In Pro Tools there is “Destructive Record” which allows you to ‘punch-in’ into an actual audio file, destructively. When we record over a section of a file in Nuendo a new audio clip/file is created on disk, and if we want it to be a single contiguous file we have to “bounce” the event(s). In PT if you drop into record and have it set to “Destructive” it literally overwrites the samples in the audio file for the section you are recording.
PT engineers use that frequently to update stems. You can finish your mix of your timeline and export it all offline and import it once it’s exported, and then when you receive notes you can set the input of your Music stem for example to be the Music stem bus/group, and instead of having to record a section and then bounce the events you just set it to “destructive” and record over what’s there. Once record is done the fix is done. It saves on disk space and it saves a little bit of time (not a lot).
I have used it very sparingly in PT over the years (because I once f-ed it up), but I know PT engineers use it frequently and probably would miss it when switching over to Nuendo.
Ah yes that would be useful yes. I didn’t get the part about the moveable slots, but now realise it is a separate request…
Confusing Lack of Interpunction
I prefer Steinbergs’ approach personally, and just bounce.
It is rather time consuming, cutting, pasting parts together and bouncing, then deleting the old file and renaming but for me, it’s only the output of VST’s I am recording in any case.
I think the developers will need to know just what those tasks are. Otherwise it’s really unlikely I think that they’ll find what you need and improve on it.
The UX (User Experience) process requires User Research. So it will be up to them to gather a group of users and engage in tests, observations, and interviews in order to deduce their points of friction and what tasks take longer than expected.
I have my own opinions but this goes beyond just my personal experiences. If they included me in that research, I would just be one person and it requires research from many people.
Why not create a thread with your workflow and improvements and ask others to come along? Just like the cubase UI photoshop thread, they even said that devs are watching it
interesting stuff. I didn’t quite get what you mean by “record a section and then bounce the events you just set it to “destructive””, i.e. bounce can do destructive in the same (existing file) without creating a new copy (if we are talking about up10 from stems 5.1, this is significant)
oh yeah, i still get questions like that from sound designers over 55 who used to have a second machine with PT as a recorder. It’s nice to see them “record changes destructively” after changing the sends channel in scenes
but i would like to have that feature in Nuendo as a tribute too
yes, sorry for the inaccuracy. Now there is no way to move or change existing slots in the DOP, which negatively affects the hotkey settings in my stream deck. Any replacement of the slot leads to a shift of existing ones, etc.
Also need more slots with possible hierarchy or the ability to mark a group of slots (editing, restoration, speakerphone, reverb, etc.)
I’m not yet 55, but my preferred way of working is indeed having a stem recorder for film/TV mixes onto which I can punch and not have to worry about bouncing and renaming. If I mess something up, that’s my error and my problem to fix. I don’t need to be babysat for that sort of thing.
It isn’t the Nuendo “Bounce” that does it, it is the act of recording. Record-enable the track with stems, record over the section where you made a change; the file name on disk remains the same, the size remains the same, the event looks continuous, but the audio changed within the file. No need to bounce.
I definitely don’t understand something. If you write “over the section where you made a change” but we will get a new event with a new file in this section upper of the stem, and to glue them into a stem we need to merge the main stem and this section and make a bounce to give the file (for encoding DCP, for example) a new file will be created based on the track name with an offset number at the end.
I don’t know any other options to physically recording inside the file. I apologize in advance for the misunderstanding.
or are we now talking about some other recording mode that I don’t know about?
In PT these are markers that belong to a track or a folder as the name implies. If they are in a folder the line that shows the marker will be drawn across all tracks in that folder, and if it’s a track marker then only over that track.
Example use cases:
A client wants to try something different at one point, let’s say it’s a different dialog edit. I give them 2 options. They want another version so I give them another two. They now 4 alternatives plus the original.
Right now I can place marker at that point in the timeline so that I can easily navigate to that section, but describing what edits I’ve done is difficult. I can color code the versions and stack them, and that would be fine unless I forget to do so. With track markers I could indicate which clips belong to which version(s).
Same with SFX.
And possibly more likely with SFX or pure music mix sessions since they tend to stack more sounds on top of each other is that it would be good to be able to note that perhaps you find that something is “acceptable” but ideally could use some more work. Say you have built a background for an environment and you think it sounds fine but you hear something tiny in one of the stacked files and you want to remove that because you think it might get noticed later in the process, but you think that for this first review of your mix it will be fine; simply place a marker for that specific track and event to go in and cut that out once you get time later.
Although I was very excited when PT introduced the Track and Folder Markers, after some test driving… it needs a lot of work still. The thing is, it is very easy to make a marker on ‘some’ track/folder instead of the ‘General Markers’ in PT. Moving them to another ‘lane’ is like ‘playing darts at the highest level’ it is hard to miss the right lane with the cumbersome selection tool.
So I have resorted back to regions with names and using the 2 Notes marker lanes.
If SB implements it, it better be well thought out. For now I just make Marker tracks per ‘food group’, when I need it. That is pretty much the best option now in N13 ( I see I can have at least 9 marker lanes). Getting markers in the right lane is still a thing but at least I can visually remove them during a mix with a client (so that they don’t see all the tiny notes I make).
In short: I welcome the idea, but it better be easy!
Coming from Logic Pro 11, I sorely miss the equivalent of summing stacks and folder tracks in Nuendo’s mixer. Hope Steinberg is planning on adding them soon in a future update/upgrade.
The quicklink switch status should be saved with every song or in the preferences, as I personally always want it to be on anyway (it is always off every time the programme is started). In addition, the switch should be on the main page (project window).
