I saw this clip on YouTube where someone was demoing Nuendo 12 with a DM3 mixer. From the screen, it looked like a surround project (since you can’t hear surround from YouTube).
Has anyone here tried mixing an ATMOS project using the Yamaha DM7 desk? If so, how well did it work and I’d really love to know how it compared to using Nuage.
I was playing for a couple of hours with a DM7 controlling Nuendo. The implementation es very poor. You can’t access deeply to Nuendo. Only transport, volume, mutes, solos, rec and other few features, are controlled from DM7. Very disappointed because I thought DM7 could be a good replacement for my DM2000, but the older console is so far away from DM7 about implementation with Nuendo. It’s not a Nuage, but very close. Much closer than DM7 of course.
Thanks a lot. That’s very disappointing to hear. 
But I’m grateful for the information up front! 
And I talked with vendor who told me that there were no plans no implement much more control in future versions 
Wow, that makes ZERO SENSE! We have been screaming for a dedicated controller for almost the entire life of Nuendo! We trudeged through Houston, the CM series, longed for “id,” Tango and EUPHONIX branded System 5MC and their more affordable Artist Series. Then, from the take over of Avid to present, we have SUFFERED under their tyranical rule of “take it or Leave it” features of the S series. Our ONLY HOPE was Nuage. We begged for an “Artist Series” stripped down version to make it more affordable. Some of us went all in on the big league version, however painful it might have been. So, bottom line: THE MARKET IS CLEARLY THERE!
So, Yamaha drops the one controller we did have as they ignored the pleas for the more affordable version and they develop the DM series with no intergration of the abandoned Nuage features or have any plans to incorporate them later seems pattently insane! 
Clearly, their not interested in their Studio/Post demographic! 
I really think it is a bit more complicated though, from a business perspective, and my guess is that they decided to make these mixers primarily or solely based on a certain market so adding control functionality would have been an “add-on”.
I looked at the DM3-D at Sweetwater and it’s about 2,400 USD for an 8+1 fader mixer. I’m not even sure if the faders are touch sensitive. It’s an extremely barebones unit with only one rotary encoder and very few knobs. A TF1 is somewhat cheaper with more faders but still not a lot of stuff on it.
If they create the list price based on cost (production, sales and support) and then what the market looks like in general then the question is how much more could those parameters change once they add the controller-specific functionality?
Say they need to swap faders for touch-sensitive ones, or add rotary encoders to get more or better control over plugins, or just swap processing inside the mixer to make sure it can handle a complete control protocol; how much would that drive up the cost, and for non-DAW mixer customers would the resulting higher price be ok? Or alternatively, would Yamaha think it’s still profitable to keep the price the same and lower profits as they add the functionality?
And for us, is it a good price for those that only want a controller and doesn’t need the mixer capabilities? After all, we would be paying for all the i/o and conversion and non-post features.
I think those are basically the problems they’re looking at.
Then make multiple versions, just like they did with the DM7, DM7C and the DM7 with the extender, all of which is just scaled down Rivage. Problem solved and entire market covered.
That probably requires a different mindset inside Yamaha to make that happen is my guess. Would love to see what their numbers were for Nuage from beginning (R&D) to end (demise) and who was responsible for what.
Seems like it’s something they’d have to consider from the ground up when designing a new product line and they probably just don’t think that way. Might not be organized that way.
But sure, a new digital mixer where the surface is suitable for both ‘regular’ mixer work and control, and then an ability on their end to swap the guts of the units to end up with different product lines.
Come to think of it though, right away one problem is probably going to be size. I know a lot of users complain about for example the Mackie units because they’re bulky, and I’m betting digital mixers will be even bigger because of all the analog i/o etc. I mean, maybe if instead of a bunch of connectors on the rear they’d break that out using cables they could reduce the size, but then I bet ‘regular’ mixer users would complain about having to do that.
Don’t get me wrong, I want a dedicated controller as much as the next guy. (unfortunately) Until then Avid will do fine.
If you’re not using PT, the statement “will do fine.” should NEVER BE USED in the same sentence as Avid! 
My point of view is that DAW control is a lack in DM7. DM7 has born as a multipurpose console. You can add packs for broadcast or theater or even DAW control like the extender with the assignable buttons and screens and big jog-wheel. The console can be used in a live concert, or in a tv studio, or for broadcasting (including multi-user operating), or even for theater or musicals… There’re several firmware based versions to set the console the these scenarios. The side-extender with overall controllers is very focused to make control for DAW, but you can’t enter deeply in a channel to add or edit a plug-in for example, even I think you can’t control de native EQ curve of an audio channel of Nuendo. These packs are not cheap, and I don’t know if a development to increase the DAW capabilities has business return for Yamaha, but Yamaha - Steinberg are on a big lack since Nuage was discontinued.
I think a better way of looking at all of this is to set a budget for what a controller setup should cost and then look at what’s actually available and simply define what is missing.
When I say Avid’s controllers “will do fine” I’m basically just saying at that price point you’re likely not going to get anything better any time soon, if ever. We can use the s1/dock/tablet as a baseline, or Nuage, and then just ask ourselves what’s missing and what we want to pay relative to that and as I said many times we’ll see it isn’t easy to come up with something that seems realistic.
