Cubase and Nuendo

[tazman]

I posted this question on the "Music Computer" sub-forum as well cause I wasn't sure which forum would be the better one to get an answer, sorry...

I know this topic has come up before and I have read different posts, but... I am thinking about switching to Cubase or Nuendo. I don't work with video. Form everything I have read, I don't need Nuendo, but I am curious as to why do the bigger names (Waganer, Anlays, etc) use Nuendo instead of Cubase. Is it because there used to be a difference between them and they are now used to Nuendo? Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Rob

[big country]

your way more bitchen if you have Nuendo

you can tell people you have new-window
and their like wow man thats cool

and then you can say "yeah I know!"

[tazman]

I c...

[the_man361]

maybe its just because they can afford to get nuendo, and then the extra features are there if they need them, even if they probably wont?

[StudioTinPanAll]

in bigger studio's it's often for sync or machinecontrol purposes (serial, midi, smpte, rs-422, 9-pin, etc)
the support for more import and export possibilities (omf, aaf, openTL , EDL, ...)

for a full list of differences between cubase and nuendo :

ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Nue...ature_list.pdf

[miqer]

Cubase Studio 4

= CHEAP!!!! and just as good as nuendo, without surround and some plugs that are not so good.

[GearGuy]

It all comes from HISTORY.

Nuendo and Cubase were very, very different in the early days. Back in the Nuendo 1 era, people were choosing it because it was a very different and improved DAW than CubaseVST32... and for a native app (ie not Protools TDM or Paris hardware based DAWs) Nuendo was extremely powerful and had much to offer.

It was so successful for Steinberg, that they wisely decided to completely rewrite Cubase and "Cubase SX" was the result. Cubase SX version 1 was based on Nuendo's code. With Cubase SX2, it because exactly Nuendo's audio engine code minus a bunch of features. Fast forward through Cubase SX3 and now Cubase 4, (Steinberg decided to ditch the SX suffix,) and all the music benefits of Nuendo were included in Cubase 4. So for people doing music production only, Cubase 4 could do it all, no need for those people to use Nuendo. This was/is the Steinberg plan. Somewhere along the way for Nuendo (can't remember if it was V2 or V3) Steinberg decided to refocus the product to Post Production... however it works just as well for all music production needs.

So if you look at the products now, without any regards to recent history of the past 6 years, it's easy to scratch your head and wonder why somebody who does music would choose Nuendo 4 over Cubase 4...

But many of the big names who "switched" to Nuendo in the early days, just kept using it and upgrading to the new versions over the years. Why buy CubaseSX/v4 when you could just upgrade to Nuendo v2-4 and still get the extra Nuendo features, right, for just the upgrade price? Another factor, is that Nuendo has more positive name association and is taken more seriously by others, since anybody can get "Cubase" as their DAW free of charge when they but a $200 audio interface (Cubase LE is a free app bundled with many interfaces. Jokers will say they use Cubase as their DAW, when they are really just using CubaseLE in much the same was as a "studio" will be a ProTools studio when all the guy has is an MBoxmini.)

But at the end of the day, if I was new to this, I could buy Cubase4 and it would do all that I needed today for music production... however, since I've been using Nuendo since version 1, like many other I keep upgrading my copy everytime a new version comes out. And frankly I'm happier to be associated with Nuendo than to be associated with "Cubase."

[GearGuy]

Originally Posted by StudioTinPanAll

for a full list of differences between cubase and nuendo :

ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Nue...ature_list.pdf

Unfortunately the pdf you listed is out of date, and for Nuendo 3. With Cubase 4, some of these "benefits" for Nuendo went away.

I really wish Steinberg would make an updated version of this document.

[TheSweetener]

If you don't do Video or Surround buy Cubase and spend the money on something more interesting

[big country]

you never know people might start making records in surround

(dam wouldn't that be cool )

[donsimpson]

If you ever intend to do an IMAX soundtrack, you'll need Nuendo.

[jbsg02]

Nuendo is awesome, I prefer it to every DAW I've tried

[warhead]

Originally Posted by big country

you never know people might start making records in surround

(dam wouldn't that be cool )

One of these days I really, really want to do this myself. Grab some extra monitors out of our showroom and just hook 'em up and do it. I'm a Nuendo4 guy so no issue there!

The only thing with Cubase is it's still perceived by many to be the software kids are using in their bedroom with their keyboard and computer setup. Cubase4 is excellent stuff and I could use it interchangeably with Nuendo really. Maybe they should have considered creating a new name to separate the bedroom stigma from Cubase?

War

[smoke]

Originally Posted by miqer

Cubase Studio 4

= CHEAP!!!! and just as good as nuendo, without surround and some plugs that are not so good.

Uhmm. Not so fast buddy. If you're going switch to Steinberg Cubase, get Cubase, not Cubase Studio.

At some point you WILL realize the missing functionality. (even an amateur) Might as well fork the cost instead of paying more to upgrade later.

[soundrage]

Originally Posted by warhead

The only thing with Cubase is it's still perceived by many to be the software kids are using in their bedroom with their keyboard and computer setup.

Pro Tools people?

[redroom]

One thing Nuendo does have for music that is better is the advanced crossfade editor

[tazman]

it's looking like the show stoppers for me are going to be the fact that you cannot extract MIDI notes from wav files to do replacements (which I can currently do with my DAW without 3rd party apps) and clip tuning (ala Autotune, which I can also currently do)... Bummer!!!!


