That’s cool, but it’s gonna be a good long time before I have $2k for the cptk2. Can anyone comment on tracking/punching with the standard version?
Why should I ditch Nuendo for Pro Tools? I do not see what the point would be,
PT has
- no x64 version, how should I make use of extensive amounts of RAM for Kontakt4?
- no VST instruments… RTAS often has performance drawbacks compared to VSTi, right?
- no freeze
- MIDI editing traditionally sucked, has there been anything changed in 9?
- notation?
- track limitations, although 512 MIDI tracks are ok but it just does not make sense to limit track count.
- To be get same track counts and functionality on par with Nuendo I would need PT9+HD Upgrade+Toolkit 2, totaling nearly EUR 3000.-
so compared to PT9, Nuendo+NEK is still less expensive at around EUR 2000.-
So I just do not see my real benefit of getting PT9…
CORRECTION: except really cool SHOW/HIDE implementation with MIDI editor and Project Windows
but hey we´ll get that in N5.5. right? 
For external collaboration I am sending stems and OMF to Pro Tools studios only from time to time,
no problems with that.
If this is all about jumping on the so called industry standard train, “Standard” does not necessarily mean to me it´s the best solution. I still like my Nuendo5… 
Though I am hoping to get the C6 features soon.
I think for most people it’s not an either/or situation. I have clients who want PT, period. I have others who don’t care. I had one in particular who wanted to use 5 mics on 2 guitar rigs (running in stereo) and then do a bunch of takes and a lot of editing…THAT session really would’ve been better in PT. It’s just tools, you use what’s required to get the job done.
It would be sad though if the standard PT9 were not able to offer low enough latency to properly record and overdub with a Firewire interface. Particular an RME interface as you are not going to get any better in terms of drivers.
Considering how recently N5 was released, and that it should’ve had the grouping features in the first place, it would be both appreciated and a smart business move on SB’s part NOT to make us all wait another year before we get it in Nuendo. As a DAW, Nuendo suffers greatly from its lack of this basic function (FUNCTION, not feature). I’m sure SB marketing is looking forward to using it as a selling point for another $400 upgrade, but I’m also sure it would be worth more in terms of lost business to Avid to simply put it in a free maintenance upgrade now. Not including this feature in N5 was a mistake to begin with. You simply can’t do complex multi-track editing in a professional setting with a client who has ever seen it done on PT with the current Nuendo. The part that has completely mystified me is that this really should be just as much of a concern if not moreso to the post community so the old “Go f*ck yourself music people, Nuendo is a post application” brush-off doesn’t apply here.
Hammer hammer hammer .
I wouldn’t use PT for MIDI. However, I think that on mixing projects it will save a couple of days each time, so it should pay for itself relatively quickly.
DG
I don’t see PT being that great a time saver in mixing. Editing yes, but the mixing advantages are not great, in fact Nuendo has features that even the score if not more. The routing in Nuendo is much better. I would like better mix grouping in Nuendo but it’s no where near as big a problem at the edit groups.
If PT can actually serve to track, we’re considering a process of recording/editing in PT and then mixing in Nuendo, as a regular thing (or until Nuendo fixes the edit groups).
There are various areas that Nuendo lags behind PT. Examples are:
Grouping
Solo/Mute
Automation trim
Copy paste automation
The last of these cost me quite a few hours on my last album.
DG
I hear you on “grouping”, it’s garbage in Nuendo.
What are your concerns when mixing music regarding the others though?
Solo Mute is unpredictable and often the wrong tracks are either muted or soloed depending on what order they were done. It is also quite tricky dealing with multiple sends.
Automation trim is sometimes impossible if the tracks selected and linked are not next to each other in the project, particularly if one of them is a group track.
Copy paste of automation just doesn’t work. If I select a region, then automation can only be copied if there is an automation point at either end of the region. It can be faked on audio tracks by copying and pasting the region of audio on top of itself (to create the automation points either side), copying the automation, and then undoing the copy paste of audio. However, this doesn’t’ work on group tracks, and as there is no proper grouping, I need to use group tracks.
DG
Improvements in that area would be cool.
Special +1 on grouping and copy paste automation like in PT.
IMO The notation is way better in PT now than in Nuendo - it is based on the Sibelius editor and you can export to Sibelius directly from PT. Personal preference of course, but truly amazing.
That sounds like an interesting development! Too bad there is no trial licence available to check it out. 
Well, I just found out that my old mbox doesn’t qualify for the “crossgrade” (cross? from PT to PT?), so even though I’ve owned PTLE for years, PT9 costs me as much as a brand new customer. I guess Avid’s taking their cues from Apple.
That’s enough to push PT9 behind the N5 upgrade for me. I’ll still get it eventually, but considering that I haven’t managed to get one person to be able to vouch for the latency of the standard PT9, then it really isn’t any kind of option. That one issue is enough to put ANY native DAW ahead of PT9 in my book. If PT9 somehow achieved some freakishly low latency making DM totally unnecessary that would be one thing, but my understanding is that it’s really the opposite. It’s still a toy until you spend at least $2k. Granted a shinier, more attractive toy, but if you can’t professionally track and overdub…it’s really not even viable to sit side-by-side with Nuendo, or even Cubase. $2k is a fair price for what a full system should provide. It puts it on par with Nuendo price-wise for a functional system; but again, it lowers PT9 on my priorities since I happen to already own Nuendo. Shame.