Dave have you tried Nuendo VS P/Tools

[Lexicondonn]

Dave,

We use Nuendo and love it. Have you tried it and or compaired it to Pro Tools?

I read that Prince and Allan Parsons have switched to Nuendo.


What do ya say?

[Max headroom]

I would like to hear about that more too, because I don't hear much diference in sound but for editing and manipulating with files is sure more sofisticated

Being a huge fan of Prince I would like to know where did you get that information from ?

[Geert van den Berg]

It's always interesting to know the point of view of a great mixer, so I'd like to know too! But my guess is that Dave will answer that it doesn't really matter how he gets his material as long as he can mix it! And he probably gets more PT material and probably asks for that too.

I too have used Nuendo, but I use PT more often. I don't buy the thing you can edit more easily or there are more features on Nuendo. What are all you Nuendo guys talking about? Please explain. I like the program and there are some things you can do in Nuendo which PT can't do, but as far as editting goes, it doesn't get any faster and easier then PT IMHO (just one key per edit!) and routing many tracks goes very fast and there are many routing possibilities in PT, it seemed less convenient in Nuendo. And for real power a native system just cannot beat PT yet and probably never will, since they will keep upgrading too. Don't forget you can use native power too when using PT. And don't think I bash Nuendo. I mean, it's great that for very little money you can make a powerfull audio-editor.

[Max headroom]

I am not really Nuendo user as I have used both of them, but somehow loads of issues are solved with Nuendo 2 . If you compare PT and Nuendo 1.6 there is no question that PT is better in almost anyway , but since I have tried Nuendo 2 it simply works better for me. I have a few outboard gear , couple of UAD an Powercore so I manage to produce enough power for mixing. Anyhow I don't wish to take this thread about editing and file questions, i would like to bring it back to music and sound .




p.s. Industry standard is PT so there must be something about it and that is what I would like to know

[matucha]

I found what really matters is if the DAW suits YOU. The few major DAWs offers almost the same features, some prefer Logic, some Nuendo and some PT. Once you get used to the soft and you loose need to think about the interface and you can't stand working in another DAW, you are addicted ;-). And the sound quality? Seems the same, though some will argue... but it is 1% difference at max. The rest is your expirience and plugs and outboard ;-))))))

I started using nuendo long time ago... (a cracked one), then the version 2 went out and I had some jobs, so I could justify buy the soft... and I ended with SX2, it had all the features I need and it is exactly the same as NU2 from my view for the 1/2 of the price. I can't live happily in Logic or Sonar or even Samplitude... I just don't understand Samplitude ;-)

[Ruphus]

Industry standard is PT so there must be something about it and that is what I would like to know

The stereotype that market was categorically reflecting quality is an injudicious one.

as far as editting goes, it doesn't get any faster and easier then PT IMHO

When it is about routing, ok point taken, but if you like to edit three times faster than in PT try Samplitude


Ruphus

[Max headroom]

Now you've got me, I take 25 or 53 or 120 tracks and route them where ever I want , to aux and back to fx and around in 5-10 sec
You can do it in other programs in 3 sec ?

I don't get this , can you clear it up for me ?

[Ruphus]

What I meant is that routing in PT indeed is good, but for editing there is better out there.
... And for sound too.

Ruphus

[doorknocker]

Originally posted by matucha
I found what really matters is if the DAW suits YOU......
......And the sound quality? Seems the same, though some will argue... but it is 1% difference at max. The rest is your expirience and plugs and outboard

I couldn't agree more! With another analog-digital 'war' raging in another thread here, I was thinking exactly of this.... I think it was Tchad Blake (or was it Mitchell Froom?) that, when asked about his format preference, said something like: 'The difference between analog and digital is about 10%, I like to concentrate on the remaining 90%'.
That pretty much sums it up for me.

Andi

[Geert van den Berg]

If you compare PT and Nuendo 1.6 there is no question that PT is better in almost anyway

I tried Nuendo 2 and I liked it. Still PT is more user friendly I think. What I could not accomplish in Nuendo is routing an FX track back to a groupchannel. Can it be done? In PT you can route anywhere you want, and also to multiple outputs and busses.

