I admit I’ve only been on Nuendo since 5, but I bought it looking for the best solution for me to do mixes without spending $10,000. I tried a lot DAWs and now with Nuendo, Windows XP and my Houston controller I am creating the best mixes I ever had. I started this thread because I am thrilled that I don’t have to pay $1,000 for an upgrade and still have advanced features.
At work we run PT 9 HD so I know about that.
Those are all very good reasons for using Nuendo I think. I hope for your sake that PT doesn’t squeeze Nuendo out of production if you know what I mean. Competition is good in a market economy.
Yes, I know what you mean, and that is a valid concern that I have too.
Well … here we go again. Some people like to turn this into another one of those “old” pi***ing contests … (Hi Vin!)
I think it is very logical that features get copied. Every DAW builder does that. And it is even more easy to improve these features, because there is relevant feedback from real life experience. The only thing that can be said is that the marketing machines of both companies are very different. While undoubtly Steinberg has been the innovater, they somehow fail to make a great buzz about the groundbraking features. Avid on the other hand has been conservative but makes the smallest feature sound like it is rocket science. (Remember the "Now we have … MIDI!!!)
The only “problem” I have is not with Avid itself, but the people who blindy repeat whatever Avid is throwing at them.
Fixed point vs. floating point, how many times we have been there?
Technical standards were ignored and replaced by industry standards for the sake of defending and maintaining shortcomings in their programming. (Dual-mono, Wave extensible, ITU, etc …)
The deliberate breaking of protocols (OMF, AAF) to insure that only Avid and PT users can use them.
As said, it doesn’t matter what Avid does and how they do it, I am just amazed that people are not critical enough and stupidly defend and repeat what their marketing department want’s them to believe.
I have no problem whatsoever with Protools, it’s a tool like any other tool. People should use what works best for them. I just think it is utterly stupid to make that decision based on a companies’ marketing strategy, wanting to be part of the “industry standard” or because they hate some people on a public forum. Buying into a tool (in the case, a DAW) should be a well considered business decision, balanced with personal satisfaction of working with a tool you really like.
Please keep the pi***ing contests at the forums which were created for that reason.
Fredo
Fredo,
I very much agree with your statement.
The only thing is that going with “the industry standard” can be part of a business decision. Not so much if you run a studio, but certainly if you want to make a living working as a freelancer.
If PT really is “the standard” is another question. It certainly is a strong platform with a huge user base. But I see quite a few fairlight, nuendo and sadie users here in my part of the world.
Even more are flexible enough to work on different platforms…
We all LOVE AUDIO, not MARKETING, don’t we?
Ollie
What p i s s i n g contest ?
Perhaps you should have a closer look at the behaviour of your fellow circle members targeting and abusing someone because they dared post an informed and intelligent view based on their first hand experience, instead of trudging up tired and irrelevant clichés.
No one is arguing the fact that Protool has been playing catchup , and yes their marketing department can make Apple look like saints at times, but the simple fact that they have maintained a huge market advantage with the allegedly technically inferior product for so long speaks volumes of Steinberg’s failure to capitalise on the potential.
And seriously Mate, stop beating the AVID deliberately breaks OMF mantra , its dead already… 
@Lydiot,
The only reason the ship is so hard to turn around is that its taken on so much water, that its sinking… LOL !
Vin,
I have no better word to describe the tone of which you are expressing yourself.
There is more acid, vinagre and poison coming out of your pen than ink.
Please return to a normal conversation or you will get banned.
Fredo
Yes, of course.
We also have a PT at hand, just in case… Mostly for PT users who don’t have Digitranslator.
And most of our freelancers work both on Nuendo and on PT. (in our facilities exclusively Nuendo)
Some of them prefer Nuendo, some PT. And we rarely get into the “better” discussions here at the dinner table.
But … most of them have chosen Nuendo for their personal projects and a PT lite for smaller stuff.
Simply because they can’t afford a PT HD system, which they all use as freelancers at the bigger facilities.
Fredo
I think this bears a quick response before I drop this topic and get back to work. Claiming a complete industry of film and music production made their decision based solely on marketing is ill-informed, but you are welcome to your perspective. I would hope that Steinberg is more objective.
If you have no opinion either way, why are you stating incorrect information about OMF, AAF, interleaved; and why criticize people who do in fact know the history behind these “standards”, as well as why complete industries prefer one tool over another? Sir, you need to research these “standards” and the industry itself - I can only speak for the US market, but your rationale is quite incorrect.
