Racks: DIRECT ROUTING behaviour issue

I am experiencing a behaviour issue in N10 when selecting destinations/outputs in Racks : Direct Routing.
Not sure whether it is a bug or a feature.

Let me first explain how the direct routing in racks behaves in N8. You can select multiple channels in the mixer, then switch all corresponding direct routing outputs with one click in racks via holding shift+alt (shift+Q-link). Something like switching from direct routing output slot 2 to slot 3. Easy and in line with the general Q-Link behaviour. Crucial for ABing i.e. different output routes for stem buses when mixing. (For reasons unknown this didn’t work when using direct routing slot 1 but that’s a different story)

In Nuendo 10 the behaviour changed and Q-Link seems to be ignored here. Only the direct output slot I am clicking on in the rack will switch, even when multiple channels are selecting and I am holding down the shift+alt (shift+q-link) modifier. Not possible to change multiple direct outputs at once in N10.

Dear Nuendo team, please put the direct routing output selection behaviour back in line with Q-Link so it is possible to change multiple direct routing outputs with one click again. And why not align the behaviour of slot 1 as well so it behaves just like slot 2,3,4 etc

Thank you!

Add: direct routing to other than only groups and outputs. Like Pro Tools, direct routing to track inputs please & avoiding the necessity to need to create yet another set of groups. (eg, Rewire /print /Ableton Live tracks).

I’m betting this is a pretty big deal to re-program. You’re talking about the fundamental routing of the software including summing. If you route to a group/output it sums incoming signals. What you want would again require summing which in Pro Tools is done not by actually routing an output directly to a track input but by routing via a bus. In Nuendo the group acts as that bus. In one way we get more control since we get to change the properties of the bus which in PT is just a plain summing calculation and routing.

So while I agree it would be good and we’ve asked about it before my hunch is it won’t be easy and won’t come any time soon.

I absolutely agree with this. I’ve asked about it before and it doesn’t make sense to me to have them act differently. I got some reply but I don’t recall getting an answer I found convincing. To me it’s illogical and also confusing because there is no visual indication things are different. Why would all sends act the same yet not all direct outs?

I also agree that the same multi-select methodology should apply (I haven’t tried it yet).

Actually, I think I may remember why the direct outs may be different;

If you do a mix that includes panning in a stereo field your pan law changes the pan behavior. So you set the pan law and you do the mix. Typically we do mixes that aren’t the full stereo mix by summing various stems. These stems will often be stereo channels. If we allowed the direct outs to operate the same as the first direct out - the main out - then changing the pan law would affect not just stems and other mixes (which is why I would want to have it affect the direct outputs - because if a spec sheet says mono versions of stems/mixes need to measure the same as the stereo then that’s one way of combining signals that is different from if they accept a level increase due to the mono summing), but the change would also affect the mix feeding the stems.

I think I’m remembering it and thinking about it the right way and I think it might make sense.