NUENDO 4 IS OUT!!!

[crypticglobe]

Originally Posted by zvenx

Steve is it possible to video tape it and maybe one day put it on youtube or podcast it or something?
Greg makes everything so easy.
rsp

I don't have the time or resources to do it. However, if someone wants to do it, I have no objections. I will ask Greg if it's ok.

Thanks,

[DAWgEAR]

This is not a rant or complaint, but a friendly and constructive suggestion. I appreciate all that Fredo has contributed and I think that the policy is very clear to anybody willing to read the specifics. This is just an observation that can potentially make things even easier and benefit all parties.

Why not ...

(1) Write the code for an application including every conceivable feature -- music, post, whatever -- and call it "Nuendo". It has evereything imaginable; it is the flagship for working professionals who want it all. Price it high -- where Nuendo is currently priced -- to reflect this.

(2) Using the same code as in (1), disable the advanced features -- all of the post features and most of the more specialized music features (score, drum editor, external effects, automation, etc.) -- and call it "Cubase". It is the product targeted at the music enthusiast/Guitar Center crowd. Price it at $299 or thereabouts. I imagine this to be comparable to the current Cubase Studio, more or less.

(3) Sell a la carte add-on packs. That is, sell a variety of codes that can activate certain features on the dongle. Price these so that a user who buys what I have called "Cubase" and decides they need all of the features in Nuendo has the option to buy them all as separate add-ons, but the total cost will come in higher than just buying Nuendo. Most customers will fall somewhere in between.

What would this accomplish?

(A) It's simple. Two products, two brand names with a clear target customer for each.

(B) Customers who do not exactly fall within one of the two target customer groups (e.g. a bedroom music enthusiast who simply wants advanced automation only, but none of the other advanced features) is accommodated. Steinberg does not have to define the customer groups; the customers define themselves individually based on their needs at the time and how much they are willing to pay. Nobody is frustrated.

(C) Nobody complains about leapfrogging or that the "other" users have a feature we don't. All features (and options to buy add-ons) are released the same day. Anybody can have any feature at any time after release so long as they are willing to pay for it.

(D) Less cost to Steinberg in terms of packaging, shipping, distribution costs. Two kinds of boxes: Cubase or Nuendo. Both have the exact same code on the DVD. Except for Nuendo, the add-ons are disabled/locked and activated using the dongle by purchasing a code online.

(E) It takes fewer programming/development resources at Steinberg since it is only one code base. All users have the exact same code, but only those who have purchased the add-ons can unlock certain features. Updates and improvements can happen more quickly making everyone happier. Steinberg can use the saved resources to develop new features, strengthen the copy protection, or whatever.

(F) Anyone who has studied economics knows that what I am describing is known as price discrimination and bundling, and that these practices result in increased profit for Steinberg by capturing more consumer surplus.

Win-win for everyone involved.

Fredo, if you are still reading, please consider passing this along to Steinberg for consideration.

Respectfully,
DAWgEAR

[Animus]

Very good idea Dawgear. btw, Cubase and Nuendo ***is*** the same codebase right now.

[laser]

Originally Posted by DAWgEAR

This is not a rant or complaint, but a friendly and constructive suggestion. I appreciate all that Fredo has contributed and I think that the policy is very clear to anybody willing to read the specifics. This is just an observation that can potentially make things even easier and benefit all parties.

Why not ...

(1) Write the code for an application including every conceivable feature -- music, post, whatever -- and call it "Nuendo". It has evereything imaginable; it is the flagship for working professionals who want it all. Price it high -- where Nuendo is currently priced -- to reflect this.

(2) Using the same code as in (1), disable the advanced features -- all of the post features and most of the more specialized music features (score, drum editor, external effects, automation, etc.) -- and call it "Cubase". It is the product targeted at the music enthusiast/Guitar Center crowd. Price it at $299 or thereabouts. I imagine this to be comparable to the current Cubase Studio, more or less.

(3) Sell a la carte add-on packs. That is, sell a variety of codes that can activate certain features on the dongle. Price these so that a user who buys what I have called "Cubase" and decides they need all of the features in Nuendo has the option to buy them all as separate add-ons, but the total cost will come in higher than just buying Nuendo. Most customers will fall somewhere in between.

What would this accomplish?

(A) It's simple. Two products, two brand names with a clear target customer for each.

(B) Customers who do not exactly fall within one of the two target customer groups (e.g. a bedroom music enthusiast who simply wants advanced automation only, but none of the other advanced features) is accommodated. Steinberg does not have to define the customer groups; the customers define themselves individually based on their needs at the time and how much they are willing to pay. Nobody is frustrated.

