Please refine Cubase 11 a bit further

Cubase
1

I know, it’s an older version now. Cubase 12 also is at the end of its life cycle and whatever comes next is in preparation and requires your resources.

But hear me out:
Cubase 10, 11 and 12 have been released in an unacceptably buggy state. Period.
The issues present in those versions for months after release were absolutely unprofessional and contrasted the fact that you are marketing this product to a professional audience that might make a living by relying on it.

You have patched Cubase 12 now with a few more point releases than usual, because I assume it was especially unfinished at the time of release, or you might have finally heard the complaints.

I am still running Cubase 11 Pro, I have decided that I will no longer upgrade or purchase a Steinberg product until I see that you are putting more effort and emphasis on software quality, and that includes the quality ON RELEASE, as soon as you sell and ship the product. The fact that you have “taken away” some plugins that I still enjoyed was the second reason why I did not upgrade to Cubase 12.

I kindly ask you to refine Cubase 11 a bit further, make it as reliable and professional as you marketed it as. Because every time I launch that thing, I still notice quirks that shouldn’t be there, and yes, which already have been reported in bug reports, but seemingly have not been severe, so they never got fixed. This lackluster approach of ignoring minor annoyances in order to meet the release cycle and satisfy the accountant and investors kept creeping through the product for years and has accumulated. It’s time you clean this mess and show dedication to professionality, reliability and robustness. Cubase 11 has not seen enough updates.

If you are willing to show some good will - because I know that fixing an old version won’t make you profit - and if you show that you are putting more emphasis on quality, I can finally love and recommend Cubase as much as I want to, and upgrade again.

Just don’t keep turning your customers into beta testers. We want to purchase and use your product, not pay you to become involuntary quality assurance personnell. Being forced to find and report bugs in order to receive a … mostly … reliable workstation after about 6 - 12 months is not the way to go. And guys, please spare me your wisdom that professionals never upgrade or use the newest version. It’s a product, it’s being advertised, it’s being sold, it has to be working as intended at that point in time and it is Steinberg’s responsibility to ensure sufficient testing and refinement.

2 Likes
2

Steinberg has repeatedly stated that they will not discontinue perpetual licenses.

I’m replying to your post simply to dispel rumors about that.

3

Fair enough, those are just rumors that I have picked up on and that would fit into the current market. I’ve removed this part from the post.

4

Well, development of Cubase 11 ended a couple years ago. The won’t be releasing any updates for it.

If you don’t want to support future development, that’s your right. But in my own opinion, it’s your loss.

Profit margins have shrunk over the past couple of decades, and the cost of updating to newer versions of Cubase (and other daw software) is quite inexpensive compared to previous years, and crazy cheap compared to the cost for the same functionality in recording studio hardware.

5

I honestly don’t expect they would. It’s worth at least asking them to. I’ve been disappointed for multiple versions and years in a row, always hoping the next version would finally bring fixes to old annoyances. Would be released in a solid shape. It never happened. I am aware that it would be a small miracle if they decided to do the right thing and put a bit more work into polishing those older versions. Given that professionals often don’t use the latest versions, there should still be plenty of users with old versions. And they sit on what they got, after a few bugfixes, whether sufficient or not.

The reason why I’m so upset about this is, Cubase “is” AMAZING. At least it would be.
The UI is hands down the most ergonomic one out there. The feature set is enormous. The plugins, the concept, it’s all great and would make the absolute best offering, IF ONLY they would put a top priority on flawless function on release. Offering a rock solid, worry-free experience that you can rely on. A true work horse, that does exactly what you want it to.
It’s the only thing that holds Cubase back. And their marketing and “Pro” naming scheme and pricing seems almost mockery in light of that.

I just wish it would be different, because I have searched for YEARS to find the best tool for me, and if Cubase wasn’t such a mess at release, it would be IT.

1 Like
6

I used to share your view about this, but along the way I’ve learned how much devs have to deal with, aside from their own work on the daw. OS updates (from both players), technological requirements that change, etc.

Many hours are spent simply adopting to external realities. So I’ve understood how to set my expectations.

1 Like
7

My expectations stem mostly from an entire decade with Propellerhead Reason. I got into it with version 3 and used every new version of it almost on a daily basis. For 10 years, through many major and minor versions purchased at day one, I have not encountered a single crash or bug. It was flawless. That changed at some point in time, after they have opened up the DAW to VST plugins. But those 10 years absolutely have set the bar for me.

