Hi. So I’ve just tried 5.5.2 and so far I’ve got two major bugs. Firstly, volumes not being sent on midi tracks from the inspector, and also the top track being selected every time i maximise the volume of a track. As far as I can see the only real bug with 5.1 is the window resize one (which is a pain).
So my question is this. Is anyone using the 5.5.2 version of cubase? Or are there others of you who have tried 5.5.2 and gone back to 5.1. What in your opinions is the best and most stable version of 5?
Am I the only person who thinks it is shameful that Steinberg can not have one single bug free version of their software at any stage? 3, 4, 5, and I assume 6 will be the next. Surely some heads need to role at the top at Steiny.
Where is their bug reporting system? they claim to have a list somewhere of all the bug that have been reported by customers… well where is it? And how is it that these bugs are getting missed so often?
I don’t want to go to 6 till they sort the late editing problems out. Until then it’s back to 5.1.
another angry customer who needs to be brought back to earth first…
Just kidding I’m a user too, and astonished and sometimes angry, but not for too long…
So my question is this. Is anyone using the 5.5.2 version of cubase? Or are there others of you who have tried 5.5.2 and gone back to 5.1. What in your opinions is the best and most stable version of 5?
I switched back to 5.5.1 because of a (not comfirmable bug) with saving presets…
stability depends probably on the whole setup… I was quite happy with 5.5.1 until osx 10.6.7 was released, now I have more bugs than ever. but mainly not only on steingerg/cubase side…
Am I the only person who thinks it is shameful that Steinberg can not have one single bug free version of their software at any stage? 3, 4, 5, and I assume 6 will be the next. Surely some heads need to role at the top at Steiny.
perhaps you’re not the only one, but one single bug free version is a dream. Try to develop software: As you’re not perfect your software never will be. besides there are so many side-effects: software/hardware, other programs installed, configurations that it is simply impossible to test anything for anybody. A single hint: try to develop a middle complex web-page which works on any browser identically… So about the heads: not quite sure, as long as you’re not member of the chair
Where is their bug reporting system? they claim to have a list somewhere of all the bug that have been reported by customers… well where is it? And how is it that these bugs are getting missed so often?
it’s here in the forum…
So bugs are missing because it can be damn hard to reproduce them and to confirm that they are not single system glitches. During the past two week, I reported two problems which until now unfortunately nobody could reproduce…
So shall i think steinberg is lazy and they don’t care, or probably that I just have bad luck with my system/configuration (once more?)…
But the bugbase you posted isn’t the complete list of bugs. It only has a handful of the reported bugs. This is NOT the Steinberg bugbase. Chris B. told me as much. If so, why are there so few bugs on it, when there are hundreds which have been reported.
This is why Steinberg will never be a pro company, because they don’t have a proper system, so bugs slip through the net.
So you say 5.5.1 is good? But you are on mac and I on pc, so maybe the pc side is not worth looking at. Any pc users out there who have used 5.5.1?
I agree it’s not the official steinberg bugbase, but it’s he one users can use.
the bugbase in bigger softwares is normally just accessed internally to have a better filter on bug duplicates, non reproducible bugs, etc.
Steinberg though is pro company otherwise it’s products wouldn’t be used all over the planet in bigger studios and I assume Yamaha wouldn’t have purchased steinberg if it hadn’t been like that.
I’m afraid you can call Steinberg whatever you like, but professional it is not. Would a professional company release a version of cubase (5.5.2), a music software in it’s fourth generation which can’t even remember what midi volumes have been set in a project. Professional my big furry a$%se…buggy version after buggy version. My dog could write better software that this… and I don’t have a dog…
Don’t see ANY big studios using cubase… a few might use nuendo, but not many… and generally when they do buy nuendo they usually regret it…
What you don’t understand is, besides the fact that I am King (post count world at least) this is a deliberate move on the part of Steinberg to limit the complexity of the GUI.
Steinberg have a vast MIDI and performance specification under the hood, so instead of trying to blight the company learn to program your song files instead.
As for the automation, I only use it on Audio which I think is what is being inferred in some of these threads.
Just use MIDI commands and filter them in the list, that way you can see all your volumes for a given track at once.
I understand the idea of setting it for the track at the start of the song but it is really unnecessary.
What steinberg need to do is have commands take precedence over notes so when you draw a volume change for example at the same point where a note starts, that it (cc) always precedes the note.
I get you, but I don’t use the list editor EVER. I don’t want to have to ad volumes using the pencil. It’s boring and slow. Also, I want to set my volumes and pans with my remote controller (KORG KONTROL). This works super in 5.1
I’ve just gone back to 5.1.2 an yeah… all my track play at the right volume. THIS IS A BUG!!!
Though it may be a bug I think your approach is quite uncommon (at least for my humble opinion)…
I normally adapt the volume of the audio tracks with my controllers, not the one in the MIDI track…
When recording you neither play with the volume of the insert channels if you don’t need to. You control levels by fading the Output channels…
btw: how does your system behave under 5.5.1 or 5.5.0 same problems? Would be interesting to know when the behaviour came in…
Hi. Interesting what you said about the volume track, but that would mean having to have two tracks displayed per instrument, the midi one and the audio one (assuming you aren’t using instrument tracks). As the note data is in the midi one, surely it makes sense just to change the volume of this one? I usually have a folder called HIDDEN which I put all the tracks I don’t need to edit in. I usually put the instruments audio output tracks in this folder.
re versions 5.5.0 and 5.5.1 I don’t know when the change occuured, probably at 5.5.0 as this is when the major overhaul of automation happened.
