Suggestion: Item-based FX Feature for Nuendo

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

Dear Steinberg Team,

I have been a long-time user of Nuendo and greatly appreciate the professional-level tools your software provides for audio editing. Over the years, Nuendo has been an essential part of my workflow, offering powerful capabilities for my projects.

However, I would like to propose a feature that could significantly improve the efficiency of the software: Item-based FX functionality. This feature, available in platforms like Reaper and Vegas Pro, allows users to apply effects directly to individual audio clips (items) instead of entire tracks. This flexibility greatly enhances the speed and adaptability of workflows, particularly in post-production.

Currently, Nuendo requires creating additional tracks or using offline processes to achieve similar results. While these methods work, they can slow down the workflow, especially in time-sensitive projects. Including this feature in future updates would not only make Nuendo more versatile but also streamline the editing process for many users like me.

Thank you in advance for considering this suggestion. I look forward to seeing how Nuendo continues to evolve and improve in the future!

Best regards,

[klfnk2020]

Interesting, but can you give more details? How would this differ from the current options in Nuendo (DOP)? And how would it benefit the majority of Nuendo users?

[Dietz]

I think Nadir is talking about object-based real-time effect processing. Samplitude/Sequoia are offering this since ages, and Pro Tools is able to do it since more than a decade now, too (by the name of Clip FX).

This missing feature has been requested for Nuendo since ages … eg. here.

[klfnk2020]

Thanks @Dietz. The clip fx inknow and use, is very very similar to DOP except Clip FX GUI is very different and has less clicks. But functionally it renders audio files in the background, just like DOP right?

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

Dear klfnk2020,

Thank you for your question! I’m happy to elaborate.

While Direct Offline Processing (DOP) is indeed a powerful feature in Nuendo, it primarily focuses on applying effects to audio clips in an offline, non-real-time manner. This is useful in certain scenarios, but it comes with a few limitations:

1. Real-time flexibility: Item-based FX, as seen in Reaper and Vegas Pro, allows users to apply and tweak effects on individual clips directly in real time, without rendering. This significantly accelerates the editing process and enables non-destructive experimentation during sessions.
2. Efficiency in complex sessions: DOP can become cumbersome in sessions with numerous clips that require unique processing. Creating separate tracks or repeatedly applying offline effects slows down the workflow. Item-based FX eliminates this by offering a faster, more intuitive alternative.
3. Improved adaptability: In post-production, it’s common to make rapid adjustments based on client feedback. Item-based FX makes such changes instantaneous, as effects can be adjusted on the fly without needing to navigate multiple tracks or reprocess clips.

How this benefits most users:

• For sound designers and editors working on time-sensitive projects, such as film or game audio, this feature could drastically reduce turnaround time.
• Music producers could also benefit by experimenting with clip-specific effects creatively, without affecting the entire track or requiring multiple layers.

I hope this clarifies my suggestion. Let me know if you’d like further examples or comparisons!

Best regards,
Nadir_Mahmudov

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

Hi,

You are absolutely right! Object-based real-time effect processing (or Clip FX, as in Pro Tools) is indeed a feature that has been widely used in other DAWs like Samplitude and Sequoia for years. The ability to apply effects directly to individual clips or objects, without affecting the entire track, offers unparalleled flexibility and control, especially for post-production and sound design workflows.

I believe the absence of this feature in Nuendo has been a long-standing gap for many users, including myself. Item-based FX (as seen in Reaper and Vegas Pro) would provide the same level of real-time flexibility that Clip FX in Pro Tools offers, allowing us to apply, tweak, and experiment with effects directly on individual clips without needing to create extra tracks or relying on offline processes.

I’m hopeful that Steinberg will consider implementing this feature in future updates to Nuendo, as it would significantly streamline workflows and improve productivity for professionals in both music and post-production industries.

Thanks for sharing your insight, and I fully agree that this is a feature many of us have been eagerly awaiting!

