Cubase 12.0.40 maintenance update available

Don’t give them ideas ,we have already paid for C12

6 Likes

We already paid for that, or at least thats what we were supposed to get.

4 Likes

I was referring to Cubase Pro 13.

So you’d want to pay for Cubase 12 again, as long as they labelled it Cubase 13 and fixed the issues on features you’ve already paid for?

Perhaps it would make more sense if we didnt pay for products until they’re relatively bug free and stable. Pretty sure we wouldn’t be waiting months then.

2 Likes

Single 28" 4K (scaled to 2K) on MacOS here. I will say, when I was running the monitor connected directly to the Mac’s HDMI output (the Intel 630 GPU) I noticed sluggishness in the GUI in just MacOS alone. Moved to an eGPU a few months ago and threw my Radeon RX570 in it (running an RX 6600XT in it now) and watched the CPU meter drop a good deal in Cubase, Ableton Live, and Logic Pro heh. MacOS’s GUI runs like liquid now too. Dropped a good 20-30% in Ableton (which is a CPU hog on its own) and a pretty big chunk off the meter’s in Cubase and Logic.

I work for one of the display manufacturers and get a NICE discount on stuff, and have been debating whether to just buy another one of the 28" ones I have (its not the brand I work for) and run duals, or if I just move to one 32", I can get for cheap at work, and actually use 4K. Never occurred to me I might actually run into a performance hit adding a second one. The scaling already takes a little toll on MacOS, because Its a 4K monitor being scaled to 2K, the Mac actually upscales the signal to 5K before scaling it. But having a separate screen to keep the Mix window open all the time would be nice instead of flipping back and forth through the pages on the bottom.

Recently I wrote that upgrade to the next major version should be free for every C12 user, but didn’t get any support from users, so maybe for most it’s ok to pay for it

Probably, because its not our decision and very unlikely they will be putting out a major version for free. At this point they should just release maintenance updates, until C12 works as flawlessly as possible and then move on with the paid updates.

2 Likes

Waiting for it for 7 months

No company can stay in business without constant infusions of revenue.

The sales model that most software vendors have used since software sales to individuals began many years ago, periodically charging for upgrades that provide new requested features, works well when software vendors do not have major external platform changes to deal with.

In recent years, the developers have had to deal with major changes in hardware (new processor platforms), changes to standards (VST2 to VST3, ARA2, retirement of Rewire, etc.), plugin compatibility issues with third-party vendors, and changes with operating systems…all happening concurrently. These changes alone can cause any extremely complicated software product (like Cubase Pro) to become buggy and no longer optimized.

Therefore, when new.features are added to justify a paid version upgrade a developer must not only program the new features but also correct any bugs that result from the industry changes that I listed above and those that are created by adding the new features. This is near impossible to accomplish given the time required to do so and still release the upgrade on a schedule that will provide the operating revenue required to keep the company solvent.

That is why we at our studio would be happy to pay for a Version 13 upgrade that was totally dedicated to bug fixes, compatibility with standards, and optimization. The work necessary to accomplish all those tasks would be quite large and costly and take quite some time. Steinberg must receive income to stay alive so someone would have to pay for this work…and it would have to be us, its customers. If in the end Cubase Pro would be rock-solid,fully compatible with all relevant standards and very processor and computer system optimized it would be an update that would be worth the upgrade fee.

Steinberg and Cubase are far from the only developer experiencing these issues. Just about every piece of audio software we own is experiencing similar issues with bugs, compatibility and optimization. Too many changes are occurring too quickly for this not to occur.

So, that is my two cents worth.

6 Likes

Which is no different to my sentiments. But how you reach that point is where we differ.

What many people fail to realise is that the core staff who can work on these levels of issues are a much smaller percentage of the total payroll. You can’t expect Steinberg to willingly put all other jobs on hold for a year when so many exist in order to create and asset new features.

