@tom@aerovons.com said:

...but what confuses me about DP is how to manipulate waveforms onscreen. It just seems so cumbersome....it's like I click on the waveform and try to manipulate it in some way and it just stands there. I think you have to somehow make it "pop up" or something, I just need to get over that aspect of it and I'd probably be fine.

Tom: are you trying to alter the original sample itself? Because there is much you can do in the Sequence Editor screen, which is where one enters various non-destructive modifications on audio files. In Logic, this is all done on the main Arrange window, but in DP this feature is housed apart in the Sequence Editor Window. (Both DP and Logic have seperate screens for editing waveforms directly.)

To activate the particular edit feature you want, you will have to select it on the pulldown menu to the left of each track in the Sequence Editor. The default setting is called "Soundbites" which basically allows you to do such things as edge edit audio files, add fades, cut and splice. Change "Soundbites" to "Volume" and you can dot in your volume curves. A similar process applies for other control data as they are selected from the same menu. At least that part of it is very simple.

In the Waveform Editor, there are "mini-menus" on the frame of the window which will in turn activate what features you want to implement. Because it's so easy in this window to permanently alter the original waveform file, more care has to be taken as a safety precaution to protect the original audio file. The Sequence Editor window is much more non destructive.

With VI, I haven't really seen the need to use the Waveform Editor. It's much simpler to make a copy of the original file and then do the edits in the Sequence Editor window. The notion of re-editing VI samples goes beyond my understanding with the new format-- it's quite different from editing PE's ".wav" files and saving them as new samples/patches as part of the PE library. Getting edited VI sounds back into ".dat" format is well beyond my capabilities.

BTW-- one DP5 user has solved the issue of funny MIDI starts and Bounce To Disk issues by disabling a feature called "Pre-fill file buffers for Quick Start Delay" in the Configure Studio Settings dialog. Seems to me that a lot of concerns over some quirks with DP5 are actually being sniffed out and snuffed out with some very simple solutions. Hope that offers some encouragement if you are considering adding DP to your setup.

JWL...thanks for the tips..yes, I was just talking about basic, non-destructive editing. Coming from Pro Tools, I've never really even understood the need for destructive editing. I have to get the basics of DP down ( used Performer for years, before it was digital!). Most of my audio editing is real basic, cleaning up false starts, copying and pasting, etc.

The main thing I'd like to know is what the FASTEST way to work is using VI's. In Logic, when I'm ready to "render" a Midi track/Inst track, I use that "Export Track to Audio" function, etc. In DP, I'm not sure what I would do. Some kind of bounce to disk thing? I know Freezing won't help DP because it is REAL TIME, and I'll have to sit through the whole song each time.

Any ideas appreciated. Also, any comments on how solid DP 5.01 is...re crashing, etc. I'm mainly using Vienna Instruments, but do use the usual other suspects from Spectrasonics, Autotune, SSL EQ etc.
Fortunately I've farmed out the reverb to hardware, so the main demands will be from VSL....

Thanks
Tom

Hey Dragonwind,

What's the K2.1.1 update?

I supposed this is a tired question, but reading the comments and looking at the DP website, i can't see if DP has a notation editor.
Interested though, in the performance specs, and what seems a fairly positive view of this software.

How does DP cope with post processing, and vid?


Regards,


Alex.

Tom - for most music applications you don't need destructive editing, but I use it at least half the time when doing sfx. It's often much easier just to write things to the file than to have to insert plug-ins and automate them.

But even in music it's useful, for example maybe you need to get rid of a vocal pop. You just highlight the pop, call up an AudioSuite EQ, dial it in while auditioning it, and write it to the file.

@pianoman said:

Hey Dragonwind,

What's the K2.1.1 update?

Kontakt 2.1.1. by NI very good update.

@hermitage59 said:

I supposed this is a tired question, but reading the comments and looking at the DP website, i can't see if DP has a notation editor.
Interested though, in the performance specs, and what seems a fairly positive view of this software.

How does DP cope with post processing, and vid?


Regards,


Alex.

Not tired at all. DP has something called Quickscribe which is a very fast real time Midi notation with some expression tools. I do 95% of my Midi editing in Quickscribe by dragging notes and clicking on them to change velocity and duration. Also you can grab a cluster of notes and apply a command to e.g. quantize, move, transpose, filter, change clefs, key signature, preview changes etc.all in real time. It is very useful but it is not Sibelius. You can load any DP midi into Sib and it looks good after some quantization. Motu have not changed the notation part of the program in years. My current work, a Symphony in 3 movements (980 bars) is all done in DP and Sibelius and realized (for now) with 100% Vienna Instruments on 3 G5's in real time.

