Well, what can I say. Uarte has done a great job of explaining there. He’s had the problems and through perserverance has made sure his system is stable and knows what it is. And he has Cubase working reliably.
that’s certainly doing more than just running a “stress test.”
And just let me point out this isn’t a contest. I’m not trying to “win” here. I’m trying to get you to realise how to win for real. So, thank you, is Uarte. I hope you don’t also accuse him of having an attitude problem.
Because he told you what I daren’t. How big the problem is at your end and how much work needs to be done at your end to fix it.
To know how Cubase works is to know how Cubase fails.
And please don’t see this as bad news. It’s actually very good news as you can get a working system which I hope you do as soon as possible.
Haha! Yes, there is hope, don’t despair! I have spent so much money, blood, sweat and even a few tears on DAW-related hardware over the years in search of the holy grail of DAW computing, and it has been a terrible journey in some ways. I never wanted to settle for half-ass performance and reliability. I never wanted crashes like my friends and colleagues. I never wanted to be embarrassed in front of a client right in the middle of a project. I wanted a bullet-proof DAW. Problem is, it doesn’t really, truly exist. But you can get very close. So close, it feels like it is bullet-proof. But don’t ever get too comfortable! Even with my current systems, I know I’m potentially only one update away from tragedy.
I have purchased just about every DAW program, tons of hardware, tons of interfaces, etc., etc., I could have opened a shop by now. And even on one adventure I was so pissed off at Steinberg and Cubase I completely switched to Sonar, which was quite a journey as well, both good and bad. I met some fine folks in my journey across many DAWs, from all walks of DAW life, even made some real-world friends based on forum interactions, and gained fine colleagues too, that I’m proud to know and work with.
My quest was not one of just getting the software working… I was never satisfied until I had good latency and NO dropouts or crashes… I wanted the performance and stability I had only read about and heard about… not consumer crap, but the real deal. And it took a while to get there… and things can still go wrong! It never ends… you just get better at it, and learn to adapt to the “problems du jour.” The most recent challenge has been the x64 drama. Which is still going on to some extent.
Years ago, in one adventure (under a different user name just to save myself from embarrassment because of my frustration and lack of knowledge), I detailed a Sonar DAW build in excruciating detail, down to every single plugin and driver I installed – every setting, every component… and I could NOT get the DAW to work the way “they said” it could work… Well, sure, I got roughly better than average performance eventually, but it still didn’t hit the level I KNEW it could. I had tons of people help me in the Sonar forum and it turned into a mass exercise of frustration. In the end, we determined that it was simply the mysterious combination of motherboard, components, drivers and plugins I had that caused the problems. I was so disappointed, I literally gave up on that computer and turned it into a file server (the first of many DAWs that became file servers over the years), and I started over completely from scratch. I even sold my audio interface on ebay at the time (yes, I know, it was extreme), and I began building a new system, part by part from things people had confirmed would work together. The result? I finally managed to get a really great DAW experience for the time, but I had to cherry pick hardware and plugins to get there.
Through that process, I came in contact with various DAW builders and I learned they, too, go through huge testing cycles to get highly-tuned configurations. I know one DAW builder that literally tests dozens of motherboards, and for their laptops they even commission a custom BIOS to reduce DPC latency. That’s something that you and I simply can’t do. So you’re going through what DAW builders go through, but they have access to much more hardware than you do, so why not tap into their knowledge if you’ve exhausted your own energy on it?
I’ve gone through so much crap with other DAWs over the years, but now I usually keep 2-3 DAWs running really well at a time. The common thread has almost always been hardware and driver related. I’ve since come back to Cubase as my main compositional tool (long story, not worth telling) and with Cubase 6 I found some truly astonishing results with careful tweaking. I applied the same methodical approach to Pro Tools 9, since I use that quite a bit for clients, and I found a great balance with that too. In one case, I did have to hire someone to help me sort through the motherboard and Windows tweaks, but it was worth every penny. I kid you not when I said there are people out there that know the ins and outs of DAWs far, far better than the vast majority of people here (including way, way better than me), and I couldn’t believe that even subtle driver differences or motherboard tweaks could have an impact on high-performance DAWs. When you set your expectations as high as I did, I didn’t want to settle for “consumer” level performance, but I was bound to have a lot of frustration. With help and persistence, it’s possible to get what you want, though.
