Backwards Compatibility vs Progression

[gas pump]

How important is backwards compatibility to you? How much more important is backwards compatibility to you over the advancements of feature progression?

Honestly, how many times have you needed to go back to a year or more older project to resurrect it from the dead? Usually your progression in your production skills have made these older projects amateurish and filled with learning mistakes.

And if you truly needed these old projects you could simply download an older version of the host application or choose not to upgrade until you've finished the project before installing the newest and latest version.

Don't you find it would be better if companies updated their old instruments and effects and brought them into the present or future, rather then let them sit mostly dormant in peoples' plugin folders?

Do you really find yourself reaching for that 10 year old device as much as the new stuff you've recently acquired to stay current and modern in your productions?

This brings to mind companies like Image-Line and Propellerheads that continue to drag along these old devices just for the reason of backwards compatibility. I'm asking the question if it would be more desirable and beneficial if they kept these devices up to date and modern?

Yes it would cost a lot of man hours dedicated to upgrading and maintaining new versions that are pretty much given away free with the host application. But aren't these the things that bring new customers in over the long run?

And again if it's backwards compatibility you want on older projects, then simply download an older version of the host application that supports the version of the devices you've used. You can also stem and bounce out these tracks and drag them into a newer version.

I personally would like to see these old devices modernized and more useful in my current productions, rather then sit idle waiting, just in case I ever needed something from an older version.

Your thoughts and opinions would be appreciated and hopefully the developers are paying attention to what people want that separates a good DAW from a great one.

Thanks and happy music making.

[jancivil]

Cubase strikes a good balance for me. Actually I have not used that many of their internal plugins, but I know they discarded two or three I did use. One of them, Magneto they brought back with more features. Some of the legacy things they do keep on an ftp server but they wouldn't install on later OSs, so...

[bustedfist]

Progression.

I finish projects in the version they were created in. I multi-boot, so I have OS's that match the version, as well. I can open any project in it's version from SX3 on.

[jabe]

It's like the Windows v OSX debate. No, frankly, I don't want to pay to update all my software the very second a new version comes out, especially if the old version does the job. It's why I'll never buy Steinberg again, because I'm keeping ancient PCs running older versions of Windows that will actually run WaveLab 4 and Clean 4 because I'm not giving Steinberg money for new versions when the ancient versions work and they've already had my dough.

As for music I recorded more than a year ago, if I never wanted to hear it again, I wouldn't bother to record it. My recording goes back prior to a Portastudio I bought in 1984. Why bother recording something you think you might not like in a year or two? And if you didn't mix or master it all that well back then, why not do it again with your new skills?

Each to their own, I guess, but my aim is to create a back catalogue I like, not to create stuff I loathe months later.

[jancivil]

Pheh, I was using Cubase 5 under OS10.6.8 in 2015. Finally I acquired some Kontakt libraries that were made with a new version of Kontakt and I had to go to 10.8.5.

I've bought some computers that came with current OSs, finally I decided Cubase Pro 9 looked pretty good so it was a no-brainer. I have no idea what any of it has to do with creating something I'm going to 'not like', my digital catalog dates to 2009 and Cubase 5 under snow leopard and plugins of that vintage. And that's because I learned to mix decently at that time. Most if not all of the FX I am still using.
Kontakt, well it has in fact advanced, so that's that. Cubase's stretch engine seems to have as well.

[jabe]

Thinking more of the OP for the comments about not liking older stuff, tbh. Hopefully my playing is improving with time, but the mixes I did i the 80s were clear. I'm a fan of serendipity (even though I keep forgetting the word), so old recordings contain surprises I'm reminded of and like.

[lfm]

Honestly, how many times have you needed to go back to a year or more older project to resurrect it from the dead? Usually your progression in your production skills have made these older projects amateurish and filled with learning mistakes.

Just about every day. Being in a learning process I have yet to finish anything that really sound and feel professional enough.

So even some started songs in portastudio years I resurrect and move to daws.

Now retired and do this fulltime really nice to pickup that old stuff and continue work on it.