Because of that I actually don’t think we who are using Nuendo are all that far behind Pro Tools users or any other user with a proprietary controller / protocol (which I guess is only Fairlight at this point).
If anything I would say it is Steinberg who should work more or harder on Eucon integration more so than Yamaha developing a proprietary controller. It’s just straight up odd that we don’t have VCA spill for example, and I’m sure there’s plenty more from PT’s implementation of Eucon we could use.
Based on my conversations with Yamaha at Namm earlier in the year where they had dm7s coupled up with Nuendo…where the Yamaha guys specifically said there were no plans at that moment to get deeper integration than what was at the show…
my guestimate here six months later is that there’s likely an ongoing Yamaha/Steinberg quandary…
Nuage would’ve had to be selling triple the numbers it did in order to justify continuing.
A lesser-feature/lower price Nuage version would’ve had to get a firm projection of 10-times more units sold…a figure Yamaha and Steinberg don’t believe (imo of course) is achievable…and…the dm 7 was already in the pipeline…but…
will additional Cubendo integration result in 5 times more dm 7 sales? Probably not…so why bother with resources towards it…as…neither Yamaha/Steinberg necessarily feel that’s achievable either…and…
if Steinberg/Yamaha have jointly agreed that the best path forward is for SB…on its own…to focus resources more on Eucon…which will in effect, increase sales of the “other guys’” controllers…not to mention SB is still always under the various constraints from not owning Eucon code/rights except via licensing…it’s certainly not clear that this particular path forward is agreed either.
Quite a quandary I imagine…
Yamaha to SB…“whaddya want us to do?”
Sb to Yamaha…“dunno…what are you willing to do?”
Yamaha to SB…"dunno…but if WE’RE gonna build/modify something for you, look at all this competition that’s not indicating a very big pie for either of us…and we’re not going deep if the return projections are this murky.
SB to Yamaha…yeah, well we could forget that approach and instead focus on tighter eucon.
Yamaha to SB…yeah, although then we still don’t have control nor a slice of the existing controllers pie…and neither will you.
SB to Yamaha…yeah, dunno. Whaddya wanna do?
Yamaha to SB…dunno. Let’s talk about it again in a few months.
We’re talking about software. I’m pretty sure that Yamaha guys can easily translate from old DM2000 his DAW control to DM7.
Which is the benefit/effort ratio ?
I don’t know, but with the hard controllers of the DM7 plus his touch control screens and side module for studio, I think some units will go into Nuendo based studios.
You get a real console with audio proccess, routing, input/outputs… you don’t need anything else.
A DM2000 with DANTE card and a Nuendo is all you need to get a powerfull setup. Same idea developed to the new DM7 capabilities would be a win win.
Only a little software effort is needed.
It’s like watching an infant in their crib starving with the MILK BOTTLE RIGHT NEXT TO THEM! It’s such “low hanging fruit!” I cannot fathom their lack of interest in addressing this.
We don’t really know that though.
About a decade ago or so I looked into building a custom controller using open source software and schematics etc. One thing you see very quickly is that the actual processors that do the work are really limited in scope. They do certain things really well but there’s a hard limit. You could get a processor to run a generic controller protocol but that unit might be limited to 8 channels for example. Or it might be limited in what word length the messages sent are, or how many types can be sent, etc. So then you’re looking at getting a more expensive unit or setting them up in parallel.
I only mentioned that because it’s possible that the processor(s) in a digital mixer is fully utilized. So while it may take not that long to do the literal programming of the functionality the question is if there is “space” for it. Why not just get bigger right away during the design phase? $$$. Any money saved = increased profit.
And is it actually that “cheap” to program? You would need at least one guy programming that and then supporting it (bug fixes & tech support) along with feature updates for X years. Take that R&D and support expense and subtract it from increased unit sales by all those who now choose this mixer because of that feature. Add some way of calculating “risk”.
For the record, I too would like something dedicated to Nuendo. I thought the WK-Audio consoles looked nice back in the day for example. These days I really think the Avid s-series are a really good starting point for designing something new. I really like the idea of them being modular and then also extending them using a dedicated software running on tablets.
I would hate to imagine they’re sitting on this issue (or not even seeing it as an issue), on account of wanting their cake and eating it too. In the meantime, I’ll take a Mixconsole revamp while they make up their minds…
But DM2000 can manage very well Nuendo control.
I can’t imagine the difference of computing power between DM7 and DM 2000, but I think Nuendo control could be deeply implemented into DM7 with a minimun effort comparint the development that was necessary when they did for the DM2000.
However I can say I’m very happy with my setup: DM2000, Artist Mix, Artist Transport, Contour Shuttle control and an iPad running Duet.
Only I’m lookin for a substitute when needed.
The Avid controllers don’t appear in that picture.
It’s not about the total amount of computing power but about how much of it is being used already. If you’re asking for a change to a product where no new functionality can be added then it doesn’t matter if it is in total “bigger” than an earlier model.
I also think we should keep in mind that there’s basic functionality we can talk about and then there’s the larger feature set. If people just want the basics then just get a mixer with MCU protocol control. Done. I think what people here generally want is something more deeply integrated. That takes a bit more effort.
