Not trying to be a wise ass or anything but you wrote:
“Nuendo is perfectly fine for mid level work, and I’m sure you can do great work at the very high levels as well. “
I just wanted to illustrate tether..
Also if we keep calling things an industry standard… nothing will change. Just happy to see that Nuendo users have succes and that tool brands do not mean anything for creative expression.
End of rant
Maybe it is slowly becoming the standard, The Joker did it in 2008 and almost 10 years later John Wick violently brought further developments. If you count a pen then Jason Bourne did it in 2002. But its still pretty rare! Funny old world…..(but far, far too violent)
Ok. I’m not sure if that says anything counter to what I was trying to say. When I’m saying it’s fine for mid level work what I meant was that if you have a medium size project in a medium size facility with a medium size team it’s all fine as long as everyone is using the same DAW. Once you start moving into bigger budgets and scopes you start running into problems using Nuendo. I’m not saying you can’t work around whatever it is that Nuendo is lacking, I’m saying that people see no reason to work around it when they can just use PT instead.
So like I said, practically, can you do high-end work? Obviously yes. Will most high-end work be done in Nuendo? Doesn’t seem like it.
Not calling PT the industry standard doesn’t change much. It is what it is. Plenty of PT users are fed up with its problems (no DAW is perfect) and many are fed up with Avid. I’ve seen people thinking about switching and I’ve seen people who use Nuendo in post-production circles.
But regardless there is still a bit of a problem. When you have a big budget / large scale job you want the best people you can get for the money. A larger pool of available engineers means higher odds of finding those people. PT has a larger user base. Then you have to consider the “width” of the job. When I said mid-level earlier I count myself in that category, doing mostly one-man jobs. If it’s a theatrical fiction feature motion picture the audio team is going to be really large. You then probably want them to all be on the same DAW because it’s easier.
Then you’re also stuck with the questions you get as a Nuendo engineer trying to advocate Nuendo to PT users asking about differences and thinking about switching. What about “glide” automation? What about speech-to-text? What about this? What about that? When they ask about “clip-effects” and I tell them about the theoretically superior (?) DOP what is their reaction when I add “Oh, but also, you get clicks if you use some plugins because the function to extend processing beyond event boundaries is broken… oh, and also RX plugins, the ones everyone uses, break functionality and can screw up a timeline of thousands of processed events… so like, be careful using it”? Or when I say “Yeah, we got a way to punch to loop. You just enable Preview, set Fill to Loop, capture automation data, press Punch, and it’s written to Loop. Just make sure you don’t locate on the timeline by jumping to the next event boundary before stopping playback like you might normally do all the time because if you do the “Fill Loop” command will remain lit and even though you proceed to write in Latch one minute later in the timeline it’ll write that automation to the loop range, which can suck if you’re not aware of it”… (got a client note on that this week… thanks Nuendo)
Any single “issue” that seems ridiculous (and those are) will be a reason for PT users to shake their heads and stick with PT. Yes, I understand that there will be similar things in reverse, but then again that wasn’t the point here, the point was increasing the Nuendo user base.
I’m just a bit tired of the lack of official participation here, the lack of fixing clear design flaws, clear bugs, and being behind on significant functionality.
“End of rant”.
PS: that was a bit of an uncontrolled stream of consciousness so probably some of it could have been worded better.
This!
Same applies for Cubase. Bugs that needs to be adressed and Steinberg not providing any sort of perspective or explanation. Lack of communication is a huge marketing mistake IMO.
As much as I love Cubendo - I wish they would reconsider their attitude here.
To be industry standard doesnt mean being the best, it means being the most dominant in the mindset of the culture.
The only way to go beyond that is create a new culture and be at the forefront.
Apple in the late 90s stopped trying to compete with IBM and microsoft, they shifted to taking over the music industry sector with ipod and itunes.
Nuendo is a composition tool that does post, pro tools is not realy known for being a composition tool, it focuses on the back end process of your audio being mixed utilising hardware and consoles.
I understand your point. Without participation here about direction of Nuendo there is little to make me excited, and seeing the competition make strides on key issues that can’t be ignored it’s just disheartening. I also think there is a big difference between what Apple did back then versus what we’re talking about. So much about what’s done in post is about being efficient and effective. It’s not so much about new shiny things. iPod and iTunes were at the forefront of a new frontier, whereas that isn’t really where we are, with the exception of AI taking our jobs ultimately anyway.
If I may ask, what would you consider to be reasonable new features for Nuendo in order for it to be at the forefront?
Be that as it may, Steinberg went down this path.
