It’s a shame certain uses and moderators need to post loaded comments.
This is an interesting thread and it would be great if some one form Steinberg development team would respond.
I also feel that I have invested heavily in multiple Nuendo licenses and upgrades over many years to find myself wondering why my “flagship” software is running so slowly graphically.
B
Count me in as another Cubase user who definitely will not upgrade to Nuendo, but definitely would upgrade if it were on par with Cubase with features and fixes. Why would I want to backwards with Nuendo in many ways? Why should I need to make that kind of choice when I just want to best-featured and best-working DAW from Steinberg for my paid everyday work? I’m sorry Timo, but it’s simply a bad business model (I come from a family of very successful business owners, so it’s very clear to me).
I agree with some of the others who are saying that Steinberg is losing money with this…they are definitely losing money. To think that composers and musicians don’t need so many of the post-production features in Nuendo is simply not accurate. Also, to think that those composers and musicians (and post-production people, I would think???) are happy with a Nuendo that is always far behind Cubase in all other ways like bug fixes, GUI, improved features, etc., is also not thinking correctly.
Exactly.
+1 from me too. Nuendo is so far behind on features these days yet Cubase omits functionality under the guise of it being post related. It’s a bit of a rock and a hard place with both pieces of software being crippled.
THIS
Yeah, and so you have the privilege of paying to be a beta tester, it’s a joke. But that’s the software sector, they can get away with flogging stuff that isn’t finished/doesn’t work as it should i.e. ‘broken,’ and say, “oh fixes are on the way.” What they really mean is, “we are understaffed, have tragic project management capabilities, but have to charge you for this stuff so we can make sure there’s enough operating revenue to stay afloat.”
I haved switch to Nuendo from Cubase few months ago, and i haven’t notice any differences in my work flow, except that there is more needed features than Cubase, i have no idea but maybe it will be the same feeling for many Cubase users that would switch to Nuendo.
What happen if Cubase would stop development and slowly be replace by a Nuendo Artist, Elements or what ever limited option Nuendo’s version… ? There is probably some differences in some area, but does it going to be noticed by the majority of users or completely disturb their work flow ?
I did the switch with the big discount, but sure i really hesitated because of that delay schedule between the 2 products, but some Nuendo’s features were really needed to my work.
Ditto: get on with it and just make a Cubendo.
Just, please, don’t use that name, though 
“Cubase Post”!
Ha! Has to be simply Cubase I’d say - add the obvious post-, film & AAF etc. That ‘bounce’ audio to vid with regions (cringe …) yadayada. Yep, I’m bored too with maintaining both Nuendo & Cubase … at the present C9.5 to N8.1, there’s not presently a lot of reason to be using Nuendo for me … until the next 8.5 and off we go again. Unnecessarily distracting and a PITA.
Related, also have Wavelab and that as an addition to Cubase (or Nuendo) is also another way to ‘see’ the suite with round tripping to Wavelab etc. From th-s point of view, its almost as if Cubase could do with its own ‘NEK’ except it would be for post features. Still, some of Cubase right now is artificially crippled by comparison to many competitors because of the ‘artificial’ lack of post- features that appear to be enforced, simply because of distinction between the two programs /price-points.
So it is time for me to upgrade from my Nuendo 4 system. The cost to upgrade to Nuendo 8 is actually more than a new license of Cubase Pro 9.5. My work is live choral and orchestra recording, then mixdown for CDs or online playback. I don’t do videos, or games. Should I just upgrade to Cubase and be done with it? Or is it time to move to a new tool?
I wouldn’t bother with Nuendo at this point. Cubase 9.5 is ahead of it in certain key ways, and for what you’re doing you wouldn’t need the post-specific things Nuendo has.
This, indeed. Such a hugely frustrating company to be dealing with. As I’ve said before, I came from Pro Tools to Cubase a couple of years ago, and Pro Tools is far more advanced than Cubase with features that for some absurd reason are only in Nuendo, which is also far behind Cubase in other features. It’s a mess. I’m trying to figure out what I’m going to do at this point, am totally frustrated. Maybe Reaper 6 will help me make a decision when it comes out. 
I get that not having Cubase features in Nuendo is unsatisfying, but how is not having post-features in Cubase different from the Pro Tools / Pro Tools HD?
All the fancy post-stuff like Surround / Atmos / Ambisonics mixing, Field Recorder workflow, multiple video tracks and so on is HD-only, too, isn’t it?
Agree completely. I primarily make music and I’m seriously considering buying Cubase even just having paid to upgrade to Nuendo 8.
I don’t really want to make the time investment into arguing about what Steinberg should or shouldn’t do since they get to decide for themselves, obviously. It just seems to me that Cubase has pushed so far ahead of Nuendo on a lot of key music making and workflow features it now outweighs the last of the differentiating factors within Nuendo for me. To think Nuendo was suddenly going to have everything in Cubase plus everything it has now plus more that works 100% properly is a bit naive and in the long run not worth the aggravation of clamoring for it.
To the various people here expressing their disappointment. At some point a few hundred dollars to make a change outweighs the wasted time and frustration. If, when you sit down in front of your system, you begin working with a sense of aggravation because of philosophical choices made by the company, I think you should have a look at what your time is worth. Life is short.
I had upgraded to Pro Tools HD from regular Pro Tools (after being on Pro Tools for about 8 years) a few months before I switched to Cubase, and it does have some other little extra things that are fine, but the things you specifically mentioned are things that I don’t use for composing (or for mixing in my case, but that’s just me), nor the vast majority of composers I would guess, unless they also mix in those formats and need multiple video tracks – I’m sure some do, but again I would guess that the majority don’t.
For Cubase to be marketed as being the best for music (which includes composing to picture for so many of us) it needs to have features like edit mode, export video with audio, and some other little things that are all standard in the regular Pro Tools. These things are huge for composing to pic.
For me, I would happily pay to upgrade to Nuendo to get these features plus the most current Cubase features. But I don’t know if that ever will be, so I need to decide if I can live with the crippling of Cubase in these ways for composing, or go somewhere else.
I hear you. But just look at Avid, who has Pro Tools and Pro Tools HD, where HD has every feature of the most up-to-date Pro Tools, plus the additional advanced features for post mixing and editing. It might not be easy for Steinberg to make that switch quickly, but it must be done.
And not only these. Automation is so amputated in PT. Only Pt HD has full automation features.
Totally true. But when you buy Pro Tools HD you get all of the most current Pro Tools features plus the added features of HD, whereas Nuendo has some more advanced features over Cubase, but is not up to the level of the most recent Cubase features and improvements in other ways. Cubase doesn’t have some of the more advanced automation features of Nuendo, as one example, but Nuendo does not have many of the more advanced/current music and GUI/workflow features of Cubase. This is what needs to change in order to make paying more for Nuendo make sense to many of us.