“The Nuendo 5 Expansion Kit (NEK) is a part of the Nuendo product range and brings the music tools of Cubase to the Nuendo media production platform. NEK means complete compatibility with all Cubase music creation features and import functionality for Cubase projects. With world-class instruments, innovative sound design tools and advanced technologies for composers, the NEK transforms Nuendo into a professional, all-in-one solution for music, live and post-production.”
This to me is a problem and a marketing conflict. Why can’t NEK be incorporated into Nuendo by default? Based on this strategy:
Nuendo remains NOT fully compatible with Cubase without it. When paying a premium for Nuendo isn’t this starting off with 2 steps forwards and then a step back just for compatability with a supposingly lesser Cubase…unless Cubase is not lesser, but different? If different, why the appeal for a unified codebase?
As it stands If I then choose to upgrade my Cubase SX to Cubase 6, Cubase 6 will come with the components of NEK…albeit for $299. If I then choose to upgrade my Nuendo (at $399.00 …and because I have both licenses and wish to maintain both), additional cost is applied for NEK full compatibility…and then I’ll be buying the features of the kit twice!
If NEK was included, there really wouldn’t even be a need to maintain both.
Base on this strategy, Nuendo seems to be targeting a different audience too strongly, as you are forced to make an extra purchase for full compatability with Cubase. This is confusing…and redundant.
To me, it would make far better sense to have NEK features unified into Nuendo…especially if those features are just the studio expansion stuff already in Cubase. Or if there should be an NEK it should be exclusive stuff not already offered in Cubase.
RP, you’re missing the point of the NEK - although I can see how.
The reasoning behind it wss not so you pay more to get the cubase music tools - but so that users who don’t care about them can get the extended feature set for less by not including a bunch of stuff that is meaningless to 99% of post users.
That was all.
Although as I said, I can see where the confusion arises as at first glance it looks like more money when in fact Nuendo + NEK combined price is the same as it would have been if the NEK did not exist. So Nuendo 5 + NEK = “Full” version, and N5 (no NEK) = cheaper version.
I’m curious. Of those that have purchased Nuendo, how many have not purchased NEK??
When considering Cubase having the larger market share, as compared to Nuendo, I would think that 99% of those using either would at least want to use the fully tooled application. Granted for cost meaures, one could buy stripped versions for economy sake. But since when is there an economical version of Nuendo as compared to Cubase???
I don’t think the price difference justifies the confusion. Granted, most people will buy either version, and that’s fine. But if you want to maintain Cubase and Nuendo then the question becomes apparent. At the end of the day Nuendo without NEK does not offer the equivalent music production potential as the lesser Cubase. That to me is a shame or at least an oversight. Indeed, hopefully version 6 can address this.
The market of Post Production is totaly different than the “world” musicians live in.
As an example, many radiostations use Nuendo as DAW for producing jingles, promo’s and Statio ID’s.
Here in Belgium, the public broadcast has around 25 seats of Nuendo, the commercial broadcast about a dozen.
Only few of them are equiped with the NEK.
Same thing goes for Post facilities that work for television and movies. Mostly They have multiple seats of which only a few of them need a NEK. I run a small Post facility, and we already have 5 Nuendo’s running …
Actually, I do appreciate the point that those using Nuendo particularly for the post production features will not be concerned about NEK…why should they? NEK is not an already included component but rather an extra featureset for music production they don’t need. But I don’t see a hindrance to them if it were included. But my concern goes beyond that…
Cubase does not differentiate it’s music production features into a kit…they are integrated. Now if I have to add those features to Nuendo via this extra kit, I don’t neccessarily have a problem with that. However, if from a purchase standpoint I am paying for those extra synths, pluggins, and editors etc when I update Cubase. Why do I then have to repay for them again for Nuendo??? It seems to me that I am paying a penalty because I want the same features in Nuendo.
Surely if the post production folks don’t want to pay extra for features they don’t need, I (Mr small time producer) clearly don’t want to pay twice for the same features! Not only that, I now have duplication of software to worry about when I perform the install because there are aspects of the kit that are already installed from Cubase.
A better scenario would be for the kit to be seperate but applicable to both Nuendo and Cubase. That way, if you’ve already purchased it in Cubase, you can apply it in Nuendo. Case closed. Currently the Nuendo+NEK scenario is creating this problem.
The best scenario of all would, I still think, be to drop the whole Cubase/Nuendo thing altogether and - dare I say it? F%@# it, yes - take a leaf out of DodgyDesigns book instead.
One set of Code, and one only.
The most basic version would be Cubendo LE or SE.
Then there would be Cubendo Full
Finally there could be Cubendo HD.
What you get access to in each installation would be determined by what is on your dongle.
Advantages?
One code set.
No leapfrogging
consolidation of all support & development
no confusion
no more threads like this
Disadvantages?
You’re going to piss off certain users, and probably lose the Cubase name or the Nuendo name.
Cannot think of any other problems at all.
With all due respect I think your thinking is a bit illogical. You’re paying twice because you are buying two apps, two licences. If the NEK was rolled into Nuendo you’d still pay for the same featuers, it’s just that it’d be rolled into the total price and you wouldn’t “know” that you did. The difference would be one of perception.
That would result in more programming necessary though, wouldn’t it? I think it sounds like a recipe for more complications both technically and on the Steinberg market.
But be that as it may, it seems they’re getting rid of it anyways so it’s really an academic discussion at this point.
The market of Post is 90 + % Protools, which is also the World 90+ % Musicians live in, the only ones living in a different World would seem to be those using Nuendo !
What has “Post” got to do with radio stations/broadcasters ?
Also any radio station using Nuendo for producing the limited content that they require are clueless or have been duped. Probably more to do with the Cubase brand not being recognised in those circles as a “professional” product , than them needing “Nuendo”. The continuing Cubase / Nuendo branding perception is a total failure of Steinbergs marketing , which would be of no surprise to anyone paying attention.
Removing music features from Nuendo didn’t make it any more suitable for “Post” , it was simply an inane marketing strategy to appease some of the old guard IMO, it hasn’t done anything but segregate the end user base instead of unifying it further, and by the look of the participation on this forum, its done a pretty good job of exhausting any potential it previously had.
I think most of us own or have owned Cubase as well as Nuendo at one time or another during the past 5 years…
Interesting to see that the general concensus of the NEK remains the same after all this time, as we’ve been through all of this before… just a reminder that in May or June of 2010, before N5 came out… we were told by Steinberg reps that NEK would be gone by N6 (references are in the old Nuendo forum).
What is odd is that with all the “Post-centric focus” in Nuendo since version 4, it still has features that provide advanced capabilities for audio when compared to Cubase.
