Pretty sure he read your post and he’s not implying anything.
With that said, yes it is a bit of work, I use the multiple mixer workflow as well. I don’t hide all the tracks I don’t want to see, I select the group I want to see and select Show Only Selected Tracks, which is way less clunky.
Cubase is also criticized in the market as much as Nuendo. All studios use Pro Tools. Yes, Nuendo and Cubase are superior to Pro Tools in many plug-ins, but people insist on using Pro Tools.
In 2008, many studios were using Nuendo, but now it’s virtually unknown and hardly anyone even remembers its name.
Pro Tools sometimes releases silly videos, but it uses social media effectively. Steinberg has very few social media followers and YouTube viewers.
So you’re saying that those who use Nuendo already know and don’t need any additional information? I disagree. Even though I’ve been using Nuendo for a long time, I still (unfortunately) get information by watching Cubase videos. I’m not saying Nuendo is completely ignored, but I’m saying it’s not promoted as much as Cubase. I think the reason Pro Tools is so widespread in the industry (even if it doesn’t deserve it) is due to this strategy.
I guess there’s also another reason: as the feature set between Cubase and Nuendo overlapps (the later encompassing almost or all of the former), steinberg perhaps assumes almost all functions could be promoted and thoroughly explained with Cubase-only videos; post functions are so specific that a pro in the area is assumed to know how to operate them, contrary to the ubiquitous bedroom producer using Cubase.
Calculo que dividir el proceso de desarrollo en primero herramientas comunes de CB y ND, para luego focalizar el equipo en los plus de ND a Steimberg le debe servir. A nosotros nos sirve que Nuendo llegue con todos los fallos de las herramientas de Cubase ya testeados en campo y corregidos, para mí está perfecto que sea así, usar Nuendo debe ser siempre mas seguro y estable que Cubase. Tengo los dos y uso los dos y esta estrategia de la empresa me parece seria.
Nobody has thought it through, regarding marketing both.
You have 2 products that differ in name but share about 80% DNA.
Cubase → aimed at people involved in music.
Nuendo → aimed at people involved in Post-Production.
If you make tutorials in Nuendo for songwriters/music makers, people using Nuendo for post may feel alienated, because the focus of the product should be different to Cubase.
Nuendo users should be watching Cubase tutorials for the aspects of Cubase inside Nuendo.
Nuendo tutorials should be split into 3 areas.
Videos showcasing how to do Dolby Atmos Mixes from start to finish product.
Videos showcasing how to receive film files, & add sound fx/foley & compose to film footage.
Videos showcasing how to use Nuendo alongside a Unity or Unreal engine game developers workflow.
If i am marketing Nuendo, i should be trying to convince people this is the alternative to using Cubase/Pro Tools, in my tutorials.
Two threads, going at the moment, this is obviously the troll thread.
I have both Nuendo and Cubase and both DAW’s can open the other DAW’s sessions with no problems. So it looks like the engine is exactly the same, it’s just the fluff that is different.
The automation systems differ, so it follows that the engines aren’t the same either.
It is not worth owning both, i have both, there the same.
Just differing features.
The automation in Nuendo has punch log, used for film sound fx pros, not useful for music engineers.
NUENDO is Cubase and more.
CUBASE is not NUENDO and has less.
Cubase Pro = 100%
Nuendo = 110%
I don’t see why that would follow.
There is significantly more content on YouTube about Cubase/Nuendo than about Pro Tools.
Pro-Tools dominance in the film industry is based on a number of factors.
Nuendo looks better and because it is Cubase its the better composition tool, but for Nuendo to make up ground it would mean it being associated with massive succesful films or tv shows.
This is not in Steinbergs hands but those that control the film industry, why would they move from a proven system ?
Its like car companies that have shifted to electric away from traditional fuel engines, these companies now financially struggle, the risk of transition has caused financial chaos and stress.
Back to car analogies.
Are they really struggling? Seems to me sales of electric is continuing to increase and gas decrease.
I would like to add that if you are behind the industry leader there are things you can do to catch up, or rather, things to avoid. For example, don’t be stubborn and insist on doing things your way when there is already a proven process that the competition is using. Reinventing the wheel doesn’t just possibly cost more development money but it makes it so that if your new take on something isn’t clearly significantly better then those thinking about switching over just won’t, because why learn something new that isn’t as good?
Take the way Pro Tools groups work for example, and then add VCAs to that. Glide automation. Clip-effects (and a defective DOP is not a substitute). Eucon support. These are things where PT has been ahead for years or decades now, and I honestly think it’s just silly that Nuendo is behind on it. Yes, you can work around it, that’s not the point, the point is; “why would you?” And then the new stuff, like the way they implemented speech to text. Or their expanded markers.
I’d be more optimistic if there was at least clear communication on the forum. On the PT forum you have several reps chiming in weekly. Here you pretty much have to tag people and bump incessantly for weeks before there’s a reply to get back to you later which you then have to bump again after a month or two.
Nuendo is perfectly fine for mid level work, and I’m sure you can do great work at the very high levels as well. But if the question is “why is PT still the de facto standard” then I really think the answer goes beyond “just because”, it actually matters what the DAW does and doesn’t do.
Sorry for being a downer. Just not very impressed recently.
Take a look at Jonnie Burn and his succes in Holywood, ge won an Oscar and works in Nuendo.
won an Oscar and works in Nuendo
Perhaps Oscar would be a better brand name for a DAW than Nuendo.
You’re always going to have exceptions. Nobody is denying that. The question was about “the industry standard” and where Nuendo is relative to that.
Indeed. I mean, John Wick took out people with a pencil. A pencil! But that doesn’t make it the standard!
“Car analogies? What is this? The 1970’s?”