Page 5 of 24

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:20 pm
by ckon
SX3 to 4
So many assumptions,
just thinking out loud, rightly or wrongly. let's all pull together on this.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:29 pm
by indiescore
ckon wrote:SX3 to 4
So many assumptions,
just thinking out loud, rightly or wrongly. let's all pull together on this.
I can't remember if I started on SX, It was around 2003,

Agreed, we all want generally the same thing, I remember Lydiot from years ago , an old timer who has a proven voice so maybe this thread will be a wake up call.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:37 pm
by ckon
I can't remember if I started on SX, It was around 2003,

Agreed, we all want generally the same thing, I remember Lydiot from years ago , an old timer who has a proven voice so maybe this thread will be a wake up call.
amen to that,

2003 was SX2 I think? I started out on CubaseVST5 after using Opcode Vision prior to that, never did the Atari thing. More long term users that chime in the better.

All the best to you.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:51 pm
by MattiasNYC
mbr wrote:I hear what you saying...but all the new features is first released in Cubase and then later much later in Nuendo so it seems to me that Cubase is the testing ground for Nuendo and always was. Yes they had one maintenance update maybe because all the beta testing is done with Cubase and they only needed one.
No, I'm on Nuendo and I'm telling you that's not the case. By and large you could maybe argue that Nuendo users get fewer and less severe bugs, but the problem is what happens when we get a quite severe bug, and we now have at least one. With a corporate culture such as the one they have they're now 'stuck' so we who do pay a premium are stuck as well. How many months do we have to wait for our new feature that we paid specifically for will be fixed? That's my point.

Our issues (yours and ours) are tied together. Either the culture and primary goal is to sell more first and address only a small amount of issues when time permits, or it's being an honest manufacturer that cares about his customers and actually does mean "prioritize" when they say they're "prioritizing" fixing severe issues. You guys are suffering bugs for exactly the same reason we're suffering them. It's all the same company and the same mentality.
mbr wrote:There also seem to be much less “noise” in the Nuendo forum...
Of course. But even once releases have been stable and bug-free for a while you're not seeing a lot of participation in that section. There are far fewer users. And, no offense, but there are far fewer hobbyists using Nuendo, as a percentage of its user base compared to Cubase. And I think that has a huge impact.
mbr wrote:To try and spite a powerful company like Yamaha with not paying for upgrades is childish and won't work, they are multi billion dollar conglomerate.
That's "childish"? That's a pretty strong word. Yamaha is a billion dollar conglomerate exactly because they have long term vision and care about profits. If Steinberg isn't making a profit then Yamaha has to question why they should own it. Why should it? If it's a drag on its financials then there's no reason to, that's the way capitalism works.

I'm not saying people will boycott updates and upgrades of Cubase and Nuendo, because people never do, I'm just saying that if they did then it would matter, because if there's something that people "get" in large corporations it's numbers on a spreadsheet.
mbr wrote:I think by just bit ching here relentlessly will do it and hopefully they will release another maintenance update soon so we all can go back to make and produce music in "silence"

The only thing that will force there hand in my view is relentless bad publicity not by not paying for updates or upgrades.
No way. This happens repeatedly. Release. Bugs. Complaints. People buy anyway. Complaints. Feature requests. New features. Bugs. Complaints. People buy anyway.... over and over.... Complaints here change nothing. That's been my point.

The only way I seemingly got any traction and response was posting at Gearslutz in the post-production section calling Guillermo on his inaccurate statements about Nuendo. Then there were "questionable" responses. But even then we've seen zero results from this "priority", except the Cubase release, which of course is the definition of not having the stated priority.
mbr wrote:Personally I will see what happens in the next 6 months and If version 8 cant be as stable and reliable as 7.5 I'm jumping ship to Nuendo and take it from there.
If stability is an issue for you with Cubase then I would first look into the workstation configuration as a whole, and, if that doesn't fix it and if it is an issue that other users suffer I would recommend not upgrading until you are sure other people have reported the issue gone. By switching to Nuendo all you're doing is waiting and spending more money. We're consistently about 6 months behind Cubase, and our feature set includes that of Cubase anyway (plus the features you don't need), so if you're going to wait that long why not just wait for the latest release of a stable Cubase and save your money? It shouldn't be unstable seeing that we're getting the same code in Nuendo, so if Nuendo is stable so should the latest version of Cubase.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:54 pm
by MattiasNYC
greggybud wrote:Not wanting more complexity.

