Berdinskikh
New Member
Wasn't there complete rewrite at least for NT (coming to be a consumer platforms foundation from an enterprise) at the time Nuendo has appeared?
Last edited:
Why did you leave Cubase?
- Thread starter Pier
- Start date
dylanmixer
Senior Member
Well hop to it, skippy. The poor lads over at Steinberg are waiting for you to come save the day with your genius coding skills.
If you understood anything about file systems, coding or the history of computing, you would not make this unfounded assertion. I can only assume you have some sort of connection, be it financial or emotional, to the manufacturer.
Of course, you're welcome to put your money where your mouth is and cite the "outright falsehoods".
This is life with a codebase consisting of ancient, moldy spaghetti, regardless of the type of software. And Cubase/Nuendo's codebase is older than just about any artist on the Spotify Top 100. There is no way back from this except a total rewrite from scratch. Refactoring the code would take far longer and be far more expensive.
So issues such as the ones you name may get kludgy, hacky fixes once in a while, but they most likely won't, because this tends to break other things that no one even knows about until the change has been implemented and released for weeks or months.
As I said, there's no way back from this. That's one of the reasons I left Cubase for Reaper -- there's no future in Cubase. But there are a ton of other great, modern DAWs out there to choose from, too.
They would have had to rewrite some code to make the software compatible with the NT kernel, which was adopted with Windows 2000. For example, MS grew so fed up with lazy, mediocre and incompetent Windows developers whose software could only deal with filenames in the old DOS 8.3 format (e.g.
SYSCLEAN.EXE), could only understand all caps, and/or broke when dealing with spaces, they they intentionally started using long, case-sensitive names with spaces in them system components, like C:\Program Files (x86)\. This forced developers' hands on these particular issues.But one of Windows' most impressive virtues is its backwards compatibility. MS knows that many of its business and corporate customers rely on ancient, custom software they once had written for them and that if it ever breaks due to an update or new OS, there will be problems. So they do an amazing job to keep ancient code from breaking. So Steinberg didn't have to do a complete rewrite of their software, and they clearly didn't, as is evidenced by the recent bug which is due to code designed to work with limitations imposed by the FAT16 file system from the 1980s.
You have failed to grasp the point of my post. No one can get their head around a codebase that is 30+ years old and has been built on kludge and hack after kludge and hack. Steinberg could hire Linux Torvalds himself to whip things into shape and he'd fail miserably.
There are just some things in life that you need to replace after three decades. Vinyl siding, transmissions and codebases all come to mind.
nitrateaudio
Active Member
I switched to FL studio and left the Cubase ecosystem as of 10.5.x or so. Cubase was fine. I just decided to try a new DAW and then with the licensing issues, I stayed away from Cubase a little longer, just waiting to update and then just got used to the way FL worked. I would say FL gives me > 90% of the functionality I use in a DAW. Things I miss is markers and chord track in Cubase. Stability wise, FL is just as fine as Cubase. I think i average maybe one DAW crash or freeze ever 3 or 4 months. What I like about FL is it has a bit of NI Maschine-like functionaltiy but is a fully fledged DAW. So it allows for working really fast. And it has very advanced automation functionality which is great for making modern music ITB. Chaining automation to other automation can produce some really interesting things. Hope that helps.
Crossroads
Senior Member
What makes you think the codebase hasn't been updated in all those years?
I mean, for such a kludged together spaghetti monster (everything points to that this isn't the case), Nuendo is the most stable DAW of all of them, and I have extensively used them all over the past 10+ years.
You're making assumptions up the wazoo. Especially the past few years have shown updates going right AGAINST what you are assuming.
I do. Almost 30 years now in IT and software development. Of course, I'm the boss now...
Sure. Outright falsehood - the codebase is 34 years old. Cubase traces its history back to a product 34 years ago, but as @Berdinskikh mentioned, there was a complete rewrite a few years ago.
You seem to be a new member who had a bad experience with Cubase, and moved DAWS. Good for you, it happens all the time. I started with Sonar, and moved to Cubase. I also have a few other DAWs - they are just tools to me. But I don't go around spreading misinformation about Sonar.
I have no specific attachment to Cubase, but I do have an an attachment to the truth. You seem to just use a bunch of words to make assumptions that are not based in truth. I appreciate the ignore function for such things.
ThomasS
Active Member
I know nothing about codebases and programming and stuff. I'm just a humble user, who started over 30 years ago (on the Atari!) with Cubase, and have loved every minute of it, and made lots of music and money with it. Only this year did I investigate Studio One, and with the upgrade to 6.5 I am finally in the process of transitioning permanently to S1. There is no need to itemize all the ways I find S1 faster and more efficient, because that is discussed everywhere on forums all over the place. I have nothing bad to say about Cubase, only good things to say about Studio One, and from what I read and hear, a lot of other newer DAWs as well. It's a great time for choosers of DAWs. No need to feel sad about my old friend Cubase. Many years ago people said WordPerfect was the "be all and end all" of word processors (some still do!) but that didn't stop Word from eventually overtaking it, and the same has happened to a lot of programs which were once dominant in their field. I had to put my dog down, after 14 years of a good life, and I cried, but am delighted with my new puppy.
Last edited:
Then you should understand just how unmaintainable spaghetti codebases with 30+ years of kludges are.
He didn't mention that (which implies it's a fact), he asked if that weren't the case. And the fact that users were just bitten by (and some lost actual work due to) zombie code in Cubase based on 1980s technology (FAT16) that hasn't been used by Windows since 1996 is proof enough that whatever refactoring occurred was anything but complete. I'd wager it was just enough to keep the software running on the NT kernel.