Spot on, Bruce. QuickScribe is quite useful for what it does. For large orchestral scores, it's wonderful for quick editing non-adjacent tracks. I'd never use it for the kinds of professional window dressing (articulations, phrase markings, custom noteheads, etc) that a dedicated notation program would naturally do so much better. Notation and virtual orchestral sequencing are really two very different things. I look at DP's QS as a more *musical* representation of the MIDI-Editor. It's just easier at times to read notes rather than edit bars.

Aside from QuickScribe, there is the Notation Editor-- another tool for managing data, but not one intended at all for printing. Both have served me well in speeding up the process.

QT is working well, from what I hear. I use it in DP 4.61 and have never had an issue with it.

Tom: DP doesn't have an offline MIDI-to-audio rendering for virtual instruments. That's one of Logic's best features, imho. In DP, you have to bus and record your MIDI data via VI playthrough in real time. The resulting audio is then bounced to disk offline. But, having used both DP and Logic, it's a small sacrifice for me. By the time I get to the bounce phase of a project, it's really no big deal because I've saved so much time during the sequencing and mixing phases. One thing I do is to set my start and stop counters, hit record, and then let DP do its thing. I don't have to sit there and watch it. Now, in the event something just goes terribly wrong (which during VI rendering for me has been "never"-- knock wood), the mixes are ready for edge editing. This is all done in the Sequence Editor, which is the Editor you want to use.

One click/drag at the beginning of the track plus a keystroke, and my silent fade is in place. A slight drag of the fade handle and that's all done. Same for the end of the track. If necessary, I'll draw in some additional volume curves for good measure, but the subsequent bounce takes place offline. Often, I just start subsequent mixes, then it's out for a drive to check them all out in the car stereo.

It must be said, however, that one must understand what parts of OSX play nice with DP and which parts don't. iSight has been known to interfere with audio, and Widgets often get in the way, for example (but this may be true for Logic as well). Knowing about how to set your preferences for the best hardware performance is also not to be taken lightly. Many people work with DP with most of its crucial default settings still in place and then wonder why it doesn't function as they wish. But again, this is true of any DAW. Running background processing all the time, prefilling buffers, sustaining triple-digit Undo Histories can all take their toll depending on what demands one places on his system.

The nice thing is that DP is a bit easier to navigate that Logic can be at times. It feels less cluttered without feeling less featured, to me, anyway.

If you are likely to have both DP and Logic together, you can take advantage of the mixing and mastering features of either or both, especially once your project is totally rendered in multi-track audio. If you find that you need to make an adjustment to some MIDI element in the viola part, you just open the VI-MIDI project, make the adjustment, re-render the track and swap out the former for the latter.

I must do it this way because I only have one computer at the moment. My G5 works much better working with audio without VI's loaded-- and I find that I have more CPU and RAM resources available to load in more Altiverbs and other processors. Once I get a proper network going, all of my mixing will stay in real time MIDI until the last possible moment.

There is more than one way to do it, and few approaches are totally wrong as long as they work for the user.

Just another 3¢ worth...

Bruce, JW, thanks for the info. I'll go have a closer look, now i know what to look for.
Bruce, i'm doing symphonic work too, so i'm particularly interested in that aspect of DAW useability. I do two scores anyway in SIB 3, one for print, one for playback, so if i can stick SIB on print duties (after tidying up) and use a notation sequencer inside the DAW, improving the playback, more to the good. I spent years trying to deal with the notation editors in Cubase and Logic, and although Cubase was 'friendlier' than logic to use, i'm always looking out for a more efficient work method. I'm seriously thinking about Nuendo, mainly for post and vid, so if i can input the music to Nuendo more efficiently in something else, that's got me interested.

Thanks again to you both.

Alex.

Alex:

Nuendo's got lots of friends, many of them with "deep pockets". By that, I mean it's going for about 3x the cost of DP. It also has some VERY impressive multimedia post production capabilities for that price which are indeed quite attractive:

-- a feature that converts one surround format to another
-- a feature that forces audio to sync with picture
-- a feature that integrates hardware processors into the software workflow
-- Windows Media and AAF support
-- LAN and WAN integration

..and countless others.

There are more extensive score editing features than with any other DAW I've seen, but I still need to check on what parameters like user fonts can be swapped. Still, I'm not tickled by the look of it even with all of its complexity. I appreciate DP's QuickScribe to the extent that I can focus more on the aspect of sequencing without getting too caught up in publishing-- it's just too much to think about at once. I'm using Finale 2006 and am considering adding or switching to Sibelius. For that reason, what Nuendo may have to offer in the way of enhanced DAW score editing may be overkill. Because of Finale, I don't miss those features in DP. However, if something like Nuendo could really do it all as well as Finale or Sibelius, it would be worth the cost of the entire application for me. The biggest headache is getting SMF's to port and quantize properly. The amount of time saved in that alone is worth it.

