Hi,
Long-term Pro user of DP, Logic, PT and Live. I have a demo version of Nuendo 6.5 that I am considering purchasing. I have spent about 4 - 5 hours trying to get what i think is a simple process happening, but am now unsure if Nuendo can do it. Nothing on the interwebz or manual, or a deep investigation of the GUI seems to work, but I am hoping someone can shed some light please.
This is to do with Surround, but the basic question is - can you choose a BUSS as an input for an FX channel (importantly I need to use a child Buss as INPUT to an FX Channel). This is possible in DP, PT and Reaper - is it possible in Nuendo? Can’t be done in the channel routing section of the mixer, nor does the Channel settings [e] window provide that level of control, nor does the VST Connections (CX) window. I can create child sets in the VST CX window, but can only route [send] to the children, not receive [return] from them. The concept is really simple - surround buss send (8.1) on audio channels - with 4 separate stereo return channels (each with a stereo input from a subpath/child, L-R, Ls-Rs etc). Each stereo-input FX channel is then routed to the main 8.1 output (or 5.1, 7.1 - whatever, the concept remains the same). In other words it seems that the virtual patch cables (Busses) in Nuendo are single ended?
I think there’s a thread about the routing, somewhere.
The way I chose to look at Nuendo vs. PT is as if you took your bus in PT and added an AUX to it, and made that visible. That’s sort of what a “group” is in Nuendo. PT’s buses are of course not visible whereas the AUXes are, so I know some people sort of don’t really understand the difference. Not sure if that different conceptual view helps you at all.
If I get what you want to do you want to take a sub-set (child bus) of a group and route that to an FX channel. I just tried and I can’t seem to figure out how to do that either. You can send signal via direct out or sends to the FX channel, but you’ll end up sending all channels and not just the child bus.
The only option I can think of is to send everything but when you instantiate your plugin on the FX track you select for it not to process all channels, only the ones you wish to treat. I’m not sure if you end up still passing audio for the rest though, in which case you’d have to mute them. Not an elegant solution at all.
Actually, the other option would I guess be to take care of all ‘sending’ before the signals are ‘combined’. So rather than having a full 5.1 and send L/R only, you’d have to route whatever is supposed to go into 5.1 into stereo first, and then into the 5.1. That way you could actually send the L/R where you want and not get the rest. Of course that’d be pre-processing by definition which you might not want.
I perceived Nuendo’s “group” to be something other than a send buss, more as a subgroup (output routing rather than send)? I will take a look at that again to get my head around Nuendo groups a little more.
You got it.
Nice thought - that would get around some other restrictions imposed by Nuendo (i.e. there is no way to design your own children sets like PT and DP (& reaper etc) do with their simple matrix setups). This solution you propose however does largely replicate what already exists in that Nuendo lets you choose to send a subset whereas the problem is how to receive a subset.
Interesting, but does not produce the signal flow that the problem context provides. In this scenario a stereo send would suffice I think.
No apologies needed - Appreciated.
I get the feeling that the difference in design might be this - busses in DAWs are usually treated as their own entity - then you connect objects to them at either end. Nuendo does not seem to do this but treats the busses almost as if they are in an integrated circuit. I could be wrong, and hope I am. There is lots to like about Nuendo (and I am really sick of being bent over a hard surface by Avid so am looking to shift my software and about $250,000 worth of Avid hardware out the door if I can and replace with something else) but if there is no way to select a child buss as an input for an FX or Audio channel then . . . . . . . . . . NFI.
I hope I’m understanding you correctly but what you would do is:
Create your main surround output bus under VST connections
Create various stereo child busses underneath the main surround output bus
Add your various stereo group/FX channels and set their outputs to the required child bus
From your channels you can now send (or route/direct route) to your group/FX busses which then get passed to the appropriate channels on your main surround bus.
Not sure, possibly not. I have done steps 1 and 2 no problem. The bit that is missing from your suggestion is how you get the stereo FX channels to see the required child busses as their input. As one example of this process:
start with a stereo audio channel (the output is irrelevant, could just as easily be stereo, 5.1 or 7.1 etc).
now create a 6.0 FX buss with three child busses (L/R, Sl/Sr, Ls/Rs) in the VST CX window.
Instantiate this 6.0 surround buss as a send on the stereo audio channel.
Now things get tricky in Nuendo - I need to create (for example) 3 stereo input FX channels that have stereo pairs (children) of the 6.0 buss as their inputs (FX1 input = L/R of 6.0, FX2 input = Sl/Sr of 6.0 and FX3 input = Ls/Rs of 6.0).
This is where your step 3 deviates from the solution needed. It might clarify things to think of the surround panner (on the audio channel send) as just a means of moving sound to different (and multiple) outputs, in this case not speakers but FX channels.
I have tried with groups as well but neither groups nor FX seem to allow the ability for a child buss to be an input.
