In & Out Of The Cornfield®️

Steinberg Lounge
1

I rather like C10, but jeez… it’s a pretty sloppy release.

I didn’t think it necessary to post this in General or Issues. There seems to be more than enough threads by users who either love or hate Steinberg’s latest effort. What I have noticed though, is there is a lot of anger in many of those threads…and on both sides, at that.

I have to admit, I’ve never seen the sheer amount of complaints for this particular release. Sure, there’s always something that winds up changed or completely gone with each new version, along with a fair amount of new or improved features (and a new plug-in or two). But this one?

I think Steinberg’s adherence to their traditional release scheduling really damaged C10’s introduction this time around. The amount of small (and some large) bugs coupled with a number of poorly implemented new features is nothing short of bewildering to me.

If you look through the Features and Requests forum, you’ll notice the threads concerning the addition of ARA clocked in with well over 20,000 views. Steinberg says they are going to implement it…and you have to wonder, had they taken the appropriate amount of development and beta time, if ARA might have been the banner they would have hung this release on. Don’t get me wrong. ARA inclusion isn’t going to make or break Cubase’s popularity. It’s just the idea that it was the most requested (and expected) feature users were looking for in this release.

This build could have easily used another 2-3 months in the oven. I think if they had spent more time, we wouldn’t be seeing the minefield that is currently occupying the main forums.

What I believe we’re seeing here is the result of adhering to an artificial deadline. I honestly think some measurable amount of damage has been done in terms of user satisfaction and trust because of it. No one likes to be burned.

Steinberg seriously needs to consider adopting a more flexible release scheduling strategy. I don’t mind waiting as long as it results in a strong build.

I fully expect Cubase to improve with the next few “dot” releases…but wow…this has to be the sloppiest point release I’ve seen in decades.

And something else…and I may be totally off base about this…but the sheer nasty tone of some of the main forum threads is something new to me. It’s like Trumpism has invaded the mindset of the user base. Think about it… look through the first few pages of some of the older version forums. Yes, griping and cheers…but the tone, prior to 2016, is what I find different and somewhat disturbing.

My two cents.

2

Well put!

3

Sorry, but I don’t agree.

I am loving this release, and haven’t, so far, found a single thing to moan about!

Of course, that may just be that I welcome change if it brings benefits, unlike a lot of others to whom change…any change, appears to be unwelcome?

Just think how much music recording has changed since the wax disc days?

Could that be due to changes/improvements in processes and equipment??

Just my opinion of course!!

Jim B

4

“Sorry, but I don’t agree”

That’s OK, but I’m a little confused, Jim. At the very top, I stated that I like this release. Nowhere do I complain about any specific changes or additions to it. I actually look forward to the latest versions of Cubase. I like new stuff and I embrace change. What I was addressing focused on observations about policy and user response. I wasn’t criticizing the content of the software.

Was there a particular point I made that you disagree with?

My opinion that it’s a sloppy release? I’ve been using Cubase since the Atari days and I’ve used every version since. I’ve seen some really solid releases and a few sloppy ones along the way. This one falls into my category of sloppy. And by sloppy, I mean an unusual amount of little details falling through the cracks, along with a few showstoppers (bugs that actually crash the apps). You only need to read through the Issues forum to get a handle on what’s been reported since the release. Empirically, it seems above the average…hence my use of the quantifier: sloppiest. It’s an opinion based on almost 30 years of experience with the program. I can accept this is debatable.

Do you disagree with my observation of more than usual anger in some of the responses in main forums… or the accounting of more than normal amount of complaints for a major release? Or the number of reported bugs in this release? Or my opinion on the strategy and potential downside to Steinberg’s release scheduling and whether or not they could they have held off a bit more and tested longer to iron out issues or fit ARA in? Or my opinion on the tone of many of the current complaint threads?

I’m not trying to give you a hard time. I’m just trying to narrow down what exactly you disagree with and perhaps we can take it from there.

5

I disagreed with the “sloppy release” statement.

Like you, I’ve been a long time user if Cubase, although my journey started on LE4, but having tried other DAW’s I still put Cubase at the top of the tree!

I am always surprised at the very rapid negative response posts, almost immediately a new version is issued. As, in the past, I too suffered from basic computer issues that impacted negatively on DAW performance, I do wonder how many of these “problems” can be attributed in that area?

Please believe me, I wouldn’t take issue/ start arguing with anyone on this forum, life’s to short!

I am just having my “two penny worth”!

Jim B

6

Jim:

Yeah, I get the possibility that a percentage of the complaints may be attributed to OE. It’s particularly funny because I’m guilty of doing exactly that myself. I posted what I thought was a bug with the new contextual menu/toolbar feature improvement introduced …and as it turned out, it was an out of date system mouse driver causing it. However, once fixed and working, it brought up a second related issue that turned out be an actual bug that was passed onto Steinberg’s bug base. Nothing showstopping and completely easy to work around. But there it was. In my defense, the original issue was not an issue with C9.5. Apparently, enough changed in the code revision to trip up the driver. Lesson learned.

I have read through the Issues forum and have duplicated quite a number of the reported problems (editing Waves 9 plugins causing crashes was particularly concerning to me).

It’s reasonable to accept that not everyone uses all the features in the program (seriously, who does?) and so I find it understandable when I read posts from users who say the program works perfectly. But I come from a musical equipment and software manufacturing background and have spent hundreds of hours testing things. I honestly believe the majority of the complaints are legitimate and I stand by “sloppy” regarding this build. That’s my opinion. But I get your point and opinion. Doesn’t bother me that they differ.

The main thing that was bugging me got tucked away somewhere in the middle of the piece, centering around Steinberg’s adherence to an artificial release schedule policy. My thinking is that, long term, it’s better to annoy your user base by holding back a release to spend more time tightening up the program, in the hopes that the effort results in a build with less problems and subsequently…happier customers and less griping. Better PR all around.

Nice talking with you.