But I like having a dedicated notation app and am not convinced that even Nuendo's bells and whistles can do all that needs to be done.... especially when it comes to aleatoric notation... just not sure yet.

Another thing that is vitally important to me is compatibility. Being able to send someone a Finale ETF and to be able to receive them has been central to my process-- no matter where in the world I might be. Locking the entirety of my projects to Nuendo could backfire. Fewer people involved with printing and publishing would buy Nuendo just to be compatible with my work. Finale and Sibelius are likely to remain crucial for a good while.

I have located Nuendo's score manual in PDF form if anyone is interested.

ENGLISH:
ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Nuendo_3/Docs_English/Score_Layout_and_Printing.pdf

GERMAN:
ftp://ftp.steinberg.net/Download/Nuendo_3/Docs_Deutsch/Score_Layout_and_Printing.pdf

Honestly, I'm sticking with DP and Logic for a while and will save any Nuendo cash for VSL's next technical marvels.

One suggestion; never buy any DAW for it's notational abilities. they are all cr*p. I would just like to be able to use Sibelius as a plug-in within Nuendo, even if it had limited features (like the student edition or G7), as this would save a huge amount of time currently wasted in MIDI transfer.

DG

@DG said:

One suggestion; never buy any DAW for it's notational abilities. they are all cr*p. I would just like to be able to use Sibelius as a plug-in within Nuendo, even if it had limited features (like the student edition or G7), as this would save a huge amount of time currently wasted in MIDI transfer.

DG

MIDI transfer. My personal nemesis second only to the whole Syncrosoft ordeal.

Sibelius as a plugin in? That would cinch the deal. There must be some better way to transfer notation from one app to another besides SMF. Finale imported Encore files quite well. I would settled for just getting the notes to port and display properly without all the extra re-typesetting that goes on. Putting in articulations and other window dressings is time consuming enough.

DG-- was it you that used Nuendo? I might be mistaken, but...

If so, do you have version 3? And, if not for the notation features, what benefits are you reaping using Nuendo as opposed to Logic?

@JWL said:

DG-- was it you that used Nuendo? I might be mistaken, but...

If so, do you have version 3? And, if not for the notation features, what benefits are you reaping using Nuendo as opposed to Logic?

I get to use a proper computer, rather than that legacy technology known as Mac...!

Actually I use Nuendo because I started out with Cubase, so I know the ethos of the program. It also still has features that are useful for film that Logic doesn't have. I was originally going to use a combination of ProTools and Cubase, but once Dietz had pointed out that with Nuendo I didn't need PT, had many more features and could save £7000 I was sold.

DG

@Another User said:

Actually I use Nuendo because I started out with Cubase, so I know the ethos of the program. It also still has features that are useful for film that Logic doesn't have. I was originally going to use a combination of ProTools and Cubase, but once Dietz had pointed out that with Nuendo I didn't need PT, had many more features and could save £7000 I was sold.

DG

Nuendo's post-prod features are what caught my eye. For what I've observed, it was worth noting how much further (even if only a little bit) the notation features went. I'm still not in favor of DAW notation except for editing and personal reference (perhaps for an engineer whose needs are considerably different from live musicians), but it did turn my head.

I used Cubase for many years, but Steinberg screwed me with an update that required a different authorization code. It never worked, and they blamed me for it-- they totally blew me off with correcting the problem, so I bought DP. Maybe one day Nuendo will be less of an "innuendo" and find its way into my studio if my faith in Steinberg could ever be restored.

@JWL said:

Nuendo's post-prod features are what caught my eye. For what I've observed, it was worth noting how much further (even if only a little bit) the notation features went. I'm still not in favor of DAW notation except for editing and personal reference (perhaps for an engineer whose needs are considerably different from live musicians), but it did turn my head.

I used Cubase for many years, but Steinberg screwed me with an update that required a different authorization code. It never worked, and they blamed me for it-- they totally blew me off with correcting the problem, so I bought DP. Maybe one day Nuendo will be less of an "innuendo" and find its way into my studio if my faith in Steinberg could ever be restored.

Obviously Nuendo is suited for post whereas Logic is not. However, some of the features that I bought Nuendo for may well now be present in Logic. They certainly weren't a couple of years ago, but there is so much competition that I'm sure that there isn't a huge amount of difference these days. However, I have a few friends who work in Logic and I don't like the interface, but again that's personal choice.