I was thinking a new DAW built from the ground up with the objectives of working with 3rd parties for that deep integration. I'm not a programmer, but I like the words "open source" to an extent. The DAW manufacturer focuses only on it's own core DAW functions, workflow, and few bugs. No eye candy. No competing built-in features that are usually done better by 3rd parties. The focus is on the core DAW functions and it's ability to integrate at a deeper level with major manufacturers. I'm currently dreaming, but as the market continues to expand and grow in different segments for hobbyists vs. pro use I think there is potential.
I don't think there's that much potential. There's already a few apps out there that are more barebones, but people want and actually need a relatively high level of complexity. For simpler stuff people could get the cheap Harrison DAW for example.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:02 pm
by smartinuf
As one persons cool feature might be added bloat to another, Im thinking a more modular approach could be the way for cubase to go in the future. If implemented correctly, a solid core system with ability to add/disable features or functions would be welcome in my view. For instance VST Transit is of no interest to me, though I see how it could be for others but personally I'd rather not have it taking up resources and add to further cluttering menus/screen space. Just an example. Similar situation with Score Editor which I don't use much but which I know others rely on heavily.

In a way, this is already implemented with the distinction between Nuendo and various levels of Cubase but having more ability to turn off different sections of the program and its associated resources, screen space could be useful in a lot of ways, might even help tracing down bugs.

Just a thought, Stephen

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:14 pm
by OldFecker
Mike001 wrote:I just wish it would work as it should.
No Bugs!
Amen and +1 to the OP

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 10:19 pm
by florian360
+1

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:28 am
by Jeff Price
I might be old but i always thought updates were supposed to fix things and be free and upgrades were to add new features. A "Point update" isn't an upgrade (it's an update) and should never be paid for. The extra's should be kept for new versions. And only released after heavy Beta testing / QA. Then it's an upgrade and you pay for it.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:48 pm
by gesslr
smartinuf wrote:As one persons cool feature might be added bloat to another, Im thinking a more modular approach could be the way for cubase to go in the future. If implemented correctly, a solid core system with ability to add/disable features or functions would be welcome in my view. For instance VST Transit is of no interest to me, though I see how it could be for others but personally I'd rather not have it taking up resources and add to further cluttering menus/screen space. Just an example. Similar situation with Score Editor which I don't use much but which I know others rely on heavily.

In a way, this is already implemented with the distinction between Nuendo and various levels of Cubase but having more ability to turn off different sections of the program and its associated resources, screen space could be useful in a lot of ways, might even help tracing down bugs.

Just a thought, Stephen
I think that is a great idea. Presonus does a lite-version of this with StudioOne Artist. A user can purchase the barebones starter version then add "modules" for things like MP3 export, VST/AU hosting, etc., at a reasonable cost (something like $20). That way a person can buy only what they need with an option to grow. What's needed there is a way to reflect those purchases in the upgrade price to the pro version...the more invested the more credited when you go pro.

I've been a serial monogamist when it comes to DAWs over the years. I've probably tried them all (on the Mac side) at some point and used them for a year or two at a stretch each time. All DAWs can pretty much do 90% of whatever its competition does. Different workflows maybe, different key commands, but there is very little that's really unique. I really like C8 and C8.5 tremendously. And as I am beginning to do this stuff professionally now, I realize that it really comes down to how well I have learned the tool.

