I’ll echo the concern for true fader groups. Always been a mystifying oversight.
I didn’t see anything about the automation. Any changes? God forbid straightforward snapshot represented by markers?
Was there any flexibilty added as to the routing within a channel? Can filters be moved pre/post inserts? Etc?
Kudos on the EQ enhancement! You seem to have incorporated all the best suggestions from users (or a happy coincidence ). I like the tape saturation on the channel! Hope it sounds good.
Suprised you went with Voxengo when you already have a deal with Neve, i guess it’s the post-value of the EQ copy function. I like Voxengo very much but imagining the added value of the Portico EQ/comp built-in…shame. Still, the Voxengo is most welcome.
Here’s a truly simple one…how about a pref to populate all channels with all available inputs? Instead of every channel coming up with the first input by default. I realize we can use templates but it’s just anti-intuitive. You offer more choice on the colors(!). If I set up 24 inputs and then create 24 channels, they should pop up already mapped. I seem to remember there was a modifier key to make this happen. I want that to be my default. Just please add a pref?
Overall it looks great! Thanks to the whole team for the work!
If I see correctly, there’s still just a 4-band-EQ in every channel?
Please!!! Show me that post-pro-mix, which is able to work with just 4 EQ bands! We at least need a seperate Low/Hi-Cut!
All that improved mixer-enviroment does not help a cent, if I still have to insert an extra EQ in each channel, which I always have to open/close/reopen/close/open on every single automation pass.
Please, just two more bands, after years of begging!
(Much more important in post than a tape-saturation imo)
ADR-Control looks absolutely great!! Thanks for that!
And very thankful for the implementation of anymix! It’s a great tool!
Really looking forward to the upgrade!
thanks very much for your feedback. With regards to fader groups/linking, you can now individually decide which features of a track should be linked (e.g. Volume, Pan, EQ, Dyn, Sends, Inserts, Solo/Mute/Listen) by simple right click on the selected tracks. This can be combined with the track group function. The whole track preset management also has seen many improvements. On the automation side we have no improvements in this update as we spend lots of time for this already during Nuendo 5.
Within the channel strip you can freely change the processing order of all the channel strip modules.
Sorry Timo, just to be clear…will it be possible to add/remove individual tracks from a group now? Will it be possible to create multiple groups? Ie, a subgroup for drums (or dialog) that is also part of a larger group?
Bumping the above question. Is it merely that you’ve extended the current “link” system to individual track parameters? If that’s the case you have missed what was wrong with the track grouping to begin with. Adding more track parameters without a clear management system wouldn’t make any sense at all. It’s been silly enough just having fader groups where you can’t see what’s in the group, can’t add/remove individual tracks and can’t nest groups. More parameters would only add to the confusion.
This is one of those cases where the needs for post and music are equal. Wouldn’t a post team want to group foley, FX, music, dialog separately and then a different group for all but dialog, etc? Music needs to have drums, guitars, vocals, reverbs separate and then another group for all but vocals.
I hope I’m just not understanding the new system properly
Ok I got my answer in Lydiot’s thread. “No”. Notice please how this was my number 1 question at the top. I just don’t see how you have a meeting and agree to go forward with the wide array of new features in N6 and somehow leave that one out.
Simply because you can’t build Rome in one day.
The new mixer has features that come very close to VCA faders, so most of the problems/usercases shouldbe solved by that. AFAIK, VCA’s are planned to be implemented later.
And to be honest Pier, I think everyone agrees with you that VCA’s are the feature request #1 by now.
Gotcha. I have no way to judge as I have no knowledge of how difficult it is to implement. I certainly didn’t think VCAs could be considered Rome . I just know that I see a bunch of features that I would gladly trade for VCAs and that people have been asking for them for years. It’s the same old conflict between flashy new features and filling in sorely needed gaps. At this point Nuendo has matured so far and so many of those gaps have been filled…but it boils down to the same old thing.
I’ve seen post people complain about AAF too. That doesn’t affect me but it seems on the surface that those two issues (VCA and AAF) have gotten the most attention from users. Shame to see another major update without them.
Regarding Nuendo overall - Rome is a good analogy. It’s an amazingly complex piece of software and Steinberg does a great job of maintaining it overall. I think what stands out most about this feature is how widely it would appeal. Not only for music producers using Nuendo but for Cubase as well - and we all know the obvious benefits to post.
Domilik.
I mix and work with AAF’s in Nuendo daily.
YES The AAF import filter has severe issues, but I can work around them. I import some MC AAF compositions with N5.5 and it works fine. Those that don’t work I can open in 5.1.1 and they are likely to work there. In the absolute crisis I’ll open it in ProTools and export a AAF from there that always works. So it’s the Media Composer throwing curv balls in the metadata that seems to be causing this.
The AAF’s that don’t work in 5.5 is pretty much always exported from older MC’s.
). I like the tape saturation on the channel! Hope it sounds good.