Nuendo 6

[PeterN]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Looking at the nu-age controller, all I see is a lot of real estate, and not enough knobs.
What a waste of space.

Funny how different opinions can be. I have talked to people saying there are not enough "buttons" on it for user def key commands :-) However, when I remember the ICON I worked on I haven't been able to reach the top of the 6 fader rows without dislocating my arm.

However after longs years of using PT HD with Avid controllers (ProControl and ICON), Nuendo becomes more attractive to me in recent times. To me(!) there is simply more "in the box" for post meanwhile, like the ADR taker, finally (in 5.5 many important features have been missed to make it usable, like the swipes). But I will keep my PT rig for the time being, as there are still some features in there Nuendo has not (yet). Nevertheless Avid has to step up not too miss the boat for future developments of PT in the post area.

[Flix]

Any news on upgrade pricing yet?

I have a Nuendo 4 sitting around here, I didn't use it in 3 years, only PT work...

[tamasdragon]

What are those editing features which kills Pro Tools? Seriously, so many Nuendo users mention this. What are those features?

[Whitecat]

Originally Posted by tamasdragon

What are those editing features which kills Pro Tools? Seriously, so many Nuendo users mention this. What are those features?

It used to have a lot of stuff that PT didn't have.

Since PT9 and even moreso 10 the differences are really minor.

Clip gain was a big one for me, for example. PT has that now.

Not sure what is or isn't new with N6. I still have an N5 license but I use it very infrequently - I have one regular collaborator who is also on Nuendo and honestly we could probably just use AAFs to PT. So I might upgrade to N6, may not. Although Avid isn't in great shape these days I don't see Pro Tools "disappearing" anytime soon.

I'm very surprised that they are persisting with the 'NEK' thing... surely that was going to go away by now!

[GTBannah]

Originally Posted by Whitecat

....
I'm very surprised that they are persisting with the 'NEK' thing... surely that was going to go away by now!

There are still some people who would like to have MIDI and post in the same place.

[Whitecat]

Originally Posted by GTBannah

There are still some people who would like to have MIDI and post in the same place.

... what I meant by that was I'm surprised they didn't just "roll it in." Those features should be included.

Nuendo should be the flagship product... it's a bit of a scam that you'd have to pay extra for that stuff (no matter how Steinberg spins it, that's what it is, an upcharge...)

[ErikG]

Originally Posted by tamasdragon

What are those editing features which kills Pro Tools? Seriously, so many Nuendo users mention this. What are those features?

Well, it wasn't me, I didn't say kill...
It's really just two different types of "sound-hammers" but they are very different to bang in nails with. To each his own, but since you asked I'll try to give some examples of what I like.

Short background. I started using 2", then discovered sound tools, then Avid Audio Vision, then onto PT. We still have PT both "fully native" and HD systems. We deal with sound for feature films and drama TV mostly. Five audio editing rooms, two TV mix rooms, one dub stage, big ass foley stage and location recording. Currently building a in house picture department as well.
Started using Nuendo 2005 (at first in paralell with PT). PT gets used less and less these days...

Even though I wrote earlier in this thread part of the difference (the hammering in PT), I'll try:
PT editing is mainly based on the cursor and the range selection. Most things done in PT when editing is dealt with either by selecting a range or where events are in relation to the cursor as the basis of what type of edit is supposed to be done.

In Nuendo its the events that rule the world. You can force Nuendo into working with the cursor and selection pretty similar like in PT, but it is slower.
To give a event a three frame fade in i just hit fade in one frame three times.
For the next event I just want two frames, then one, then eight. Easy.
In PT I have to place the cursor and then fade head, but the exact length of that fade wont be a frame unless you've editied in grid mode or you've manually set your cursor exactly the length from the event start that you want.

Really the editing style difference cursor+selection vs. event goes much further than above, but I find it hard to explain. It IS different and in most ways faster in Nuendo.

Basing editing on events rather than selection has definitely made my chops a lot faster compared to when I was fast in PT.
Events+macros+userdefinable keystrokes=speed
You rarely see Nuendo users having to do awkward "three-finger-salutes" to get something done.