When it is about routing, ok point taken, but if you like to edit three times faster than in PT try Samplitude

Ruphus, how can it be faster if most edit functions in PT are just 1 key? I have the possibilty of trying out Samplitude, so please enlighten me.

[adamcal]

Originally posted by GvdB
What I could not accomplish in Nuendo is routing an FX track back to a groupchannel. Can it be done? In PT you can route anywhere you want, and also to multiple outputs and busses.

you can both these things with group channels in Nuendo.

[Ruphus]

Originally posted by GvdB
I tried Nuendo 2 and I liked it. Still PT is more user friendly I think. What I could not accomplish in Nuendo is routing an FX track back to a groupchannel. Can it be done? In PT you can route anywhere you want, and also to multiple outputs and busses.



Ruphus, how can it be faster if most edit functions in PT are just 1 key? I have the possibilty of trying out Samplitude, so please enlighten me.

This is mainly because of navigation in the editing window.
Hopping from one point in timeline to another, dealing with marker points, highlighting sections without losing them when you click somewhere else ( in amore conserving way than in PTs corresponding feature ), or highlighting a region / object while keeping a section marked in the timeline, grouping ungrouping clips on the fly, zooming vertically / horizontally in diverse ways ( pulling with the mouse, buttons, scroll weel, keys ... depending on what fits best in the individual situation ) in different manners depending on stop or play ... things like that work much better or solely in Samplitude.

It also boots and closes much faster, processes quicker and is just easier on the system.

What I have to expect on workflow when launching Samplitude makes it just another emotional state to boot compared to the times when I used PT LE.

It has its disadvantages and misconceptions too but for me it is without question; Samp is the more practical and flawless program.

Not that market behaviour would be telling too much, but I estimate that you´d find more people who have switched from PT to Samp than vice versa. ... For a reason.


Ruphus

PS: "Live" according to latest user comments could be another contender for easier editing than in PT. Their zoom is different from Samp, but very nicely concepted as well. And I recall from older versions that it sounds great too. We have at least one person here who switched from PT HD to that one. He is very enthusiastic about his dicision.

[Geert van den Berg]

When I have the time I will put Samplitude through its paces. Some of the object features look promising, but I am not sure if I really understand what can be done with it or if it really conserves CPU power, because that would be a nice bonus. As for operation I don't think I will agree about ease of use.

About the timeline and selection thing, I think PT has that covered as well. Don't forget you can place markers with just one press of a button, and besides that you can also save selections if you want to make sure you can recall them!

[Ruphus]

Still, PT is more large scaled and takes you longer to manouver. Wait until you´ve tried Samp enough to have some routine with it and see what you think.

CPU efficiency is a also clear. With PT my PC was able to do 32 tracks and 1 auxes at 44.1 at max. When I checked out Samp for its capacities I stopped at 12 stereo tracks recording and somewhere above 36 stereo tracks playback at 96 k.

In normally sized sessions there won´t occure bottle necks, even not with several intensive plugs and a convolution reverb on. As long as I don´t hit keys just too fast and cause playback artifacts in the reverb everything runs fine.

All with the same mashine.

I have to mention that at PT times the PC was still internet enabled which isn´t good for audio performance. However, a slimming down of the OS shouldn´t had helped too much, because my PC with its Athlon 1800 CPU and 1 gig RAM was at the top max performance anyway according to fellow PT users with same CPU size.

Ruphus

[Absolute]

The Samplitude is not even in the same league as Nuendo--there really is no comparision--Samp is just not advanced enough and has always been way behind . It has some cool things but its not usuable yet.
Most people who use Nuendo and go to Protools are amazed at how hyped it is. Like--what is all this fuss about. PT looks like Notepad compared to Nuendo. You would think the user interface would be topnotch--but it is probably the worst in Daws. Thats mixer in PT is a joke.

Inside PT has many great things--great editing, moving around parts ect. But it is so obvious that the Nuendo guys are way more talented and have had things, like changing plugins on the fly ect, for years before PT.
Its kind of the complaint people have microsoft(although I dont complain about MS)---they are leader but they dont have the best product.

[jlotto]

Originally posted by Absolute
The Samplitude is not even in the same league as Nuendo--there really is no comparision--Samp is just not advanced enough and has always been way behind . It has some cool things but its not usuable yet.

