Jonbouy
You have, given your position in the industry full awareness that many programs perform very well in doing what they are supposed to do without issue, some do it exceptionally well even given the complexities, which in many cases are much easier from a developer perspective to deal with than they were 15 years ago when you consider we all can have storage, processor power and memory to burn these days along with more unified support for developers on different platforms than in days of yore. Some developers even manage to provide cross platform support, imagine that. Identical behaviour on more than one OS, so it can't be because the technical stuff it TOO technical to be of any use surely.
It therefore makes me wonder your motivation for making comments like this when you are totally aware the complaints and causes for complaint are far more overwhelming here than they are most other places. Most forums I visit you have to look pretty hard to replicate an issue someone is having, here they are pretty hard to avoid. I'd say that was a huge difference that isn't covered by the populist comment that ALL software has issues. Most products issues aren't the major feature they have been consistently seen to be here after the last few good years.
A couple things. First, regarding Mike's comment, in no way did I take that as any kind of negative criticism regarding anything I've done. I took it as free consulting about an article that should indeed be written, with much of the research already done for me
Now, regarding Jonbouy's comments regarding my "motivation" for commenting that technology has outstripped the ability of software engineers to cope, and that we would be seeing more systems dedicated to audio in the future, with a "you buy this system, we'll guarantee our software runs on it" kind of approach.
Hmmm...just like Pro Tools has been doing for many, many years
First, because I
do run a lot of programs, I have to say that reliability in comparison to Sonar
in my work is a quantitative, not qualitative, difference. They all have problems. I just went to the Cubase 7 forum and here are the first few thread topics:
VST Connect & VST Connect SE - Solution Thread
Steinberg have plans to compile a Linux version of Cubase?
Peaking with no project loaded?
Do you rate Cubase 7 [in which one post said "do you mean 'rate' or 'hate'?"]
Working functions that changed to not work in C7
2:15 Minutes to Open Project?
Warp various tracks simultaneously
Process Plugin on Audio File / Cubase Crashes!
Export Realtime ---> DISK OVERLOAD
no independent send panning?
Where is the EQ Cruve in the Inspector?
Like Sonar, Cubase is a very ambitious program. The more ambitious, the more possibilities for problems. Look at the first few threads in NI's forums regarding Kontakt, too; it's not just DAWs.
I've often stated publicly that I've experienced two exceptions in terms of overall reliability. Ableton Live and Reason have been unusually reliable for me (although Live users certainly savaged the initial release of 8), which is why those are the only two programs I've ever used for live performance. I attribute this to three things. First, both companies do extensive public betas, so the programs get used on a huge variety of systems. Second, Reason's environment prohibits plug-ins other than rack extensions meeting their specs, and is rigidly controlled. Third, both companies have a very definite vision of the program's intentions, and do not include functionality that doesn't support that primary vision. Therefore they concentrate on perfecting a more limited set of core functionalities.
Studio One Pro is also very reliable for the core functions, but some of the details get dropped. 2.5 was almost all about tightening down the screws rather than adding a bunch of new features, which again, is consistent with their vision of the program.
Part of my "motivation" for making that statement is that (and I hope I'm wrong) I believe the situation is only going to get worse, and I feel people need to be aware of what appears to be a trend. In that sense, what I call "ambitious" programs are the canaries in the coal mine that give us insights into what happens when software becomes more complex, yet has to deal with increasingly complex hardware ecosystems.
Finally, as to the video not being MTV-friendly, that's a given. I mostly do "lyric videos" because after all, I'm posting the stuff on YouTube, so there needs to be some kind of visual component. I did the "Sonar video" for fun; people will either like the music or not, so the video is more like the bonus track on a CD. In this particular case and my posting the link here, I simply thought that people who use Sonar would get a kick out of seeing it used as the sole element in a video, and also, that it might serve as a springboard for discussion, like picking up on the "wrong" use of compression. And yes, automating a kick drum the way I did
is kind of "not normal"

.