Any sound on any channel regardless of routing, solo state or if it's inactive is always available to preview. Just hit it with the preview tool and see if it's what you need (alt take/alt fx/muted sound etc). This is THE one feature I'm dying for when I have to work in PT. I can make do with PT as well, but replacing the possibility to audiotion anything anywhere with cumbersome solo defeating and shift s is a really crap way to deal with auditioning compared to Nuendo.

Then I might want to remove all muted events, or rename them or unmute them, Ill just use the PLE telling it to do just that. Or name my tracks accoding to my personal naming convention again using the PLE.
Or I'll just select my composite hero-gun and place it on the server as a clippackage, this can be searched and auditioned and re-used by all the other editors at will.

When in the mix I hear the director saying, "I need another style of ambiance for this quiet section, fix that while we continue with the action sequence". I could do headphones laptop in the rear of the dubstage trying to find and rebuild the scene, or I'll just share a copy of those tracks or elements on the network. Go to another studio, work on it, when done commit the changes, have the mixer review the changes and either play the fixes back from the fix tracks or just move them up to the original tracks. No file handling no import export, it's all handled in the background. I'm actually working on a mirror of the fix tracks in the mix room, hit commit and it will all transfer automatically back to the mix.

Of course you also have 32 marker tracks, import of EDL to see all the cuts and scene changes (without having to own expensive AVID gear). CSV import/export for ADR and spotting notes.

Batch process of audio events, where I can store a chain of processing used for a certain type of sound.

Process history so I can undo parts or all applied processing in a series.

And of course non realtime exports...

Nuendo Drawbacks?
AAF import is severly lacking still, easy to work around, just open in PT first and export as a new AAF. PT AAF's always work by the way it's MC that does it's weird things to the AAF's.
No VCA's, I love VCA's but I can work perfectly well without them as well, just another mindset. But I still want them. PT implementation of VCA's is great.
Single selection to process only, process window needs to close to select the next event.
Metadata, lots to do still.
Need better Conform and re-conform tools.
It's not compatible with PT and as long as PT is the elephant in the room that will always be a negative...

Sorry about the long post.

Hopefully that gave you some insight in what we like about Nuendo.

[cananball]

Originally Posted by Whitecat

... what I meant by that was I'm surprised they didn't just "roll it in." Those features should be included.

Nuendo should be the flagship product... it's a bit of a scam that you'd have to pay extra for that stuff (no matter how Steinberg spins it, that's what it is, an upcharge...)

actually nek was an attempt to make it more affordable by not paying you features you may not need in post. Prior to that it was $2300. Being able to get in for $1800 is nice if you can live without the nek

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[tamasdragon]

Originally Posted by ErikG

Hopefully that gave you some insight in what we like about Nuendo.

Yes, thank you! Exactly what I wanted to know. Now I have a clearer picture.

[Whitecat]

Originally Posted by cananball

actually nek was an attempt to make it more affordable by not paying you features you may not need in post. Prior to that it was $2300. Being able to get in for $1800 is nice if you can live without the nek

Yes, that's the 'Steinberg spin' I'm talking about. Total BS. The tech exists already in Cubase, it's not like they had to create it especially for Nuendo.

$1800 should buy you the lot.

[mattiasnyc]

Originally Posted by Whitecat

Yes, that's the 'Steinberg spin' I'm talking about. Total BS. The tech exists already in Cubase, it's not like they had to create it especially for Nuendo.

$1800 should buy you the lot.

And if $1800 was the price for "the lot", do you perhaps think some post-production people would say:

"Hey, why isn't there a version that doesn't have all this stuff that I don't need?"

Then if Steinberg was responsive they'd basically provide yet another version to offer that alternative, and we'd be back exactly in the same spot we are in now.

What you want is to pay less for more. Everybody wants that. Some also want to be able to pay less for less. That's what the NEK is about.

[domilik]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Yes to routing busses to busses and... more or less yes to routing to multiple busses by using sends. At least in Cubase. Maybe Nuendo has extra features... This is not very elegant to say the least... PT's routing is miles ahead.
Alistair

In Nuendo, you do not need sends for routing. There is a direct routing matrix since N5, which allows you to route every track to up to 8 outputs/busses/groups. Single switching, or all active at once.

