Er... What happened to my thread?

I know you’re dead serious… but the ironic thing is not only have I seen exactly that happen, but I’ve seen it happen multiple times. I know it’s very hard to imagine if you haven’t actually seen it, and benefitted from it. But I have.

And yes, it’s nice… but I’m sure you’ll find something wrong with it somehow because, well, it’s the net and counterpoints are mandatory. :mrgreen:

Yes. Developer says “Good idea, will be in the next dot update.”… and it is. Or doesn’t actually say anything publicly about it at all, and it still shows up in the next dot update.

Wow! You must have quite a few hit records then. And won the lottery. :mrgreen:
I must’ve seen a thousand “I want a button…” type threads. Just that. No details, no thought. No idea as to how it might get done. “Dear mods…” is as effective as “Dear Santa.” It’s not the paper up the chimney that gets the presents. :mrgreen:

Let’s review what just happened…

You said there’s no chance of X, I told you I’ve seen X multiple times - trying to have an intelligent discussion with you, my first mistake - and you, being … who you are… just can’t ever take any contrary opinion (can’t just say “Oh, ok. I didn’t know that.” like a normal human), you go on a tangent about what I may or may not be doing musically… which has nothing at all to do with the other thing. What I do is record and mix for money, at my leisure, not on your schedule.

Insult by insinuation with a smiley thrown in for good measure. Gosh. Grow up.

Please… you obviously have multiple hits because you keep telling people if they stop wasting time with silly FR’s (which you could just as easily ignore), they’d have time to make hits. It’s such a recurring theme of yours that you must have a bunch of great songs. Please link to them. I normally wouldn’t care in the least (because I make my own money with my own tools) but you go there so often I had to ask.

Conman doesn’t waste time making FR’s, he makes music. Let us listen please. Thanks.

What a tool. :mrgreen:

You’re either a great musician with a ton of great songs and a huge ego… or … a tool. Surely you have some music in “Made with Cubase” right? Linky please…


Seriously man, I can respect musical talent (having very little myself) so I have no intention of bashing your music just because we’re at odds in a stupid Internet forum. You talk about “making music” so much and so often it makes me wonder if you’re actually making any, that’s all.

Not being an ass, just would like to hear who is giving all of this advice.

Well… I guess he prefers not to answer. Has anyone here ever heard any of Conman’s music? Just wondering what he actually does with Cubase… that’s all.

A gentle ribbing produces that?!

Ah, well. And where did I mention YOU by name? Ego. I don’t need one and you’ve got enough for both of us. :mrgreen:
I didn’t confront you. You try to pick a fight. :unamused: You call me personally.
Sorry, pal. You’re the one at odds not me. Have a nice life.

Though your suggestions may be thought through the MAJORITY aren’t. My comments were GENERAL and not about YOU.
I don’t know you. And I don’t follow you about picking fights.
My point is made. End of.
Apologies to markone for this minor spat about not much between me and the other one.

Not picking a fight. I simply got kinda tired of you telling people to just make music with what they have and stop wasting time, even if they’re not actually wasting time, but just posting on the net just like you are… actually, less than you are here. Frankly, no offense intended, I find it highly annoying.

So show them what they could accomplish if they stopped worrying about what they don’t have like you do… and just make music. Set the example. Let the “whiney kids” hear what they could accomlish if they stop whinging and start working more, like you. You have actually made some music with Cubase… right?

I refuse to believe you’re a poser given all the advice you give around here re: “making music” so… please share. I went looking in the Made with Cubase forum and I didn’t find anything from you. Do you produce, mix, arrange? What?

Thanks Conman.

Or will you just ignore my second request to hear some of the music you’ve made to put your comments in context?

Yes, good idea. :sunglasses:

Yes, I’ve asked about that a few times… to help reduce the S/N ratio.

BTW, I like your sax playing a lot man. If you do overdubs for a fee, like maybe take a FLAC mix stem or something and overdub sax and upload the sax stems back to Dropbox or something, let me know how much you charge for that kinda thing. If so, I’ll bookmark your page as a resource. Thanks.

It all depends on your perspective…

For me, the feature requests ARE THE FRACKING NOISE


and now we return you to your regular programming…

:mrgreen: Yes, they are potentially noise in the general forum aren’t they? Which is why most forums have boards specifically for that. Since there actually isn’t one here, I guess they all go in the lounge.

At any rate, it’s easy enough to just not click on a thread isn’t it? I mean, there’s a “Whitney Houston dies” thread that I have no real interest in, having seen it all over the news for a week… so I never clicked on it. Easy enough.

I won’t be making any more FR’s, but many others will… so… I suppose people have to get used to it… or ignore it. At any rate… having spent lots of money on a product I seriously doubt if most people really care what a stranger thinks about their requests as relates to all that. They’re actually talking to the company… not us… unless they’re specifically asking what we think about it.

Maybe if senior members are annoyed by “un-clear”, unintelligible, or unprofessional requests, maybe they can outline how a good request should be formatted and presented and maybe Steiny can make it a sticky… like the “How to Report a Problem With Cubase” sticky.

Be part of the solution… if there is a problem.