Think of it this way… what other computer application can you think of that is as demanding as a real-time low-latency DAW application? Not many fit the profile of the demands that a DAW app will put on a system. It’s a miracle of software engineering that it even works when it does, if you think about the complexity of all those different DLLs and modules and processes and drivers, all shuffling around vast amounts of real-time data that CANNOT be interrupted in thousandths of seconds AT MOST!.. any more, and you can get a buffer underrun, then a dropout. Few other applications are as sensitive to latency or other interrupt issues as DAW software. So when you’re dealing with sub-128-sample latency, you’re dealing with a very complex ecosystem that is sensitive very small interruptions that would normally not be noticed, and if you start using a lot of third-party plugins, well, all those DLLs have to behave themselves too. Even the most intense video rendering farm or greatest hard-core game doesn’t have to deal with the real-time issues that DAWs have to deal with. Then, when you factor in graphics drivers, network drivers, motherboard issues, interrupts, antivirus programs kicking in, firewall software acting up, etc… you have the type of dynamic that can cause any killer hardware to sputter and hiccup and trip over itself and not fill the audio buffer, and then it will screw up your audio.
So it can indeed be a struggle to get the level of performance that some people and developers want to claim is possible, and like I mentioned above, I have a lot of hardware (from motherboards to graphics cards to RAM to power supplies) that would easily work in a typical “consumer” DAW, but couldn’t cut it for the level of reliability that I was seeking. All those old hardware components have become great computers for my wife (she got a nice quad-core video editing workstation from one DAW failure of mine), my son (he got a great gaming rig from another one of my failures), and just about every file server I’ve had in my studio was once a DAW computer or a DAW failure.
But it really is possible. I’ve done it a number of times… but like I’ve said, I’ve also failed miserably at times. You aren’t the sort of guy that will be satisfied with 512-sample latency and lousy track counts and the occasional dropout or blue screen. That is, sadly, what most people get with most DAWs. And it’s universal, from Logic to PT to Cubase to Sonar to Reaper to Live to You Name It. I’ve been on the other side of the hill, and it isn’t greener over there. It may seem so since we get caught up with the problems we’re having on this side of the hill, but based on my rough journey to every “other hillside” the problems will crop up one way or another.
So in the end, it boils down to perseverance, sometimes a dose of luck, patience, and frankly… sometimes even money. You may have to spend some more, I hate to say. The shortcut to success, though, is by finding a pro you can trust that will either do it for you, or step you through it. And don’t be afraid to replace what you might think is a perfectly good motherboard, RAM stick, power supply, or even audio interface in your quest for true DAWesomeness! As helpful as some nice stranger in a forum might be, your best bet is to frankly hire someone who really, really, really knows what they’re doing, and truly understands what you need, and the parts and configuration to get you there. Then you can find some peace and get back to work. Once you get that great machine up and running though, guard it and don’t screw with it! You’re always one Windows update or driver update or plugin update from disaster! So backups, disk imaging, very careful management is essential, and you can have a truly rock-solid DAW.
Anyway, I’ve waxed way to philosophical tonight and I better get back to music myself. Firing up Cubase 6 right now.
Uarte’s done it again. Says everything really about what’s going on under the hood and the importance of component choices. Much, much more than anyone who’s ever told me I don’t know what I’m talking about because they are computers engineers or programmers etc.
I’d add to that to buy from a trusted and regular supplier of components and computers. Don’t pay top dollar but pay a little more than bottom dollar. It’s worth it as I suspect that many ye-olde-bay bought computers and components could well be seconds or even counterfeit stock. A largish supplier (but not sure if the market giants would do this) will also test batches of stock as well as quite often they will supply quite large office suites with many computers and they don’t want them coming back. Best also not to buy from Radio shack or Dabs type suppliers as the support will likely be hard to get. A county supplier in the UK or State supplier in the US. The support I get can be detailed and personal (in the good sense).
I use a company called Scan in Bolton, UK and they haven’t let me down yet over 12 years. I think one of the staff is a regular on the Sound on Sound forum (Peter Kaine? I’ll make sure later) and is very informative when things go wrong.
Uarte, you really should cross post this two part manifesto to KVR and Gearslutz.
After reading this, I realize how incredibly lucky and maybe ignorantly foresighted I’ve been. I’ve been buying Dell ‘refurbished’ units for years … but for the past 5 years only from their ‘workstation’ lines. Work stations are designed to ‘certified’ standards for business application, i.e., all components are batch tested to meet some operational standards.
