question about the Nuendo sound

[Sinewave]

Hello guys,
The other day i downloaded Samplitude v 8 demo, and i was really impressed with the sound of this app, but i heard that Nuendo has a great sound to it also , since I am looking to upgrade from my old app and i am not able to get my hands on a nuendo demo, or visit a studio that has it, can anyone give me there opinions about the sound of nuendo.
I record mostly jazz and world music so i need a mostly transparent or neutral sound, i know that Samp has the ability to do that, but i am leaning towards Nuendo because it has a lot more features and can do a lot more things , also it has better Midi implimentation.
Your info would be helpful, thank you for your time.

Sinewave.

[obostic]

Sinewave,

I guess it depends on how you work. Everything you mentioned is pretty accurate IMO. As far as the sound quality between the two apps Samp has an edge, but for MIDI and tracking that may involve loop recording and track lanes etc. it's Nuendo's game. So, I guess the question is whether sound is more important over functionality and ease of use.

I use Sequoia for recording and Sonar 5 for MIDI. Simple recording is OK in Sequoia/Samp but, if you need to do multiple takes and string together performances good luck with Samp. It's not impossible, but definitely not an easy task as with Nuendo or even Sonar. On the plus side, Nuendo has the hardware insert functionality with delay compensation if you want to incorporate analog gear such as reverbs or EQs. If I wasn't so pleased with the Sound Samp, I will clearly choose Nuendo for it's functionality.

As far as the sound difference, my collegues and I have observed Samp has a more natural sound, than Nuendo; of course other people will hear things different and that the nature of the beast.

My advice is test both apps side by side and make your decision because what I have learned in testing DAWs people like different chacteristics in sound and from experimentation each DAW sound a little different and what I like may not suit your taste.

[zakco]

Originally Posted by obostic

Sinewave,

As far as the sound quality between the two apps Samp has an edge,

Huh? In what regard?

Are you talking about the quality of the stock processors? The mix bus?

Do tell....

-Z-

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by zakco

Huh? In what regard?

Are you talking about the quality of the stock processors? The mix bus?

Do tell....

-Z-

More folks who have not discovered Lynn Fustons DAW test.....


TH

[Sinewave]

thank you Oceantracks for your reply, i will have to check studio's who may have Nuendo so that i can give it a listen to . any body has any idea when N4 will be out?



Sinewave.

[Farview]

FYI, If you are only doing audio, Cubase and Nuendo are the same. Nuendo has more broadcast and surround capabilities, but the audio engine and midi implementation is the same. That will save you about $1500

[oceantracks]

Originally Posted by Sinewave

thank you Oceantracks for your reply, i will have to check studio's who may have Nuendo so that i can give it a listen to . any body has any idea when N4 will be out?



Sinewave.

I spent over a decade with Pro Tools, moved to Logic for a few months, then Nuendo, and I couldn't be happier. It's a great program and does anything you can imagine.

Tom H

[tnjazz]

Originally Posted by Farview

FYI, If you are only doing audio, Cubase and Nuendo are the same. Nuendo has more broadcast and surround capabilities, but the audio engine and midi implementation is the same. That will save you about $1500

Agreed. If you're not doing film and surround, Cubase SX is the smart choice.

Dirk
(lowly Nuendo 1.62 user)

[antiguru]

very happy nuendo user, the ease of workflow is great. Awesome option for doing heavy post-production as well, with great file organization options.

[john caldwell]

Is it common concensus that nuendo offers better fidelity that Pro Tools? I've heard it said, but is it widely believed?

John-

[Sinewave]

Originally Posted by Farview

FYI, If you are only doing audio, Cubase and Nuendo are the same. Nuendo has more broadcast and surround capabilities, but the audio engine and midi implementation is the same. That will save you about $1500

Thanks for the advice, but i also want to to surround work.


Sinewave.

[ricknaqvi]

Thanks for the advice, but i also want to to surround work.

Cubase SX3 will do 5.1 surround.

I use both Nuendo (on a rackmount PC) and Cubase SX3 (on a laptop) and they are identical sonically (same audio engine). If you need a lot of video sync features and think you might be doing 7.1 then Nuendo is the way to go.

