I’ve been busy teaching a class on User Experience and UI Design and so sadly I haven’t had time to make much music. Looking at your screenshot, sigh, yeah it’s a mess. If student submitted this I would ask them some serious questions.
Now I do really sympathize with Steinberg. I think they basically spent years looking towards other things–interesting engineering, digital audio, etc–and they dropped the ball on these issues. They dropped the ball likely because someone in charge doesn’t understand the topics.
It’s good that we, as the users, are starting to understand this topic and express our thoughts. We need to convince them that it’s relevant and that band-aid solutions are not acceptable.
@estevancarlos Personally, I don’t mind paying more for the better service and features
But I have a question why Microsoft changed almost everything in its interface and provided a free update for all users
Can’t a big company like Yamaha do this without increasing prices??
We do not want a free solution, but it is assumed that they will lose a little in exchange for increased profits in the future
This is what I learned from marketing
But I repeat, I have no objection to paying more for solutions
Yep, but thats nothing really special, just a bunch of goup tracks on top with 1-2 automation lanes activated and some audio and midi tracks at the end.
For comparison, here the one in C12 and C13 next to each other:
PS: I also appreciate that now the automation lane description is not that cut away and it can contain more letters, but somehow the black background with the white font over it is just too much. There must be a better solution to this.
I don’t know the codebase that Cubase uses but I suspect it’s closer to the Windows Vista period and I can’t speak to the Mac system. No company can just switch that codebase. They would have to address every single feature and thing and redevelop, update, and fix it for a new codebase that uses updated OS features.
For example, Cycling 74 (Owned by Ableton) did this several years ago when they moved over from one structure to building an application with JUCE - Building Max with JUCE - JUCE
A person there describes
“We used JUCE to rewrite large parts of Max from its old and clunky OS-specific style. To do this, we had to build a layer on top of JUCE that talked to the part of our software we couldn’t change. We used this layer to rebuild our user interface, but at a higher level we made Max objects out of pieces of JUCE.”
I don’t know how Steinberg could or should approach it but it’s a large task. A type of task that would delay updates. Can they afford to do that? Can they afford to spend 2 years updating their software and not releasing a new feature update during that time? At the moment, they may not believe they can.
Additionally, they are probably, secretly, working on changing codebase for Cubase in order to make sure it’s ready for the future. This is likely a slow process due to the financial questions I offer.
Thanks… I’ve got to try this myself of course… C12 looks/feels very much better from these pics.
However, I don’t have to have the track names go black, do I.?
In which case, I must see what that looks like. I mean, its got to at least be one or the other, surely… not this hotch-potch, scatter-gun, finger in the air approach… can’t be dealing with that.
I do not see that the solution is a monthly subscription, which could be offered as an option and not a compulsion
But the only solution is the Cubase Ultimate version or Cubase Advanced, which is a new Nuendo called the famous Cubase Name and combines everything into one program. I see that its price is expensive and I do not know if there are many sales on it.
With this solution, most Cubase users will switch to paying for the higher version, which is basically a new Nuendo with cubase Name Perhaps removing some features from the Pro version and making them exclusive to Ultimate or Advanced
@Tj99 Indeed, therefore, merging the two programs in one is the best solution
Even in marketing plans, it will save them more by combining the two programs
And that’s the problem and that’s why these issues we’re discussing won’t be resolved any time soon. It doesn’t need to be compulsory but if they can’t depend on a steady enough revenue then they can’t invest too much in these things we’re describing.
Actually in this specific case, there is neither a subscription nor a higher priced Cubase version needed. This is not a feature we all would like to have in a future version, this here is a relatively simple visual issue which was introduced in a new version by the devs themselves, which I am pretty sure can be reverted, at least to a certain degree without having to spend a sh*tload of resources.
In many ways, I’m referring to the larger UX solutions they need to address. For example, someone wants them to update their codebase. So yes, small temporary solutions may not require more investment.
Don’t take these comments too seriously. This comes mostly from people who heard this from other people, who got that info somewhere in the internet or who knows where, without ever being able to back that up.
Fact is: We all don’t know how old their codebase really is, if they already reworked a lot of it or not. Or did they officially state that somewhere?
And all these claims, that programs like Reaper (which gets reworked constantly) or Studio1 (which is a much younger program), run so much smoother and better than Cubase are lies. Cubase is one of the most efficient DAWs out there performance wise, in many ways. And at least as stable as both contenders, if not more. Reaper, which everyone calls to be the most stable DAW crashed a lot more to me than Cubase ever did. Really heavy projects which run fine in Cubase stuttered in Reaper and Studio one (at least visually) or ran as good here.
The grass is definitely NOT greener on the other side, when it comes to DAWs, let me tell you that.
So either their codebase is equally as old/efficient/unefficient, or it doesn’t make that big of a difference, unlike a lot of “programmers” seem to suggest in the internet.
PS: And lets be honest, the vast majority of crashes is coming from 3rd party plugins and a maybe some interface drivers. So if the performance and the audio quality is good, and the software can be called stable, the codebase doesn’t seem to be that big of a problem anymore, to me at least.
Cubase and Nuendo have been built from a single codebase since Nuendo 10. For reasons that are likely to do with market segmentation, Steinberg chose not to drop the Nuendo name and rename it “Cubase Ultimate” or “Cubase Post-Production and Gaming”.
I do not know their code base or anything specific about their development, however, I do know the more things you change at once, the more complex the task. It starts to become unmanageable and SB needed to release something to generate income.
I would gladly pay a yearly maintenance fee like I am with Pro Tools. I hope they get this sorted out.
