This is a common misconception. Developers just arent reading the room.
Yes you need to have a certain amount of features to be competitive. But Nuendo’s demographic care much more about stability beyond a certain amount of features. Nuendo has contained that features set since several years.
I would put refining existing features (like giving Expression maps the -delay per artic it always missed) second to bug fixing.
Major features should be under these two, if Steinberg want to be honest with themselves and not appease their executives.
RME is a perfect example. We love bug free and performative, first and foremost.
Why should anybody read those long-winded, tiresome "slop"py answers then, that mostly state the obvious plus some baroque prose that could be condensed by a human being into two or three meaningful sentences?
I think that’s true. For every person buying because of a new feature there are going to be X potential users who aren’t buying because something doesn’t work the way they want.
Amen to that. This is the first time I’ve considered becoming one of those users. Let’s wait and see with the reveal but I’m not holding out masses of hope.
People obviously dont know the plain and simple or else they wouldn’t still keep saying dumb childish things like ‘WHY CANT THE BUGS GET FIXED?’
I can honestly say i have never felt stressed about the bug issues, thats because i am fully aware of what goes on in computer programming environments, 99% of Cubase users DONT !!!
This is why you still get dumb complaints over and over about Bug issues not being fixed over many years.
Read the AI Slop and it gives you some kind of insight other than ‘STEINBERG ARE LAZY’ or the classic generic ‘STEINBERG DONT CARE’.
Dude you are the same person that said the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read about music, so I’m gonna excuse myself from taking anything else you say into consideration. Specially after you admitted to just pasting your AI here cause you don’t have time. Yeah perhaps you should take some time to think a little bit for a change. And if don’t flood the forum with responses it may free you some valuable time.
Now, I for one don’t plan to upgrade Nuendo nor recommend it for anyone anymore unless I either see DOP and ARA2 fixes in the release notes or Steinberg comes forward in this forum and finally adress what the F**K is going on with these two essential features that are broken in many regards.
I imagine there are a lot of users like myself. How is that not loss of revenue? The Post market isn’t that big, Protools already takes a big chunk of it, Resolve is growing, how long can they keep ignoring this?
That has been the feature of Steinberg DAWs for years. You press Control before committing a value and it will reset everything to that absolute value. Works in most areas of the program.
Have not tested the key command yet, but to me that would be ridiculous. If I select multiple events that are gained differently, and press a key to increase or decrease volume, surely I would want them to increase or decrease the same amount, not have all events randomly jump to one of the selected events’ value and then increase or decrease the same amount.
You know that this forum consists of professional folks who have made a living from sound design and music for 20-30+ years, right? Perhaps tone down the arrogance a little.
And every year I ask and ask Steinberg for click-and-drag ripple editing. Perhaps this is the year?!?!?!? Probably not. But who knows. I await patiently for N15 to find out.
BTW, as for click-and-drag ripple editing, I remind folks that WaveLab’s montage mode also has it, and the montage can be very good at editing spoken work projects.
And this also underscores that Steinberg already knows what good ripple editing is, so they have no excuse to do a poor job whenever they get around to adding it to Cubendo.
I always vote thumbs down It’s in Wavelab if I need it….but now that I understand ripple editing….I’d never use it….esp in Cubendo.
As to code.. I don’t sense that Philip’s code is necessarily in the same zip code as the Cubendo codebase…..in terms of a concept of “well Philip can do it in his code so Timo’s guys should be easily able to insert into their code.
Well at least I know who to blame now for why it hasn’t been implemented yet. Thanks!
Obviously it’s not anywhere near the same codebase. My point was that Steinberg has no excuse to do a poor implementation of ripple editing because they already know what good ripple editing actually looks like. Not because of any code advantage from PG.
The montage in WaveLab, while outstanding and kind of a basic audio-only DAW in and of itself (thank you PG!), is vastly simpler than the complex audio/midi sequencer in Cubendo with all the myriad track types, automation data, and decades of dependencies. It is entirely a different beast, at least an order of magnitude of difficulty difference to implement click and drag ripple editing in Cubendo at this stage, from what I understand. But my point is that Steinberg at least understands the concept of what is being requested, and they can always sit down with PG and have him go through the rationale of why it should work the way it does.
I’m happy to sit down with them a show them all my use cases… actually I’ve considered creating a video about it if I have time, and maybe that would even change your mind about it. Maybe your thumbs down would magically transform into a thumbs up? Who knows?
I hope Ripple Edit comes out. Even Cakewalk Sonar introduced it 8 years ago – and is now free software. So there are plenty of role models.
It’s possible, of course, that they’ve been working on it for two years already, and there’s always a problem somewhere.
It’s in Wavelab if I need it….but now that I understand ripple editing….I’d never use it….esp in Cubendo.
