Mute-Solo?

[John Lance]

I just posted over at the forum for Nuendo 5, after quite a while of leaving all of the mess of the forums pretty much behind. I just could not resist, hoping that something constructive could happen - well - maybe - just maybe.

Someone decided to post about this subject of Mute-Solo and having an issue with it.

https://www.steinberg.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=17170

Maybe I should have just left it alone. No one else was touching it, then I came along putting my unwanted 2 cents in, and then the carefully worded diversion began with likelystory as if the original poster was somehow incapable of using the software (and from what I perceive, that is NOT the case).

Haha! :rotfl: I do need to leave it alone. I'm too pissy to post, and not eloquent enough to be pissy and do it well with to-the-point diplomacy.

[Animus]

Yeah I occasionally see solo/mute issues, but no where near as much in the past. My biggest problems are more graphical issues; i.e., midi editors open in blank space in grid, Project page constantly resetting it's horizontal zoom.

[Daryl]

I think the problem is that nearly always there is some truth in the "user error" argument. Unfortunately this often muddies the waters on this issue.

I'm still on Nuendo 4, but the last update fixed all of these issues for me. However, it is probably just a case of me knowing what not to do! ;>)

D

[kdm]

Even after the mute/solo fix, I came across issues with both N4 and N5. (Folders never worked correctly, or logically at least).

I'm sure it was due to me expecting one thing where the DAW does another, like expecting normal logical behavior vs. Nuendo behavior.

[John Lance]

I think the problem is that nearly always there is some truth in the "user error" argument. Unfortunately this often muddies the waters on this issue.

I'm still on Nuendo 4, but the last update fixed all of these issues for me. However, it is probably just a case of me knowing what not to do! ;>)

D

I would agree there about potential user error, and the last update for N4 did "calm down" some issues, but in this case (mine) it has not been user error. It would be straight forward expected operation where the outcome is different at different times with what should be the same circumstances in usage, and that is frustrating to me. It has resulted in me dropping the use of automated mutes altogether because I cannot depend on them to always mute or unmute when they should do so. I also don't need automated mutes sometimes punching through solo's I have going. This is counter-intuitive and counter-productive, and it does not occur on a regular basis for the same circumstances, and is indicative of a bug or bugs going on (or logic in the program that is on-purpose for whatever reasons but yet that is conflicting).

Like I said over there, I've quit using what doesn't work for me, and I've been watching for an update to N5 for the general issues concerning this. I do understand that N4 & N5 are going beyond conventional console actions here, which I believe most higher end DAWs are doing anyway (and ones I've tested seem to be doing it well and consistently), but the basics should still be there and are usually described in the manuals.

And like you said, the very intermittent and hard to reproduce nature of much of this hampers any effort on the part of customers to have the issues addressed.

I was hoping for some good news, and that Steinberg would still be addressing the issues. 'nuff said for my part.

Everyone have a super year!

[kdm]

Not to sound like a broken record, but you should remind Steinberg that solo/mute and mute automation work perfectly every time in PT.

Sometimes it's more valuable to have the basics working correctly.

[TAFKAT]

I think the problem is that nearly always there is some truth in the "user error" argument. Unfortunately this often muddies the waters on this issue.

I'm still on Nuendo 4, but the last update fixed all of these issues for me. However, it is probably just a case of me knowing what not to do! ;>)

D

The problem with the user error mantra is that the drone that is spinning that wheel over at Fredendo is simply a BETA shill who's main focus is derailing any thread with a working fine, working as designed response to any qualm raised.

It is pathetic , and they wonder why the place has died on the vine.

re N4.3 - have a think of what it took to actually get that version released , if it wasn't for the persistent efforts and noise of a handful of members, that would never have seen the light of day. 4.3 IMO is still the best version of Nuendo ever released, and it was the version that the usual suspects fought tooth and nail against , think about that for a moment.

As to the rest, seriously guys, its a waste of time, nothing will ever change.

