@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

... and then there's the ongoing Syncrosoft vigil.... [8-)]

I can't wait to see how that goes once VI makes the Intel transition.

@JWL said:

... and then there's the ongoing Syncrosoft vigil.... [8-)]

I can't wait to see how that goes once VI makes the Intel transition.

Makes no difference to me. Now if I had an iLok dongle to cope with as well [[:|]]

DG