Taking their sweet time

General discussions on songwriting, mixing, music business and other music related topics.
DrWashington
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:23 am
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by DrWashington »

Conman,

I'm arguing that this paradigm ought to change. I've been using this software long enough to be considered an "oldie", and I'm no more comfortable with major broken features with "*.0" versions. There should be public beta testing so these things are caught. More and more companies are doing this, and it's certainly possible for Steinberg to follow suit.
Win10x64, Intel Core i7 5960x @ 4.2GHz, 32GB DDR 4, Asus Rampage V Extreme, Samsung 1TB SSD for OS + 6TB RAID 10 + 5TB RAID 1, BD-RE, GeForce 780 Ti (4 monitors), RME Fireface UC, EVE SC208s.

Guest

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Guest »

Dr Washington,

As much as I'd like to agree, I think you are being rather disingenuous to say that the feature (time stretch) is "broken" when the reality it half works.

As I have stated to you a number of times now were Steinberg to provide a complete working feature set, we would most likely have to wait at least 6 months anyway and this is likely counter to the commercial aspirations of the company notwithstanding the development schedule, which is obviously well on track by virtue of the 5.53 update.

Cheers & shalom

User avatar
Weasel
Member
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:29 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Weasel »

DrWashington wrote:I'm arguing that this paradigm ought to change. I've been using this software long enough to be considered an "oldie", and I'm no more comfortable with major broken features with "*.0" versions. There should be public beta testing so these things are caught. More and more companies are doing this, and it's certainly possible for Steinberg to follow suit.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this statement. Couldn't agree more.

As a matter of fact, Steinberg once released a "beta", but they called it a hotfix. Anybody remember C4.0.3? It fixed some serious interim problems, came with a warning that it wasn't an official release and the world didn't end. No reason why they can't do this more often.
Dual 6 Core 2.66 MacPro/48GB RAM • OSX 10.14.6 • Cubase 10.5.20 • MOTU 424e/2408mk3 • 2-MOTU MIDI Express 128's

Oh.....so this is the Cornfield?....

Guest

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Guest »

Weasel wrote:Anybody remember C4.0.3? It fixed some serious interim problems, came with a warning that it wasn't an official release and the world didn't end. No reason why they can't do this more often.
You wouldn't do it for a whole numbered version though would you, which is what seems to be the central argument of this thread.

DrWashington
Junior Member
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:23 am
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by DrWashington »

Two things: first, the major version numbers should be publicly beta tested at least enough to catch the more glaring issues--this 48/96k bug would've been caught before release if they did so.

Second, when bugs do slip through, as a few always will, there is nothing wrong with 'unofficial' releases or 'hotfixes' that fix these errors. We can choose to skip them if not affected. A hotfix could also, of course, fix major bugs like this until an 'official', stable release is ready.

Or, they could just do like C.O.C.K.O.S. does, and update very often.

Either way, no, I wasn't being disingenuous. I've said from the beginning that this works at 44.1kHz. It doesn't for me, as I never track at that rate. Therefore, me saying "it is broken" is perfectly true from my perspective. :roll:

In any case, I think it's time for a change. Things are pretty good now, but they could be remarkably good. Cubase is a mature product now, which was not so much the case during the SX phase. It could be *the* standard DAW if Steinberg would just push that much harder and work to craft a masterpiece. We're almost there, and I'm cheering them on. : :mrgreen:

I just don't want to see big features like this not work for me right out of the gate anymore. I was really, really looking forward to elastique. It's just a bit of a let-down.
Win10x64, Intel Core i7 5960x @ 4.2GHz, 32GB DDR 4, Asus Rampage V Extreme, Samsung 1TB SSD for OS + 6TB RAID 10 + 5TB RAID 1, BD-RE, GeForce 780 Ti (4 monitors), RME Fireface UC, EVE SC208s.

Guest

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Guest »

Dr Washington, you seem to be avoiding the fact that so called "broken time stretch" is not really a bug parse, it is simply an incomplete feature so there is nothing at all to catch, but the real "catch" though is this: if there did exist this holy grail of internal bug testing that you talk about, then we'd most probably not have newer versions so quickly and sales on the whole would be down, which is not in the interests of users alike otherwise how would older versions be upgraded?

samicide
Junior Member
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by samicide »

Brains wrote:Dr Washington, you seem to be avoiding the fact that so called "broken time stretch" is not really a bug parse, it is simply an incomplete feature so there is nothing at all to catch
you should have quit while you were ahead, now you are wrong too.

