That’s exactly the point. I want a basic set of really up to date plugins (and no, the old EQ and others were NOT up to date any more), neatly integrated into Cubase for immediate workflow. My experience with the endless flow of alternatives over many years has been, that apart from a few real goodies I return to, I have wasted MUCH too much money, and even more time, on endless choices between third party plugins, instead of concentrating on songriting and recording with a small set of tools I know really well, and get satisfying first results on the spot.
So nowadays my main priority has become much more concentrated and simple again: to get a basic mix, before even touching any of the possible alternatives for fine tuning. To me as keyboarder this is a much more musical approach than the widespread, toy-like plugin overkill gambling from so many self acclaimed “pros”. All real pros I ever met have a really streamlined, focused workflow - in sharp contrast to the tool-drunken “I wanna have it all and use it all” fraction.
So no, the basic set of Cubase plugins should not at all be a lame set of second rated extras, which Steinberg could just as well drop, or leave like ten years ago! Just the contrary: it should be and become even more an essential and integral part of the DAW for immediate, well known workflow (like in Logic), before all other options of bringing in additional possibilities and flavors.
No one said you can’t get professional results with the included plugin set Cubase comes with. In fact, I said the opposite in my posts. What I did say is that most people who’ve been doing this long enough already have a good plugin collection and, because of this, Steinberg should divert resources spent developing their stock plugins into the core of Cubase. Yes, you can get professional results with the stock plugins. But there’s no denying that a lot of 3rd party plugin companies are way ahead in their respective areas.
Anyway, I said what I wanted to say. Now I’m just repeating myself .
Hopefully someday there will be a developer of a professional DAW for…professionals…and every day users.
The DAW will cost a lot. Much more than any other DAW.
It won’t have any processing that comes stock. All VST’s and VSTI’s can be purchased from 3rd parties who usually “do it better” sometimes much better. I love ProQ2. But I also love Massenbergs MDWEQ5 for surgical EQ. Different tools for different tasks. Let the 3rd parties compete with each other and let the DAW developers focus on the core functions of the DAW.
The DAW will be fully integratable and customizable. This means you order the DAW with a custom SSL, API, Harrison or whatever you choose as the GUI mix console, and whoever else is willing to work with the developer of the DAW. I would hope Waves and UAD would be candidates.
You want Melodyne/Autotune then custom order it. Same goes for Score.
So the developers can devote their time toward the actual core functions of the DAW. No Mac, and probably strict requirements for the hardware build. Far less bugs than any other DAW. The best workflow…and by the way it’s a DAW for desktop…not laptop. That alone eliminates a lot of workflow headaches and compromises. No need for zones when you have enough real estate.
It will have just as easy or even better export/import than ProTools.
It will have human technical support 5 days a week. No emails, no support tickets…just someone who answer the phone and solves the problem or elevates it. Sort of like the old fashioned Maytag man.
It won’t be available at Guitar Center and no LoopMash…ever. Leave those things for the other DAW’s to fight the race to the bottom.
Agreed. And this sounds a bit like the 3rd party integration in both Sonar and Reason (Sonar’s channel modules and Reason’s rack extensions).
Although, in both cases, I’d prefer if the GUI were designed entirely by a core team with consistent vision.
Reason, being the best at this, imo. They have a relatively strict graphic standard and suggested UI guidelines, but some of the vendors’ stuff veers from it and is a bit fugly.
I don’t see this replacing plugins or stock plugins, but as add-ons that tightly integrate into the host (just like Sonar and Reason do).
I like your dream, except I think there needs to be support for Macs and laptops. Also, bread and butter stock plugins need to be present (just not a focus to where they feel like they HAVE to release a new plugin every year). Otherwise, this DAW sounds exactly like what I’ve always wanted too.
To this day, I still don’t get why most DAW developers don’t just focus on making the core functions of their software as robust and stable as they can. Also, the one year development cycle just isn’t enough to accomplish much. It makes the product feel rushed, which I’m sure is usually the case.
Another thing I would add, is frequent updates ala Reaper. A team dedicated to make sure that the most critical bugs are fixed in the current version before moving on to the next. Every feature needs to work as advertised, and when it doesn’t, it gets fixed immediately. That’s why this DAW will cost more but, at the end of the day, people using it don’t have to worry about not being able to use their favorite feature due to it being either broken or half baked. All of the features in this DAW will be fully realized before release. The developers then just need to fix any remaining bugs.
If I had the money, I would hire developers to create this dream DAW.
I like the idea of a framework, but i work predominantly with outboard, a SSL Sigma and Avid Artists.
I would cringe if I had to chose one of waves, harisson or Slate guis as my console
Cubase is fine as it is gents, the included plugins do the trick and if you want to use 3rd pty toys you can do to.
It’s a bit strange to call 3rd pty plugins more “professional” it’s all just maths and juice routines.
And I personally HATE with a passion, gui’s that try to look like outboard. It’s a PC, it needs an agnostic PC interface. Not some kind of “3D mockup” of a faceplate.
To get back on topic, that’s what guys as fabfilter and Valhalla understood very well, don’t to look like real gear, just pick an ergonomic interface.
Needless to say, this went way off topic. The OP already made a decision, and this is just going downhill to arguing.
Before closing it, let me say I pretty much dislike this recent trend of criticising everything including the company structure and use of human resources - which is an ill-informed opinion if you don’t actually know the workgroups’ details.
Let’s consider for a moment as legitimate the request of moving work-force from the plug-in set to Cubase from the practical / technical point of view. What would happen in a hypothetical short/mid-term is this:
– Discontinuation of the plug-ins set
– Removal of the channel strip
– Discontinuation of retro-compatibility
– Discontinuation of support for all but projects created with the latest version, running on the latest and subsequent versions (when this ‘split’ occurs).
Gains: assigning one more person to the teams coding Cubase (which would barely notice the difference, given the size and the work-force assigned).
This will be my very last post about non-technical stuff.
.