AAFs are the core to post-production work in broadcast. That you argue against this for purely selfish reasons and say this is “some niche aspect” really tells me something.
I said I was done talking to you about this because of your demeanor, and since I apparently can’t help but reply I’ll just put you on ignore.
about the aaf issues :
i completly stand with @MattiasNYC . this things need to be fixed. i dont know how to fix it, but i know that PT can eat any aaf you throw at it, and it WILL spit out Nuendo-friendly aaf ( yes, the only reason for my PT subscription).
for good people here on forum i will give an example of my aaf usage ( a small buisnis, tv post, etc).
on weekly basis i receve arround 50-60 aaf files. 20 of them are 1h episodes of some tv show, the rest are 30s trailers etc.
half of that goes through PT. it is a pain in the a..
this is not a “rant”, i love nuendo, i recomend it to everyone, but i need to be able to import files FIRST, before i start to work on them.
another fact, many of my post friends (PT users and people who are starting fresh) , went to PT route just because of this issue…can not proprely import aaf. sometime it works, sometime not.
so come on Steinberg, give us some love here.
ah yea, almost forgot.
@MattiasNYC recently been testing FREE version of davincy resolve for aaf roundtrips, so far it is going ok
Thanks for the recommendation. I will check that out!
Really? Who are you to decide this? In all sincerity, there is a broad user base that needs AAF to work well. If you don’t need it, fine don’t discuss this topic unless you are a developer on the payroll or a decision maker at SB.
More importantly; If you claim that you ‘fight’ for the application as a whole, what are you afraid of losing? Nuendo is a platform advertised as a post production and game audio solution, in which of these contexts would realistic AAF support be detriment to the application?
I won’t be complaining about calls for better support for ‘Score’ tools, they are part of Nuendo for reasons, and accept that (without ever touching them, i even have them removed from the menu bar).
Paying for an upgrade fee is like paying taxes, you don’t always get what you want, but don’t go and tell anyone else can’t have what they want.
Hi fredo,
I was actually making the case for not getting michael to license it to SB, because i think sb has to fix it. This is a simple case of a function that is not up to it’s jobs needs.
If you want to hire michael, be my guest, but the fact remains that AAF implementation is insufficient and it can be fixed (if michael can).
Telling us that it is ‘not so simple’ is not really helpful. We understand that it is not so simple, because we have been working around the complexity for years. (Unfortunately we can’t send SB subscription costs for PT 
)
I also understand that there are many things that need attention from dev’s but again the discussion here can not be waived off like with ‘event colours inversion’. This is not a matter of ‘taste’ but a matter of functionality missing in AAF import.
Please, at least give it some thought. There is an advantage to supporting AAF thoroughly.
Thanks
Mr. Fredo, has already said, SB aren’t fixing what other manufacturers break and supporting something thoroughly, doesn’t mean supporting non-standard or ad-hoc extensions to a specification.
Correct.
For those a bit older, remember what happened to OMF.
Each and every application had his own interpretation/modification of the OMF specifications. It was a moving target and everybody was constantly trying to guess/reverse engineer the modifications of others. It was a complete mess. And it still is.
Also remember when two applications of the same “industry leader” couldn’t import their own AAF’s.
Fredo
They fixed it?
AFAIR, it took them more than a year.
Fredo
I’ve imported AAFs into Pro Tools regularly for over two decades. There has never been a 1-year period where AAFs didn’t import into Pro Tools.
If the problem was Media Composer output then that’s a different problem. It affects everyone. I’m obviously not advocating that Steinberg changes AAF exports, I’m arguing for the import side.
Well no.
That is exactly what we are discussing:
Application-x exports a non-supported AAF (AAF protocol does not allow mixed sample rates). The ask here is that Steinberg “fixes” that problem so the AAF’s can be imported.
We’ve gone full circle.
Fredo
Only a handful of NLEs are consistently used in the industry—Avid Media Composer, Adobe Premiere Pro, and Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve, in that general order of relevance. So could it really be that difficult—especially when each is purpose-built to integrate tightly with its own DAW? That leaves Nuendo the outsider. The uninvited boy at the ball—so, of course, he’s the one who has to learn the steps. The others are already deep into the Tango. 
No,
I was pointing out that the problem that Avid faced that you brought up was not with Pro Tools, but with exports. IF such a problem reappears then it is a problem for anyone that imports, because it is the export that is the cause at that time. Therefore Pro Tools users will also be forced to ask editors to output exports using different preconditions or settings.
So from the perspective of us Nuendo engineers it is different:
*If the problem appears on the Avid export side of things the editors will be asked by everyone to adapt to fix the problem, including as you pointed out by Pro Tools engineers.
*If the problem is that Nuendo is not as flexible on import as Pro Tools is then the editors will not be asked by Pro Tools users to fix the problem, only by others, which in turn means we a) pay more and b) risk looking like “problems” if we ask for other ways to export.
At this point I’m thinking it’s 50/50 resource management / stubbornness.
It doesn’t matter whether we are talking input, or output or even about DAW’s; what the “industry leader” has done, in this case should not be replicated, as it is essentially altering a previously agreed on specification.
Looking at OMF, it just goes to show that like being in a band, there will always be arguments that can blow everything up but there is also creativity, however misplaced because standards only become such, when there is complete agreement, not when a company or companies decide(s) to do something that puts their own interests ahead of others.
Maybe that’s just the American way.
Nice so now this turns into politics, let me get some snacks as this discussion derails.
Whatever you do SB: please think about your post users and figure out a way around these issues. I am no longer dicussing this all points are made.
YESSSS
I just upgraded, and I’m sorry to say equinox does not sound the same as symphony when I convert my user presets most of the problem seems to be to do with the tail. I know there are a couple of known issues tail width and Early Width , but that isn’t my issue. The overall length of reverb definitely is not the same. Can’t put my finger on it, whether it’s to do with the filter or the actual reverb time with is off 
also insert plugin delay has gone from 0.7ms symphony to 2.7ms equinox
I found this issue between the older PhoenixVerbSurround presets and the newer Stratus 3D incarnation of them. Stratus’ versions sounded pretty different and louder. I wish iZotope would have decided to update ALL of the older Exponential Audio plug-ins for Apple Silicon. :-\
I noticed a very subtle difference in the sound—barely perceptible, possibly due to filters or slight processing variations, though I’m skeptical about the latter. My user presets, mostly crafted for acoustic environments like rooms, corridors, and other spatial simulations, are performing well with Equinox. The difference is so minor that fine-tuning may not be necessary. Still, I’m considering testing various filter combinations to pinpoint the change and comparing presets across similar spaces to spot any issues. Merging Symphony and Stratus brought some expected differences, but overall, I’m really enjoying the results.
I was able to run Phoenix under Rosetta. Infact in early days only Phoenix worked.
I raised the question about Stratus with Michael and was informed that Stratus builds on the PhoenixVerb architecture but offers enhanced features, including denser early reflections (twice as dense as PhoenixVerb Surround), expanded EQ options, dynamic tail suppression, and a warp function for timbral control. is next gen and better so obviously they will not sound the same.