the fake 'new features' steinberg trickery

this feels a bit lame. using buried existing features and rebranding them as new selling points is weak. one example being (quoting SB’s marketing lingo): “you can now tab to transients like in pro tools in c7.5.” this is no different to what c6 already does, going to keycommands, transport > locate next / previous hitpoint. now cubase c7.5 also automatically calculates the hitpoints on imported audio events. that was possible before as well, using a keycommand. same as actually dissolving the hitpoints. the only difference is, now the process gets slower because this is done automatically, whether you actually want the program to spend time on it or not (you probably dont want it when editing speech, for instance).

this was similar to when c6.5 introduced warp quantizing from the arrange. same story, command had been already buried among keycommands. it had been easy to program a macro with ‘calculate hitpoints, convert them to warptabs, perform warp quantize’ in one go. then sb added a button for these three commands and sold it as c6.5.

compiling a macro and making it a button new version does not a-make. what do you reckon?

Interesting…

Well, i didn’t " investigate" this, but its known that companies exaggerating about new features(“Game changer” an so on bullshit) or even “new” features is disguise.
Thats how they sell their product !
its not completely new but its achievable in “faster” or less intervention way like in Tab to transients !

+1
and mahalo to the OP for those valid (and totally missed by many of us) points.

‘Art is work. To sell it is art’.

IMHO ‘marketing’ is an art form all its own.
And Steiny seems to be pretty good at it.
{’-’}

I replied about a year ago In an FR thread, http://www.steinberg.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=182&t=36292#p232218, where users asked for this to be a dedicated command and SB granted it, and then advertised it as new. Ironic, but wasn’t it SB “listening to its users?” I’ve responded to FRs with a DIY solution and people respond that they want to have a feature as default – even when it can be made with the PLE and/or macros.

And of course the automatic detection can be turned off. (the extra data actually slowed down saves iirc)

that’s good, i didn’t remember that thread. i understand it, but the lingo “you can now do this and that” feels inapropropriate when anyone could have been doing it for years. :wink:

Yes, it appears they feel the market they are talking to are not folks who like to dig around in key commands and tinker about with macros. I’m cool with that, I want them to sell many units and make money to use for adding (hu)manhours to the development of existant features. :wink:

On the other hand, they have added stuff like track variations, multi-out Instrument tracks, Score MIDI inspector, new PLE and Logical editor conditions/actions for the C7 cycle, so it’s not all hype. In fact they seem to negelct to advertise some things that would be as big as MemZap to some people- like the suspend-snap modifier key they added in C7, clamoring for that feature went on for years, yet some people still didn’t know about it a year after it was added.

What would be really good would be having more enhanced documentation.

Well, consider that Steinberg want to highlight what’s popular about an audio workflow without doing too much work.

I didn’t buy 6.5 because I didn’t see a reason for it when I had 6 - but I did buy 7.5 immediately, mainly because I liked the new GASE and integration it offers. I thought I’d like the new way track Instruments worked, too, and while it does function and I do like it, VSTs in general are a bit too buggy for me to use in anything big.

The odd workflow enhancements like adding a new something-something in the prefs only annoys me when they set it to default, but it being possible already by other means doesn’t strike me as trickery. They just want to highlight and market it, and the way Cubase is made, it’s easy to miss those kinds of things.

Steve has it right. Better dox and tuts would help.
Then again, if their only ammunition for marketing is revealing hidden features, what incentive do they have for that? It’s only a small QOL boost for existing users, and they only want newbies aboard their hype train.

There’s nothing left to add. DAWs have come of age. Diminishing returns.

I too am starting to believe this.

And just when I think I have it figured…
the universe has a way of smacking me upside the head
and saying:… ‘on the other hand’…

But Oedipus Driftpunch does make an interesting point.
{’-’}

I actually dislike the new mix console so much that I have started to save up for a great hardware mixer. I am refusing to use that kind of money on hardware completely tied to software, like Nuage or Raven etc.
Then I will instead invest my money in longlifed hardware (they are still using 40 years old mixers, and older).

I will then use one of my excisting DAW’s as a “Gloryfied Tape Recorder”, with added Editing capabilities (I think I’ll stop with Cubase 6.5 and Nuendo 5.5. PT and Studio One will also work).
I’m not going back to tape though :wink: .

I’m starting to get real tired of the software updating, and changing of basic/core functions and/or GUI, in a way to fast paced changeover for anyone to learn something really good, before something new is “the only thing” you need.
Same symtoms as in the IT business, in which I am educated, but have now quited. The sad news is that is “following over” to the music production business.

So back to the OP.
There’s not so much more we need to make music, so there’s is more recycling of old features than really new things. Same shit, new wrapping for the most part.
And when they have something new, they absolutely have to change perfectely fine working features and function as well. Not build upon trusted workflow methods.
New colors and look just for the sake of changing things. Things that have nothing to do with enhancing trusted workflow and work methods, making work for the “iPad generation” of graphic designers that have never touched a real mixing desk.
I thought a Virtual mixer should represent a hardware mixer (not sliders and buttons to fit our fat fingers on an iPad or other touch screen device). Virtual Studio Technology my…bum.

No, back to real hardware and real engineering skills. That is the future :wink:

I don’t know what all the fuss is about. When people say “can you tab to transients like Slow Tools?” and you have to respond with a series of KC commands to make a macro, of course some people will be put off. All Steinberg is doing is getting rid of the perceived hassle and making it easier for new people to get into using the program.

TBH, I can do most stuff that i want to, but there are a few glaring (for me) omissions that slow me down and make the software more clunky than it needs to be. However, that doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t appreciate SB incorporating some of the existing macros into proper features.

DG

damned if they do and damned if they don’t … :smiley:

damn right

damn…

Slow day eh?

Damn slow.

Well … I’ll be damned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYgONLrYmnI

'must be the damn echo in here…