You've got to be kidding with this statement right? Anyone that has used Samplitude 7.0+ and Nuendo truthfully could not make this statement

[Absolute]

Originally posted by jlotto
You've got to be kidding with this statement right? Anyone that has used Samplitude 7.0+ and Nuendo truthfully could not make this statement

Dont get your panties all in a bunch
I have both. Go to Nuendo forum and make that remark--you'll find a couple thousand people who "got to be kidding " too.

Its a fact if you have both programs. The midi alone is about 10 years behind nundo not to mentions vst instruments and varoius functions that Steinberg itself invented.

I want to try the upgrade from Samp coming out soon. I have to say it looks nice. But samp has always *looked nice--probably the nicest looking program out there

http://www.samplitude.com/de/v8_feat_screenshots.htm

Pt users should send this link to Digi, maybe they will get rid of that Microsoft Notepad interface

[Ruphus]

The look of an interface should be the last thing to worry about. If you have Samp you should have access to their user forum. If you compare the individual percentage of complaints about dysfunctions you will see a representive user feedback of these two products.

I think you are now the second person I noticed preferring Nuendo to Samp. I havn´t counted all the opinions into the opposite direction though.

Ruphus

[Absolute]

Originally posted by Ruphus


I think you are now the second person I noticed preferring Nuendo to Samp. I havn´t counted all the opinions into the opposite direction though.

Ruphus

why dont you look at the sales--they are 1000 to 1. Look, I have had samp since it first came out --way before magix got their hands on it. Its way behind--its always been way behind. It keeps improving--but so does Nuendo and I think it would actually take Steinberg to stop updating Nuendo for Samp to catch up and that would take a couple years.

I've always loved the object editor and some of the other cool things Samp has--but its midi is a joke and its vst instrument is not up to par(and it shouldnt be--they just adding these things--so how can anyone believe they could compared to nuendo or cubase which has had these features forever)

I believe the update for Samp may be free for me so I'll check it out--I would like to hear how Sasha's plugins sound cause he's the best I have heard at emulating saturation(enorphin) in a plugin

I think its really the other way around--you guys dont have nuendo--so you cant see why its better. Just a guess--either way I respect your opinion--and if it works for all your needs thats great

has anyone got a sneak peak at the MAGIX Analogue Modelling Suite--if so how does it sound?

[Ruphus]

has anyone got a sneak peak at the MAGIX Analogue Modelling Suite--if so how does it sound?

I think Ben has and said it was great.

I think its really the other way around--you guys dont have nuendo--so you cant see why its better. Just a guess--either way I respect your opinion--and if it works for all your needs thats great

Indeed, in my case it is true. Have been screwed with Steinberg crap for two years or so. According to Germanys biggest store I was the first person who magaged to get his money back from that company although their entire product line was complete crash junk. They also confirmed that day to me that Cubase had never really been running stable to that day. Unfortunately, they hadn´t told me so before when I bought two of Steinjerks programs.

Anyway, I am definitly biased against that brand which made its outcome by selling dysfunctional crap.

why dont you look at the sales--they are 1000 to 1.

Because sales mustn´t say a thing. Steinberg had biggest selling numbers in the native market already when they still were what I would think the most unstable POS in the audio software shelf. Steinberg stuff sells because every three year old knows of its existance. It´s because of publicity not quality.

Everybody knows Armani suits, but the best classical suits in the world are being hand stiched by a dozen old men who each makes only one certain component of the unit.
Nobody knows Kiton and they certainly don´t have the biggest selling numbers, but their product is the best out there.

Toyota was most reliable a while before that became publicly known and appreciated. blabla

but its midi is a joke and its vst instrument is not up to par

True. Until version 7.2 it even was unusable.
I must admit that I mainly think in audio terms though when considering hosts.

it would actually take Steinberg to stop updating Nuendo for Samp to catch up

What Cubase and its followers had also long since is certainly the most features coming with it. However, that kind of value isn´t really interesting to me as long as you can most of all never feel safe with your host program.

Some say Cubase, SX, Nuendo were more reliable these days, but a burned guy like me would not be liking to take that risk again, not for a heap of additional features.

Have I said already that I´m biased?

