Not sure if this has been posted before, but there’s a very positive review of Cubase 7 in KB Magazine:-
They nailed it the concluding remarks. I’m all about composing and arranging. That’s why I’ve stayed with cubase all these years.
Thanks for posting this.
Yes, it’s the same here, which is why I thought the review was so good.
I’d rather trust the users experience in forums than glossed over reviews in magazines that rely on the cash flow of advertisements that follow “honest it’s wonderful” reviews.
C7 is riddled with flaws, mostly found in the MC. You can’t seriously believe that a magazine reviewer is going to hone in on the problems? He/she would soon be looking for a new job. As should the software engineers who keep churning out mess after more mess with the upgrades.
6.5 and Studio One 2 are Center stage here now. All the clicking zooming in/out to read track names, random resizes of MC and a myriad other annoyances of the MC in C7 that includes lack of focus sense and no undo has become a tedious and tiring chore to be avoided.
The tacky appearance of the send/insert page, which looks like a black cheaply designed spreadsheet criss crossed with white lines that lookes like a badly machine sown tailors error is just so ugly and unreadable at minimum zoom though must take the crown for the worst and tackiest looking user interface ever of any DAW though!
must be a reaper fan… I think you should think about surrendering your c7 license in that respect , give it to someone that appreciates the hard work going into completely reworking the MC . There are plenty of other DAW’s out there which may fit your workflow … NO ???
The review is certainly glossy but c7 is certainly worth the praise and apart from the minor issues and USER errors im finding c7 very stable and as a midi sequencer there is truly nothing on this planet to compare it to .
I’d trust an established magazine review far more than comments from users in this forum. Sound On Sound gave Cubase 7 a good review also. Magazine reviewers are experienced ,balanced and vet their ideas by an editor. Many users are carry grudges over years, don’t know what they,re doing ,are warped single issue zealots or just enjoy piling on. The idea that magazines churn out positive reviews just to get advertising is pretty silly since the magazines value to readers is its integrity to its readers. Keyboard and Sound onSound have each been around for over 25 years. Don’t think they’ve survived by selling cheery comments.
I particularly respect Sound on Sound’s reviews because they are quite willing to point out problems. In their review of C7, for example, they called the MixConsole “ugly.”
I sort of agree about the value of magazine reviews but SOS and KB have been fairly reliable in my experience. Although it must be said that SOS kept very quiet on the whole Avid/Sibelius debacle, which I did suspect was down to fear of lost advertising revenue.
User experience on forums is invaluable, but an awful lot falls into the “this is absolutely the worse release ever”, “how can anybody use this total crap” category.
Cubase 7 has a demo version. Why the hell didn’t people who bang on about the MC and its looks try the demo first? They’ll come up with some lame excuse why they didn’t. ‘Ooh it wasn’t out’, ‘Ooh I didn’t know there was a demo’, 'Ooh I just went and bought it anyway (‘cause I’ve got money to throw away)’. They could also have seen the Steinberg videos on YouTube about C7 before buying.
No-one makes you buy Cubase 7. That’s NO-ONE. If you don’t like C7, don’t use it, or buy it, use something else. There’s loads of choice. It’s that easy. If people are going to be critical, at least be constructive.
Keyboard and SOS know what they are doing. I’ve read articles that are very critical of gear in both mags. I trust them. They have integrity. If you don’t believe them, don’t waste your money again and don’t read them.
I know someone is going to flame me for this post. Before you do, re-read the post, then argue with it.
The above comment might be a tad over played. I had said they nailed it in the closing comments. Translated: That means they agree with my user experience. Like you, I don’t need a magazine to tell me what I like. But I also don’t need other users to tell me what I like either.
I continue to try the competition from time to time. And I continue to use pro tools for all my multi track drum editing. But that’s all I use it for. I export my drum tracks, fix them, and import right back.