I clearly stated the reasons why I and my colleagues chose ProTools over Nuendo, despite high hopes for Nuendo’s potential. I offered that as constructive feedback and nothing more, so let’s not twist my words or intent to suit your preferences for Nuendo. ProTools is not perfect, and neither is Nuendo. Smart companies learn from their mistakes and shortcomings. Avid is obviously listening, finally. Perhaps Steinberg, should as well, for the betterment of competition and “iron sharpening iron”, as it were?
At least we have more constructive conversations about the advantages and disadvantages of ProTools vs other DAWs in ProTools circles than seem able to exist here.
With all due respect, I never said that; and it was never my intention to even suggest that.
Beause, let’s be honest, it’s not that the film industry had many alternatives.
As said before, if I were to run a facility that needs to rely on “compatibility” and tons of freelancers, then you would see lots of PT systems in my facility too.
The only thing I wanted to say is that the Digidesign Marketing machine did a very good job in convincing the rest of the world that there were no alternatives. And that a bunch of people (most of them unhappy Nuendo users) are simply advocating that the so-called “industry standard”_way_of_doing_things is the only correct way, just because they were the industry standard. And this is something I never agreed with.
why are you stating incorrect information about OMF,
Granted, OMF is not a by technical comitee documented standard, so Digidesign could do whatever they want with it. My problem is that they did so. Don’t take my word for it, ask Ultan, Cui Bono, SSL Pro, AV Transfer or AAF Translator. Pretty much each new PT or Media Composer broke compatibility with other applications, sometimes including their own products. I don’t recall having to “fix” OMF with each new version of Fairlight, Final Cut pro and others.
AAF,
Is a documented standard by a technical comitee, so in theory -except bug- the AAF standard is not open for interpretation. Again, don’t take my word for it, ask the people who write those conversion utilities.
interleaved
Is a standard, always been. Stereo files have existed since the very beginning of digitize audio, and as far as I know only Digidesign didn’t support stereo files. Each company can do whatever they want, but they don’t have to claim that there is no use for stereo files, and that dual mono is the “only” correct way of dealing with a Left and Right file. And to be complete, anything that comes behind the “point” in wave files is defined as the extention. So giving files the extention .L and .R is simply wrong.
The Wave Extensible format exists for a long time and is a standard. What’s more, it is fully backwards compatible with the normal Multichannel Wav files. Well, in theory … until PT10 they crashed every PT version when trying to import.
and why criticize people who do in fact know the history behind these “standards”
Then there is something I don’t know, something that I am not aware of. I have been informed by many people who I trust, so unless someone cuts me in to the other side of the story, I stick to what I just have said.
Sure, there are reasons, and probably valid reasons why Digidesign did it that way. My “problem” is that some people (not aiming at you) simply laughed away the fact that Steinberg tried to do it the correct way, tried to stick to standards. According to them, Steinberg should have followed the “industry leader”, no matter what, just because the “industry standard” could enforce it.
I clearly stated the reasons why I and my colleagues chose ProTools over Nuendo, despite high hopes for Nuendo’s potential. I offered that as constructive feedback and nothing more, so let’s not twist my words or intent to suit your preferences for Nuendo. ProTools is not perfect, and neither is Nuendo. Smart companies learn from their mistakes and shortcomings
Again, I don’t think I have commented to your post. Why would I? Your post was written in a constructive, polite and properly argumented way. I have commented on the Digidesign Marketing department and on the pi**ing contest people, who mainly are former and unhappy Nuendo users.
Avid is obviously listening, finally.
If you read some of my previous posts, you can see that I applaud the way Avid has changed some things.
Perhaps Steinberg, should as well, for the betterment of competition and “iron sharpening iron”, as it were?
Steinberg still has a very long way to go. And since they are a much smaller company than Avid, it will take much longer. And despite the limited resources, they still try to innovate. And most people also forget that as a composing tool, Cubase (and thus Nuendo) is lightyears ahead of anyone of the competition. Nuendo aiming at “post” was only started with the release of Nuendo 4. So we still have a very long way to go.
At least we have more constructive conversations about the advantages and disadvantages of ProTools vs other DAWs in ProTools circles than seem able to exist here.
I can only repeat again that my comments about the pi**ing contest were not aimed at you. On the contrary, I welcome a polite, well founded debate within mutual respect for each others opinion.
