Let’s start again.
You can run any 32-bit application on a W7-64bit OS.
Which means that, on Win7-64bit, you can run Nuendo 32 bit and QT 32bit.
Nuendo32 => QT32=> Decklink
If you want to use Nuendo 64bit on Win7-64bit, than you can do that.
Steinberg has build an internal QT wrapper, so the user can see “emulated” video within Nuendo.
Since there is no 64bit version of QT, there is no way you can get QT to communicate with Decklink.
Nuendo64=> QT?? = > Decklink
As soon as there is a 64bit QT Windows version, this will be possible:
Nuendo64=> QT64 = > Decklink
So, again. The problem is that there is no 64bit version of QT available for Windows.
Unfortunately, what is clear is that for many users wanting compatibility, large project capability, and sample-accurate vsti’s on a new system or old, Nuendo 3 is the solution.
Hey Fredo, thanks for your response.
I think it will be very useful regardless of 64 bit or not. Even with 64 bit systems, people will run into ram issues.
Cheaper machines and mobo’s currently have an 8gb memory limit, which with a couple of sample-heavy VSTi’s isn’t a whole lot. Like you say, the fact that practically unlimited memory is available, doesn’t mean everybody will have the funds to build or buy such machines, and the info supplied in a dialogue box like that could help troubleshoot issues far beyond just simple ram issues.
Unfortunately, what is clear is that for many users wanting compatibility, large project capability, and sample-accurate vsti’s on a new system or old, Nuendo 3 is the solution.
Not trying to be facetious here, but can you clarify a few of those?
Been using N5 for a while now, and have not noticed some of these issues…
-compatibility ; in what respect?
-sample accuracy…not noticed this, and I use a lot of Vsti’s.
I’ve not ran into the waveform cache memory issues yet, but that is perhaps because the majority of my sessions are more midi oriented.
As mentioned, I have ran into memory issues due to (afaik) plug-in use and vst plug-in memory leaks.
Yeah, but you isolated this sentence: Or better: You can’t play any QT movie on W7-64bit from the portion above. (Hence the “or”)
What I meant is that no 64bit application can play QT on WIn7-64bit.
However, I can understand that it can become confusing when you don’t know the details of the issue.
It just wasn’t clear for me that your really didn’t know how it all worked.
We have a bunch of people which use these exact techniques (hence the “political”-comment) for getting their point across over and over again.
Hello,
I understand Steinberg’s requirements that Nuendo run on top-line hardware. If we’re paying $8800 for four copies of audio software the assumption is that we’re professional users or at least pretend to be. Our recorders and editors have worked on most of the top-watched television shows on the planet; we certainly can afford the best.
We pay for the best hardware and we use it. It’s currently not possible to run our larger projects on the most expensive Macs you can buy. Our mixers using the best MacPros cannot load the projects. Our editors who use the absolute latest Mac laptops can’t do content cuts or conforming, and the editors who use year-old or two-year-old Mac laptops with 4G of ram can’t even come close. If I supplied them with their own laptops at my expense using the absolute latest models they can’t use them.
When the MacOS/64 version of Nuendo comes out they still won’t be able to load the projects because so many have spent a good deal of money on their machines and consider 4G of ram to be plenty because it’s plenty for most programs out there - they understand that Nuendo and the alternatives are a zero-sum game; a simple choice of tools. If I force them to upgrade to 8G of ram, paying for it myself, they can barely load the projects; and won’t be able to when we move upward from 128 tracks which I’m already getting rumors of. And this is without any software instruments - simply audio tracks.
I’m not grandstanding with the above comments; I consider this forum to be a source of much assistance with a great program. However we were forced to purchase two seats of PT9 and those editors aren’t coming back to Nuendo no matter what. I’m putting stock in Thorsten’s comment about “…plan to evaluate ways to reduce the applications memory footprint” but I have to reiterate that waiting for hardware to follow Nuendo’s “lead” in memory requirements simply doesn’t work - the memory consumption is excessive and will always be until changed.
Agreed Hugh, and the thing is…SB did it with Cubase on the Atari!!!
From what I remember that program was very efficient and squeezed every ounce of performance out of the Atari.
I have had issues with N5.1 32 bit that it won’t load sessions anymore that N4 did, because of the additional memory requirements. Nowadays I’ve replaced a lot of internal VSTi use with external running VE Pro instances, but for older sessions it is still a problem, and requires moving plug-ins out of the VST folder temporarily, so that at least the session can load.
Not to belabor this topic unnecessarily, but assuming that Cubase has similar memory consumption to Nuendo, has anyone heard whether C6 has improved in that regard?
Memory consumption of creating waveforms has been similar in Cubase 5 and Nuendo 5.
The difference is that by itself, call it the footprint, memory consumption of Nuendo 5 is a bit higher than Cubase5, which makes that Nuendo hits the memory consumption ceiling faster than Cubase.
But when it comes to recording tracks, there never was a difference.