[Daryl]

The problem with the user error mantra is that the drone that is spinning that wheel over at Fredendo is simply a BETA shill who's main focus is derailing any thread with a working fine, working as designed response to any qualm raised.


It is pathetic , and they wonder why the place has died on the vine.
And that's the point really. If one "side" blames Nuendo for every problem, and the other one blames user error, nothing useful will ever come out of it. Having used this software fro quite a few years now, I know that neither side is completely correct, or completely wrong.






re N4.3 - have a think of what it took to actually get that version released , if it wasn't for the persistent efforts and noise of a handful of members, that would never have seen the light of day. 4.3 IMO is still the best version of Nuendo ever released, and it was the version that the usual suspects fought tooth and nail against , think about that for a moment.


As you probably remember, I was one of the vocal ones, but I would agree that 4.3 is an excellent version. Hence why I'm still using it, and have no current plans to upgrade.

D

[MattiasNYC]

Hi guys and happy New Year!

I have to say though that as annoying as the people who always defend Cubendo no matter what are, sometimes they do have a point.

In this case and in others it would really help if a clear explanation of steps was provided so that people could see easily for themselves exactly what the problem was. I don't think the original post was particularly clear which means that it indeed could have been a "user misunderstanding" rather than a clear bug in the programming (or design "flaw").

[TAFKAT]

Hi guys and happy New Year!

I have to say though that as annoying as the people who always defend Cubendo no matter what are, sometimes they do have a point.

In this case and in others it would really help if a clear explanation of steps was provided so that people could see easily for themselves exactly what the problem was. I don't think the original post was particularly clear which means that it indeed could have been a "user misunderstanding" rather than a clear bug in the programming (or design "flaw").

Hey Matt,

Happy New Year.. :-)

The O.P may not have been clear but both John and Sam were quite clear in their responses.

There is a bug , but of course the usual suspects will simply attempt to dismiss it as user error.

This is no different to the M.O we witnessed during the N4.x solo/mute debate , the difference being this time, there is no one left that cares enough to engage and follow it thru.

[MattiasNYC]

Hey Matt,

Happy New Year.. :-)

The O.P may not have been clear but both John and Sam were quite clear in their responses.

There is a bug , but of course the usual suspects will simply attempt to dismiss it as user error.

Sam and John were both talking about mute automation. It's pretty clear in the OP that he's soloing manually. So it's off topic, even if it's correct.


This is no different to the M.O we witnessed during the N4.x solo/mute debate , the difference being this time, there is no one left that cares enough to engage and follow it thru.

Well, the problem is that IF it's no bug, the answer is exactly the same as if there is a bug and "they" are engaging in the "same M.O.", right? There'd be denial and/or questioning regardless of the outcome. So in the cases that people are actually right in that it's not a bug it doesn't "count" as "more M.O." Know what I mean?

Like I said, as much as I dislike some peoples refusal to acknowledge problems with the software it's still hard to get anywhere without a clear repro. OP did a hit and run 11 days ago. Doesn't seem too urgent of an issue to him.



EDIT: I'll add that there's a huge difference between mute automation being illogically designed (i.e. muted channels unmute when automation tells them to, even if other tracks are soloed) and on the other hand random behavior. As annoying as the former issue is to some, it can be avoided. The latter? Not so much.

I personally belong to the camp that detests mute automation. In this day and age I think visual feedback is essential, and you won't get that with mute automation without opening up a lane showing it. Better then to simply mute the events and parts on the track instead. Crystal clear. Also no problem with the poorly designed mute behavior. But that's just my preference of course.

[kdm]

Matt - I ran into both problems with Nuendo 4 and 5. They are part of the same bad logic that put "advanced" solo/mute feature marketing ahead of a basic working system. It only takes a few extra clicks per feature as workarounds to add up to a longer, less productive, and more frustrating day.




Like I said, as much as I dislike some peoples refusal to acknowledge problems with the software it's still hard to get anywhere without a clear repro. OP did a hit and run 11 days ago. Doesn't seem too urgent of an issue to him.

