boring they seem. That is the beauty of logic (not the program), democracy only works if people understand reality which is why democracy has these blackholes of failure that go unnoticed - such as in - Cubase - such as in - Audio Connections. People generally don’t have a practice of self-critiquing.
You posted a thread called Cubase 11 and the problem is you typed a curated list without doing any weeding, and it’s not hard to suss things out a bit, make a list of pros/cons, and ask yourself some basic questions:
-Is it going to significantly speed up workflow and help people stay organized?
-Is it going to assist in improving audio/production quality?
-Is it going to contribute or help deliver creative output?
-Is it going to help Steinberg obtain pro/commercial studio market users (important marketing foundation)
-Is it going to better integrate Cubase to modern technologies and equipment and communication protocols/techniques
-Is it going to improve or decrease performance?
These questions eliminate quite a few of the curated requests off the bat, and validate Audio Connection update necessity - that is how I came to my confident conclusions regardless of my own needs.
You posted a list that - you - curated. I made an interjection that Audio Connections is one of the if not the most significant needed improvements to further improve the absolute foundation of what is supposed to be a professional commercial recording/production DAW. This is foundation structure, not sprinkles. Sprinkles get attention, and I like sprinkles to - but making the donut machine operate more efficiently by tweaking some mechanics will result in more donuts to put sprinkles on and more people eating them thus making me more money and putting food on my table. So this is important what we are talking about here, it shouldn’t just be random thoughts that pop into peoples heads and end up on a forum where people just “+1 + 1 +1 +100 +1 +1000” without actually - thinking - about it.
You recognized a pattern so I’m giving it to you full blast. Thank the coffee, and like I said, I love you.
The answer is: yes–to different items on the list, and especially to the individual features these individual conditions may apply, or to which they may be relevant (these qualifiers of yours will need other qualifiers to see why and where they even apply). Let the professionals at Steinberg decide what they wish to implement, and their business managers decide strategy, and let other users express their ideas, yays or nays, and let free enterprise decide which DAW people choose to use and buy. You’ve already expressed your discontent and lack of respect for others. And that’s enough of your trolling now. Peace.
“everyone who disagrees is trolling”
‘significantly’ is a word I should have used more in those questions. Everything in your list I contend with on a day to day basis, have work arounds for, are my own features requests, etc - the question is how significant or “game changer” would they be.
What are your top 3 off your list list?
Another one missing is ‘multi-track freeze’
-Is it going to significantly speed up workflow and help people stay organized? yes
-Is it going to assist in improving audio/production quality? yes
-Is it going to contribute or help deliver creative output? yes
-Is it going to help Steinberg obtain pro/commercial studio market users (important marketing foundation) yes
-Is it going to better integrate Cubase to modern technologies and equipment and communication protocols/techniques improved latency
-Is it going to improve or decrease performance? Increase
Ugh me too haha
While I think lovegames might have been a bit too rough explaining what he thinks I have to partly agree with him. Of course Steinberg has to decide which direction to go with their program, what to implement and so on.
But I am sure Steinberg employees will have a look at the forum from time to time (could be more often if you’d ask me) to take a look what is being discussed, and it would be way better if people would talk about FRs which really make BIG differences to everyones workflow. Mostly these are little things, not another VSTi or nice to have graphics. Just to be clear, there are FRs on your list which really make sense to lots of people, like TabbedVST views or StereoPlugs and so on. But there are also things which, at least I think are not big gamechangers, like the smooth play cursor (which to me seems smooth enough to work without any problems) or “Ability to turn on and off grid lines in arrangement window”. These are nice to haves in comparison to other things IMHO. Also there are some FRs missing here which could save a lot of people a lot of time.
Everybody has the right of posting what they want to have in the next version of the program, but the question is, are threads like these really a “good” thing? Or would it be better to discuss the already open topics better to give them more attention? This subforum has already over 1500 open threads and people continuously open new ones without checking if there is already a similar FR open or without thinking if or how it would even be possible to implement, or how it would affect other features or the rest of the program. Only a few people seem to care about that. And the more threads are opened the less attention other already heavy discussed and important topics get (and the less possible the chance is Steinberg reads them all).
Don’t get me wrong. But whats the point of your thread here? Most of these things are already discussed heavily and should be in their respective threads. Steinberg makes polls for that to get the opinion from all users. While I may understand your frustration about some FRs being asked for ages and nothing happened, this is not the way to go imho.