Ruphus

[jlotto]

Samp is behind nuendo a bit in Midi becuase, as pro tools, it was built form the ground up as an audio editor/mixer and that's where it excels. Cubase/nuendo/digital performer, etc. are all blown up midi sequencers. They both have their idiosyncrasies.

I would download demos of each and then decide for yourself.

Sales does not a pro app make.

[nkf]

Originally posted by Ruphus
Steinberg stuff sells because every three year old knows of its existance. It´s because of publicity not quality.

Blunt statements like that make me wondering on which professional usage of this programs you found your conclusions?
Is this some Samplitude cheerleading, or what?

[Ruphus]

If you read my post carefully you will find my statement according to which Steinjerk was the biggest seller already when their programs where not to be made running stable on a computer based system.

Samplitude for instance has been stable back then already, but still is rather a niche product.

What does it tell us when a company has the biggest marketshare despite of plain unreliable products ( as they definitly were at least at that time )?

It tells about marketing, popularity and image which mustn´t have to do with the quality of a product at all.

Am I cheering about Samplitude? But yes, good feedback for good experience and bad comments for disappointments.
Any problem with that?

"Blunt staements" ... "professional usage"?

Maybe you want to post a list of the products you use and are fond of so that I may avoid critisizing them.

Ruphus

[nkf]

Originally posted by Ruphus
Maybe you want to post a list of the products you use and are fond of so that I may avoid critisizing them.

I'm not going to play games with you here ... it's all very simple. You made a statement about Steinberg products and their (sound?) quality - it seems you think something is wrong or lacking. I simply don't know what you mean so I 'm curious to know what I'm, as a professional user who spent some serious money on Steinberg products (Nuendo 2, SX2, two Halion 3 licences, WaveLab), has done wrong.
I'm not saying anything bad about Samplitude. In fact I bought the version 5 some time back and it sounded fine as far as I remember. My problems were more about ergonomics and some other details I cannot recall right now.

[Ruphus]

I see, you are indeed wanting to evaluate the differences among the DAWS. I´m sorry that I got you wrong.

In fact I am not competent to seriously judge on this ( as you probably figured already ). Because my experience is from years back, aside of a short examination of Steinbergs SX maybe 2 years ago or so. ( Where the sound was without loss to my ears only that SX was unstable again.)

I gathered their hosts to still be buggy as I went to their forum months ago where it was filled with complaints about crossfade clicks, crashes and such. On the other hand I know of a guy who is pretty slick in technical realms who said that Nuendo II could be made to work reliable when certain points were considered.

So, don´t take me serious on actual Steinberg releases. I´m merely biased from the past when they just couldn´t overcome themselves to simply admit the bugs and kept me searching on the hardware side for hypothetical incompatibilities ( on the few occasions when their support answered at all ).

What can be taken for real though is my satisfaction with Samplitude ( v.7.2 ). It has its drawbacks too ( most of which I have listed on GS and a couple more problems that would yet be needed to add like for instance that it can split stereo tracks only per individual object and such.)

But all in all I think it to be really recommendable, even more for pro use, because you would hardly find yourself in sudden trouble in the middle of a tracking session with it. From my experience it is even more reliable than PT. And there also seem no sonic losses from processing.

Ruphus

PS: Its layout is indeed rather unusual when you come from Cubase, Cakewalk or PT and it takes a while until one navigates halfways confidently. ( For instance that track splitting feature is placed under "File/Export" which is a weird spot for it. )

[fifthcircle]

A few comments-

Yes, the analog suite is fantastic sounding. It has taken a bit of time for me to get used to, but I can get some very subtle effects out of it (subtle enough for mastering) and also some very intense sounds out of it as well.

I won't say that Samplitude or Sequoia is the be-all/end-all of DAWs. It is a pretty damn good complete package. Yes, it was developed originally as an audio app. MIDI is WAY behind, but they have been devoting tremendous resources towards fixing that. When the Emagic debacle's dust settled, they saw Logic on the PC disappear and that is one of the reasons why they started working on the MIDI side of things. As I'm sure you can imagine, it takes some time to build a DAW engine.. Add to that the fact that when the developers do something, they want it done in an innovative way (look at object-based mixing for example).

