I need to activate and install an updated version, I wonder if the grace period for N14 has already started? I don’t want to activate today and find out the grace period started 5 days later.
I think they say 4 weeks, but I hope they’ll make an exception with my 11/18/24 purchase of N13 as I think it was like the day after I saw the CB14 update availability. At that point, the word was something about an internal “sequencer” project where Nx followed CBx by 4-6 weeks, though that ship has sailed.
But it is what it is. I should have done more research before I purchased it - the fact that CB14 came out the day after was just timing; I had no idea when it was being released. So that’s on me.
What I can say (and which will provoke negative comments here) is that the wait for N14, since the release of C14, has given me time to finally assess where to put my money, i.e. in which DAW renewal, in my case : Nuendo or Pro Tools, and in relation to my needs for my next Atmos project. I was enthusiastic about the promise of N14, but I analyzed what PT offers now and for 2025-2026, then what Nuendo 14 will offer in the light of C14’s advances. Then I reviewed each one’s interface, workflow facilities, etc., again according to my tastes and needs, and above all Dolby Atmos facilities. I opted for Pro Tools. It’s possible that N14 will come up with unexpected new features, but as things stand, PT’s clip gain, its Atmos management (and direct monitoring of re-renders), its management of folders, including their folding in the mixer, its multi-mono, its easy handling of clip effects (a Cubendo weakness), as well as its very simple and efficient sound cataloguing (Nuendo’s is complicated for no reason in my opinion), have decided me in favor of Avid. It’s a personal decision on the part of an assiduous user. I’m sure I’ll miss out on some Nuendo 14 and Dorico integration, but the midi transfer does the job well anyway. We’ll see what happens, especially between now and when SB makes a sale on Nuendo 14, probably halfway through the two years separating us from N15 (since there won’t be a 14.5, if recent years are anything to go by).
(Text translated from French)
May I ask what your audio interface of choice is? I continue to struggle with Atmos in general (the real-world technical application of creating and mixing, not the concepts) and from what I’ve seen UA is only supporting Atmos on the Apollo X platform and not my x8 stack, one of which is brand new. Just interested in where other folks are putting their Atmos budgets.
I have an Apollo X16 Heritage, with a 7.1.4 physical studio (in Focal). But I have to say that I’m not very happy with my Apollo, which I paid a lot for (but the price has come down since its release). I think it’s a recording-oriented device, which I only do in stereo. So I paid for features I don’t need. I also find the sound a bit harsh. Accurate, but harsh. Personally, I’d opt for this: Apogee Symphony Studio 2x12. Two inputs, but 12 outputs for 7.1.4. For half the price of the Apollo x16. I think the Apogee sound is more musical, less surgical. There’s also Antelope, but my supplier tells me that his customers have a lot of problems with Antelope (but that’s the only opinion I have, so it’s to be confirmed).
Yeah, I think my mistake was getting another x8 to split inputs/outputs but it doesn’t natively support Atmos. “Surround,” but not Atmos. That said, the CB13/14 renderers “work,” but I can’t even test outside of the DAW. My fault for not reading between the lines and thinking that since both interfaces in a flat model support 9.1.x that it would also support Atmos, but it doesn’t. UA is making design decisions that I don’t necessarily agree with, but that’s another story.
Thanks.
Addendum: This is an N13 thread, and I’m aware I refer to CB13/14, but it’s because I’m holding off fully configuring N13 as I’m awaiting N14
I can see how some prefer PT’s clip gain and mono implementation (I assume you’re thinking of routing within multi-channel tracks), but I would absolutely expect Atmos enhancements in N14. To me it’s seemed that since the beginning Dolby has been the party that’s held back new features in DAWs, and the DAW that get new functionality first is the one that just happens to be in the right place in its release cycle.
Clip effects though I think is debatable. I know some will disagree, but DOP has its strengths over clip effects (unless I’m missing something). With DOP you first of all offload the CPU, and secondly you can save as presets and very quickly batch process clips. For me that saves a ton of time compared to other options. I’m not saying PT’s implementation isn’t great or that it doesn’t do things DOP does not, I’m just saying it’s not ‘obviously better’. It just depends.
Folder functionality I can see is a really desirable thing for many, and I’m sure if I got them I would revise my workflow accordingly. Hopefully we’ll get that with N14.
Would you mind expanding on this?