Update - after further adding and deleting busses I see what you mean Lydiot - there is not actually a fader ‘object’ that you can attach a buss to - the fader object IS the entire buss therefore Nuendo does not seem capable of doing what I need on this. Nuendo’s design-logic is almost almost like an integrated circuit where the fader IS the buss or the child, and there is no way of adding a child fader post the full panner. Maintaining the programmer’s logic in constructing the GUI to manage the signal flow, this way of working would either need the ‘invention’ of a matrix ‘object’ (e.g. add Group / FX / Matrix) which would allow ‘cable’ management, or alternatively the ability to assign a new buss (with associated fader) for grouped outputs from a surround panner. I also own Iosono Anymix pro and miss this feature in that software as well. The logic in working this way is simple, but not currently in line with the way the Nuendo designers have implemented (at least yet, maybe) signal flow management in this program. I am very keen to be shown otherwise and that there is a method to do this - but the functionality (and underlying logic) seems to negate this potential. Tell me I am wrong.
First of all, I’d love to tell you you’re wrong, but I might be lying… so I won’t.
Secondly, it seems Likelystory’s solution is similar to mine in that you’re essentially sending from a stereo source rather from a stereo child buss within a wider source. So that’s not what you’re looking for.
Thirdly, I think this has been up for discussion before, and if we’re really lucky it may be “fixed” in the next version. I have absolutely zero expectation that this would be divulged before release though as Steinberg is just super-tight-lipped about upcoming features… annoyingly so, to their own detriment even. But I’m pointing it out because if you have the time to wait about three-four months you might get what you need. My guess is that they’d in that case allow for the connections between existing objects rather than creating new ones.
Lastly, I know this isn’t rocket-science or news, but there’s a lot of good stuff in Nuendo and I really do believe version 7 could be the one where it outshines PTHD, for like the first time ever. So if you have the time to wait then the overall net result may be positive.
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I should ask what exactly it is you’re trying to achieve rather than how you’re trying to achieve it? There are always different ways to get to the same end goal.
I think his problem is (for example) that if he wants to process a channel in 5.1 first, then, grab a part of that channel - a child bus - and send that somewhere, he has a problem.
In our examples we used a send prior to the 5.1 channel, so it wouldn’t have been possible to process all 6 channels first, and then after that send the L/R child bus somewhere.
That’s how I read it anyway.
Perhaps I’m missing something. It seems like it would be important though and I recall others having had problems with this limitation (Neil Wilkes perhaps). I don’t do much surround so to me it’s not an issue… yet…
Agreed, lots to like about Nuendo. A few workflow inefficiencies (relative to what i am used to in other DAWs) came as a surprise to me but they don’t feel like deal-killers.
Good question - difficult to answer succinctly. Basically however - the ability to control combinations of multiple FX returns in parallel from a single controller. But that is a technical description (easy to do) rather than the level of creativity (much harder to describe) that this technical scenario enables. Let your imagination run wild. (happy to provide some examples if that is what you are looking for)
Can anyone clarify for me what it means on page 218 of the Nuendo 6.5 Operation Manual where it says:
(my emphasis added). This is what I need but can’t seem to get happening.
So all I need is some sort of channel that allows me to choose child sets as inputs. Obviously groups and FX channels can’t be used because they do not allow selectable inputs. Audio tracks DO but the list of selectable inputs does not see the child sets from the 6.0 group OR fx busses.
Signal flow in Nuendo SHOULD =
Stereo Audio channel (track) -> send buss 6.0 (3 x stereo children) [options are FX or Group?]
6.0 Child 1 (L/R) -> AudioA
6.0 Child 2 (Sl/Sr) -> AudioB
6.0 Child 3 (Ls/Rs) -> AudioC
Audio channels set to input monitor.
I cannot get the audio channels to see child sets though. Of either FX or Group multichannel busses.
OK. Nuendo bug?
Screen snap attached. Stereo FX busses and stereo group busses are available as inputs for an audio channel, but stereo child busses of a surround buss are not. Same behavior for other people?
Pretend you have a 7.1 channel. Now you want to grab ONLY the left/right from that 5.1 channel and send that information somewhere. So you set up a stereo child bus. If you look at his image you can see these child buses. They are the ones with “-F” (for “front” I guess), and “-S”, and “-R” (presumably for “surround” and “rear”).
Now how do you get signal FROM those child buses to somewhere else???
Thanks Lydiot. (F=Front, S=Side and R=Rear, not that it really matters, I typically use naming conventions of [f], [c], [s] & [r] to increase the visual saliency).
audiomonkeys - if you like, close your eyes and picture this - a surround buss going to a front pair of speakers, a side pair of speakers and rear pair of speakers. Now replace each pair of speakers in your mental image with tracks that you can insert FX on. I have whipped up a quick image that might help? Really it does not get any simpler so the image is no more complex than the descriptions already given, but that is just how simple the concept is. There is nothing complicated about it - it is just a vector panner going to multiple outputs - and then groups of those outputs go to different channels for processing.
All i am trying to do is get some way of returning the child busses back down some channels so I can apply inserts, pans and levels as is typical on FX return channels.
To put it simple then you’re looking to have one send for multiple fx right? having a surround send is that then to be able to pan signal to each fx depending on the surround panner position or is that not important?
While I’m trying to figure out what you want to do and why …
Do I understand you correctly that you want to use a single send to the 6.0 FX channel?
Then the routing, and the level is controlled by the Send Panner , no?
(happy to provide some examples if that is what you are looking for)