And on top of that, who gets to say what gets fixed - you? me? a vote? It’s years and years of sales lead releases and bolt-ons to go back through and fix. And that’s why so many companies are in this same state.

As a developer myself, it’s hugely frustrating when you’re constantly being lead on to something new, and not offered the chance to ‘put right’ whats there already. In fact, I find it hugely demoralising on a personal level.

That’s why an idealistic view that Steinberg could explain to shareholders that they’re laying off non-critical staff for the next year to concentrate on bug fixes due to forum feedback would never get anywhere near to taking off… As there’s nothing that supports that as a financial model.

However, shareholders do listen to drop off in sales. And to my mind, it’s the only that scenario which would lead to a better mix of development priorities signed off at the top level. Trouble of course, is the majority of users are hobbyists and seek new features…

But that doesn’t stop the fact that we have the power to affect this, if only people were on the same page and appreciation. A few people offering to pay for fixes is a lovely idea, but it just ain’t happening unless you’ve got a few hundred thousand euros to throw their way.

3 Likes

In reality, as long as major platform changes occur regularly (designed to boost sales of hardware, increase market share and profitability of competing platforms - Apple’s move to its own processors for example), audio equipment standards change frequently, software developers develop their own technology that may not be compatible with other existing technology, and users demand more and more features that are limited to smaller and smaller portions of the overall user base the level of effort the the developers will need to put into bug fixes, compatibility and optimization must increase dramatically or we will see the existing upward trend in the release of more and more buggy, incompatible and poorly optimized versions continue to grow in number until stability and value of our software becomes very poor.

Therefore, software developers (and hardware vendors) will need to dedicate more resources to the quality control, bug fixing, standards setting and optimization teams. This will cost money because resources do not come free.

One way to minimize the cost of bringing existing software up to proper operating level is to limit new feature additions and concentrate on fixing and optimizing what they have. That will require money from user fees.

No one says that the new feature development teams can not be working to come up with new, truly useful features that benefit the larger user base during this time as long as they can be seamlessly implemented into the optimization work flow, or the new feature implementation could wait until the optimized version has shipped.

I am a Civil Engineer that has worked on hundreds of projects all over the world where technology changes, standards variances and other factors change frequently…we had no choice but to adopt a posture of placing quality testing and control, error trapping and fixing and project optimization at the top of our workflow…because without it, failed projects would result…at times with catastrophic results. This situation with the Audio/recording industry is very similar…the only thing that prevents the situation from becoming a major issue is that the consequences of a “buggy” release rarely causes catastrophic results.

I have been a musician and studio owner for over 50 years as well. My partners and I are all of similar age and experience. That is why we look at audio software issues differently than others I guess. We know what is necessary to fix the problem and that is an incentive for developers to stop and make fixes a priority…and we know that takes money. So we are willing to pay every vendor we do business with an upgrade fee to complete the work necessary. If 20 vendors all charges us $150 for an upgrade of this type, the resulting total cost of $3,000 could be made up in just a few days of more efficient use of studio time.

I realize that for those users who are hobbyists, these costs may seem substantial. This is the trap that vendors get in when they decide to see their professional software to both professionals and hobbyists. Perhaps there should be versions for professionals at a cost commensurate with their use and a “light” version for hobbyists who do not require a full-featured product…oh wait…that is the way it used to be done. lol

3 Likes

You’re currently paying ~$100/year per license which is wholly subsided by hobbyists and the selling of new features to kept it relative.

I haven’t a clue what kind of money you’d be willing to pay for Cubase 13 with all bugs fixed and as stable as possible - $5k/License? More, less?

As I said originally, the answer is to simply not buy unfinished products… You cannot fix misdirection and shareholder greed by throwing more money at them. This happens year after year and so more gets added to the bug pile, and more features get bolted on top making it harder to fix.

Edit: Just seen that you edited your post.

You’d pay $50 extra for 2 years of focused bug fixing… Well… There’s a few jobs lost then.