In other words, they are not consumer products and ‘guarantee’ optimal operation of the assembled components.
This doesn’t address all the subtleties raised here or the special ‘black art’ dedicated DAW builders’ possess, but it has been a heck of start to have an integrated system with compatible and high quality components.
FWIW, several years ago I built a DAW after scouring multiple forums, identifying participating DAW builder and getting their consensus on the current best MOBO … an ASUS AV8 Deluxe by the way … power supply, RAW, etc. Put it to gether and attached my once beloved Echo Laya 24 and it ‘black screened.’ Turned out Echo was unable to provide a driver for that particular highly regarded MOBO, and apparently none of the DAW builders knew it at the time.
Your manifesto, however, is not good news for software DAW and plug-in developers or related industries such as midi controller and interface manufacturers.
They are not eager to change the perception that near any ‘off the shelf’ PC or MAC will operate flawlessly with their products.
Jeeezzz! I can’t wait to see the detailed list of components you used for your DAW computer and audio/midi interface(s)!!! I think if people knew what to buy…there would be less complaining, yea?
Al
To redress the balance to be a little less alarming the art is not quite as black as it’s painted. The fact that more get it right than get it wrong points to that BUT when it goes wrong is where the black art comes in as it can be just one component or many. Topped with the usual experience where they can make the latest installed DAW software look like it is to blame and seemingly running all others perfectly you can be stuffed before you even know there’s a problem. And when you’ve sussed it’s the computer there’s a very long “What is it?” couple of weeks. You tend to feel like the character in the movie “The Conversation.” where at the end he’s ripped his (Gene Hackman) home to bits looking for the bug someone planted there. I can sympathise when you’ve spent $600 on Cubase and it just doesn’t happen. Bummer!
Many here get it wrong and blame bugs in Cubase for system instability but if you look at real bugs they’ll rarely involve serious application-wide crashes. A bug usually occurs within the program like the one in Cubase’s metronome and affects only one component and not the whole.
And never ever take an advert’s word for anything especially with Cubase. Wait until it’s been out a while and there are reviews to be read and reports on the net or who you know locally who are in the know and find out what you need. It’s a big hungry monster is Cubase and it will eat anything in the system that is weak.
LOL! I didn’t mean my post to be bad news… actually just the opposite… that there IS hope to get that fantastic performance we all hope for. Your typical consumer computer can indeed do quite a bit, but just don’t even dare dream of hitting those coveted 64-sample latencies (or better) with reliability and good track counts. A consumer i7 machine will never hit the performance of a custom DAW-specific i7. Just won’t happen.
I’ll break down my view on the levels of DAW hardware, just for the hell of it while I have a bit of time to spare. First, consider the IDEAL, PERFECT DAW configuration – I’ll call it 100% DAWesome. It doesn’t exist, except in theory, or on a lab bench on a good day. It has the secret sauce of the perfect balance of hardware, OS tweaks, drivers, DAW software and very limited collection of plugins. With a given CPU, it’s possible to achieve this magical 100% perfection only in the lab.
The second it shows up in your studio and you install one patch, one new driver, one new plugin, or your antivirus software, etc. (you get the idea), you will lose some percentage of DAWesomeness from your shiny new DAW. Simple as that. It’s a finely-tuned ecosystem that you cannot mess around with too much before it looses some of its magic. This can be regularly measured by using DAWBENCH to see where you stand. Try it and compare over time. The results will be telling… and let you know what types of drivers/updates/plugins/etc. will impact your real max performance. I’ve created my own project test templates with key plugins I need, that I use to measure the stability of the DAW over time. One single driver update can have a measurable impact… sometimes for the better, but quite often for the worse.
So based on my experience, I classify DAW computers as the following – this is really a rough classification, and I use DAWBENCH (running Cubase and Reaper or Pro Tools versions of DAWBENCH) and my own test projects as the standard by which to judge:
Based on the same CPU, for example, this is roughly what I’ve seen over the years:
Typical Consumer System: you’ll get 10-50% of the way there for DAW use, 50% only if you’re LUCKY. Most of the time it’s just junk and totally useless for serious DAW work. That amazing new CPU you just bought is saddled with garbage supporting hardware and lousy drivers and bloatware. I recommend that these systems be totally avoided. When it comes to laptops, it’s even worse. But can you use these systems to make music? Sure you can!.. and if you have very simple projects and don’t mind lousy latency and pops and clicks and crashes, then this is your ticket. Total waste of that cool new CPU, though.