It's definitely a bug.
Cubase 9.5

NYC Composer
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 11:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by NYC Composer »

Conman wrote:
DrWashington wrote:Timestretching is urgent, though. That's a big one. Lots of people use that nowadays. I'm one of them.

(Oh, and by the way, to conman... I hope you weren't assuming I'm a noob or something: I've been using Cubase since I first owned Cubase VST 3.0 for my Mac Performa back in the mid '90s. I've owned all the SX series, and now the plain, numbered series.)
Timestretching existed before C6 I understand and it's quite adequate so it's not as urgent as the howling heading would suppose.
Sorry, but oldies actually know (as advised by nilsemil) that first versions are to be treated with kid gloves. We've long ago given up ranting for the first six months of product release.
Bit like pointing over an artists shoulder as he's painting and saying "You've missed a bit, mate."
The paint is still wet. Let it dry first. But don't waste time watching it dry and poking it to see if it is. :)
It's obvious to me that either you never use time stretching, or you don't do serious audio work with timestretching. If you did, you'd know that timestretching in C5 and before was completely unusable. It was my biggest gripe . Warbles, glitches, just terrible. I'm looking forward to C6's superior time stretching, and I do use 44.1k, so Dr Washington's gripe is not mine. That said, I completely understand it and fail to see the logic behind your argument.

Addditionally, you look a bit Sanctimonious.
Regards, L.J.

_______________________________________________________

Cubase 10.5.12, 2019 iMac i9 8 core@3.6khz, OS 10.14.6, 72 GB RAM, scads of SSDs, Babyface Pro, OWC 4 bay Thunderbolt 3 enclosure, too many sample libraries, 90s American Series Strat, Taylor and Martin acoustics, Mexican Fender Precision.

Guest

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Guest »

[...]
Last edited by Guest on Sat Feb 26, 2011 2:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fuzzydude
Member
Posts: 500
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 5:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by fuzzydude »

samicide wrote:
nilsemil wrote:for gods sake guys. dont jump on the first version if you need stuff to get done. everybody knows this.
+1
+1 - 5.5 and C6 can run on the same machine
Comps+OS: PC's (Win 10 1903) - Mac Pro (Catalina) - MacBook Pro (Moave) I Nuendo 10 | Cubase Pro 10 I Wavelab 9.5 Pro

alexis
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 4417
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by alexis »

To sell something knowing that it doesn't work fully, but not disclosing that, is not a business practice that is generally accepted anywhere in any situation. There are even penalties often associated with such behavior, ranging from negative word-of-mouth/decreased sales, to criminal sanctions. Not sure why people think these normal conventions don't apply in the case of DAWs!

I think a lot more goodwill (which ultimately may = increased sales?) would be generated by a company instead saying something like, "Look, we're releasing this completely awesome DAW today, and it can currently do A,B,C better than anyone else's. AND, on such and such a date in the very near future, we will be releasing an upgrade that will enable features X, Y, Z - features that will blow your socks off, and make our DAW far and away the best in the universe. BTW - until then, you can play with features X,Y,Z - just remember they won't be fully functional until then ...".

Is that so hard to say? Am I completely off base, or is that a better business practice than the one being discussed?
Alexis

-Cubase "Safe Start Mode" (CTRL-ALT-SHIFT)
-Get variable-tempo audio to follow a grid here,
-Replacing freely-timed section into a variable tempo project

Cubase 9.0.20; i5-4570 3.2GHz, 16GB RAM; W10 Pro 64-bit on Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB; Seagate 1TB SATA 600 Audio; UR28M; Motif8; UAD-2 Solo; Jamstix 3.6; RevoicePro3.3; EZDrummer 2

Guest

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Guest »

Awesome that thread disappear to the lounge without trace.