That said, there are some shiny new objects out there (specifically StudioOne) that would be a serious alternative IF it had a video workflow worth a damn. It doesn't and likely won't any time soon because that isn't what Presonus is focused on. But I'm glad to see Steiny sitting up and taking notice and trying to learn from the competition.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:51 pm
by teknatronik
Don't dare complain on gs. Lol


This update makes me upset.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 12:55 pm
by Musicmind
+1. Just make it work.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 1:38 pm
by sempondr
+1
Fix bugs, polish GUI, optimize workflow.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 2:59 pm
by Resonant Serpent
noiseboyuk wrote:But I've been through maybe half a dozen support issues in the last 24 hours, pretty much all from a year ago, none of which have been addressed. Many of them are a very big deal to a lot of customers. Meanwhile in the fallout from each release, inevitably lots of people start discussing the newer competition, who are perceived to be ahead of the curve in terms of customer responsiveness.
So, what were the issues? I've been using Cubase Pro 8 for 6 months, and have yet to run into a major bug. The prog froze on me once when I renamed the folder that I was saving my projects in. Not trying to be a jerk, just seriously curious why everyone is so up in arms.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:08 pm
by AndyThommen
+1

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:36 pm
by fiddler2007
if it weren't for the MIDI possibilities dept in Cubase i also would have changed to something else .... In fact intend to try out Sonar soon, to see what that has to offer .... - F

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:44 pm
by noiseboyuk
Resonant Serpent wrote:So, what were the issues? I've been using Cubase Pro 8 for 6 months, and have yet to run into a major bug. The prog froze on me once when I renamed the folder that I was saving my projects in. Not trying to be a jerk, just seriously curious why everyone is so up in arms.
There's a lot listed in this very thread. The biggest ones for me are:

VE Pro / ASIOguard (ongoing problems)
Disabled / re-enabled tracks still has issues (eg Quick Controls not remembered after a disabled save; disabled multi outs coming up with extraneous nags on launching a project)
Record Arming VCAs still always grouped
Windows management in W7 still unreliable

I don't have core stability issues that some others seem to. But another huge part of it for me is the piroritising of new features and enhancements. It's easy to brush off as "everyone wants something different", but there are some really solid core functionality issues (most of which are relatively small, not big ticket "have an arranger like Ableton" type noise) that have been long long requested that go on for years unaddressed while other far more spurious new features get added. We had around 20 or so good solid little improvements in 8.5, all of which hugely welcome. Trouble is - we need about 1020. I think the overall thrust is (with seemingly few arguing against it here) - lots more practical long-asked-for smaller improvements, less stuff like VST Cloud which are developer resource intensive and will be hugely under-used by users. Once a lot more of those have been addressed, then I think many of us would be less grouchy about stuff like Cloud.

Incidentally, I've updated a lot of my bug and issuses threads to reflect that after a year they have not been addressed. I don''t think a single post has been moderator approved. This is another problem - I think many of us simply feel ignored, and in frustration we end up creating threads like this.

There has to be a better system than this - Steinberg, we're all ears. Over to you.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:09 pm
by matjones
noiseboyuk wrote:I don''t think a single post has been moderator approved. This is another problem - I think many of us simply feel ignored, and in frustration we end up creating threads like this.

There has to be a better system than this - Steinberg, we're all ears. Over to you.
Yep.... the silence from Steinberg is almost deafening! :cry: :cry:

But yeah there have been quite a few 'small' if not VERY welcome additions/improvements in 8.5

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:28 pm
by mroekalea
If steinberg would reply the replies will be overwhelming I guess :-O

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:06 pm
by paterrob
+1

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:39 pm
by Kotsamanidis
I am willing to pay an extra $50 for a Cubase x.75 version that is no new features and just bug fixes. Okay $100. Okay $150. No, $100.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:43 pm
by mbr
8-) Lydiot

Thank you for the long reply above and I noted the contents !

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:21 pm
by greggybud
Lydiot wrote:
greggybud wrote:Not wanting more complexity.