Best regards,
Nadir_Mahmudov

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

When we talk about item-based FX functionality, we are referring to the ability to apply real-time effects directly to individual audio clips, or “items,” rather than applying effects at the track level. In DAWs like Reaper and Vegas Pro, this feature allows users to apply effects to a specific clip without affecting the entire track, providing more flexibility and efficiency during the editing process.

For example, if you are working on a film project and need to add reverb or EQ to a specific sound effect or dialogue clip, you can do this directly on that clip, without having to create a separate track for each sound. This allows for precise control over the audio elements and avoids the need to apply effects to entire tracks, which can often lead to unnecessary adjustments and time-consuming processes.

The key advantage here is that this method allows you to work in a more non-destructive way. You can apply, tweak, and experiment with effects on individual clips without altering the original audio file. If you want to undo or change the effect later, it’s much easier to do so compared to the traditional track-based method.

In Pro Tools and Nuendo, users often have to rely on track-level effects or offline processes, which can slow down the workflow, especially in fast-paced environments like post-production. Adding item-based FX would significantly speed up editing, as it would allow users to apply and modify effects on a clip-by-clip basis, instead of relying on additional tracks or bouncing clips.

For many professionals, especially in post-production, this is an essential feature that would improve their ability to work more efficiently, particularly when working with multiple elements that require individual attention.

I believe that implementing this feature in Pro Tools and Nuendo would greatly improve the overall editing experience, making these DAWs even more powerful and versatile for sound designers, mixers, and post-production professionals.

I’ve been using DAWs like Reaper and Vegas Pro for a while, and one feature that I’ve really come to appreciate is the item-based FX functionality. This allows me to apply effects directly to individual clips, making the editing process much more flexible and efficient. However, I’ve been wondering why this feature is available in DAWs like Reaper and Vegas Pro, but not in more professional tools like Pro Tools and Nuendo, both of which are widely used in film, TV, and music post-production.

Given the power and flexibility of Pro Tools and Nuendo, I believe the item-based FX feature would be a great addition, especially for post-production workflows. The ability to apply real-time effects directly to individual clips, without affecting entire tracks, would significantly improve editing speed and adaptability.

I’m curious to know if there are any specific reasons why this feature has not been included in Pro Tools and Nuendo so far. Is it a matter of workflow design, or is there some other limitation that prevents its implementation?

Best regards,
Nadir_Mahmudov

[klfnk2020]

Thanks for your detailed answer. I like what you describe for ‘one-man-band’ post production projects.
In a collaborative effort however, let’s say a film: then a mixer who gets handed over sessions from co-workers (fx editors/dialogue editors) this clip fx option can be very confusing though.
‘Where is this fx (reverb etc) coming from? Oh wait it is not a sent reverb… from which of the xx regions on my timeline around that timecode had the reverb as a clip fx?” That could cost valuable time.
You would have to make really clear that there is an effect on it, because a mixer does not always have the time to dive deep into an edit.
Maybe the use of sends reverbs has a use still?

Not saying I’m against clip fx, it could be great, but it can also become auditory/edit clutter quickly.

Perhaps Reaper et al have good solution for it, but it needs to be well thought through.

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

Thank you, klfnk2020, for sharing your thoughts. You’ve raised excellent points, especially regarding the potential confusion that could arise in collaborative workflows.

I completely agree that when using item-based FX, it can become challenging for other team members in the session to track the source of certain effects. In such cases, a well-thought-out workflow and visual indicators are crucial. For example:

• Visual Indicators: In Reaper, users have the option to display special icons or use color coding to indicate item-based FX. I believe such simple yet effective solutions could help prevent confusion in large projects.
• Session Preparation: Before moving to the mixing stage, cleaning up item-based FX or converting some of them into more traditional track-based processes can also be helpful. Features like “freeze” or “render” can be used for this purpose.

