Hello,

thanks for your replys.

I am absolutely with you when you say it is important to give feedback, comments and critics to the developers!
But for my understanding it is not really construtive to give short feedbacks that have fixed positions as:
this is unusable (I noticed that he pointed out that it unusable for him) or this is unacceptable.

On those points (even if you feel like that) you cannot get much out off it. The only info that you give is: I am not ok with your product! (yes, you gave the reason before - but still!)
It leaves the developer without any arguments anymore - I hope you understand that. What is he supposed to reply?
You could have ask (as Mateusz stated about his setup) about that setup to get further information. Mateusz cannot look into your computer or project - and there a thousands of variables that can cause that a problem.

I think feedback and also critics must be welcome, but destructive statements (this was not level 100, but still ...) are not contributing to solve problems, find bugs or just for the communication.

Sorry, I do not want to make a psychological thing out of it - but I felt I needed to answer.

Best,
Steff

Thank you Steff, you make my life easier
This is what i exactly meant. Feedback from our users as well as support are important for us but the post with the information that the plug-in is useless because the song is saving slow is also "useless" for us.
I will take a look at saving/loading process in the MasterQ and I will check what could be done to make it faster but I would not like to loose the processing quality just to make it faster.

Regards,

And one more thing. Our goal is to provide good products and we prefer a communicative feedback because unlike some other copmanies we like to respond to comments and as you know we often find individual solutions whenever our product is not adequate for customer's needs.

Best to all,

Perhaps I'm missing the point here. What else do you need from me Mateusz? I am reporting behavior that occurs only when your plug is inserted. That's what Rune did. We don't know why. That's why we're telling you so that you can, as you say, " take a look at saving/loading process in the MasterQ and I will check what could be done to make it faster".

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE HOPING YOU WOULD DO!! Thankyou!!

I have to ask you to be specific too Mateusz, Steff... What more are we supposed to report other than the issue???

Mateusz... are you being serious here? I have confirmed or identified two bugs -- one in MasterQ -- the past two weeks which you've fixed. AND, I've written you personal letters of support, as well as publicly praised your plug-ins here and in other forums. This isn't helpful or encouraging?

I guess I'm just a little shocked that reporting how your plug-in behaves or misbehaves in our software is somehow "useless" to you. I can't see any behavioral information being useless to you -- ESPECIALLY when more than one user with different setups/applications etc. is reporting the exact same (or actually worse) behavior!

To be fair, it is not usable for me in a mix situation where I'm saving on the go; however, it could be used in off-line processing (but again, I EQ in the mix, so I would use an EQ that does not have this unusual issue).

Question? Maybe I've got this plug-in confused. Is it supposed to be used in mixes, or is it meant to be used by a Mastering engineer? If that's the case, then I've totally misunderstood the product. I am treating it like a Sonalksis or Cambridge.

[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: mmallett ]

By the way, how's the weather in Poland these days?

[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: mmallett ]

It is about -10C, some snow and fine sunshine

Well... what other information would you like me to add so that this thread is useful Mateusz?

Yes, I am. The problem is not that you "found" two bugs (the MasterQ problem is in my opinion Steinberg's bug and I had to remove some plug-in's functionality to avoid it) but the way you made it and that you reported 4 other pseudo bugs in not acceptable and "useless" way. You also continue to post everything that comes to your mind on our (and maybe not only) forum which creates a situation like this was a forum of one person. If I had to choose between your 20 bug reports + some optimistic posts and nothing I would choose nothing. If you really feel that something is wrong with our plug-in please email me or post it in a usefull, descriptive and detailed way. Posting it on every forum you know without giving a chanse to fix it doesn't bring us closer to the solution.



I think that you missunderstood. I am not against reporting problems but we have have exact description of the problem and all conditions around it to understand what happens and distinguish application/configuration problem from our own bug. In oposite you tend to post reports in a way which doesn't help us to understand and undentify the problem but rather make a reall mess on the forum.



OK. The MasterQ is designed for purposes where the quality comes to a first place. If other plug-ins feet the best your requirements then use them. Of course we will verify if there isn't a solution that wouldn'tchange the plug-in's processing but our first priority for this plug-in is the sound. If the saving time makes this plug-in useless for you it only mean that it doesn't attract you.



It depends not on our idea about using it but it depends on your priorities and requirements. If you feel that another plug-in sounds best on vocal, acc guitar or the mix please use it, if you found that the MasterQ sounds best oduring mastering use it this way. In my opinion the MasterQ is a kind of huge plug-in which due to its complexity should be used on chosen tracks, selected groups, entire mix or during mastering.

Regards,