I think those of use who have problems with retrospective record need to do exactly this: keep posting examples here each time it happens to show that it is indeed broken. Thanks, @rickpaul for posting your experience.
What I’ve found when I’m using it this way is that I’m often just experimenting with what to do, while not recording, and, if it worked, ahead of being ready to try a recording pass, it’s helpful to capture it.
But another thing I’ve seen in my recent uses, when trying to build up an arrangement while experimenting with sounds (which can inspire the arrangement), is that, if I use it like I might use normal recording, but don’t like what I came up with, I just press stop then play again, with no need to undo the recording pass, nor to be starting and ending at the same place as I would with loop recording. So it can actually be convenient on the workflow efficiency front. Of course, that is if it works (which it had for me prior to yesterday’s example where it lost the first part of the recording – but usually I’m playing straight through, not taking a full song section of rest in between).
That said, I will probably still use regular recording in most cases because I usually have a better idea of what I’m going for by the time I am ready to record, and I like to do loop recording then comp from multiple takes.
I’m very unclear about the objection of your post. Are you saying, since you do not use retrospective record the same way I do—even though you acknowledge it doesn’t work correctly—that I must be mistaken in thinking it’s broken?
There are so many inaccuracies with your reply as a result of your ignorance. Do you not realize 100% of what you just proclaimed is subjective?
FWIW, an answer your ‘honest question’ (I have a doubt about the first word, considering what followed, but well…), it’s been a starting point of several projects of mine in the past, this, since at least Cubase 6.5. Never failed until now, but contrarily to you, I’m not expecting from it more than a way to retrieve something I just played without a record process occuring. Actually, I use it more or less the same way as @Nickeldome, and with the same expectations.
You should avoid such personal attack. FWIW, I have read enough of his/her posts here, through the years, to know that he/she knows what he is talking about. And no, the RR isn’t broken : I think you are expecting too much of it, actually, as each time I’ve been using it, I got what I was hoping for…
Sometimes I get a situation where RR only records the last bit of what I played, as described above. I’m not sure of the exact circumstances but it happens to me.
This notion of only recording the last part – most times I am using it I am playing straight through, or maybe only with minor rests – got me wondering if there might be some configurable parameters, such as whether to ignore early “doodles” if some amount of time (measures?) has passed before picking up on playing. However, I didn’t find anything in searching, just a reference to its putting whatever was in the MIDI buffer in, including at the original timestamps (which it did in my example above for the last part – it just dropped the first part before the multi-measure rest). Nor did I find anything on configuring any MIDI buffer-related parameters.
I have not yet tried recreating this in a different project from the one I’m working on now, nor even repeating the behavior in a different Cubase (13.0.21) session since my focus is on trying to finish my project. It was just curious that, despite using retrospective record quite a bit on this project (including in subsequent sessions), I did actually see the problem in the one case, and my behavior in that case (i.e. the multi-measure rest) was actually different from the way I usually use retrospective record, AND that it happened twice in a row with those circumstances, thus giving me the impression it is reproducible.
If anyone from Steinberg is reading this, it would be useful to know if there may be some (perhaps intentional, perhaps mistaken) behavior of this sort, and if that behavior changed between the two releases the original post’s author flagged as when the issue started.
Wonderful—thanks for that unsolicited information in your opening paragraph.
Retrospective record is very much broken. It’s interesting to read how you and nickeldome feel it’s acceptable for a feature (one that Steinberg marketed with the release of Cubase 11) to work only partially.
Curious—what do you gain from this opposition?
Thank you again, @rickpaul. The way you have become more open-minded to this issue has been greatly appreciated.
Steps to reproduce ?
On my end, simply because I have used it since countless years, long before Cubase 11 release.
I don’t remember exactly, but RR was already described in Cubase 5 Operation manual and I’ve been using Cubase on a PC/Windows system since the SL2 version. It’s still working as I expect from it, so what more to say ?
Steps to reproduce ?
Definitely broken. Can’t reproduce. Breaks sporadically. Probably depends somewhat on the users midi setup.
As I stated above: What do you GAIN by opposing the issue of this thread??
Myself and @GPnicolett (as well as several others) have been reporting our findings for 10 YEARS without any proper inquiry from Steinberg—so much so, it lead me to the subject of this thread: To find out if a substantial portion of Cubase/Nuendo users even use retrospective record or if we are so far into the minority that Steinberg doesn’t even consider our concerns.
It’s apparent you use retrospective record casually and not in the same context I use it, which has made it evident that you entered this discussion simply for creating conflict rather than any kind of cooperation. If you have nothing to aid to this conversation then leave!
I can understand why we don’t get traction on issues like this. Can’t reproduce the issue after all.
The frustrating thing is that most of the bugs I encounter on the daily are intermittent. Maybe that’s just the plight of software that’s as old and complex as the Cubase code base.
Anyway, getting aggressive about it probably won’t help either. Just gotta work around these bugs as best we can.
Greg, no disrespect to you because I have always appreciated your input, but all that was said here was intended to seem aggressive. The purpose of creating this thread was to measure Steinberg’s awareness to the matter using shock-value, not that I really even cared about the number of individuals using retrospective record. My apologies for your time.
I get the aggression, and hey I hope it works, honestly I do.
The way I see it - we’re pros, at least I suspect you are (I don’t know who you are here, if we’re friends though please ping me elsewhere). As pros, we use this software 24/7, and because of this, hit snags only 1% of other users hit. And because of those two facts, this is one of those bugs that we’re just not gonna see fixed.
And yes, I may be trying high school level reverse psychology here.