Being a N12 noob it might totally be I’m missing out on something silly somewhere but after 1 hour I can’t find out what it is 
I’m trying to export separated events but it always creates a single file.
Do you see anything setup wrong here?
I’ve actually tried to duplicate the tracks and have only one event in each track and this way works: I got 4 different events
Please don’t tell me that’s not possible to render separated events when they belong to a single track… plissss
Yes it is possible. Check Cycle markers on the manual. Assigning a cycle marker to each event lets you export them as separate files (in export audio mix down window you have the option to export locator range or cycle markers, and even select wich markers you want exported.
1 Like
No, this should work as you @coro intended it. You don’t need cycle markers for that.
Just to get that out of the way: did you select all the events you want to render? Or just the track? (in your screenshot the events are not selected)
Cheers,
Alex
No, you get 4 files.
You need to understand the differences between events, clips, parts, and files. This will help in understanding what is happening and why. Events only exist inside the DAW.
1 Like
The OP wants to export, not to render. You could literally do it with 3 key strokes using cycle markers.
Ah, sorry, I mixed it up with the render in place function. The window is quite similar. But are there any actual differences between “Exporting” and “Rendering” except for the naming scheme-options? Maybe @coro once checked the “please don’t ask again”-box when asked if the previously exported file should be overwritten. And now it overwrites every exported file with the next file because there is no proper naming scheme. You should at least put one changing attribute like a counter into the naming scheme.
And of course: Cycle Marker Export has gotten much easier by now and I use it a lot too. Nothing wrong about that.
Thank you both!
to doublecheck if I got it right
Multiple tracks with 1 single event selected:
- you can export without cycle markers
Single track with multiple events selected:
- you can export but you need cycle markers
is that correct?
Yes, but keep in mind that multiple events on multiple tracks will all share the full length of the locators range (you select all events across different tracks, hit P and locators jump to encompass all the events in their range), so if you have tiny events this will lead to rather big files, with the actual audio material scattered amidst a whole bunch of silence. And another thing, if events overlap they will, of course, be mixed up. So choose Multiple in Export window, and select the tracks wich you want exported.
JM could you please share which those 3 strokes will be?
That would be super appreciated 
I’ve been working in Logic for over a decade and exporting events there is way simpler as it’s just 1 click, nothing else to specify such as markers etc…
Simply select the events → export.
I recently switched to N12 since I needed cross platform DAW (game dev is Win only) and I’m getting used to N21 workflow and trying to figure out what’s the most efficient way to complete these very common tasks I use everyday
Thanks!!
Thanks but keep in mind I’m not exporting tracks but separated events like SFXs.
Still unsure what’s the fastest workflow to export, for example, these:
Could you list the actions that you’d do export these into a folder?
Of course, but those are custom key commands, as I use this function often 
I believe in the marker window there is something like “create cycle markers from selection” or something (I’m not at the studio), so you can select your events, hit a key with this command, and then another to export audio mixdown- cycle marker (another custom key command I created)
Thank Jm!
This is the actual process (for future readers)
- Select all events
- Create Cycle Markers for selected Events
- Open Export Window
- Rename the clips now (the event’s name will be overridden by the export name)
- Choose Folder
- Export.
IMPORTANT
I just selected multiple events in multiple tracks - with their unique cycle markers - and those events are overlapping vertically, Nuendo will blend multiple events within that range (vertically) as, I suspect is not thinking in unique cycle markers but rather thinks in terms of range.
This is the bad scenario
Is also not smart enough - if you move an event - to drag the previously assigned cycle marker along with the event.
This is how it should look like and events have to be placed before you add cycle markers.
Happy to find out there’s a less clunky way to do this. But it’s doable so it’s all good.
1 Like
Exactly!
to iterate:
Nuendo is not smart enough even to know that a tail belongs to a given event … so if it overlaps then it blends the two events into one.
So we need to distance the events long enough so that their tail do not overlap.
As a long time audio tools designer, my strong bet is that Nuendo’s rendering architecture has been fitted with many functionalities but it’s only range-based and, again my personal opinion, is a pretty limited design that creates - and that’s a legit fact - conflicts and inconsistencies with other rendering features like the example above.
Not to mention that the GUI of Render in Place and Export Selected Events are identical but they do different things.
Yes, it’s similar in Nuendo.
@coro You are of course entitled to your opinion but your statement perhaps shows some misunderstandings of the design. Nuendo is certainly not perfect but before making such a statement it might be best to really get to know the software first.
You don’t need cycle markers at all in order to do the task you outlined in your first post above. If you want to export audio events as seperate events in Nuendo it’s really quite simple. To achieve what you originally wanted… do the following:
1 - if using real-time reverb or delay on consecutive events on the same track, consolidate all events first to include all tails from effects associated with each event (this is best practice when exporting consecutive events as seperate audio files).
2 - make sure the tracks on which the events are located are not muted
3 - select all the events you wish to export
4 - select File / Export / Selected Events
5 - select ‘As Separate Events’ as the mode in the Export Selected Events dialogue
6 - select your processing choice in the Export Selected Events dialogue
7 - if exporting consecutive events with effects which have a tail and you did not consolidate as outlined in step 1, set the tail in the Export Selected Events dialogue to 1ms less than the shortest gap between the events you are exporting.
8 - select a file location in the Export Selected Events dialogue and set up an appropriate naming scheme
9 - click on the Export button
Done.
‘Export Selected Events’ was designed specifically for users who want to export audio events as separate files with no regard for the timeline, such as those working with game audio, who may need to export a large number of individual audio events as seperate audio files. Before commencing, it is always best practice to export all consecutive audio events which use effects in order to consolidate all effects tails - in this way any complications with tails will be avoided when exporting as separate audio files.
