Well Nuendo cant have the same engine as Cubase, because in Cubase Pro there’s a massive bug when you use Touch automation, it doesn’t work !!!
In Nuendo it Does, so it must have a different code engine.
Nuendo is different, it has been made to look like Cubase, but under the hood massive differences, for a start it has a sample rate peak of 384khz, so the code engine had to be tweaked and optimised, Cubase peaks at 192khz.
The evidence pesented doesn’t lead to that conclusion though.
Engine refers to the Audiom and according to Steinberg Dorico, Nuendo and Cubase share the same audio engine.
Nuendo just has more features.
I don’t know about the touch issue, having not experienced it or looked at it, but as for the sample rate that’s just literally a limit they set in the software and is arbitrary.
Yes i have tested It, Nuendo has a more advanced Automation codex. The Automation in Nuendo is film standard, Cubase is just basic design. So theres a few bugs in Cubase Automation (which have workarounds) But the Nuendo automation is pristine, flawless.
This make sense because Consumers buying Nuendo, who would be post-film/tv production, and game design companies, would not tolerate Flaws especially in automation.
So Nuendo has a much better automation system, and it even looks different, there’s more options than in the cubase one.
If you worked in film scoring and needed to use automation 300 times in a single session, and your Touch mode didn’t work, you would be furious.
To audio music guys who may use it 2 times a session, its ok, not in post production for film/tv and games it isn’t.
I have been demoing Nuendo and comparing it to my Cubase pro, it sounds better inside, much more pristine. They both export the same, but inside, Nuendo sounds better.
Nuendo processes plugins better, the tails on verbs and synths sound much nicer, crisper.
Interesting. What kind of audio interface are you using? Speakers? Headphones? And what audio settings?
Simply untrue and, as you say, they both export the same. If what you heard when working was different to what was exported then that would be a huge problem. Before this point is brought up - yes, some plugins can use different oversampling settings depending on real-time vs offline export, but nothing that would make the difference you describe.
Nuendo’s automation system unfortunately has its fair share of bugs too.
Whenever I watch YouTube videos for Cubase (more common), everything they show works exactly like that in Nuendo.
I’m also quite interested in switching from C13 to Nuendo , Gonna be looking into what the pros and cons are for me
Possibly download the demo version Nuendo , My Cubase prefs work with Nuendo ?
I also heard that the performance CPU load was better with Nuendo , But again, I thought they were both the same engine and they’re just limited some of the functions in Cubase ?
I do, although not simultaneously.
Resolve uses ASIO now, but I do all of my video editing (stills) without sound using .srt files (WebVTT is not properly supported).
Hopefully Nuendo leads the way with full and comprehensive WebVTT support.
Yes! Steinberg should commit to the “strict superset” definition. Changing the name would do it. It would also alleviate all the licensing worries.
Changing the name is a terrible idea. “Nuendo” is a brand name now and is trusted in the post community. Even just five years ago I don’t think I heard as many people who used Pro Tools acknowledge that Nuendo exists and that it is a competitor worth looking at.
Don’t change the name.
What licensing worries?
The new licensing system works a treat, bar expired licenses showing and no way to manage this in the web portal.
It would only “do it” for Cubase users who don’t know about Nuendo. Many of Nuendo’s key features, like the ADR, film and post features, are geared towards a different market than Cubase. For them, Nuendo is the brand name they trust - not Cubase. You could just as well argue the opposite, and say that it should all be called Nuendo. Either way, it’s not a good idea.
Where did you hear that?
Regarding the expanded functionality, one would expect the opposite…
Personally, I find it very silly that they created a secondary software that does a lot of things, that Cubase can do, but apparently better/differently, from what I’ve heard. I am not an expert, though, and I don’t know all the exact differences between the two.
Would be much better if they just merged the two programs into one and let you switch the mode from “pure music mode” to “post production mode”.
Having two separate programs, that are so similar creates two problems. People who pay for both feel like they are wasting money, because of the huge overlap / similarities between the two programs. And people who only have Cubase feel like they are missing out (on Nuendo’s features)… or have an inferior software, compared to Nuendo.
I know I am talking on my own behalf here, but I can imagine that many people probably feel the same.
Are there things that Cubase actually does better than Nuendo, or did I misunderstand something?
I crossgraded to Nuendo from Cubase, due to the Timed Text feature, which I haven’t started using as of yet but factored in potential future upgrade prices and made the switch.
Never looked back because I have been able to experiment, and last time I looked, all it lacks is .vtt import.
Not “a lot of things”, just a few things. Only ones I can think of is automation related.
No. Branding matters a lot.
If people want “all the features” they should get Nuendo. To get “all the features” there isn’t really a need to own both. If people feel like they are missing out because they have Cubase only then they should crossgrade to Nuendo.
Not sure if your comment is sarcastic, but what you say actually reinforces exactly what I said. They just sold us Cubase at a discount, and then entice us to spend even more money to get Nuendo. Then why not just have given us the option to get Nuendo at a discount, in the first place?
I’d say that 27 differences is more than just a “few things”:
I’d rephrase that to “money matter a lot”.