Things I hate about... - Cubase 7

[fandango]

I don't know who is right or wrong.

Compy: Right
mkdr: Wrong

But not for any malicious reason, mkdr just seems unable to actually read back far enough to understand the problems that Compyfox has had. Whether through laziness, misunderstanding or just plain ignorance, I dunno. But it's bordering on the trolling now.

[Compyfox]

For funks sake!

So even the maker of the software says it works like the way i say.

And you don't believe it.. or even bother to test if it's true

You obviously don't care to read properly. Because what I'm doing now, is literally repeating myself over and over again.


The so called "makers", or rather the "support" insisted that this is "correct behavior" within the very first two weeks I filed this issue. It took me several weeks to get to a tech that ignored all protocols and started doing in-depth tests with me.

The end result (finally!) is what I wrote a couple of posts above. Including the friggin disabling of both the CPU park engine (which I got confirmed by a rig builder that this can cause troubles - something I did not know up until this point, so thanks CableChannel and Pete Gardner from ScanPro Audio!), and also turning off EIST/SpeedStep and C1E. Which in turn (as you can clearly see from the PDF I posted) did not(!) improve things.


Once more, in slow, for the n-th time:
Steinberg confirmed to me, on the phone and later through mail, that there is something wrong - but the development division needs to take a further look (which takes time and resources). They asked me to do further tests in parallel, and I filed each and every darn thing I found.

One of them is the extensive test result sheet you can read yourself in the upper posted PDF.

Clear enough now for everyone?! Yes? Good.


Not clear enough? READ AGAIN what I just wrote!

Btw. the "lazy initialization" bug is caused by the Asio Guard system. It can't play back a sound that starts before about half a beat of the beginning of the spot you hit play at. Asio Guards whole purpose is to work by processing things beforehand and i guess determining when to start this is tricky.

I can't comment on this, since I don't have this particular bug (yet). But since you're so knowledgeable, why don't you work for Steinberg? I'm sure you'll scare off a lot of users with your educated "assumptions".

Oh, another thing that came to mind just now. Bridging some plugins with Cubases own bridge can cause Asio overloads when instantiating them. Bevare of this.

So far, I don't have any problems with that - and this is not the darn point of this particular issue!

Also, Automap is quite buggy with some plugins. Especially if they are 32bit and bridged in a 64bit Daw. This caused some instabilities for me in the past.

Automap also doesn't work with Cubases own plugins. Better turn it off for them and use Quick Controls instead (which you can map to the "user" midi channels in Automap).

Novation Automap is known to cause severe issues since it was initially created. Again - this is not(!) part of the issue. This is just another bit of information that is in no way connected that you had to(!) share to show off.

These are the only instabilities or real problems I've ever had with C7.

Good for you.

But stop insisting that others are stupid, stop calling them "noobs" (which is more than rude!), especially if they are experienced users. And stop saying that "I don't have an issue - nobody else should eiher, all is working according to specs" - even if that is not the case. And if it was proven over and over.

I don't know who is right or wrong.
But there seems to be a lack of communication between mkdr and compyfox.
Siince it's compy's thread to begin with, I'm asking mkdr to refrain from here on.

Yep. No prob.
I did however solve his problem.
He will see it when he cools down a bit

No, you did not(!).
And I am amazed, but definitely not surprised by your prejudice.

For the n-th time - you threw around assumptions, literally called me an idiot, stated several times that I am a newbie in front of both a PC and Cubase and you still talk the blue from the sky.


Each consecutive Cubase version I've used so far (and I'm with them for over 18 years now) worked well. Some Cubase versions even improved the performance. In this particular example however, and again - you can clearly read that in the PDF, the performance is between 20-50% worse compared to earlier Cubase versions.

This has nothing(!) to do with the ASIO Guard system alone (again, consult the PDF), this goes as far as having random peak spikes, initialisation issues, crazy ASIO behavior and actually having twice less work headroom than before. The whole ASIO engine has issues.

My rig is by certain "standards" or viewpoints... er... "outdated" (don't think so - can still hold a candle to an iMac 11.3 from 2010!). Yet I barely reach 30% CPU load and are over 60% on ASIO load with Cubase 7 with this particular test and in 256 to 512 samples buffer (I work at 256 samples).

Something I did not encounter Cubase 6. Again, see the darn PDF - this is why I posted it!

And I am not the only user that is encountering this. But you obviously don't care to read properly. You only read what you want to read, and then state that we users are stupid.

