Things I hate about... - Cubase 7

[Compyfox]

If you are running a 64bit OS the 32bit DAW is going to suck.. no way around it. If you need 32bit with great performance, go with a 32bit OS. (Or 64bit DAW on 64bit OS obviously)

never had any problem with x86 Cubase 6.5 on x64 OS.. ..but 6.5 isn't the problem here.

Well yeah, no "problems", sure. But it runs quicker natively. Biggest issue is low latency performance.

Why misinform, people like this? Just for balance as I don't want,people to think they would be better off running a 32 bit daw in a 32 bit OS, it is in fact the most desirable of running a 32 bit host to run it in a 64 bit OS. The exact opposite of what you said and no performance penalty at all.

yeah this what i thought based on gearslutz benchmarks.. 64bit os and 32bit daw is the way to go eíf you dont need massive ram

Both doesn't help on my behalf.

The 32bit version is buggy as hell, the 64bit version isn't much better in terms of performance for me either.


But if the 32bit version is apparently faster and the way to go on x64, why is Steinberg insisting that the x64 version actually improves things? Especially if my projects usually never exceed 3GB of RAM (which is the 32bit limitation)?

Where's the logic in all that?

[Painmooser]

the logic is:

a developer doesnt want to develop 20 million versions. it wants customers go to one version. it wants them to buy new 64bit plugins.

32bit is not only in the audio world sometimes a little faster than 64bit. its faster cause it uses less memory

but the difference is small - so if you need >3gb cubase - then of course goto 64bit!

I will switch in the end of the year finally planned this since years..

[Compyfox]

What I don't seem to get in here "now":

One fraction says "32bit is better" (obviously, uses less RAM, etc), and the other says "64bit is the future" (better for large projects that are RAM intensive, like samples, Reverb and Delay).


To be honest... I'm still on 32bit due to the fact that I don't want to bridge Variety of Sound plugins, certain stomp boxes and other tools that are not available in x64.

Then again, I can work with the jumping between the bitrates, I just need to have them "both" installed (uses up more HDD space - booya!).


But then again(!) - I just want a friggin, working tool that I paid a lot of money for! Not some BS in terms of further driver optimisations, forced x64 versions or building an actual new rig (where I need a load of money for first)!

Strangely enough, this is the main consensus of this whole thread "your rig is wonky". But apparently, I heard nothing like that except for the OSX10.9 CoreAudio2 engine issue towards Macintosh users. And how often are Mac Pro's upgraded compared to standard Windows PC's? Every other year?



I currently feel massively ripped off and not treated like an actual customer. Support can't (or won't - I can not tell anymore) help me and there is no info if my issues might ever see a fix. I didn't even get any comments on my test results so far!

So I'm a sitting duck - and I have a feeling in order to get a "fully working host", I need to shell out further money - since that is the way to go with developers these days.

"Bugs? We don't have any bugs - but oh wait... maybe try the next major version that comes out next week, it'll only be like 299 bucks. See if it works then! Demo? In three months soonest!"



So back to the drawing boards for me - planned for the next days:
Yet another rig reinstall, core drivers for the GPU, RME drivers from 2011 and only C7 and WL8 on that rig. If the issues are still(!) the same, even after the rolled back drivers, then it's definitely not my rigs fault.

But... then I yet again tested things further instead of what Steinberg is actually supposed to do. I can't even emphasize how much time I lost due to that, and how much stress that caused for me.

Not to mention how long it takes to get everything back installed properly.



I can imagine a way better spent weekend.

[LawrenceF]

Where is your point of no return?

I feel for you, your frustrations. I do often wonder when you'll decide enough is enough and just buy Samplitude or whatever and lower your blood pressure, and get on with the music.

At what point will you decide maybe Cubase is just not worth the stress? This (for you) seems to have been going on for quite awhile. Not criticizing or anything, just asking. When is enough enough?

[Compyfox]

If I could find the ideal host that suits my needs. And that is unfortunately (currently) Cubase still.

[LawrenceF]

I hear you. If ideal is being constantly frustrated, dunno, maybe less than ideal is somehow workable. At any rate, i do hope you get it all sorted out.

Thanks man, best of luck to you.

