DP vs Nuendo

[woodlakesound]

Ok gang, let's discuss this if you will. I'm a staunch DP user from way back, however.....I'm soon to upgrade to a DM1000 mixer that will double as software contoller. Seems to integrate very well with Nuendo. Also I have plenty of hardware that would be a joy to use within the inserts on Nuendo.
I wish DP had hardware insert options but doesn't. Aside from those aspects, what is it about Nuendo from a audio veiwpoint that makes it a more desirable package. Or not.....

<small>[ August 16, 2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: carnac ]</small>

[MT]

I would do some searching over at the Nuendo Forum. Take a look at some of the different problems they're having and see if it's anything that's going to hold you up. Otherwise, you can't beat DP on cost/feature ratio. Really cheap for what you get, IMO.

Both apps are certainly being used in pro environments.

MT

[Timeline]

I have both and I can tell you yes it has inserts but it's not trouble free.

It also has the ability to insert into the input and print the plug with the audio if you are so brave to try that and your computer is fast enough.

I have only scratched the surface and i think a few more updates are needed to match DP's ease of operation.

When you load up an app as heavily as Nuendo, it gets dirty sonically. SX might be a better choice and you could try it out without going bankrupt.

As for me, I still use DP for my serious •••• and plan to keep messing about with Nuendo until I'm VERY comfortable i can record safely. Well, that seems a long way off currently as there seems to be nobody around that can help hip me to the ins and outs and the learning curve is a long long road.

Everyone and their mother have added bits. If you go to the steinberg/Nuendo site and look for the 3.02 download section you will see a PDF of known problems. Read that, it's very interesting.

[David Polich]

I did a short session with Nuendo four days ago, at my bass player's studio. We went there to track vocals for my band;s CD because our singer is allergic to our cat and has trouble after about four hours in my studio.

I say short because I just couldn't get my head around working with Nuendo, even with the assistance of my bass player who's had it for over a year. It's not quite as un-intuitive as Logic but it comes close. Like other Steinberg DAW's, it's full of unlabeled icons for every process, which you have to memorize - almost nothing is labeled. I suppose you could learn the icons easily enough, but unlike DP, you have to keep switching out to different windows constantly instead of operating within the same window like you can in DP. In DP, even with just the tracks window open, you can pretty much see everything that's going on and you can move to other windows easily. Not the case with Nuendo.

I haven't worked with Sonar yet but so far out of all the other DAW's, I still think DP is the easiest to use and absolutely the most flexible. And I've seen what happens when friends of mine have moved from Logic or Steinberg DAW's to DP - it's a very easy transition for them, whereas moving from DP to Logic or Steinberg is not.

[woodlakesound]

Man.....sounds like a real workflow killer. Great suggestions all, I need to look at the downsides a bit more. The integration of a DM1000 and Motu hardware with cuemix is good. The DP app is sooo familiar, just even the mention of comparable intuitiveness of Logic has me cringing. We all love DP cause it's so friendly. The sound is as good as any software is capable of I suppose. The hardware insert thing has me wanting to try it out but I suppose the price for it is really somewhat prohibitive on that score alone.

[mhschmieder]

Are you guys talking about the old Nuendo or the new Nuendo, which is almost a complete redesign and which I am told never has more than one menu deep?

I haven't had enough spare time to work with DP for almost a year now (other than for MIDI, which doesn't count). So I wouldn't want to put myself on yet another learning curve.

But since everyone I work with is Windows-only and the Steinberg products are cross-platform, I may eventually be forced into it. And apparantly the new version is 1000% better and more intuitive.

Sometimes I wonder where all the Mac and DP users are. I keep getting ridiculed for both choices, and am told that I'll never be taken seriously as a result, and that the classical and soundtrack world are all using Logic Pro (ugh!).

[woodlakesound]

Are you guys talking about the old Nuendo or the new Nuendo, which is almost a complete redesign and which I am told never has more than one menu deep?