(C) Nobody complains about leapfrogging or that the "other" users have a feature we don't. All features (and options to buy add-ons) are released the same day. Anybody can have any feature so long as they are willing to pay for it.

(D) Less cost to Steinberg in terms of packaging, shipping, distribution costs. Two kinds of boxes: Cubase or Nuendo. Both have the exact same code on the DVD. Except for Nuendo, the add-ons are disabled/locked and activated using the dongle by purchasing a code online.

(E) It takes fewer programming/development resources at Steinberg since it is only one code base. All users have the exact same code, but only those who have purchased the add-ons can unlock certain features. Updates and improvements can happen more quickly making everyone happier. Steinberg can use the saved resources to develop new features, strengthen the copy protection, or whatever.

(F) Anyone who has studied economics knows that what I am describing is known as price discrimination and bundling, and that these practices result in increased profit for Steinberg by capturing more consumer surplus.

Win-win for everyone involved.

Fredo, if you are still reading, please consider passing this along to Steinberg for consideration.

Respectfully,
DAWgEAR

Excellent post. This is exactly what Samplitude/Sequoia does.

The fact that many of Steinberg's customers are complaining is a clear indication that it wasn't well conceived, well presented, or both. Personally, I think if they had added the drum editor in the standard Nuendo package, few would be complaining. The score editor and other functions in the NEK are relatively deficient to those who really need them. Drum editor seems pretty usable.

Win-win business model........what an interesting and novel concept .


Laser

[sharky]

Originally Posted by DAWgEAR

This is not a rant or complaint, but a friendly and constructive suggestion. I appreciate all that Fredo has contributed and I think that the policy is very clear to anybody willing to read the specifics. This is just an observation that can potentially make things even easier and benefit all parties.

Why not ...

(1) Write the code for an application including every conceivable feature -- music, post, whatever -- and call it "Nuendo". It has evereything imaginable; it is the flagship for working professionals who want it all. Price it high -- where Nuendo is currently priced -- to reflect this.

(2) Using the same code as in (1), disable the advanced features -- all of the post features and most of the more specialized music features (score, drum editor, external effects, automation, etc.) -- and call it "Cubase". It is the product targeted at the music enthusiast/Guitar Center crowd. Price it at $299 or thereabouts. I imagine this to be comparable to the current Cubase Studio, more or less.

(3) Sell a la carte add-on packs. That is, sell a variety of codes that can activate certain features on the dongle. Price these so that a user who buys what I have called "Cubase" and decides they need all of the features in Nuendo has the option to buy them all as separate add-ons, but the total cost will come in higher than just buying Nuendo. Most customers will fall somewhere in between.

What would this accomplish?

(A) It's simple. Two products, two brand names with a clear target customer for each.

(B) Customers who do not exactly fall within one of the two target customer groups (e.g. a bedroom music enthusiast who simply wants advanced automation only, but none of the other advanced features) is accommodated. Steinberg does not have to define the customer groups; the customers define themselves individually based on their needs at the time and how much they are willing to pay. Nobody is frustrated.

(C) Nobody complains about leapfrogging or that the "other" users have a feature we don't. All features (and options to buy add-ons) are released the same day. Anybody can have any feature so long as they are willing to pay for it.

(D) Less cost to Steinberg in terms of packaging, shipping, distribution costs. Two kinds of boxes: Cubase or Nuendo. Both have the exact same code on the DVD. Except for Nuendo, the add-ons are disabled/locked and activated using the dongle by purchasing a code online.

(E) It takes fewer programming/development resources at Steinberg since it is only one code base. All users have the exact same code, but only those who have purchased the add-ons can unlock certain features. Updates and improvements can happen more quickly making everyone happier. Steinberg can use the saved resources to develop new features, strengthen the copy protection, or whatever.

(F) Anyone who has studied economics knows that what I am describing is known as price discrimination and bundling, and that these practices result in increased profit for Steinberg by capturing more consumer surplus.

Win-win for everyone involved.

Fredo, if you are still reading, please consider passing this along to Steinberg for consideration.

Respectfully,
DAWgEAR

EXACTLY. This is sort of what I mean when I talk about Steinberg's unusual Cubase/Nuendo situation. I guess my point is that their product line doesn't scale feature-wise in a "direction" that is obvious. I mean, how many people continue to ask and be confused by whether they want Cubase or Nuendo. This would be a great method I think.

