why so many new versions so fast

My point exactly. A lot of you misunderstand my post. Let me rephrase my self in another context(which is true as well)…so imagine you buy a new hardware synth and it has some bugs and features that don’t work yet or are not fixed yet. now “caugh!” Waldorf makes a new version of the synth that’s more powerful ect…now they don’t support your old synth anymore because they are on to bigger and better( and the synth still doesn’t have the fixes and features)…the new synth has all the new fixes that the old synth needed but hmmm you need to upgrade.

It’s just jumping the gun before you make a solid product.

Look at access. They have basically 1 product but don’t come up with new versions every year(yes synths and daws are very different) but the point is they try to make a solid product until the bigger and better comes around.

I’m not bashing steinberg they are great, I’m just thinking they are going to quick.

That is all I am saying.

If you’ve got serious work, stick with the version that works. If new versions come out (that might break one’s existing projects and make you learn new stuff etc.) best is to nail your wallet to the wall, read the reviews and bug reports from any users who have dared to buy early, assess what one NEEDS urgently and then make a decision to buy.
Remember the core purpose is to record and mix. Anything over that and you’re looking at toys like pitch shifters and beat correction and stuff that’s got preferences & features built in that OTHER people think is a good selling point /tool for a particular job but that might not suit everyone.
Of course my answer misses some point or other but so does software. A lot actually.

I see your point and makes sense to.

If you want compatibility with the latest OS version, then there is a requirement to “upgrade” as opposed to update.

There is also hardware issues that pop up if you stay to old school. Even some plugins won’t work because you need some updated drivers and crap.

That “requirement” was introduced by the user though. By CHOOSING to upgrade their OS, they created a “self-triggered” requirement to update Cubase. That older version of Cubase still works and, in theory, always will work on the OS that it supported.

Ahh! there is the rub; and an easy one to solve…

‘Doc it hurts when I do that’!
etc etc etc etc :slight_smile:

The whole world is going to fast. Soon tripping in its/our own feet :wink:

Aloha i,

That reads like the opening lines of a kool new song.
Quite ‘poetic’ in fact.


I would not criticize getting new fixes, IMHO. :slight_smile:

If you know much about software bug fixing is not a easy chore. Fixing one thing often breaks another, from what I hear.

Found in a Steinberg C7 read me file:

“Developing software is an ongoing process that perpetually gets closer to perfection without ever achieving it”.


This is getting out of context. What I stated was why so many new versions not why so many new updates. Updates are great. Update the current version till it works 100% or close. Then go to the next one. Not do a couple of updates then on to the next.

That’s all. They can update till they are blue in the face that’s great.

There’s yer clue. (Answered your own question)


That’s the big obvious one…lol

Provided the updates were release in the knowledge of rollups, patches etc being available or solid implementation plans released as OS source.

The reason is simple, new features require new development frameworks that are incompatible with old source.

Really, the ONLY way to maintain compatibility with older projects is to keep the computer that it was done on exactly the same, including the eLicensor/iLoks, and their licenses frozen (do not update).

For the next project, build another computer, and buy the latest versions of software and new dongles for them.

Only works if you have rich clients and a spare warehouse though! :unamused: :unamused: :unamused:

I get both sides of this…

If you’re a pro and your equipment doesn’t work though, if it’s preventing you from serving your customer, and you need to keep searching for fixes… I mean, you should take a look at yourself.

Keep it as simple as you need to keep your customer satisfied.
If that’s a lifelong mission, you’re doing something wrong, or perhaps in the wrong field.

Sometimes I chuckle at certain forums with people calling themselves engineers or musicians even, all they talk about are their tech issues day after day, year after year. Remind me not to use YOU when I need something. Some of these guys I have never read one sentence about the actual art. It’s just a lifelong journey of searching the best plug-in, best setup, how to fix this and that. If you’re making great art, you should be fine. This idea about last 3% or whatever… whaaaateva. Excuses.

What if the customer is the same person using the DAW?

For me it is certainly that, and I could not work without Steinberg Innovations.

I’m not a “pro” whatever the hell that might mean. Actually the use of that term is quite frankly meaningless. If you mean that you earn your entire living from recording the music/spoken word of others then you might have a point. However I suspect that many “pro’s” stretch that point to a considerable degree.

For the sake of argument then, to be a professional would suggest a certain reliability. For instance if I went a Lawyer I would expect them to know the area of law they specialised in. Likewise a plumber should be able to do the job and cope with whatever problem is thrown at him. I would certainly be fed up if I went into a studio and had to wait for an engineer to sort out software problems. Taxi drivers have to drive cars that have a record of reliability. To use the latest update on a session is asking for trouble. You have to put the time in to troubleshoot the new version and not introduce it to your clients until you are 100% happy that you know what it can and can’t do.
Things go wrong in a studio - it happens. But if it goes wrong because you have not done your research then that is on you.

I have done a session recently and it was clear that I knew more about Cubase than the engineer, but because he knew exactly what he was doing and how to use the hardware and software at his disposal he produced a lovely recording and his client was really happy. Also it was a pleasure for me to be playing and be able to concentrate upon what I was there for.

What does this have to do with the frequency of updates?

Well we all have to balance what we are going to get out of it. For me as someone who enjoys the process of creating music and the learning when it comes to software, am quite happy to take the risk. For “pros” to complain about the difficulties it entails and the professional consequences, then I would just say be more professional.