Cubase 9.5 Features in Nuendo 8 - When?

No, it is technically not possible. Really.

Without elaboration it is a bit hard to understand how this is not possible.

It’s also a little confusing because you wrote that if this is what we meant then you could get behind it. Now we say ‘it is’, and you say it’s impossible.

It sounds like a terrible waist of resources. Having to port Cubase features to Nuendo instead of maintaining a single application (yes… like PT). This certainly explains why we have to wait so long for Nuendo to catch up with each development cycle.

[SARCASM]You know, in theory, two groups could talk to each other to avoid doing the same work twice.[/SARCASM]

Abso-freakin’-lutely for my part. If my N8 dongle could also open the current version of Cubase, that would be a gamechanger for me, finally ending the awkwardness of the Tick-Tock of the update cycles. If that involves loading a seperate sub-license on the same dongle only, I have no problem with that. There is no desire for trickery or something-for-nothing. Just the desire to have access to Steinberg’s top DAW features when paying the 300% premium for Nuendo.

If you can get that approved, I/we would be ever so grateful!

And again, thanks for all of the answers. I know it takes a little time, but it makes a big difference for me.

One may hope that with a new and more flexible licensing system in the works (that hopefully doesn’t rely on dongles), this could be a required use case of that system?

First of all, thanks for all the responses.

Exactly. I meant visual organization of many multi-track sound effects. So they are easier to find in a big project, easier to manage and rename. You mentioned folders, which is one way. But folders are not active, you cannot render folders. I don’t know what you mean by sound blocks but it would be nice for example to being able to quicker render a multi-track sound effect. Select all events and then…? Bounce in place renders each of the clips individually. Render selected events does the same, just to disk instead of the project. There’s only the normal audio mixdown process, which is tedious as you have to set the L and R locators, hit render, give it a name, import it again. SFX cannot be handled like stems, or whole tracks. They’re individual bits of several tracks of layered audio material. It would help for example to handle the folder events (the events that display when you close a folder) as real events you can render in “render selected events” or “bounce in place”. Put several tracks in a folder, close the folder, select that folder-event and hit render selected event. That would be such a time saver to render out many multi-track SFX.

Maybe some Cakewalk people are willing to move :wink:

Oh this is truly music to my ears and I can’t wait to see this implemented.

This is also great to hear as I’m losing my mind over this daily. Having an eLicenser AND an iLok doubles the chance to just lose one of them. So I mostly leave them in the studio, and could then pull my hair out when I would desperately need them on the road. It’s a real productivity killer. I could open Logic, Reaper, Studio One, Reason, use my Waves and Native Instruments plugins, fix something with RX and use Ozone and Neutron, … but I cannot open Nuendo to get any work done.
I hope long-term doesn’t mean decade but a product cycle or two :-/

On July 21, 1969 Neil Armstrong put his foot on the moon. Then he managed to get back here to earth.
Fly-by-wire: a380 carries max 850+ people and a 1.25 million ton weight… computers…

But more on-point: If it’s possible for you to somehow allow me to run Nuendo v1-6 using my Nuendo v7 license, but not v8, then how on earth is it technically impossible to re-write the code so that I could also run Cubase? (though not both at the same time obviously)

Sorry, it may seem like I’m being needlessly arguing this, particularly since I have no dog in this fight, but I really find it incredibly hard to believe it’s technically impossible. Time travel is technically impossible, as is traveling faster than light. I don’t think this is. I have an extremely hard time seeing how this is anything other than an economic issue.

I’m gonna stick my neck out here and attempt to clarify what I think Timo is saying.

I think he is saying that SB may be open to allowing Nuendo users to run Cubase as well.

I think what he is also saying is that the means by which SB would do that (if they do) will not be via the specific technical mechanism you are requesting.

Two different answers for two different questions.

I understand what he’s saying. But he makes a fairly good point when he says that it’d be a possible problem to hand out Cubase licenses to Nuendo owners if the licenses are ‘untied’ because users might resell them. That then becomes a monetary issue, meaning loss of revenue.