[do_androids_dream]

One of the big draws with Reaper which is one of the reasons I use it for almost everything I do professionally.

[Guenon]

Honestly, how many times have you needed to go back to a year or more older project to resurrect it from the dead? Usually your progression in your production skills have made these older projects amateurish and filled with learning mistakes.

Very often. This ^ makes the assumption that eneryone was on an amateurish/beginner level just some years ago.

Do you really find yourself reaching for that 10 year old device as much as the new stuff you've recently acquired to stay current and modern in your productions?

No, but the question is worded in a misleading manner. It doesn't have to be "as much as" the new stuff; instead, it's sufficient if there's any realistic amount of use at all. Also, for a professional it would be strange to only rely on tools they have "recently acquired."

This brings to mind companies like Image-Line and Propellerheads that continue to drag along these old devices just for the reason of backwards compatibility. I'm asking the question if it would be more desirable and beneficial if they kept these devices up to date and modern?

In my opinion the most important thing to say about that bit: it's not really an either/or thing. To the extent that you are able to still compile the older modules, and are willing to do so, you can include the classic devices for backwards compatibility AND include up to date and modern takes on them, and of course all-new devices along with them.

Any system that has been made with backwards compatibility and trustworthy upgrade paths in mind (for example, having the tendency of not breaking critical stuff while going from version to version, and also giving the customer ample control in these matters), be it a DAW product or an operating system, is great in the midst of today's disposable product mindset

[whyterabbyt]

Honestly, how many times have you needed to go back to a year or more older project to resurrect it from the dead? Usually your progression in your production skills have made these older projects amateurish and filled with learning mistakes.

Yeah, if you've only been doing this for a year.

[jancivil]

Honestly, how many times have you needed to go back to a year or more older project to resurrect it from the dead? Usually your progression in your production skills have made these older projects amateurish and filled with learning mistakes.

Well, that's exactly why I have returned to an older project, albeit the thing as mixed even back to 2009 say, is not always bad anyway. I abandoned a number of tracks that were too much trouble to recover because of deleted sample bases. As to resurrecting the dead, not so much. But Cubase 9 will load a Cubase 5 project, the issue wasn't located there. I don't actually need their old internal plugins, and I'm good with them gone by this point. Is this question focused on FL basically, though?

This makes the assumption that everyone was on an amateurish/beginner level just some years ago.

Yes, as to 'filled with learning mistakes', I was a composer for 35 yrs before I did it in a DAW. I learned to mix decently in 2009, admittedly. I'm done with the revisits, three moves is as good as a fire.

[Guenon]

Also, sometimes one just puts down a nice framework/idea/draft/whatever for a project, and never finishes it, especially if it's nothing that can be used at that moment -- and then, years later, there might be a commission or other situation where the project from some years ago comes to mind, and is exactly the thing that fits the bill. And then it's really nice to dig up that idea and proceed from there.

[jancivil]

Oh yeah. Reminds me to go into storage and retrieve some hard drives, I had spinoffs, project names which I left because they were rabbit holes to lead me astray from a focus, not because it wasn't a good idea. Re-arranged of course, as some things are left behind.

[gas pump]

As the old adage goes, songs are never finished they are eventually abandoned. A lot can be learned from this when it comes to old projects too.

So you're saying that these long abandoned projects are worth more to you then the progress of new features, technological advancements and innovation? Fair enough.

I find it much more beneficial to stay up to date with the present and push forward into the future, rather then being hangup on the past. This goes for most things in life.

[Guenon]

So you're saying that these long abandoned projects are worth more to you then the progress of new features, technological advancements and innovation?

No. And speaking of these, technological advancements and innovation are super interesting and often useful. As I said, this isn't the sort of either/or thing you are making it to be. Both aspects are important.

I find it much more beneficial to stay up to date with the present and push forward into the future, rather then being hangup on the past. This goes for most things in life.

Considering that you were asking about going back to projects that were "a year" old or more, reading this is just funny ... Hung up on the past, eh?

Between the lines, I get the feeling you aren't genuinely in the position to offer these life lessons with authenticity.