[no_barcode]

I too can sympathize with Compy. It really is a great tool. Many of the changes they're making don't seem to offer much benefit to long time users. I used Cubase briefly back in SX2 (over 10 years ago), so to me 7.0.6 is essentially all new. If it sucks compared to version 5 or 6, I just don't/won't know any better. But I can say that I've been trying a number of other hosts -- and so far Cubase consistently comes out on top. Bugs and all.

[SODDI]

It's not just the bugs in Cubase - although they are numerous and hard to work through.

It's Steinberg's corporate attitude - that they are NOT going to fix these problems that are endemic to Cubase (until one like the recent Apple ASIO one smacks them in the face). That they are going to dish out substandard product and substandard support simply because they can - they already have our money.

Even our little "product specialist", when reminded of a serious bug in the audio, told readers in a forum thread that Steinberg was NOT going to fix it any time soon because it was "very complex". It remains un-fixed.

And the manual is full of holes - everything from the text on ASIO Guard* not being linked to an index entry, to big chunks of the "Devices" menu not even appearing in the manual.

Tweaking and re-tweaking Cubase so it will run at least halfway decently has seriously f**ked with my workflow and it is not my idea of a productive use of my time.

It's become a hostile work environment and the problems have sucked all the joy out of it.

*Don't even bother. Gather up mkdr's recent posts on ASIO Guard and reassemble them to suit. It seems like there is someone who understand's the uses of the ASIO Gurad and can explain them in a coherent fashion. And it's not Steinberg.

[no_barcode]

It's not just the bugs in Cubase - although they are numerous and hard to work through.

It's Steinberg's corporate attitude - that they are NOT going to fix these problems that are endemic to Cubase (until one like the recent Apple ASIO one smacks them in the face). That they are going to dish out substandard product and substandard support simply because they can - they already have our money.

Even our little "product specialist", when reminded of a serious bug in the audio, told readers in a forum thread that Steinberg was NOT going to fix it any time soon because it was "very complex". It remains un-fixed.

And the manual is full of holes - everything from the text on ASIO Guard* not being linked to an index entry, to big chunks of the "Devices" menu not even appearing in the manual.

Tweaking and re-tweaking Cubase so it will run at least halfway decently has seriously f**ked with my workflow and it is not my idea of a productive use of my time.

It's become a hostile work environment and the problems have sucked all the joy out of it.

*Don't even bother. Gather up mkdr's recent posts on ASIO Guard and reassemble them to suit. It seems like there is someone who understand's the uses of the ASIO Gurad and can explain them in a coherent fashion. And it's not Steinberg.

I know Ableton took a year (or nearly a year) and quit adding new features to Live. They focused only on stability and bug fixes for one whole release cycle and it really paid off both in terms of application stability and customer perception. I think that's what you're saying you'd like to see from Steinberg. I agree; and I think all software companies should do that.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[classic]

I don't know why anybody would spend nearly the pay of on month of work
for this software. I had Cubase a few weeks and sold it quick again
until it crashes for no reason.

All further composing was done on Reaper. Works perfect:-)

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[mkdr]

Well yeah, no "problems", sure. But it runs quicker natively. Biggest issue is low latency performance.

u have proof? i always thought 32bit cubase is a tick faster than 64bit... ofc when not using much memory etc just raw processing power

I concluded this through extensive testing before finalizing my setup. Unfortunately I've now done a total re-install (OS,hosts,plugins) and i have a limited amount of 32bit plugins/hosts to test on (and no desire to install unnecessary stuff). But i think i can find a way to demo it (with Reaper perhaps..).

[mkdr]

Here's a quicky with Reaper 32bit vs 64bit on 64bit Win7. Running the exact same project on the same HW and settings. (Like i mentioned earlier this is on low latencies)





As systems are very different the real only way to know if this also applies to your machine is to test it.

Here's the project file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880206/ReaBit.RPP

Download Reaper here -> http://reaper.fm/





On Cubase7 the first big difference you notice when running it 32bit on 64bit OS is that the CPU meter is hovering quite a lot higher(and more erratically) to begin with compared to 64bit. On higher latencies this difference gets smaller. When thinking of what system to run you need to balance these figures and think if bridging a few plugs and having a quicker system is better than not bridging but having less performance on low latency. With latencies at 1024 and higher it might not make that big of a difference. I'd still recommend a native system for overall stability.