Loving this forum even more! :lol:

twilightsong
Senior Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by twilightsong »

Brains wrote:Dr Washington,

As much as I'd like to agree, I think you are being rather disingenuous to say that the feature (time stretch) is "broken" when the reality it half works.
oooh -- can't agree with that, sorry. Partial functionality is for all practical purposes non-functionality, IMO

We software users, not just music software but any type of software, have accepted the common assertion that "bugs are just a part of software development" for FAR TOO LONG. The law, at least here in the States has enabled developers to get away with it, too, giving software "special" status with regard to "merchantability."

You wouldn't patiently accept a significant design flaw in your new car, would you? Or wait 6 months for the manufacturer to iron it out?

The law may be changing, however, The CFC recently rewrote their rules/guidance and now considers software a "product", instead of a "service." A number of high-profile court cases have ruled in favor of claimants against developers in this regard. (Which of course led to a massive lobbying effort by developers to persuade lawmakers to pass new legislation/rules to prevent future litigation).

An argument is often made that stricter rules would kill innovation. Frankly, like at least some of you, I'd like to see more focus on quality/reliability than innovation.

It's also true that configuration CAN and does factor into how a piece of software functions. But in my mind, as long as a user's hardware meets the minimum requirements as set forth by the vendor, then the software should work -- period.

Of course, software IS different from an automobile or a toaster, but the approach to correcting flaws should receive the same sort of urgency those products do. What I'm basically saying is, I agree with the position some have taken in this thread that timely, frequent, and targeted updates -- like the ones Reaper uses -- should become the norm and not the exception.
"There is no avant-garde; only some people a bit behind." -- Edgar Varese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cubase 5.5.2/ Win 7 64-bit/ Quad 9550/ UAD-2/ Wavelab 4/ more sample libraries than I can remember

Conman
Senior Member
Posts: 2116
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:31 am

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Conman »

Cars, planes and satellites do have design flaws. And again no-one FORCED anyone to purchase and, as far as I know, C6 was first offered here without loud fanfare in the trade press and as any long-standing forum member and also probably most short term members who have done proper research knows that any DAW software will have flaws and that your own preferred software will always have more flaws than the competition.
Also a quick look around this forum, or any other forum, convinces me that if a beta version was released the feedback would be so confusing as to be meaningless.
I mean, the experts usually don't have the time to go into proper detail and the inexperienced usually can't explain any problem in enough detail and then there are the different computer set-ups and hardware configurations to take account of which can even fool the experienced into misdiagnosis.
It's not like designing a car. Cars are just designed for people with four limbs and a head. Computer programs, DAWs included, have to be built for all sorts of co-habiting alien machine-fauna have to drive. And some legs won't reach the pedals.
So really you can quote all the trade regulations, human rights and free speech laws for ever and it won't get fixed any quicker.
Heck! Stop faffing about. Point out the dam bugs is enough. Have a little rant.
Then stop picking at the sore. It will get better.

Then be happy. :mrgreen:

PS. Yes, Reaper does 2 million fixes a month to no noticeable change to the program except every six months. Strange. Keeps y'all quiet though because nobody on their forum reports that many bugs.
And it looks good.
Last edited by Conman on Sat Feb 26, 2011 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Asus P6T deluxe; Core i7 920 2.67gHz; 12gig ram; Win7 Pro SP1; Roland Octa-Capture usb inteface; Cubase 6; and no 3rd party additions couple of hard drives PSU 750watt; NVidia GE Force 9600.
"An entrepreneur accepts that the world is the way that it is and goes about changing it rather than waiting for someone to make it easy for them."

Guest

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Guest »

twilightsong wrote:Partial functionality is for all practical purposes non-functionality, IMO
Doesn't make it a bug though, and this distinction must be maintained otherwise we live in ignorance and will not help our cause as users.

Basically if the question is put (you can even poll this), I think most users would like a C6 rather than no C6 even if it served only a partial function, as what we tend to so conveniently forget is that those who purchase the software early have the chance to learn about the new features so complaining likely has little purpose.

twilightsong
Senior Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by twilightsong »

Brains wrote:
twilightsong wrote:Partial functionality is for all practical purposes non-functionality, IMO
Doesn't make it a bug though, and this distinction must be maintained otherwise we live in ignorance and will not help our cause as users.
Semantics, I think. MY point is, it was advertised as a functioning feature, which apparently it isn't. That's my problem, from a consumer's POV.
"There is no avant-garde; only some people a bit behind." -- Edgar Varese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cubase 5.5.2/ Win 7 64-bit/ Quad 9550/ UAD-2/ Wavelab 4/ more sample libraries than I can remember

twilightsong
Senior Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by twilightsong »