The send-based reverb you mentioned is, of course, indispensable for complex and shared workflows. Even if item-based FX is implemented, I believe send-based reverb and similar methods will always retain their importance as a standardized approach for larger-scale projects.

In conclusion, while item-based FX is undoubtedly beneficial, its effectiveness relies heavily on a well-designed interface and user experience. Otherwise, as you mentioned, it could lead to auditory or editing clutter.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts! It would be interesting to delve deeper into this topic.

Best regards,
Nadir_Mahmudov

[MattiasNYC]

@Nadir_Mahmudov

The key advantage here is that this method allows you to work in a more non-destructive way. You can apply, tweak, and experiment with effects on individual clips without altering the original audio file.

DOP is fully non-destructive to the original audio file.

@Nadir_Mahmudov

In Pro Tools and Nuendo, users often have to rely on track-level effects or offline processes, which can slow down the workflow, especially in fast-paced environments like post-production.

I agree, and adding clip-FX would help. I’m not against that.

On the other hand one great thing about DOP is the ability to save not just presets but batches of processes as presets. This way when working on for example a documentary timeline where people reoccur throughout we can process one place and save those settings as a preset and apply to the other places the same source appears. Even if we don’t save as presets we can select all and copy/paste it onto new places.

In terms of speed this is to me massive. There are so many shows I’ve worked on where sources are just completely mixed up on the timeline and I inevitably end up having to re-process something because I expected it to be one source but it was different. In the past when I relied more on track automation that was a bigger pain than it is now.

Of course clip-FX could be implemented in exactly the same way.

@Nadir_Mahmudov

However, I’ve been wondering why this feature is available in DAWs like Reaper and Vegas Pro, but not in more professional tools like Pro Tools

How are clip-FX in Pro Tools not like what you are asking for? Just fewer options for processing as opposed to ‘any’ plugin?

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

Thank you, MattiasNYC, for your thoughtful input. You’ve highlighted some great points, especially about the advantages of DOP in Nuendo and how it can streamline workflows.

The ability to save batches of processes as presets and apply them across the timeline is indeed a massive time-saver. In documentary or similar projects, where sources often reappear, this is an extremely efficient way to handle recurring elements. I agree that DOP provides significant flexibility in these scenarios.

As for clip-FX in Pro Tools, my point was more about the level of flexibility offered. In Reaper and Vegas Pro, you can apply any plugin directly to an individual clip, which opens up more creative possibilities without relying solely on track-level effects. If Pro Tools’ implementation has fewer processing options or less plugin flexibility, it might not match the versatility seen in DAWs like Reaper.

That said, I do think the strengths of both systems could complement each other. Combining DOP’s batch-processing capabilities with a fully-featured clip-FX system could provide the best of both worlds, allowing for both efficiency and flexibility in workflows.

Thank you for your perspective—it’s a great addition to the discussion!

Best regards,
Nadir_Mahmudov

[InVibeMe]

Let’s use ChatGPT less for replies) or ask to make text more compact.
PS: It is better to use DeepL for translation.

[henrique_staino]

I’m not against this in any wany, but I urge Steinberg to fix all the bugs in DOP and ARA before any steps in this direction. Please for the love of all that is dear to you.

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

Unfortunately, the suggestions made are sometimes not relevant to the topic at hand. My goal is to focus only on the matters we are discussing here and share useful experiences. If there’s anything else, I’m open to discussion.

[JDSStudios]

Nadir, until the feature you are suggesting is implemented, maybe you could use automation. That will allow all the experimentation you want, without the workflow interruption of DOP.

[Nadir_Mahmudov]

Thanks for the suggestion! I do use automation a lot, and it’s definitely a great tool. But item based FX just feels quicker and more direct for certain tasks, especially when working with specific clips.

Automation is amazing for tweaking and experimenting, but sometimes you just want to drop an effect on a clip and move on without worrying about affecting anything else. Hopefully, we’ll see this feature in Nuendo one day it’d make things even smoother!