Now, I actually wrote Nuendo users could get a Cubase license as well, but what I really meant (but didn’t write clearly) was that Nuendo users should get one license to open either DAW. So it’s interesting that Timo took what I wrote literally (which is understandable), because when he did that he put the finger on the actual issue. And of course it’s true you can program software so that one license can cover two apps. And so “we can’t” really means “we won’t”, and the reason for that is again money/resources.

Again though, I think other users would probably be far more happy about getting Cubase than me, I care pretty much exclusively about Nuendo.

I have no idea what post production people even want to do with this Cubase license. If they gave Nuendo licenses the ability to run Cubase then it would only run the versions of Cubase released before that Nuendo version.

If you just want to try the new features then you can just wait for the Cubase 9.5.10 update and download the trial version to get a good idea of what you’ll be able to do in the future.

Hi everyone,

ok, maybe I have been unclear on this.

Now to make it very clear: it is not possible that a current Nuendo license can open a newer Cubase license.
The system cannot look up the Nuendo version and make a newer Cubase license available. I’m not going to explain
the technical background on this.

Finding ways to integrate features faster in Nuendo, that have been released with Cubase first, is a topic
we discuss. However, there are many side effects on the development as mentioned.


Well, the underlying branch structure is still one sequencer structure for both applications. However, the natural branching of the
code adds complexity, agreed. But there are no two teams doubling work. There are the core sequencer teams, the music and pro audio teams, including also WaveLab. The beauty of the two-brand solution is that you have dedicated teams and products. With a one-product solution (like PT), you would have to cater for ALL possible user groups with every release of that one product (e.g. music, post, broadcast, games, live, scoring, mastering…). Typically, companies just running one-brand product strategies offer more generic features but less dedicated functions for a certain type of work. Which won’t make you happy in the long run, as it rarely speeds up your work. Also, the number of external tools and workarounds is much higher with such products.


You are right with regards to the second license. We simply cannot provide every Nuendo user a second, freely moveable Cubase license. The Cubase product management wouldn’t agree on that.

With regards to the technical solution, please refer to my previous post. However, I’m sure that will be possible with the next generation of our licensing system.


Which answers my question / what I had hoped. That’s good to hear. Now let’s hope the new licensing system is not 5 years away.

I’m really grateful you answering all these questions. It clarifies the direction SB is taking and what work is being done behind the scenes currently, both short and long term. I now know better what to expect and I can adjust my needs accordingly. If I need something quicker than your roadmap, I can use another DAW, if I can wait for a feature I know is in the works, then it’s easier to bear andwait. But at least I know and I can act!

I’m sure we would all be glad if you’d be here more often. It doesn’t always have to be you, Timo, of course, I guess you have a lot on your plate. But somebody from Steinberg, a regular QA person, a link between development and forum, at least acknowledging that a reported bug has been registered and work to fix it is under way and when to expect a fix, so we don’t get the feeling of talking into a black hole. Also support tickets being closed without comment doesn’t help, which we’ve heard a few times here. So having somebody that can update us on the status would be extremely highly appreciated. Again, to make decisions on how to continue with owr own projects: Do I wait for a fix or do I need to look elsewhere to solve a problem.

Sometimes, a fix is only scheduled for the next regular update cycle, which takes a few months. It would be great if critical bugs (e.g. highly marketed features that don’t work) would be fixed with special patches that don’t take months. I don’t know if testing stands in the way of quickly delivering a hot fix, because so many cases have to be tested or what the problem is.

For what it’s worth, I’m currently demoing C9.5 and must give SB a lot of credit for making the UI a lot more responsive.

On my new PC at least, the GUI is fast; I’d say on a par and possibly faster than N7, which is a great improvement. I’ve not had the chance to try this on the Mac yet though.
The new automation and click track are both fab too, and very welcome features.

