Taking their sweet time


Good call anyone who knows jack about computing / programming waiting times knows it don’t get fixed yesterday.
It ought to be writ in stone above every DAW forum; “It’s a new version so there’s gonna be problems and it’ll take us time to fix them so use what you’ve got that works for you.”
It would stop the newbies going ape every time they spot a dull spot on the shiny new thing.

OK, look, no one is asking for preferential treatment here: we’re simply asking that broken MAJOR features get an update quickly.

Lots of people were very excited to use Elastique, and rightly so: it’s remarkable. The fact that it doesn’t work for a wide swath of users just because they don’t happen to work at 44.1kHz exclusively strikes me as a serious oversight.

This whole paradigm of never relying on an initial release to be very usable is dead and dying in the rest of the software world. It’s seldom tolerated in most other avenues–why is it such an “everybody knows” thing for musicians?

I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to continue to bend over and accept this way of doing things as a given. Lots of people aren’t, “as per” (gods, I hate when people use that term constantly to make themselves sound more astute…) my “necroed” thread where the Hotfix poll came out decidedly in favor of those who’d like to not wait just a few more months to use a MAJOR, highly advertised feature.

This is Steinberg falling down a bit, pure and simple. I really like Cubase quite a lot, and I’ve been a loyal customer for years. I also own full versions of Ableton Live, Reaper, and Logic. So, I’m not exclusive, but the vast majority of my serious work takes place in Cubase. Why? Well, I really like the workflow. I do not, however, like it when an important, powerful new feature is touted all over the Internet which compels me to go ahead and upgrade, only to find out that I have to wait months to use it.

I don’t feel I’m being irrational here in questioning the wisdom of this paradigm, when Lord knows Steiny could be doing public betas that would EASILY catch these glaring omissions before the product goes to market. That they don’t, and that these problems show up and typically take an unreasonable amount of time to be addressed is a problem–it is a nearly industry wide problem.

I think the emphasis should be on releasing and maintaining solid, usable, working tools. Nobody will complain if they know they’re beta testing, if they’ve agreed to it. That Steinberg so often expects a n.0 release to be both paid for and gleefully beta tested is irrational, and they deserve every bit of ire they’re getting for it.

5.5.2 has been crashing lately for me more often than is comfortable, so I’m having trouble with that as well. It’s like there really is no safe pasture here.

Make music, get irritated. Everybody knows, that’s just how it is, and nothing will ever, EVER change, right?


By the way, Helge, thanks again for chiming in. At the very least, it’s an incredibly welcome change to see Steinberg take a more personal interest in these threads.

The end of March was not what I was hoping to hear, but I know you’re not in control of that. If you could be so kind as to pass my sentiments along to those who are in charge of that, it would, of course, be appreciated. Smaller, more rapid updates to address the more glaring concerns right away would be fantastic, even if they aren’t ‘hotfixes’ in the strictest sense. Nothing stopping you from releasing a 6.0.2 a couple months out to cover the less urgent issues.

Timestretching is urgent, though. That’s a big one. Lots of people use that nowadays. I’m one of them. :nerd:

(Oh, and by the way, to conman… I hope you weren’t assuming I’m a noob or something: I’ve been using Cubase since I first owned Cubase VST 3.0 for my Mac Performa back in the mid '90s. I’ve owned all the SX series, and now the plain, numbered series.)

Thank you Dr Washington but I don’t think you see the problem for whatever reason so allow me to explain.

The problem with sample rates has nothing to do with any one specific feature, it is due to audio management in Windows generally (don’t know about mac) so Steinies view would be to release the program, otherwise wait 6 months, when there were already people banging the door down just to have a play.

You need to remember that not all musicians are “poor”. Some can actually afford to test new versions on the side with a machine that is not necessarily their main workstation and thank God for them. Also your logic about the updates ie .01, .02 etc doesn’t mean that is what will occur, even if it seems convenient from the users point of view because we don’t have the internal schedule and don’t know what fixes and/or updates to expect or when.

Bug report?


If programmers are anything like most artists/craftspersons, their best work is done when working at their own pace.

Beating the paid for slaves to pick more cotton served to only slow them down.

But there may have been a measure of venting or maybe even fun in it for the beater.

And let’s not (or shall we) talk about the time in between the Great Wars.

Precisely. (interbellum).