This Routing matrix of course can be controlled and automated via midi-commands, so you can automate the routing of channels on the fly, or via punch-automation

[Henchman]

For the next event I just want two frames, then one, then eight. Easy.
In PT I have to place the cursor and then fade head, but the exact length of that fade wont be a frame unless you've editied in grid mode or you've manually set your cursor exactly the length from the event start that you want.

Actually, all you have to do in PT's is tab to the head, hit the plus sign however long you want the fade to be, and hit d. Or G for a tail fade. No need to be in grid mode.

[domilik]

My favorite pros of Nuendo:

- clip process history

- macros! a command-chain of keystrokes is the biggest time-saver when cutting or mixing!

- info-line, where you can control every parameter of a selected region (incl spotting position, gain, fades, pitch)

- Flexibility to put a stereo-clip on a mono-track (or vice versa), so no need for kicking one channel

- Overlapping regions do not delete the lower ones

- pre- and postfader inserts

- Great Surround-Panner (at least even better in N6)

- session-independent "control room"-section let you switch between different speaker-setups

- every single function, plugin or preference can be controlled by free definable midi-control or keystroke

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by domilik

In Nuendo, you do not need sends for routing. There is a direct routing matrix since N5, which allows you to route every track to up to 8 outputs/busses/groups. Single switching, or all active at once.

This Routing matrix of course can be controlled and automated via midi-commands, so you can automate the routing of channels on the fly, or via punch-automation

Thanks for the info. That is certainly better than Cubase. Still I like the way you can route any output (track, aux, whatever) to as many destinations as you want in PT directly from the mixer or editor view. No need to open any other routing or matrix view. Although I guess the matrix can help when sorting out complex routing.

As for automating routing, I have never felt a need for that and actually I wouldn't ever want to do that: That is a recipe for audio glitches as the engine recalculates PDC. (And it has to recalculate PDC or things are not sample accurately synced any more. Either way, routing automation is a big no no in my book).

Alistair

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by domilik

- Flexibility to put a stereo-clip on a mono-track (or vice versa), so no need for kicking one channel

I was discussing Nuendo with someone recently and they were complaining that you can't drag two mono clips onto a stereo track. This is an issue when audio is delivered as mono tracks in an AAF/OMF. This person hadn't used Nuendo for a while. Is this still the case?

Alistair

[Henchman]

I automate my dialog to busses using sends. Couldn't work without it.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I automate my dialog to busses using sends. Couldn't work without it.

But are you re-routing or just changing send levels?

Alistair

[mattiasnyc]

Originally Posted by Henchman

I automate my dialog to busses using sends. Couldn't work without it.

You can't route from send to bus in Nuendo? That's news to me. Or am I missing something here?

[mgoorevich]

Originally Posted by mattiasnyc

You can't route from send to bus in Nuendo? That's news to me. Or am I missing something here?

He is talking about the PT. And thats a bad thing about Nuendo - you can't sand to buses. What are sends made for then?

[mattiasnyc]

Originally Posted by mgoorevich

He is talking about the PT. And thats a bad thing about Nuendo - you can't sand to buses. What are sends made for then?

What are you talking about?

I'm looking at it right now and sending to a group is no problem...

[kdm]

Originally Posted by cananball

actually nek was an attempt to make it more affordable by not paying you features you may not need in post. Prior to that it was $2300. Being able to get in for $1800 is nice if you can live without the nek

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I think that was a backwards approach, and just an "out of sight out of mind" marketing tactic. They didn't actually remove anything or make the application "lighter" or less expensive. It's all there, just turned off in software, and re-enabled in the NEK patch (apparently now it's just a license on the eLicenser, not even a separate install). And in effect, I think that "no music features" request helped create the higher $2200-2300 price point for Nuendo+NEK (I seem to recall it being around $1500-1700 before the NEK era).

Then those of us in music ended up paying more for features we already had just so a few post guys could think Nuendo was a smaller foot print (it wasn't - just a simple matter of removing those menu items via software switch/patch so the user simply wouldn't see they were still there). Saving $300/copy is nothing for a large post studio, so I really don't think money saving was the reason behind it.

