DP vs Nuendo

xluve · Post by **xluve** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:07 pm

Does anyone have any experience that might clarify the difference between Nuendo 2-3 and DP4-5? I mean also in terms of thinking and working with..

I'm not really satisfied by the UI of DP (zooming, scrolling, no contextual menus, dimension of handles, cursors, creating and managing VI tracks...) but I'm absolutely not neutral, after three years as heavy-user of nuendo.

I think is better not to try to use a new program in the same way as the previous, but to go in deep and build a new way to think and work.

But it's something a user manual can't explain you, so if any DP fan want to give me some suggestion I will appreciate.
What gives DP the best for you?

thanx

Timeline · Post by **Timeline** » Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:36 pm

DP is preferable music creation app which has much better work flow design integrity. I also have Nuendo and use Mac. If I had a PC I would certainly use Nuendo more often as it allows NO LATENCY input tape style switching in the main mixer. This seems to evade the mental C++ gurus at the moment.

Also, the automation in N3 is a bit more precise with larger faders and metering on the fader that i find refreshing.

I think you would like DP though. Being lucky enough to have both is a luxury and I've been contemplating buying a PC so I can run N3 and get the input monitoring I want. I will likely do this soon as the Mac prices are through the wall on the MBP and the desks aren't due for a while. When they do come, it's likely to cost me 3 grand and i can do a cheap p.c. for about 800 bucks.

I just hate to spend 800 bucks just to do overdubs but that's what it's worth to me to have my artists be able to monitor and perform.

xluve · Post by **xluve** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:52 pm

Nuendo and RME, great couple!
Today I studied the DP Tips sheet and a lot of doubts and confusion vanished. I'll be happy to try it in deep.
Last step is to have a good performance on my powerbook.

Thanx

marco

stuartnorfolk · Post by **stuartnorfolk** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 2:58 pm

Hi Marco

Just a quick question - where is the DP tips sheet that you refered to?

Regards,

Stuart

xluve · Post by **xluve** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:04 pm

I mean the Sticky>> The Digital Performer Tips Sheet.
Is in the Digital performer's forum index about fifth row.

how to say.. inspiring

Timeline · Post by **Timeline** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:51 am

I think many Nuendo users will consider DP soon as Yamaha seems to want to promote and support mostly audio post music features.

Chores/features that are easier or better in DP:

*Basic setups of tracks take much more time and auto features are slow in my opinion. Trying to select groups of inputs in Nuendo and have them stay that way when setting up or changing IO's around don't work nearly as accurately as DP.

*Finding setup config buttons. they are not all in dropdown menus and you have to search through reams of prefs to get to main ones, although I like having them they could be organized much better in N3.

*speed of UI. Speed application operates in OSX and track counts.

* Limited buffer choices and some buffer setups not selectable in N3. MOTU includes more handles by far.

* MIDI useage just plain superior in DP although I like some of the N3 features.

*Sound is better in DP but selectability of AISOs better in N3

* Onboard eq's. Very poorly designed and require more time to access as the main eq controls are low resolution until the large fader appears for settings. Sound is poor imo too. DP built in much better although N3 built in dynamics sound better then DP in N3. I would rather have better EQ's.

I do like the fact that N3 allows AIFF and alternate formats! That is a big deal and MOTU has only SDII.

David Polich · Post by **David Polich** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:55 am

I used Nuendo for a day, recording at a friend's studio. I couldn't wait to get back to DP.

For starters, too many unlabeled icons - you have to consult the manual to figure out what they all mean. Things like monitoring audio input in one window, then having to switch to a completely different window to adjust a fader. Convoluted mixer routings, record-enable problems - just a mess in my experience. Really poorly conceived DAW.

And above all, about three times as costly as it should be.

I'm sorry, I just don't get why a DAW "should" be counter-intuitive to use. Performer from the beginning has been just like a tape recorder and analog mixer - easy to use. It is THE easiest to use DAW.

Timeline · Post by **Timeline** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 8:59 am

"Convoluted mixer routings" Right on david. Perfet explanation!