Typical Prosumer System: you might get 50-70% of the way there with careful tuning and after you strip down the drivers and bloatware. 75% if you’re lucky. However, it really depends on the chipset, components and drivers, particularly with laptops. Even great high-end prosumer laptops will simply buckle under pressure for low-latency audio considering what they SHOULD be able to do. I’ve rarely seen it done well, and have had only mild success with this direction myself. I have a good friend who managed to turn a nice Dell XPS desktop system into a decent DAW with effort, but it still underperformed a tuned DAW builder system by a wide margin. And in my case I accidentally stumbled across an HP laptop, for example, that had unusually good DPC latency and a great supporting chipset (i.e.: the right firewire chipset in laptops is extremely rare). But in general, these prosumer systems are not good. I’ve wasted a lot of money on these, and one store in particular doesn’t like me for making use of their return policy quite a bit one year. But if you are satisfied with getting 70-75% of the way there (if you’re lucky), then this is your ticket.
Typical Enterprise Class System: This is a slight step up from Prosumer – with good tuning and the right drivers, you can get 60-80% of the way there. 85% with patience and persistence. Higher-end Dell Precisions fall into this category, for example, and I’ve bought several of them over the years – I have only bought the Pro Tools certified models and indeed, two of them have performed quite well as DAW machines… even for Cubase. But still not quite to the level of a DAW builder machine.
Typical Custom Build by Amateur: This is all over the map – 20-90% of the way there… so many variables, sometimes luck, sometimes disaster, and it can get very, very tricky, as you already know. But I’ve seen dedicated self builders get almost to 90% of the capacity with a lot of work. I’ve made it to about 90% by myself with a lot of effort, and I’m not sure it was worth that effort and agony. My first i7 was fantastic… but it still underperformed a good DAW builder’s version! Even after all that effort! I just simply didn’t have the “magic” combination of motherboard and components and secret tweaks… I was really close, but not pro DAW-builder close.
Typical DAW Builder System: 75-90% of the way there. Not all DAW builders are equal, hate to say. I’ve had many discussions with several builders of differing levels of experience. Some who claim to be DAW builders will do no better than an Enterprise Class computer or amateur builder, hate to say. Still 75-90% out of the box is a lot better than a consumer computer!!!
But there are some magicians out there that set the standard… Drum roll:
Top-class DAW Builder System: 80-95% of the way there. I’ve worked with a DAW builder that took me all the way to 99% once, right up there with the max spec I should get with DAWBENCH, and even beating overclocked lab machines in some areas, only to be snagged by a new driver that caused problems dropping me back to a mere 95%. That 95% slowly dropped over time as I added my huge plugin library and did system updates… but that DAW still is better than any I built completely on my own.
For me, anything around 85% is acceptable. To get DAWesomeness beyond 85% is typically very difficult, especially when you start loading in the additional software and occasional driver you need on the machine. It usually boils down to preferences of audio interfaces and plugin requirements… so I’ve just come to accept 85% of the max… as long as I have 99.9%+ stability, I can live with 85% for the rest of it…
On a typical well-tuned 85% machine with a current-gen i7 CPU, you should definitely expect to get 64-sample latency with 100+ tracks and tons and tons of plugins. That IS possible and IS happening for a lot of people… but not on consumer grade machines. On my machines, with a comfy 128 sample latency, I’ve achieved massive project size (and by massive, I mean MASSIVE) with Cubase 6, with ZERO stutters, dropouts, crashes, hiccups for 18-hour long sessions, with H.264 video going strong. I have stared in disbelief at the computer monitors wondering when it will crash, but it just doesn’t. Sometimes I just stop thinking about the hardware and just make music… isn’t that what we’re supposed to do? So it is possible. I know people who can go much higher, with even better optimized machines and lower latencies. Sure, Cubase (and every DAW app) has some bugs here and there, but for the types of projects I do, I’ve had wonderful stability and performance out of Cubase 6 so far.