Conman wrote:Cars, planes and satellites do have design flaws.
True -- almost every type of product can have design flaws. The point is that with most of them, there are legal avenues to mitigate them, and I believe this puts pressure on the engineers/manufacturers to "get it right" from the outset. There are no such remedies when it comes to software, therefore not as much pressure to get it right from the outset.
And again no-one FORCED anyone to purchase and, as far as I know, C6 was first offered here without loud fanfare in the trade press and as any long-standing forum member and also probably most short term members who have done proper research knows that any DAW software will have flaws and that your own preferred software will always have more flaws than the competition.
I utterly reject this attitude anymore. We paid for it, it should work as advertised -- END OF STORY!
and then there are the different computer set-ups and hardware configurations to take account of which can even fool the experienced into misdiagnosis.
That IS a problem. To be honest, I don't know what the solution might be. But my thinking is that it's fairly easy, after a bit of tech support, etc., to determine whether a problem is due to config, or the software itself.

I've read arguments that assert that if it works on most setups, but doesn't on a few, that it's unfair to claim there's a flaw in the code. I'm not convinced. Take the Toyota's with the sticky accelerator problems (which I believe is actually a flaw in the on-board engine controller's software)... if only a few people are killed as a result of this design flaw, but millions never have a problem, is it accurate to say that the vehicle can be considered "safe?"
So really you can quote all the trade regulations, human rights and free speech laws for ever and it won't get fixed any quicker.
Well, I for one didn't say anything about "human rights and free speech" :lol: but those consumer protection laws are there to, uh, protect consumers. Software is a consumer product. It should be held to the same expectation of merchantability as any other product. Because people have died due to software flaws -- in cars, in MRI machines that go haywire, etc.... and (not to be too flippant, but) these damn Cubase software bugs are sure killin' me! :lol:
"There is no avant-garde; only some people a bit behind." -- Edgar Varese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cubase 5.5.2/ Win 7 64-bit/ Quad 9550/ UAD-2/ Wavelab 4/ more sample libraries than I can remember

User avatar
Weasel
Member
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:29 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Weasel »

Brains wrote:You wouldn't do it for a whole numbered version though would you
What? Are you kidding? Who cares when or what comes after the dot zero? Bigger companies than Steinberg do this quite regularly. Good example is Adobe. Usually a dot rev and/or hotfix follows within 2-3 weeks after a major release. Adobe understands that getting the big ticket items fixed and out ASAP is the best thing to do to keep the user base happy. Where that fix shows up in the timeline of revs is an irrelevant argument.
We paid for it, it should work as advertised -- END OF STORY!
Couldn't agree more.

After reading through this entire thread (and pretty much, all of "Brains" posts) I am now inclined to agree with NYC Composer regarding his Sanctimonious comment.
Dual 6 Core 2.66 MacPro/48GB RAM • OSX 10.14.6 • Cubase 10.5.20 • MOTU 424e/2408mk3 • 2-MOTU MIDI Express 128's

Oh.....so this is the Cornfield?....

twilightsong
Senior Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by twilightsong »

LOL -- this afternoon there was an episode of "Outer Limits" called "The Sentence" where a computer malfunctioned and compressed a prisoner's life sentence down to a few hours, causing his death. So they charged the designer (dude from "Frazier") with murder.

Now THAT''S the sort of accountability I'm talkin' about! :lol:
"There is no avant-garde; only some people a bit behind." -- Edgar Varese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cubase 5.5.2/ Win 7 64-bit/ Quad 9550/ UAD-2/ Wavelab 4/ more sample libraries than I can remember

User avatar
KDEF2004
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by KDEF2004 »

Weasel wrote:
Brains wrote:You wouldn't do it for a whole numbered version though would you
What? Are you kidding? Who cares when or what comes after the dot zero? Bigger companies than Steinberg do this quite regularly. Good example is Adobe. Usually a dot rev and/or hotfix follows within 2-3 weeks after a major release. Adobe understands that getting the big ticket items fixed and out ASAP is the best thing to do to keep the user base happy. Where that fix shows up in the timeline of revs is an irrelevant argument.
We paid for it, it should work as advertised -- END OF STORY!
Couldn't agree more.