One of the reasons I gave up on Nuendo is the fact that Steinberg seemed to have no interest in investigating their own problems, much less fixing them. The concept of pushing the burden of proof on the end user is somewhat unique to the audio software world, and is anything but customer friendly. It's a great way to drive people away. I don't get paid to repro bugs and neither do you, but their tech support and dev guys do.

It's up to companies to win customers and keep them. And that means investigating their own bugs. As a former software developer I can tell you from experience it's far easier to spot bugs from user-error than the forum defensiveness would seem to suggest. It also isn't that difficult to find bugs in code with only a description to work from. There was a time when this was expected of every programmer, and a matter of personal pride in workmanship. Now it seems companies are more interested in bashing out some sloppy code, selling it with marketing, and moving onto the next money maker.

[MattiasNYC]

Matt - I ran into both problems with Nuendo 4 and 5.

Ok, so can you post a clearer description of what the OP in that thread said happens in v5 then? I'm not disputing the automation issue, but that's not what he was talking about, right?


The concept of pushing the burden of proof on the end user is somewhat unique to the audio software world, and is anything but customer friendly. It's a great way to drive people away. I don't get paid to repro bugs and neither do you, but their tech support and dev guys do.

Ok. So imagine you're tech support and a user calls up and says "I have a problem with trimming the heads of a region/event."

You now solve it with that info? That suffices? Or do you ask for what that user did - specifically - in order to be able to help out and troubleshoot it?


It's up to companies to win customers and keep them. And that means investigating their own bugs. As a former software developer I can tell you from experience it's far easier to spot bugs from user-error than the forum defensiveness would seem to suggest. It also isn't that difficult to find bugs in code with only a description to work from. There was a time when this was expected of every programmer, and a matter of personal pride in workmanship. Now it seems companies are more interested in bashing out some sloppy code, selling it with marketing, and moving onto the next money maker.

I get it. But surely it'd be easier if the user posted his concerns and then provided at least a somewhat clear repro, no? If we're realistic we can't expect the companies to investigate every instance a user says something doesn't work, regardless of how vague that description is. It'd take them forever to do so.



EDIT: I also fail to see how it helps - in any way shape or form - to bring up a different concern with the way solo/mute functions in Nuendo when trying to resolve the original concerns of the OP.

[TAFKAT]

Sam and John were both talking about mute automation. It's pretty clear in the OP that he's soloing manually. So it's off topic, even if it's correct.

The discussion had moved on from the original posters issue to a wider but still directly related range of issues with solo/mute.

The other posters are being quite clear , the denial and dismissal continues , thats the M.O I am talking about.


Well, the problem is that IF it's no bug, the answer is exactly the same as if there is a bug and "they" are engaging in the "same M.O.", right? There'd be denial and/or questioning regardless of the outcome. So in the cases that people are actually right in that it's not a bug it doesn't "count" as "more M.O." Know what I mean?

I reread that 1/2 a dozen times and have no idea what you mean... LOL

Its cool, I'm out.. :-)

Have fun

[kdm]

Ok. So imagine you're tech support and a user calls up and says "I have a problem with trimming the heads of a region/event."

You now solve it with that info? That suffices? Or do you ask for what that user did - specifically - in order to be able to help out and troubleshoot it?

Yes, and I don't have to imagine.

Ironically, I was a tech/applications support engineer after being a developer for several years, and did exactly that for a couple of very large tech companies. Our clients were much higher end than audio (as in multi-million dollar IT departments, banks, international companies, etc), and the systems much more complex. We had to grab as much info as we could, then head to the lab to try to create a repro based on our rather extensive knowledge of the product and how it should function. We never asked for the client to repro (that was a good way to lose a client). As a developer, I always had a very good idea where to look, and how the code might be causing a certain problem. We also took pride in our work and would do our best to solve our problems without pushing back on our clients - simply because we wanted our work to be 100% solid.

