shadowfax, why all the fuss? It seems your workflow is simple enough to warrant using a DAW like Mixbus. Itās great youāve been able to come to that conclusion. With the range of work that I do, it couldnāt come close on its own to serving my needs. As for 32bit plugs, I migrated away and havenāt purchased any in a long time for what must seem to most as blatantly obvious reasons. When it comes to older sessions, you can of course just load up an older version of Cubase. I understand the trial will be out in a month and personally I think its a great little update and am very happy with the plugin sentinel. Long overdue in my opinion. They needed to start heading down the AAX style route to help ensure stability moving forward by enforcing stricter standards.
On a side note, I use VE Pro and run all my instruments and some audio channels through it. I do a lot of orchestral stuff so the session templates are huge. If the 32 bit plugs youāll miss are mostly instruments you can load them into VE Pro without issue. Itās a possible way of having your cake and eating it. As it runs separately from Cubase its frees up the audio engine. My experience of it from early V5 has been nothing but flawless e.g. Running 60 x Kontakt and 30 x other is not unusual with a buffer setting of 128, it doesnāt break a sweat. The earlier bugs with Cubase have been fixed as far as I can tell. The VE pro session is saved with Cubase so a couple of clicks and your session is back up in full. It also means that should you wish, you can use the instruments created in the VE Pro session in another compatible DAW.
No fuss mateā¦just a discussionā¦what you call a simple workflow is what was used to produce every famous piece of music you can think ofā¦(pre digital of course)ā¦so why should it get more complicated?
I was getting carried away with the update frenzy but Mixbus has made me realise you just donāt need itā¦
of courseā¦updates to fix stuff yeahā¦but, you know what I meanā¦
we are way past what any muso needs to produce musicā¦IMHOā¦
I totally get it Kevin. Up until about 5 years ago Iād of said the same. But the way I work now with producers, agencies and post studios, including some of the more specialist stuff I do, thereās no way the workflow and tools of old would be able to cut it. E.g. total recall of a complex 400+ track post session just to make a minor tweak, 5 mins before the feature goes live! Itās not at all uncommon. Iād of needed that 5 mins back in the day just to make of cup of tea and enjoy a biscuit! Iāve guided many onto simpler workflows that just donāt need the feature set of some of the major DAWās. I even had one client send me an EP heād recorded and partially mixed on an iPad!! The thing is, it wasnāt at all bad and better than some sessions sent to me recorded using one of the major DAWās. The iPad worked for him, he got creative with what he had and could easily get to grips with. So youāre right, you donāt need a mass of tech to make and record great music. But todayās tech is really helping making it accessible to all. The fact that we now have a vast range of tools to suit almost everyone canāt be a bad thing. Letās face it, who buys a hammer just to crack an egg? It makes sense as you seem to have done, to try out and choose your music making and production tools just as wisely, so you end up with something that helps rather than hinders. Cheers
Cubase 9 pro looks fantastic with all new functions,but i donāt like the fact that trial version is limited within 30 days.It would be better Cubase 9 pro trial version to be like trial versions of Nuendo or Wavelab where they last 250 hours(without time limitation).
ā¦and further to Fuzzydudeās queries, where does it say that one can get such trials for Wavelab and Nuendoā¦as far as I can see theyāre on 30 day trials too.
Why would one really need much longer than 30 days trial? Obviously our requirements differ but I would have thought the main purpose of a trial is to see if one likes the new features and if the new version functions on oneās current system. I can see some flexibility might be useful (30 hours OR 30 days maybe but 250 hours seems excessive).
For me personally I liked the look of the new features and risked an upgrade on my Elements license as it was only Ā£20. A few days use was enough to convince me of the value of the upgrade and I now await a trial for Pro to check that this more expensive upgrade will work on my desktops as well as Elements does on my Lap Top.
After reading the bug reports it looks like CP9 has many bugs already reported less then a month after release. Maybe they need time to fix them before the trial is available. I plan to upgrade later this year. That will give Steinberg time to fix as many bugs as possible and Iām also looking forward to CP 9.5 and 10, but CP9 is definitely
a step in the right direction minus the bugs.
