Why so many "suggestions"

I’m just curious as doing some research on other forums today I noticed that there seems to be noticeably fewer calls for improvements and feature requests than here.
Strikes me as a contradiction in a way because Cubase has already got more features than the competition.

Doubly curious because as a fairly long-time user I’m still finding things that it does rather than noticing things it doesn’t do and mostly I can usually rely on finding something in Cubase that will do the odd obscure job that might crop up. (yep, “workarounds” are the way to actually do things)
Cubase is like those large toyshops at Christmas. The place is so big that you’re never sure that, when you come out empty handed, it hasn’t got what you want or you just missed that stall behind the giant talking panda that you considered buying to annoy the missus before the crowd pushed you round the corner and you forgot where it was. :mrgreen:

(offstage voice: “It was behind the giant panda!”) :mrgreen:

Because it’s never perfect and there is always room for improvement. And because users may use the software in ways Steinberg did not fully predict and they can adapt the program to cater for more people.
Since when was being the best a reason to stop improving?

My two cents…

Steinberg is one of those few companies that still innovates, and actually consider “suggestions”.

VST3 and Note Expression is one of the coolest and refreshing features I’ve used in a long time!!! WAY awesome!

I very much dislike the companies that makes a “barebone” VST plugin, and then sells 15 “expansion” packs. Granted the model works, but it’s to abused to maximize revenue (and I understand that is what they are there for, and that in turn, is why I dislike it). After all, they are ALL in for the money…

Its human nature; people use the program and think of things they want. In my case recently ;I started a thread for a button to close all lanes, midi and audio" A poster responded that it could be done in the Project logical editor with a macro. I hate making macros and I don’t like any of the logical editors (this goes back to Creator). Bottom line is a few weeks ago I looked up my old post and followed the step by step a responder graciously gave and it works great. So that feature was there all along ; in a way. Still rather see a button but …

I know it’s never perfect. But nothing ever is, it’s just that the more features a DAW has the more suggestions seem to arrive. There just seems to be more here. I suppose the attitude must be “If they’ve done all that then they won’t mind doing my little idea…” sort of thinking. I rarely find Cubase wanting and there seems to be other ways of tinkering to get what I need to be done not directly described in the manual, not that this works for everyone, but I rarely have to resort to a forum to find these things out and finding solutions doesn’t seem to take long unless, as in some cases an underlying bug or computer fault that I’ll dance around for a couple of days until I come here and find it’s been reported and work(around)ed out or fixed.

The posts that seem to work for me are the ones where the “victim” of the shortcoming writes in, describes in as much detail as possible, and then waits while others chime in with “+ 1s” until he gets a fix or a sensible way to do it or works out his own way after considering the suggestions.

The ones that don’t really work are the ones that seem to think everything is “simply” done or fixed by programming.
From the rate I see rewrites arrive in Cubase and any other software, both DAW and non-DAW, that it can’t really be that simple.

Everything is perfect. Cubase users are all in denial of that.

True. And (imo, mmv) too many people confuse their own total happiness with the reality of others, unfortunately… which often leads to Disneyland, and bad assumptions.

Cubase is full of features that came from “suggestions”. Not sure how it could be any other way. Cubase 7 will add more. In the interim, people get their work done anyway.

Cubase is full of features that came from “suggestions”. Not sure how it could be any other way. Cubase 7 will add more. In the interim, people get their work done anyway.

One or two is not “full of” suggestions from this forum and things like the VST bridge turned out unsatisfactory and largely redundant. It’s not wise to exaggerate to try to prove a point. :wink: They do have their own staff and not a few studios that use the post-beta versions that must have already suggested the best ideas.
And I’m not criticising suggestions generally I’m trying to find a reason that they’re so popular in this particular forum. And why, usually, they’re so shallowly thought out. Along the lines of “Can we have such-and-such added because Ableton’s got it and it wouldn’t take much to program…” and mostly nothing else in the way of details.

Just thinking but it could be an idea for Steinberg to release an April fool version of Cubase solely made up of the forum members’ suggestions over the years. :mrgreen:

I am sure there are a lot more suggestions that have made it into Cubase over the years, Conman.
(And please don’t ask for references, because I don’t keep a list of them handy.)

I nominate this for the 2012 ‘Most reactionary thread’ award.

btw fyi fwiw

I Googled ‘mmv’ and this thread came ninth.

That’s odd, every single application I use has endless FR threads on their forums. No more or less than here. Reaper has a dedicated forum for them. It depends on where you go for the Logic FR threads, but they have a lot. The Avid forums are full of FRs that turn into flame wars before being deleted by the mods.

Cubase has a LOT of great features. They also lack a lot of curiously fundamental functions that they refuse to add/fix. Transparent events, always visible automation points, real customizable modifiers, project window editing of hit points, track lists, comp lists etc… I could go on for days. Most of these things are stuff that the other hosts have done for years and years. That’s not to say that Cubase isn’t feature rich. And, it does have a lot of innovative features. And, I can get the job done. That doesn’t mean I don’t want other things that would help me in the way I work.

For example, the comping change brought on in C6 rendered it useless for me. 6.5 has fixed about 60% of the comping. MIDI comping is still a disaster. And overlapping cycles still don’t edit well. I think it’s because Steiny does not distinguish cycle recording options from comping/editing functions. To me those are distinct things. One is related to recording, the other related to editing the recording. C6.x has the two things weirdly tied together all in the name of quick comping of fixed section cycle recording. This is only 1 of a dozen or more cycle record and comping scenarios. They have basically coded themselves into a corner without considering the bigger picture of what cycle recording is and what comping is.

