The unwillingnes of sound editors

Hello everyone,

I am talking about a subject that has already been addressed in old topics, I know. But working on both Protools and Nuendo in fiction and documentary (I’m re-recording mixer), I often talk with my colleagues about the reasons that block them working on Nuendo. In general the blockage is mainly for sound editors, and the main criticisms are:

  • poor AAF compatibility (automations, consolidated fades, etc.), but I know the problem is clearly from ProTools when using a pre-existing session.

  • Import Session Data, which allows more things in Protools in the choice of what we import (new or existing track, choice of automations, import of Aux / groups and master …)

  • And an editing logic own of Protools, which may have existed on the Steinberg software in an optional way or in addition to the already existing working logic (It’s just a matter of habit for them, but it would motivate many more people). For example, I’m talking about moving a stereo clip from a stereo track to two mono tracks: Could not there be a shortcut to hold, which would allow you to do it when you move a clip?

In short, I would like to have your opinion, to know what you advise in these cases to the sound editors, and perhaps to know what Steinberg thinks about this subject, their opinion …

Thank you all, and apologies if I repeat an eternal subject …

Seems this topic really should be in the Nuendo section.

I also don’t really understand the request. Are you asking how people try to convince Pro Tools users to switch over to Nuendo?

Software vendors dont work together. They watch eachother and update their software to compete.
Partners do work to gether.

I see your point. But that won’t happend. The only way I know how to trick systems is to use midi and hw controller on a consol. that way, you can bring over fader, pan (if the consol support it) on audio tracks via midi and if you still are using hw synths and soft synths/samplers. You get all the automation for the instrument.

But in the end of the day, you have to talk with all parts and agree to what daw sets the standard for the project.

I go Cubase, and stick hard to it. But some times I have to use pro tools or what ever the guy that will do the final mix in the project is using. Stems is always an option, but a pre mix some times go a long way in saving time.

But if the whole tracking is done in house at my studio. I use Cubase, artis loves it. It is one of the few platforms that has near 0 limits as far as creativity. Who ever is mixing it afterwords, only have 3 options. Get some midi automation to go along, audio stems or just use Cubase/Nuendo and take over the project with full control. Just like pro tools users. Im not bothered setting up a session for convenience.
And that is a classic amongst us all.

I have 9 different daws. And I think that is the solution as it is now. Work 8 of them and Ninja 1 of them.
It smooths out the work flow at my cost, but it speeds up the project work flow. Vendors will never budge for a all systems support. It must be a 3d party vendor to do that.

If you can, convince your closest partners to work Nuendo with you. Software and hardware is a small cost in a good partnership :slight_smile: