We should make a song for these customers. Instead of boringly replying to their complaint we just post the song welcoming them as we already were expecting them.
@Googly_Smythe , we need good lyrics, please.
2 Likes
How about the song is triggered by a combination of words like shame, fraud, refund, legal action etc. @Googly_Smythe will master the song at -2 LUFS. Just to give them a proper reason to complainā¦ 
1 Like
Graceās Period
Ahem.
There once was a lady named Grace
She always had such a long face
One day - it was rumoured -
That when she had hoovered
Grace found her period misplaced.
Thank you and good night!
-2 LUFS is for kids! +6 LUFS for the win!
Hoovered, for non-Englishmen, means to vacuum the carpet.
I wonāt get banned for this, will I?
I had to interrupt watching You Only Live Twice to do this. Back to Japan I goā¦
5 Likes
I was aiming at a warning. You, my friend, are aiming at total destruction and blasting the speakers once and for all 
A poet with an itchy trigger finger 
1 Like
I actually master to - 12 LUFS. In case anyone who doesnāt know me gets the wrong idea about my amazingly wonderful output.
Back to the topic and a round of drinks on me.
1 Like
First off, @Grim I hold you in the highest regard. I have the utmost respect for you as an audio engineer, and you are one of the most helpful people here; I look forward to your posts as I often learn something from you. So thank you.
That said, I disagree with you on the following statement, and Iāll explain why. My intent isnāt to get into some manner of argument with you, but rather to potentially help other people who made the same mistake I did.
I can see how I could potentially have used āconfusing,ā or āincomplete,ā or ānonexistentā to describe the information given instead of using āconflicting,ā but in my opinion, my choice is accurate. And Iāll use your own statement to support that:
Indeed. We see this constantly. Why? Because the available, published information is confusing, incomplete, non-existent, or yes, conflicting (to me).
Iāve not yet been here a year, and I read all forum materials, FAQs, etc when I joined. CB12 was my first introduction to Cubase, and I read everything I saw to read regarding how to purchase, download, install, etc before buying. It was rather easy. It was originally an eLicense I believe. Further, I also re-read everything when I went to āupdateā from CB12 to Pro, and C12 Pro to C13 Pro, and converting to SB Licensing.
Every single piece of information, even the video says to download the SDA and use that as your starting point. In the case of an update, I see this at the purchase page:
I see that CB13 Pro is required āQualified Product.ā Great. I look in SDA, and under My Products, I see this:
So I go ahead and buy it. Nowhere did I see ANY information whatsoever that told me that I had to go into the SAM INSTEAD OF SDA to see if there was a āqualifying productā listed, or to logon to MySteinberg and to look under Products before purchasing.
At a bare minimum, and I mean the lowest possible bar of due diligence, SB should put a link on the āPurchaseā page that says āHow to check for qualifying update products.ā There isnāt one. There is indeed a āCheck for Grace Periodā KB if you go searching for it (posted above), but even today there is not even a single KB that says you canāt do what you say āweāve never been able to do.ā
@JuergenP ās mention of ālook in the SAM and youāll see your previous license doesnāt existā was literally the first time Iāve ever seen any reference to that whatsoever.
Do I know now that I was wrong? Yes. SHOULD I have known? Iām not so sure. Iām no genius, but I donāt think Iām the dumbest person in the room. In the absence of any clear guidance to the contrary, and in the presence of āfollowed instructions to get me there,ā I think itās perfectly reasonable - if not expected - that people like me arrive at the conclusion that the products shown in My Products in the interface Iām told to use are indeed qualifying products. Yes, you know all this because youāre already done it, but even in the forum threads (that I saw) itās not really explained all that well - itās just āyou can do thisā or āthis works.ā @IvanZās post is testament to that.
And while I may have felt a bit foolish after @JuergenP so astutely pointed out what sounded obvious when I read it, in the literal absence of any official guidance, which is trivial to provide, I went ahead and spent my own money to actually test it. And I own that mistake.
So again, with total respect to you and your knowledge, I feel your statement that āthere is no conflicting information anywhere that comes close to suggesting this is possibleā is not entirely accurate.
We need documentation. While I always laugh when posters say how simple some coding fix should be, in this case I can confidently say āminimum documentation and a link should be simple.ā
If any of this offends you, I apologize. But I feel like the mistake I made was a reasonable one. Cheers, sir.
1 Like
If you are not familiar with Steinbergās organization (SAM, MySteinberg, SDA, eLCC, SLM) it is quite a lot to digest. Each of these apps have some specific tasks which you wonāt find anywhere else - other tasks can be found in more than one app.
Moreover, these apps display different pieces of information with regard to product licenses:
- The SDA displays all licenses including older versions that are now subsumed under the current main license under the tab āMy Productsā. Actually, not all of them, just the ones within the new licensing system. However, you might want to think you own these licenses as much as you own the current version.
- MySteinberg and SAM only list your current or latest licence
The information displayed here is presented this way for a good reason. However, itās most probably not self-explanatory to most users. In other words, thereās definetly room for misunderstandings.
Some sort of documentation as @Thor.HOG suggested would surely be helpful. Not just hereā¦ 
2 Likes
Okā¦.I think Iād better make this my last post in the thread as Iām starting to sound like Iām just disagreeing with everything. Butā¦..SDA does not show any licensesā¦ā¦It only shows available downloads.
I do get that because these downloads are listed under my products, it could be misconstrued as meaning you do have a license for them (which you kind of do because your later license is valid for them too) but itās not showing you any actual licenses.
3 Likes
Actually, I think youāre sharing your valuable opinions. I may not āagreeā with everyone, but Iād rather have the opportunity to see where deficiencies in my knowledge exist, or when someone elseās perspective sheds light on something, or if yeah, we just disagree.
Just some perspective, I think I was a SB product user for about 2 years before I even knew the forum existed (other than in random search engine results) so my experience with this was all from ādoing itā and what the docs said. So when I see this:
It tells me that āYou have all these products, and you have licenses for them. Here they are in a nice list. Here are other products you donāt have a license for. You know this because we say āseparate license required,ā which obviously means that you HAVE LICENSES for everything in āMy Products.āā
So again, not trying to āargueā but just my opinion that, to me, they are explicitly telling me in the SDA that I have licenses for every product listed in the My Products.
The forum has given me different perspectives, and they have turned out to (I presume) be right. But I canāt fault anyone for getting this āwrongā because SB has TOLD ME I have these licenses in explicit words while also not bothering to even write a KB to the contrary.
Thatās all Iām saying - itās not cut and dry, there are certainly (to me) conflicting bits of information out there, and there isnāt any documentation, and you donāt even find out a forum exists until you go looking for it after what you buy doesnāt work (mostly).
All just my opinion.
1 Like
I agree, I didnāt say they werenātā¦.. this was exactly why I said it could be misconstrued that way. But Iām pointing out that youāre not looking at any actual licenses so that no-one else needs to be confused by this. ONLY look in activation manager to know what licenses you own.
2 Likes
Friends, Cubase 15 just get released, and I just register a update code(pro 12 to pro 13, and I have Cubase 12 Pro in my account). I get Cubase 15 Pro.
Thatās how grace period work, no matter what code it is, it would give you the latest version.
1 Like
Well, if you have the proper āoriginalā license for the qualifying product. @Grim and @JuergenP were 100% correct. I upgraded to C14 Pro from C13 Pro and (as a test) purchased the C13 Pro to C14 Pro update, and it (of course) doesnāt work with C15 Pro.
I didnāt expect it to after the lengthy discussion above, but at the time it was a valid test (Iām ādata drivenā at heart you see 
).
All in the name of science! And ābetter documentationā requests! HAHAHAHAHA.
Not certain if this is here but hereās how this work based on my talking to Steinberg reps and making some costly mistakes.
Activation is tied to code redemption: Do not type your code in util the new cubase is announces (typically the 1st or 2nd Wednesday of November)
if you redeem before activating you have voided the grace period (they may still offer it you if you call and say it was a mistake are nice)
So my advice buy the latest Cubase on sae usually in auguestor september hold off on downloading and redeeming the code until the new version is announced in November.
1 Like