I have been using steinberg for a longer period of time even from the version vst 5 32 and even today as it goes when it is under the most popular company Yamaha it is getting better and better, I am not using the program cubase wavelab nuendo because it is more for video but i know that even that is great. I wanted to give you suggestion that i think most of your clients will like. That suggestion is for the cubase and wavelab to not be trial version for 250 hours just like nuendo and I am saying this without purpose because today there are many producers and they have a lot of work to do and you need to test everything during the trial version and you cannot plan anything that way. This month I will use cubase trial version and I really hope that someone from your team will read this. You turn the trial version today and for example after that for 2 weeks you have so much work and you cannot use it and you cannot test anything that you are interested in and the trial version will expire without you even testing it properly. If you make the hours to count only when you turn on the program then it will be much better and more professional on cubase and on wavelab and for the plugins you it is not needed because they are checked immediately and what is good you buy it immediately but I am talking about the softwares and now I see on pro 9 there are a lot of new things and now I need to test them even despite all the work i have to do and I will hardly even have time to relax and to see everything new. Thank you in advance once again and I think that my suggestion is okay.
Any idea when and how will the trial become available?
This ādownload trough your account at mysteinbergā method is aggravating to say the least.
I work at techsupport for cubase, so I can say that a lot of users seem to get confused by this.
From these inquiries, and my personal experiences, I conclude that Steinbergās web design team has a lot to improve. People (me included) seem to get lost on the website very easily.
This is mainly because the website changes often. Finding the downlad itself is easy, but getting the download to complete on windows, is very troublesome. The connection to the server is unstable. Its happened to me on several Cubase versions (from 7). Even using a download managerā¦ for instance with Cubase 9, the windows version gets stuck on an āunknown server errorā at 99% and 70% on the mac version.
Is the Cubase 9 trial EVER going to be available.
Steinberg could lose money and goodwill with people getting fed up of waiting and buying other software.
I had same dilemma but nevertheless upgraded few days after release - why? Cause I love to work in Cubase and itās my professional tool for work. You should see the money Adobe users have to pay for their software
It wasnāt new features that made me decide but more of the stability and performance tweaks. Once upgraded, liked the new zone feature and mixer undo is great. Also, transition from 8.5 was very smooth.
Anyone that has concern about upgrading and spending some money - yes, C9 is the most stable and bug free release so far. Alongside new features youāll get 5-10% gain in performance.
Steinberg didnāt let me down with C9 as it did with bugs and terrible GUI issues in version 8 (fixed later).
Sure, one could wait for the trial to check your system stability, but so far I had zero problems
For quick VST/CPU performance comparasion between 8.5 vs 9 check this thread:
prolik - I wasnāt thinking particularly of current Cubase users many of whom will no doubt upgrade without the trial, because they are used to Cubase work flow
But there is also continuing market for people new to recording and they will be able to trial other software, get used to the work flows of that software and not be able to have Cubase to compare against.
Seems very short sighted to allow competitors to get a foothold and experience of what people will eventually purchase and have no trial version available at all. Those considering purchasing a DAW will go for other software and they will probably be lost to Steinberg forever
Iāve just checked - Steinberg removed Cubase 8.5 Trial version.
So you have good point there. Some sort of trial, at least of older versions or stripped down ones should be available.
The thing is, it wasnāt at all bad and better than some sessions sent to me recorded using one of the major DAWās. The iPad worked for him, he got creative with what he had and could easily get to grips with. So youāre right, you donāt need a mass of tech to make and record great music. But todayās tech is really helping making it accessible to all. The fact that we now have a vast range of tools to suit almost everyone canāt be a bad thing. Letās face it, who buys a hammer just to crack an egg? It makes sense as you seem to have done, to try out and choose your music making and production tools just as wisely, so you end up with something that helps rather than hinders. Cheers 
