What you need to do is, write a short, basic email outlining your problem(s) and then post a more in-depth topic, in the forum as well, and when you receive an acknowledgement (email), then you can follow up in another reply.
This has always worked for me, since the people who answer info at Steinberg dot de are the same people answering posts on the forum. Just look on the About box in either of the DAW’s Steinberg make and you will see, they are not some far off people hiding behind a parent company.
Just as a PSA/FYI
Bug reports are taken via support, and from here in the forum by staff or others, as well as through the beta program, which has existed for decades.
Bugs need to be reproducible, not merely behaviour that may appear incorrect so posting here allows others to test, while conserving the time of staff to support users with their setups.
Email is kind of old-school and is read by one-person, whereas the forum allows multiple recipients and is arguably a faster path to resolution since rarely is Steinberg software released with known bugs.
In fact, I have received faster responses using direct messages, rather than email because you don’t know who will read an email.
Maybe, Steinberg/Yamaha will have a web-based ticketing system one day and that would be great but from my experience, I would still post here first, particularly if it is something that is patently broken and has not already been discovered.
@larryhaggman asked if you got that information from SB, and you cited that other post. All I was saying is that they DO handle bug reports via support if that’s how one is going about it, and that the article simply said “if you want to use the forum, feel free.” I mean, if I open a ticket for an issue which turns out to be a bug, they’re not going to close the ticket and send me to the forum instead. None of this really matters; I was simply adding context to the question.
thanks for the input, my opinion as someone that has done this extensively as a professional is that it is nonsense to handle bugs via a public forum. Of course this forum is hugely valuable and can be another route to reporting bugs but they have to be solved internally. Simply one of the 1st and most crucial steps is to categorise all the bugs and look for duplicates, very often only a developer, not even a tester will be able to have the intuition to suspect the root cause behind bugs and that is the way to crush the numbers down and get them all fixed. That’s only possible with inside knowledge and access to a database of the issues.
Yeah, there’s a difference between detecting the circumstances a bug occurs and detecting/fixing the root of a bug. Of course, the latter can only be solved if you know how the code works.
Reasons why it makes sense to report and verify bugs here:
Detecting the circumstances when a crash occurs and narrowing down the mechanisms
Verifying that it’s not a single user/system issue
The reaction here in this forum might also influence if a bug is put on the priority list (we will probably never know)
The crash dumps which are automatically sent to Steinberg whenever a crash occurs (given that the user allows it) are useful for statistical analysis but they lack context. That’s why I like to believe that the context provided here in this forum might also speed up fixes.
However, these are all assumptions. YMMV, of course.
No one needs any special treatment or attention, except new users because they bring in new money so unless your bug is completely reproducible, sending something via email may well be met with delay.
The other issue here is, in many forums people will post responses from staff publicly, which cannot be managed, as with a forum.
I always send crash information to Steinberg because I know there is no personal information contained in them. In addition, I also send error information to Microsoft, so I assume that these also inform Steinberg decisions.
Yes, allowing crash logs to be sent to Steinberg serves as a statistical indicator and will most probably have an influence on the priority list.
I don’t think that Steinberg is mainly focussing on new customers, though. They clearly listened to some (of course not all) demands from existing users - Cubase 14 is living proof of that. Although there are still unfixed bugs and unheard demands like the reintroduction of the Beat Calculator or introducing true ripple edit to name just two they have done a lot lately. That deserves credit and respect. I think we can agree on that, right?
I would suggest (unfortunately IMO) it’s a balance between new customers and existing users.
As any DAW matures, and Cubase is definitely a mature DAW, there would be more focus for existing users.
However prosumers are always going to be in the drivers seat, and that includes new users. Follow the money.
The OP and @larryhaggman is requesting improved support. That is totally understandable, however improved support costs money, and Cubase must remain competitive.
I think it’s up to veteran users to encourage new users, as part of a community that fosters development of content and systems, which are used to create, compose, edit and manipulate audio, midi and media data.
There is no distinction here and I know Steinberg never jump the gun on anything, nor do they follow the pack, rather they take the lead, being the first to introduce virtual instruments to the desktop and now devices so it’s only fitting that the forum is the first place to go for any help.