do you think cubase is falling behind?

[SJ_Digriz]

I can totally relate to someone calling a first release a paid beta. I'm older than dirt, I've seen it over and over.

Over and Over for every application since pretty much software existed... not just Cubase. There was a version of a database product that my company purchased back in the mid 80s that shipped an empty box because they hadn't finished the code yet. The cost per seat of that application would floor you. The annual maintenance cost would floor you. And they delivered a box. Oh, that didn't stop them from cashing the check.

I worked with a Japanese distributor in the early 90's where you had to pay up front for production line time. But they always under produced and would short ship you. So, you had to order about 30% extra just to get what you needed ... of course you had to PAY for the 30% extra, and getting it back was no small feat. And they wouldn't apply it to your next purchase. They owned the lines, they had us by the short and curly's.

Just saying the the petty generic ranting has zero effect. If they did, Avid wouldn't be in the position they are now. Ask yourself how the "industry standard" can't make money? I mean they are the standard right? The way money pressures work on businesses is so entirely different than how it is expressed on this forum that is often hard to even understand where some people are coming from.

[hibidy]

The real question becomes........why do you seem so bothered?

The me about your mother........



On a serious note, it's not that big a deal. I can totally understand peoples frustration over teh softwares. Or metronomes for that matter

[SJ_Digriz]

The real question becomes........why do you seem so bothered?

The me about your mother........

On a serious note, it's not that big a deal. I can totally understand peoples frustration over teh softwares. Or metronomes for that matter

lol ... the "seems" is the important part. This is the silly internet. For some reason, short answers seem more trumped up than they are. I'm not actually "bothered".

[hibidy]

I know but they are long posts with comments like "bullshit thread/posts" and so on. So SOMETHING is bothering you.

Anyways, I just CANNOT get anything right tonight. Really just trying to get it to where people are not slagging on each other, epic fail. Carry on.

[SODDI]

Let me tell you about my mother... (with some Vangelis.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtbS_dxHbfA

[hibidy]

You get a GOLD MASSIVE STAR Soddi! I wondered who could be the first to go there, seriously, I was going to make a mention, but wanted to leave it up to someone clever

[jancivil]

well, I'm always going to use Cubase and you can say the .0 and .01 versions are paid betas and it doesn't chafe at me at all. it's software for petesake and I've seen enough history to avoid them. the only one I've tried to use at .01 was 5.01 and it sucked hard.

but the thread title, 'is Cubase falling behind' deserves the snark if you ask me, it isn't thoughtful and it does smack of groupthink and looks a bit daft.

[hibidy]

I can't remember where I stopped and sold my license (for a pittance mind you compared to what I spent) but 5.01 rings a very unwelcome bell. It's been some years a Jan......it's hard to believe time flies like that!

[dune_rave]

Reaper rules with that 7 Megabyte.
I would like to see a version of Cubase, that is a "bare" version without instruments, effects, samples, only the full functionality of cubase.
Steinberg should sell different components one by one at different prices.
I would buy "SIMPLE" Cubase, cause i already own instruments,
but they won't do this, so i will forget Cubase.
I think the same about Ableton Live 8 / 9 , whatever...

[ObsoleteAcc99]

without reading the topic, for me cubase falls behind in timestretch quality, even the most recent versions.. I don't understand how studio one and ableton use zplane also and they sound infinitely superior. I have a feeling steinberg are using the most basic incarnation of it.

Also i feel they are way behind in slicing and audio quantization,

and a consolidated workflow/window.

These are deal beakers in the grand scheme, for ME, obviously not many others, but the flipside is i think cubase is absolutely one of the best hosts on the market besides these things, and if it addressed them, i'd say it's actually the best.

[SJ_Digriz]

without reading the topic, for me cubase falls behind in timestretch quality, even the most recent versions.. I don't understand how studio one and ableton use zplane also and they sound infinitely superior. I have a feeling steinberg are using the most basic incarnation of it.

Also i feel they are way behind in slicing and audio quantization,

and a consolidated workflow/window.

See I have no problem with these statements ... They are based on actual features and can be discussed. I don't agree on several fronts, but at least it is a codified set of things that can be compared.

I'd add that side chaining is grossly behind most other hosts and audio alignment is behind Pro Tools in some ways ahead in others. Convenient bouncing is behind in some ways. I actually like the editor screens as opposed to the docking paradigm. I don't like the window management, but that is not the same as not liking the purpose built editors. People like to lump those two things together. Plugin management is behind.