I agree with you 100% Steve. Most audio software forums (I think anyway) have dedicated feature request forums and sure… some of the requests make no sense at all to me personally, things that I don’t really understand or need or even want … there’s always some of that because we all work a bit differently. I pretty much ignore those things or if I’m just curious and don’t understand it, I may ask for a better explanation.

But a lot of it is just healthy and friendly discussion that doesn’t really harm anyone. A good bit of it - in my experience elsewhere(s) - finds it way into the applications on a regular basis, to the benefit of many. I wasn’t making that up, it’s true. Here’s an actual real world example…

Software X allows you to drag a send from one mixer channel to another to duplicate the send. Fine. That’s handy. During mixing it occurred to me that I actually couldn’t also do that in arrange, from the inspector, drag a send to another arrange track to duplicate the send, which seemed a bit inconsistent, so I asked if it could be added since the mixer isn’t always actually open. It’s a really minor thing that won’t stop any music making … but it occurred to me while working so I asked about it later.

It wasn’t a big deal at all really. Nothing to argue about or anything. Just the kind of tiny inconsistency that users are more likely to discover since they actually use the software more than the developers… whose job is coding 8 hours a day. Nothing major.

It showed up in the next dot update a couple of months later. Cool. I’ve seen that happen multiple times. It’s actually a good thing imo.

Example 2: A few users were complaining that it was a hassle to remove a midi track and not be able to also unload the racked up instrument at the same time if they wanted to. They talked about it… some people “+1’ed” it, it showed up a few months later in a dot update, a context menu function, “Remove Track and Instrument”. Cool. No biggie.

Nobody got hurt in the process.

Look guys… and I’ll leave this entire topic alone after this before it goes to Disneyland. But (I suppose) some just don’t know.

Here’s the thing… some new people coming to Cubase because they want to use or also use Cubase may often have certain expectations so you may have to take that into account. Some people use multiple applications for practical reasons. I won’t even talk about Reaper because they add new stuff every 10 days it seems, but here is an example of a typical Studio One dot update.

I appended the things below that came directly from user requests with “[User]”. 2.0.3…

add: Drag Send from open channel to closed channel view [User]
add: [Pro EQ] Band name highlight when mouse is over graphical EQ
add: Remove from recent files list command per entry on Start Page [User]
add: Crossfade grouped editing [User]
add: Remove track and instrument command in track controls context menu [User]
add: Drag to Soundcloud node in browser
add: Quantize Panel has quantize on track or in event switch
add: Command for inserting bend markers (Alt+Insert) [User]
add: Audio quantize and transient detection only applied to event range [User]

Of the 9 “adds” above, 6 of them are directly from user requests / discussion. Dot updates are mostly bug fixes but many of the “adds” are small things people specifically asked for directly. These dot updates happen pretty regularly so it’s not all that uncommon to see something you asked for 60 days ago show up. Small things that may annoy some people.

It raises user expectations which may be (in some cases) why people ask for stuff so often here too (especially Reaper owners) … because maybe they don’t yet know that Steiny doesn’t really do that, publish updates 6-7 times a year with many little things that users are asking for.

So … cut them a little bit of a break maybe. :neutral_face:

Thanks. Best regards to all.

Meanwhile, to bring this thread back on topic…

In computer science, a thread of execution is the smallest unit of processing that can be scheduled by an operating system. The implementation of threads and processes differs from one operating system to another, but in most cases, a thread is contained inside a process. Multiple threads can exist within the same process and share resources such as memory, while different processes do not share these resources. In particular, the threads of a process share the latter’s instructions (its code) and its context (the values that its variables reference at any given moment). To give an analogy, multiple threads in a process are like multiple cooks reading off the same cook book and following its instructions, not necessarily from the same page.
On a single processor, multithreading generally occurs by time-division multiplexing (as in multitasking): the processor switches between different threads. This context switching generally happens frequently enough that the user perceives the threads or tasks as running at the same time. On a multiprocessor (including multi-core system), the threads or tasks will actually run at the same time, with each processor or core running a particular thread or task.
Many modern operating systems directly support both time-sliced and multiprocessor threading with a process scheduler. The kernel of an operating system allows programmers to manipulate threads via the system call interface. Some implementations are called a kernel thread, whereas a lightweight process (LWP) is a specific type of kernel thread that shares the same state and information.
Programs can have user-space threads when threading with timers, signals, or other methods to interrupt their own execution, performing a sort of ad-hoc time-slicing.

also worth noting:

Thread is made from just about everything. . If your machine will sew with the thread, any thread can used for just about any purpose.

Weight is a way of indicating the thickness of a thread.
The most common weight system specifies the length of the thread in kilometers required to weigh 1 kilogram. Therefore, a greater weight number indicates a thinner thread.
American standard of thread weight (wt) was adopted from Gunze Count standard (Japan)… Gunze Count standard uses two numbers separated by a forward slash. The first number indicates the weight of the internal threads and the second number indicates the number of threads wrapped together to make the finished thread. It is common to wrap three strands of the same weight to make one thread (as indicated in the chart), any number of strands may be used and sometimes only two strands are wrapped together to made the finished thread. The American standard drops the specification of the number of strands which are twisted together. Therefore it is does not accurately describe thread.