I was thinking a new DAW built from the ground up with the objectives of working with 3rd parties for that deep integration. I'm not a programmer, but I like the words "open source" to an extent. The DAW manufacturer focuses only on it's own core DAW functions, workflow, and few bugs. No eye candy. No competing built-in features that are usually done better by 3rd parties. The focus is on the core DAW functions and it's ability to integrate at a deeper level with major manufacturers. I'm currently dreaming, but as the market continues to expand and grow in different segments for hobbyists vs. pro use I think there is potential.
I don't think there's that much potential. There's already a few apps out there that are more barebones, but people want and actually need a relatively high level of complexity. For simpler stuff people could get the cheap Harrison DAW for example.
I think the potential depends on that "much higher price" to rid a DAW from this vicious cycle. Today that high price may be unrealistic. They know their market. But at some point I think someone will come along with this concept.

I wasn't thinking of bare bones. I was thinking of a DAW built from the ground up that focuses on core functions. For example the sample editor, the list editor, the drum editor, the logical editor, key editor, with support functions such as history window, comping window, etc. But NOT functions that 3rd parties often do better such as autotune, all the presently included instrument and effect VST's, LoopMash, upgrades such as EQ's, or Magneto. Plus not what I think should be options such as Halion, Groove Agent etc. And make it so better integration with major3rd parties such as UAD or Waves is encouraging. Give the pro user the options of configuring the DAW from ground up with 3rd parties instead of a huge take-it-or-leave it bundle. DId I just eliminate 90% of users hopefully leaving 10% who desire core functions?

I know "core functions and better workflow" is subjective. And I admit how they were able to eventually integrate Vari-audio with chord tracks is very cool. But with 10% paying a "much higher price" you can allocate your resources to DAW core functions instead of releasing new eye-candy or wiz-bang features. I bet you could fix bugs, even create non-eye-candy new features such as mix undo well before the competition. Until C8.5 look how long Steinberg had ignored the drum editor. A way to delete drum tracks, move them around, and manipulate length should have been achieved back in the SX era! The same can be said about the sample editor. These core functions are ignored because resources have to be used to appeal to hobbyists.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:42 pm
by MattiasNYC
greggybud wrote:I think the potential depends on that "much higher price" to rid a DAW from this vicious cycle. Today that high price may be unrealistic. They know their market. But at some point I think someone will come along with this concept.

I wasn't thinking of bare bones. I was thinking of a DAW built from the ground up that focuses on core functions. For example the sample editor, the list editor, the drum editor, the logical editor, key editor, with support functions such as history window, comping window, etc. But NOT functions that 3rd parties often do better such as autotune, all the presently included instrument and effect VST's, LoopMash, upgrades such as EQ's, or Magneto. Plus not what I think should be options such as Halion, Groove Agent etc. And make it so better integration with major3rd parties such as UAD or Waves is encouraging. Give the pro user the options of configuring the DAW from ground up with 3rd parties instead of a huge take-it-or-leave it bundle. DId I just eliminate 90% of users hopefully leaving 10% who desire core functions?

I know "core functions and better workflow" is subjective. And I admit how they were able to eventually integrate Vari-audio with chord tracks is very cool. But with 10% paying a "much higher price" you can allocate your resources to DAW core functions instead of releasing new eye-candy or wiz-bang features. I bet you could fix bugs, even create non-eye-candy new features such as mix undo well before the competition. Until C8.5 look how long Steinberg had ignored the drum editor. A way to delete drum tracks, move them around, and manipulate length should have been achieved back in the SX era! The same can be said about the sample editor. These core functions are ignored because resources have to be used to appeal to hobbyists.
I hear what you're saying. But VST 3 is a good standard, and all Steinberg would have to do is focus on core features. I really don't think there's a need to code the app "from the ground up", just fix what's not working and stop messing around with the candy.

Re: An open plea to Steinberg

Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:12 pm
by greggybud
Lydiot wrote:I hear what you're saying. But VST 3 is a good standard, and all Steinberg would have to do is focus on core features. I really don't think there's a need to code the app "from the ground up", just fix what's not working and stop messing around with the candy.

If they could somehow do this to C8.5 an application that has been piece-mealed since the SX era, manifesting many inconsistencies, vs. a fresh start...especially when addressing windows issues then I agree 100%!

But IMO that will never happen when you are dependent on hobbyists and new users who drive this DAW market and create this endless cycle . Don't upgrade would work, but is that realistic?