That’s just one example. Other hosts have had major portions of this functionality sorted out for a long time.

Maybe Steinberg’s agenda, though it of course has to favor sales to sustain, is slightly different than other vendors?

Procedures have been done this way or that way for a long time, and maybe it isn’t always the thing to adhere to how-it-always-worked, and instead try to better them.

Maybe it’s even we that are so used to doing things, we don’t want to adapt to new ways of thinking. We are often our own obstacles, in terms of progress. I understand of course that for a lot of people time is money and they do not want to change their ways, simply because they cannot afford to, but in such cases there are plenty of alternative solutions that do it to good old way. (And I am not trying to be facetious in any way!)

I think the reason why I always liked the Steinberg products, is just because they forced me to think differently at times. Keep me current and constantly advancing.

E.g. take a look (and there are plenty of other examples) at the VST3 ordeal. It HAS been for Steinberg, but they ARE pulling it off, if only by a hair. With a LOT of help from various vendors that are willing to open their eyes and see new things. (Check my sig for reference!) Now, I am not trying to start another debate on VST3 (vs NOT :slight_smile: ) but the fact is that VST3 has raised the bar for plugin functionality, and that is very very cool.

To adapt, is to evolve. To not, is to stagnate.

Anyways, a little Elektrobolt philosophy on a Sunday morning. :wink:

For example, the comping change brought on in C6 rendered it useless for me. 6.5 has fixed about 60% of the comping. MIDI comping is still a disaster. And overlapping cycles still don’t edit well. I think it’s because Steiny does not distinguish cycle recording options from comping/editing functions. To me those are distinct things. One is related to recording, the other related to editing the recording. C6.x has the two things weirdly tied together all in the name of quick comping of fixed section cycle recording. This is only 1 of a dozen or more cycle record and comping scenarios. They have basically coded themselves into a corner without considering the bigger picture of what cycle recording is and what comping is.

The reason I put “suggestions” in commas is to differentiate between suggestions proper. The comping problem had some good detailed contributions which is what developers need for analysis of what needed to be done as well as whether it needed doing.
Just suggesting with no thought as to how it can be done is mostly negative as developers, and forum members too, are busy doing other things and unless it is clearly laid out then even the best ideas are going to get forgotten about.
All you end up with are a bunch of "+ 1"s.

“Reactionary” good one-liner but means nothing. It’s just another “suggestion” with no body to it. Just looks like another attempt to pick a fight where so far we have a pretty good discussion going on.

What I’m attempting to do here is to make the suggestions a bit more creative than they mostly are. :neutral_face:

Sorry Conman, I disagree. A good number of our FRs are very clear in the need and implementation that we desire.

For example, very simple requests like transparent events for those of us who have to align multiple events to very specific locations on another track. Even with the grid pass through, it still doesn’t show locations on a frame basis, sample basis, triplets, or transient. So, again they broke a feature that many of us found critical and even though we have given very clear explanations why we need it, they provide an “improved” implementation that actually ignores the FR completely. And, just like the fix for comping, it only addresses a very small % of what the original feature provided. The real sad thing here is that they had it right to begin with.

Same thing with automation nodes.

Same thing with grids in editors

etc. etc. etc.

Those are not feature requests I’m talking about. They are, quite rightly in the cases you quote, complaints about features that have been altered and need reasons for or fixes delivered.
A feature request is a request for a feature that doesn’t yet exist in Cubase. In the cases you cite they already exist/ed and the reasons and the practical usage can be explained and reasoned out. I’m trying to get this same behaviour in feature requests that are new. If they’re well thought out then they have a better chance of implementation.

I think that’s exactly your problem conman, you think every fr is am attempt to pick a fight. I really don’t think thats the case.

You aren’t. I’m not. I don’t comment on you and I don’t think every FR is an attempt to pick a fight. I don’t tell lies about you. Please desist. It’s not polite.
One post in particular here might be and I’m trying to nip it in the bud.

What other forums are you talking about? At least that way there will be a reference to this thing you’re claiming,

What other DAW forums where people aren’t suggesting things as much as here, specifically.

Haha. :smiley: It’s a habit saying “mileage may vary”, “in my opinion”, as a precaution, because the net loves to debate subjective opinion. Notice how even with those given it still drew an attempt to debate my subjective opinion.

Anyway, carry on guys, I just dropped in to agree with the guy I replied to.

Those were your own words so you are contradicting yourself now :confused:
I realise very well that I made this personal, but I feel there’s really no way around that on this topic, seeing as it’s really you vs the rest of the world here. I never see anyone complain about the feature requests, apart from you. There’s nothing wrong with that in principle, but I personally get a bit tired of how you handle them.
I completely agree that some FRs are incomplete or could use a better explanation, but instead of trying to find the roots of the problem (Why the OP wants a certain feature), your replies usually just scare off the OP and take all focus off the actual topic.

That’s not a personal attack, and please don’t take it that way. It’s just me telling you how I think communication on this forum can be improved. A feature request if you will.

I’ve had my say, I’ll stay out of here for now.

/Strophoid.