Version 7 brought out major improvements in the MIDI dept. Version 8 will be bringing out even more. I'm not a MIDI guy, but even I can see the massive improvements to the MIDI interface. Basing judgements on quality of software that is anything less than the most recent (stable) release is foolish... For those that had issues with Samplitude in version 5 or 6, a LOT has changed since then.

I'm sure there will be a demo of 8 shortly after it is released... Take a look at it and make a decision for yourself.

--Ben

[Geert van den Berg]

From my experience it is even more reliable than PT.

Well, Ruphus, I think most people have very little trouble with PT HD 6.4 on OSX (24Mix+ is a different story!). OS X is so much more stable than OS 9, the whole system benefited from it. I have not had one crash with HD yet. And also PT LE doesn't crash. I believe many PT users have that same experience nowadays!

[Lawrence]

This thread is laughable. Being that there are so many combinations of possible ....

1. Computers models (motherboards, chips, etc.)
2. Audio Hardware
3. Midi Hardware
4. Freeware Plugins
5. And the numerous other things that might find themselves on a native system.

It's no wonder that you might find many bug reports on a mfg's forum. Here's an example of a bug report from the SX forum.

NO JOKE: Some users think it is a "bug" in SX because when you insert an audio track in SX the track assignments change on a Mackie control! They think that if track 2 in SX is a BASS and you insert a new track in front of that in SX, that the software should remember that the BASS was on track 2 and dynamically reassign the hardware driver so that the Mackie control's fader 2 now controls track 3 in SX. These are "engineers" who can't properly manage a session, they want Steiny to do it all for them.

I personally find it annoying that if you want to do OMF files in PT you gotta pay $500 for the software to do it. I think this is a "bug" in Digi's thinking.

Bottom line? Samp and SX and PT and (insert your over $300 daw here) are all stable daws if the the operator / system builder takes care in putting together a pro system. If you don't believe that you're living in a dream world. I use SX daily and it has never crashed or failed to perform as advertised. I love it. Samp would do the same if I chose to use it because I'd do my homework/maintenance and keep my system stable.

If one minor feature "bugged" on my system and worked fine for others I'd more likely attribute it to my system configuration and look for the cause there. Then again, no software or human programmer is perfect.

I can't believe people still debate things like this. While people are on the NET telling other people how daw "X" is crap, there are thousands of others making records on it without problems.

I wonder why?

Lawrence

[Ruphus]

Originally posted by GvdB
Well, Ruphus, I think most people have very little trouble with PT HD 6.4 on OSX (24Mix+ is a different story!). OS X is so much more stable than OS 9, the whole system benefited from it. I have not had one crash with HD yet. And also PT LE doesn't crash. I believe many PT users have that same experience nowadays!

Yep, PT has never been like Cubase used to be. However, up to 5.1 or so it was still sensitive and yet under 5.3 you had your occassional beef to chew on. The digital input switch bug just as one example which was not very pleasent coming along with infernial noise impulse at crash and loss of files. ( No fun when you lose weeks or months of work.) Luckily in my case it was always through cans and didn´t blow my speakers, but others were already asking about if Digi could be taken into responsibility for damaged monitors. PTs crashes mostly were heavy crashes with blue screens and reboots. And if it was a light crash you still had to reboot to have it recovered.

I can´t tell too much about 6.XX, however it was up already for a couple of weeks when I decided to switch platform.

The computer used BTW was optimized for PT from scratch and scored highest track count in its CPU size.

For me in the important working steps PT appears more large scaled in comparison to what I use these days, apart from LE meaning "limited" anyway.

I like Digi as a company though, also they seem trying to keep their users happy, have done a nice action on giving plugins away for free and they continue on improving their program. Who knows, maybe their 64 bit version will be even better with more features and better navigation in the editing window.

And please note that I´m not fanatic on all this. When expressing thoughts ( even such subjective ones like above against Steinjerk ) I am not thinking of making users feel bad about the product they purchased. That would give no good sense to me. It´s rather meant as sharing about what can possibly make life easier just like what I would say to my close people if they were interested in the subject.

And no question: I can be wrong anytime.
In the end its just about an advanced ape allowed to mess up with sounds.
BTW, ever tried bananas fried in honey? Havn´t had them for years. Shall make some these days.



Ruphus