Hey, thanks for being civilized! I appreciate your input.
Okay, so here’s where I’m coming from. I want the nice-to-haves. They are more than nice-to-haves for me. The utilitarian principle does not settle everything in life for me (rather how it can become the tyranny of utilitarian principle, just like mob mentality is to democracy). I make that decision for myself. And people have a right to disagree.
If I were smoking and there was no ashtray in front of me–I would not ash in an empty cup. If I had a brand new crystal ashtray, and not a cup, I would not drink my coffee out of that ashtray, etc. Thanks, but no thanks to that “workaround”, Why do those “silly” Japanese people do tea ceremonies? What a waste of time. Just get an electric kettle, tea bags, and get it over with. Money and time saved. Productivity. More time in the studio for clients!
So, if you try to settle everything in life with a utilitarian argument, then yeah. All’s relatively well. Carry on.
Also, some of these features have been discussed elsewhere–their merits and what users thought of them, or if they had ideas on how to implement them better. This is not that thread. It’s what I think should be in Cubase 11 specifically. Some people have appreciated this thread and think it’s a “nice list,” some have decided to reject the whole list and have made personal attacks on me. I welcome everyone to suggest more things in here–or discuss in a mature and civil way. That’s it. If people respectfully respond or take part in this thread, great. If not, it’ll be gone soon, not to worry.
Not a single person in this thread has rejected your entire list. I pointed out that ‘Audio Connections’ which has been discussed a lot and is unarguably important was missing from the list and that I personally would pick it over everything else. You had a snide reply, so then I explained and expanded on my brief interjection and thus to display why it is so important - both critiqued your list, whilst also pointing out some good suggestions on your list, but ultimately ending on why Audio Connections, imo, meets the criteria to be in top 3 most important. At the very least, top 5.
But I’m positive we can be friends.
Ripple Editing !!!
Agreed. Added, thank you.
C11 vst request:
oek soothe2 spectral processor vst style
I like that plugin. But chances are slim we get a stock one from Steinberg—I think.
Soothe is fantastic and I hear you, but I feel that there are so many plugin makers like OEK that specialize in things like this, and that Steinberg shouldn’t be expected to do everything for everyone, since no other DAW has everything for a very good reason.
I’d rather have a superb DAW and superb 3rd party tools which I have to pay for, than a mediocre DAW with all kind of mediocre plugins already built in. So to be clear, they rather should concentrate on delivering the best DAW possible, and leave special plugin designs to companies who put all time and effort in that.
Woh, now, they has one request and you just have to go shooting it down like a clay pigeon.
Soothe2 is an amazing plugin that is affordable but far to specific. Your request might make more sense to say:
‘expanding the channel EQ and or Studioe EQ to include dynamic bands and band specific de-harshness/de-toning’
I think the industry is seeing that dynamic EQs are becoming the standard, so that makes sense.
Well that was a somewhat entertaining insight into the psychology behind online communication.
Both dudes were helpful in highlighting various things needed.
i do take mr loves point though of being more focused on the fundamentals. I am very aware of daw competition, and an option to remove gridlines is not going to move the needle in terms of building a loyal and satisfied customer user base, And that is what we should all be striving for, as that means more continued sales, meaning more support, eventually leading to the features that we really want having more chance of being implemented.
Having said that we are all entitled to express a civilised opinion and thread, and it was the ‘i’ll give you that bone’ and similar lines used that kinda clouded an otherwise logical argument. And there endeth the sermon. I’m sure you will both be best pals by the time cubase 11 comes round
I really wish i knew what the hype surrounding Soothe 2 is - it’s probably just that Im not up to speed with it’s magical prowess, but I downloaded the trial and I barely notice any audible magic happening. Very subtle to the point of ‘is that it’? I’m sure it’s just me not being knowledgeable enough, or maybe my mixes are already amazing to begin with ha
Actually, what is amazing is how subtle it is for what it can accomplish - you’ve sort of discovered it’s magic without knowing.
To demo it, I would find the harshest recording you’ve done or something - a vocalist with a little of sharp harsh resonances, or a harsh violin or something. Or if you do a lot of extreme hipass filtering where there is only frequency above 1k, you can use it to tame and even out any sharp frequencies.
If you are working primarily with professional sample libraries and VSTi synths, you may not need this tool tbh.