Like I said, it's easy to sort out bugs from user error as a developer. The problem is most developers in this industry are pushed to add new features and sell upgrades, not fix the old ones.
These companies are simply weighing the value of the product vs. solving any given problem or losing a customer. It's cheaper for them to lose customers. That's why bugs don't get fixed and they ask customers to create repros - it has nothing to do with being the more technically feasible approach - it's just cheaper.

[Vinark]

Great post KDM!
I expect to be able to contact support and say something like, hey it seems VSTi´s are no longer sample accurate when rendering and get it fixed (been broke since C4).
In the end it was confirmed, after lots of posting about it, but never fixed. Strange MO

[John Lance]

I must say that Solo (SIP) on its own without anything else, is working pretty decently. I cannot recall having any specific issues in the N4.3 release with that.

As soon as you throw Mute anything into the mix, you've got an altogether different story. It makes me tired to think about it.

In response to visibility, I've had no trouble seeing mute indicators changing state in the mixer while the mix is running. I've not had to open mute automation tracks to see this. I did open the automation tracks to do edits for the convenience of it and for the verification of the placement relative to other things. The fact that this entire scenario with mute, solo, and the automation taken together are not working dependably has forced me to go to fader automation which is MUCH more time consuming to do rather than mute automation.

I prefer my own style here of course, and would like for that to be able to work dependably, and it should work.

There are legitimate uses for mute automation. The silliest thing I did when I first got into DAW's was to be writing silence to a track for unneeded sections, just like folks use to sometimes do with tape. That was a huge time waster. Anyway, so much for a confessed embarrassing moment.

[MattiasNYC]

Yes, and I don't have to imagine.

Ironically, I was a tech/applications support engineer after being a developer for several years, and did exactly that for a couple of very large tech companies. Our clients were much higher end than audio (as in multi-million dollar IT departments, banks, international companies, etc), and the systems much more complex. We had to grab as much info as we could, then head to the lab to try to create a repro based on our rather extensive knowledge of the product and how it should function. We never asked for the client to repro (that was a good way to lose a client). As a developer, I always had a very good idea where to look, and how the code might be causing a certain problem. We also took pride in our work and would do our best to solve our problems without pushing back on our clients - simply because we wanted our work to be 100% solid.

Like I said, it's easy to sort out bugs from user error as a developer. The problem is most developers in this industry are pushed to add new features and sell upgrades, not fix the old ones.
These companies are simply weighing the value of the product vs. solving any given problem or losing a customer. It's cheaper for them to lose customers. That's why bugs don't get fixed and they ask customers to create repros - it has nothing to do with being the more technically feasible approach - it's just cheaper.

And the above in bold being the case I think it's fair to say that a clear repro is more likely to yield results than something that will take more time for the developer to figure out, wouldn't you agree?

Not to mention how completely useless it is to add other issues into the thread which only obscures the issue.

[John Lance]

Sam and John were both talking about mute automation. It's pretty clear in the OP that he's soloing manually. So it's off topic, even if it's correct.

To me it is a general issue anymore as it has been discussed to death with many people saying and confirming the same things.

I'm always soloing manually, using solo in the mixer at that because I want to hear the "downstream" items associated with the solo'ed item. I use to use mute in places but I've now largely put it out of my workflow because of the issues. I'll solo manually in the mixer for what that offers and leave mute alone in Nuendo, which is a shame.

To have tracks with automated mutes popping in and out of such a solo is disconcerting (unless they are a legitimate part of that solo hierarchy), but to have it randomly work one way and then the other is much worse. Subsequently to then have automated mutes on tracks totally malfunction requiring a weird workaround reset that may or may not work is even worse yet. That is completely unusable for me, and to me, it is indefensible for reasonable program operation. Please note my results have been in the latest release of N4. I've been PM'ing folks every now and then for a status update on N5 regarding the issues.

I did mention that the OP's issue coincides directly with issues as described before.

I agree that I was marginally OT.

[MattiasNYC]

The discussion had moved on from the original posters issue to a wider but still directly related range of issues with solo/mute.

