N8.2 VCA Bug?

I seem to be having a problem with N8.2 and the way it handles VCA’s.

I get what seems like level corruptions when using VCA’s. Is it just me or does anyone else have this problem?

Here is my recipe for disaster, it’s quite simple…

Do all of the following using touch faders (I’m using an Avid Artist Mix for example) with Nuendo’s automation in “Auto-latch” mode

Create a track in a new session.

Create a VCA and assign the track to it.

Create a minutes worth of random fader automation on the track.

Create a minutes worth of random fader automation on the VCA where the automation is happening on the track. Make sure the fill mode is in “To End” and that the fader does not sit at 0 but either higher or lower for the rest of the timeline.

Now turn Off “To End” fill mode.

On the physical fader, go back and write a small amount of automation on the track over the tracks current fader lever automation (I am in latch mode and have not selected any fill mode so when I stop playing the fader will return to the old levels).

What happens to me now is that the automation on the track has been affected for the rest of the timeline, much like a trim throwing out the mix on that track from that point onward.

This does not happen in N7 or even n8.1.10

I assume this is not meant to happen.

I’m on a PC Running Windows 10 Pro V1709

hmmm

Definitely an issue and one Steinberg is aware of. Be weary when using VCAs with existing automation.

Oh dear. How long has it been now since VCA’s were added? Two years? !

I’m glad I don’t use 'em, but sorry I paid for them.

Two years ago was the one year anniversary of the release with VCAs added, and two years ago was when I brought up the problem (someone else did too I think).

I think what Steinberg needs to do is to have a pre-release testing procedure that includes a null test. Create an actual realistic post-production mix involving all the basics, and then pick one section and test changes in that section alone. But once that’s done do a null-test on the entire project. This way issues like this one would show up in the resulting file. Same with a previous issue involving the filter settings.

The worst thing about those two types of bugs is that they affect areas outside of those we may have tweaked. So we can (and I did) get a mix approved with the exception of a small section somewhere, and if we make the changes the client wants and re-render the entire thing other pieces may now be wrong, even though we never touched them… and of course, unless we punch-in we’ll never know without listening to the entire mix again…

Yes, it’s frightening that this can happen.

It’s also disappointing that a feature in this mixing software actually destroys mixes. This really is a serious problem.

It’s not something that one always notices immediately and can be cumulative so that when you do notice it your mix is quite different to what you intended and It can take quite a while to find when it started going wrong.

I really hope this get fixed ASAP as VCA’s are so useful.

:open_mouth:

I mean… I was thinking about upgrading to version 8 considering the relatively steep discount, but I’m honestly on the fence after seeing this.

Nuendo 7 to me seemed to be the most stable release with the fewest issues. Unfortunately (for me) VCAs were useless on release, and it took over a year and a half to get them to work properly. Now with Nuendo 8 I looked at the release notes of one of the updates, and the amount of fixed DOP bugs is just staggering. Seeing that so many issues were allowed to reach the release version is really worrying, and now seeing this just makes me feel there may be a million little things that might trip me up when working. N8 seems to have had far more smaller issues. Not sure an upgrade is justifiable for me.

Can anyone else confirm this?

Can Steinberg chime in on this?

I’m about to get 8.2 before the discount runs out and I want to make know in advance just how upset I’m need to be if this is indeed broken - again…

I have tried this and although I am indeed seeing some strange things (incorrect values).
There is a known VCA “punch”-bug, which probably is related.
Will try to document this properly and report this.
Thanks


Fredo

Is this “punch-bug” documented? I’d like to know what it entails.

Also, as far as you know, is there a planned maintenance release after 8.2? Because it would really irritate me if I’m paying for this only to have more VCA features years after they were introduced.

It behaves as described on Mac too, even without Fill to end enabled.

With each additional automation pass the level of audio track rises by 3-4 dB until it hits the top and just sits there at +12.

Hard to explain, but "wrong " en “strange” punch points are added after “punch”
Fix is schedules for 8.3.0.
That’s all I can tell you.

Fredo

Ok. I just got 8.2 so I’ll install it later and give it a look… And they better fix it.

Quite frankly I think this should be embarrassing for them. They should do open Beta, or get a better Beta testing team, or simply fix things like these before release. I reiterate what I said earlier that the worst kind of bugs are the ones that affect areas outside of the ones your working on. So if you’re changing this one thing for a client and something else changes as well you won’t be aware of it unless you audition the whole thing again (and remember what it sounded like) - or do a null test (which nobody does)….

I think this is very, very bad.

.

Yes this is bad, because it can be very difficult to track or it can eventually stay fully hided. Human earing can be terribly inefficient in tracking mix problems. I know a couple of those mix problems, that did stay hided during mixing sessions, and that did target the manufactured CDs… But that can be detected by everyone when carefully listening.

Then hided do not exclude that the mix has been altered. I did report a record bug a couple weeks ago, affecting the mix quality, that nobody seems to care of.

This attitude is not right. At least the developers should jumps on such reports, even if users are not terribly worried about it. I feel that bugs that can deteriorate mix quality silently should be corrected as soon as possible. To respect the user and listener basis, but to keep a good corporate identity too and preserve the commercial success of the software in the future.

Software projects that have a good communication between users, testers and developers, can develop very fast and give a very strong code basis with a very low bug count. Nuendo did enhance here in the last two years but still need some more enhancements, hopefully next versions will focus even more on reliability, testing and bug corrections, eventually reducing the amount of new functions.

Anyway this mean that this kind of bug can degrade a mix, and eventually nobody will ear it at least before Disc or Film marketing.

This is why it’s extremely important to have a very serious test suite, an internal tester team, an external tester team that really work with the software, so that 99.9 % of the remaining bugs are tracked.

But even more important is to have a very serious and strong programming, well designed and extremely well documented, so that years after years, when important lead programmers are leaving the team, new programmers can jump on the program, fully understand it, and modify it without disaster.
I remember discussing about that aspect with an SSL engineer, explaining that there were some protections in the software code of their mixing desks to allow detection of an eventual automation data corruption.

This is very important specially for hardware firmwares and drivers that are not often updated, and that sometimes needs an update many years after initial release for compatibility with a new piece of software. When this is not done like this, updating is sometimes impossible (Steinberg TimeBase, no 64 bits drivers, probably partly for this reason…).

Last, in recording studios, in the old days of mixing on large analog consoles with many external effects, null tests were frequents, during a total recall session, to check for the total recall precision.

The mix is recorded on two tracks for that purpose at the end of the session, so that this material can be used for comparison during the next total recall session.

Software is less reliable than hardware because of its complexity inducing a difficulty for programmers to manage intellectually all the aspects of the problems that can be triggered.
So it’s a safe measure to record the mix from time to time, for later null comparison.

.

I don’t think anybody expects programmers to be perfect human beings. What is irritating is that Steinberg releases versions of this software with potentially very severe problems… Knowingly releases versions with known problems that are serious… without telling us about them.

If there was at least one known VCA bug why is it not in the release notes? And if this particular one which such potentially serious effects was known why was it not listed as an issue?

So no E.T.A on that?

Can’t wait for 8.3! Have had to roll back to 8.1.10.

Can we get a comment from Steinberg on this please?

And an ETA on 8.3 so we get VCA working…

Hi

Yeah !!! This is a huge desaster !!! And terribly annoying and embarassing.

I will post a video soon - this is so damn shitty -

  • – and this will go public on youtube !

throwing me back 3 Generations of updates. I have slowly adjusted my mixing template to the vanishing bugs and now they are back again.

Please !!! First priority !!!

I am thinking of quitting Nuendo mixing once and for all and go back to 100 % Protools !

So f******** angry !!!

I am a professional TV Re-Recording Mixer and this is ruining my job !!!

STEINBERG !!

Wake UP !!!