inbeLievble! steinberg cubas sx4 !

[KrunietZ]

or does he mean buy it the english way

[bduffy]

This thread makes me feel the English way.

[uvacom]

Hmm, cool - Mil0 did a good job on that fake, kudos to him.

And for the record (read: just to cover my ass ) - I never said it was real, I only tried to offer reasons for why it could have been.

NO. he *didn't* do a good job on it! Far too many factual errors and dreamer-like drivel. The reason you saw anything real in it was because you *wanted* it to be real.

Before he revealed himself, you couldn't mention any kind of specific reason at all why it was fake, you just mocked in your typical condescending and arrogant way. It's easy to state any reason you'd like in hindsight, although "dreamer-like drivel" and "factual errors" aren't exactly specific, insomuch as "dreamer-like drivel" is quantifiable in the first place. The fact is, there was no information in that document that you, or anybody else here would have had access to to know with any certainty whether most of the stuff in that document was factual or not. You talk a lot of shit, but you're not so hot when it comes to the part where you have to back it up.

[Lunch Money]

I for one simply didn't get around to it before it was revealed to be a fake for sure. But it was pretty clear right away. I could still give an itemized list of why, but since some of the points have already been raised, some people would reach the pretty much inevitable conclusion (false though it may be) that I was just echoing what has already been said in this thread.

A big one, and possibly the only one anyone would have needed, was the VST 3.0, which was already brought up earlier and therefore nobody can be expected to believe me that I noticed it right away. They JUuuuust put out a new VST spec, and it was what... 5 years in the making? For them to announce another new one right away? Not likely.

Without reading the document again, I remember another big thing standing out was the illogical way the "DSP unit" integration was being described. It did not at ALL ring true. The idea itself was fine, but the presentation of it and description needed a lot more finessing before it would have been believable.

Greg

[uvacom]

A big one, and possibly the only one anyone would have needed, was the VST 3.0, which was already brought up earlier and therefore nobody can be expected to believe me that I noticed it right away. They JUuuuust put out a new VST spec, and it was what... 5 years in the making? For them to announce another new one right away? Not likely.

Granted, not very likely - but it's not as if stopgap releases are completely unheard of. There's nothing that says they couldn't release VST 3.0 any time they wanted. Cause for suspicion? I would certainly agree. Outright invalidation? No way.

Without reading the document again, I remember another big thing standing out was the illogical way the "DSP unit" integration was being described. It did not at ALL ring true. The idea itself was fine, but the presentation of it and description needed a lot more finessing before it would have been believable.

Indeed, it would have been a poor implementation if executed as presented. It was vague enough so that there's nothing to say it couldn't be done, but it probably wouldn't be worth doing. Still, I think hopefully the overall concept is good, and something that hopefully in coming years one of the big players will push for, some kind of open non-native plugin standard.

So I agree with you that there are some tip-offs, I think part of the discrepancy in opinion is due to different ideas of what constitutes a good fake. In my line of work, I come across counterfeit bills from time to time. A good counterfeit doesn't really have to be 100% indistinguishable to work - it merely has to have the overall appearance of authenticity. Further scrutiny will invariably reveal flaws - but it doesn't matter, the bill has already exchanged hands. To me, this fake was good because of the way it caught the eye, the quality of the writing and editing, and because for the most part the features described seem plausible.

[Lunch Money]

Ah, but Kingston and I disagree what that assessment. That's all. Neither of us really found it to be that high quality. How can one define such a thing? It's all completely subjective, and might take a trained eye. I dunno. All I know is that to me (and obviously Michael and others as well) it was obvious right from the get go.

[Kingston]

Ah, but Kingston and I disagree what that assessment. That's all. Neither of us really found it to be that high quality. How can one define such a thing? It's all completely subjective, and might take a trained eye. I dunno. All I know is that to me (and obviously Michael and others as well) it was obvious right from the get go.

Indeed. There's nothing arrogant about noticing simple factual errors. I still stand by my conviction that people jumped to conclusions because they *wanted* to believe it was real.

That kind of mindset has a clear effect on objective reading of such documents.

I think the most obvious error the writer made was with the basic knowledge of how hosts (summing, editing) work and shaded the writing with his own hopes and dreams. Before even noticing the clear factual errors that discrepancy was like a red light screaming *FAKE* at me.

I think this is what Lunch Money was talking about as well.

[bduffy]

Ah, but Kingston and I disagree what that assessment. That's all. Neither of us really found it to be that high quality. How can one define such a thing? It's all completely subjective, and might take a trained eye. I dunno. All I know is that to me (and obviously Michael and others as well) it was obvious right from the get go.

Indeed. There's nothing arrogant about noticing simple factual errors. I still stand by my conviction that people jumped to conclusions because they *wanted* to believe it was real.

That kind of mindset has an obvious effect on objective reading of such documents.

I agree: Seems like a reasonable conclusion, a fairly proven psychological effect.

[uvacom]

I think the most obvious error the writer made was with the basic knowledge of how hosts (summing, editing) work and shaded the writing with his own hopes and dreams. Before even noticing the clear factual errors that discrepancy was like a red light screaming *FAKE* at me.

I think this is what Lunch Money was talking about as well.

It's difficult to say with the "marked-out" areas, but I think it's supposed to appear as a draft coming from somebody within marketing. Given that, things like unrealistic hopes and dreams, basic ignorance of technical aspects of the product, (as-yet unspecified) factual errors, totally undeliverable promises...all par for the course. It's not a technical document, it's a promotional document.

[Lunch Money]

<shrug> I disagree. What are we supposed to say? It's obviously a fake. It was obvious from the beginning. The fact that your bullshit detector doesn't work as well (or at least, for this particular document) as mine doesn't really factor into it. You can't convince me that it "shouldn't" have been obvious to me with any amount of reasons whatsoever.

It WAS obvious, I COULD see it from the beginning, I COULD give you examples. If you don't believe me that it was obvious, if you don't remember that I DID point it out right from the beginning, and if the same things that tipped ME off did not strike you as tip-offs, then there's not much more that can be said by either party.

Greg

[Muzik 4 Machines]

This thread makes me feel the English way.

"desperation is the english way"-waters

[soma]

Universal part editor whish my host had that! Sounds like Live or even a fully integrated Melodyne!

[derek]

i dont understand why everybody is talking about VST 3.0 (thats just a number) or the universal editing (an integrated melodyne of sorts is nothing revolutionary, if you look at samplitude) - to me the most obvious "yeah, riiiight" thing was clearly the new project file format that "includes demo versions of all used plugins in the saved file". ROFL good one

[Killvehicle]

hahah Oh man I cant believe this is back up, DO you all realize you are saying "I knew it was fake before you did!" Come on , YOu all must have something better to do than this, There is another completely worthless thread that hasnt been drubbed to death out here. Althoguh to see Kingston in the thick of this isnt a surprise, but everyone else..... come on.

[Majken]

First, the Steinberg guy has confirmed there that SX4 will be out later this year. Just in case anyone doubted that

He actually hasn't

He said that no one would be disappointed by the end of the year. I've actually begun to doubt that there will be an SX4. Somehow I can't shake the feeling that Steinberg will once again tear down the version numbering by releasing something with a brand new name. Would perhaps make sense too considering there's Nuendo, SX, SL, SE and LE by now which is very confusing.

Oh well, we'll see by the end of the year

/Majken