Gary has Nuendo V3 in his signature line so that answers that. It seem to be a familiarity thing for the most part. Maybe I'll give Cubase a whirl. Has those features I was interested in and not too big a $ bite.

<small>[ August 16, 2005, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: carnac ]</small>

[kwiz]

I'm a die hard DP user but I was at a studio that used Nuendo 3 about a month ago. The main thing that impressed me was the sound. They had a PT HD system which I've worked on before but I've never heard PT converters sound that good. When I asked my friend (who owns the studio) what he did to improve the detail and imaging that I was now hearing he told me nothing.
What I was hearing was how good Nuendo's audio engine was.
I've heard the argument about how some DAW systems have sub par algorithms and therefore sound worse than others and thought that was all bullsh*t, after all it's just math. Well I guess some do the math better than others because Nuendo 3 sounds good.
DP kicks its ass in every other dept. IMHO, especialy ease of use.

[Timeline]

I don't know if inserts and such are included with SX but let us know. As for the learning curve, Nuendo's more like a career of learning.

I would say this about Nuendo I didn't mention before,

The fader graphic is higher res and infinitely easier to do mouse mixes on and the meters are excellent. They blow away DP's amateur, short, hard to uses faders.

This is one reason I bought. The other is the fact that MOTU ignored over 100 users and never put in a pref to turn off DCPUM.

Cheers,

[mhschmieder]

I'm very confused by this last statement. What do you mean by the "sound"? The final sound is that of the hardware D/A converters, not the software DAW in the digital domain (which our analogue ears cannot listen to).

So are you referring to the quality of plug-in effects, the quality of the intermediary conversions that get you to your final exportable two-track stereo mix or mastered take, the quality of the busses going to the hardware monitoring while you are tracking and/or mixing, or something else I haven't thought of?

It's not clear to me how one judges the "sound" of a DAW, but I'm still just barely into the digital/computer world from years of Old Skool analog ways of doing things, so there's probably some basics here that I'm missing.

[Timeline]

Hey Mark,

I thouight that too but I use identical IO's and mixes and i can tell you DP somehow sounds more extended on the top end.

Go figure??? I can't but that's what I heard. I asked around the forum and no one would reply.

[kwiz]

Originally posted by Mark Schmieder:
I'm very confused by this last statement. What do you mean by the "sound"? The final sound is that of the hardware D/A converters, not the software DAW in the digital domain (which our analogue ears cannot listen to).

So are you referring to the quality of plug-in effects, the quality of the intermediary conversions that get you to your final exportable two-track stereo mix or mastered take, the quality of the busses going to the hardware monitoring while you are tracking and/or mixing, or something else I haven't thought of?

It's not clear to me how one judges the "sound" of a DAW, but I'm still just barely into the digital/computer world from years of Old Skool analog ways of doing things, so there's probably some basics here that I'm missing.

I'm no computer expert and am somewhat of an "old skool" cat myself but from what I've read here and other forums is that DAW systems all have audio engines written into the software.
Some programmers are better at writing code for audio than others. The result is some DAW's sound better than others.
The converters are another issue in itself. The software has to do it's own bit (no pun intended) of math to convert/emulate the audio in order for it to get to the D/A. I guess the better the calculations the better the sound.
Experts, please feel free to chime in.


<small>[ August 16, 2005, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: kwiz ]</small>

[Timeline]

One guy told me Pan-Law but that's bull when you are comparing 50+ tracks of audio.

[David Polich]

Anyway, back to the Nuendo thing, I have had no opportunity to A/B Nuendo and DP at the exact same levels with the same material thorugh the same audio hardware. A friend of mine went to Nuendo for about a year and said he thought it sounded the best of any DAW and he's used them all. Regardless of sound quality, it really is a lot more convoluted than it needs to be. You can get basically the same thing with Cubase SX3 asd you can in Nuendo, so if you really want to explore all things Steinberg I suggest starting with Cubase SX3.

<small>[ August 16, 2005, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Dave Polich ]</small>

[Aramis]

Hey! Guys !!!!
go there
[ secret page .....

and please tell me what do you think now ????

Aramis