Linking / Grouping channels

But do it properly! You can even just do it the way Pro Tools does it.

Right now it’s really a half-measure. No way to modify existing groups (that I know of) and incredibly poor visual feedback on what track goes into what group, and what that group does (since it doesn’t get a name).

The year is 2014. Perhaps Nuendo doesn’t have it because there is no Feature Request thread specifically requesting it. I don’t know.

Can you PLEASE make this happen?

Well, for my part I would agree that grouping in Nuendo needs a push.
Grouping in PT is far superior, that’s for sure.

But generally speaking, I really think that we (old or still current PT users) should not be trying to reproduce Protools workflow exactly on Nuendo.
Because in that case, why not use Protools ?

Nonetheless, in that precise matter (as well as one or two things for automation) why not get inspired by something that’s really convenient and powerful to use (setup/use/review) ?

So +1

Here’s the thing: Grouping in PT works. Personally I’ve never sat down and felt, “Dang-it; wouldn’t it be great if PT could do X,Y,Z with grouping…”. So, while your suggestion is certainly admirable, my position is simply that since it’s 2014 already and the current implementation is embarrassing even, perhaps the fastest way to get it done is the best way to get it done, so that it gets done!

So if it’s between waiting another 10 years for Steinberg to figure out how to do it differently or just ripping-off PT, then do the latter! That way there’s not much money and time that needs to be spent on reinventing the wheel.

Well. I get your point and I still agree with you on the objective, but I don’t agree on the way to achieve it.
Blindly copying from protools would probably be not very productive (I would rather go for a detailed explanation of what needs to be grouped linked how when why to develop what we need exactly, in the Nuendo environment.)
Plus I don’t want to see Nuendo turning into Slowtools :wink:

We also cannot say nothing is done in terms of grouping in nuendo, obviously, with v6, so It’s not gonna take 10 years to get better / more complete grouping, I think/hope.
I would bet it’s on the road map actually.
I see what is already present as the first step on a longer road. (Maybe dreaming, though :wink:)

Embarrassing in your opinion, I can absolutely understand that. Especially when I personally like grouping in Protools… (To be used in protools)
But I also find grouping paradigm in Nuendo quite interesting.
Especially the quick link which is really great (PT does not have that and will probably never have something like that, and that’s a shame. Need I remember you that for a very long time we had to stop playback to setup groups? It also took ten some time… As we have to stop playback to change the length of a loop or even to activate loop playback, etc…)

Not reinventing the wheel, ok. Copying it, certainly not ! We don’t need the same wheel necessarily. (qlink - which is brilliant IMHO -wouldn’t exist I they had done just a copy/paste)
What is possible though is to understand why protools users find protools grouping great and program the same amount of greatness in the Nuendo way.

By the way I think you said it very well :
In Protools you can know real quick what I linked and what’s not.
Good starting point for Steinberg to implement :

readable / editable groups, with some visual feedback of what’s grouped in addition to what’s already in v6.
On that, this way, I agree, yes, definitely…

Like I said, it’s 2014 already! I haven’t met a single PT engineer that works professionally that isn’t using groups all the time. If we follow the workflow path groups occur fairly early, and is also an intrinsic part of the DAW. VSTi’s are not. Those we can buy anywhere. We can’t “buy” group functionality that integrates tightly and naturally the same way. Priorities are wrong here. 2014. It should have been taken care of years ago.

Ok, so tell me what it is in PT’s grouping paradigm that you don’t want in Nuendo and why, and then conversely what you want in Nuendo’s grouping paradigm that doesn’t already exist. It’d be on-topic in this thread.

And about saying qlink wouldn’t exist if they’d done a copy/past:

I would in all honesty trade a straight-up clone of PT’s grouping system for qlink ANY DAY! If it’s between the two it’s no contest. Also, the two aren’t mutually exclusive and it is therefore simply a false dichotomy.

There are many reasons why I would want PT style grouping, and it is one reason that we still often mix in Pro Tools.


I don’t get it…
You want PT style grouping in Nuendo, and the reason for that is that you mix in Protools ?!
Doesn’t make sense to me. Nuendo grouping is useful to mix in Nuendo.
And again, it’s already there. It just need to be pushed further…

What’s not to get? PT style grouping is better than what Nuendo currently has. Yes, quick-link is great, but ALL of the grouping functionality in Nuendo compared to all of PT’s is less good. It’s just that simple.

I asked before what in PT’s grouping paradigm it is you do not want in Nuendo, and why, and conversely what you want in Nuendo that currently doesn’t exist. That wasn’t a rhetorical question, it was a serious one. You’re suggesting Nuendo apparently shouldn’t have what PT has - why is that?

And just to be clear; those of us who do the overwhelming amount of paying work in PT will ask Avid for Nuendo features to be included into PT, just the opposite of what we do here. If one completely eclipses the other it’d be game over. It’s a natural to request features that are useful regardless of the source of them. It’d be silly to not include PT features just because they’re from PT. And to be extra-clear: There are still some very fundamental issues and features that are very important to some engineers that Nuendo doesn’t solve or provide - until it does PT will be the favoured choice.

2014, we miss things (and I miss tons of stuff in protools which are absolutely essential today)
1994, I was already missing some stuff.
In 20 years we’ll still miss stuff… So…
PT users use PT grouping. Me too, it would be stupid not to.
Intrinsic part I agree. Should / could have been taken care, agreed.
But they are doing it, actually… You got some new grouping functions already in N6

Grouping in protools is efficient in protools. Very.
Because it does what we need to do.
The paradigm in N is different.
We have similar needs… Not a reason to make a blind copy.
Even the way tracks are handled in terms of format are different. Not a surprise that grouping functions are / will different in Nuendo. Could have come sooner, better, etc… Already agreed. Again, globally : +1.

So yes, I would probably ask for a grouping solution that allows us to do what we need to do.
Protools addresses that problem very well, so it could be interesting to have a look at how they handle thing to understand better what kind of functional solution (Nuendo style) we could be having.
That in my opinion is on topic, because asking thing to dev by saying : you were too long, copy it from someone else and get it done fast" is certainly the best way to not get it done… At all…
Like I said, I agree with you (like on other subjects) on the pro user part : we need the tool, and what you said is deeply true : we cannot buy grouping as a plugin.
So it needs to be solved. But I feel it’s on the way already.

Past that, and to be fair, I have to say that mixing on a controller (tango2) that allow some grouping static/dynamic grouping makes me less Nuendo-grouping-dependent than others, I guess


No way for me.
I wouldn’t trade Qlink. But I’m doing post only… Maybe in music pov is really different…
But The clone is the problem here. Nuendo is no way a clone of protools and mustn’t be.
In that case, again, why don’t you work in protools ?
Nothing is perfect, so I use both.

As it would be silly to try and reproduce every single function of one in the other.
That’s what leads to self cancellation.
You might think it’s not important, but in essence, I think it’s really important to make the distinction when we ask for stuff “like in this other daw”
Asking for a clone is no good for me. At all.
Asking for a tool that addresses the situation, and by the way, look at this daw, they handle it way better (again, agreed) seems way better to me.
At least for devs to properly do their job, imho.

Now, yes, yes, I think Nuendo should handle grouping as good as protools does it.
But that doesn’t mean that it simply needs to be a plain copy (which in terms of dev is simply impossible and will not happen)

Look at what avid did with the clip gain, for instance.
It took them like forever (32bf) but in the end it’s way better than in Nuendo (convert and coalesce to track auto)
They had the good idea not to make a plain copy.
That’s just what I mean here. Otherwise, I sign on for Better grouping functions…

See, I think my last illustrates what I think well (not so easy to explain for me in English) :

If Steinberg could do with grouping what protools did with clip gain, it would be great.
(I know, not easy to get for people who don’t know both daws from at least some releases…)

So what? You do see the difference between fundamental functionality such as grouping as well as functionality that has been around for over a decade, compared to new stuff and stuff that isn’t fundamental, right?

I can guarantee you that among those who uses groups in PT professionally you would be in a minority. q-link pales in comparison to everything else PT provides for grouping.

What kind of argument is that?

And please quote me where I said we should try to reproduce every single function of one in the other! I didn’t say that, did I? I’m not suggesting Nuendo to be PT, that’d be daft…

Just answer my questions: What is it that PT does that you don’t want to see in Nuendo, and what is it you want to see in Nuendo that currently doesn’t exist - specifically? You keep saying “Don’t do it the same way because it shouldn’t be the same way” but you give no specifics for what it is that you have a problem with. Just because one DAW maker improves one functionality of a competitor doesn’t mean that always can or has to be the case. We’re making choices here, and they involve design and development time and money. Let me give you an example:

  • The newest version of Nuendo gives us the ability to normalize to loudness standards including true peak. Great, right? Sure, I was glad when i saw that but quickly realized that anyone delivering stems would face a problem: The final mix output when normalized wouldn’t be the same as summed stems! Is this a problem for me? No, because it probably didn’t take that long to implement. The measurement feature was already there, and Nuendo already includes peak limiting plugins. Probably a relatively simple thing to do, similar to fulfilling a request here to log peaks on the loudness track.

  • But there is other functionality which I bet takes a much longer time to create, because it involves not just planning and execution but the actual design of the thing. Like the ADR system. That Steinberg had to come up with, not just as a concept, but in greater detail. That takes time of course since it involves not just plugging into the signal flow but also a new set of GUI. But well worth it. Great functionality that sets it apart from PT! Awesome stuff. I mean it. And worth developing further.

I already said I’d be fine with something better than PT, but if it’s between a PT clone and waiting another 5 years then I’ll take the clone. And I KNOW many other users would as well. There’s nothing wrong with PT’s way of dealing with groups, and you’re still invited to how exactly it’d be wrong implementing that in Nuendo.

Again, trying to one-up PT on groups seems a bit silly when other things are much more unique. Between MediaBay and ADR there’s plenty of innovation done and refinement to be done. I’d rather time be spent on that than coming up with new ways to do grouping if that’s not necessary.

It’s 2014 and the state of grouping (and lack of VCAs) in Nuendo is so far behind PT it’s not even funny. Get your own version out now or just copy the darn thing and be done with it. This isn’t rocket science, it’s just engineering 101.

Already answered multiple times :
PT grouping is great and yes all what protools can do in terms of grouping would be great to have in nuendo.
(Beginning to be tired to repeat that I agree on that, by the way)

You don’t seem to understand that the way it is asked has probably a lot to do with the answer you’ll get.

I was also simply suggesting that it should be tuned to nuendo, not a plain copy, and even better if they can propose more…
I don’t see where it’s not answering, and there’s nothing complicated here. Especially when we mainly agree on the goal…

As for the rest of the post, I agree.