When they break something so fundamental to Cubase like the midi alinement then yes you can

2 Likes

Actually I was stating that we would gladly pay an additional $150 upgrade fee for a Version 13 bug fix version WITH NO NEW FEATURES. If thereafter developers wanted to release another $150 upgrade with new features (that added to the fully fixed version and did not cause new bugs or other issues) then we would pay that too.

In my Civil Engineering practice I have paid far over $5,000 for professional software (including add-one), such as AutoCad and other titles. AutoCad did offer a “light” version for users with less demanding needs for far less…but the software was not a sub-set of the professional AutoCad with features turned-off; it was a separate product that was somewhat compatible with the pro version (the pro version could open the light version drawings…but not the reverse).

Fender appears to be trying to make Studio One more user friendly for non-professional users by adding the ability to turn-off features using presets so that the interface will reflect only what a user needs. If that is necessary, it means that Studio One has features that a large portion of its user base does not need or want. The same is true with every DAW that has attempted to provide a product to professional power users AND hobbyists and casual users.

I would support paying much more for a professional version designed for professional users. That would require a light version for casual users and hobbyists. Then there would be funds available for maintenance of both versions…providing the software was good enough to compete with its competitors. There are so many DAWs today that perhaps it’s time for a little culling-out of the weak ones if they can no longer compete.

Really enjoying Cubase 12 Pro. Also, I am learning Spectralayers. I’m learning Cubase 12 still, and also use Studio One 6. Cubase is starting to become my favorite, but I think the CPU performance/workflow should be priority on future updates. Also I would say continuing to fix bugs. as well.

1 Like

Yes I am seeing this

So you’d be happy paying a yearly $250 upgrade fees for a stable with no additional features…

Bare in mind that a new Cubase Pro owner brings in double that revenue, and that majority of users would not pay 2.5x the price of existing updates AND get zero additional features for their money.

But… maybe you’re onto a winner here! :roll_eyes:

Man, that’s some elitest nonsense and headline reading bias you’re coming out with.

A user interface customisable to your needs to work more efficiently is for “non-professionals”? You think professionals prefer clutter? User friendly is in some way a negative aspect?!

S1 also has a well developed macro and extension system which can be used to develop custom toolbars and workflows. And a command find system added to v6: S1 Command Find

Doubt you’re old enough to remember AutoCAD command line workflow. S1 approach reminds me very much of that, damn fender and their ease of use ideas! Right?

except $250 isn’t “much more” - it’s peanuts. To eradicate the hobbyists you relate to having a negative impact on the software, you’d need to be paying closer to $5k and therefore funding a model like Avid’s… except your not, wonder why?

God knows what features you feel should be exclusive to professionals either, Are mortals allowed to make vocal comps? Or should such high end stuff be left to the elite? :slight_smile: I mean, Cubase already has a scaleable product line but it seems that you want an additional tier that sits above Cubase “Pro”.

It’s very simple… If you don’t want broken products, then don’t buy them. They soon get the message.

Thanks for the insight. We use a maxed out Intel 16" MacBook Pro in clamshell and a 55" 4k TV as our main monitor and sometimes a second smaller HD in the ISO booth for VO work and the strain it puts on Cubase is noticeable. If we Dumb it all down to just the laptop screen, Cubase is pretty well behaved with the exception of the oddball plugin.
It feels like a threshold thing. Once overall system strain starts taxing resources ( every commercial we do ) things that might not normally cause a fault, start to.

Noticeable in what way? ASIO engine is more overloaded?
I run similar setup to you, but go into an 50" 4k and never noticed any drop in performance.

You sure you’re not just running at a lower rate on the larger screen and it’s making things feel sluggish? If i go from the 120hz on my main screen to 60hz on a macbook it generally just feels more sluggish initially…

Good point, Ill try adjusting the refresh rates to see the performance difference.