Whatever this new licensing scheme is, I hope in the future it will overcome the leapfrogging issue that we currently have.
I appreciate that not all post people are interested in Cubase’s feature set, but for someone like me who’s less post and more music composition/game audio production based, they are all worthy and well thought out additions to the feature set.

It might sometimes take a loooong time for Cubendo to catch up with some of the features of other DAW’s, but I have to give props for the fact that when they do, they often exceed the functionality of other DAW’s.

I wouldn’t agree to it either if I was in their position.

I think this is a difference in how we use language. I meant that software could be programmed so that it was possible, not that it currently could easily be done. So we’re basically saying the same thing then. Sorry if that was confusing.

What I was suggesting was that the version nomenclature be synchronized. By that I didn’t mean just changing what they’re called, but making sure that a Nuendo v8 actually has all the features of Cubase v8. I could be wrong, but it seems as if the two apps are now “mislabeled”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Nuendo v8.x to include all the features of Nuendo v9.x? So let’s just say for the sake of the point I was making that they’re ‘synchronized’.

Now what you say above isn’t really the case. Cubase gets released before Nuendo, meaning that if there are new features for both Cubase gets them first and then Nuendo. Since a fair amount of users over the years have been annoyed by Nuendo always getting those same features later even though it was paid for the solution would be to get the ability to run that version of Cubase. So, it would be something that was released before Nuendo, but belonging to the same level of development, the same ‘sequencer version’ (again assuming they’re “synchronized”).

That was what I meant.

As for why someone would use it? There seems to be people here making good use of Nuendo’s features that aren’t post-only, that aren’t Nuendo-only. So if your workflow allows for it you could actually benefit from doing certain things in Cubase and then switch over to Nuendo to finish. The line between music and post as far as what we do might be pretty clear, but the line between what features we use in either isn’t as clear in my opinion. For example: New sampler features - for music sampling or for film sound design???

Hi Matthias,

in terms of nomenclature, the difference in versioning resulted simply in different lifecycles and different release timings. Cubase now gets an update every year; so in order to get the features first introduced with Cubase into Nuendo asap, we would have to make a Nuendo update also every year. I’m not saying this is no option, but according to the feedback we got over the years, Nuendo users are rather hesitant with updating their application (major update) every year.

Well, it’s hard to say which version (Cubase or Nuendo) gets released “first”. One could argue that some of the new Cubase 9.5 features have been already introduced in Nuendo 8.0 in June 2017. So, from a Cubase perspective, Nuendo got those features first. From a Nuendo perspective, Cubase gets some features earlier, some of which are more or less useful for Nuendo users. The difference however is, that nearly ALL Cubase features are ported to Nuendo, while only few Nuendo features make it into Cubase. So I can understand that the demand of Nuendo users for the Cubase features is actually higher.


15 months ago you said the following in repsonse to a VR audio related query:

If implementing a bus designed (22.2 aside, in case someone offer this is a solution) for dealing with HOA isn’t a big deal, why is it taking so long? Instead of developing a “VR DAW” as a separate product/add-on why not address signal flow rigidity? it’s clearly bus rigidity that has led to many adopting Reaper at this point, so one would think this is something Steinberg would be eager to address? I just find it curious, it’s an obvious weakness in the product, and if it’s not a big deal to solve, why not solve it?

Because an Ambisonics bus doesn’t make a VR product. And to be accurate, Reaper has no Ambisonics bus. The bus width simply allows
for 64 channels. Yes, we could have opened the bus to 64, same as Reaper. And yes we know that Reaper gets a lot attention in the VR
market because of this. But the VR market is in its beginnings and things need to be considered long-term. Simply adding a 64 ch bus
doesn’t bring the VR audio production to the next level.

Now, you picked a comment I had 15 months ago for a product concept that was in conception. During 15 months things change.
However, I’ve actually never said that Nuendo won’t get the tools. I recently said that all options - tools to integrate into Nuendo plus
potentially a separate product - are on the table.