Say that into the face of SODDI, SJ_Digriz and TheoM. The latter two being among the longtime Cubase users like I am.



Since I'm commenting on the ASIO issues, nobody wanted to believe me. Now I proved it over and over and over again that there is something wrong and my rig is not(!) the issue. Even after the plead to "test further". Still I am treated like a total idiot by some wanna-be professional PC guru from Finland, who is throwing around wild assumptions and is still so bold to say "he will see it when he cools down".

Are you kidding me?
What - the - f*ck?!



How much more detailed shall I comment on this?
How much more content shall I post to back up my findings?
What else should I do to "please" you people that think "you're doing it wrong"?

Does it ever, by that I really mean "ever", occour to you kind of people, that your fanboyism is not adjusted in this case? Especially after all these posts?


I feel like talking to darn wall!
And I feel highly insulted by now.


Though thankfully enough - Steinberg (certain people of the support section and the dev division) is now finally on the same level with me and is taking this issue serious. Others don't seem to funking care. Whatever the reason may be (faster CPU, being lucky, never using earlier Cubase versions before, being blinded by new tools, etc).

Fine - but stop acting like know-it-all's and call us "newbies".
This is more than ignorant!


To give a famous movie quote:
"Welcome to the real world."


Yes, it does exist outside your comfort zone with your blinders on.

[bluedad]

For funks sake!

why oh why would you complain to me, and then after I request mkdr refrain, you do another mega post
dissecting his quotes. Practically inviting him to continue to torment you.

[Compyfox]

Because a "request to refrain" is not handling a clear violation of the KVR board rules: General Rules Point 2 and 3.

I am amazed how the rules can be "bent" sometimes...

It is not allowed to tell someone into the face to "f off", which results in a temp ban. But it is allowed to fart into the general direction (e.g. "f off, company" only results in a warning).

Same in this case - I am constantly being called a liar, idiot and newbie - even if I am clearly not. Clear violation of rules - action taken: slap on the fingers, and the answer by the participant was just as rude.


Since I don't want to turn this into a pics & cats thread, I refrain from posting facepalm pictures. But this matter applies to at least "double".

Also: I posted something weeks ago in the "Site Stuff" subsection about this. I'm all for more refined rules so that KVR does indeed turn into less of a kindergarden again.

[lotus2035]

OK I bit the bullet and bought the upgrade from 7.0 to 7.5 which cost next to nothing.
NOW mixcontrol looks like a workspace worthy of the name Cubase, looks perfect on fullscreen. Those minor changes have made a big difference to that previous eyesore.

And Groove Agent SE4 is just fantastic and worth the upgrade price alone.
Consider me converted and 6.5 deleted.

[murnau]

OK I bit the bullet and bought the upgrade from 7.0 to 7.5 which cost next to nothing.

you must be a rich guy when €50 is next to nothing for you.

[jariya]

I bought version 7 last year when it initially launched. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite ready and until today I have remained (happily) with version 6. It's been a disappointment to see Steinberg releasing such a potentially fine product on the world before it was ready. Anyway, from what I'm reading around the web this week, it might be time to give it another try. But I will not delete 6 just yet. Cheers!

[SJ_Digriz]

The main obstacle for me is still the 2nd monitor support still isn't right and you have to have mixer focus to use the key commands for it. However, I'm liking everything else, so I'll probably just put up with those other problems hoping they get addressed at some point.

Oh, they ruined the control room ... but to be honest that doesn't really impact my editing that much very often.

[Compyfox]

Care to elaborate what they runined in 7.5?

My project are at least heavily reliant on the meters and one insert slot per monitor set in the Control Room. If you say it with that tone, there seems to be more broken.


And... I'm worried regarding TheoM's other comments as well. Despite certain good new features (which do make sense), please don't tell me they disimproved the general Cubase usability even more.

[SJ_Digriz]

Care to elaborate what they runined in 7.5?

My project are at least heavily reliant on the meters and one insert slot per monitor set in the Control Room. If you say it with that tone, there seems to be more broken.


And... I'm worried regarding TheoM's other comments as well. Despite certain good new features (which do make sense), please don't tell me they disimproved the general Cubase usability even more.

They turned the control room in to a horizontal view of everything with multiple pages. You can't get the "mixer" view of it anymore. So you flip to do your settings, then flip back to monitor. If I did a lot of multi person studio recording I'd be pissed. Although, the 4 cue send issue already makes it limited to begin with.

