KVR Audio

mellotronaut · Post by **mellotronaut** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:25 pm

Krash Kubase

BERFAB · Post by **BERFAB** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:45 pm

I've had Cubase since SX2 and I've upgraded faithfully every time right up through 6.5. And I'll be upgrading to 7 as well.

Every time an upgrade/update is announced, it is followed by legions of posts about 'buggy' and 'crash' (hmmm...sounds like the title of a buddy cop show: Buggy and Crash).

For the most part, I've not experienced these. But, for the most part, I've upgraded my hardware regularly. In addition to the reasons posted above about why some people do experience problems, my theory is that there's a healthy percentage of folks that just refuse to move on with their hardware. Many of the upgrades in the software (not just Cubase, BTW) deal solely with OS upgrades and compatibility issues. There are also memory concerns and drive issues.

Sure backward compatibility is a nice thing to have, but it comes at a cost, and sometimes it just can't (or shouldn't?) be accommodated. Your old 2gb RAM running Win 95 may not be the best choice for Cubase 7. So don't buy it expecting it to solve your hardware issues.

Cheers
-B

ford442 · Post by **ford442** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:55 pm

Cubase 6.5 works fine here.. i have win 7 x64 - quad core - 8gb ram.. i should not need to buy an i7 just to run Cubase...

i will try to diagnose this evening in case it is partly my fault somehow.

FrankT · Post by **FrankT** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:59 pm

guitartom wrote:
The reason for me to leave Cubase?: I purchased Cubase Artist 6 just one year ago for about 250 euro. Now the update to Cubase Artist7 would cost me 150 euro once again. Let's compare this to comercial standard software in the business domain. If you buy SAP software you will have to pay an annual maintainance fee of 18 percent of the original license fee in order to get maintainance support and release upgrades. Even business companies are complaining about this as beeing a lot of money. But Steinberg wants me to pay 60% of the initial license fee (!) after 1 year in oder to get the release update. That's insane.

Good luck with Steinberg and regards

Interesting comparison! The major difference though is that an enterprise software platform often is a multi-million $ investment and accordingly maintenance fees of 18-22% will amount to 6-7 digit figures. Per annum. Can a B2C company that has significant research and services costs, and which does not charge for software maintenance p.a., can such a company survive if they price major upgrades at 18% of original purchase costs? I doubt that.

sfernald · Post by **sfernald** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:09 pm

Cubase 7 is amazingly stable for me. I just keep it open all the time, and it just keeps on chugging along every time I go back to it. To me it is by far the most stable version I've ever used. Win 64bit version.

5Lives · Post by **5Lives** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:27 pm

Funny to hear the folks recommend S1v2.5 as an alternative...it's good (I have the Professional version), but it has plenty of complaints from users as well. And, nowhere near as mature as Cubase (or Logic / PT). 2.5 was a pretty disappointing release from them IMO - of the most popular feature requests in the forum from what I saw, only bus recording was added (and that took a whole year from when 2.0 was released).

Steinberg has been killing it recently with Cubase in terms of updating it frequently and continuing to add features and refine the workflow. I think it is the DAW to beat if you take a holistic view. Just hope the OS X performance in version 7 is much improved...

guitartom · Post by **guitartom** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:30 pm

FrankT wrote:
guitartom wrote:
The reason for me to leave Cubase?: I purchased Cubase Artist 6 just one year ago for about 250 euro. Now the update to Cubase Artist7 would cost me 150 euro once again. Let's compare this to comercial standard software in the business domain. If you buy SAP software you will have to pay an annual maintainance fee of 18 percent of the original license fee in order to get maintainance support and release upgrades. Even business companies are complaining about this as beeing a lot of money. But Steinberg wants me to pay 60% of the initial license fee (!) after 1 year in oder to get the release update. That's insane.

Good luck with Steinberg and regards
Interesting comparison! The major difference though is that an enterprise software platform often is a multi-million $ investment and accordingly maintenance fees of 18-22% will amount to 6-7 digit figures. Per annum. Can a B2C company that has significant research and services costs, and which does not charge for software maintenance p.a., can such a company survive if they price major upgrades at 18% of original purchase costs? I doubt that.

I would prefer to be charged an annual fee of 18%. And with respect to the question, if a B2C company is able to survive: I think the relation between the one time fees and the annual fees is essential and a company like Steinberg with (I guess) some 10-thousands of Cubase customers should be able to survive very well with a fee of 18%. Look at Reaper: they are billing 60$ for the initial fee and you'll get 2 full majaor releases for free. Seems to work for them although they are producing brilliant quality software.

standalone · Post by **standalone** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:39 pm

guitartom wrote:Look at Reaper: they are billing 60$ for the initial fee and you'll get 2 full majaor releases for free. Seems to work for them although they are producing brilliant quality software.

