It's completely sufficient given all other information presented, which, you are ignoring.



I never said that. However, you can't just invent other factors as if they are going to be substantially meaningful. I've given you most of the parameters of interest, what else do you think will matter?

If you now want to suggest that there might be some other exogenous confound, then that's perfectly fine, but you must be prepared to suggest what it might be. In other words, you don't get the god argument just because we disagree.

The question asked was why other users don't have issues. I presented a reason, it's use case. That is completely valid, and you know it. Second, I stated that given TWO equal scenarios with the exception of host, that one is more stable than the other, also, equally valid, and here, irrefutable.

So, step up, what do you think that it is? Of course it could be anything, but we have to consider the prior probabilities and I'm fairly certain that anything that you come up with will be insignificant in my case. This is reasonable, because, I was motivated to solve the problem and, as stated, I'm not exactly naive with respect to computers.

However, the crux of my point, is that WHATEVER it is, it doesn't affect the other host, this is also irrefutable. So now instead of saying that cubase is more sensitive to memory leaks, we are saying ALSO that cubase is ALSO more sensitive to whatever other exogenous confound that you want to blame the instability on.

No matter how many causes that you invent to divert the blame of instability away from cubase, this will ALWAYS be true, across multiple hosts, and multiple systems, all freshly installed, all adequate.

So, if what one desires is stability, then by avoiding cubase, one can avoid all of the things that cubase is sensitive to. One can use, instead, software from people who seem to understand how to write software that is less sensitive to memory leaks in plugins, as WELL as, other software that's installed on the system, what kind of other peripherals are installed, what drivers might be interacting with the dongle driver, the phase of the moon, the strength of the wind, and what kind of tacos the musician had for dinner the night before, etc., etc., etc.

What exactly does "managing a DAW" mean? If you want to dismiss my experience as local, you're going to have to come up with a lot more than inventing pseudo-intellectual nonsense about software.

It's perfectly reasonable to blame it on the DAW, the DAW was the common component that was unstable.



Then feel free to refute it substantially. Cubase was unstable across multiple systems, with multiple plugins. This isn't exactly news, it's well understood that cubase has stability concerns.

http://www.cubase.net/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=875119&sid=bf3c 0e8b500bf5724c3ecf5cc63d5f4c

And the other plugins inside Cubase? If only Reaktor crashes, why not blame Reaktor using your reasoning?



For only one user: you. Your issue with Cubase is insignificant for the rest of users and depicting it as substandar or unestable just because of this (the incompatibility of Cubase with just one plugin for just one user) is hilarious.



Again, it's only you. Wake up.

That forum was closed two years ago and that thread (again, one thread from one user) is from three years ago! Hardly a flood of crashes.

Reaper sucks.

No, it's my fault. It's always user's fault. Believe in Reaper!

You guys have done it now.................







When you learn to get along, then the punishment will stop.

You forgot the Reaper cat

Probably not, and my first guess would be that it was in Kontakt. The same thoughts occurred to me with Reaktor and Cubase, that the problem was with NI. After all, these are also substantial programs with a long history and potentially large memory footprints.

In fact, that's why initially I just gave up on using reaktor as a VST because I had read that others thought that it was unstable as a VST. To be clear though, cubase was not stable for me even without using Reaktor, it's just that Reaktor was a standout.

Because of this frustration, I switched to Reason and got a lot of work done, but, I wanted to use Reaktor again (as a plugin), so I started looking at other hosts.

What I found was two things:

1) Other hosts, EVERY HOST THAT I TRIED, were stable.

But, wait, my system had changed, cubase had been updated, maybe cubase was stable too? Maybe I could bet back to all of that work that I started and gave up on?

2) Nope new installs of cubase on new systems were STILL unstable compared to other hosts.

I can load 5.5.3 right now, bring in Reaktor, and probably work in it for several hours without problem. Then again, it might crash within fifteen minutes. Almost without exception, cubase has crashed at least once in every session longer than an hour that I've used it. That's from version 5.0 through 5.53. Again, on multiple systems, all new components, across different OSes, with or without Reaktor, in fact, with or without any plugins other than the steinberg effects, etc.

Since the first attempt to give cubase a second chance, I have gone through two more system changes, and the same pattern holds.
Last edited by ghettosynth on Sat May 12, 2012 1:07 pm; edited 3 times in total

I did that on purpose, reaper sucks.

Google:

reaktor crashes reaper 2.600.000

reaktor crashes cubase 553.000

reaktor crashes protools 494.000





Then it's something that you always install in all your systems, probably some hardware's drivers.

That's triple reverse multidimensional psychology. Clever.

Yep, what, you think that I didn't do the same thing? I already told you that my initial thought was that Reaktor was unstable as a VST. In fact, I didn't experience usable stability with Reaper at the time either. It was slightly unstable with Reaktor, but not near as bad as with cubase, and not with other plugins. I can't recall the versions, whatever was out when cubase 5 first came out. People also complained quite heavily about Ableton crashing, why do you think that I went with Reason?

I have no issues whatsoever Reaper these days, which has become much more usable. Live is also stable. I'm not saying that they never crash, I just can't remember the last time that they did. Based on recent experience, I doubt that I could use cubase for more than a few sessions before it would crash randomly again.



Different hardware friend, I've already stated that. My music computer has been at various times a laptop, or different desktops with different motherboards, and almost no common hardware. Even the sound card has changed frequently enough that it hasn't been constant across all systems. For example, my current card is a pcie card but that obviously wasn't installed in my laptop(s)

Moreover, you probably are projecting your system use onto me. I change my systems regularly and always have multiple systems. There really isn't any one thing that I install every time on every system. My work computers, not so much, but they all run linux.

No, I'm pretty sure that it's cubase, that's the ONLY thing that's common. You act as if I didn't want to solve this problem. I chose cubase first. This has been going on for a long time and I've resisted selling cubase because I wanted it to work reliably for me. I revisit it from time to time, but the disparity remains.

From Reason to Cubase.... Why Cubase.
If someone suggested to you.... Stay away from that "someone".
Demo demo and demo before even consider such a inter-dimentional jump from Reason.

It does.