Yes curteye. There was a guy in the UAD forum who knew all this stuff like you maybe you know him :slight_smile:

Anyway, since Dr Washington has stated they have issues with C5, maybe they could help our friendly devs (who participate too I might add) and outline any issues in the correct forum.

Timestretching existed before C6 I understand and it’s quite adequate so it’s not as urgent as the howling heading would suppose.
Sorry, but oldies actually know (as advised by nilsemil) that first versions are to be treated with kid gloves. We’ve long ago given up ranting for the first six months of product release.
Bit like pointing over an artists shoulder as he’s painting and saying “You’ve missed a bit, mate.”
The paint is still wet. Let it dry first. But don’t waste time watching it dry and poking it to see if it is. :slight_smile:

Writing as a general consumer, rather than a Cubase user:

In the “real world”, if a company releases a new product and touts its new features all over the place, the new features are expected to work. If they don’t, there’s generally a perception of incompetence at least, or even possibly deception, and the company generally gets crucified by consumers and the media.

It’s always interesting in these cases to read the reviews in SOS, etc. … “Fine product!!! If I had to niggle I’d point out that the hugely important feature maybe doesn’t work at all, butCompany X should really be commended for the awesome concept development …”.


I’m arguing that this paradigm ought to change. I’ve been using this software long enough to be considered an “oldie”, and I’m no more comfortable with major broken features with “*.0” versions. There should be public beta testing so these things are caught. More and more companies are doing this, and it’s certainly possible for Steinberg to follow suit.

Dr Washington,

As much as I’d like to agree, I think you are being rather disingenuous to say that the feature (time stretch) is “broken” when the reality it half works.

As I have stated to you a number of times now were Steinberg to provide a complete working feature set, we would most likely have to wait at least 6 months anyway and this is likely counter to the commercial aspirations of the company notwithstanding the development schedule, which is obviously well on track by virtue of the 5.53 update.

Cheers & shalom

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. Couldn’t agree more.

As a matter of fact, Steinberg once released a “beta”, but they called it a hotfix. Anybody remember C4.0.3? It fixed some serious interim problems, came with a warning that it wasn’t an official release and the world didn’t end. No reason why they can’t do this more often.

You wouldn’t do it for a whole numbered version though would you, which is what seems to be the central argument of this thread.

Two things: first, the major version numbers should be publicly beta tested at least enough to catch the more glaring issues–this 48/96k bug would’ve been caught before release if they did so.

Second, when bugs do slip through, as a few always will, there is nothing wrong with ‘unofficial’ releases or ‘hotfixes’ that fix these errors. We can choose to skip them if not affected. A hotfix could also, of course, fix major bugs like this until an ‘official’, stable release is ready.

Or, they could just do like C.O.C.K.O.S. does, and update very often.

Either way, no, I wasn’t being disingenuous. I’ve said from the beginning that this works at 44.1kHz. It doesn’t for me, as I never track at that rate. Therefore, me saying “it is broken” is perfectly true from my perspective. :unamused:

In any case, I think it’s time for a change. Things are pretty good now, but they could be remarkably good. Cubase is a mature product now, which was not so much the case during the SX phase. It could be the standard DAW if Steinberg would just push that much harder and work to craft a masterpiece. We’re almost there, and I’m cheering them on. : :mrgreen:

I just don’t want to see big features like this not work for me right out of the gate anymore. I was really, really looking forward to elastique. It’s just a bit of a let-down.

Dr Washington, you seem to be avoiding the fact that so called “broken time stretch” is not really a bug parse, it is simply an incomplete feature so there is nothing at all to catch, but the real “catch” though is this: if there did exist this holy grail of internal bug testing that you talk about, then we’d most probably not have newer versions so quickly and sales on the whole would be down, which is not in the interests of users alike otherwise how would older versions be upgraded?

you should have quit while you were ahead, now you are wrong too.

It’s definitely a bug.

It’s obvious to me that either you never use time stretching, or you don’t do serious audio work with timestretching. If you did, you’d know that timestretching in C5 and before was completely unusable. It was my biggest gripe . Warbles, glitches, just terrible. I’m looking forward to C6’s superior time stretching, and I do use 44.1k, so Dr Washington’s gripe is not mine. That said, I completely understand it and fail to see the logic behind your argument.

Addditionally, you look a bit Sanctimonious.