After reading through this entire thread (and pretty much, all of "Brains" posts) I am now inclined to agree with NYC Composer regarding his Sanctimonious comment.
+1
Wonder how long this thread is up before it gets locked :?:
Lenovo IdeaPad 330, Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8750H CPU @ 2.20GHz, 16 GB Ram, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Beringer UMC404HD, Cubase 10.5, Wavelab 10.0.10, Specttralayers 6, Pro, Reason 11 Suite,HSO 1.5 VSTI'S & FX'S

https://www.instagram.com/djkdef/

twilightsong
Senior Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 6:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by twilightsong »

Weasel wrote: Good example is Adobe. Usually a dot rev and/or hotfix follows within 2-3 weeks after a major release. Adobe understands that getting the big ticket items fixed and out ASAP is the best thing to do to keep the user base happy. Where that fix shows up in the timeline of revs is an irrelevant argument.
Yes. I have quite a few apps that I get frequent notifications regarding updates/hotfixes, one of them being iTunes, but the most obvious being Windows itself. These aren't feature upgrades. either, they're fixes
"There is no avant-garde; only some people a bit behind." -- Edgar Varese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cubase 5.5.2/ Win 7 64-bit/ Quad 9550/ UAD-2/ Wavelab 4/ more sample libraries than I can remember

User avatar
curteye
External Moderator
Posts: 4756
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:03 am
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by curteye »

twilightsong wrote:LOL -- this afternoon there was an episode of "Outer Limits" called "The Sentence" where a computer malfunctioned and compressed a prisoner's life sentence down to a few hours, causing his death. So they charged the designer (dude from "Frazier") with murder.

Now THAT''S the sort of accountability I'm talkin' about! :lol:
Great episode. David Hyde Pierce is his name
{'-'}
If yer gear ain't breakin down, you aint workin' much.

iMac 5K 4.2Gz 16GB
MBP 3.0Gz......16GB

Location:
On the side of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Guest

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by Guest »

KDEF2004 wrote:Wonder how long this thread is up before it gets locked :?:
Steinberg have promised that they would never again lock a thread that was in the lounge.

These are OUR threads and we deal with them on OUR terms.

Oh & I think NYC was referring to Conman being sanctimonious not about any particular user.

And anyway who really cares. As long as the sequencer works and it does 44.1 the rest supposedly is academic but you people whinge, moan, witch and complain when it can't do sample rates any higher and then shoot down anyone who dare say they make a difference.

Hypocrisy in the extreme. Ever heard of interpolation?

Professionals = not

User avatar
curteye
External Moderator
Posts: 4756
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:03 am
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by curteye »

Brains wrote:]Steinberg have promised that they would never again lock a thread that was in the lounge.t
Cannot find a link to that promise.
Can/will anyone provide?
{'-'}
If yer gear ain't breakin down, you aint workin' much.

iMac 5K 4.2Gz 16GB
MBP 3.0Gz......16GB

Location:
On the side of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

User avatar
HowlingUlf
Senior Member
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Taking their sweet time

Post by HowlingUlf »

Conman wrote:
nilsemil wrote:for gods sake guys. dont jump on the first version if you need stuff to get done. everybody knows this.

Good call anyone who knows jack about computing / programming waiting times knows it don't get fixed yesterday.
It ought to be writ in stone above every DAW forum; "It's a new version so there's gonna be problems and it'll take us time to fix them so use what you've got that works for you."
It would stop the newbies going ape every time they spot a dull spot on the shiny new thing.
And it's not like you need to write over C5 to install C6. You can have both of them installed so if you've started a project or three in C5 try to finish them in C5 until you know that C6 works the way you need it to work to move over to the new version.

Just don't pretend X.0 versions is a good idea if you want stability ;)
Gothenburg, Sweden
Steinberg Cubase Pro 10.5 | Steinberg WaveLab 10 | Steinberg Absolute 4 | Steinberg SpectralLayers 6
Win10 63.5 Pro | ASUS ATX Z170-P | Intel Core i7-6700K Skylake | 32GB RAM |
Nektar Panorama P6 | | Steinberg Midex8 | Steinberg UR824 |

Post Reply

Return to “Steinberg Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests