It comes down to where the developer wants to go. Steinberg got Cubase 7.5 to what I would call a stable level. Most users will agree that C7.5 and C6.5 are the most stable modern versions of Cubase available. So from that point on do you tweak the functionality to further solidify your software and make it even better, or do you take a chance at “pro|volutionizing” your already solid platform and make it newer?
My complaints about Cubase are all shallow, and that’s because of the solid foundation of the core software (which could even be more stable but it’s good enough as is). So everything is really a bit of an annoyance/inconvenience.
For anyone seriously bound to some software, thinking of whether to buy the next version or not is very short-sighted. One wants to try and influence where it is headed. Discussion, suggestions, and raising issues are ALL part of that.
If you’re “seriously bound to software…” then you will know what new versions are going to be like.
And there is a fine line between influencing where it is headed, discussion, suggestions and raising issues and just having a rant in cyberspace. Although a rant is ok for a day or so it quickly gets old after that. WE are not Steinberg devs so it’s pretty useless moaning to us if most of us don’t have that particular issue.
I’m seriously bound to Cubase. I’ve got C8 but run it in a studio? Expect it all to work? Come on! Tell me ONE version that worked flawlessly from day one with total silence in the forum.
I’d say that C7 and C8 are the least complained about Cubase releases. And as for the issues. I’ve probably seen only one or two of the scores of issues reported here mentioned anywhere else. And that’s where any serious issues would get noticed. Mind you, the General section is not the issues section. And what is the point of reporting an issue in a general complaint about EVERYTHING in the General section? Not trying to avoid reporting an issue to the right people are we?
Maybe we need a Niggles section.
And “Hardly pro active…” What’s that supposed to mean? You get the demo. You report what isn’t working. You don’t buy the product until it works for you. Simple! That’s as pro active as it gets.
If one can’t wait to buy the shiny new thing and then you spot a speck of dust after a few days and complain, that’s just being hyperactive.
Exactly. I’m not an employee. If you don’t know that new software is choc full of problems then use what works. Otherwise you end up here for weeks wondering why you’re here in the first place.
Cubase is seriously hard work sometimes. If you don’t know that yet… the show is about to grind to a halt and instead of a hundred hit records you’ll just end up with a few thousand posts.
All us users try and do is reduce the hard work so we spend less time here chasing bugs and more time finding the bits (most of the bits actually) of Cubase that work for ourselves.
On a little investigation concerning something else I noticed that hitting maximise overlays the title/menu bar and imposes then the Project name onto the title / menu bar.
My dim memory of dabbling in programming makes me think that this might be a function / feature of their particular programming app or compiler (and they usually follow, or used to, the rules). Looks to me like the title bar has been placed in the menu bar not the other way round but whether that’s relevant I’m not sure.
So whatever they’re doing, whether it’s proper or not, they’re doing it at least twice.
The Win8 error was forcing the Metro/Modern UI on desktop users… but the underlying Desktop operating system was/is awesome. 8.1 simply allowed you to more easily get to the desktop and minimize the intrusion of Modern. It was no “admission” of some huge problem with the OS.
The problem with C8 is actually very similar to the Metro mistake. Which is forcing a UI that works on a completely different platform onto an environment that already has a superior methodology.
The problem with C8 is actually very similar to the Metro mistake. Which is forcing a UI that works on a completely different platform onto an environment that already has a superior methodology.
But this has always been a problem since Cubase moved from Atari to VST. The Atari allowed the Cubase UI to run inside the OS but that, apparently, was not so easy with Windows. For many years Cubase’s midi functions were compromised and clunky (problem with other DAWs too I think I heard).
The Cubase UI LOOKS the same thru the years although Windows has done the changing, I think maybe Windows might be about to make a bigger move with the goalposts. Maybe has done so already.
Win 8 / 8.1: R;Click the taskbar / Properties / Navigation / Start screen / Tick; “Show my desktop on Start” and the one above it.
No need to see the Start Screen any more. Looks just like W7. Until you try a search.
Agree. I still mix in Cubase 6.5 (or Studio One or Reaper - project/client dependent).
But during tracking bands and other multitracking, I like the “New Track Versions” feature. I also like the “Track Visibility”, but the GUI/Window handling/mixer makes Cubase 8 a pain to work in.
the thing that worries me is that these design decisions cannot be classified as bugs per se; any such query will be replied to with ‘this is by design, not to worry’…
I must say I find Cubase Pro 8 a great pleasure to mix in.
The VCA’s are just fantastic (not perfect true) but for mixing large complex projects with lot’s of automation the new VCA’s make for a very professional work flow and thank you SB for finally making linked groups/VCA’s namable!!
The GUI in CP8 is very snappy on my system and text search for plugins (I have a massive plugin list) is just fantastic.
As is mixer Zones, text search for tracks and Quick Link.
Honestly I was slower by 50% mixing in Cubase 6.5.
I know these things are very personal , but for me CP8 is a very pleasurable experience when mixing the kind of music I’m involved in.
I’ve just been reading through this thread. Still on 7.5 here, I seldom do upgrades the first 6 months after a new release (I leave to others to be paying beta-testers). However - this thread is really worrying me. As well as all the other stuff about Cubase and UI/GUI handling in other threads. I’d have no problems splashing out for the upgrade - but you guys have got me rethinking the whole thing. Glad I don’t have to depend on music software professionally anymore - and I pity those of you who still do.
Now… I made my upgrade to 7 (and then 7.5) from 5, but I see a lot of nice comments about 6.5. I’m seriously considering a major downgrade here.