I don’t know if running the studio version makes any difference but I hadn’t any bug problems on PC with any of the versions. 5.2 developed a small glitch problem with my controller but I think it’s a rewriting problem for Tascam. I use mainly instrument and audio tracks with the exception of midi tracks for Addictive Drums. I haven’t really used the input midi volume adjustments because most of the automation and effects processing works better for me on the back end. Of course, your plugin has to have multiple outputs for this to work smoothly.
Bugs aren’t really considered bugs unless they can be recreated on both platforms and several combinations of setups. That’s why there are very few listed. If SB figures a feature can work flawlessly on just “one” system, then it’s not as much of a Cubase systems glitch as it is a miscommunication with miscellaneous hardware/software combinations. That is almost impossible to screen as it is impossible to have everyone’s system to account for. There are many here that will verify rock solid systems as well as myself with any of the version or OS/platform combinations that we’ve experienced. I know that doesn’t help your specific case as it does not many others but that’s what excludes bug labeling on any given issue.
Aside of my studio, I bounce from one pro studio to the other and there are 2 major DAW systems at work and they are Pro Tools and Cubase. Pro Tools and Mac were supposed to be the rock solid combo but from what I’ve seen, there are more issues than what I experience with Cubase on PC. That includes having to do software updates when OS’s are updated and in a lot of cases where a PC wouldn’t. That in and of itself surely doesn’t justify the much larger expense that Mac/Pro Tool equipment incurs. Cubase should be susceptible to more issues for the fact alone that it offers way more versatility including more onboard synths, more effects and more system tools in my opinion. It is a whole studio within itself with the only need for import/export being midi/audio interfacing.
Again, many problems are more specific than universal and some will be affected more than others depending on work habits and what features are being used. If you indeed are having a problem that others aren’t experiencing, then a process of elimination may be in order to determine why your problem is specific. It may even be common in a group of users and there may even be a similar cause within that group with something as simple as the same interface, controller, video card etc.
Chris:
Interesting what you said about the volume track, but that would mean having to have two tracks displayed per instrument, the midi one and the audio one (assuming you aren’t using instrument tracks). As the note data is in the midi one, surely it makes sense just to change the volume of this one? I usually have a folder called HIDDEN which I put all the tracks I don’t need to edit in. I usually put the instruments audio output tracks in this folder.
I don’t know if what I’m telling is obvious or if we’re talking about the same just in other words:
If you use an instrument track you have one fader which basically controls the output.
If you insert an instrument as a VST-Instrument Cubase creates automatically the Output (Audio) Track (and a second one for automation). But to control this track and send it MIDI signals you need a MIDI-track. If you add such one you get that (see screenshot).
So unless you effectively want to control the MIDI volume (which makes less sense for my oppinion) you use the Audio channel to control the Audio Volume of this track… and fading on the outputs is more common, than fading on the inputs or even in the MIDI… at least for my oppinion…
P.S: I couldn’t make a screenshot of the mixer but there you see also two faders: one for teh MIDI and one for it’s audio-signal…
Yes I put the instrument in the rack, then create a midi track for that instrument. I don’t agree that you should set the volume of the output track, because this means you have to have two tracks present in the arrange page (normally I hide the audio output track in a folder which I mark ‘hidden’). I prefer just to have one track on my arrange page i.e. the MIDI track which actually has all the MIDI information on it that i want to edit. Therefore I want to control my volume via the MIDI volume control in the inspector. Either way however you look at it, Cubase SHOULD send out midi volume information for every track when it opens. The fact that it doesn’t means that the inspector is not reflecting the true volume value. I have noticed that even in 5.1 very occasionally, cubase doesn’t send out volumes properly, so i am stumped as to what is going on…
Hi Chris,
I partly agree, with patch selections on specific external instruments it’s the same, they’re not always selected. Therefore it is recommended, to program the pacth selection manually at the beginning of every track.
At the other hand:
I don’t agree that you should set the volume of the output track, because this means you have to have two tracks present in the arrange page (normally I hide the audio output track in a folder which I mark ‘hidden’). I prefer just to have one track on my arrange page
Now I don’t agree completely , and I’ll explain you why: The MIDI Track is just for MIDI, but when preparing your song for mastering, which means when you want to do a clean mix, you need to level the channels again, put effects like compressors & eq’s, etc in. All these plugins you don’t have them available in a MIDI-track. Aditionally if you want to have some automation on the audio-signal you couldn’t do it because the channel is hidden…
Aditionally it’s like preparing a mix by levelling the Inputs of a mixer and not the outputs.
So It definitively makes more sense to use the master-output-fader to fade volumes.
Additionally you see now, why Cubase has the Instrument channels: They’re both in one and you don’t need to control the MIDI on one side, and the Output at the other side. Personally I use MIDI-Instruments just when i use Mono-Instuments which do not get supported by the Instrument Channel.
Try to use Instrument Channels instead of MIDI-Instruments (like this you avoid 2 problems, you don’t have 2 strips in your mixer, and you don’t need to hide one) and try to get used to see (for MIDI-Inst.) a MIDI channel and an Audio channel. It’s the far better approach, specially when you come closer to the mixing, than hiding the Audio-output channel, because you literally manipulate what you hear and not what went in…
remember, nobody makes a mix by levelling the inputs. you level the Audio-Outs…
Interesting… you definitely have a point when it comes to mastering, though I still could leave the track in the ‘hidden’ folder and just edit eq’s etc. via the output mixer’s switches. The only issue would be if you wanted to automate pans or volumes. These behave in a different way inside of instruments with internal effects (ie with midi, sometimes the changes are made ‘pre-effects’. Also if you are applying reverbs etc. to the channel’s inserts it is sometimes better to fade ‘pre’ reverb, whereas changing the output channel would also change the level of effect, which isn’t always required.
