Sub-Standard DAW Releases - Where Do You Cross The Line ?

[felis]

Digital Ruined Everything

[melomood]

i dont upgrade for the sake of upgrading
if the new version includes a feature that sounds interesting to me, then ill probably upgrade. if it offers 500 new features, but none interest me (unlikely i know) then id wait till the next update, and so on.

Same. It took years to go from a V4 to a V8 and almost a decade to move to a V10 when a V11 became available

[FapFilter]

Had Sonar 8.5 from around 2009 or so until 2019 (and before that Project 5 v2 which i had to let go due to upcoming stability issues). Most of the upgrades inbetween were more or less additional pack in plugins. At least not really useful new features for me, so i stayed at 8.5, which was said to be more stable than it's following versions.
I'm now on Reaper 6 which i can update for free until 7.99. It already does basically everything i need (and then some if i finally added a few admittedly interesting scripts), so not sure if i'll ever need to upgrade unless Windows 18 or so will not support it anymore (still on Win 7 as i saw no real benefit to upgrade from what came with my laptop)

[BertKoor]

Have you tried Reaper?

This is not just repetition of the KVR meme. There's a very simple reasons why Reaper is smaller, far more CPU efficient and less bug ridden. It's in the development team (their experience with the code they work on) and how they approach new features. No deadline to have the next pack of features implemented well in time before Black Friday, but it ain't ready before it's ready.

Writing software is actually quite difficult. Maintaining software is near impossible to do properly. Implementing new features in a big old codebase is beyond impossible for anyone with less than x months or years experience in that specific part of the codebase. Developers are constantly trying to fit pegs in holes: mixtures of square and round and other forms. Sometimes it seems to fit and then users find ways to make it exposed it really doesn't fit.

Complex software like a DAW is also impossible to test properly. There's an unlimited combination of things you can do to bring it in a certain state, with an unlimited combination of things you can do to bring it in a next state, let alone assert whether that's the right or wrong state.

The combination of management pressure to ship new features and lesser experienced crew that can't help they don't know yet what they are doing, is a very lethal one, and imho is the reason why you feel a test pilot instead of customer of a mature product.

It's a small miracle they are able to ship at all, even when it's low quality. And believe me: no developer wants to ship software of low quality. If they do so there must be stronger forces and you have to have some sympathy for those poor fellows that know management makes some wrong decisions. Then step into the management shoes, and walk in that long enough you will likely understand them better as well. I don't believe anyone in the chain is evil or has bad intentions. You have to sell or you have no income.

[kritikon]

"DAWs seems like a minefield from a users perspective"

Really they don't. I don't buy many DAWs because I don't need lots of different ones to make music with - it's like - how many mixing desks do I need to mix music - errrrr...one is all. How many DAWs do I need.....errrr, one is all. Almost every one I bought has been no problem to use. Mostly Cubase - every version of which I've used has been fine. But then I don't delve into every arcane feature that is in there - I likely use a tiny fraction of what's in there and I mostly use standard mainstream PCs or laptops to do music - apart from once when I spent up large on a custom made wizz-bang PC for music.

The only time I got grief with a DAW was when I used Cakewalk for free as a starter when I came back from a break from music. I recently bought Cubase 10.5 - still getting used to it, but y'know what? I love how easy it has been once I got over the initial learning curve. There are shitloads of things in there that are so much better than last time I was seriously recording. I can get rid of extraneous channels on the mixer - was delighted once I found that. Automation - FFS it's superb compared to what I was used to! What a breeze. It's never crashed on me, the only time it's ever glitched is with dodgy plugins - I know that because when I got rid of the dodgy plugins it never glitched again.

I don't feel like a guinea pig. I bought Cubase 10.5 for what it is - Cubase 10.5. NOT for what it might be, will or won't be. I chose it over others because: A) I was familiar with older Cubases. B) it does everything I need. C) Its license system doesn't bother me. D) It has a tried and tested track record for most people - as do other DAWs, but I know about Steinberg.