Also, as to the poster that talked about the Steinberg forums. Yes, they can be rough. In fairness I think sometimes the user-base can be a tad unfair, but at the same time there have been some truly bad rollouts of software by Steinberg, and I think people get angry about paying to basically be beta testers. But the atmosphere in the forums can be very venomous to be sure.

That being said, I think Cubase and Nuendo are fantastic products and if I were using a PC for my DAW they would certainly be my choice.

That doesn't change the fact that I think it would do Steinberg a world of good to have the products/features they sell be packaged/bundled in a more user friendly manner.

[TAFKAT]

Originally Posted by ABGen

Sorry dude but you are being totally contentious and rude. Fredo has answered your questions and given you and all of us the links and info we need. Nuendo and Cubase are far superior products to Sonar - and in a completely different league. There is no comparison.

Hmmmm,

Really ?

Sorry Man, you must have a better level of comprehension, so maybe you can help me understand this a little more clearly.. :-)

Can you explain to me then what exactly is a "Preview Version" , is it in fact a Public Beta ?

If so , at what stage of development is the "Preview/ Public Beta version deemed ?

The question was not that hard.. , and its been ducked and dodged across multiple forums.. !

Re Being contentious and rude , I give as good as I get.., perhaps get more acquainted with Fredo's demeanour before you settle on a view.. !

BTW: Re SONAR V Nubase - Where have I stated that SONAR is a better product and either way, I am sure there are more than a few SONAR users that will have a differing opinion to your last statement.. :-)

Lets see how Steini's x64 Product compares to Cakewalks competing product before we form an opinion in that regard , eh.. :-)

V:

[ABGen]

Originally Posted by TAFKAT

Hmmmm,

Really ?

Sorry Man, you must have a better level of comprehension, so maybe you can help me understand this a little more clearly.. :-)

Can you explain to me then what exactly is a "Preview Version" , is it in fact a Public Beta ?

If so , at what stage of development is the "Preview/ Public Beta version deemed ?

The question was not that hard.. , and its been ducked and dodged across multiple forums.. !

Re Being contentious and rude , I give as good as I get.., perhaps get more acquainted with Fredo's demeanour before you settle on a view.. !

BTW: Re SONAR V Nubase - Where have I stated that SONAR is a better product and either way, I am sure there are more than a few SONAR users that will have a differing opinion to your last statement.. :-)

Lets see how Steini's x64 Product compares to Cakewalks competing product before we form an opinion in that regard , eh.. :-)

V:

Go on Steinberg.net and read and find the information you need. If you have further questions - show up at the live demo at AES or in Nashville and ask Steinberg in person. Your attitude has pushed people away from further responses. For future reference - you will get more with honey than you will with vinegar.

Sonar is a fine program and is growing in its capabilities and stability. Steinberg sets the standards for the industry. Please let me know if you know of any major studio relying on Sonar for Post production for film, games, etc. - you will find studios relying on Nuendo - and more and more moving from PT's to Nuendo. I trust the choices of the experts I look up to - and take their advice into consideration when looking to buy new gear or software - as someone said above - for us "basement" / home producers.

[TAFKAT]

??

I have read the information, and requested clarification, you claim to be clear , I asked you to clarify !

Its cool if you can't , just save me the melodramatics..

All you have managed to do is type quite a few sentences without saying a thing in respect to what I actually posted !!

I have no idea why you are persisting with this Steinberg v SONAR angle with me, its not something that I brought to the table, so readjust your sights Mate, you're way off target .. !

BTW: I'm sorry, I didn't realise you are a spokesman for Steinberg and the collective membership at Gearslutz.. ??

I'll keep that in mind in future ..

V:

[ABGen]

Originally Posted by TAFKAT

??

I have read the information, and requested clarification, you claim to be clear , I asked you to clarify !

Its cool if you can't , just save me the melodramatics..

All you have managed to do is type quite a few sentences without saying a thing in respect to what I actually posted !!

I have no idea why you are persisting with this Steinberg v SONAR angle with me, its not something that I brought to the table, so readjust your sights Mate, you're way off target .. !

BTW: I'm sorry, I didn't realise you are a spokesman for Steinberg and the collective membership at Gearslutz.. ??

I'll keep that in mind in future ..

V:

You have been given either direct answers to your questions or the resources to get those answers. AES will prove to be quite an education I'm sure. Only 1 week away.

PS - Apology accepted.

[BrianT]

Originally Posted by ABGen

For future reference - you will get more with honey than you will with vinegar.

Is there an echo in here............................?

[shanabit]

Dont you boys stink it up enough at Nuendo.com ? Why the need to bring it here??

[ABGen]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Is there an echo in here............................?