But if the OP isn't talking about mute/solo problems with mute-automation going on, how does it help him to move the discussion to mute-automation being a problem? It only clouds his issue.


The other posters are being quite clear , the denial and dismissal continues , thats the M.O I am talking about.

Have you tested this? Because I fail to see what this one poster is saying that constitutes "denial and dismissal". I read through the thread again and he tries to focus on the OPs concern which he can't reproduce. He also can't reproduce the automation problem, but he admits that it could still happen to other users.

Honestly; what would you have him say? He tested it - it's not a problem on his system - and he admits it might be a problem on other peoples'.


I reread that 1/2 a dozen times and have no idea what you mean... LOL

Its cool, I'm out.. :-)

Have fun

I just meant that if someone says they can't find a bug it could mean either that they're engaging in this "M.O." OR that they actually can't find a bug when really trying. Since the answer would be the same you can't automatically know that it's "the same M.O.", because they could actually be right.

[MattiasNYC]

I've now tried the three following things:

1: As in the OP's vague example I've soloed every track I have in my project and all tracks mute like they are supposed to. Nothing unpredictable.

2: I then wrote mute automation on one of my tracks (#1) which had dialog on it. The track mutes for about 3 seconds. When I solo other tracks this track with mute automation indeed "plays back" the automation, but audio isn't playing out when the track umutes even though the mute light goes off.

So to clarify: Even though the actual mute button indicates mute is off, audio is NOT playing back.

3: I now routed tracks 1-3 to Group A, and 4-6 tracks to Group B. Soloing any track/group in any order resulted in the appropriate track/group soloing with it. I.e, soloing track #2 which went to Group A resulted in Group A soloing as well. Soloing Group B resulted in tracks 4-6 soloing as well.

It should be noted that soloing Group A resulted not only in tracks 1-3 being soloed as well, but that track 1 now executed its mute automation with "audible" results.

4: I took the routing from example 3 above and added an FX channel with a reverb on it. Track 1, which goes to Group A, now sends to this FX reverb.

Soloing the reverb FX channel also solos track 1 (but not Group A).
Soloing track 1 also solos BOTH Group A and the FX channel. Mute automation is active and "audible".
Soloing Group A results in tracks 1-3 being soloed as well, but NOT FX reverb.

It should be noted here that if I solo track 1, which then leads to both group A and FX to follow (solo), the disarming of the solos depend on which solo you hit next:

Pushing the solo button on track 1 unsolos all three.
Pushing either Group A or FX unsolos ONLY that channel.

5: Now adding to the above I routed from track 4 to the same FX reverb. This results in exactly the same behavior as above, but with the following two notes:

Track 1 had mute automation on it, and when the track unmutes it sends neither to the outputs nor to the FX channel.
Soloing the FX reverb channel now soloes both track 1 and 4, as they both have sends going to the FX.



To me that seems to cover a lot of bases. If you guys want I can check some other combos.

[kdm]

Matt if this isn't a problem for you why are you posting on this thread? Between this and the Nuendo forum solo/mute thread the most effort is from 2 people trying to convince everyone else there isn't a problem. Do you guys work for Steinberg marketing?

This is why I don't participate in public forums much anymore. It's like beating one's head against a wall.

No offense - just saying...

[MattiasNYC]

Matt if this isn't a problem for you why are you posting on this thread?

Ok, so what you're saying then is that if a person says he has a problem we shouldn't try to help him solve it....?

Or are you saying that if we try to figure out what's wrong, and we can't reproduce the problem, we shouldn't say anything about it?....

I'm confused; just what do you think the appropriate action should be here?


Between this and the Nuendo forum solo/mute thread the most effort is from 2 people trying to convince everyone else there isn't a problem. Do you guys work for Steinberg marketing?

:sleeping:

I've said so far:

1: If someone has a problem then post a detailed set of steps to see if others can repro it so that we can help that person!

2: That I personally haven't had a problem with this latest version of N5.5.

Do either of the above points mean that I said that there is no problem at all?


This is why I don't participate in public forums much anymore. It's like beating one's head against a wall.

