Well, we’ve been installing a lot in game facilities but also TV serial production and OTT content production. A growing number of customers also
doing post-production for live concerts (audio+video capturing).
We have no version number yet. But it will be an update providing new functionality (features introduced with Cubase + FR + more improvements), thus some kind of major update. Not to be mixed up with the maintenance or performance fixes coming early next year.
Thank you very much!
Agreed. However, it is our intention to provide the best quality possible, but the number of testing scenarios nowadays is kind of exploding.
Well, it depends. We have seen a large variety of use cases and workflows. The general tendency is that, despite the fact that the audio engine/game engine libraries are object based, the creative part for game sound creation and also game music creation still happens in a linear working environment. That being said, I’m not saying there’s no room for improving SFX layering. But workflows are very divers. Often, the folder structure is being used to create a grid for different sound layers. Sometimes these sounds are brought together as sound blocks. But the biggest challenge is the recreation of the sounds within the game environment, so that the round-trip time between e.g. Wwise and Nuendo can be reduced. We have some ideas though
Well, yes. We are looking for more, new, skilled people. To be honest, finding developers that are not only developers but also devoted toward our industry is not an easy task. However, Steinberg is growing. We have more than doubled our workforce in the last 10 years. But growth needs to stand on a healthy and solid financial foundation and needs to be done with foresight. We have a social responsibility for each of our colleagues. We haven’t done layoffs yet.
Oh yes, but that’s a huge task. However, we have an internal working group that analysis ways on how the application can be operated smoother and faster. One big step in that direction has been done with WaveLab 9 generation.
Rather 11-12 weeks. I wish we could speed this up more. But this is also an example of the latest sequencer branch development. And Cubase generation 9.5 happened to be the first application running on it. We need to port these fixes to the current Nuendo branch (which is also not “old” at all).
This topic has per se nothing to do with AR/VR products. But yes, maybe it’s a paid option.
Maybe I haven’t been clear enough on this, but I think you got my comment terribly wrong. There is no preferred development branch. No Cubase branch, no Nuendo branch, no nothing. There is a main sequencer branch and very simply, the latest release of either Nuendo or Cubase gets the latest generation of the sequencer branch. Cubase 8.5 was running on a development branch introduced with Nuendo 7, while Nuendo 8 is running on a branch introduced with Cubase 9. Apart from the main sequencer branch, both applications differ more and more with every release. The amount of different code increases dramatically with every new version, based on the different directions both applications are heading towards. Again; there is no preferred “Cubase cash cow development” and Cubase not always gets the latest features first. How often do I hear from Cubase users that they want to get the features introduced first with Nuendo (e.g. the Randomizer with Nuendo 8.0).
The latest sequencer development branch from 11/2017, which has been introduced with Cubase Pro 9.5. Previously, Cubase features have always been a part of the next paid Nuendo update. It is not decided whether it will be the case this time. However, if all features are given away for free, this might have an influence on the Nuendo pricing in future.
We are talking to a lot of industry people at the moment before releasing something. Our approach is not simply adding an Ambisonics bus and some scripting possibilities. This is not what a VR DAW should look like.
Agreed. That’s why we are investing in people instead of releasing people.
The result would be a Nuendo release cycle of less than 12 months. A large number of the Nuendo features actually require more development time than some of the music features, let alone the research that need to be done prior to any code written. With a release window of, say 11 months, the resulting development window is less than 6-7 months, which would be very tough for us in order to get dedicated features into the application. Again, it depends on what level of complexity comes with a feature, but when I recall ReConforming or ADR or GAC, it took quite a while.
If you would be fine with starting either Cubase or Nuendo with the same dongle, I could agree. I’m not sure our Cubase division will release additional licenses to Nuendo users that can freely be shared or sold separately as a second product.
You can see it that way, but why would these post-pro people care about some music creation features? There is only one reason: many of the features coming into Cubase are improvements on a general product level, without any specific relation to music production. For these features, I agree that they should be introduced in Nuendo earlier.
I didn’t mention anything about Nuendo in this context. This product must not be a Nuendo product, nor must it be priced on that level.
There are a lot of conversations with Dolby about this topics (Dolby’s program managers). Due to a recent Nuendo/Nuage installation with Dolby Atmos and Dolby Vision in Burbank, this topic will get another push.
Hang on, just for the record; one could potentially take words from anyone out of the context. That doesn’t depend on the position.