To make it even more ironic, many if not all of those features are in fact in Cubase as well - just turned off. I found that out when opening a few Nuendo 5 projects in Cubase 6 and voila!, my multiple marker and video tracks were visible. Editing those additional tracks was of course "hidden", but they were there.

[brandoncross]

What is the audio quality of the collaboration feature I see in the promotional video? That's a great feature. Wow. And the loudness track. If it works correctly, the loudness track could same some serious time.

[ErikG]

Originally Posted by Henchman

Actually, all you have to do in PT's is tab to the head, hit the plus sign however long you want the fade to be, and hit d. Or G for a tail fade. No need to be in grid mode.

Yes if all the events start at exactly the same time... If one event yes.

If you have a group of events that are already adjusted for a transition but that isn't starting at the same time. How do you easily increase the fade ins on all of them in pt?

I'm not saying that the difference is that obvious. I'm just saying it's there.
often just one less keystroke to accomplish a task. But one keystroke less per task over weeks makes a solid difference.

Why would you ever want to use sends to handle bussing?
It's just a bad workaround since pt doesn't have automatable routing.

Sends are for send effects IMHO. I would not want to mix up the send area with routing/bus sends.

But if I want to, of course I can use sends to send to busses and groups, with built in adjustable format adaption ( ex 5.1->stereo).

Most users after using Nuendo question the rigidity and inflexibility of PT bussing. PT has a limit on busses. Nuendo doesn't. In PT you have to setup a number of buses to be able to create groups (aux in pt lingo), in Nuendo you only need to create buses if you need actual buses to rerecord or to prep to easily be able to route all the outputs in the mix room. A group or fx channel can be sent to directly, removing the need to create a bus in the right format for each of them.
PT users need to (less with HDX) think about voice handling. I never have to.

Little things :-)

But of course, if you really have to be PT compatible, you have to use PT.
It's as good an argument as any.
But it isn't because it inherently is better at most things, it's just because it's the main player.

[Henchman]

Still, my biggest complaint was the automation when mixing. Although I had done a lot of music mixing in Nuendo, I didn't realize its shortcomings until I had to mix a show in Nuendo. And I absolutely hated the process.

And I was a big fan of Nuendo at one point.

[tamasdragon]

Originally Posted by ErikG

How do you easily increase the fade ins on all of them in pt?

You can trim them easily.

I researched a bit, and it really comes down to a few differences. Nuendo is great (I was a user once), but just as Pro Tools. The main thing is, it is hard to satisfy the post community.

[ErikG]

Digidesign grabbed the important market share first, and for a long time had more and often better implemented features than Nuendo.

This is no longer true, but doesn't really matter. PT's grip on post and large music studios is so strong that only a Avid disaster might be able change that.

Steinberg is also a lot smaller than Avid, they have to prioritise even harder. Post Features and fixes generally take longer. Otoh as far as I have been told even in this financial climate both the Nuendo department as such and the whole of steinberg is making a profit, not a loss...

I fully understand the compatibility reasons. When working as a freelancer you have to know PT, and to know it is to use it.
Large studios don't want to add complexity to their workflow by having to learn additional platforms and technologies. I can understand that.

We on the other hand, have had the luxury of being "one if the big dogs". So we have had the luxury of true choice, and we chose differently.

[ErikG]

And yes, I am passionate about my choice of tool.

Would I return to PT if I really felt that it would be the better choice?
Of course I would ,I'm a "pragmatic".

[domilik]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

I was discussing Nuendo with someone recently and they were complaining that you can't drag two mono clips onto a stereo track. This is an issue when audio is delivered as mono tracks in an AAF/OMF. This person hadn't used Nuendo for a while. Is this still the case?
Alistair

Yes - unfortunately you still cannot drag two monoclips onto one stereotrack.
But - in between - you are able to convert split-mono-tracks into multichannel-tracks. So after importing AAF you can select all tracks and convert them into several stereotracks in one pass.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by ErikG

Would I return to PT if I really felt that it would be the better choice?
Of course I would ,I'm a "pragmatic".

I think most in the post world are. That is why I don't believe the "too late" argument. Of course any contender really needs to cover everything the incumbent can do and add some or it won't succeed.

Alistair