Future Nuendo DAW

AFAIK everything is stored on the hard drive anyway. It’s only loaded into RAM for streaming.


Thanks. … I see…
I have no need for that, but good to know.
For the time being, I would rather go for: never change a running system…lol…
Call me old fashioned…

Big K…

That’s why I’m still on Nuendo 4. :wink:


Can’t say anything against N5.5.1 64bit. Since SB got QT working in win7 64 bit I am smiling wide.
No crashes, no problems…most of my plugs and software/VSTi work very well, no trouble when safeing …

Maybe you should treat your systems like a beloved plant. Talk to it and thank it when it has worked reliably
for a whole day and say nighty-night when you go home, ( but rather not water it…lol …).
Those crates do have a soul… nevertheless some can be real bus tarts …
m2c after 37 years in electronics :wink:

Big K

the audio guys should see what´s been made by the video guys…
the improvements of GPU co processing using Open CL and/or CUDA are huge…
several HD video tracks in realtime on premiere ( usning CUDA )
also on final cut pro X using open CL ( no confusing with open GL )
video is much more processing intensive than audio… in realtime… i guess…
that´s why many things have to be rendered first…
afraid of messing around with new code ?..
i dont think so… the graphic cards are much more powerfull than any cpu nowadays…
even universal audio UAD1 is a gpu…
combining both processing power could rival the dsp / cpu aternative , like protools HD TDM…

Using the ram as a virtual SSD… and using the standard hardisk and/or NAS, on the background as mirrior and final storage…
would be great… protools 10 HD has it and its a very good idea not just for the speed , but also to be able to work with a main NAS storage system, with many nuendos and cubases…



And that’s the difference. All of my plugs and software/VSTi work, and video as well. No reason for me to upgrade, as there are only a couple of extra useful features for me in N5, and they’re no big deal. The things that I need to be improved have not been, so I will wait and see what happens with N6. Or PT11, for that matter (although I don’t hold out much hope for the latter).


  • I’ve heard no problems with sound quality in “audio engine mixdowns”. No idea what you’re talking about. Compared to what really?

  • 64bit float for audio processing on the GPU? Why? Seems completely unnecessary to me…[/quote]

    some guys that tested nuendo´s audio mixdowns against protools 9 and samplitude pro 11, said that the sound is not as good… not 100% transparent when it mixes down a lot o tracks in the box

other thoughts about the future on Nuendo.

  • how about creating a similar product of this one :
    but using only ethernet for sincing with nuendo, just like protools satelite :slight_smile:
    no need for video cards …

and also this :
how about intergrating a similar idea into nuendo ?
to be able to grab the processing power of more cpus over gigabit to process vst and vsti plugins…

this could unload resouces from a main nuendo daw…



yes agree, i was getting a rme fireface uc … but now i have no cash to get it… :slight_smile:

if i were you, i would keep away from that toy called UC :wink:

I would advise them to get a better shrink,.

There are already products for using slave PCs for video.

VE Pro.


See my suggested test here.



If Alsihad sounded any better than Nuendo, I would not be as nasty about it.
It simply doesn’t… Ask our freelancer colleagues who work on many systems, what they say about it.

Error… Those plugs that don’t work, have mostly been discontinnued and/or can’t work in Win7 or in 64bit environment ( see Wizoo W5 ) . All supported Plugs work without problems. It seems, everytime we enter a new OS or processor technology there is something we have to leave behind (like those 3 Parhelias on the shelf, here… :frowning:).

In my case, no disfunctional plugin problem is Nuendo 5.5 related…

Big K

Fair enough. Still no reason for me to risk upgrading for no benefit to my work though. Let’s see what happens with N6. :wink:


Quite so…
Why should you upgrade, if there is no feature in N5 that you need.

Big K

There are always “some guys” who “tested” this, that and the other software against the competition and the competition won. But the devil is in the details. Everyone has an opinion, just like they have an ______ , so the important thing is what and how they measured this difference. Do you know how they tested it? Who they were?

To my knowledge there are two things that are true for sure;

1, double-blind tests on summing buses reveal that when done correctly there is no audible difference between softwares.

2, most of the time when there is a difference it’s so small that it’s a complete waste of time to worry about it. One can spend X hours worrying about getting Nuendo to sound 0.25% better to match some other random software, or one can use those X hours to work, make money, and then use that money to buy a better microphone, mic pre, converter or whatever for recording/mixing which improves the sound 10% instead…

OK, I did my little test. A bounced file from PT 9 is identical to a mixdown file from Nuendo 4. When phase reversed they not only cancel perfectly, but also cancel with the original, proving that both DAW engines are doing the job properly. I will do the same test with summing multiple files when I have time, so that I can see whether or not the summing engines are different.

Just did the summing test. All files are identical. So proof that there is no difference in the sound of a bounce from PT or a mixdown from Nuendo.

Therefore all differences is mix will be caused by either differences between RTAS/TDM and VST versions of plugs, or differences in how each DAW implements faders etc. However a competent engineer will always use his/her ears. so there is no reason that a mix done on one system couldn’t sound the same as a mix done on the other.


As an aside, there has been a lot of talk on the DUC about using a utility such as SuperVolume. Has anyone here got any experience of using it with Nuendo? It seems to me that if the saving in the background really works, it could make things much easier for those of us with large amounts of tracks in the session. If it doesn’t work, or causes pops and clicks, then it is not useful.


A SCSI array would solve that issue.
Been using SCSI for 12 years here and wil never, ever go back.