[mkdr]

Fine - but stop acting like know-it-all's

Live by your own words.. maybe then others will follow.
I still have nothing against you personally. I can keep to the facts. And i consider everyone equal.

see the darn PDF - this is why I posted it!

What PDF where? How am i supposed to find it?
Have you heard of linking?
I don't want to use the N-word, but it would suit here too.

[Compyfox]

They turned the control room in to a horizontal view of everything with multiple pages. You can't get the "mixer" view of it anymore. So you flip to do your settings, then flip back to monitor. If I did a lot of multi person studio recording I'd be pissed. Although, the 4 cue send issue already makes it limited to begin with.

Since I didn't find videos about this, care to post some screenshots?

I'd love to at least keep the Metering on the mixer. There is no demo yet, so no testing until Febrary (where it's supposed to hit latest).

I still have nothing against you personally. I can keep to the facts.

Facts you think are "correct".

see the darn PDF - this is why I posted it!

What PDF where? How am i supposed to find it?
Have you heard of linking?
I don't want to use the N-word, but it would suit here too.

Now you are obviously trolling, and you also just confirmed to me that you do not read properly.


Page 28, just one page back(!), in this post - the link is right in the middle. There is even a nifty arrow to point the attention to it.

If you're that observant and still can't find it - let me know. Though I'm pretty sure you'll find all kinds of wrongs in that particular PDF as well.

[mkdr]

Now you are obviously trolling, and you also just confirmed to me that you do not read properly.


Page 28, just one page back(!), in this post - the link is right in the middle. There is even a nifty arrow to point the attention to it.

If you're that observant and still can't find it - let me know. Though I'm pretty sure you'll find all kinds of wrongs in that particular PDF as well.

Ah, didn't notice that earlier. Lol. Sorry

Interesting tables. How did you determine the CPU usage? (ah ok, left is from task manager, rest from the DAW meter)
This only gives us numbers but not any performance figures. That is, you are not stressing it, not finding the limit of the setup. Wouldn't that be more useful information?


Here's an example. C6 running 8 Strobe synths with a ValhallaRoom and Reelbus plugins for each + 8 ValhallaRooms on the master (RME buffer 256):


Here's C7 doing the same thing:


What can you tell from these?

[Compyfox]

I really don't know why you laugh...

This only gives us numbers but not any performance figures. That is, you are not stressing it, not finding the limit of the setup. Wouldn't that be more useful information?

Again - you did not(!) read properly.

This is an (in)official Steinberg project that they sent me(!), to benchmark the ASIO engine. If you would have read more closely, it uses 24 channel consisting of noise, with 8 insert plugins per channel that stresses both the RAM and CPU (plugins like distortion, delay, reverb, EQ engaged, etc).

Steinberg wanted to rule out other eventualities like "third party" plugins. So this data is based on common ground. As you can see with the two rigs in this particular PDF - the grey values are my i7 920 (with all requested "tweak retests"), the blue ones are an i7 2600 Sandy Bridge from a fellow musician I involved.


Real world values are actually way worse - as you've just presented/pointed out yourself.

And you can't tell me now that this is normal "behavior" if C6.5 shows about 60% of ASIO load, and C7.x shows almost 80%(!) with the Guard on (off should be just as high or even higher - try it!). The "Guard" meter is the important one in this case - not the Realtime one.

You just confirmed what I found out, and comment about, for a couple of months now - and you still insist that this is correct behavior.



If you can live with that - fine. To me however (one among many users that encountered this), that behavior is unacceptable.

[mkdr]

You just confirmed what I found out, and comment about, for a couple of months now - and you still insist that this is correct behavior.

The point is that THAT is the correct behavior for C7. The real killer here is that you can't run C6 to the limit of your processor. C7 you can.

Here's an example.. continuing from the earlier one.
How much more can you add to the project on C6 without glitches? Duplicating tracks we get to this:


Whereas on C7:


Did you conclude this outcome from the first test? Prob not.



Continuing a bit more.. regarding low latency performance. On C6 buffer at 32 without glitching you can get this:


On C7, with 32 buffer:




I also have a bench with just Steinberg plugins. Absolute maximum amount of tracks i can run without glitches at 32 buffer.
C6:


C7:



The differences are quite large too. But as i showed with the first benchmark, plain numbers don't mean anything at all. You need to understand the causes. And the real benchmark is not the numbers you get from the screen. You need to see how much work it can do.


And it's not a hidden secret test file that no one else can run...
You can download it here -> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/880 ... 20test.cpr