[composer]

Originally Posted by Dysanfel

Looks nice, guess this will stop the Logic 8 threads.

Maybe, but are they dropping the price to $499 or still $2000?
LOL

[composer]

Originally Posted by Fredo

No demo as such, because at Steinberg they believe that someone who simply downloads a demo and starts playing with it has no objective idea of what the software can do. Even worse, 9 chances to 10 that they will be lost and find it too complicated. Know that Nuendo gets *really* up to speed with all the preferences and key commands set to your likings and workflow.

On the other hand, the dealers are getting paid for offering support to the customers, and providing demo's is one of the tasks.
I don't know how it works in other parts of teh world, but where I live it is no problem to use a NFR dongle for a little while.

Fredo

IS there still the dongle? I experienced a CPU use of about 4% with the dongle, nice to not see it, if it were so.

Thanks.

Wonder what the 4.1 Cubase would be and how GROOVE AGENT 3 compares to STRIKE.

I have LOGIC 8, but am very familiar with PT, Nuendo, but the next upgrade will really depend on drum module (STRIKE or GROOVE A) or will new BFD be the answer?

[Animus]

Originally Posted by composer

IS there still the dongle? I experienced a CPU use of about 4% with the dongle, nice to not see it, if it were so.

Thanks.

Wonder what the 4.1 Cubase would be and how GROOVE AGENT 3 compares to STRIKE.

I have LOGIC 8, but am very familiar with PT, Nuendo, but the next upgrade will really depend on drum module (STRIKE or GROOVE A) or will new BFD be the answer?

Groove Agent is more a loop player.

As far as sampled drums these are the answer: Steven Slate Drums

And just get Battery 3 or Kontakt 3.

[composer]

Originally Posted by AMIEL

So I guess the extra features of Nuendo 4 are not so imporatant if you do Music Production and Mixing only.

Yeah but can you do any post? Ala TV spots, commercials? Any time code support, surround? In Cubase 4? Remember, many sample developers create surround samples as well.

[redroom]

Originally Posted by composer

Yeah but can you do any post? Ala TV spots, commercials? Any time code support, surround? In Cubase 4? Remember, many sample developers create surround samples as well.

Cubase can do those but not as deep as Nuendo

[Psyko/Acoustics]

Originally Posted by composer

Maybe, but are they dropping the price to $499 or still $2000?
LOL

[TornadoTed]

I agree with DAWgEAR on pretty much everything but why bother having Cubase and Nuendo why not just have one programme with one name.

I like the idea of having a basic programme very cheap and then unlocking features/modules that you need such as,

Advanced MIDI with extra VSTi's
Post
Score editor
Control room
etc

Then you could create the programme that you need.

Maybe even a time limited 'rent to own' option for the modules so if you found yourself getting more work from a certain direction you could buy that module over time.

Myself and another half a dozen people I know use Nuendo and none of us do post! They just have it because it is generally more stable than Cubase and has a better reputation with potential clients.

This Nuendo release has gone down like a lead balloon, Steinberg need to sort their s8it out or they are gonna get left behind. I am sure it would be far easier for them to have one team, one DAW to market rather than having them split into 2 camps.

[Str1ker]

Has Cubase got the same Auto-Crossfade functions (for punch ins for example) like Nuendo?

[TheRealRoach]

Originally Posted by Str1ker

Has Cubase got the same Auto-Crossfade functions (for punch ins for example) like Nuendo?

Yes.

[Tunes 666]

Is anyone not eager to have the bug fixed that prevents you from using the full power of multi processing??

both C4 and N4 have a bug which kind of cripples your multi core processors when they start using their increased power.... the more cores the more decrease in tests done by users.

and aparantly this will not even be fixed in the approaching Cubase update...

Now to me this is very bad and should have been fixed pronto!

this is one thing that has had me looking over my shoulder at Sonar 7 which is very quickly becoming very attractive and well priced.

I do like Cubase... new EQ is nice...so on but I after waiting nearly a year for an update and am currently being bottle necked by my DAW, you cant help but wonder if they have enough staff on board.

[Tunes 666]

Originally Posted by Animus

Groove Agent is more a loop player.

As far as sampled drums these are the answer: Steven Slate Drums

And just get Battery 3 or Kontakt 3.

or you could check this out..

FXpansion - BFD 2 - coming soon!

and get one of these with it

https://www.platinumsamples.com/index.php

[beyarecords]

Originally Posted by The Super Dead

both C4 and N4 have a bug which kind of cripples your multi core processors when they start using their increased power.... the more cores the more decrease in tests done by users.