I’d still rather use Cubase for every other task. But that’s just my opinion. YMMV
“As for magazines, print as well as virtual - it’s a business, it’s about advertisement money to pay for the whole thing”
So this means that magazines automatically lack integrity because they’re a business??? What about other businesses? In the US hospitals are a business. Do they offer up incorrect diagnosis just to make money.Dont people reasonably expect to be told the truth from a doctor they know (he has a business). Since you point out that the only valid opinions are from “power users”, many of these are using Cubase in studios. Studios are a business. When clients come to my studio ,I don’t lie to them about the quality of their songs or performance just to get more business.I tactfully tell the truth, just like most magazine reviewers do.
I see your points and I’ll just have to respectfully agree. I wouldnt still be using Cubase after all these years if Steiny listened too closely to their customers.Customer opinions are important but only to a point. The customers are not developers and very few have concepts or imagination that would have gotten Cubase where it is today. IMO there would be no VSTi’s or VST fx if customers had their way. no advanced midi functionality or midi fx, no score ,no Arranger track,no chord functionality no system link and on and on. At every step there would be a bunch oF “power users” wailing about how these features aren’t needed and demanding Steiny focus on their needs only.
Again, I see your point of view: I just disagree.
Actually that’s a poor example, because yes they do. Medical personnel are wined and dined by drug manufacturers and offered huge discounts (that are not passed to the patient) for directing patients to their drug. Obviously, just like magazines, this doesn’t apply to all doctors or hospitals. Same thing with financial advisors… they get bonuses for pushing particular products regardless of the benefit to the customer. Same thing with game reviews where game reviewers can’t get early access copies to games if they tell everyone that the last title from publisher x was a POS. Same thing with movie reviews.
In all cases you just have to know the integrity of the person reviewing. You read what they’ve written over time and get a feel for how honest they are, or what their given peculiarities are. I have no idea in this case or about this author. But I can say it is a very casual, fluffy, surface review which regardless of integrity tells me it is useless to base a decision on.
I tend to trust a few Sound-on-Sound guys quite a bit, but wouldn’t drink from a cup that some of the other authors swore was water if I was dying from thirst.
I do think - although some people are inherently dishonest, no doubt - reviewers are more trustworthy than a random forum opinion.
The evidence of that is that major daws never get a “bad” major magazine review, an opinon not to buy or to directly avoid, for a very good reason, because they all do the job. But if ask you the trusted audio forum guy about that, 5 out of 10 times he’ll severely (or technically incorrectly) bash something he doesn’t like and hasn’t touched in years.
On balance I’d trust a reviewer’s opinion over any forum opinion, but the only opinon that actually matters is, of course, your own.
I had a back and forth with Jim Aikin here, I believe, about 10 years ago about this very topic and he was completely unapologetic about being less than ‘hard hitting’. He made it very clear that although he wanted to always be truthful, he was not there to make waves with advertisers or be negative. So he always tried to focus on the positive aspects of a product and ignore ‘issues’ unless they were truly dreadful.
IMHO, the Keyboard review was a typical (and dreadful) ‘bread and butter’ review. It was barely 3 pages (with ads of course.) Which is -ridiculous- for a DAW. The tone was of someone who played with it just long enough to write a story: whenever they talk about ‘installation was a breeze!’ and the eye candy features, ya know it’s silly.
I had a back and forth with Jim Aikin here about 10 years ago about this very topic and he was completely unapologetic
User feedback does matter—a reviewer should make some mention that the user community is either thrilled or wary.
SOS reviews are better in that they often do take that into account.
Tape Op is also good in that the reviewer goes into depth one what matters from his POV and makes no pretense of covering ‘everything’.
I think it’s a bit unfair to say ‘Try the demo!’ Sure that’s important, but who has the -time- to do comprehensive tests of every feature for every DAW one may wish to consider.
Also, there’s the Don Rumsfeld factor: unknowable unknowables. There are questions and gotchas you don’t even know you need to ask… things you don’t realise until maybe -years- later.
It’s reasonable to expect that reviews for paid mags be a bit more even-handed than is the current norm. Oddly, Tape Ops review are much better in this regard… and yet is free.