I think you’re all missing the point! You’re all trying to think how your individual situation can be embedded in a single test. But that’s never going to happen of course! Because every Mac/PC is different. There will never be a test that will compare different systems and come up with a reliable result!
A test like this needs to be as basic as possible! And it only needs to test ‘your current’ system going from one Cubase version to another. You shouldn’t compare different systems with each other, because the comparison makes no sense! Because of course your newer system will surely be able to do more tracks!
And other people’s systems may be more powerful and they may use more advanced audio devices, etc.
So don’t make it too complicated! This test should only be about testing your own ‘current’ system.
It should only be a test to see how your current version of Cubase compares to the newer version on this same system? Because, any other comparison makes no sense!
In this respect I think the Dom Sigalas (corrected) test is the perfect tool to do this.
It only uses Cubase’s Retroloque and embedded plugins.
This is perfect to compare Cubase versions on your own system and see how they compare.
To be clear, this test should not be about who has the biggest, who has the fastest and who can do the most tracks?
This test should only be about comparing how one Cubase version on your system compares to the next!
I agree with Nickledome thats the best you can hope for as a common test and we already have it.
It is also useful in anothe way, it should run at your system maximum and on a windows machine be taking at least 85% to 95% of of your processor in the windows task manager at your system latency.
I have found this to be so on all the systems (At least 7 different ones) that I have used the test on when they have been well set up for cubase.
Sure we listen, but it seems you want to determine how things should be? It seems you feel you have all the wisdom and whatever you type needs to be adopted?
We, the humble people have the Dom Sigalas test. And I personally think this is a good test. I worked for me!
Maybe we need to adjust it to fit all Cubase versions?
But then the way you are reacting it feels like you already are determining how things should be?
Its up to the Steve or any other individulal to come up with the test that will, if its good for most, replace the Dom Sigalas test and find its own place as the the generally acceped standard test.
As a first step Steve should post a link to his test then see if it takes.
That was not the point of the OP’s suggestion though. It was not to compare for example 10 different functioning systems, it was to come up with a lowest common denominator where if you can’t run that test the problem is the computer, not Cubase. It’s sort of the “verification” part of the minimum system requirements Steinberg puts out. If no test can determine what the OP wants then how can there even be practical minimum system requirements?
The OP gave an example of that as well (I think), namely that we often see people say “well that works on my end” as a reply to when someone has a problem with functionality. If it makes sense for me to run a test to check basic functionality when another user has a problem then it is basically the same thing here, a test available for all to download and run to see if it’s a Cubase problem or not.
I think that’s really a different proposition, a different use-case for a test. And for that we have both Dom’s test and DAWbench.
A sort of Cubase self check you mean?
Not needed
Ive seen this forum when there is a real cubase fault , its on every machine with hundreds of cases within hours.
If its to do with a specific hardware or 3rd party add on the a general test is of little to no use at all
I await this magic test with great interest.
All tests are not valid on a machine that can not run the Dom Sigalas test to the the extent of no drop outs at 85% of precessor used as shown task master.
Only then is it time to start anything more specific to do with Cubase
Until then the fault is elsewhere in the set up not Cubase.