Cheers,

[Solunaris]

Nuendo sounds good. Pro Tools sounds good too.

[Sinewave]

Originally Posted by arrogantbastard

Nuendo sounds good. Pro Tools sounds good too.

Yes, but how is the sound compared to Samplitude ? Since i can't get my hands on a Nuendo demo, i'm only guessing.


Sinewave.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by ricknaqvi

Cubase SX3 will do 5.1 surround.

I use both Nuendo (on a rackmount PC) and Cubase SX3 (on a laptop) and they are identical sonically (same audio engine). If you need a lot of video sync features and think you might be doing 7.1 then Nuendo is the way to go.

Totally!

I looked at them both last year & ended up picking SX3 because I'm not doing much if any video and I've got NO idea what 7.1 IS let alone a desire, need or even a request to mix in it!

[zakco]

Originally Posted by oceantracks

More folks who have not discovered Lynn Fustons DAW test.....


TH

yep.

[by-tor]

Instead of an ignore person feature we need an ignore thread button. Anytime someone is asking about what DAW sounds better that could be blocked. I feel that the differences are so small any decent engineer could do good work in any of them. I have the DAW cd it was very interesting.

[warhead]

Nuendo sounds wonderful, I don't know why exactly but...it sounds more like a record.

War

[kurtr2]

i recently moved to cubase sx on a pc from DP on a mac g5. i have using DP for 10+ years. Cubase definitely sounds better. no question for me.
kurt

[Amstel]

Can somebody tell me whether there's a huge difference between PT le and Cubase sx 3 considering the sound quality?

[fross]

Please, not another "my platform sounds better than yours" thread. Just do a search, it's all been said already.
(Nuendo 3 user here)

[GPl]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

Totally!

I looked at them both last year & ended up picking SX3 because I'm not doing much if any video and I've got NO idea what 7.1 IS let alone a desire, need or even a request to mix in it!

Besides, you can always go the upgrade path if you really need the feature set in nuendo.

[Crandall1]

Shit. Nuendo sounds so good, you hardly have to mix. Just record and print to stereo. It's way better than all the other poser DAWs!

Seriously, though. I need to have and use pretty much every DAW installed in order to test for Audio Damage, but for my musical work I use Nuendo. I'll say this much: of the top-level apps (Nuendo/Cubase, Logic, PT, Sequoia, etc.) they all sound exactly alike to me, and I use the same sound files to test on every application. Since I do this all day every day, I'd notice if something sounded drastically different.

I will point out that, once you're using a lot of a DAW's built in EQ and compression, the "sound" changes dramatically, so you should compare if you can, and buy the one that comes with the features and workflow you need and/or like the most. The "sound" itself is 99.999% a function of the input chain and convertors, not the DAW.

[kats]

Can somebody tell me whether there's a huge difference between PT le and Cubase sx 3 considering the sound quality?

The only difference I can think of that would have an affect would be ADC. If your nudging around in LE you might not get it as exact as with ADC on cubase. Other than that, I wouldn't know.

[kurtr2]

whos to say, really? it could also come from the particular interaction of your physical computer components. i dont know, but i do know at this point that all information is not the same in the digital world. there are physical realities that have affects. otherwise why would aes sound better than lightpipe?? "but its the same digital information, isnt it? why would it be different? it shouldnt be different!". so there leads into discussions about jitter and PPL's and such and what you find out is that there are ghosts in all these machines. there is so much computation that goes into manipulating sound that just the mathematics of a particular DAW might change the way it "sounds". i mean lets face it a DAW isnt dealing with sound at all anyway!! its dealing with math. and the way the code translates back into sound could be different depending on the various codes of these DAW's. i know i pick a strange time to go out on a limb on this subject but its hitting me now so here you have it.
in fact i just want to point out that even in discussions with heavyweights about music in the digital world, there is wide discrepency even about the way things work!
i personally have come to the realization that music when encoded into digital is set in a certain way numerically to reflect the sound that went into it. the more you apply computation to the digital transcription of that sound the more obscured it becomes from the original, and the more you inevitably fight to get it back.
sorry if i stray off topic.
k

[obostic]