And if you let your DAW builder overclock your machine (with skills and black art I have not achieved), I’ve seen numbers in the real-world that will blow your mind, with very good stability. Just google DAWBENCH and you’ll see what is possible… and yes, those numbers ARE possible. But again, those numbers are NOT common for most people. The vast majority of real-world DAWs will fall far short of that…
But then again, how many people do you know who talk like they need huge specs, but in reality only deal with 15-20-track projects and 512-sample latency? For them, they don’t really need a DAW builder’s computer… and that’s fine. Most pro audio interfaces offer “zero-latency” monitoring now so you can actually get by for many projects on a crappy computer, if you set the latency high enough. The truth is, not many people REALLY need super-low latency and such high track and plugin counts. THAT’s what DAW developers are counting on, in my opinion. So they market their software like it can do anything… which it really can if you have the right hardware… but for most people… they’ll never know how poor their computer is performing because they never test the limits.
Anyway, I better quit now with this massive post and get back to prepping for a huge project this week.
I’ll share some specs and notes of my current DAWs to give you an idea of what has been working for me. I’m sure others can chime in with better configs. I switch these around more often than I like to admit, but this is the latest batch I’ve been running on some pretty big projects (at least for me), that include composing to video/film, sound design and some post production:
Machine #1) My fastest DAW is an i7-2600K machine running at stock speed with a nice 120mm aftermarket CPU cooler (can’t recall which model unfortunately, possibly Xigmatek). Win 7 x64 Pro. 16GB RAM (Corsair, can’t recall model, but best rated at time I purchased). Power Supply also Corsair (650W, I think it was the professional series, best rated at time I purchased). Graphics card Quadro NVS 295. Case Antec P183 (love this case) with total of three 120mm fans running, kept at low RPM. Hard drives: I’ve had it configured with both SSD (Intel) as boot and everything else WD Caviar Black. Moved the SSD elsewhere and now run this one with 4 Caviar Blacks – 1 boot, 1 project, 2 sample drives. NO RAID. All just single drives. Firewire card is an ADS Pyro PCI something TI-based card (model validated by Avid for Pro Tools, works like a charm with Yamaha/Steinberg/RME/Focusrite/Avid). Current audio interface on this DAW is MR816x, connected to some additional goodies. Also had this connected to Yamaha N12. Also have Novation and CC121 connected. This one runs Cubase and Wavelab. Performance is off the charts, even at stock speed. I’ve run this overclocked as well for testing and with consultation with a DAW builder, but now choose to run it at stock speed.
Now this is where you may hate my response: I can’t divulge what motherboard and BIOS settings I have in this machine. That’s the part I got help from a DAW builder on this build. I agreed to not divulge that information… so that is a bummer, but I need to honor my commitment. I will admit that it was a struggle finding a great motherboard for this build, and there’s a reason why DAW builders don’t advertise what they use. That kind of sucks, but also makes sense since they spend so much time figuring out what works best.
All I can say is that this DAW flies. The numbers have been sensational. This was actually meant to be a temporary DAW. I’ve just been waiting for the X79 chipset to be released for my main DAW… but that has taken forever. I’ll re-evaluate my situation once X79 launches to see if it might be worth it.
Total project size on this machine has not yet been reached… my “huge” projects may not be as huge as other folks, but for me, they’re bigger than anything I imaged just a few years ago. Well over 100 tracks without batting an eyelash – I think I’ve tested as high as 200ish, but I’m sure it could go much higher. And consider huge numbers of plugins, all running at 128 sample latency, and this – to me – is amazing.
Machine #2) I don’t really count this one as a DAW any more since it’s being demoted to other purposes because Machine #1 and #3 perform better. This is very similar to the DAW above in almost all respects, but is running a Core i7-920 on an Asus P6T motherboard with 12GB RAM. A bit dated now, considering Sandy Bridge and the upcoming chips. Win 7 x64 Pro. Basically similar configuration, same case, Caviar Blacks again. I believe this is the one with the Quadro FX5XX in it… (can’t recall exact model, but it’s the base FX unit). Been too long to recall some of the component models, but I believe this one has Seasonic power supply and the best rated Corsair or G.Skill RAM at the time (6X2GB). I ran this overclocked at 3.2GHz for a while, but then decided to run it at stock again. Very solid, but it is actually not as fast and reliable as DAW #3, which actually works better with Pro Tools. Have had it hooked up to Yamaha N12, MR816x, Lynx and RME FF interfaces with great success, huge projects.