This is the current state of play with dual quad-core machines. It will be resolved shortly I believe, and yes, it should not have been an issue in the first place.

[redroom]

Originally Posted by The Super Dead

Is anyone not eager to have the bug fixed that prevents you from using the full power of multi processing??

both C4 and N4 have a bug which kind of cripples your multi core processors when they start using their increased power.... the more cores the more decrease in tests done by users.

and aparantly this will not even be fixed in the approaching Cubase update...

Now to me this is very bad and should have been fixed pronto!

this is one thing that has had me looking over my shoulder at Sonar 7 which is very quickly becoming very attractive and well priced.

I do like Cubase... new EQ is nice...so on but I after waiting nearly a year for an update and am currently being bottle necked by my DAW, you cant help but wonder if they have enough staff on board.

The issue with Multi cpus not being distrubuted correctly only rears its ugly head if your running low latencys wack up your buffers an dit will be fine.

[beyarecords]

Originally Posted by redroom

The issue with Multi cpus not being distrubuted correctly only rears its ugly head if your running low latencys wack up your buffers an dit will be fine.

Correct. If I remember correctly anything less than 128 samples will give you a bit of a headache!!

[Doublehelix]

Originally Posted by beyarecords

Correct. If I remember correctly anything less than 128ms will give you a bit of a headache!!

128 ms, or 128 samples??? Big difference!!!

[TAFKAT]

Originally Posted by redroom

The issue with Multi cpus not being distrubuted correctly only rears its ugly head if your running low latencys wack up your buffers an dit will be fine.

Thats not exactly correct..

Anything below 512 samples is severely hampered in regards to scalability , even at 512 , the scalability is still being effected quite substantially..

There is also another inherent resource allocation issue which manifests itself as a GUI problem where plugins will no longer display their GUI. It will escalate as the plugin count rises to a point where even the Windows skin will also be corrupted.

At that point the system is extremely volatile, even attempting to grab a screen shot will result in a "Insufficient memory to create bitmap . Close one or more applications to increase available memory " error..


The rub is on my Dual Quad system when running Blofelds DSP at 256 with maximum plugin count around an added 215 plugs , only 700MB of 4GB installed/3.2GB available is used, CPU resources was around 65% .. , so I was nowhere near tapping the system.

BTW: I can easily scale a single Quad to 95+ % at 256 and run 165 added plugs.

Scalability even at 256 from 4 to 8 cores is only around 22% , which is abysmal.

In comparison Scaling from 2 -4 Cores at the same setting is around 53%..

So even if they manage to resolve the X-scalability, they also need to address this resource allocation issue, or scalability will still be crippled.

BTW: The above issue with the GUI/Resource allocation is also experienced on Single Quad systems , when running a large number of plugins.. , so its not directly related to Dual Quads.., but manifests itself more severely on the Octo systems.. :-(

V:

[Tunes 666]

Originally Posted by sharky

EXACTLY. This is sort of what I mean when I talk about Steinberg's unusual Cubase/Nuendo situation. I guess my point is that their product line doesn't scale feature-wise in a "direction" that is obvious. I mean, how many people continue to ask and be confused by whether they want Cubase or Nuendo. This would be a great method I think.

Also, as to the poster that talked about the Steinberg forums. Yes, they can be rough. In fairness I think sometimes the user-base can be a tad unfair, but at the same time there have been some truly bad rollouts of software by Steinberg, and I think people get angry about paying to basically be beta testers. But the atmosphere in the forums can be very venomous to be sure.

That being said, I think Cubase and Nuendo are fantastic products and if I were using a PC for my DAW they would certainly be my choice.

That doesn't change the fact that I think it would do Steinberg a world of good to have the products/features they sell be packaged/bundled in a more user friendly manner.

For such a good DAW Steinberg do some stupid things.... they need to get a better relationship with their users and speed up the updates... I have to say though, Cubase 4.1 is looking very good for me....

[sharky]

Originally Posted by The Super Dead

For such a good DAW Steinberg do some stupid things.... they need to get a better relationship with their users and speed up the updates... I have to say though, Cubase 4.1 is looking very good for me....

I just d/led it. A lot of features in this update! It sort of surprised me. If it works smoothly it's a nice answer from Steinberg to Logic 8.

I've been working with Logic 8 a lot in the last few weeks and it's great, but the redraw bugs are starting to wear on me. I'll be giving C4.1 a shot on my next song and see how it goes.

The DAW manufacturers are aware of the stakes and now more (or as much) as ever this is leading to some nice developments for the end-user. Someone posted a bit ago that we're heading into the "golden age" of DAW's. I couldn't agree more.