Fredo
Well, at the risk of sounding confrontational; now who’s the one insinuating that others said things they didn’t say???
At least as far as I can see the “unhappy Nuendo users” talking about the industry standard in practice aren’t saying that it’s the only way to do things, they’re saying that if Steinberg wants to compete with the industry standard application then adopting some of its “standards” is the smart thing to do.
So what if Pro Tools now supports interleaved files? Yeah, it’s funny to see some tout that as a great thing while having ignored (or diminished) it earlier. But while Avid figured that out and before some of their customers got properly indoctrinated, Steinberg was possibly not gaining market share because they chose not to adopt the industry standard applications “standard”. Know what I mean?
Hello,
while I appreciate active discussions - please all calm down a bit. ProTools 10 includes many features Nuendo has since years. And still ProTools has features we cannot deliver by now and we have to work on. With each release of a new major DAW version, the bar is raised again, which is quite normal.
The Pro Tools 10 “question” is also a question of philosophy. Those who are happy to buy another card based DSP system might choose this solution. Others, who rely on the flexible “native” approach and products that are tailored to specific use cases are very welcomed to choose Nuendo, Cubase, WaveLab etc.
And even if you see each ProTools version to be announced as “the game changer”, “the best ever”, “all you ever wanted”, I can clearly say that the next Nuendo version including everything that comes with it will indeed be THE biggest released this software has ever seen 
Thanks,
Timo
Wow, Timo.
Big words…We’ll quote you on that…
Ollie
That’s exciting! Unless it’s going to cost $1,000 like some other software upgrade. Now you know I’ll be here everyday asking if it’s released yet. I didn’t intend for this thread to turn into what it did. Just wanted to say thanks for the good work and the last free update…and for not tying us into hardware…
You can. If everything goes according to plan
Hello Timo…
Well, this is great news… I must say, I am rather anxious, to learn about all the new features.
Sure, not the time for it, yet, but a little hint, once in a while, would be nice and keeps us happy, too.
M2c to the ongoing disussion…
I find it not necessary that people who are not working or seldomly working with Nuendo and probably not at all with 5.5 NEK tell us their pain and mental conflicts about the way we see Pootools differently from them. It is regretable that so many colleagues have chosen to spend flipping great wodges of cash on an (at best, but not for me… ) equally functional DAW that hooked them up to Apple and Digi hardware so much that they praised it, eventhough they knew that it was not half as good or superior as Digi’s promo people ever so successfully indoctrinated their brains.
Are we getting close to having to appologise for the (my) opinion that Nuendo is an excellent DAW and the fact that some ( I ) don’t like Alsihad and disapprove of Digi’s / Avid’s business attitude and philosophy…
… on our own Nuendo homebase…???
FCOL…
Big K
Hi Eric,
thanks very much! And the update won’t cost you another 1,000 $
Nuendo won’t be bound to any specific hardware system to make it work. This is not our philosophy. For sure we recommend using Steinberg hardware (and even more products will be released to the market in the next years) but in the end it is your decision what fits your workflow best. Steinberg feels that the time of “closed” systems is finished, once and for all. People nowadays tend to work with different applications which have different strengths. That’s why we constantly work on a better communication/integration with products from our own portfolio and 3rd party products, rather then creating barriers.
Thanks,
Timo
Hi Big K,
thanks for your positive comments…
Of course, you don’t have to apologize for using Nuendo and you don’t have to justify yourself Very often, this whole debate is discussed very emotionally, but when you look into professional studios - and I’m there quite often - it is not primarily about feature A that “should exactly” work like feature B of another DAW, because otherwise the engineer “wouldn’t be able to continue to work anymore with feature A” . It is MOSTLY the whole workflow that counts, the updates, the integration in the entire studio concept, controller connections, I/O’s - and in the end the price people spend for the initial purchase of the application and the updates over the years. And the philoshophy of an open native system or a closed hardware system. Some people tend to forget this sometimes.
Thanks,
Timo
I agree. I don’t go into Burger King and yell at them because they make better hamburgers they need to be bigger and have more restaurants
than McDonalds. I just enjoy the hamburgers.
Allow me to say that this was -and still is- the philosophy that Charlie set out when he created VST, ASIO and the first software-controlled midi tool. Respect to all of you in Hamburg for not leaving the path that Charlie has set out.
Fredo