2 Likes
Many thanks for all your inputs Sting!!
Yeah, similar in Nuendo, just more clunky but doable and that’s what matters.
I invested in Nuendo and happy to change my workflow
In case you’re interested for the love of conversation, for the other issue, I still think it’s not an optimized design.
Obvs I’m not a regular user and being a game dev and tools designer, when I see these kind of stuff, the first things that pops into my head is to try to reverse engineer it and see if I can get a clue of how it’s designed.
So I actually spent around 3 hours on this feature alone performing and repeating actions.
So much that I made Nuendo crash 4 times in like 30 mins. 
and this is already a sign of some voids in the code. But this wasn’t related to this matter but to the fact, I suspect, that Nuendo is not familiar with APFS formatted drives. But that’s another story.
To start with:
in this way any complications with tails will be avoided
in a well designed multi function tool there should be no complications. period.
If you add a function you need to make sure that doesn’t create conflicts with the existing functions. Otherwise, in my world, is half done work. (at least in game dev)
Based on my reverse engineering check, I’m pretty sure that CB/Nuendo’s rendering/exporting function - while it offers many settings - is range based only.
But both rendering/exporting function is also equipped with the tail function.
And here’s the first complication:
Based on my guess, the tail function is a slave of the range.
If the range exceeds then it nulls the “separated events function” and blends multiple events.
And now you don’t get the declared “separated events” anymore and this option is overridden without notice. A it’s obvs not a design choice otherwise why spending time coding, implementing, testing,debugging both if one nulls the other?
here’s one of the examples
it is always best practice to bounce all consecutive audio events which use effects in order to consolidate all effects tails
Agree with the practice but here’s what happens. the “separated” is nulled.
Or this another example of confusing behavior:
Nuendo states Event Start - Event Ends, which tells me that Nuendo perfectly knows it’s a single event
but since but since vertical range rules over this knowledge and they’re adjacent (but they’re technically separated tho’) it creates 1 single file. Another override (in this case is overriding the effects of the cut I just made and its own creation of an individual event)
To iterate a little further, Nuendo has a nice function to quickly compensate for this functions conflict which is “Set spacer between selected events” and you can distance the events quickly.
So that’s avoidable easily. (tho if you have a looot of them your session could potentially become really large and potentially hard to navigate with potential legibility issues etc… but let’s not be picky)
But again, we’re compensating. And in good design you never compensate. You make sure everything cohabits together and works as expected.
Here’s another test that made me think that’s only range based
I’ve ID’d all events with a marker with numerical increasing digits. Each event has its own.
Nuendo nulled them and blended the event content anytime events underneath overlapped vertically (range)
Again, we have separated events across multiple tracks, but we end up having mixed content from overlapping events - hence when you read “export as separated event” isn’t simply true anymore. Another override.
On top of that, in this case Nuendo had cycle markers assigned numerically to each selected events. and cycle markers have a specific function to, say, “define a space”.
But, again, this function is overridden by the “range” process. Another override
This how Nuendo likes it. As you can see, no vertical overlaps. Nuendo will now export separated events as expected.
Here’s another following up from this example up here: what if now you need to a make a variation of each event with a reverb tail?
you added cycle markers to define each range of each selected events, and if you’d need to add a reverb you’d need to “Set spacer between selected events” to space them out but the cycle markers won’t follow the events and you’d need to ditch all of them and recreate them. Another override.
Again I think that even with markers, Range is King: it seems that markers are tied to the range and not the events themselves.
But I extend this to tracks as well. In the overlapping example above, Nuendo didn’t care if they were separated tracks with separated events, with separated markers: If something is overlapping vertically (range) I’ll blend them.
Which doesn’t make much sense in terms of design.
This could also explain why Nuendo doesn’t include markers information in audio files (I needed it for the game I’m working on and saw someone requesting this too years ago somewhere in the forums - tho’ I’ve found a workaround for what I needed using the arrangement track functionalities ghgh)
These are some clear examples of why I think the export/render architecture in Nuendo is not well designed: because range has too much power and nulls other functions.
And these some of the consequences of this limitation.
Now, I’ll be super happy to be proved wrong on all of this since, anytime I find these you can’t never be 100% sure until you take a look at the code.
Said so, I still love Nuendo and it has sooo many cool stuff and I bet I won’t be missing Logic anytime soon.
btw, love nerding out about code, design and user experience, so feel free to add your thoughts!
btw2: a solution to all of these conflicts? first and foremost
- export/render range is tied to the event range. (which makes “export separated events” and “mix as one audio file” functions useless just to name two on top of my head)
- ditch the tail Seconds/Bars options and instead
- add an “add tail” option now based on dBs. When it reaches -infdB the correct range is created. (don’t even need to use “Set spacer between events” anymore unless you want to for visual reasons)
I also sense that the export/render has both range and tail coded as a single task - If so we’d need to have 2 separated tasks: calculate the range of the event + calculate tail.
- markers are tied to events. (bonus! this will make possible for markers to be included in audio files)
We do this 500 times a day because we digitize sound carriers.
You can only ever select clips within ONE track. Never over 2 tracks. Then it works.
Without setting any marker.
Never select events across two tracks.
Whatever works for you… but here it works fine over multiple tracks as long as you follow the nine step procedure outlined above. It is only the tail size in the Export Selected Events dialogue which might interfere with the results.
1 Like
stingray
You are right.
But you don’t need the nine-step-procedure with any cycle markers if you only export the events of ONE track. The events are named per Excel (csv).
We have a PC that only exports events throughout the day. The nine-step-procedure with the cycle markers would simply be too much.