It’s noticeably better than 7.5; the new window handling doesn’t take that long to adapt to, and it works better than before; yes, they are some irritating bugs; be wise and take some of the indignation expressed in this post and others with a grain of salt.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the point of these comments. It’s not an issue of “indignation” (unless you are using the word incorrectly to mean something else) but rather gobsmacked disbelief. The fact is that no competent User Experience professional would EVER implement the global menu in the manner that Steinberg has. It’s simply astonishing that people working on a relatively high profile product such as Cubase could get it so utterly wrong.
I get both points. But my fundamental question with this “GUI issue” is, So what? It’s working? If it’s such a professional programming disaster is breaking the rules of the Holy Roman Windows Empire and insulting his holiness the Great Programmer, then why is Cubase working at all?
And if it stays working and it IS a disaster what is likely to happen to us besides the sky falling on our heads?
Serious questions. There is a point where to get things done the rules are, and are allowed to be, broken.
Where is the rule that says Steinberg programmers couldn’t do that? I’ve looked all over the net. No mention of this. Anywhere. Must be a secret rule for ye cognoscenti.
For my level of knowledge the title bar could even exist on the side of the program with a scrolling font.
Certainly if it’s THAT serious any professional pointing it out KNOWS that this is the WRONG section to discuss it in if it is to be dealt with. So my next question is. WHY ARE YOU DISCUSSING IT HERE?
Discussing it here is just incitement to argument. If I don’t see it mentioned in the Issues section (as it’s obviously SO serious) in a day or so, I shall treat it as bogus.
My advice to those getting worried is to ignore this “issue”. If your computer falls apart then by all means call support and mention it could be a factor. But there’s nothing you can do until then.
Anyone have a second hand tinfoil hat?
That rule doesn’t exist, and any rule can be broken. There are Windows design standards/rules though (they have been around for a long time, the first iteration I am aware of is the one for Win 95), and one would expect that if rules are broken, it’s done to make things better (a lot, preferably).
Looking at C8, the way the new menu bar is now implemented, the user’s brain now has to set aside a little space to deal with the intricacies of the Cubase windows system because it doesn’t adhere to the common Windows standards. From a design perspective, that’s a big decision to take, and I’m not sure that the trade-off between benefits of breaking the standards and the cost is a fair one in this case. If the cost doesn’t outweigh the benefit, then the rule shouldn’t be broken.
Nothing secret about that, people that design software will in general be aware of this, through both knowledge and experience. Your condescension is very misplaced, your ignorance on the topic does not mean other people’s points are invalid, Dunning-Kruger comes to mind.
This is the Cubase 8 “General” section, and the complaint was that the new version is a pain to work with, one of the reasons being the implementation of the new menu bar. I think that’s well within the scope of both the topic and the sub-forum. Please correct me with a solid argument if that’s not true.
In the end, for some people, an extra click isn’t a big deal. For others it is a big deal. In the case of this menu bar, if you never have to go outside of Cubase while working, then it’s probably not such a big deal. If you have to go outside Cubase a lot (because you have other software you need to use at the same time), then it certainly is an annoyance (to say the least). There’s only so often you can interrupt the creative process to make an ad-hoc adjustment to your workflow just to make something work, or get back to the right spot in the application… so from that perspective, this will really be a big deal for some.
Sorry, a bit OT but be careful what you wish for. When leaving Cubase (from Pro 12 onwards to v3) for Logic back in the 90’s, I was struck by how fast Logic ran as opposed to the newly minted CubaseVST. Then Apple bought eMagic. And dropped support for the PC version (after saying they wouldn’t). And over 150000 users apparently. And I had to buy a Mac. Pretty soon I was using not very PC compatible audio interfaces so I stuck with a Mac and LP. Kudos to Apple. It worked as far as they were concerned.
Companies who don’t care that much for their userbase faced with issues like these will sometimes can one platform in a bid to simplify their support chain. Obviously Apple did it to sell Macs (and they couldn’t support PC software), as they did with the iPod (to sell mp3s) but if SB think for one second their userbase is shifting, watch how quickly they jump, established userbase or not.
I was struck by the fact that pretty much all of the videos (90% at least) on YT from SB showing CP8 off were done on a Mac. I watched them, saw how much it did that LP(X) doesn’t and have half switched back after 20 years of Logic. SB are definitely going for the Mac market. And CP8 is better than LPX in most respects - there, I said it. I can stop stressing about it now so they will get a slice of it. I am telling my all of my producer mates how good it is. It does all of the stuff I had hoped LPX would do. A new audio engine for one.
If a lot of Mac users switch from LP(X) to CP8 a lot of SBs development will focus on Mac as that’s where the real bucks are. Most major studios in the world use Macs running either LPX or PT or a mix. Sure, some studios still have a PC around for stuff they need it for, but few ppl mix down on a PC in commercial studios . If they can get a few celeb endorsments from big mix engineers/producers (not home studio owners) then they will be considered a real alternative to LPX. A lot of the users on this board use PCs so they will tend to think that their platform is the best or whatever (I couldn’t care less which is best btw - they’re all computers, just tools) but I think SB are making a play here. Watch this space.
But, just to add, I haven’t yet seen CP8 running on a PC, but it runs pretty great here. Obvs I don’t have the menu/taskbar issues as I have the Mac version, but there are some weird UI decisions over this side too.
You can’t please all of the people all of the time. You can’t please some people ever.
Until you try a search.
so they will get a slice of it. I am telling my all of my producer mates how good it is. It does all of the stuff I had hoped LPX would do. A new audio engine for one.