Rob

[criticaldistance]

Originally Posted by tazman

it's looking like the show stoppers for me are going to be the fact that you cannot extract MIDI notes from wav files to do replacements (which I can currently do with my DAW without 3rd party apps) and clip tuning (ala Autotune, which I can also currently do)... Bummer!!!!

it can be done, although maybe a bit more tedious... check this out:

cubase sx3 tutorial from SOS

[lllubi]

Originally Posted by tazman

I posted this question on the "Music Computer" sub-forum as well cause I wasn't sure which forum would be the better one to get an answer, sorry...

I know this topic has come up before and I have read different posts, but... I am thinking about switching to Cubase or Nuendo. I don't work with video. Form everything I have read, I don't need Nuendo, but I am curious as to why do the bigger names (Waganer, Anlays, etc) use Nuendo instead of Cubase. Is it because there used to be a difference between them and they are now used to Nuendo? Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Rob

Cubase is just to expensive for what it delivers.
in future we will use audio engines from interfaces like the new m-halo 2d

i planed myself to get Samplitude 10 for its great audio engine but since i
learned from the thread on the 2d what are todays possibilities im going
to switch to mac because the 2d is mac only

[big country]

Originally Posted by warhead

One of these days I really, really want to do this myself. Grab some extra monitors out of our showroom and just hook 'em up and do it. I'm a Nuendo4 guy so no issue there!

The only thing with Cubase is it's still perceived by many to be the software kids are using in their bedroom with their keyboard and computer setup. Cubase4 is excellent stuff and I could use it interchangeably with Nuendo really. Maybe they should have considered creating a new name to separate the bedroom stigma from Cubase?

War

I gots nuendo 3
I so want to do a record in quad
I even built a guitar for recording quad

quad in 88.2

thing is how do you play it back
what player do you use / or give people to listen

chicken before the egg

[The Studio RI]

I'm a Nuendo user, and posed that question to the Nuendo support team. Basically, the differences are in post production, shorcuts, and networking, along with some other related things that others have already mentioned. For me, Nuendo is far better than PT, but I'm looking to make the switch to Logic. Take that for what it's worth.

[Newcleardaze]

Originally Posted by warhead

The only thing with Cubase is it's still perceived by many to be the software kids are using in their bedroom with their keyboard and computer setup.

War

LOLOL!!!

That's hillarious for me only because when I started I bought Cubase over Pro Tools because that's exatly how I saw Pro Tools... of course I'm sure there are those out there who see Logic, Sonar or any of the others the same way... hey, as long as it works!!

[TOFT]

Originally Posted by smoke

Uhmm. Not so fast buddy. If you're going switch to Steinberg Cubase, get Cubase, not Cubase Studio.

At some point you WILL realize the missing functionality. (even an amateur) Might as well fork the cost instead of paying more to upgrade later.

I have 2 rooms. One with cubase 4, and one with cubase studio 4.

(EDIT: Cubase Studio 4 = the light version of Cubase 4, it is cheaper)

The differences are small:
(EDIT: - no OMF import export!!)
(EDIT: - no mp3 export, well whatever)
(EDIT: - no surround)
- no external effects
- some plugins missing
- no input channels on the mixer
- if you press right button on a audio track, you can not process it (forever) using a vst quik (this feature I use a lot in 4, so it irritates me studio 4, does not have it).


These are the 4 things you pay twice the money for. Worth it? I don't know. The external effects can be faked, using an output and an input. The plugins I never use. The input channels I don't need for I have RME software where I can see clipping. My last point is the worse thing. And they don't advertise it.

Still it's cheap!

[redroom]

Originally Posted by TOFT

I have 2 rooms. One with cubase 4, and one with cubase studio 4.

The differences are small:
- no external effects
- some plugins missing
- no input channels on the mixer
- if you press right button on a audio track, you can not process it using a vst quik

These are the 4 things you pay twice the money for. Worth it? I don't know. The external effects can be faked, using an output and an input. The plugins I never use. The input channels I don't need for I have RME software where I can see clipping. My last point is the worse thing. And they don't advertise it.

Still it's cheap!

You Missed out OMF
For some lack of OMF would be a serious omition

[smoke]

Lack of panning/stereo field options from Cubase Studio is not a small deal. Get Studio if you have no problem with this limitation. There are also some midi control limitations.

[TOFT]

Originally Posted by smoke

Lack of panning/stereo field options from Cubase Studio is not a small deal. Get Studio if you have no problem with this limitation. There are also some midi control limitations.

What? Is this in surround?

[malice]

Originally Posted by StudioTinPanAll

in bigger studio's it's often for sync or machinecontrol purposes (serial, midi, smpte, rs-422, 9-pin, etc)
the support for more import and export possibilities (omf, aaf, openTL , EDL, ...)

for a full list of differences between cubase and nuendo :

ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Nue...ature_list.pdf

1) this list of features is outdated
2) Cubase support at least omf now
3) There is a bigger issue : Beta testing

Beta testing with in Steinberg is an interesting concept by itself : using Cubase customers to Beta test for free Nuendo next version. That is why they always release Cubase major upgrades (that is for that matter, totally flawed for monthes) BEFORE Nuendo, so that they can debug it with an army of free willing paying customers.

I find this quite disgusting in a way.

So basically, yes, you should buy Cubase (wich is a fine DAW), and not upgrade to next version before Nuendo corresonding version is released.

That is what I do.

malice

[Cabbage]

I always thought Cubase supported surround (though I never used it). What is the deal?

Petter

[malice]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

I always thought Cubase supported surround (though I never used it). What is the deal?

Petter

Never used it, but I think it supports 5.1, but don't think it supports 7.1

malice

[smoke]

Cubase Studio does not feature surround.