Of course it’s frightening but I’m sure it isn’t official position.
Something tells me that I must go to realtime mixdown for a couple of months.
Crikey! - Those comments are not encouraging.
If it’s not the official position it would be nice to get an actual ‘official’ statement and clarification/explanation from Steinberg.
It’s possible that some automation modes work differently than in other software. There’s some room for interpretation I guess and one has to look what the manual says. Which in this case, says something that apparently doesn’t work the way it’s described.
Apart from that, the video clearly demonstrates bugs, stuff that really CANNOT be meant to work as intended. Faders not moving after combining automation? Faders moving but level not changing? Undo suddenly pops your volume up 12dB and thus is not an undo but does something weird? That’s the very stuff bugs are made of. It’s impossible to say this works “as intended”, sorry Steinberg.
I think this is a case of the official internal language badly interpreted.
“As designed” doesn’t mean it is meant to be wrongly designed.
It does mean that the developer has created the feature as planned/designed, regardless if it’s correclty or wrongly designed. I’m not going to discuss the severeness of the issue, I need to look into this much deeper, but if your bugreport is considered to be “exotic” (very unlikely to happen in “normal” working conditions - or better “designed to break the feature”) then indeed there is very little chance that they look into it.
But again, I haven’t looked into this.
And for the record, I always start a project with “create initial values”. There is so much that can go wrong if you don’t start your mix that way.
Fredo
That’s not the key phrase in what Guillermo wrote. The key phrase is “it works the way it supposed to work and what you do is not the way you should do it”. Fredo, there is zero ambiguity there. He’s straight up saying that either it’s user-error or incorrect expectations.
The videos are about 2 minutes each or so. So it’ll take you very little time to see what the problems are.
Further more, this isn’t necessarily solved by using initial values as I show in the second video. And lastly, because of the fundamental design here, regardless of workflow, we now run a much greater risk of severely screwing up our mixes by accident. I.e. not even misinterpreting the intent of the functionality, but simply touching a fader by mistake while it’s in touch-trim would screw things up. Normally one single node would be written and that’d be that, but here this could have severe consequences.
But I look forward to hearing your input on it.
At the risk of being extremely politically incorrect:
The wrong person or people are in charge of N7 VCA development, in my opinion. I first said this about 1 year ago. I’ve been mixing hit records using VCA style automation on Neve, SSL, Euphonix, etc, etc for over 30 years now. Even worked with Euphonix and a now-former (and fabulous) Steinberg employee on some of the initial Euphonix style automation features integrated into Nuendo. The current implementation is not how VCA Automation would be “intended” to work by any of the dozens of successful mixers I know and work/compete with.
Steinberg is going to have to relent on this sooner or later. This is just not working out. Some pain now or more pain later. A tough choice, and you have my empathy, but I think it’s going to become inevitable. But how can SB look at the posted videos and say “Yeah, we NAILED it guys…HI FIVE!” ?
I have no personal ill will against anyone at SB and believe best efforts are being made. I really do. But somewhere I think there is a bad match in work assignments. I will take no offense if this post is deleted, because I realize this situation is a tough pill to swallow. But to my point, making difficult (I would imagine) changes in this regard some time ago would have prevented this current scenario.
Do VCA’s work in Cubase?
Apparently the VCA implementation in Cubase is different from Nuendo. What’s the difference?
I believe Cubase’s system is different in that it relies on linked faders to carry out VCA operations. In other words, whereas PT and Nuendo creates a VCA-group/link, Cubase takes a regular “link” and has the VCA modify it. At least that’s what I’ve been led to believe.
It would have made more sense to develop the functionality once for both platforms. Instead we have twice the workload and twice the potential for errors (which we’ve now seen on both platforms).
I installed 7.1 on 2 of my workstations – the new panner shows up fine on one of them – the other workstation - the panner shows up as white block – no control – this is the same when I loaded up a fresh 5.1 template too – when I have a moment I’ll try uninstalling and re-installing – but maybe somebody knows a fix before I get to that – I vauguely recall having a similar problem years ago when pre 7.1 panner was introduced – I don’t recall what I had to do to fix – let me know if anybody has had to address this – thank you
The wrong person or people are in charge of N7 VCA development, in my opinion. I first said this about 1 year ago. I’ve been mixing hit records using VCA style automation on Neve, SSL, Euphonix, etc, etc for over 30 years now. Even worked with Euphonix and a now-former (and fabulous) Steinberg employee on some of the initial Euphonix style automation features integrated into Nuendo. The current implementation is not how VCA Automation would be “intended” to work by any of the dozens of successful mixers I know and work/compete with.
Agreed. Steinberg needs to get this right as their idea of how VCA’s are used doesn’t ring true for the folks in the studios using them every day.
Thanks.
The manual says we need Tools for Nuage 1.8 for the new functions… when will that be available?
Will the MultiPanner with Dolby Atmos support work with the Dolby Atmos Local Renderer, or will it always require an RMU?
I actually just read that at least a while ago the Local Renderer was only handed out to those with an RMU setup. So the question should probably be if Nuendo’s Atmos support extends to Atmos for VR as well.