I suspect DAWs are a minefield only for those that don't know what they want. There will be specialists who work in specific ways for which some DAWs don't always work in the ways they want - but for Joe average like me who uses standard equipment, just wants to record synths, apply FX, do some VSTi stuff and do some h/w stuff then master it down simply with standard dynamics and a minimum of fuss and doesn't obsess about what is coming next - it's very easy to find a DAW that suits and works.

[pixel85]

Last version of Cubase is a subpar release for me. For the first time I waited for promo to update.
The problem is not update itself but the fact that new features they added (well... most of) I already have covered by plugins. Which very often offer way better implementation.
For example ancient GUI of "Frequency" Dynamic EQ vs iZotope or FabFilter Dyn EQ plugins.

If I wouldn't have all those plugins that I have, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't call it a subpar update.

I heard similar opinions about Cubase 10.5. For me, recent updates are bringing less and less big features but it makes sense as it's harder and harder to bring something new, big and fresh to the table.

[xbitz]

^^^ multitap delay was a good one in 10.5 at least, sample track

finally usable from 11 and it's not a joke: the MIDI note deletion with double-clicking also ... finally and I'm using SuperVision too

[Scotty]

Cubase 10,5 can get the job done but it isn’t what they sold you, You are using a subset of features that are solid or the bugs dont impact you. Examples? Incomplete GUI scaling littered across the application: on going bugs with track versions and lane editing across grouped tracks - you’ll encounter this when comping drums: inconsistent exporting with very deep projects whereby random midi data is not rendered properly.

I use this program and have been since Cubase 2 on an SE 30. As of late Steinberg has been releasing buggier updates with inadequate testing. They do a great job of eliminating major bugs and you can do professional work with it. Regardless it is a stunning achievement. They are slipping lately. 11 is still not solid for many people and it cant all be dismissed as user error.

I don't feel like a guinea pig. I bought Cubase 10.5 for what it is - Cubase 10.5. NOT for what it might be, will or won't be. I chose it over others because: A) I was familiar with older Cubases. B) it does everything I need. C) Its license system doesn't bother me. D) It has a tried and tested track record for most people - as do other DAWs, but I know about Steinberg.

[chk071]

I think this forum needs a THE INTRANCER forum area. Like those "pro" influencers who resided here once.

[ramseysounds]

If you pay good money for something, it should work. Period.
Always been a Cubase user here (4, 8, 9,10 & 11). Didn't see the need to buy intermittent versions. It can still be buggy, but it’s usually due to 3rd party software. Biggest bugbear I have is how long it takes to load
One thing I don’t get is why people use multiple daws? Stick to one and learn it inside out

[antic604]

One thing I don’t get is why people use multiple daws? Stick to one and learn it inside out

Because one DAW doesn't do everything. Even Cubase.

[whyterabbyt]

Digital Ruined Everything

especially the internet.

(not this post, though, its RFC2549 compliant)

[ramseysounds]

One thing I don’t get is why people use multiple daws? Stick to one and learn it inside out

Because one DAW doesn't do everything. Even Cubase.

enlighten me

[Serhii Kot]

One thing I don’t get is why people use multiple daws? Stick to one and learn it inside out

Because one DAW doesn't do everything. Even Cubase.

enlighten me

For example:
Live looping
Modulation (for any parameter on a track, not only midi cc)
Complex signal chains on one track

[antic604]

One thing I don’t get is why people use multiple daws? Stick to one and learn it inside out

Because one DAW doesn't do everything. Even Cubase.

enlighten me

Ok, what Cubase misses for me personally are modulation sources (LFOs, MSEGs, Env. Followers, etc.) that you can attach to any other device; and splitters that let you process signal in parallel, by dividing it into left/right, mid/side, low/mid/high on a single track. Sure, there are workarounds, but once you've worked with a DAW that does this properly it's difficult to go back.

That's why some will use Bitwig for sound design, Cubase for mix & master and Live for live performance.