Did you try to repro any of the stated problems in the threads?

Again: What do you want people to do? Is complaining the only thing that's appropriate? Or do we try to help each other to solve the problems that Steinberg are too lazy, dumb or cheap to solve?....

[John Lance]

It would be great if the OP over at the SB forum would reply and clarify what he is saying. I agree 100% to that. To much seemed to be left open, even though for me it fell into the "actual past issues category".

I probably should update to N5 anyway, and get on the "hope train" again, but N4 is working enough right now and I don't see reasons to upgrade if these particular issues are not resolved.

[MattiasNYC]

In response to visibility, I've had no trouble seeing mute indicators changing state in the mixer while the mix is running. I've not had to open mute automation tracks to see this.

You're right of course. What I meant (I'm guessing you were addressing me) was that I can only see them at any one given instant. I always found it a bit annoying when parked and not playing back, because I couldn't see by looking in the arrange window when a track is muting. You'd have to be at that location in time to see that indicated on the mute button. With muted events/regions you can see easily where mutes occur and on what tracks througout the entire project.

But like I said, it's a completely personal preference.

[John Lance]

You're right of course. What I meant (I'm guessing you were addressing me) was that I can only see them at any one given instant. I always found it a bit annoying when parked and not playing back, because I couldn't see by looking in the arrange window when a track is muting. You'd have to be at that location in time to see that indicated on the mute button. With muted events/regions you can see easily where mutes occur and on what tracks througout the entire project.

But like I said, it's a completely personal preference.

Hah! I haven't used the arranger windows yet. I've not needed to. I've just used the mixer, the main project window, and edit windows.

[kdm]

Again: What do you want people to do? Is complaining the only thing that's appropriate? Or do we try to help each other to solve the problems that Steinberg are too lazy, dumb or cheap to solve?....

Good grief Matt. 3 pages and a couple of weeks into these threads and you decide to go try and reproduce it? You know as well as any of us that this is a very old issue and was beaten to death on the Nuendo forum, to no avail. Read John's first post on this thread - hardly a request for help solving this, so give me a break with OT finger pointing BS.

If you want to see what went into this one, why not search the nuendo.com forum archive? We spent more than enough time on this bug a few years ago - it's Steinberg's problem now.

That's why nothing gets solved, and people leave these forums, and Nuendo - we got sick and tired of people derailing every friggin' thread with "I can't reproduce it" arguments that drag on for pages and pages. You've said you can't repro it. What more do you need to say?

[MattiasNYC]

Good grief Matt. 3 pages and a couple of weeks into these threads and you decide to go try and reproduce it?

"A couple of weeks"? I see 27 posts in this thread over the course of 5 days, and 15 posts in the other. The other goes back two weeks but I wouldn't have noticed it had this thread not been started. It's not like I sat around for weeks waiting for the right time to test it. I happened upon the thread recently because I just got back from vacation (no internet) and now had time to test it.

Does it bother you that I try to help out by seeing if I can reproduce the errors?


You know as well as any of us that this is a very old issue and was beaten to death on the Nuendo forum, to no avail. Read John's first post on this thread - hardly a request for help solving this, so give me a break with OT finger pointing BS.

Well this is the "Cubendo User Support" section, is it not? Am I missing something here? I guess I'm a fucking idiot for thinking threads in this section are actually here for Cubendo Users to offer each other Support...

If it's such a pain in the ass that some here want to investigate what goes on then move the thread to the SoapBox section and you can complain all day long there.


If you want to see what went into this one, why not search the nuendo.com forum archive? We spent more than enough time on this bug a few years ago - it's Steinberg's problem now.

That's why nothing gets solved, and people leave these forums, and Nuendo - we got sick and tired of people derailing every friggin' thread with "I can't reproduce it" arguments that drag on for pages and pages. You've said you can't repro it. What more do you need to say?