And yes, you are totally right. Spend money elsewhere, if you don’t feel comfortable with Nuendo or Steinberg as a whole.
It is our task and challenge, to get things right.
Yes. This is, however, a long-term work as it will affect all our database/license management systems. But we do see the necessity of being more flexible with installations and multi-seat licenses. In recent years we’ve been installing Nuendo in larger companies and education facilities (e.g. SAE equipped many new facilities across Europe with Nuendo and Nuage systems for post-production learning), and of course there is demand for multi-seat license management.
Well, the easiest way to switch between all applications is a subscription model. Would you consider that for your daily work?
[Ironical & in official mode on] Well, I strongly recommend your new studio partner to look at PT’s forums to learn more about their customer policies [ironical & in official mode off]
The limitation issue regarding DLL/VST plug-ins is currently investigated and a fix is scheduled end of January/beginning of February.
The increase in the number if cue sends will be a topic for future releases. At first, we focused on increasing the number of inserts (which will of course also come to Nuendo).
To be very honest, I would have to investigate the status of this. If it didn’t make it into Nuendo, there must be a good reason for it or, for whatever reason, it felt out of scope. With very few exceptions, we port 99% of all features from Cubase to Nuendo (but only very few from Nuendo to Cubase). The only reason for not porting over feature is, that Nuendo might have a different technical structure for the very same feature (like VCA).
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m advocating for as well. A dongle with a Nuendo license on it could open a similar version of Cubase as well (up to the same update level). There would not be a separate Cubase license for anyone to sell.
This gesture alone could ease a ton of the frustration users feel with the release schedules not lining up I think.
That’s pretty much all I was saying. Users have a certain perception, and you and I both agree that it would be good if those features in question ended up in Nuendo earlier.
Having said that, this isn’t such a big issue for me personally since I focus far more on post, I was just trying to make the point that there seems to be a disconnect between how you at Steinberg think the situation is perceived and how some users perceive it.
(I think the first “must not” really means “doesn’t have to be”, correct? In US English it doesn’t read as logically as it might seem to a German and it looks like you wrote “It has to not be a Nuendo product”)
Anyway, all I’m saying is that if you provide a separate paid product for VR/AR then I can imagine that some Nuendo users (me at least) very likely won’t be interested. Obviously time will tell, but it seems to me these features should be integrated.
More importantly though, this is part of what makes me wonder about Nuendo’s position. You produce so many things, a Cubase product, a Nuendo, a bunch of VSTi, a Nuendo Live, a notation software - and you say it’s hard to find developers. So, one has to wonder: Is this the best way to spend your development Euro - from the perspective of a Nuendo user? Every time there’s an issue with Nuendo and there’s a release of something much “lesser” and cheaper while we wait for a fix I cringe. It completely sends the wrong message. Now, you could of course say that you have your development cycles and so forth so once your train is in motion that’s it, but I would argue that being more agile and throwing us a bone is the better long-term approach.
That’s good to hear.
Come on, don’t be so negative.
[/quote]
Sorry. After the insanely long time it took you to fix VCAs (still not 100% correct) for v7, and the rocky v8 release, I’m just jaded and cynical I guess.
Well, not economically desirable is what you mean, correct?
After all with throw particles into each other at the speed of light and analyze petabytes of data to find new particles in the universe, and manage to measure gravitational waves… so, you know… one license for two softwares?.. It’s not astrophysics…
Yes, my fault. My bad english. Well, a separate product makes no sense for Nuendo users, agreed. But we have all options at the moment. One of them being a separate product and a toolset for Nuendo.
Well, it’s not exactly the case. In reality, you will find many developers with a special focus. We have great developers who are
totally music oriented, we have the Dorico team in London who are devoted to scoring. And we have a specialized pro audio team, for
post-production and game audio features (and more in context of VR etc). We hire people with specific knowledge and passion for a certain topic. So, a fix for a specific Nuendo feature doesn’t have to wait for another team. For instance, we have been providing constant AAF maintenance over a period of more than 3 years (and still going on) with people focussing on that type of work. However, there is one exception. If the fix is related to the core sequencer code, it needs to be synchronized with the different development branches and product lifecycles. In that case, the pro audio team needs to synchronize with other teams, which takes time. Example: fixes related to the user interface graphics.
I hope I could shed some light on this.
and it looks like you wrote “It has to not be a Nuendo product”)