the fake 'new features' steinberg trickery

True. Look at Tracktion 5’s drag and drop freeze points that go inline in the plugin chain like any other plugin, and can be moved around at will, moving the freeze point to anywhere in the chain while automatically rendering the new result. Just when you think you’ve seen it all some really clever developer steps up and says… “Uh, not really.” :laughing:

Thinking outside of the current box will always result in positive returns. That’s one darn clever idea and implementation of freeze.

By this logic, just about every feature is “fake”. Automation, VST Expression, Note Expression, etc. Just about everything could have been done in some way before the “feature” arrived.

Agreed. You could record on a computer before Cubase therefore Cubase has just got to be fake. QED.

Well there is a point here… the long requested “feature” Bounce in place already can be done, it just takes lot of clicks and workflow killer now in cubase… a new Bounce feature or even better “transform midi”(not sure about the exact term) alike as in Studio one 2.5 could be very welcome “fake” feature !

Isn’t this really the crux?

I mean, customers complain about “workflow” all the time, but the steps are mostly already available in the toolbox. They just aren’t streamlined the way people wants them this year. A vendor may implement them that way, but the following year the same or similar steps are now typically done some other way, and the complaints continue.

I have to say that Steinberg has always been the ones that has made my life better in terms of composing, equipment and VST instruments. The usually are on the ball with creating new exciting ways and technologies like ASIO and VST plugin in general, then Note Expression as an add-on to that. I use a lot of external MIDI equipment and so that aspect is important to me. The way Steinberg dealt with this early on has been left virtually intact and it has been surrounded with better and cooler ways of viewing and handling it.

What it comes down to is, like anything else in life, you will have to find the tool that has a staff that generally make things the way that appeals to you. If some other tool, say S1 (just an example), does have the things that just seems like the right thing for you, shouldn’t you be using it?

If some other tool, say S1 (just an example), does have the things that just seems like the right thing for you, shouldn’t you be using it?

The bottom line correct answer. My guess is the same people are on the S1, and other, forums finding nothing much to cry about there too. My 2c is. When the product is near perfect you find the bottom of the barrel is being scraped thin for things to moan about. I always wonder why. Is life that sad?

every major update even the *.5 updates were packed with new features.
For me the track visibility is the killer feature I have been waiting for, many years…

but it sure gets harder to add useful stuff.

all I can think of for next versions is streamlining how things work, i.e. further improving usability, making life easier, less clicks, etc.

(ok, and bounce in place… and window management, window docking, video export… etc…)

we all have our “wishlists” :sunglasses:

Nah, mate. How man treat the short time they’ve been granted, on the other hand, is. Such waste.

Maybe, maybe not. I do (use S1) but not everyone does. Some people need Cubase’s more powerful midi but would still like to see some things from S1 or PT or whatever. Same in reverse, I’d like some things from S1 in Cubase.

Good ideas come from everywhere, which is why you see car companies fully disassemble their competitors products and study them. They don’t study it because they want one. They study it to copy good ideas. If people stopped copying good ideas from other places, some things would just kinda stand still. A “feature request” is almost always something from some other product. It has to be because 99.9% of the consumer population isn’t that clever to come up with really brand new ideas.

Where do you think Cubase 7’s track layers came from? You think Steiny just thought that up out of the blue? No, it came from people asking for something like PT’s playlists for years. The tracklist for the mixer? Something copied from other places that people had asked for. They all copy each other. People take it all way too personally. Just because you see a nice thing or two in another product doesn’t mean your product sucks and you want to stop using it.

Anywho, I’m just a casual observer, an interested techie, and while I’m not a fan of people trying to turn a product into something it’s not meant to be (e.g., trying to turn PT into Ableton Live), there’s nothing wrong with taking note of good ideas.

When people ask for ideas contained in other software they will have to accept a little delay in getting it in Cubase as the programming might be easy and done for many years but then the legal department has to wrangle over the patents. I don’t know who owns who in the DAW business but I’m pretty sure that they don’t want million dollar law suits holding back developments.
Users do find new ways to use software but not that much and very little of what one sees is either going to be popular enough to develop and what is popular is not going to be easy to develop as everyone will want to be first.
Many disgruntled users here SAY they are busy happening businesses but very few act (on this screen at least) like they know how a business like Steinberg actually runs. Maybe their accountants should post instead. :slight_smile:

What you say above makes perfect sense, all things do take time and the general architectures of these products are very likely quite different indeed. Just because X product does Y thing doesn’t mean Z product can easily incorporate that within their current architecture.

My … fascination? … with it all is based more on the clear distinction between “the bad” … “Damn guys, you need to do this right now or you won’t be the bestest daw on the planet anymore!” … which is (imo) a really unreasonable and rather immature and selfish position… and the more reasonable and normal and adult view of … “Hey guys, this is really cool and useful and very likely would make the product even better. Please consider it.”

Some - the minority, granted - tend to view both of those groups as being the same people. :slight_smile: I don’t. I can clearly always see the difference between a polite request and unreasonable demand.

Of course, sometimes a polite request that’s 10 years old kinda does sound like an unreasonable demand, when the requester gets frustrated waiting after having politely been asking for a decade, so… there’s also that.

Audiocave:
The first annoying group generally think they are part of the second nice group…

I have no idea what the rate of turnaround from idea-planning-decision-scheduling- resource assignment-programming-first evaluation-programming-alpha-beta-release is within Steinberg but I guess for most stuff it’s more than a year.
So complaining “I have asked for this for MONTHS and no one cares you have to implement this NOW!”, is just bloody daft and just showing a really low level of intelligence IMHO.

Then obviously I also think that Steinberg could make a lot of complaining simply go away if they handled the user community in a smarter and better way.

Throwing my nickel into the machine…
Every DAW has it own idiosyncracies, not only in terms of features, but also operational, procedural as well as philosophical differences, not to mention terminology and nomenclature.
In each DAW many operations and techniques may be done differently and may be described using a different wordset.
I notice a lot of newcomers to Cubase who have “jumped ship” coming from this or the other DAW, and rather than adapting and adjusting their workflow to suit their new DAW of choice (or necessity) they plead for Steinberg to change the program so it works like what they’re used to - totally oblivious to and disrespectful of seasoned users with developed and personally tailored workflows. The old adage "When in Rome…" comes to mind.

This is not to say that there aren’t features of other programs which would benefit and improve Cubase (when one considers how many Steinberg innovations have been incorporated into other DAWs…) - on the contrary - I’m not referring to everyone who makes a F.R. - I’m sure you’ve all come across the type of threads I’m referring to.

People make many assumptions on how Cubase ‘should’ work based on how some other program worked, and are noticeably dissapointed when it doesn’t pan out.
We are creatures of habit and tend to resist and even abhor change (We are Steinborg; Resistance is futile! :laughing: ). A Willingness to adapt to new methods is imperative to a productive implementation of any alternative application, and will entail a certain cognitive loading on the old greymatter to a greater or lesser extent.
(I’m reminded of the philosophical calculator notation debates years ago between postfix and infix i.e. Reverse Polish Notation and Direct Algebraic Logic - there are advantages and disadvantages to both, but studies showed that RPN was technically faster and more inherently accurate, but could be more difficult for some to learn).

Make an effort to find out how things are done in a new software, and adapt your workflow as necessary. By all means make a feature request if you feel it will actually improve the program - but only after due consideration - don’t just fly off the handle. This is not actually Cubase specific but applies to any new tool you decide to change to; if that’s too much asked, then you should REALLY reconsider using this program.

BriHar, What you say makes a lot of sense. I agree that ones workflow must be the one that the program is designed for. However, I think that one of the main problems is that Steinberg has not really shown that it takes the wishes of more seasoned users into account on various issues. There has been movement on some things, but whilst I totally understand that each program has its own way of doing things, this is not really useful when its own way is much slower, less efficient, less accurate, or even non-existant.

I would rather do everything in Nuendo, and even though there have been improvements over the past couple of years, I am still forced to mix in Pro Tools, in order to save days of mixing time. I understand that this is caused by my particular needs (and they are needs, not wants), but I’m sure that I’m not the only one who finds the lack of a particular feature the proverbial straw.

I look forward to the day when I only have to use Pro Tools for file transfer and editing, but that is not any day soon, I think.

DG

Good reasoning going on. There’s feature requests and there’s issues. they both have a place. First call is to steer the obtuse (don’t put me in the hole, warden) posts to there. In any case, as the General forum is for GENERAL problems that can hopefully be quickly fixed or bugs identified and dealt with if there’s no quick fix, so it’s really not the place the intelligent hang around in for months complaining that they get no support. Neither is the lounge.

What I’m saying basically is that there is a type of poster that clogs up this, and probably other forums. They usually complain about lack of professionality in the DAW and allude to their own professionality and yet do not seem to know how to contact support or even complain in a properly businesslike manner.
One can tell the businessmen, the students and even the cash strapped who are musicians. What they have in common is common sense. Because who the hell would buy Cubase if one didn’t. One look at it and you know it’s a piece of work that’s going to take months to learn.
When something has more bells and whistles than you can count on two hands you know it’s not a musical sub-photoshop where you can graft granny’s head onto a donkey or make that reggae-rap album you’ve always wanted to impress the bar goil next door with (yes I know there are experts in both reading this, wind it in).
So why anyone that buys Cubase thinks ANYTHING is a straightforward fix should press the “IDIOT!” klaxon alarm in our brains. Which, I see, it does.
Thing is the only guy in the idiocy blind spot is… and all HE sees are idiots who don’t understand his reinvention of a piece of string.
Thanks for reading my rambling nurse. I think I need a nap now.