Machine #3) Dell Precision T3500 (recommended by Avid) – bought this one originally just for Pro Tools 9, which worked so well, I recently even picked up the MBox Pro 3, which has been a shockingly decent interface. Win 7 x64 Pro. The machine has 12GB RAM, running a Xeon W3530, I believe (similar to i7-930). All Caviar Blacks. Same firewire card and same graphics card as DAW #1, (or maybe the Quadro NVS290, not sure). This one has been surprisingly reliable, but falls short of DAW #1 (obviously). I’ve tested this one out heavily with Cubase 6 on a different boot partition, even with the MBox Pro 3, and I was shocked at the results. I actually got better low-latency track count in Cubase 6 with the MBox Pro 3 than I did with the MR816x/N12 on this machine! Crazy stuff.
Machine #4) Won’t go into detail, and I don’t really consider this a DAW anymore either, but simply a solid quad running Win 7 x64 Pro with tons of sample libraries, which I often use as a farm for VE Pro, depending on the project.
Anyway, the first three DAW configurations above can easily run my big projects with 100+ tracks (likely far more) and huge numbers of plugins at 128 sample latency. #1 and #3 can go all day and all night. Even #3 can handle a huge project with QT video going all night long without a single worry. They all fall within the 85%+ category of DAWesomness I mentioned before. They have undergone a variety of tweaks (the T3500 to a lesser extent). I can easily start a project at 64 sample latency on all of them. With those first three DAWs, I NEVER have to go above 128 sample latency on my largest projects. And that’s a step down from a number of other folks I know who have configured their systems far better than I have. I’m sure there are folks here who would take this way beyond what I do.
I also have them networked, where I often use them as VE Pro farm machines for even larger composition templates that include various Kontakt and PLAY libraries. If you consider MIDI-only tracks routed through VE Pro, then the track count would go well over 100-200 or more for me. I know folks who have gone well beyond that. So a really huge session for me will be Machine #1 as the master with Cubase 6, which will control VE Pro instances on other machines… which gives me a total of 3 very solid machines in my farm right now (or theoretically 4 but I never tried that many) – 12 cores (24 threads), 40GB RAM (16 + 12 + 12) spread out across all the VE Pro awesomeness on the various machines. To be totally frank, I have not fully tapped all this power yet. I’m trying to, but I just can’t get there.
The main issue when I scale up to epic size is VE Pro – VE Pro sometimes flakes out on me with huge track counts when using three of the machines, unfortunately, even though Cubase keeps going. When I keep everything on one DAW (either #1 or #3 in particular), I can go all day and all night without a single hiccup, with rather large projects. When I spread out via VE Pro, I have to be more careful when I near 50% CPU, since VE Pro sometimes loses connection on one machine. This is likely a network or driver issue I have to eventually track down. Those are when I’m running just insane projects with templates that I don’t need that often. But it defeats the purpose of having VE Pro in the first place, so that’s why I’ll re-evaluate my whole configuration when the X79 chipset is available.
Hope that answers the question with enough detail to show what works for me. Those machines above were arrived at after a great deal of pain and agony, I will admit. The easiest of all those machines to get up and running was the T3500, once I saw that Avid had basically validated it as a platform. Turns out to be a nice Cubase machine too. A clean installation, and some tweaks recommended by a DAW builder, and I had the T3500 running close to 85% DAWesomeness fairly quickly. If someone is about to buy a DAW but can hold off a little longer, I’d suggest waiting on this current generation to find out how the X79 series will do. The X58 generation (of which the T3500 is part of, for example) is definitely at its final stage before being retired. Even the i7-2600K trounces X58 DAWs. I expect some incredible numbers with X79.
My next DAW will likely be a six-core X79 machine, but I won’t make the mistake of killing myself over it and trying several motherboards myself. I’ll go straight to a DAW builder and pay for either consulting or outright buy the system from them. There’s no point suffering more than I have to any more! Then again, I may not need to do that at all, since these machine are working so well.
Haha! Impressive! I can’t imagine 700+ tracks… That would make for a very messy template, at least for me. What configuration/settings are you using to get there?
Even with my current systems, I know I’m potentially only one update away from tragedy. 
And even on one adventure I was so pissed off at Steinberg and Cubase I completely switched to Sonar, which was quite a journey as well, both good and bad. I met some fine folks in my journey across many DAWs, from all walks of DAW life, even made some real-world friends based on forum interactions, and gained fine colleagues too, that I’m proud to know and work with.
That’d be madness, right?