"A few years ago". We had 5.0, 5.0.1, 5.1.0, 5.1.1, 5.5.0 and 5.5.1 last year. You're right it's Steinbergs problem. Do you know if they fixed it? If the last time you checked was "a few years ago" then perhaps they fixed it recently with the latest release. Of course you wouldn't know because - let me get this straight:

Someone says they have a problem and describe it (poorly).
Someone else tries to reproduce it and says he can't.

That's "derailing the thread"?...

Get some sleep. You sound tired.

[TAFKAT]

But if the OP isn't talking about mute/solo problems with mute-automation going on, how does it help him to move the discussion to mute-automation being a problem? It only clouds his issue.

LOL, its the full moon again... !!

The discussion had moved on , the O.P hasn't been back so the discussion progressed to other issues being reported by John and Sam.


Have you tested this? Because I fail to see what this one poster is saying that constitutes "denial and dismissal". I read through the thread again and he tries to focus on the OPs concern which he can't reproduce. He also can't reproduce the automation problem, but he admits that it could still happen to other users.

LOL, you have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about testing anything in regards to Nuendo anymore.

FYI -Sam is a valued client and friend and one of the most proficient Nuendo Power users I have ever met , I don't need to question or challenge anything he states , as I already know he wouldn't be stating it otherwise, the shill on the other hand is doing nothing but basically saying that anyone who has an issue is an idiot and / or has an incorrect understanding/work flow, or even better an incorrect expectation/assumption of how its supposed to work in contradiction to how Steinberg believe it should work.. !!


Honestly; what would you have him say? He tested it - it's not a problem on his system - and he admits it might be a problem on other peoples'.

Man you have a short memory, how is that any different to the usual suspects who attacked you over the solo/mute issues you fought tooth and nail over.


I just meant that if someone says they can't find a bug it could mean either that they're engaging in this "M.O." OR that they actually can't find a bug when really trying. Since the answer would be the same you can't automatically know that it's "the same M.O.", because they could actually be right.

When it comes to that dude, this is his all too familiar M.O with anything and everything, go read in on his contributions on the peak file/memory usage debate for example.

On that note, allow me to back away slowly, I have more important things to do..

:pop_corn:

[MattiasNYC]

LOL, you have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about testing anything in regards to Nuendo anymore.

FYI -Sam is a valued client and friend and one of the most proficient Nuendo Power users I have ever met , I don't need to question or challenge anything he states , as I already know he wouldn't be stating it otherwise,

I know I've been mistaken more than once in my life. Perhaps it applies to others as well?....


the shill on the other hand is doing nothing but basically saying that anyone who has an issue is an idiot and / or has an incorrect understanding/work flow, or even better an incorrect expectation/assumption of how its supposed to work in contradiction to how Steinberg believe it should work.. !!

But this is where you're wrong if you're reading the thread carefully. He's not saying that "anyone who has an issue is an idiot and / or has an incorrect understanding/work flow" etc. He's saying that he couldn't reproduce the problems, and that many times the problems are misunderstanding the software. He then even says "not to say it isn't happening on your system".

What you're doing now is just taking anything that doesn't conform with your criticism of Steinberg as being shilling. Trust me, I don't mean to be disrespectful to you now, but I honestly think you're not realizing that. I really think he's fairly accurate with what he's saying in that thread.


Man you have a short memory, how is that any different to the usual suspects who attacked you over the solo/mute issues you fought tooth and nail over.

The difference would be that Steinberg now could have fixed many issues, and that some of what's now being brought up could indeed be misunderstanding of the software. Of course, like I said, if you take any and all disagreements as being shilling you'd never know this.


When it comes to that dude, this is his all too familiar M.O with anything and everything, go read in on his contributions on the peak file/memory usage debate for example.

Well, I don't have a file on people so I have no idea what he's said before. And like I said before, and with all due respect, in that particular thread I don't think he was shilling at all. I just call'em as I see'em.


On that note, allow me to back away slowly, I have more important things to do..

:pop_corn:

As have I really. But I procrastinate. It's what I do. If I got paid for that I'd be filthy rich......

Talk to you later....