I’m actually a bit rusty on PT these days, but are you comparing PT’s built-in functionality with MediaBay, or something else?
I hope so, even if I won’t follow immediately.
That’s a good point. I’ll be keeping a close eye on this with PT. It’s true that Nuendo is very good at CPU management and that PT sometimes suffocates, although it picks up quite quickly.
Yes, I am. I find mediabay obscure, despite having used it for 16 months. I enter PT’s Soundbase and I understand everything without ever having entered it before (I didn’t have that need). I also admit that PT’s interface is clearer for me (but maybe it’s habit or age!).
May I ask what you use Soundbase for?
It’s very interesting we have a different take on this and it perhaps shows just how personal this can be. For me the last time(s) I had to use Soundbase for adding SFX in post I absolutely hated it. To me it was far less intuitive than MediaBay. It could be that once you get used to something your brain’s wired and ‘set’ and it’s hard to move away from that, and the studio’s I worked in used Soundminer so I learned that and once it was time for Soundbase I already had learned MediaBay so it just felt… I dunno…
One thing I love about MediaBay is Aspects, so I’ve had a macro for cutting in FX where I trigger it with a key command, and it then rearranges windows (‘workspace’) and opens the MediaBay window with the correct aspect loaded - (wav) SFX only with specific paths on my system. It just seems like a faster system to me.
I could definitely be wrong though and should probably revisit Soundbase.
It’s true that there are differences between people and systems and interfaces, as well as between people themselves.
If I stick to our two favorite DAWS (but I really liked Samplitude, before returning to MAC, where it’s not available), and to the management of FX sounds (in my case it’s for sound effects, ambiences, Foley), 15 minutes was enough for me in PT to identify, note, catalog (in new catalogs) in my own way a first folder of FX sounds from my banks (Boom, Ocular, Pro sound effects, Soundflow, etc). I’m already more technically advanced than in Mediabay. I don’t know the reason for this. I do know, however, that in Cubendo’s interface, I find that everything looks the same. In my opinion, there’s a lack of distinction between the windows, if only in the different shades of background. Still, Cubendo’s interface looks very good (after going back on the exaggerated contrasts and bold typography at the start of N13, phew). But the series of monotonous windows doesn’t help, in my opinion, to distinguish elements and separate functions. It has to be said that I work with a fairly classic PT interface (just a little darker than the classic one), where nuances are present and pleasant, and that there’s no equivalent of this on Cubendo. You can make everything lighter or darker, but it’s all the same shade. But that’s subjective. It’s Sunday!
I’m skeptical N14 will have this since C14 doesn’t. Seems like a feature that would be implemented in both daws.
Sure, but I think there have been times where Nuendo actually got new features that the previous Cubase didn’t have and Cubase got updated at the same time. In other words if the version is Cubase X.0.20, and Nuendo releases as X.0.30 then it could have features not found in .20, and Cubase gets a .30 around the same time with those new features. I might be remembering this wrong but that’s what I recall.
Out of curiosity, I browse the Cubase boards (pure Nuendo user) just to see how things are going.
I can’t tell if it’s because of the bigger userbase when compared to Nuendo, but some of those threads (mainly the GUI and the Feedback Survey) give the impression that CB14 is just the worst thing to happen lol.
I’m still excited for N14, though
I mean, people did that about 13 as well. The new UI was awful, everything was awful, etc, etc.
I didn’t get the impression that C14 was any different in this respect. C13 was terrible at first, but SB ended up correcting it correctly and honestly, under pressure from users stunned by the failure. In that sense, C14 is fine, it seems to me (except for what I said earlier, the monotone aspect, where all the windows have the same background, the same shade, which doesn’t help distinction).
And that’s 100% a valid criticism
I’m not discounting any grievances that people might have with the designs or legibility either, I just find it funny that that thread in particular seemed to devolve into “Nintendo, hire this man” territory
You can get Steinberg Backbone for as less as 5$, you know what I mean.
I hope we get it free…. you know what I mean.
I have no idea what you mean.
It seems this thread has reached it’s natural end.
We do not know when N14 lands, we all have different thoughts, we have different opinions and i’d wager this thread can go on forever and ever.
I’m just as curious as anyone else when N14 lands but please, this thread is off topic for a while now… can we move on?
That’s exactly what I mean. We have no Idea, but for as less as 5$…Its worth it, or may be its free with 14