Reaper is a multimillioner's hobby. Nobody really knows if it is a viable business.

guitartom · Post by **guitartom** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:27 pm

standalone wrote:
guitartom wrote:Look at Reaper: they are billing 60$ for the initial fee and you'll get 2 full majaor releases for free. Seems to work for them although they are producing brilliant quality software.
Reaper is a multimillioner's hobby. Nobody really knows if it is a viable business.

If I understand you right you are saying: in order to have a viable business a company like Steinberg is forced to let its customers pay every year about 75% of the initial license fees again and again. I have been working as a software developer, projectmanager and general manager in the software industry for 20 years now and I don't buy that.

And I'm convinced that a high quality product like Reaper can be a viable business at a moderate price because they are doing the right things right. For example they are not trying to produce their own software instruments. Who wants Halion if he can have omnisphere, who wants groove agent if there is bfd2,.... In my opinion those are the things, that make Cubase and it's upgrades expansive. And why should I pay for instruments I don't like to use? If the instruments included in Cubase are fine for you than it may be the right product.

jsheem · Post by **jsheem** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:05 am

I got my copy in today. I was looking for to cubase 7. My production partner has it as well. He said it's been a headache to use. So I'm sending mine back. I don't care you spend $200 and you look at the steinberg's forum with all those issues already? Anyway, I've sent my contacts at Native Instruments, Avid, and apple that link to steinberg's issues with Cubase.

FrankT · Post by **FrankT** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:27 am

guitartom wrote:
FrankT wrote:
guitartom wrote:
The reason for me to leave Cubase?: I purchased Cubase Artist 6 just one year ago for about 250 euro. Now the update to Cubase Artist7 would cost me 150 euro once again. Let's compare this to comercial standard software in the business domain. If you buy SAP software you will have to pay an annual maintainance fee of 18 percent of the original license fee in order to get maintainance support and release upgrades. Even business companies are complaining about this as beeing a lot of money. But Steinberg wants me to pay 60% of the initial license fee (!) after 1 year in oder to get the release update. That's insane.

Good luck with Steinberg and regards
Interesting comparison! The major difference though is that an enterprise software platform often is a multi-million $ investment and accordingly maintenance fees of 18-22% will amount to 6-7 digit figures. Per annum. Can a B2C company that has significant research and services costs, and which does not charge for software maintenance p.a., can such a company survive if they price major upgrades at 18% of original purchase costs? I doubt that.
I would prefer to be charged an annual fee of 18%. And with respect to the question, if a B2C company is able to survive: I think the relation between the one time fees and the annual fees is essential and a company like Steinberg with (I guess) some 10-thousands of Cubase customers should be able to survive very well with a fee of 18%. Look at Reaper: they are billing 60$ for the initial fee and you'll get 2 full majaor releases for free. Seems to work for them although they are producing brilliant quality software.

Annual maintenance fees often are an unflexible lock-in. And the TCO can be significamt. I am using Cubase since ... the Atari 3.0 version. Paying annual fees since roughly 1992 would not have been sensible.
But I agree with you: paying €150 for an upgrade of something that has cost you €250 a year ago is steep. For the very first time for many years I have not done a paid Cubase upgrade (6.5). I will pay again once they come up with significant improvements of the workflow (I am not bothered by even more included synths that I never use). I am therefore curious about what early adopters think about the v7 workflow.

Marcus797 · Post by **Marcus797** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:45 am

donato wrote:Recently switched from Elements 6 to S1 Producer and I am happy. That is some BS that they release the product before it's ready. They should've just waited.

Ugh... tell me about it.
http://forums.presonus.com/forums/show/36.page

gravehill · Post by **gravehill** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:04 am

Everything is working fine here (Win8 and C7 both 64 bit). No crashes. The only minor issue I encountered was that my earlier vstpresets were not found in the initial scan so I had to point Mediabay manually to the correct location. Loving the mixer and chord track so far!

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:44 am

I think this is the best update since SX3. The new mixer is a revelation (will take getting used to), and performance seems better, even on my aging Mac Pro.

Speaking of: a very good point raised about people upgrading their software faster than their hardware. I'm definitely on the very outskirts of what my machine can do. It's time to upgrade my hardware.

donato · Post by **donato** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:22 am

Marcus797 wrote:
donato wrote:Recently switched from Elements 6 to S1 Producer and I am happy. That is some BS that they release the product before it's ready. They should've just waited.
Ugh... tell me about it.
http://forums.presonus.com/forums/show/36.page

Not really sure you can compare that to the debacle happening over on the Cubase forums. The vast majority of S1 users seem to be happy with the 2.5 update.

Cubase 7 crashes hard