When I outgrew Reason DAW and decided the new user interface and some performance issues annoyed me to the point of seeking a new platform, I began a search for a new tool. I have tested and bought into 12 DAWs of different shape and size and compared them. Some are pretty great, I am quite fond of Logic Pro and Renoise. Studio One, Bitwig and Reaper are also pretty great. But they all have some things that annoy me and Cubase would be my preferred option. And in comparison, its reliability is just not on par with some other options. No software is completely bug free. But the competition is just noticeably more solid. Steinberg’s inadequate quality control forces me to work with the second best option to my personal workflow, Logic. And that binds me to Apple, a circumstance that I’d love to get away from. The situation is just frustrating.

1 Like
8

You will never get a bug free version. I worked for a tv company using various companies encoders and equipment. We even had a staging area where we could test out the platform. So the software on the encoders were tested by the manufacturer and then we would put it through its paces in a test network for weeks. Even after all this as soon as we put it into the production network the bugs would reveal themselves. It would also take multiple patches before we moved into another version with its own bugs. You will never have a final product with none.

9

I’m aware of that. But that’s why at the scope of such a tool like Cubase, you would do sufficiently long beta periods with lots of participants and all kinds of setups. And during that phase, you fix things. THEN you sell it as a product to users who need to rely on it.
I am not talking about a secretive little club of testers who can be proud to be invited and barely do testing, I mean very broad and open testing by all interested customers who have purchased any version before. And not just for a few weeks, but months. And dedication to only properly release when it’s ready.

1 Like
10

Hey man, do you know that many of the beta testers also participate in the public forum? I would venture to say you probably have little or no direct knowledge about the program. You can actually sign up on your own too, no invite needed. Perhaps learn about it before throwing shade.

4 Likes
11

Whoops, thanks for pointing out - indeed an oversight of mine. So, is beta testing for Cubase actually an open process, without barriers like an application form, signing NDAs and being selected / approved? Can any customer just get access to builds ahead of release and give feedback on the forums? I’m not familiar with the process here, because I’m not interested in testing. But if I wanted to, as a Cubase 11 Pro owner, I could in a simple way download Cubase 13 beta builds right now and help finding bugs?

12

Whatever, man. you can check it out or not.

You might be living in a bubble of your own making, which is your right.

13

Aren’t we all? :smile:
By sharing my little bubble, I hope to see improvement in the future. Might happen, might not, but I thought Cubase deserves to be as great as it portraits itself in marketing. It’s not been there for years, and if nothing changes, it’s nothing I can rely on, use or recommend. Which is a shame. I’ll have an eye on future versions, but for now, I’m stuck with Apple.

14

The last perpetual version will be the last I will buy.

15

Then you’ll be perpetually buying updates. :smiley:

16

No and if I won’t the program won’t stop working.

17

At the rate hardware and operating systems change, they would be in beta perpetually and never release anything. Its already beta tested enough, and there are plenty of users that aren’t having any issues whatsoever with it.

In just one year, you’re looking at two releases of MacOS alone. And this isn’t over on the PC side where you might have an entirely new chipset architecture roll out or some new batch of motherboards using some new type of memory, etc… Even a new GPU architecture can throw it off. They could spend a year optimizing Cubase 13 for MacOS Redlands.

Then come September right before they release, here comes MacOS Compton that completely revamps some framework Cubase relies on, or every Intel user runs out and buys the newest gen CPU that doesn’t work with anything yet.

Now its back in beta or do they release it and just tell people not to use the new toys? Lots of apps are having issues with the newer gen Intel CPU’s, should everybody pull those apps and go back to closed beta testing or let everyone else get their work done?

1 Like
18

N.W.A. fo’ever, foolio! :grin:

1 Like
19

I mean, they already picked all the good Nor Cal spots. I love Ventura, lived there for 11-12 years, consider it my second ‘home’ but I wouldn’t have picked it for my OS name. Notice there’s no scenic wallpaper of Ventura Ave or anything… :laughing:

1 Like
20

seems like an anecdotal thing, here. perfectly stable for me (another anecdote), and haven’t seen a whole lot of complaints otherwise–though in fairness I am very new to Cubase, so it’s likely I just haven’t looked hard enough.

either way, it does seem unfair to critique an entire release/QC process so harshly on one person’s experience. doesn’t sound like you tried contacting support for help, either, but maybe I missed that?