What a coincidence! I started with Cakewalk, then moved to Sonar, then to Cubase, and now to Reaper. I have very fond memories of Sonar!
Great! And you're in software, too! So kindly explain the truth of how code for FAT16 in Cubase could survive a "complete rewrite".
Crossroads
Senior Member
You didn't react to my post because you can't.
MikeT99
Member
I wonder how many folks ranting about Cubase (or any other daw, for that matter) took time to fully get to know it, customize it for their workflow, learnt all its ways. In truth I think any daw is an amazing piece of software. Myself I’m invested in Nuendo for many years now, and it never ceases to amaze me how comprehensive it truly is. This doesn’t mean it’s perfect, but it has been a real pal of mine all these years. And I bet you can say that about each daw, as long as you took the time to make it second nature.
Crossroads
Senior Member
True this. What most people don't realize, is that to truly know a DAW is not knowing all it's features, rather knowing all it's bugs and weirdness!
Sound weird? Let me explain: every DAW crashes (yes, even Reaper!) every DAW has shortcomings, every DAW has things it cannot do, but should be able to.
I know every DAW crashes or gets weird with superhigh track counts, large projects, whatever. Every. Single. One. Except Cubase/Nuendo. Try it. Put 2000 tracks into a template and come back to me (yes, even try it in Reaper
). But you only come across those limitations if you really push a DAW and use it for a long, looooong time. I did. Wasted lots of years.
Nuendo is rock solid for me. More rock solid than even Vienna Ensemble Pro. It has so many bugs, so many errors, but I know them, and work around them, because it can do things no other DAW can reliably (the aforementioned huge projects). THAT's knowing a DAW.
kitekrazy
Senior Member
That's why people have used Pro Tools for years. For some time is money and can't afford to spend time on something new.True this. What most people don't realize, is that to truly know a DAW is not knowing all it's features, rather knowing all it's bugs and weirdness!
Sound weird? Let me explain: every DAW crashes (yes, even Reaper!) every DAW has shortcomings, every DAW has things it cannot do, but should be able to.
I know every DAW crashes or gets weird with superhigh track counts, large projects, whatever. Every. Single. One. Except Cubase/Nuendo. Try it. Put 2000 tracks into a template and come back to me (yes, even try it in Reaper
But you only come across those limitations if you really push a DAW and use it for a long, looooong time. I did. Wasted lots of years.
Nuendo is rock solid for me. More rock solid than even Vienna Ensemble Pro. It has so many bugs, so many errors, but I know them, and work around them, because it can do things no other DAW can reliably (the aforementioned huge projects). THAT's knowing a DAW.
Obi-Wan Spaghetti
Senior Member
Plus learning a new DAW is so much fun right?
pixel
Senior Member
I half-quit Cubase some time ago for my personal projects (Cubase used at work without any breaks). The reason was to use something different after work to fresh up my mind. So I came back o Live that I was using long time ago.
The purpose of Live was to work with hardware synths. I really like "external instrument" because much more comfortable to config in comparison to Cubase.
Next thing is creative and very fast sound design with effects and modulations.
Today I redid a template in Cubase. While on the surface Live has faster workflow, in reality it requires much more clicks than properly configured Cubase:
- no custom shortcuts, so to open a plugin I need to open a tab with the instrument and click it. I have plenty of other custom shortcuts that makes Cubase faster than Ableton
- MIDI CC recorded only to a clip. Seriously what a stupid limitation. Horrible to work with digital hardware synths
- Groups can't be minimised without hiding all sub-tracks. It takes a lot of space and while at it, Cubase allows for much better tracks maintenance with folders, tracks show/hide etc.
- forced real-time rendering as long as all "external instruments" are not disabled. Disabling 20+ of those, rendering and enabling is simply a chore that I don't want to deal with. Really annoying limitation. It's better to just use MIDI+Audio tracks instead.
- to stop external synth from playing, I must disable midi clips. Muting MIDI tracks doesn't nothing.
- piano roll window is annoying to use and extremely limited (I don't mean midi manipulation tools from Live 12)
Those are just the main ridiculously stupid issues that makes using Live a chore. I wish Live didn't had those limitations but it looks that I'm going back to Cubase.
The purpose of Live was to work with hardware synths. I really like "external instrument" because much more comfortable to config in comparison to Cubase.
Next thing is creative and very fast sound design with effects and modulations.
Today I redid a template in Cubase. While on the surface Live has faster workflow, in reality it requires much more clicks than properly configured Cubase:
- no custom shortcuts, so to open a plugin I need to open a tab with the instrument and click it. I have plenty of other custom shortcuts that makes Cubase faster than Ableton
- MIDI CC recorded only to a clip. Seriously what a stupid limitation. Horrible to work with digital hardware synths
- Groups can't be minimised without hiding all sub-tracks. It takes a lot of space and while at it, Cubase allows for much better tracks maintenance with folders, tracks show/hide etc.
- forced real-time rendering as long as all "external instruments" are not disabled. Disabling 20+ of those, rendering and enabling is simply a chore that I don't want to deal with. Really annoying limitation. It's better to just use MIDI+Audio tracks instead.
- to stop external synth from playing, I must disable midi clips. Muting MIDI tracks doesn't nothing.
- piano roll window is annoying to use and extremely limited (I don't mean midi manipulation tools from Live 12)
Those are just the main ridiculously stupid issues that makes using Live a chore. I wish Live didn't had those limitations but it looks that I'm going back to Cubase.
TheHansen01
Member
FYI Live 12 has a new midi effect called "CC Control" that allows you to record any midi CC to an automation lane. But otherwise, completely agree with your assessment RE: Live feels like a chore to use vs. Cubase. So much mouse clicking. It feels like Live is set up to penalize you for NOT using their stock devices.