As long as pro-tools exists it will never lose its cultural place as king of post in western media. Just like coca cola is king if fizzy drinks and mcdonalds hamburgers.
New feature i think could be implimented, would be to bring in Ai voice generation from text, with advanced emotion tags, like what adobe have pioneered in Firefly.
For creators of animation projects and advertising, this would be a valuable tool, internally witthin the DAW.
You want to turn Nuendo into the DAW designers, composers use before pro tools instead of cubase then pro tools.
You dont beat pro tools, you align with it.
There not the enemy !
Just like coca cola is king if fizzy drinks and mcdonalds hamburgers.
McDonalds is a real estate Business and they make far worse food than many competitors. But this is where industry marketing works….’.The Founder’ Movie shows how an idea became dominant….but also how the original vision was thrown away as greed took hold. Coca Cola gave us a Jolly red suited rather Plump Santa, incredible marketing.
I feel exactly the same.
This is a good one. 
Cheer up — 15 is coming.
I did full post for a documentary that went on to win at the London Film Festival. Nuendo was not used.
Another feature film I worked on took Best Narrative Film. Nuendo was not used there either.
Dialogue editing and processing inside DaVinci Resolve is fast and brutally efficient. By the time the picture cut locks, the dialogue is already cleaned, balanced, and most of the core SFX are placed and roughed in. The workflow simply moves quicker that way.
Payments per project have dropped significantly. To maintain income, I’m forced to take on higher volume. Higher volume rewards speed and predictability over tool prestige. That’s the math driving the decisions right now — not preference, not “better sound,” just economics and delivery deadlines.
If im still clinging to Nuendo and PT because it “feels” right, but, honestly run the numbers on your own last three projects: track hours spent per deliverable, invoice value per hour, and client revision rounds. The spreadsheet usually ends the argument.
Personally N’s media management needs an engine overhaul related to speed and efficiency.
May I ask what you find is better or more efficient/faster in Resolve (for dialog editing) compared to Nuendo?
All of this. PT gets the basics right and they just work. Steinberg seems to want to reinvent the wheel. After 25+ years of Nuendo and not liking the direction things have gone with v13+, it might be time to bite the bullet and just move over to PT full time. Everything I touch these days is delivered in PT format anyway so that at least would be one less hoop to jump through.
So, I think what they’re referring to are the new AI tools for automatic Dialogue Separation (DR’S algorithm is REALLY good) which will detect any silent portions and automatically strip them, regardless of length.
My only gripe is that it ripples each event together afterwards, because I need that timing, but it works really well.
There’s also Music Trimming, Auto Normalization and AI Dialogue Matching. It’s a few clicks and knobs in Resolve as opposed to a full workflow in Nuendo. Some of the tools are so good, that a dialogue editor/mixer I watch, Thomas Boykin, has an entire webseries course on dialogue in Resolve right next to Pro Tools.
The context is cultural status as the prime brand in public conciousness.
Pro-Tools has this place as the Daw used in the biggest films and tv shows in western culture of the past 40 years.
It is also the dominant Daw in los angeles and nashville recording studios.
The greatest mixing engineers in the history of the industry also use it.
Go on mix with the masters and you will see 99% of the best mix engineers are mixing down in pro-tools.
This might be less so now but traditionally Steinberg was a software company that also sold some hardware and Avid was a hardware company that happened to sell software. Avid’s biggest margin of course was on their hardware. They went to a subscription model to elieviate a volatile business model, every number of years they would make their customers upgrade their hardware. Big influx of cash, then nothing. Cubase was geared towards individuals originally then Nuendo was geared towards pros. Avid was the other way around. They were missing out on the home market which of course is very large now.
Just my thoughts.
Avid / Digidesign were also lucky in that most professionals in that space were on Apple computers, and Apple has been notoriously annoying with compatibility.
I used to manage a studio with two rooms set up with Macs and in the Avid ecosystem. Avid was lucky because inevitably you’d get to a point where a new software version would require the latest OSX which wouldn’t run on the older Mac which would mean upgrading the computer to upgrade the OS to upgrade Pro Tools, which then meant swapping out Avid hardware as well because they went from PCI to PCIe or whatever. I think I saw that a couple of times. So it wasn’t just that Avid put out new hardware that was better, it was that you if you wanted the new software features you had to ditch the whole rig. It was gross.
A software upgrade of a few hundred turned into literally five figures once you swapped the DSP cards and I/O.
I guess I’m saying I agree with you.
I remember those day too. I use to work at a studio that had 4 rooms, 2 were Mac and 2 were PC. 
This, topic is no longer related to the thread title.