DG

Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Logic's GUI, but my appreciation of many of its features and functionality is growing. PE with EXS24 was more agonizing that I wanted to admit openly because it sounded so great. But I never conquered the unwanted early note cutoffs or some aspects of the perf. tools. It forced me to chop up my work in to small chunks at a time, sometimes as small as 4 bars, and then port it all out to DP as audio where it would be finished. What a waste of time.

But, I assure you that N3 offers some very important and powerful tools for doing things in a way I've not seen in Logic, Cubase, or DP. I can't really comment on PT in this regard, but the more I look at Nuendo even for its intermediate cost above/below the other four, the more it makes sense dollar-for-dollar/ feature-for-feature as a more ideal finishing tool for VI than what I seem to have currently. What I've got is fine, really, but it just seems that I'm working harder than I need to and can't seem to "go the distance" with my work. I'd like to limit or eliminate much more of the outsourcing-- more and more of what I do needs to be self-contained and just as good. That's the only way all of this is going to be really cost effective.

Dunno. Time will tell.

I would say that with the current generation of Macs Nuendo works well, but not as well as on PC. However, that could all change with the Intel Macs that may well hit the market soonish.

I would rather use a cross-platform application because that way I am not tied to any particular sort of hardware. I can imagine N3 working very well on the new breed of Macs, but it's possible that Vista could wipe the floor with OSX. Hopefully by the time that it is released Apple will have upped the specs on their machines so that the consumer will be able to have proper choice of both hardware and operating system.

DG

Well, for my sake I hope that Leopard gives Vista a run as an extension of the Intel CPUs.

It's always better to have fluency on multi-platforms, but so much goes into getting one OS running smoothly that I simply don't have the patience or time to deal with both Mac and PC platforms myself. Not sure how I got into Mac in the first place, but I can't say that I have any regrets. My biggest complaints are more directed at the hardware rather than the OS: internal hard drive limits, the reduction of PCI(x) slots, and a few other very basic features which make general expansion more difficult than necessary.

But, such is life. Intel and N3. Let's see what happens.

@JWL said:

Well, for my sake I hope that Leopard gives Vista a run as an extension of the Intel CPUs.

It's always better to have fluency on multi-platforms, but so much goes into getting one OS running smoothly that I simply don't have the patience or time to deal with both Mac and PC platforms myself. Not sure how I got into Mac in the first place, but I can't say that I have any regrets. My biggest complaints are more directed at the hardware rather than the OS: internal hard drive limits, the reduction of PCI(x) slots, and a few other very basic features which make general expansion more difficult than necessary.

But, such is life. Intel and N3. Let's see what happens.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple lose the monopoly with OSX. If they get a larger share of the market, it seems to be inevitable. I think that then there will be a choice for people who want to use OSX but also have the latest, fastest up-to-date hardware and don't want to go with a Windows PC.

Regarding N3 and Intel Macs, I wouldn't be surprised if it was N4 by the time that the Intel desktops are in stable use.

DG

@DG said:

Regarding N3 and Intel Macs, I wouldn't be surprised if it was N4 by the time that the Intel desktops are in stable use.

DG

You may have a point there. It would probably be a different version-- but from a marketing perspective, calling it N3.xx might give Mac users a sense of a less bumpy transition if they felt that their *current* version works on the new machines. Not sure of the level of technophobia out there... OS9 died slowly despite its obsolescence.

Who knows how they'll go about it. I do have the feeling that to appease the PC faithful it will most likely be N4.

But, I just wonder how well the Intel Macs would run N3 or N4 Universal under Vista? It is a sexy concept, but fantasies have oft led to personal demise.

@JWL said:

You may have a point there. It would probably be a different version-- but from a marketing perspective, calling it N3.xx might give Mac users a sense of a less bumpy transition if they felt that their *current* version works on the new machines. Not sure of the level of technophobia out there... OS9 died slowly despite its obsolescence.

Who knows how they'll go about it. I do have the feeling that to appease the PC faithful it will most likely be N4.

But, I just wonder how well the Intel Macs would run N3 or N4 Universal under Vista? It is a sexy concept, but fantasies have oft led to personal demise.

Cubase 4 is expected later this year and N4 early next year. There are no more planned releases of N3, but who knows, there may be a maintenance release at some point.

I'm sure that the Intel Macs will run N4 very well under Vista (the laptops run N3 well), but there will be hardware limitations. One of the exciting things about Vista is the access to multiple processors and huge amounts of memory. Apple may find themselves left behind for a while, much as Windows users are at the moment, when it comes to memory access.

DG