Originally Posted by kurtr2

whos to say, really? it could also come from the particular interaction of your physical computer components. i dont know, but i do know at this point that all information is not the same in the digital world. there are physical realities that have affects. otherwise why would aes sound better than lightpipe?? "but its the same digital information, isnt it? why would it be different? it shouldnt be different!". so there leads into discussions about jitter and PPL's and such and what you find out is that there are ghosts in all these machines. there is so much computation that goes into manipulating sound that just the mathematics of a particular DAW might change the way it "sounds". i mean lets face it a DAW isnt dealing with sound at all anyway!! its dealing with math. and the way the code translates back into sound could be different depending on the various codes of these DAW's. i know i pick a strange time to go out on a limb on this subject but its hitting me now so here you have it.
in fact i just want to point out that even in discussions with heavyweights about music in the digital world, there is wide discrepency even about the way things work!
i personally have come to the realization that music when encoded into digital is set in a certain way numerically to reflect the sound that went into it. the more you apply computation to the digital transcription of that sound the more obscured it becomes from the original, and the more you inevitably fight to get it back.
sorry if i stray off topic.
k

Very well put and I concur 100%!!

[Bassmec]

Originally Posted by Crandall1

Shit. Nuendo sounds so good, you hardly have to mix. Just record and print to stereo. It's way better than all the other poser DAWs!

Seriously, though. I need to have and use pretty much every DAW installed in order to test for Audio Damage, but for my musical work I use Nuendo. I'll say this much: of the top-level apps (Nuendo/Cubase, Logic, PT, Sequoia, etc.) they all sound exactly alike to me, and I use the same sound files to test on every application. Since I do this all day every day, I'd notice if something sounded drastically different.

I will point out that, once you're using a lot of a DAW's built in EQ and compression, the "sound" changes dramatically, so you should compare if you can, and buy the one that comes with the features and workflow you need and/or like the most. The "sound" itself is 99.999% a function of the input chain and convertors, not the DAW.

Quite right too all you satan worshiping stienbergers out there. What do you do when the bloudy light goes of for some inexplicable reason on the dongle cheep plastic thingy and It dont go anymore. Or your drummer is in a masterful bit of click track follow in a go large yank festival and the budapest philharmonic are doing the strings on two tracks of the neuendo box providing it. And the effing 8 out box plug faffs up cos the little black shroud bit has fell in half. Cant you blokes just make the little bits a lot better. We are endorsee's and they would not replace the cable we had to get a whole new box sent why? Neuendo sounds alright but I kinda like some of my TDM plugins. Also even the Protools cheap boxes are put together fairly good. after all it would be 02 LE equivalent your up for isnt it. Oh heretical types that doth rail against the one true light.

[Kiwiburger]

Yea verily, the dongle sucketh mightily.

Get Reaper - 64 bit sound engine, varispeed,

[amost]

Nuendo guy here but had to have a form of PT so I now have 002. Just when I'm ready to ditch it I decide I like it...I wish it was HD but it ain't. I think my mixes sound better in N but I like the mondo aux thing in PT & actually like listening to some of the mixes in that. For whatever reason I consistently like the sound of my mixed snare in Nuendo..same file & all. Prefer recording in PT(asbestos undies on), like the sound of N better but as has been said..this stuff's been flamed to death already. Search on. Enjoy

[Bassmec]

Originally Posted by amost

Nuendo guy here but had to have a form of PT so I now have 002. Just when I'm ready to ditch it I decide I like it...I wish it was HD but it ain't. I think my mixes sound better in N but I like the mondo aux thing in PT & actually like listening to some of the mixes in that. For whatever reason I consistently like the sound of my mixed snare in Nuendo..same file & all. Prefer recording in PT(asbestos undies on), like the sound of N better but as has been said..this stuff's been flamed to death already. Search on. Enjoy

I find my ungodly hip hop clients prefer the snare in twelve bit via sonic decimator
on PT, give it flight. Then and only then shall we hear the snare take on the hellish signiture of the gravediggers shoveling gravel. A version thereof is available in its true iniquity only from the class b output Urei 1176. The evil natured manual waxes long about using the correct signal level to avoid such things. These are not truths these are pure lie's