Taking their sweet time

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.


+1 - 5.5 and C6 can run on the same machine

To sell something knowing that it doesn’t work fully, but not disclosing that, is not a business practice that is generally accepted anywhere in any situation. There are even penalties often associated with such behavior, ranging from negative word-of-mouth/decreased sales, to criminal sanctions. Not sure why people think these normal conventions don’t apply in the case of DAWs!

I think a lot more goodwill (which ultimately may = increased sales?) would be generated by a company instead saying something like, “Look, we’re releasing this completely awesome DAW today, and it can currently do A,B,C better than anyone else’s. AND, on such and such a date in the very near future, we will be releasing an upgrade that will enable features X, Y, Z - features that will blow your socks off, and make our DAW far and away the best in the universe. BTW - until then, you can play with features X,Y,Z - just remember they won’t be fully functional until then …”.

Is that so hard to say? Am I completely off base, or is that a better business practice than the one being discussed?

Awesome that thread disappear to the lounge without trace.

Loving this forum even more! :laughing:

oooh – can’t agree with that, sorry. Partial functionality is for all practical purposes non-functionality, IMO

We software users, not just music software but any type of software, have accepted the common assertion that “bugs are just a part of software development” for FAR TOO LONG. The law, at least here in the States has enabled developers to get away with it, too, giving software “special” status with regard to “merchantability.”

You wouldn’t patiently accept a significant design flaw in your new car, would you? Or wait 6 months for the manufacturer to iron it out?

The law may be changing, however, The CFC recently rewrote their rules/guidance and now considers software a “product”, instead of a “service.” A number of high-profile court cases have ruled in favor of claimants against developers in this regard. (Which of course led to a massive lobbying effort by developers to persuade lawmakers to pass new legislation/rules to prevent future litigation).

An argument is often made that stricter rules would kill innovation. Frankly, like at least some of you, I’d like to see more focus on quality/reliability than innovation.

It’s also true that configuration CAN and does factor into how a piece of software functions. But in my mind, as long as a user’s hardware meets the minimum requirements as set forth by the vendor, then the software should work – period.

Of course, software IS different from an automobile or a toaster, but the approach to correcting flaws should receive the same sort of urgency those products do. What I’m basically saying is, I agree with the position some have taken in this thread that timely, frequent, and targeted updates – like the ones Reaper uses – should become the norm and not the exception.

Cars, planes and satellites do have design flaws. And again no-one FORCED anyone to purchase and, as far as I know, C6 was first offered here without loud fanfare in the trade press and as any long-standing forum member and also probably most short term members who have done proper research knows that any DAW software will have flaws and that your own preferred software will always have more flaws than the competition.
Also a quick look around this forum, or any other forum, convinces me that if a beta version was released the feedback would be so confusing as to be meaningless.
I mean, the experts usually don’t have the time to go into proper detail and the inexperienced usually can’t explain any problem in enough detail and then there are the different computer set-ups and hardware configurations to take account of which can even fool the experienced into misdiagnosis.
It’s not like designing a car. Cars are just designed for people with four limbs and a head. Computer programs, DAWs included, have to be built for all sorts of co-habiting alien machine-fauna have to drive. And some legs won’t reach the pedals.
So really you can quote all the trade regulations, human rights and free speech laws for ever and it won’t get fixed any quicker.
Heck! Stop faffing about. Point out the dam bugs is enough. Have a little rant.
Then stop picking at the sore. It will get better.

Then be happy. :mrgreen:

PS. Yes, Reaper does 2 million fixes a month to no noticeable change to the program except every six months. Strange. Keeps y’all quiet though because nobody on their forum reports that many bugs.
And it looks good.

Doesn’t make it a bug though, and this distinction must be maintained otherwise we live in ignorance and will not help our cause as users.

Basically if the question is put (you can even poll this), I think most users would like a C6 rather than no C6 even if it served only a partial function, as what we tend to so conveniently forget is that those who purchase the software early have the chance to learn about the new features so complaining likely has little purpose.