Since no one understood my initial post, it became a discussion about imperceivable distortion


  1. The new promo video is excellent.
  2. C9.5 has 64-bit internal processing, no more alleged distortion.

Original title:
The Cubase 9 promo/marketing was trying to play it a little too cool…

When Cubase 9 was released, this video was posted:

Our Most Complete DAW Ever. Period. | Cubase Pro 9 Promo Video

While I understand it’s trying to look cool, the way it’s presented can come across as a little arrogant. The feedback in the comments was sometimes pretty defensive in return, and I feel like this caused unnecessary tension when it was released. “Most complete ever, period” is exactly what someone does not want to hear when their favorite feature didn’t make it in.

Personally I think Cubase could do with a little more laid back, friendly presentation. When Dorico was released, the first trailer was shot with many camera angles and after users thought it was too flashy, they toned it down and mostly focused on the program itself. That’s what I’d prefer seeing for the Cubase 9.5 trailer and marketing as well.

Does anyone else feel the same about this?

Never watched it. Don’t plan to watch it. Don’t care. Oh, my “feelings”. Or, lack thereof … :laughing:


I don’t think any of the people here that were gonna use Cubase anyway would really give a crap about the video itself. I mostly wrote this because of how it seemed to come across to would-be (new) users, because it didn’t seem to get a positive responsive generally.

That tag line about how it’s the most complete was mockingly repeated on this forum as well though.

Maybe it has less not included features than its predecessor?

It’s not a lie in that sense. Though Andrew in that video says “Most complete DAW on the market” so that’s a big statement. :stuck_out_tongue:

Presonus has an even bolder claim that Studio One just sounds better somehow. Which is stupid.

But rather than that line, I just don’t think the tone of the marketing connected last time so I hope to see it adjusted a bit.

That would be offensive in my view. As it is now on web - not so much.
But it’s not much of sales point either - so a bit silly in the end.

  • ok, so you are proud of what you did!
  • Try to impress me then!!!

There used to be some “AWARD WINNING AUDIO ENGINE” in marketing.

Discovering how horrible sample rate conversion compare to just about any other daw or audio editor - does not impress me.
That importing audio that need conversions is not something that you want to do in Cubase - plenty artifcats there that will be amplified as it is processed further - is not something that you want to do in Cubase.

Fix that - and I start to be impressed.
Biggest flaw right now, having so many projects I started in 44k.

So according to that, it’s -120 dB at its absolute peak… how much are you going to amplify that? Ever done a double blind test between realistically amplified wave files converted in Cubase and elsewhere?

If you want that to be improved anyway though, how about making it a feature request? Maybe they can use the code from Wavelab 9 if it’s better.

I am shocked some of you take marketing material so seriously.

“Wij van WC-EEND adviseren WC-EEND”.

If someone can try to not miss the point of my original post, then that would be nice.

I don’t care about the marketing myself, but I saw the response from others to it wasn’t so good, so maybe they should consider doing it differently next time.

As if everyone will be happy, ever…
There will always be the moaning brigade who want Cubase to turn into the lovechild of FLSTUDIO, Reaper, S1 and Protools AND want it available in Linux WITH bezier curves :wink:
Seriously all the regural users were happy and felt completely satisfied :slight_smile:

Yeah sorry, the response to Studio One 3.5’s update was way more positive. Same when there’s FL Studio updates. (Probably because these updates are free there’s also less hostility.)

But that also is not the point, it was about the tone of the presentation and how it comes across to non-regular users as well.

Unfortunately that is not correct.

Come on! Nearly all newbs and RTMF requests and S1 fanbois trying to stir things up.
AS IF Steinberg will cater for all these flavour of the week requests of uninformed who don’t understand (or like) the Cubase workflow. Sure some little annoyances needed fixing, but no dealbreakers. Look at the fixed list for the updates…

The OMG’s no beziers, OMG OMG OMG no gain reduction meters… laughable…

A lot was broken in 9.0.1. I can vouch for 9.0.30, but the launch of 9 was rough. I believe over-the-top marketing does not help in that case.

Raphie, not everyone is a fanboy.

agreed, but fairly quickly patched. For me V9 was a huge improvement in terms of stability and performance, killing the bridge was the best decission ever. Weird V8 spikes gone. Timing tight, ASIO buffers down. frequency. All good

You know, the thing that bothers me is that people don’t appreciate a vendors vision. It might not be yours but then there is choice. There are several ways to get from A to B. Some people like things better as done by vendor A, others prefer the way vendor B does it. If you like B better, go there, but don’t say that features are lacking, they are here, but just with a different POV behind it. Just go with what suits you best.

I like Cubase but I also like to adjust curves whenever I want with a little handle. It’s not a shocking concept. :stuck_out_tongue:

On topic: on a positive note, I think the Greg Ondo Q&A videos are very good, and I think the latest promotion video was an improvement compared to the one at launch.

I did add to an already existing “Annual request” over SRC in Cubase some months ago. Thought it needed some more love and give it a liffe puff.

Anybody wanting that floating around in their imported audio that needed SRC - don’t vote.
If ProTools, StudioOne, Reaper, Samplitude, Sonar is there in the lowest part not to be distiguished from original rmaa curve - and Cubase 20 dB above like it does for Intermodulation distortion as well - then it really should get some attention, I think. I put the other graphs in the annual request for feature requests.

It only needs to get prompt attention if anyone could hear the difference in practice. (We’re not typically amplifying a signal by 30+dB right?) I don’t think we can, but all this is off-topic.