I think the new mixer is an attempt to prepare for touch, which is an "ahead" feature, but a bad "ahead". Note Expression is a good "ahead". The MIDI editor is still unequaled although it's not "ahead" or "behind" it just is correct. The move away from supporting external MIDI well is "ahead" but in a bad way. Integration with notation is still WAY ahead even though it is still fiddly, but its looking to get further ahead with the acquisition of the Sibelius dudes.

I could make a much longer list of aheads (good and bad), as well as behinds (good and bad). And all of them will be based on my preference/bias for using Cubase as a DAW for recording and mixing, not as a composition tool. But, none of them will identify Cubase itself as being ahead or behind.

[SJ_Digriz]

On a serious note, it's not that big a deal. I can totally understand peoples frustration teh metronomes

NOT THE METRONOMES, ANYTHING BUT THE METRONOMES!

[ObsoleteAcc99]

without reading the topic, for me cubase falls behind in timestretch quality, even the most recent versions.. I don't understand how studio one and ableton use zplane also and they sound infinitely superior. I have a feeling steinberg are using the most basic incarnation of it.

Also i feel they are way behind in slicing and audio quantization,

and a consolidated workflow/window.

See I have no problem with these statements ... They are based on actual features and can be discussed. I don't agree on several fronts, but at least it is a codified set of things that can be compared.

I'd add that side chaining is grossly behind most other hosts and audio alignment is behind Pro Tools in some ways ahead in others. Convenient bouncing is behind in some ways. I actually like the editor screens as opposed to the docking paradigm. I don't like the window management, but that is not the same as not liking the purpose built editors. People like to lump those two things together. Plugin management is behind.

I think the new mixer is an attempt to prepare for touch, which is an "ahead" feature, but a bad "ahead". Note Expression is a good "ahead". The MIDI editor is still unequaled although it's not "ahead" or "behind" it just is correct. The move away from supporting external MIDI well is "ahead" but in a bad way. Integration with notation is still WAY ahead even though it is still fiddly, but its looking to get further ahead with the acquisition of the Sibelius dudes.

I could make a much longer list of aheads (good and bad), as well as behinds (good and bad). And all of them will be based on my preference/bias for using Cubase as a DAW for recording and mixing, not as a composition tool. But, none of them will identify Cubase itself as being ahead or behind.

see cause i do so much TS.. and i can't for the life of me get a good result out of Cubase, no matter what algo i choose, it immediately makes the product unusable to me.

And after being used to logic's flex which quantizes audio with superb precision and results, i could never get used to cubase clunky multiple windows and hit points workarounds.

It doesn't need to be a one window app you are right, but it needs some serious window *handling* fixes.

[LawrenceF]

They are based on actual features and can be discussed. I don't agree on several fronts, but at least it is a codified set of things that can be compared.

I'd add that side chaining is grossly behind most other hosts and audio alignment is behind Pro Tools in some ways ahead in others. Convenient bouncing is behind in some ways. I actually like the editor screens as opposed to the docking paradigm.

Where Cubase seems to falter most is in methodology, not really musical features. It's not what it can or cannot do, it's how it does things that eventually annoyed me.

As to the docking paradigm, it's usually a very strange conversation to read because (generally speaking) people who choose to support the Cubase "windows all over the place" methodology as being better often at the same time seem to make the implication that applications that use docking actually can't also float their windows, as if the two things are mutally exclusive. They aren't. If you want windows floating all over creation in Reaper or whatever, just float them.

It's odd to see those conversations where the applications with two choices (docked or floating or a mixture of the two) are deemed inferior and the application with only one choice in that regard is viewed as better.

As to bouncing, Cubase's bouncing and freezing is near ancient in that you can't bounce instruments directly nor can you render mono and stereo stems at the same time, nor can you really freeze anything (without having to unfreeze) unless your linear arragnement is set in stone and afaik, you can't freeze multiple tracks at once.

It's chock full of great musical features. If it lags in any way perceptually, it's in methodology choices and/or or lack or refinefment of methods.

As to time stretch, it did sound not as good as others in real time. I recall in the past having to flatten it to get the best sound as the realtim algo was rather not very good sounding. That may have changed in the 6-7 cycle, dunno.

All of that is based on my own uses and perceptions with no bias. Take it as you will.

[vurt]

On a serious note, it's not that big a deal. I can totally understand peoples frustration teh metronomes

NOT THE METRONOMES, ANYTHING BUT THE METRONOMES!

i use "metagnome"
the free thinking metronome, time is fluid.
and steals your underpants!