I can confirm that both applications are 100% identical.
Some features might work diffently though.
And of course, Nuendo has a bunch of additional features.
but both are build on the exact same foundations.
HTH
Fredo
4 Likes
“We” said it before: Since both Cubase and Nuendo share the same code that Cubase has and Nuendo has additional features the question is how they’re developed. If Cubase features are finished first then why would we make Cubase users wait so they could be released at the same time? That makes no sense. No need to have them wait just so we can feel better.
If there’s a Nuendo-specific team that finishes at the same time as the Cubase team and then we’re waiting for no good reason then fine, but I’m guess that’s not really the case.
1 Like
Maybe I was overreading the fine print that wasn’t even printed 
—sometimes the mind’s got a habit of sketching in invisible ink.
What part felt like it got the extra plot twist?
By this logic, Cubase Elements should be released even before Cubase PRO. It is quite unusual for a software company to release lower tiers of a product earlier than the full version.
The obvious solution would be moving the Nuendo exclusive features to a separate extension pack, so that everybody could update the Cubase core at the same time, and than a longer wait for the Nuendo Extension update. But that’s not gonna happen, too much pride and ego at stake.
Cubase Elements and Pro are the same identical executable, just some features are enabled or disabled via the license.
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
I don’t see how that’s “obvious” actually. In order to make that work SB would then have to create yet another installer, and they would have to make sure first that Nuendo “light” would work without said installer, and then with it. That’s surely even more development time.
So now you’re potentially waiting even longer for Nuendo-specific features.
We’ve somehow become accustomed to software launching with problems that then need fixing, and we even consider waiting longer an advantage. But companies really should have more infrastructure so that software is released with few or insignificant bugs. Clearly, there will be bugs due to the number of user-specific requirements, but we normalize the abnormal. Waiting longer for a free update isn’t a problem, but we’re paying for it. And even so, I’ve never had a completely unusable Steinberg software, to be honest, aside from a few minor issues.
That said, on the other hand, Nuendo is Steinberg’s most professional software, and for me, despite seeing some arguments presented that sound logical, it would be normal to launch Nuendo first and then release lower-end versions imo
Waiting longer for the release of the more advanced software is like paying extra for first class and boarding the plane last.
VCA’s work differently, or not at all how any self-respecting engineer operates so I think it’s still up for debate, until Steinberg finally give end users a properly functioning VCA system.
1 Like
So if there the same, why in Nuendo when I use [TOUCH Automation] it automatically creates an end point to return to the original value after I release touch.
But in Cubase it does not.
Therefore they are not 100% identical.
In Cubase you have to manually 1st place an end point for your original automation point.
Nuendo does this automatically.
This is like saying i have a vending machine, that sells 2 cups of coffee, Cubase & Nuendo.
Cubase coffee has regular milk, Nuendo coffee gets a special cream, therefore I am not buying the same coffee !
The coffee beans may be the same, but the make-up of the drinks appears different.
Regarding code in programming, things act differently in a specific environment. If you have code working alongside components that are not there in another scenario, you will get differing outcomes / bugs etc…
An example being, In Nuendo the Cubase code is working with components not in Cubase Pro, so we can find out more about this code and how it functions with the added components.
The testing of this code is being stressed using other factors not present in the former environment.
hahaha….oh no…..nek in reverse!!! 
2 Likes
Steinberg already has two installers: Cubase and Nuendo. What I suggested is switching to: Cubase and Nuendo Extension.
Indeed NEK was a terrible implementation of a modular approach.
1 Like
Its top Down…
Nuendo offers additional, more complex automation modes tailored specifically for post-production tasks—modes that are simplified in Cubase. If memory serves me right, Around 2002 Steinberg took the established, robust codebase and audio engine from the already released Nuendo product and used them as the foundation for the new, music-focused Cubase line.
I would prefer there to be 2 teams.
I think this is how Apple ran in the early era, they had a specific Apple Mac team, Steve Jobs wanted the A+ programmers, people he deemed genius level to be assigned to that team and not be working on other less important technologies/projects.
I would have a designated Nuendo Team, who take the Cubase code and then go at it alongside advanced AI agents, to make it far superior, and then charge another $100 a year on top to be ploughed back into research for Nuendo only.
Nuendo becomes a lab extension that works isolated from Cubase, it awaits the codex then goes to work in secret with its own developments.
Because Cubase has a different automation system than Nuendo.
Upon popular & massive request from the Cubase users. (Don’t get me started)
That automation system is build on top of the same “foundations”.
Cubase and Nuendo cars have the exact same chassis, motor and structural components.
But the cars may have different wheels, bumpers, seats and features that the other doesn’t have.
Fredo
5 Likes
The upholstery, sunroof, and channel fader caps were what I looovvved in Nuendo 5/6 compared to whatever Cubase was at the time. A definite feel of luxury back then.
Not 6, but, yes, more than 3. I’ve got a lot of machines, at least for my current workflow, I need 2 licenses. I don’t want to risk headaches with activate/deactivate/reactivate cycle. However, I don’t like having two licenses. Right now it works out fine due to the Cubase-Nuendo release cadence, but who knows… if I go all Nuendo (which I have been on the verge of doing several times!), then I might re-evaluate. But for now at least, yes, 2 licenses.
When the new music features come out in Cubase, I get excited then feel let down knowing I have to wait but it’s worth it for stability and relatively bug-free operation but saying that, I can still get work done.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s only a few months difference, so it’s no big deal. And I usually don’t put Cubase into production anyway until the first or second patch. And I’m really busy this time of year… So in reality…. it’s not even a few months TBH.
In any case, I look forward to Nuendo 15… excited to see if they improved the transcription feature and stuff like that…. anything to help me with dialog-based projects. Also looking forward to sound design features. They added some nice new modulators in Cubase 15, so those will obviously be in Nuendo 15… but sometimes they add some exclusive cool sound design stuff… and of course any workflow improvements are always welcome…
Sadly I don’t think we’ll be getting click and drag ripple editing this year, so crossing fingers for that in C16/N16.
Anyway, cheers! The holidays will fly by and then we’ll get Nuendo 15… 
I looked into that, I can see why that would be a valuable addition to Nuendo and I am wondering what it would take to implement.
I remember, a while ago the raging (or railing) for (or against) timestretching, so I can’t fathom why it isn’t available in any Steinberg product, when it’s in something like Reaper, which is nearly, for all intents and purposes. a free product.
Cheers